all the Mission Indian lands-Palm Springs being one of I believe 33 reservations which can be construed as Indian territory-mandatory direction for allotments; it can be construed as nonterritorial, but that is a matter of discussion as in all allotment areas. In the view of the Department allotments would be prejudicial in Mission areas and would result in extreme losses to the Indians and result in extreme confusion. I am not now speaking just in regard to the Palm Springs Tribe, but the conditions throughout the whole Mission area where the amount of arable land is very small and the amount of quasidesert land is large. They are all undersupplied. The Department believed and believes that while in the opinion of its solicitor the law is discretionary and not mandatory, yet you can never be sure. Therefore, Congress should as a matter of policy clarify the law. We believe now as much as we believed last year that it is a matter of policy for Congress to determine.

Now, there enters into the situation the suit brought by the Agua Caliente Indians at Palm Springs to compel the making of the allotments upon the interpretation of the statutes; it partly rests upon the claim that the allotment process had reached such a stage of finality that granting of title should proceed.

The next issue is in regard to the question of whether the title had been acquired through the allotment of the territory. Then there is the other question of whether the land under the law or act of Congress was intended by Congress to be territorial or otherwise.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Of course, Mr. Commissioner, if the suers in the case now pending were consulted it might be agreeable to the settling of that case if there was some agreement on the part of the Government that it should consider the land so far allotted was allotted land

Commissioner COLLIER (interposing). Of course, the Government's contention is that no part was allotted and on this matter of delaying suits, I want to mention an analogous case which was quite famous years ago. In New Mexico we had a condition strictly of law, according to which the Indians could simultaneously eject thousands of white settlers including settlers who had been on the land in good faith for many years, some as many as 50 years. The decision we had was known as the Sandoval decision. Pursuant to that decision the Attorney General upon the request of the Interior Department brought an omnibus suit in ejection which if pressed would have been successful and would have resulted in the ejection of thousands of these SpanishAmericans, a large number of whom owned the land in good faith and the Indians did not want them to go. This case went to trial and then there was worked out a settlement between the Indians and the Spanish-American neighbors. When that legislation was put in at the Interior Department's request, the suit in ejectment was held in abeyance at the request of the Department. It was not done secretly but openly and in the effort to work out a proper adjustment until the compact was passed which satisfied both the natives and the Indians. I imagine that you will find many cases where similar delays in litigation have been procured by the Government pending some clarifying legislation. In the instant case, as I say, in regard to that legislation Congress had a right to define what it meant.

Mr. O'MALLEY. In other words, would you convey the thought that Congress could pass a bill stating that title passed insofar as

those allotments were concerned, and that they should be considered as allotments?

Commissioner COLLIER. Yes; that can be done. I am also glad to have occasion to put in the record that there still remains before Congress the task of determining what is meant and whether it means to require the Department to go ahead and allot all these Mission lands. If we have to do it, it will be chaotic and cause quite a great deal of injustice.

Mr. O'MALLEY. The Department believes it.

Commissioner COLLIER. It will be; you can ask the Indians, who will tell you. There is no dispute about it.

The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished?

Commissioner COLLIER. I have finished.

The CHAIRMAN. We have the Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Mr. Zimmerman. Would you like to speak at this time? Mr. ZIMMERMAN. No, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair has two witnesses here and if there are others in the room who want to be heard, kindly give your names to the clerk.

The first witness we will call will be Purl Willis.

Will you please come forward Mr. Willis and give your full name to the reporter?

STATEMENT OF PURL WILLIS, REPRESENTING THE AGUA

CALIENTE INDIAN RESERVATION

Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Purl Willis, and I have here my authority from the tribe. I have come here in an effort to assist in this matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Willis, would you like to have your authorization placed in the record?

Mr. WILLIS. Yes, I would, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to the statement of the authority appearing in the record at this point? The Chair hearing none the authorization will be inserted in the record at this point. (The authorization is as follows:)

To whom it may concern:

AGUA CALIENTE INDIAN RESERVATION,
Palm Springs, Calif., January 12, 1938.

Because there are several bills and other matters of very great interest to the members of this tribe now before Congress and the Indian Bureau and other officials at Washington, we believe it is advisable that we send a delegate and other friends to represent us and assist in carrying out the wishes of the majority of the tribe.

