For that area in the State of California which was held by possessory right by the nontreaty Indians, who are estimated to equal in number the treaty Indians, or a probable total area of 30,000,000 acres, at a fixed award of $1.25 per acre For benefits promised but not delivered under the 18 unratified treaties, as pleaded by the attorney general of California in his petition in the Court of Člaims__ Total gross award___ $37, 500, 000 7, 000, 000 74, 500, 000 Against the above total, the Government set-offs as computed by the General Accounting Office, $12,170,200. Now, the amount that has been derived by all Indian tribes from suits in the Court of Claims to this date through all the years is about $18,000,000. I assert that anybody who tries to get something going beyond this, what was put in the original bill, that is, $1.50 an acre for half of California, not only that, but to get the value of the oil and coal thereon, plus the value of loss of use, running the bill into hundreds of millions of dollars, such a person, unless he is an ignoramus, must know that such a bill would die in Congress or under a veto. The thing which I have feared and still fear is not the veto aspect, but the danger on the floor from the generosity of the award, even in this bill before your committee. No bill so generous has been offered before. If I wanted to go out and stir up the Indians, I might put in these things which render the bill incapable of being passed, and I could easily run it up to thousands of millions of dollars, and in a theoretical way you could justify it. The Indians owned the whole State of California, and the whole State of California is worth billions of dollars, and so forth. But I take it we are interested in getting results. Furthermore, these gentlemen did not agree under protest to cut off the fantastic allowances in the bill, but agreed that they should be cut out is because they wanted to pass the bill. It is very unfair and unsportsmanlike to come in now this way. Mr. BUTLER. Every amendment which you offered under the plea of harmony, trying to get something, was to narrow the jurisdiction of the court and then to cut down the judgment of the court. Mr. COLLIER. I repeat that the gentlemen who are interested in that part of the bill did that, I presume, because they wanted to get a bill and get it signed, and they agreed that the amount of award, the measure of award contained in this bill, was as far as we could hope to go. I am quite sure that the committee will feel that it is very far. Now I would call your attention to another phase of Mr. Butler's statements Mr. BUTLER. Before you go any further, did you apply the epithet of ignoramus to me just now? Mr. COLLIER. I applied the epithet of ignoramus to anybody who thinks they can put into a jurisdictional bill everything under the sun. Mr. BUTLER. I am the kind of ignoramus who has gotten more money for the Indians than your Bureau, and one who has never lost an Indian case. Besides, I want to repeat, and with emphasis, that neither the Attorney General of California nor the Department have ever asked Congress to amend the original Jurisdictional Act of 1928 to permit all of the claims of the Indians of California to be presented to the court. That broadened jurisdiction has been worked out by the attorneys employed by these Indians, based largely on the facts developed by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs at the hearings in California. I submit that these attorneys are the proper parties to take the testimony in support of the same and to conduct the case in the court. These Indians are justified in saying that they cannot trust the Attorney General to take the testimony necessary to get a substantial judgment from the court. Mr. COLLIER. I mean under the existing act, what any lawyer can plead for. You are rigidly limited by the terms of the act. You talk about what ought to be done under that existing act in getting for the nontreaty Indians an award for the acreage which they occupied, not covered into the treaties. That is truly simple nonsense. The only way to enable them to get in is to amend the act, as we are proposing, and bring them in, and create the right to sue and the right to recover. Throughout these years the attorney general has been criticized because he did not make rhetorical pleas before the Court of Claims for types of award which he is not entitled to plead under the act. The issue before us is whether we are going to broaden the act so that he can broaden them and get them. These Indians throughout the years have been told by lawyers that the attorney general is asking a net award of 6 million dollars or 7 million dollars, and he might have asked for an award of 100 million dollars under the old act. He could ask for the increased award under this proposed amended act. He could not ask for it under the existing act. The CHAIRMAN. These hearings have been going on for quite a while now, and it appears to the chairman that it has developed into a class of testimony that is of no benefit to the committee. However, I am at the pleasure of the committee. I will ask whether or not you want to hear any further testimony regarding this bill. Senator FRAZIER. I have been at a loss to know why the bill was called back, after it was passed