Mr. GILCHRIST. And to what do they relate? The CHAIRMAN. It costs money to put out this record. Mr. WILLIS. We shall be glad to be guided by the injunction of the committee. All this material affects this bill. The CHAIRMAN. We are not going to leave the inclusion of statements and material to the witness. That is up to the committee. Mr. WILLIS. I understand. The CHAIRMAN. You can tell us what you propose to submit for the record and then we will pass on it. Mr. WILLIS. I want to submit at this time the statement made on the Senate floor by Senator Fremont in September 1850, immediately following the admission of the State of California, as to why he proposed the original bill to make treaties with the Indians. The CHAIRMAN. And how long a statement is that? Mr. WILLIS. Probably a page. The CHAIRMAN. I know some speeches are rather lengthy. Mr. WILLIS. No, it is boiled down. In other words, the Court of Claims, Mr. Chairman, made a statement recently in its decision as to the legislative intent behind all of this, and I submit this statement of his as evidence on this point. The CHAIRMAN. How many pages will it cover? Mr. WILLIS. About 1 printed page. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be received. (An excerpt of an article appearing in the Congressional Globe, September 14, 1850, pages 1816 and 1817, is as follows:) INDIAN TITLES IN CALIFORNIA Mr. Bell, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, to which was referred a bill to preserve peace with the Indian tribes in California, by extinguishing their territorial claims in the gold-mine districts, reported back the same with an amendment, striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting: "That the President be authorized to appoint, with the advice and consent of the Senate, not more than three agents for the Indian tribes wihin the State of California. Such agents shall perform the duties and receive the same compensation as is now prescribed by law and applicable to Indian agents. "SEC. 2. To enable the President to hold treaties with the various Indian tribes in the State of California, the sum of $100,000 be, and the same is hereby, appropriated out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated." Mr. ATCHISON. This is a bill to authorize the President of the United States to appoint Indian agents in the State of California, and also to enable him to make treaties with the California Indians. It is a matter of some importance, and I hope it will be taken up and considered now. There being no objection made, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill as in Committee of the Whole. Mr. ATCHISON. The Committee on Indian Affairs are entirely unable to communicate to the Senate the information which will perhaps be required. We do not know the number of tribes of Indians within the limits of the State of California, nor do we know the number of Indians nor the kind of title by which they hold the lands in the State of California. We, therefore, refer the Senate for information upon these points to the Senators from California. Mr. FREMONT. The general policy of Spain, in her Indian relations, was the same as that which was afterward adopted by all Europe and recognized by the United States. The Indian right of occupation was respected, but the ultimate dominion remained in the Crown. Wherever the policy of Spain differed from that of the other European nations, it was always in favor of the Indians. Grants of lands were always made subject to their rights of occupancy, reserving to them the right to resume it even in cases where it had been abandoned at the time of the grant. But the Indian right to the lands in property, under the Spanish laws, consisted not merely in possession but extended even to that of alienation, a right recognized and affirmed in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States. A claim to lands in east Florida, under a title derived from grants by the Creek and Seminole Indians and ratified by the local authorities of Spain before the cession of Florida to the United States, was confirmed. I have here in my hands a volume of Spanish laws published in the city of Mexico in 1849 and purporting to contain all the legislation on this subject which was in force in Mexico up to that date. These laws extend from 1533, some 12 years after the conquest of Mexico by Cortez, to 1817. The policy of Spain in regard to the Indians differed somewhat from that of the United States, and particularly in this: That instead of removing the Indians from amidst the Spanish population it kept them there and protected them in the possession of their lands among their civilized neighbors, having always in view the leading object of converting them to the Christian religion. To this end the power of the Government was always directed; it was a national object and, in great part, was a governing principle in the laws of which they were the subject. I will not occupy the time of the Senate by reading at length the several laws, but will merely make a few statements of such particular parts as bear directly upon the rights in question. A royal order of Charles V, a supreme law in Spain, of