Mr. COLLIER. No; that is not possible anyway, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I was asking if it is agreeable.

Mr. BUTLER. They share equally; it goes into a tribal fund.

The CHAIRMAN. I am trying to get an agreement that will provide for getting something. Then, after we get it, we can easily take care of the payments.

Now, it is impractical to legislate for the separate bands or to make a separate award for such band. All of Indians in California should be included on some roll, and that roll should be the basis of the distribution of funds secured by this suit. I am just trying to lay down a formula that will get us some place.

Mr. COLLIER. We would be in agreement with everything you have said, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. In making this general statement, the compensation in the first instance, that is the first thing to be considered. If that should be agreed to as a matter of policy, then it occurs to me that if any particular number of Indians, say in group A, if they want to employ attorneys to represent them, they might agree that they, group A, would be agreeable to have deducted from the award made to them as group A, a sum to pay the attorney's fee of the attorney who is to represent them in this suit. If any Indians did not care to employ any attorneys, why, they would not be required to employ an attorney, because the fee from that one group would be the fee from all the Indians, and that would be an incentive to keep Indians from employing attorneys indiscriminately. There would be no good purpose in the employment of one group of attorneys by the Mission Indians and another group by the northern Indians, and another by the central Indians. If these attorneys would not agree upon a line. of procedure jointly, they would not cooperate each with the other. At the same time, the Mission Indians might employ a group of attorneys, and then the northern Indians might employ another group of attorneys.

Senator Butler and his present clients might go ahead and prosecute this case and do the work, yet these attorneys who might hereafter be employed would share in the award unless there is some formula laid down to cover the employment of attorneys, but I am not so anxious in that particular as I am to get this legislation through so we can have a common program to be followed.

Mr. BUTLER. What you say is very true, Mr. Chairman, if there are 5,000 Indians that had no attorneys, if the groups that do employ them have competent attorneys, they will benefit without the necessity of employing any, but I think the principle that we have urged here under this amendment was that the Indians had a right to be represented if they wanted to, by attorneys of their own selection. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think that is a statement of principle that all recognize.

Mr. BUTLER. Now, what group of 18 or 20 Indians is going to employ a high-class counsel; they cannot pay them; they could not get a man. For this reason there are not going to be so many attorneys. But no matter how many attorneys there are a few will do the important part of the work and they should be properly compensated out of the whole fund which they have secured for all the Indians.

Now, there is a phase of this case that we have not yet considered, and that is how the Indians are to select their attorneys so that all will be satisfied. It has been suggested that 5 percent of the Indians in a group could employ an attorney. I must say that I have not agreed to 5 percent, or 10 percent, because I think it violates the basic principle that those that do want to employ counsel of their own selection should be allowed to do it, and I do not think it should be limited to a percentage. Even if it should result in the employment of a number of attorneys, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee, the courts control the litigation that is before them. The courts will not allow a case to suffer from dissensions among counsel. The court has the power to control its officers and to have them, and if there is any dissension, the court will see to it that the counsel get together and that they cooperate, and if they don't, the court will see to it that they do. If there is a disagreement among counsel, a different point of view, the court will handle it in a way that will be satisfactory to the interests of the Indians, and will be satisfactory to the court, and it will have to be satisfactory to any attorney who wants to keep his standing before the court. I do not think there will be any difficulty; I have not had any such difficulty in 40 years' of practice before this court, as well as all the other courts in the country, and I have never seen any interests of the clients suffer; if there was any disagreement, it was speedily corrected by the court.

Mr. SHIPE. Our difficulty is that no contracts have been approved for attorneys; no contracts have been approved by the Interior Department. Now, the gentleman that I am associated with in California, or the gentlemen, represent the northern Indians; something like probably 16,000. At least, that is the information that I have. Now, they have a contract with them but that contract, I do not know that it has ever been submitted to the Interior Department for approval. Anyway, I know that it would not be approved if it were submitted, under this bill which gave to the attorney general of California the right to file this petition in court.

Now, it seems to me that the proper thing to do is to work out some way which will give to the Indians of California their right to select their counsel. Now, I cannot think of any fairer way for them to have a convention for that purpose. It seems to me that one convention is enough; they can meet, vote, and select a counsel, and I do not think any firm of reputable attorneys would want to represent the Indians of California if the Indians did not and do not want them. I am sure that I do not.