here by the committee and the Senate. If there is no objection, I would like to have an explanation from the Commissioner. Mr. COLLIER. I would be glad to explain it over again, Senator. The bill as reported out by the committee it is of no importance that it was not in accordance with the departmental opinion, because there is no reason why a bill should be in accordance with the departmental opinion, but the reason for the departmental opinion is the important thing—and in dealing with an existing suit in the Court of Claims, a suit that is being conducted by a lawyer designated by Congress, the attorney general of California has prosecuted that suit with diligence and effectiveness. I am stating our view of it. The bill, as reported, in section 4 did two things: It first provided that new lawyers could be imported into the case by such Indians as might gather at the conventions, and it would make them coordinate with the attorney general and not assistants to the attorney general, and they could do with the suit what they would. In the second place, it provided that where a suit is now being conducted gratuitously, and well conducted, and would be conducted to the end without charge, these lawyers who might be projected into it by a group of Indians would be entitled to payment as though they had initiated the suit and had conducted it and were conducting it in behalf of all the Indians and not in behalf of the Indians who employed them. Senator FRAZIER. That is all very true, but it was all in the bill when it was reported out. Mr. COLLIER. Certainly it was all in the bill when it was reported out, but it was not in the bill at any time as recommended by the Department, or in any recommendation made by the Department. Senator FRAZIER. The representatives of the Department were here in the meeting when it was reported out. Mr. COLLIER. No, we were not. The record contains exactly what the Department recommended. It was placed not only verbally but in writing, and it was in substance what I have been offering here today. The report erroneously stated that the Department had concurred, but it had not, and had pointed out expressly why it could not concur, and pointed out what could be done to allow the Indians to have representation if they wanted it, and still make the bill a feasible bill. Senator FRAZIER. I am frank to say that it was my understanding that the Department had concurred in the bill when it was reported out. Mr. COLLIER. You were misinformed, Senator. What we put in the hands of the committee is here printed in this report, showing what we recommended. The thing was done in haste and done in mistake.· Senator FRAZIER. You cannot say it was done in haste, because we had hearings from time to time, and several meetings. Mr. COLLIER. The record is extremely clear on this, and so are the prints, and if you will read them you will find the Department did not agree with that feature of the bill, although it was quoted as doing so. We stated in writing that we did not agree, and made a proposal similar to what I am making now. Secretary Ickes made that clear in a letter to the chairman. That was not the purpose of recalling the bill. The purpose of recalling the bill was, in the judgment of many, the bill was not in proper form and would not get Presidential signature in the form as originally reported, whereas I think it is possible to fix up the bill and still protect every Indian of California as to representation by attorney. Senator FRAZIER. I am sorry that I could not be here during all the hearings, but do you think you can get together with the representatives on the bill and protect the Indians? Mr. COLLIER. We have tried to do so, but we are not in accord on this feature. Of course, we think they should be in agreement with what we have put forward here, because we think it meets every legitimate need, but they do not think so, and you cannot get people to agree when they do not, and you have to arbitrate. Senator FRAZIER. You can understand, Mr. Commissioner, it is rather disconcerting, to say the least, to the committee here, after working on a bill a long time, and finally getting it passed by the Senate, to then have it called back at the request of the Department and it does not set well with us. Mr. COLLIER. It was not called back at the request of the Department. Senator FRAZIER. Yes, sir; Senator King said it was called back at the request of the Department. Mr. COLLIER. I can put it the other way: The Department could protest against being quoted as having endorsed a bill which it never endorsed. It had not endorsed it. The record is perfetcly clear on that. Mr. BUTLER. Senator King stated it over his signature that the Department requested the bill to be withdrawn. I have a copy of the letter. Mr. COLLIER. In that event, the Department would be put into an untenable situation, because, if the bill goes to the President for signature, the Department would have to point out its position, which would be adverse, the view that the Department pointed out in detail before the committee presented the bill for consideration. Mr. MEANEY. Mr. Chairman, may I say a few words? The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, please. Senator Chavez, have you any suggestions to make about the hearing? Senator