it has held, on several occasions, that an attorney who renders services for one individual, where those services benefit a group the group should compensate him, or he should be included in compensation from the group. In other words those participating equally in the benefits should contribute equally to the expense.

Now, then, in addition to that, the attorneys' fees here are limited to 5 percent, or, rather, limited not to exceed 5 percent, if you please, and to be based upon the quantum meruit basis for services actually rendered. I have confidence in the court, if the Commissioner has not. I know the court will consider all these things submitted here before passing on any fees, and I am positive that Congress has the confidence of the Court of Claims, because it happens to be a legislative court, one created by the Congress of the United States.

Now, then, in addition to that, permit me to say that neither exSenator Butler, nor myself, representing the Mission Indians, have ever received 1 cent for expenses or for services rendered in this case, nor have we ever sent out any misleading statements to anyone, to the Indians or anyone else.

These Indians want attorneys of their own choosing. As citizens of the United States, they are entitled to have attorneys of their own choosing. And I say to you that never before in the history of this country has any jurisdictional bill contained more fair language to the Indians, as to the attorneys' fees, than this bill does. Never before have they ever been protected such as they are under this bill.

And in fairness and justice to the Indians, and in fairness and justice to the attorneys, I say to you that I think this bill ought to receive the full approval of this committee, and therefore request on behalf of the Mission Indians of California that the committee re-report the bill.

The CHAIRMAN. I have before me a letter of date June 24, addressed to Hon. William H. King, senior Senator from Utah, and signed by Allan G. Harper, executive secretary of the American Indian Defense Association, Inc. Attached to the letter and referred to in the letter is a statement relative to this bill. The statement is a mimeographed one and apparently is a copy of numerous statements sent out. I have glanced through the statement hurriedly, but I find that the statement contains an argument against any additional legislation being passed by the Congress; and on behalf of these Indians the American Indian Defense Association, as an organization, apparently is willing to let the matter rest on the existing law, and to let the case remain in the hands of the attorney general of California.

Without objection, I will ask that this letter together with the statement be incorporated in the record.

(The letter and statement referred to are as follows:)

THE AMERICAN INDIAN DEFENSE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Washington, D. C., June 24, 1935.

Hon. WILLIAM H. KING,

The Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR KING: I transmit herewith a statement of Mr. Charles de Young Elkus, of San Francisco, on behalf of the Indian Defense Association of Central and

Northern California, on the pending bill which modifies the existing jurisdictional act of the California Indians. This is the measure which you had recalled from the House of Representatives after it had been passed by the Senate. Sincerely yours,

ALLAN G. HARPER, Executive Secretary.

THE AMERICAN INDIAN DEFENSE ASSOCIATION, INC.,
Washington, D. C., June 22, 1935.

GENERAL BULLETIN NO. 39-CALIFORNIA INDIAN DEFENSE BRANCH OPPOS ES
COURT OF CLAIMS BILL-DECLARES SENATE BILL RAISES FALSE HOPES AND
ENDANGERS ANY RECOVERY

Charles de Young Elkus, prominent San Francisco lawyer, has issued the following statement on behalf of the Indian Defense Association of northern and central California, of which he is president, in condemnation of a pending bill which amends the Court of Claims jurisdictional act of the California Indians (S. 1793). This measure was recently passed by the Senate but was recalled from the House of Representatives on motion of Senator William H. King. The action of the California organization follows careful consideration of the bill by its executive committee, members of which have followed the Court of Claims subject for many years. The statement is as follows:

PURPOSE OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTIONAL ACT IS CHANGED

The purpose of the original Court of Claims act, H. R. 491, was to create a fund which would make possible the rehabilitation of the California Indians through the acquisition of home sites, farm loans, and such other means as might be determined upon from time to time by a board or commission, representing the Federal Government, the State of California, and the Indians. It was in reality a gratuity act and not based on a per capita distribution.

This association believes that this purpose was and is sound and does justice to the Indians of this State. S. 1793 attempts to widen the base of recovery beyond reason and might well result in outlawing the Indians' case against the United States. Moreover, it is by all reasonable implication based on a per capita distribution which this organization considers entirely unsound.

