the claim and pass on it and recommend that if somebody had been instrumental in filing this bill before the Congress, and getting it started, and getting the Indians an award, that those attorney, would receive favorable consideration at the hands of the Department which would come to Congress and explain it to the congressional committees, and consider any recommendation made by the Department.

I want to see these Indians get into court and get the matter settled, but personally I do not want to encumber any bill with nonessential provisions or improvident provisions or provisions that will present false hopes in the minds of attorneys or other people in connection with this legislation.

That gives you my viewpoint. I would be very glad to hear from those representing others, if they care to be heard any further.

Mr. COLLETT. Mr. Chairman, may I present my letter to Senator King?

The CHAIRMAN. Following the introduction of the letters sent by the Commissioner to Senator King, without objection, Mr. Collett, who claims to represent some of these Indians, will have the privilege of submitting his reply. To whom is your letter addressed?

Mr. COLLETT. Senator King.

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will go into the record at that point.

Mr. MEANEY. I have just this to add, Mr. Chairman:

The Commissioner has stated that all of the testimony in this case will be record testimony. That is not the case. It will not be all record testimony.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understand it, he said that from his viewpoint any other testimony would not be of very much benefit. I do not think the Commissioner would undertake to say what kind of testimony the attorney general of California will present to the court.

Mr. COLLIER. As a matter of fact, there would undoubtedly be verbal testimony, Mr. Chairman. The court would call before it Dr. C. Hart Merriam and other Smithsonian men making maps, and they would be cross-examined by the attorney. There is nobody who can impeach the record built up by the Government, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Furthermore, the Commissioner said that there would be put in what would be of value to the Court of Claims, considering any order that they might make in the case, as I see it.

Mr. MEANEY. My belief is that the Indians are not only entitled to have attorneys of their own choosing, but private attorneys are required practically to properly protect their interests.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you not admit that if private attorneys are employed by these Indians, and those attorneys pretend or assume to act, that the attorney general will step out of the case and tell you to go ahead with it? Is not that what will happen?

Mr. MEANEY. I do not know exactly what the attorney general will do.

The CHAIRMAN. The attorney general is getting no remuneration out of this case. It is all surplus work on his part, and, if the Congress sees fit to pass a bill providing for additional attorneys, that could only be a criticism of the attorney general, and, as a reasonable man-and he must be a reasonable man, having held the position for

a long time, and having been reelected from year to year, and continuing to act in that capacity for a long time I take it that he would be compelled to get out of the case.

Mr. COLLIER. He has said that he would.

The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to get the case completely in the record, and if any of the attorneys have performed any work for the Indians, let them come forward and present a claim, and Congress will consider it. But I do not want to encumber this bill with something that is impractical and which will cause a delay of maybe 2 or 3 more years.

Mr. MEANEY. Mr. Chairman, these Indians are entitled to attorneys of their own choosing.

The CHAIRMAN. Why was not that provided for when the bill was passed in 1928?

Mr. MEANEY. That I do not know.

Mr. COLLETT. I can explain that. The bill was introduced five different times. The first time it passed on the Unanimous Consent Calendar, and had the approval of all parties and committees. It failed of passage in the House, due to congestion.

Then we were up against Secretary Albert B. Fall, who reversed the policy of allowing the Indians to go to court. He said they might recover a larger amount than an economical Congress would be willing to pay, so that we were not able to get very far; and met with these different difficulties, until finally, in 1928, we were able to get before Congress again, and it seemed desirable to follow the Department's suggestion, which came up for the first time, that the attorney general of California be used. He was named. But he has not proceeded with due diligence, and many of the claims have not been presented. All of the Government's offsets should be carefully checked. His petition prays for $12,800,000, and the Government has already, through the Accounting Office, set up $12,170,000, almost enough to dispose of the entire amount of his prayer.

There are many things about this case that should be cared for by our own attorneys, who are responsible to the Indians. The attorney general is not responsible to them. He was chosen by the Government, the information presented here shows.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought I was correct in the interpretation of this hearing that it was the desire to the Indians, if represented by counsel, to take this case out of the attorney general's hands, and I think that is confirmed by the statement just made.