CHAVEZ. So far as the hearings are concerned, I have had enough. The CHAIRMAN. Senator Frazier, have you any further suggestions to make about what you want? Senator FRAZIER. Unless they can get together and agree on it, that is the only thing I know of. Apparently we cannot reach any definite decision by the committee here. The CHAIRMAN. The trouble now is over the attorney's fees and the representation of the Indians in the trial yet to be held, and in the preparation of a case that is now pending, perhaps in a case now ready for trial. Mr. COLLIER. Senator Frazier, I pointed out to the committee that the important part of the bill, which means most to the California Indians, is not contested, and it would be very simple to split the bill in two parts and let the contest rage over the part contested, and let the rest of it be unanimously supported, but these gentlemen are not willing to do that. STATEMENT OF JOHN S. MEANEY ON BEHALF OF MISSION INDIANS Mr. MEANEY. I want to say just a few words, Mr. Chairman. I want to bring to the attention of the committee the fact that the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives has had extensive hearings on a similar bill, and that the House Committee on Indian Affairs reported favorably on an identical bill to S. 1793. The exact wording is included in the bill which was reported favorably by that House committee. I also want to point out and bring to the attention of the committee the point that you can obtain official information on that matter, because a favorable report has been printed. However, this point which I am about to bring out can only be confirmed by conferring with certain Congressmen who are members of the House Committee on Indian Affairs. These Congressmen were members of a subcommittee appointed by the House committee to investigate the various complaints of the Indians. One of those complaints happened to be relative to the conduct of this suit by the attorney general, and I think that I can say definitely, because it has been so said before the House Committee on Indian Affairs, that that subcommittee has come to the conclusion, after having heard evidence, that the attorney general of California has not conducted this case with due diligence. That statement was made by Congressman McGroarty and Congressman Burdick, who were both members of that subcommittee, and that statement was made in a published hearing of the House Committee on Indian Affairs. The only point of contention in this bill now is relative to attorneys, and I do not believe that I can add anything more to what has already been stated, that these Indians are not only entitled, they have the inherent right to attorneys of their own selection, but also, I think it has been shown, from a practical point of view, that they actually need attorneys. The attorney general, during all the time that he has had charge of this case, has never come to Congress, and he has never presented to you the fact that the nontreaty Indians were not covered by the jurisdictional act under which he was in court. Now I say to you that that is a practical matter, and it shows clearly and distinctly that he was not properly representing the interests of those Indians because, if he had been, he would have been here in Congress and would have said to you gentlemen, "This bill is not adequate. This jurisdictional act of May 18, 1928, does not properly take care of the interests of these Indians." Senator CHAVEZ. But we are taking care of them under this bill? Mr. MEANEY. We are taking care of them under this bill. Senator CHAVEZ. The difficulty, as I see it, is nothing but the matter of attorneys. That is all it is. Mr. MEANEY. That is all it is now, Senator. Senator CHAVEZ. The Indians have been protected, so far as the bill is concerned. Mr. MEANEY. Except this point, Senator: My remarks are pointing to the fact that there may be some embarrassment to the attorney general, if this bill is reported out in its present form. This committee knows that, and it is of secondary importance. That should not be allowed to interfere with the interests and rights of these Indians. They have come here and said, "We want attorneys of our own selection." I say to you now that the fact that the attorney general may or may not be embarrassed by the action of this committee should not be considered. Your only point in this case is whether or not the interests of these Indians are being properly handled. Private attorneys have come here and submitted this broadened claim, not the attorney general of the State of California, and, with all due respect to his ability and integrity, I say that he was too busy to have paid sufficient personal attention to this matter. In fact, I think that the record will show that he probably did not pay any personal attention to it, but turned it over to some subordinate or assistant. Therefore, I respectfully appeal to you gentlemen, in the interests of these Indians, to re-report this bill, which has already been reported by the House Committee on Indian Affairs, that is, an identical bill. Mr. CoSTo. May I say a word, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Give your name to the reporter. Mr. COSTO. Rupert Costo, of the California Indian Rights Association. The CHAIRMAN. Are you an Indian yourself? |