RAISES FALSE HOPES OF LARGE RECOVERY

Certain of rejection by the courts, not to mention an almost certain Presidential veto, are the ambiguous lines 18 to 23 (sec. 2 of S. 1793): "That the courts shall consider and determine as near as may be, the value of the personal property, rights, services, facilities, and improvements set out and described in the aforesaid unratified treaties and include just compensation for the value and loss of benefit of the same in any decree rendered hereunder." Extravagant hopes, based on this language, may well be raised, and fruitlessly. They also open possibilities of long litigation and exorbitant demands.

OPENS WAY TO PER CAPITAS

S. 1793, by defining for the purposes of the act "all Indians who were residing in the State of California on June 1, 1852 and their descendants living on May 18, 1928", leads to per capita payment; the original bill intended to procure a large amount of money which would not be split up into comparatively small amounts and quickly spent without permanent results. This association believes that the roll should not be open for the purpose of obtaining a per capita distribution. H. R. 491 was designed, and properly so, for the Indians of California, in California, not for the benefit of those residing elsewhere.

ATTORNEY GENERAL'S WORK COMMENDED

This association firmly believes that the attorney general of California is ably representing the Indians before the Court of Claims; that nothing could be gained, other than unnecessary expense, by the association of other attorneys in the suit.

CONVENTION SCHEME DEFECTIVE

Section 3 of S. 1793 provides for the election of delegates to convene at two conventions for the purpose of choosing attorneys of their own selection. This association believes this section obscure. It fails to indicate who are to vote. Children are on the rolls of California Indians. Are they to vote? The basis for representation at the conventions is also subject to criticism. Section 3 also provides that one delegate may represent all the votes of the county and any one delegate may represent more than one county. No provision is made for defraying the cost of the two conventions.

In consideration of the above criticisms this association opposes the passage of S. 1793.

INDIAN DEFENSE ASSOCIATION OF
CENTRAL AND NORTHERN CALIFORNIA,
CHARLES DE Y. ELKUS, President.

Mr. COLLETT. Mr. Chairman, may I make a statement? The CHAIRMAN. Give your name to the stenographer, please. Mr. COLLETT. F. G. Collett. I am the executive representative of the Indians of California, Inc.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you reside, Mr. Collett?

Mr. COLLETT. I reside in San Francisco. I am not a lawyer.

STATEMENT OF F. G. COLLETT, INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

Mr. COLLETT. I initiated the jurisdictional act in 1920. I followed that through to the present time. I represent Indians.

The Indian Defense Association does not have any Indian membership. The organization that I represent is composed entirely of Indians. The directorate of the board, 13 in number, has 8 of the leading Indians of California on it. All of the organizations throughout the State are represented entirely and exclusively by Indians. The Indians are very desirous of being represented in court by attorneys of their own selection.

Because of the pleadings of the Indians of California and their Representatives here, in Congress, your committee has been to California twice. They canvassed the entire State the first time, a year ago. They went out there on the recommendation and urge of Senator Frazier, who was then handling some amendments before this committee. This committee was in San Diego last year, about this time, and in San Francisco, and at the San Francisco hearing the subject was this jurisdictional proposal. That involved the entire time.

Before that committee came Indians from various parts of the State, asking for amendments to the jurisdictional bill. Before that committee came members of the Indian Defense Association, which does not directly represent the Indians or have any Indians on its membership, and they said that they did not believe that any additional attorneys are necessary. The attorney general admitted to the committee that he had been slow and that perhaps he should have taken some testimony, and that perhaps some additional amendments to the jurisdictional act should be had, as a record of what I am saying.

My statement just preceding the attorney general at San Francisco showed that he took 15 months to file suit, the petition involving about 9 or 10 pages. It showed that he failed to comprehend the law, failed to find out who his clients were, for 46 months. It showed that amendments were necessary, and that those amendments, al

though called to his attention immediately after filing the original petition, were not made for 2 years and 7 months, and, at the time he did make them, it was because he was brought into court and he made them in self-defense and as evidence of good faith, but he made them 10 months after the court had lost jurisdiction. Limitation is jurisdiction in a case of this kind, and the amendments were filed 10 months after the period allowed in the Court of Claims for filing the petition. It is true that amendments are authorized, but the Court of Claims has repeatedly held that when amendments bring in new parties and new subject matter, it takes on the form of a new case, and is not permissible. That, I believe, has been even carried to the Supreme Court. Decisions have repeatedly been held along that line.