the year 1533 decreed that the woods, pasture lands, and water contained in any grants of signatories, which had been or should be made in the Indies, should be common to Spaniards and Indians. Another royal order of 1687-confirming and extending an ordinance of the viceroy, Count St. Stephen, of the year 1567-commanded that in all the villages of Indians throughout all New Spain, who needed land to live upon and sow, there should be given to them a space of 500 yards, and as much more as they had any need of for cultivation around their village, measuring from the farthest outside house, and if the village happened to be a large one an unlimited quantity should be allowed, and that thereafter no grant of pasture ground or lands should be given to anyone within 1,100 yards of the most outside house of the population. A law of Philip III, of 1618, ordained that no pasture grounds of black cattle should be situated within a league and a half of any village converted in old times to the Christian religion, and not within 3 leagues of any village of newly converted Indians, upon pain of forfeiting the pasture ground and half the cattle which there should be upon it; and the Indians had the right to kill any cattle which should be so found trespassing upon their lands, and were subject to no penalty whatsoever from them. A decree of Philip IV ordained that the sale, improvement, and location of lands should be made with such attention to the Indians that they should be left with a superfluity beyond all the lands which might belong to them, as well individually as in communities, together with waters and water privileges; and the lands upon which they might have made canals for irrigation or any other improvement, should be reserved to them in the first place, and in no case were they to be sold or alienated from them. The Spanish law likewise recognizes the Indian right to alienate, and prescribes the terms and mode in which such alienation should be legal. A decree of Philip II, of 1571, commanded that the Indians should have the right to alienate their landed property as well as their personal effects, prescribing only that proclamation should be made during a specified time and at a place of public sale. We have here a circular of the royal audiency of Guadalajara, of 1817, reviving for information, and to correct abuses, a decree of one of the Blanca, made by the Indians of Colchiti, for a failure to comply with the forms prescribed by law. In California we have both classes of Indians-the Christian or converted Indians collected together at the missions and in large villages of the seacoast and the interior, and the wild Indians of the mountain who never were reduced to subjection. The statements I have given, Mr. President, are sufficient to show that the Spanish law clearly and absolutely secured to Indians fixed rights of property in the lands they occupy, beyond what is admitted by this Government in its relations with its own domestic tribes, and that some particular provision will be necessary in order to divest them of these rights. In California we are at this moment invading these rights. We hold there by the strong hand alone. The Indians dispute our right to be there, and they extend the privilege which the law secured them of killing the cattle to that of killing the owner whenever they find an occasion. Our occupation is in conflict with theirs, and it is to render this occupation legal and equitable, and to preserve the peace, that I have introduced this bill. It recommends itself to the favorable consideration of the Senate by its obvious necessity, and because it is right in itself, because it is politic, and because it is conformable to the established custom of this Government. Mr. WILLIS. Mr. Chairman, I next wish to offer for the record a statement from the Congressional Record which was printed in 1940, I believe, that affected the California Indian case; and our Indian friends asked that that be made a part of this record in that it refers to their basic claim and it has to do with the present issue. Mr. GILCHRIST. You say that is in the Congressional Record? The CHAIRMAN. How lengthy is that? Mr. WILLIS. I think there are two pages of that. I could make reference to it. Mr. WHITE. Mr. Chairman, this a very important matter. We find that these departments are printing stuff by the ton. Now why not let him make a full presentation of this case? The CHAIRMAN. We are not stopping a full presentation, but as far as the Chair is concerned, I am not cluttering up the record with things that do not pertain to this bill. The opinion of the Chair is that if it pertains to this bill and there is no objection, it may be included in the record. Mr. WILLIS. Thank you. (The statement above referred to is as follows:) THE INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA (By Federated Council, California Indians) Extension of Remarks of Hon. Lynn J. Frazier, of North Dakota, in the Senate of the United States, Thursday, April 4 (legislative day of Monday, March 4), 1940 STATEMENT BY ADAM CASTILLO AND ETHAN ANDERSON ON BEHALF OF CALIFORNIA INDIANS Mr. FRAZIR. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Appendix of the Record a statement by two Indian representatives of the Indians of California in regard to a pending bill which affects the California Indians. There being no objection, the statement was ordered to be printed in the record, as follows: CALIFORNIA INDIANS SPEAK-A CHALLENGE TO CONGRESS AND TO CALIFORNIATRULY A CENTURY OF DISHONOR WASHINGTON, D. C., March 20, 1940. The undersigned, Adam Castillo, San Jacinto, Calif., president of the Mission Indian Federation of Southern California, and Ethan Anderson, Lakeport,; Calif., delegate, Indians of California, Inc., representing and speaking for the majority of the 23,000 Indians of the State, issue the following statement of facts and appeal for justice in behalf of our people. Coming from the southern and northern sections of the State, respectively, and, because of the many years each of us have spent in the many problems facing our race, and particularly our claims and rights growing out of the taking of our lands and rights following the treaty between the United States and Mexico in 1848, we have again been sent to Washington to do what we could to advance the interests and defend the rights of the Indian people of the State. We are supported solely from funds donated voluntarily by Indians of the State for bare expenses, no salaries are paid to anyone. We have now been in Washington about 5 weeks and during that time we have made a very thorough study of the situation and conferred with many Members of both Houses of Congress, as well as officials of the Indian Bureau and other Government agencies. We were accompanied from California by Mr. Purl Willis, a white man, the able counselor of the Mission Indian Federation, a man known throughout the State as a courageous and intelligent friend of the American Indian; a believer in legal justice to all alike. Mr. Willis is probably best known as the one who initiated and sponsored the claims of the so-called nontreaty Indians of California now universally approved by all, and included as a basic part of both bills now before Congress-H. R. 3765 and S. 1402. It is well to here give a brief history of the problem facing the hopes of the Indians of the State. In 1928 Congress enacted a law (45 Stat. 602) known as the California Indian Jurisdictional Act, by which the Indians of the State were authorized to sue the Federal Government in the Court of Claims on account of the failure of the Government to carry out the terms of certain unratified treaties, 18 in number, which were made with about half of the Indian nations and tribes within the State in 1851-52. The Indian leaders who signed those treaties were required to agree to cede to the Government all their lands and rights thereto in return for the Government's promise to set aside and reserve forever for the nations, tribes, and bands who had signed the 18 treaties, certain areas or reservations in various sections of the State, the total area of which reservations amounted to some 8,800,000 acres. In addition, the Government commissioners promised other things, including schools, cattle, farming machinery, clothing, etc., including also the services of farmers and other artisans as instructors. ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CALIFORNIA ARBITRARILY NAMED AS INDIANS' ATTORNEY The act of Congress named the attorney general of California to file the suit in behalf of the Indians of the State. Never before nor since has such an unusual and inherently unconstitutional policy been followed by Congress toward the Indians of the Nation. The California Legislature had also enacted a law intending to give its attorney general authority to act for the Indians. (See 643, Stat. 1927, and ch. 2, Statutes and Amendments to Code, pp. 1180-1937.) Eminent legal counsel now advise these provisions are not in accord with the State constitution. Indians have made an effort to be allowed to have their own selected attorneys associate with the attorney general, but without success. In 1935 Indians and their friends brought forward the claims of the nontreaty Indians, and asked for an amendment to the original act to include such interests. They were successful in 1936 in convincing Congress that the nontreaty Indians' claims were just as sound as those with whom treaties had been made (S. 1793). Although Congress unanimously approved that bill, the President failed to sign it. Efforts have been continued to secure this amendment. Appeals have been made to the attorney general for his cooperation, but without avail. He was also urged to not proceed in the courts until an amendment could be secured. Thereupon, the attorney general, Hon. U. S. Webb, answered these appeals from Indians by writing them as follows (see p. 43, hearings on H. R. 3765, March 1939): "SAN FRANCISCO, CALIF., August 4, 1937. * It has long been my view that the Indians of California should have the right to select their own counsel. * * * Always, however, this view has been subjected to the condition that the State of California be relieved from further responsibility in the matter. * * * It also is and has been my view that under the act of 1928 adequate