The CHAIRMAN. It does not occur to me that administration costs should be charged against it as an offset.

Mr. MURDOCK. I am not sure that they are.

Mr. MCCASKILL. Yes; they are; all gratuity appropriations.

The CHAIRMAN. But administrative matters, those are something that the Government really ought to pay. We assumed to take away the Indian's rights and subjugated him to the position of a ward. Isn't it fair and right, and should not the Government pay the costs of taking care of its own wards, and not charge the wards?

Mr. MCCASKILL. I do not wish to argue against it, Mr. Chairman. Mr. BAKER. I have the answer.

Mr. MCCASKILL. Your argument, Mr. Chairman, has been presented in the Court of Claims and the Court of Claims has ruled otherwise. Mr. BURDICK. I have been telling you all morning, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Here is a case where I do not agree with the Court of Claims.

Mr. MCCASKILL. The third break-down are disbursements made by the United States for the maintenance of certain schools in California, during the period from July 1, 1892, to June 30, 1932, amounting to $6,036,683.67. So that you have disbursements of $5,543,526.10 made specifically for the Indians of California; $594,021.37 appropriated generally to the Indian Service but spent in California; and the third disbursement made by the United States for the maintenance of certain schools in California, amounting to $6,036,683.67, or a total of $12,174,231.14.

I might say that the Department of Justice counted every pupil and ruled out all of those pupils who came from outside of California and took the total of all Indian children in California who went to any of these schools.

Mr. MURDOCK. As I understand, now Congress is accustomed to making appropriations for general education and when a new State is admitted, land is set aside for that purpose. I believe in the case of the admission of Oklahoma, because about half the State had already been taken up by actual owners, instead of setting aside the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections for public education, a direct amount of money was allocated by Congress.

Mr. MCCASKILL. That is correct; that was for the establishment of a specific type of school, as I recall.

Mr. MURDOCK. Would we not be justified in thinking that any amount of money spent on these Indians was comparable to any amount of money assigned by the Government for white children and ought to be considered in the same class and not as a particular appropriation for the Indians as Indians?

Mr. MCCASKILL. The argument interests me very much.

Mr. MURDOCK. I just wanted to question the validity or the fairness. of that third item, and here you have a big offset of approximately $12,000,000.

Mr. MCCASKILL. $6,000,000 approximately is that third item.

Mr. MURDOCK. That is figured as an offset to be charged against these Indians now when, as a matter of justice, we ought to be furnishing these children educational privileges as we are furnishing to all children.

The CHAIRMAN. Particularly so since they have been told they are wards.

Mr. MURDOCK. Money furnished adult Indian wards should be offiset, but I wonder about schooling for Indian children.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Will the gentleman yield?

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Iowa.

Mr. GILCHRIST. I might be able to agree with you on this proposition, except in this case, as I understand it, the Indians are asking as a part of their claim a thing which they claim to have lost, namely, the educational advantages which the Government was to give them under these treaties. Now, they are asking as plaintiffs, that they should have that additional money. Therefore it is very plain in equity that the Government would have a right, as against the asking, to offset what they have given educationally, and in that situation this case is entirely different from any specious proposition that you have made. As I understand, the jurisdictional act in this case did give them and the Court of Claims must consider what they lost in that regard. Therefore they should be charged with what they got in that regard. The CHAIRMAN. Is that a part of the plaintiff's claim? Mr. GILCHRIST. Yes; it specifically says so.

Mr. BURDICK. Mr. Chairman, the question of direct appropriation, it seems to me, is about the only alternative that we have, and when that comes up for consideration you can consider all of these matters brought up by the gentleman from Arizona. You can bring up the question of interest on this claim since 1859, because that should have been paid then instead of now.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. BURDICK. And you have plenty of material to base a finding of, say, $7,000,000 to $8,000,000 that they are entitled to by direct appropriation. You will find precedent enough for it if you want to do it.

Mr. MCCASKILL. Mr. Chairman, may I speak to the point raised by Congressman Gilchrist with reference to the educational obligation of the Government under the unsigned treaties, and the argument of Congressman Murdock that the Federal Government has aided the general population in providing for education and it should assist the Indians also. It has been estimated, and this is purely an estimate now, that the total value of all of the goods and services which the treaties promised the Indians aggregated about $1,500,000. It also found that offsets for education, which I just pointed out awhile ago, totaled $6,000,000.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Then it would be plain that they should at least be allowed $1,000,000 or $2,000,000.

