Mr. WILLIS. I did not.

Mr. BURDICK. Had you visited his various sections of the country prior to that?

Mr. WILLIS. I had not. I got much of that information from the Bureau people, and certain persons who have for many years been bitter enemies of his.

Mr. BURDICK. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. You are excused, Mr. Willis.

Mr. WILLIS. May I submit this letter that has just been filed with the attorney general by the federation and the one to the State controller of California on the same subject?

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it may be received.

(The letters referred to are as follows:)

THE MISSION INDIAN FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA,

Re California Indians' suit.

January 29, 1944.

Hon. ROBERT W. KENNY,

Attorney General of California,

San Francisco, Calif.

DEAR MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL: Continuing our efforts in behalf of the Indians of California in their efforts to have their claims settled on a basis of justice to all parties, we send you this statement.

The Mission Indian Federation contends now, as it has always claimed, that since the Indians of California became American citizens under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1848, they have the same rights under law as is guaranteed to all other citizens, and one of those rights is to be represented in the courts by counsel of their own selection. However, we have on several occasions in the past, and notably at about the time Hon. Earl Warren became attorney general in January 1939, offered to cooperate with the office in any way possible, if he would but give our suit his personal effort on the same basis he would if he were acting in a private capacity as the attorney for California Indians. We felt that if the attorney general would give his personal effort to the case, he could protect their rights in every way. We soon were compelled to agree that Mr. Warren, like his predecessor, undoubtedly felt that under his authority, he was limited to activities before the Court of Claims, and apparently believed he had no right even to assist in urging amendments before committees of Congress.

We feel now and have always expressed ourselves clearly in this regard, that there was no question involved in our minds as to the personal ability of either of the former attorney generals or of your own ability to handle this suit, if they or you were able to devote your full efforts in the cause as you felt was necessary. Our objection to the attorney general of the State having such arbitrary control of the conduct of the case was solely because that obviously he would not be able to give the suit sufficient personal effort, relying on subordinates from time to time, to handle the matter.

We have also felt as we have studied the records more closely, that the interests of the State and the Indians actually clash, so that we could not see how the State could honorably continue in charge of the suit. This was based on the fact that the legislature of the new State of California in 1852 made prejudicial efforts to urge the United States Senate to not ratify the 19 treaties just made with the Indians, and which undoubtedly was the principal factor for their defeat or lack of approval or ratification by the United States Senate. The State officially tried to have the Indians removed from their ancestral homes and sent to entirely new areas in Nevada and New Mexico. The Indians have long felt that because the State arbitrarily took several million acres of their lands-lands occupied and used under "immemorial rights"-it surely placed itself in the same category as the Federal Government; and therefore their interests were in conflict.

These opinions and feelings have been transmitted to the attorney general and to the congressional committee by the undersigned on numerous occasions.

It has long been our belief that both Mr. Webb and Mr. Warren felt they had no right to make any effort to urge Congress to amend the act of 1928, but both have clearly indicated, as we have always contended, that this act was

defective and should be amended. It will be recalled that Attorney General U. S. Webb, in a direct statement to the undersigned on August 4, 1937, concerning the question of Indians demanding the right to have their suit handled by attorneys of their own selections, stated:

* *

"It has long been my view that the Indians of California should have the right to select their own counsel, subject, however, to the approval of the Interior Department, Always, however, this view has been subject to the condition that the State of California should be relieved from further responsibility in the matter."

And further, regarding his belief and recommendation about Indians being allowed to select their own counsel, Mr. Webb some months previous to his sending the above letter to us, on March 12, 1936, sent a letter to Commissioner Collier, in which he to all intents and purposes urged Mr. Collier to take steps to have Congress extend to California Indians in a bill (S. 1793) then under consideration that right. Here is a quotation from that letter from Mr. Webb: "MY DEAR MR. COLLIER: I have yours of February 29, 1936, with which you enclosed copy of letter of February 26 addressed to you by Congressman Lea, all relating to the suggestion that the above case (California Indians suit v. The United States, etc.) be pressed to final judgment, without regard to what may be done with present pending bill amending the act of 1928, through which the above case was authorized.