Now, then, this bill here has been very carefully studied for a number of years. Last year and again this year your committee was in California twice, had several hearings here, and had several hearings with the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs expressed his willingness to accept the bill as it stood, and had a part in the formation of it. He also had two suggestions to make, after the close of the formal hearings, and those suggestions were that there should be an election of Indian delegates and that there should be one convention. Your committee decided to provide for two conventions. The proposition here is that the Indians shall meet in the several counties and shall elect delegates, and those delegates shall meet at these conventions, to be called by the Secretary of the Interior under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe.

Now I had occasion to go to Senator King, and I have been listening to what the Commissioner has had to say. I find that this bill, after all the happenings that have been indicated, was passed by the Senate, went to the House, or reached the House, on the 31st of May. On that day Senator King moved for reconsideration. He had then been approached by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and his men, to bring the bill back.

The Commissioner called attention this morning to the communication to Senator King which went out on June 5. That was so that Senator King would have some way to withdraw this bill. Mr. Meaney and Mr. Sloan and myself and several Indians were in Senator King's office, and he read us, on the 6th day of June, another letter that had come to him. That letter had evidently just reached him that morning, and a reply was made to that letter. That is what Senator King showed us or read to us. I have not the wording of it here, but I will give you only my memory of it and submit my reply to it.

He called our attention to files that the Department-that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs had presented to him, showing that the bill as drawn would provide for a recovery of about $30,000,000; that $30,000,000 was perhaps altogether too much. He called attention to the fact, or made the statement, rather, that the attorneys would get 5 percent of $30,000,000, and 5 percent would be $1,500,000. I called to the Senator's attention the fact that the phraseology on which estimates of about $30,000,000 were made was Mr. Collier's own phraseology, and that he said that the bill could be more easily passed with that than any other, and that he is now using the same

phraseology with the committee to kill the bill. The bill provides very carefully and, I believe, wisely that the attorneys shall be employed under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe. If the Indians want the attorney general, they may choose him. If they want some other attorney under this bill, they may choose other attorneys. They have the privilege of choosing him the same as they would choose anyone else. The fees are not to exceed 5 percent, and they are to be based on a quantum meruit basis for actual services rendered, and the court is directed to find reasonable fees to be paid to the attorneys, and the entire judgment, including the fees to the attorneys, will come back to this Congress for further check as to whether or not the Indians and the Government have been properly taken care of.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Collett, let me ask you one or two questions. Are you satisfied with the first portion of this bill, which amends the original jurisdictional act, that this portion will get the Indians a more liberal award and give them a better chance to substantiate their suit than the existing law?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I take it that you are in favor of the first part of the bill?

Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now it comes down to the attorney's fees and to the employment of attorneys.

Mr. COLLETT. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you tell the committee that you had seen a letter written by Mr. Collier to Senator King?

Mr. COLLETT. Senator King read the letter to us.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you see the letter?

Mr. COLLETT. I saw it on his table.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a copy of the letter?

Mr. COLLETT. No: I have not.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you try to get a copy of the letter?

Mr. COLLETT. No; I did not think it was proper for me to ask for a copy. He was courteous in giving us the information as an explanation of why he acted. He said it was not personal interest in the bill, but that the Department had been very insistent that he recall the bill for further consideration.

Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, may I offer this letter for the record, and may I read the paragraph in question, because I think it will clear up the matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Inasmuch as you have made your oral explanation, without objection we will have the letter placed in the record for what use the committee may wish to make of it. I presume you have covered the situation in a general way.

Mr. COLLIER. There is one point which the letter brought out which I may or may not have brought out properly, which bears directly on the question of fees, if I might read two paragraphs of it. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. COLLIER (reading):

The present bill which is section 2 is, in my judgment, desirable, and not unfair to the Government, broadens the basis of the Indians' claim, and makes possible a substantially increased recovery, which was estimated at the hearings as a