or proper relief cannot be furnished the Indians of California." Thus, after some 9 years in charge of our suit, that able official came to the inevitable conclusion that the State of California should withdraw from our suit, and that we should select our own counsel. This advice was accepted by Indians with acclaim. They accepted Mr. Webb's advice as eminently sound. Apparently the way was now open to give us the same consideration as has been extended to all other Indians-the right to choose our own attorneys. Even in the face of this advice from our own attorney, some Indians supported the attorney general to continue in charge of our suit. ATTORNEY GENERAL WEBB REFUSED TO RUN FOR REELECTION-A NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL Attorney General Webb refused to run for reelection, and a new man was chosen and took office in January 1939. Immediately Indians throughout the State became interested in the attitude the new attorney general, Hon. Earl Warren, would assume regarding the recommendation of his predecessor. A delegation from southern California called upon Mr. Warren in November 1938 and conferred with him as to what his policy might be. Mr. Warren informed these persons that he did not know yet what he would do, but would be guided by what Mr. Webb, his predecessor, recommended. Te was shown that official's advice on the questions at issue. Mr. Warren said he would make his position known after he took office in January 1939. These persons, at the request of their Indian people, again visited Mr. Warren in January 1939, after he assumed his new duties. These delegates tried to impress upon his mind the importance of our attorney assuming full charge of the plan to urge upon Congress an appropriate amendment to the act of 1928. They declared that it was the first duty of their attorney to secure the needed amendment before going on with the suit. INDIANS URGE THE NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL TO CONTINUE UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS These delegates offered their full cooperation to the new attorney general, and gave him the following letter carrying the wishes of their organization (see p. 36, hearings, H. R. 365): "The Indians generally feel * * * that the attorney general should devote his time to their case on exactly the same basis as if he was their private attorney. We want your approval of the bill, or your recommendations as to changes you deem necessary; they want you or a competent deputy to go to Washington, and there sponsor the amendments * and to direct the * move to secure an appropriate amendment to the act of 1928." These delegates urged Mr. Warren to select Indians who had valuable knowledge of their claims and send them to Washington as expert witnesses. He was urged to pay their actual expenses out of the fund the legislature had given the attorney general. On checking up, the attorney general stated the fund had been returned to the general fund. We were urged to ask the legislature to again give him funds for his use, and which is finally to come out of the Indians' judgment. This was done. (See hearings.) However, no assistance was extended Indian delegates. They immediately went to Washington and asked for a hearing upon H. R. 3765, already introduced. The attorney general was notified and requested to be present for the hearings. About the middle of March 1939, Mr. Earl Warren, the attorney general of California, came to Washington to represent the State in its fight against the Government's resolution just introduced in Congress claiming ownership to the great oil reserve lying below high tide along the California coast. The legislature gave Mr. Warren a special assistant, a former Congressman. One of the undersigned heard the fight put up by our attorney general, showing that he had made extensive preparation in acquainting himself with the issues involved in that important controversy. Mr. Warren was successful. Congress acknowledged California as the "owner" of that vast oil field. Two days later Mr. Earl Warren, the attorney general, and who is also our own attorney, appeared before a special subcommittee of the House Indian Affairs Committee as attorney for the California Indians. Indians who heard the able presentation of Mr. Warren in his fight defending the State of California in the oil controversy hoped that official had equipped himself just as well for the cause of the Indians. Though he had spurned the offer of Indians to give him the evidence and information they had gathered over the years, we still felt that possibly he had been able to prepare himself to meet the issue soon to confront him-to meet the opposition of the Department of Justice who would represent the Federal Government. ATTORNEY GENERAL WARREN ADMITS HE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT OUR CASE Indians who heard Mr. Warren make his statement before the House Indian Committee say they were greatly disappointed. They state it was sickening and disheartening to hear our own attorney, and who so ably a few days previously had made a great fight defending the great and wealthy State of California-and |