"It will be strongly contended, and I fear with success, that the act of 1928 authorized suit in behalf of the so-called unratified treaty Indians. As you know, a considerable number of the Indians of California are not included in these treaties.

"The measure of recovery, even for the treaty Indians, is not clear under the act of 1928, but it is made definite and certain in the pending measure S. 1793.

"It has developed that there are considerable number of Indians who did not secure registration, both treaty and nontreaty, and the pending measure permits further enrollment, which is just and equitable, as Indians who failed to gain enrollment should not be forever barred. The provision of the pending measure in respect of the time for filing amendments is desirable.

"While I do not like the provisions of the pending measure providing for the selection by the Indians of their own counsel, I am of the view, as heretofore frequently expressed, that in some method such right should be granted. The right should be granted subject to approval by the Interior Department, both as to attorneys selected and compensation ultimately to be awarded. If such provision were incorporated in the bill, surely the Indians would not be exploited or robbed."

Thereupon Attorney General Webb advised against proceeding in the courts to final judgment before securing the amendments he outlined above. And here follows his deliberate counsel:

"It required approximately three-fourths of a century to secure the enactment of 1928, which imperfectly and incompletely covers the situation. Should we proceed to final judgment under that act inadequate relief will be afforded those who are benefited under it, and probably no relief to a large proportion of the Indians of California, and such Indians would have to await future legislation. If appropriate amendments to the present law cannot be secured, new legislation by subsequent congresses cannot be reasonably hoped for.

"Should this act be prosecuted to final judgment it would the disposition naturally of succeeding Congresses to regard the legislation of 1928 and the judgment obtained thereunder as closing the matter.

"I keenly feel that inadequate relief should not be sought while a bill is pending in Congress under which a fuller measure of relief could be gained.

"It is my view that efforts to secure proper amendments to the bill should be continued until such amendments have been secured, or it be further determined that appropriate amendments are impossible."

And, in the final paragraph of this sound advice to Commissioner Collier to amend the act of 1928 by (a) broadening the basis of recovery in the act of 1928 by including the nontreaty Indians' claims; (b) and, by including "some method of allowing Indians to select their own counsel," and, (c) the amendment should provide means by which the attorney general of California could withdraw from further responsibility in their suit.

And, in our opinion, Attorney General Webb actually, and in plan language which cannot be misconstrued by anyone, asked the Commissioner to have the pending bill (S. 1793) amended to include the three provisions above listed. Here are his own words, the final paragraph:

66* * * While I have indicated above that I believe the Indians should be given in some fashion the right of representation by their own counsel, I repeat that it is my judgment that in such event California should be relieved from further responsibility relative to the case, and that pending legislation should so provide. This would leave the measure more in harmony with Indian legislation heretofore, with the further provision of giving control, as indicated, to the Interior Department.

"U. S. WEBB, Attorney General."

In a letter which you wrote Congressman Lea in March 1943, a copy of which you sent the federation, you state, in substance, that regarding the question of Indians selecting their own counsel, that you agreed with the position taken by both of your predecessors. While former Attorney General Warren has not, so far as we recall, come out so clear regarding this matter of attorneys, he has, as the record shows, likewise, clearly left the matter up to Congress. If personalities had not been brought into the hearings so prominently over the years by small groups and cliques on the outside, we feel sure the act of 1928 would long ago have been amended in conformity with the wise advice of former Attorney General Webb, and that by now an award based on the immemorial right of use and occupancy by all of the Indians of the State would have been secured.

By examining the record of the hearings on H. R. 3622 now before the House Indian Committee, and also in the hearings in the Senate committee on S. 1529, it is plainly apparent that in the opinion of the attorney general of California, there is no hope in carrying on under the act of 1928, and that the only hope for California Indians is to now abandon their hopes under that act and take up an entirely new scheme.