Mr. MCCASKILL. Mr. Chairman, answering your question a moment ago-you asked what basis might be used to estimate an appropriation. The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MCCASKILL. And I answered that the jurisdictional act contemplated a net recovery of around $8,250,000 after the deduction of the particular offsets which had been considered at that time. If you take another approach, from the standpoint that the Government is under obligation to rehabilitate these Indians, then you have another set of figures to work from. In a previous report submitted to the Congress the Indian Office said that from the standpoint of the surviving Indians, tentative estimates compiled from field data total

$13,832,300 for essential lands, water development, housing, and farmbuilding construction and repair, and livestock. That would be $2,890 a family for approximately 4,800 Indian families who need economic rehabilitation. This gives you an idea of what amount would be required should the committee decide to approach the problem from the point of view of providing an amount sufficient to rehabilitate the needy Indians of the State.

The CHAIRMAN. We will now hear from Adam Castillo, president of the Mission Indian Federation of Southern California.

STATEMENT OF ADAM CASTILLO, PRESIDENT OF THE MISSION INDIAN FEDERATION OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, SAN JACINTO, CALIF.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you care to make a statement, Mr. Castillo? Mr. CASTILLO. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. You are recognized for, say, 5 minutes; and if you wish to have more time, it can be allowed.

Mr. CASTILLO. I represent the Mission Indians in Southern Cálifornia.

The CHAIRMAN. Give your full name for the record.

Mr. CASTILLO. Adam Castillo.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you reside?

Mr. CASTILLO. At San Jacinto, Calif.

The CHAIRMAN. And whom do you represent?

Mr. CASTILLO. I represent the Mission Indian Federation.

The CHAIRMAN. And you live in California, do you?

Mr. CASTILLO. I live in California; southern California.

The CHAIRMAN. And have you got a written authority to appear here in their behalf?

Mr. CASTILLO. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. If you have that, will you file it?

Mr. CASTILLO. I have a resolution which was sent here but which was not printed in the hearings.

The CHAIRMAN. You have the authority, then?

Mr. CASTILLO. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You may leave it with the court reporter, and if there is no objection it may be incorporated in the record at this point. (The letter of Mr. Castillo to the chairman of the committee and the resolution above referred to are as follows:)

Hon. JAMES F. O'CONNOR,

Chairman, House Committee on Indian Affairs,

Washington, D. C.

OCTOBER 18, 1943.

DEAR SIR: Herewith attached is a resolution unanimously approved by the officers and members of the Mission Indian Federation of California, concerning the proposed plan of "compromise" sponsored by the attorney general of California.

While a small group of Indians, mostly those living in the city of Los Angeles and a few others in the employ and controlled by the Indian Bureau, have "adopted" a resolution favoring this scheme of the attorney general, the overwhelming majority of the Indians of the State strongly oppose the plan. It is decidedly inopportune to bring this scheme forward at this time-just when the bill, H. R. 3168, by Congressman Lea, is to be considered by the Congress. This "compromise" scheme will not settle anything; but it will further confuse and

delay the case and lessen our chances of securing simple justice in the American way.

It must be remembered that the State of California also took valuable lands belonging to the Indians in 1850 without compensation, and we feel that, therefore, the State is a party to our suit and its attorney general should not have charge of our suit. We ask no advantage, and we do not want to "compromise" our rights under the plan now promoted by the attorney general. If necessary, we are ready to send representative to Washington to support our decision to oppose this dangerous scheme.

Respectfully,

ADAM CASTILLO, President, the Mission Indian Federation.

Re: California Court of Claims suit.

MESA GRANDE, CALIF., October 17, 1943.

To the Honorable CHAIRMAN OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN
AFFAIRS,

To the Honorable CHAIRMAN OF THE HOUSE COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,
Washington, D. C.