Mr. COLLETT. If any Indians want the attorney general, they will be permitted to have him under the bill as passed here, and every group of Indians in California may choose their own attorney.

Senator CHAVEZ. How many groups of Indians do you represent? Mr. COLLETT. I represent about 17,000 Indians in the State of California who are organized in auxiliaries of the Indians of California, Inc.

Senator CHAVEZ. How many different groups of attorneys are interested?

Mr. COLLETT. There are probably two or three different groups of attorneys interested. There is one attorney who came in last January. Senator CHAVEZ. Mr. Harper?

133805-35---8

Mr. COLLETT. No. He organized a few Indians in Los Angeles, in order that he might get into the case. We have no objection to him being in, if the Indians want him.

Mr. COLLIER. To answer your question as to how the attorney general of California was brought into the situation, Mr. Chairman, it was on the initiative of this Department and Congressman Lea, the sponsor of the bill. It was before the State of California, the Indians, and the Congress, for quite a long time, and hearings were held, and there was unanimity for doing what was done, because it would save the Indians money, and Attorney General Webb was known to be a very high type. Now, if the thing which these gentlemen are asking is done, he would have to view it as an ouster, and it seems to me he should not be ousted except on a showing of facts that he has been derelict in some. way or other, and absolutely no such showing has been made to date.

Senator DONAHEY. He is a responsible public official?

Mr. COLLIER. He is doing his best and doing all any attorney could do. There is no conflict of interest. The whole State of California wants them to get as much from the Government as they can, or to get all they can out of the Government, because it does not cost the State anything.

These parties have been before the Congress from year to year and have not been contending for a broadened basis but merely asking for additional attorneys in the case. They are now contending with us for a broadened basis, which really contemplates deriving more for the Indians from the language of the bill, but not as much as under the Claims Commission bill.

I am willing to admit that everybody has been derelict in not seeking heretofore to get a broadened basis for the claims, that is, all the parties, ourselves, and the attorney general, but now we are seeking it.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not criticizing the attorneys for wanting a chance to get paid for what they have done, because it is my understanding that the Indian Office would present these claims to the Government. A few years ago, after 20 years of work, the Choctaws and Chickasaws got a jurisdictional bill passed, which was vetoed by the President, after it was passed. I have no definite knowledge that it was recommended by the Indian Office, but I have reason to believe it was. The Department of Justice is against the Indians, and I might say that all the different Departments of Justice in the past were against the Indians.

This bill is here as other bills before us, not because of the Department of Justice, but they are here with their opposition. They are not here because of any interest taken by the Indian Office in past years, but here under their opposition. I am not averse to giving lawyers a chance to come in in a proper way and prove what they have done, and, if they have done anything for some tribe, to recognize them. Otherwise, these Indians would never get into court. I can see something here which seems insurmountable, and my personal opinion is that we should go into this matter and if these lawyers have served the Indians in question, afford them a chance to come in later on and make their claim in a proper way, with proper consideration, and if they are entitled to anything, that will protect all of them.

Mr. MEANEY. Mr. Chairman, may I leave with the committee this thought:

There is a fundamental American principle that every individual is entitled to his own counsel. Never before in the history of this country has a client been in a position where he could not select attorneys or dismiss counsel that he had already chosen. Every attorney knows, and I think the majority of laymen know, that a client can dismiss his attorney at any time he so desires.

Now, the Indians are not at the present time requesting that the attorney general be dismissed. All they are requesting is the fundamental American principle that they have attorney or attorneys of their own choosing.

The CHAIRMAN. It occurs to the chairman of this committee that the action you are seeking to take would have that effect. I may be in error, but it seems to me the action you are seeking to have taken would bring about the dismissal of the attorney general of California and would place these claims from here on in the hands of attorneys selected by the Indians. It is a matter for the committee to decide, whether or not if should be done.