In other words, you have, as we see it, and as it is generally viewed by leading officials, "given up" and abandoned the case under the authority granted you in that act; that you and your staff have come to the conclusion that there is no need to urge Congress to amend the jurisdictional act. Your office apparently have now decided to place all your efforts behind the plan proposed in the Downey-Outland bills.

If this is your position, would it not be the right thing to do for you to recommend to the Governor of California and the legislature that appropriate steps be taken at once to urge upon this Congress amendments to the original act relieving the State of California from further responsibility in the case? Further participation by the State of California through its legal department, will undoubtedly cause more confusion and develop rather than lessen the growing belief that the interests of the State and the Indians are in conflict. We can cite several instances where this is plainly evident.

And just a word about the efforts being made by your office to urge adoption by the Congress of H. R. 3622 (and S. 1529). We desire to call to your attention that it is our contention that under the authority granted under the act of 1928, the attorney general has no right to employ "special counsel" if he expects his services to come out of the fund set aside by the State to prosecute this case. Also, as we have pointed out to the State controller recently, former Attorney General Warren, in a written opinion to the State controller on January 31, 1940, stated that he "had no intention to employ special counsel in this case, as I believe I have no authority to do so." The efforts of the attorney general under the act of 1928, are clearly limited to efforts before the Court of Claims. There is, as we see it, no authority given to promote before the Congress any legislation, such as the Outland bill or any other measure, regardless of the merits such bills might have. Your authority, as we understand the act of 1928, limits you to presenting the claims of the Indians to the Court of Claims. We repeat, although the Claims Commission might be desirable, in the opinion of some persons, there is no legal authority for your office to use the time and expense provided under the State or Federal authorities to come to Washington and promote such legislation.

One needs but attend the hearings and read the record already made and hear the discussions from members of the committees to appreciate the wisdom of taking the steps suggested above on the part of the State of California-to ask

to be relieved and allow the Indians to take whatever steps they might think best to protect and promote their rights as they see them.

With continued respect to you personally and to the office of attorney general of California, and holding ourselves free from personal attacks as a means of promoting our own views or interests, and assuring you that the Mission Indian Federation continues ready and anxious to cooperate in any sound plan that will fully protect the rights of the Indians of California and to take no action that will be unfair to the good name of our State, we are,

Most respectfully,

THE MISSION INDIAN FEDERATION,
By ADAM CASTILLO, President.
PURL WILLIS, Counselor.

Copy to Senate Committee, House Committee, and Commissioner Collier.

THE MISSION INDIAN FEDERATION OF CALIFORNIA,

Hon. HARRY B. RILEY,
State Controller, Sacramento, Calif.

Washington, D. C., January 26, 1944.

DEAR MR. RILEY: The undersigned, representing the Mission Indian Federation of California, are in Washington for the purpose of appearing before committees of Congress and other officials in behalf of various Indian matters, including the matter of their suit against the United States under the jurisdictional act of 1928. You, of course, know that the attorney general of California was authorized to file the claims of the Indians.

At this time hearings are being held in the House Indian Affairs Committee on H. R. 3622, the Outland bill, drawn and supported by the attorney general. He has employed special counsel, a Mr. Fred A. Baker, to represent his office before both the Senate and House committees. Mr. Baker has been here in Washington for several months, apparently at the expense of the State under the special fund set aside for the use of the attorney general to prosecute the suit of the Indians under the above-mentioned suit.

We are anxious to have your office inform us at this time whether the salary and expense of said Mr. Baker are being paid by the State out of the fund above mentioned. What is his salary as special counsel?

The object of this inquiry is to learn just how far the State has already gone, and intends to go, in standing the expense of this special counsel. It vitally affects the rights of the Indians, and likewise, other taxpayers of the State of California. If you will refer to the written opinion of the former attorney general, the Hon. Earl Warren, now our Governor, given to you on January 31, 1941, affecting the question of the right of the State to act for the Indians in their suit against the Federal Government, you will see that Mr. Warren stated clearly that "he had no intention of employing special counsel in this case, as I believe I have no authority to do so

*

*

There are, therefore, two reasons, each definite and to the point, why, we submit, the State of California cannot legally pay the salary and expense of Mr. Fred A. Baker, special counsel of the attorney general, in his current mission in Washington.