And because we have every confidence and faith in the integrity and ability of Adam Castillo, president of the Mission Indian Federation, and also because of the fact that we have through experience and personal knowledge strong confidence in the ability, experience, and integrity of our white friend, Mr. Purl Willis, and especially because both of these men are familiar with our problems and what we desire as to each matter before the officials in Washington as regards our tribal affairs, we hereby appoint and authorize and delegate said Adam Castillo and Purl Willis to represent us and speak for us before any committee or official concerning the matters coming before them. We specially ask and delegate these friends to cooperate with the delegate which we have this day authorized to go to Washington in these matters in carrying out the wishes of the tribe.

We sign this authority voluntarily.

Wille Marcus, Albert Patencio, Baristo Sol, Francisco Patencio,
Pedro Chino, Miguel Saturnino, Celia Patencio, Augusta Patencio,
Moreno Patencio, Matilda P. Welmas, Florida A. Patencio,
Virginia Patencio Siva, Joe Patencio, C. P. Segundo, Lee Arenas,
Della Nicholson.

Mr. WILLIS. I am acquainted with conditions there among the tribe. I was asked by the tribe by unanimous petition in 1936 and on several occasions before, when we were coming to Washington in behalf of these and other Indian claims pending, especially the proposed amendment to the Court of Claims bill to take up certain matters for the tribe. It was by unanimous petition of every adult member of the tribe. There was no division. The matter was discussed as to how to proceed to get certain things they wanted done and every member of the tribe in an opening meeting stated that there were no allotments; that has been the opinion of the tribe until some time later in 1936 when I was asked to appear before them and advise with them as to joining with Mr. Sloan in filing suit against the Government to force the Government to approve some allotment selections made in 1923 and 1927.

The tribe, as I say, were unanimous in their statement to me that there were no allotments; that all the members in 1927 filed petitions against the allotment of their land as selected by the allotting agent, Mr. Wadsworth. They prevailed upon the Government to stop further proceedings on the allotments. Activity became stronger in 1936, and stronger, and then I was asked to advise with the Indians, that is the larger group, who then became very much worried over this allotment scheme. Most of the Mission Indians, almost every reservation were opposed to the manner in which the allotments were arbitrarily made under that old law. If the Indian did not select land, the practice then carried out in nearly every case was that the allotted land would be selected arbitrarily; the land would be selected for them and they would have their names placed upon it. That was done in this case. Then these Indians became very much active and their Indian Federation which has always been very active on behalf of the tribes opposed the allotment of the land because the tribes have always had the policy of dividing it up among themselves and using it by tribal consent while the allotting method resulted in many Indian individuals taking control and then selling out to white people.

There was general discussion and talk around the reservation in 1936 and 1937 and up to the present time and I understood statements were made in Los Angeles in the suit, that certain people were instrumental in having the best parts of the tribal lands along Indian Avenue and immediately adjoining the city selected by these outside members, the small group that appears now, those who were not old tribal members; those whose children were not among the members because they were not voted into the tribe. Six or seven names were put on the roll arbitrarily the Indians claim, many years ago to which the tribe objected at the time. These people now it seems have come to the opinion through representations made by their attorney that he can force the Government to give them that choice land or enforce the old selections. That is the case. It is made up of statements of misrepresentation and intimidation; and offers of bribery they charge.

I will tell you that Indian witnesses, members of the tribe, adults, claim they had been offered money to sign the petition of Thomas Sloan. Indians have come to me about it.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Have you affidavits to that effect?

Mr. WILLIS. I can secure statements; statements have been made by the Indians. When they came to me I told them that as far as I was concerned I said that I was not interested in allotments; if the Government records showed that their lands were allotted, that was as far as we could go. If they were not allotted, they could decide. to let that matter be settled in the court themselves. Then the Indians came to me and told me that Mr. Sloan, who had been interested in allotments of the Mission Indians in other reservations for the years before that, had prevailed upon a number of the Indians to sign their names giving him the irrevocable power of attorney.

Mr. SHEPPARD. What is that again-what kind of a power of attorney?

Mr. WILLIS. Irrevocable power of attorney, so that he could decide for them in their absence or in all cases.

Mr. O'MALLEY. I wish Mr. Zimmerman would answer that. I never knew there was an irrevocable power of attorney.

Mr. SHEPPARD. I will agree with my colleague in that.

Mr. WILLIS. Naturally we all know that that procedure is used to take advantage of people who do not know; and in this case it was done. These Indians are wards.

