HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
Conques HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SEVENTY-THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

ON

H.R. 7902

A BILL TO GRANT TO INDIANS LIVING DEDERAL
TUTELAGE THE FREEDOM TO ORGANIZE FOR UR-
POSES OF LOCAL SELF-GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMIC
ENTERPRISE; TO PROVIDE FOR THE NECESSARY
TRAINING OF INDIANS IN ADMINISTRATIVE AND
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS; TO CONSERVE AND DEVELOP
INDIAN LANDS; AND TO PROMOTE THE MORE EFFEC-
TIVE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE IN MATTERS
AFFECTING INDIAN TRIBES AND COMMUNITIES BY
ESTABLISHING A FEDERAL COURT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

43071

PART 9

Printed for the use of the Committee on Indian Affairs

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1934

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, D.C.

The committee met in its committee room, Capitol, at 10 a.m., Hon. Edgar Howard (chairman) presiding.

Present: Representatives Howard, Chavez, Ayers, Stubbs, Hill, Murdock, Werner, Lee, Peavey, De Priest, Gilcrist, Collins, Christianson, Dimond, and Greenway.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

The committee meets this morning pursuant to its own order at the last meeting for a further hearing on H.R 7902, which is a bill to be heard before this committee. We are meeting to give opportunity to such persons as desire to be heard.

I see the Commissioner is here. Have you anything further to offer, Mr. Commissioner?

Mr. COLLIER. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to offer any more testimony or any further witnesses, because it is our hope that the committee may go to work on the bill in order to shape it up.

I would like to complete the offering for the record of the action by the Indians insofar as they have registered with us on the various referendums or official actions which we have received from the tribes or tribal councils for and against the bill.

Mr. PEAVEY. Would you give us a summary without going into complete detail?

Mr. COLLIER. The official vote, as it is called here, is as follows, to May 7:

Favorable, 55 tribes, 141,881 Indians; unfavorable, 12 tribes, 15,106 Indians.

Now, the details are cited in this exhibit I have here. The only way we could see to arrive at it was this: Where a tribal council has acted, we have assumed they have spoken for the whole tribe.

Where a referendum was held, we assumed that that put the whole tribe on record. In other words, where a tribe was for the bill, it was counted as entirely for it, and where it was against the bill it was counted entirely against it.

Had we attempted to say a portion of the tribe was for and a portion against, we could not have done so. Where actual elections were held, we believe the report is a pretty accurate cross section of the Indian opinion at this stage.

Mr. GILCHRIST. What was the actual vote when you had it, Mr. Commissioner?

397