STATEMENT OF THOMAS L. SLOAN, REPRESENTING INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.

The CHAIRMAN. Where do you reside?

Mr. SLOAN. I am a member of the Omaha tribe of Indians of Nebraska. I am a lawyer by profession, and most of my life's work has been engaged in Indian affairs. I have always done my business on the basis of earning the fees that were given to me, and the trouble with a great many of them was that after I earned them the Indian Office would not pay them, and I have been holding the sack for years. I was called into the California Indian case a year ago last March by friends. A little study disclosed to me that the attorney general of California had exercised no diligence, no comprehension of the law under the existing act. It took him 15 months to prepare a petition, which excluded a large number of those who were included by the law, and they were excluded by specific allegations in the bill, which shut them out. I find that while these 15 months were passing, 13 other Indian cases had gotten in ahead of the California Indians' case, so that the Department, in its accounting office, put off some 5 or 6 years in making their accounting, before they reached the California Indians case which had to come in in its regular order. I found further, that the attorney general had not filed an amended bill until the case was placed upon the calendar to be dismissed, because diligence was not shown, and at that time he accepted the amendments which were offered by the attorneys for the Indians, and he included the Indians who were excluded by the attorney general himself.

The legal point which occurred to me was this: When that amendment was made, it was 10 months after the 3-year limitation provided for in the act. I found, upon looking at the authorities, that this proposition was true: That when new parties were brought in by amendment, and additional subject matter, that it was the same as a new case, and that it was too late to be effective in holding the case in court.

I reported the circumstances to Congressman Dockweiler and he asked me to write the attorney general. I did, and got a reply from him, in which he said the first bill was filed within the 3-year limitation. The amended petition was not filed until 10 months thereafter, and that disclosed to me that it took him 3 years and 10 months, or 46 months, to find out who his clients were, and to bring them into court, and that when he did so, he was too late. I submitted my brief to the leading lawyer on the House Indian Affairs Committee, a man from Iowa, Mr. Griswold, and he sided with me, that I was correct in that, and the attorney general himself, in the letter which he wrote to me, said that he would like to have an amendment, so that they would be sure to be in court, if the matter proceeded further. That jurisdictional matter has been passed on by the courts several times, including the Supreme Court of the United States, and every time they have held that the statute of limitations in the Court of Claims is jurisdictional, and that when that jurisdiction passes, it can only be overcome by additional legislation. The attorney general not only wrote to me but he wrote to the various Members of Congress, who called it to my attention, that he considered the amendment extending the time desirable, so as to be in court.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me say to you that the Senate is calling us over, and your argument is in favor of employing attorneys, which, in my judgment, means the elimination of the attorney general from the suit. I understand also that the legislature of California has passed a memorial asking for this legislation.

Without objection, Mr. Grorud will be authorized to secure a copy of this memorial and make that a part of the record of this case. (The memorial referred to which appears in the Congressional Record of June 19, 1935, is as follows:)

Whereas there is before the Congress of the United States a measure known as "Senate bill no. 1793", which has been passed by the United States Senate, which measure, if enacted into law, will provide relief for the Indians of California by which they may recover lands taken from them by the United States in California and which provides that the courts shall determine the value of personal property, rights, and improvements mentioned in unratified treaties entered into in the years 1851 and 1852; and

Whereas the Assembly of the State of California feels strongly that the Indians of the State of California are entitled to the simple justice which this measure will afford them: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That we most earnestly urge and respectully petition the President of the United States to give this measure his favorable consideration in order that California Indians may have their case come to an early trial and the good name of the United States of America be associated with fair and honest transactions with the Indians; and be it further

Resolved, That the chief clerk of the assembly be, and he is hereby, directed to forward a copy of this resolution to His Excellency, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States, and to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the Senators and Members of Congress representing the State of California in Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. It seems to me that the issue in this case is very simple, whether or not we are going to disturb the attorney general of California in handling this case, and I think the facts are before the committee. We will have to have an executive session to pass on that proposition.

The committee will stand adjourned until 10:30 a. m. next Monday.