Mr. SHEPPARD. The gentleman says, "irrevocable power of attory." Of course any power of attorney can be revoked either by the court or by anybody if the terms are not equitable or if there is any showing of fraud.

Mr. WILLIS. That is quite true but these Indians did not know it, and do not know it today and some of them say they are working under that handicap today, Indians claim.

Mr. SHEPPARD. In other words, there is no such thing as an irrevocable power of attorney?

Mr. WILLIS. I agree with you, but I know it is a dangerous practice for a person to get such authority, but as far as those Indian wards are concerned some of them were in fear; the husband of one of his clients came to me and tried to get me to reach someone and have it stopped, and I said I am not interested, but referred him to the Superintendent.

Mr. SHEPPARD. Does the gentleman feel that that power of attorney was acquired by fraud, duress, or misrepresentation?

Mr. WILLIS. I do.

Mr. O'MALLEY. Why doesn't the gentleman who supposedly represents the tribe take such steps to remedy the matter?

Mr. WILLIS. Correspondence has been turned over to certain officers and I think steps will be taken. At this time I want to offer for the record a statement from a local paper of January 24, 1936, which states that "The Desert Sun office reports that a man by the name of Thomas L. Sloan is asking local Indians to sign an irrevocable. power-of-attorney instrument, giving him the right to represent the Palm Springs Agua Caliente Tribe of Indians in various matters."

The article makes a comment on it, speaking from authority. Mr. O'MALLEY. While I have no objection to putting a press clipping in the record I have been a member of the press at one time and I place little credence on what is put in the paper nowadays.

Mr. WILLIS. But the Indians themselves, and others of them, they are today in fear of this man; they have had a letter sent to them last year from Washington asking the Indians to donate $25 each and sign for Sloan to represent them in the suit.

Mr. O'MALLEY. The statement was that the editor of the paper was perfectly willing to make a statement and what the terms were.

Mr. WILLIS. I think he would do it; he could verify that he saw it. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to the article appearing in the record?

Hearing none, so ordered.

(The article referred to by Mr. Willis is as follows:)

ATTORNEY POWER IS ASKED FROM LOCAL INDIANS

"According to information received at the Desert Sun office, a man by the name of Thomas L. Sloan is asking local Indians to sign an irrevocable power-ofattorney instrument, giving him the right to represent the Palm Springs Agua Caliente Tribe of Indians in various matters.

*

*

The legal instrument, which came to The Desert Sun's attention, and which, it is said the Indians are asked to sign, authorizes Mr. Sloan "to do all things necessary in my the Indian signer's) behalf * to recover as far as possible the back value of the use of my land and my share of tribal funds that have been collected and improperly disbursed and expended."

Under the power of attorney agreement, the Indians who sign agree to advance all necessary costs and expenses and all charges against their estates.

The document above-mentioned further sets forth "I hereby confirm and ratify all that my said attorney or his substitute, which right of substitution is hereby granted, shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of these presents." The document according to its terms, is irrevocable.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. WILLIS. The allotment suit, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee is an unfortunate thing. While I am not interested in it personally I know a good deal of its background and I want to be brief and do not want to touch upon any personalities in it. You should note some of the reasons for the suit as I believe Mr. Sloan already put in the minds of these poeple.

A year ago two of these adult members signed petitions against the allotment and at the same time or a few months before that they had signed a suit at the request of Mr. Sloan, instituting proceedings for the allotment, which shows what there is confusion yet. Another thing in regard to these allotment suits you will find that the court was asked to allow these Indians to substitute land that is now found to be better than the selections made for them by Mr. Wadsworth some years ago, which shows that practically all of the best lands now are being requested by this small minority group.

Mr. O'MALLEY. The gentleman says that those Indians signed a petition protesting against allotment and then they signed an agreement that a suit be brought to find out whether or not allotments were actually made. Isn't that perfectly feasible? Might I not sign a petition against a certain thing and at the same time wish that the courts may decide a matter in which I am involved?

Mr. WILLIS. That would be true, Mr. O'Malley. In 1936 they signed an allotment suit with Sloan and in 1937 they signed the statement voluntarily; objecting to Sloan's allotment plans. These were his own clients. I did not see them sign it but I have the statement here in Washington showing two of his own leading clients are against the allotment, saying that the land was not allotted, in 1927 and they did not want the allotment.