First: Under the State act of 1927, as set out by the former attorney general, in the opinion above referred to, the State of California has no legal authority to employ special counsel to prosecute the case of the Indians of California against the Federal Government.

Second: Whatever authority was given the attorney general of California to represent the Indians in their suit was based on the act of Congress in 1928, which stated:

"All claims of whatever nature the Indians of California * * * may have against the United States * * may be submitted to the Court of Claims by the attorney general of California acting for and on behalf of said Indians."

There surely can be no claim, we submit, made by Mr. Baker, the special counsel, who has been here for several months, promoting, among other things, a certain bill (H. R. 3622) before the committees of Congress, and which bill is not only within the scope of the Court of Claims but is in direct opposition to the act of 1928, now in the Court of Claims. Not even the attorney general, we believe, could legally within the scope of that act engage in promoting an entirely new scheme for the settlement of the rights and claims of the California Indians..

The matter which we here bring to your attention involves the right of the State to pay the salary and expense of Mr. Baker or any other person acting for the attorney general under authority granted in the jurisdictional act of 1928. It seems advisable to bring to the attention of the State controller and the attorney general and the Governor, the fact that Mr. Baker for the greater part of the time he has been in Washington promoting the Outland bill (which is his own pet measure of settling the Indians' claims) has been engaged in promoting among the Indian groups of the Nation, a Nation-wide scheme of having the Indians from all corners of the United States gather in Washington in February 1944 and organizing themselves into a strictly Indian group, to appear before the Congress and urge its adoption of his "enlarged" plan to take in all the claims of all the Indians of the Nation. Mr. Baker has already circularized practically every Indian agency in the Nation, enclosing copies of his Outland bill, and urging the various agency superintendents to hand the letter and his bill to leading Indians and get them to write him their views on the matter. It is understood that already Indians are already writing in for further information and asking for funds to make the trip. We are also reliably informed that various superintendents have themselves endorsed the Baker scheme to bring the Indians to Washington. In fact various tribal committees are now laying his plan officially before the Indians for action.

Mr. Baker, or any other citizen, has the right to urge Indians to come to Washington to lay their claims or plans before the officials or Congress, and it may be advisable under ordinary conditions, but, under the authority granted Mr. Baker to act as the special counsel for the attorney general of California in the suit of the Indians, under no stretch of the imagination could anyone, it seems to us, assume the authority to get off the track so far and to wander in fields entirely foreign to his duty.

We feel that it has been necessary to go into this matter at length and in detail in order that you may have sufficient facts on which to act. We shall send you copies of the circular letter sent out by Mr. Baker to the Indians of the Nation within the next few days, when we get additional copies.

We shall be here in Washington (mail at room 1332, House Office Building, Washington, D. C.) for several days, and we trust we may have your answer shortly.

Respectfully,

THE MISSION INDIAN FEDERATION,
By ADAM CASTILLO, President.
PURL WILLIS, Counselor.

Mr. BAKER. Mr. Chairman, there is a question of honor which this witness can answer. It involves my own honor.

The CHAIRMAN. May we not take that up later on?

Mr. BAKER. I thought I might have the privilege of asking him this question at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Please make it very brief.

Mr. BAKER. In the letter to the attorney general of California, on July 20, 1943, after the case had been won the witness made the following observation relative to myself:

We had advance information that Mr. Baker was to be transferred to the staff of the attorney general of California to “put over” the plan of "compromising their suit." We were aware that Mr. Baker had been an employee in a minor way of the bureau in fields far removed from the California suit and therefore he was not aware of vital evidence and the development of the case.

In other words, the witness has accused me of being a party to a deal. The CHAIRMAN. State your question to the witness, if you have a question?

Mr. BAKER. Did you write that letter?

Mr. WILLIS. I am very sure I did and I am very sure I can support those contentions as being absolutely true.

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Mr. Collett for 10 minutes.