Mr. COLLIER. I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that under the language as it stands here, any lawyer could go to any group of Indians in the State of California and get a contract, and then he would be in the suit. Thereafter, he would be awarded a part of the judgment, presumably awarded according to the energy with which he conducted his part in the suit, the energy with which he conducted his prosecution, and there certainly would be a powerful motive for a lot of attorneys to get in, and I cannot see the object that would be served by it, particularly as the issues here are largely, if not entirely, matters of record, and a record whose prima facie weight can never be controverted in court, and it seems to me that if Congress desires to put attorneys in in addition to the attorney general of California,

who is in now, then the way to do it would be to let the Indians get together and pick them, and have them all associated.

The CHAIRMAN. Two or three groups of counsel and associate them; that is all right. At least, we would have a group that would work jointly.

Mr. BUTLER. I think the Commissioner is a little unfortunate in his choice of words, "if Congress desires to put in attorneys in addition to the Attorney General", the Congress wants to give to these citizens of the United States necessary representation which every citizen is entitled before the courts.

Senator FRAZIER. I think the proper way to put it would be "the attorneys that want to get in", the Indians would want them.

Mr. COLLIER. The point I am trying to get is that it should be placed upon a sound basis, and if you are going to have several attorneys, they should be in association, at least associated under a contract.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, it seems that the attorney general of California has been commissioned to represent the California Indians and bring this suit and prosecute this suit. Now, there is some difference over the question of whether or not he has done his work with the proper dispatch. I do not care to go into that. It occurs to me that those Indians in California are satisfied with the work of the attorney general as they are represented should not be required to pay any additional attorney fees, or to pay the fees of any attorney for their tribe. If they are satisfied to let the attorney general of California represent them, they should be privileged to go ahead and not be obligated for any fees other than what the attorney general may be allowed, and, as I understand, he is acting in his official capacity.

On the other hand, if there are Indians in California that believe that their interests would be served to better advantage by employing special counsel, it occurs to me that they ought to be required to set up some kind of a written document in the event an award is made and fees are fixed for the attorneys of their selection, that they should be obligated to pay or have deducted from their quota of the award a certain percent to pay these attorneys' fees. That would be entirely fair and, of course, that would cause a scramble perhaps among the attorneys of California to go around and get individual signatories employing them as attorneys. But here we are discussing attorneys' fees on an award, that has not yet been made.

Mr. SHIPE. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that I have ever done a thing like that; I have never proposed to do it. I do not want the Indians of California or anybody else to have me representing them if they do not want me. And as to the Senator's statement a little while ago, I think that if he knew me better he would not make such a broad statement.

Senator FRAZIER. Well, I still maintain that if this results in the millions of dollars it probably would if it goes through, giving the attorneys 10 percent of $40,000, if the Commissioner is correct in his figures, I would still insist that the boundaries be well definied, and if the Commissioner is correct in his statement that the boundaries of the proof are well defined that there should be practically no need of any attorneys at all, it would seem to me.

Mr. COLLIER. There is no questioning the correctness of that statement, and it could be established to the satisfaction of the committee.

Mr. BUTLER. I have never known a case where the Indians were more in need of competent counsel who know how and who will do the work necessary to protect their rights.

The CHAIRMAN. As a means of bringing this important question to an end, I suggest that the Commissioner submit his amendment to this bill and likewise that we afford the persons who are representing the Indians the opportunity of submitting amendments, and if they can submit their amendments today, and it is agreeable, we will meet tomorrow at 10:30 o'clock in executive session, and consider them in the hope of doing something to get this matter on its way through Congress. Is that agreeable to the Commissioner?

Mr. COLLIER. It is very agreeable to us.

Mr. BUTLER. It is agreeable to me and I am sure to all others. The CHAIRMAN. And then the committee will take up your suggestions and try to work out some plan which will get this legislation on its way through the Congress.

Mr. BUTLER. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for your courtesy, and if it is agreeable, we will have our amendment in the hands of the committee this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. Give them to Mr. Grorud, and then we will meet some future date and consider the suggestions of the respective parties.

The hearings will be closed on this particular bill. Inasmuch as there are some important matters coming before the Senate today, I find it necessary to have a little time for myself before 12 o'clock, so, unless there is something urgent to come up this morning, the committee will stand in recess then until further call of the chairman.

TABLE 17.-Indians, Chinese, and Japanese, 1910 to 1930, and Mexicans, 1930, for counties in California and for cities of 25,000 or more

TABLE 17.-Indians, Chinese, and Japanese, 1910 to 1930, and Mexicans, 1930, for counties in California and for cities of 25,000 or more-Continued

MY DEAR SENATOR: Complying with the request of your committee, the following amendments are suggested to the bill S. 1793, amending the California Jurisdictional Act of May 18, 1928.

1. In the last line of the title change the figures “43” to “45.” This merely corrects the statute citation.