GENTLEMEN: At a regular meeting of the Mission Indian Federation of California, held at the village of Mesa Grande, San Diego County, Calif., on Sunday, October 17, 1943, the following resolution was unanimously adopted:

"Whereas there is pending in the Court of Claims of the United States at Washington, the case of the Indians of California v. The United States, under the California Indian jurisdictional bill, on account of the United States Government failing to compensate the California Indians for the arbitrary taking of their lands in 1851-52, following the making of some 18 treaties made under an act of Congress; and

"Whereas under the jurisdictional act above referred to, approved by Congress in 1928, the attorney general of California was arbitrarily placed in charge of the Indians' suit, and although the great majority of the Indians of the State, parties to said suit, have by petition and otherwise appealed to Congress to allow them their inherent right to select their own counsel, the attorney general of California has continued to have complete control of our suit, ignoring the Indians' appeal for cooperation; and

"Whereas there recently appeared a plan sponsored and promoted by said attorney general of California, urging Indians to approve his proposal for a compromise of our suit against the Federal Government. Accompanying said compromise proposal the attorney general proposes to ask Congress to approve a bill atuthorizing the proposed compromise plan; and

"Whereas the officers and members of the Mission Indian Federation consider this compromise plan of the attorney general to be out of step with their ideas of securing justice in the settlement of their suit against the Federal Government; and, further, that it will interfere and delay consideration by the Congress of H. R. 3168, by Hon. Clarence Lea, of California, amending the act of 1928: Therefore be it

"Resolved, That the Mission Indian Federation opposes said compromise proposal of the attorney general, and urge the Senators and Congressmen from California to do all within their power to prevent favorable consideration by Congress of said compromise plan.

"ADAM CASTILLO, President."

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed with your statement.

Mr. CASTILLO. Then I got the wire from you a few days ago for me

to appear at this meeting.

The CHAIRMAN. Did we wire you to be here?

Mr. CASTILLO. Yes, sir. The telegram reads as follows:

Continuation on Outland bill to provide a commission to settle the claims of the California Indians set for Wednesday, January 19, at 10 a. m. Stop. Please notify committee if you will be present and request time.

DUNN, Clerk, House Committee on Indian Affairs.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me see that telegram. [Examining telegram.] We did not request you to come. We notified you that we were going to have the hearing.

Go ahead with your statement.

Mr. CASTILLO. I have appeared here several times before this committee regarding our suit which is in the Court of Claims. What we want now is to have our legal rights settled once and for all in a legal, American way.

Now where they say our people failed to appear before this land commission, I do not think that law applied to Indians. I think that law applied to white people who had acquired land from Spain or the Mexican Government within these Mexican grants, when at the same time a commission was sent to California to make treaties with the Indians. That was about the same time, and I think if our Indian people would have gone to that land commisison they would have been chased out of it because the Indians had no titles, no deeds to the land, which they got from Spain or Mexico, and today we have not got them. The whole thing is that treaties were made with us and we asked that they be fulfilled.

Many years ago the Congress failed to decide that, and I think Congress can make an amendment to the original law whereby we can take our case in court like you have allowed all other Indians to do and then we can either lose or win our case. I have been sent here by my people to tell Congress that.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Will the gentleman yield at that point?

Mr. CASTILLO. Yes.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Do I understand that you are not satisfied with the representation you had in court through the attorney general of your State, and that you want some other attorneys to represent you, or what are the facts?

Mr. CASTILLO. Well, it appeared that way. Under the 1928 jurisdictional act he failed to prosecute our case as we felt he should as our attorney.

Mr. GILCHRIST. What is that?

Mr. CASTILLO. He had failed to prosecute this case.

Mr. GILCHRIST. Who had?

Mr. CASTILLO. The attorney general of California.

Mr. OUTLAND. Will you yield? Are you referring to the present attorney general, or his predecessor?

Mr. CASTILLO. I think both of them.

Mr. GILCHRIST. I think they did a pretty good job; they won the case for you.

Mr. DOUGLAS. They did not get any money.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed with your statement, Mr. Castillo.

Mr. CASTILLO. He did not defend us on some of the matters, like that which was brought out here now where, as the Government contends, that we had to appear before the land commission. We did not have to do it; we did not have to appear before that commission at all, and, therefore, we have not lost our rights.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it your contention that there are Indians involved in this who were not represented in this litigation?

Mr. CASTILLO. Yes; because the treaties were never finished. The money gave out and treaties were not made with all the Indians of