PAGENO="0001" 2/ ~iq YAKIMA TRIBAL ENROLLMENTS HEARING BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS UNITED STATES SENATE NINETIETH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON S. 1764 TO REPEAL SECTION 7 OF THE ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1946 (60 STAT. 968) MARCH 4, 1968 0 Printed for the use of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs $4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE ~ I WASHINGTON 1988 ~JLINj if f; ~L7(~ PAGENO="0002" COM~EITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INStJLAR AFFAIRS HENRY h~. ~fAC~SON, Wkshjngton, Ch4irman CLINTON P. ANDERSON, New Mexico THOMAS IT. KITCHEL, California ALAN BIBLE, Nevada GORDON ALLOTT, Colorado FRANK CHURCH, Id~ho LEN 13, JORDAN, Idaho ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona FRANK B. MOSS, Utah CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon CARL HAYDEN, Arizona GEORGE MCGOVERN, South Dakota GAYLORD NELSON, Wisconsin LEE METCALF, Montana JERRY P. VERKLER, Staff Director STEWART FRENCH, Chief Counsel E. LEWIS REID, Minority Counsel JAMES GAMBLE, Professional Staff Member SUBCOMIIT~JjER oI~ I~ni~r~ AFFAIRS GEORGE MCGOVERN, South Dakota, Chairman HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington PAUL J. FANNIN, Arizona CLINTON P. ANDERSON, NOW Mexico CLIFFORD P. HANSEN, Wyoming ERNEST GRUENING, Alaska MARK 0. HATFIELD, Oregon QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota LEE METCAL~,R~oi~thLna (17) / S PAGENO="0003" CONTENTS Page S.1764 1 Departmental reports: Bureau of the Budget 2 Department of the Interior 1 STATEMENTS Bennett, Robert L., Commissioner of Indian Affairs; accompanied by Erma Walz, chief, Branch of Travel Operations, Department of the Interior Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon 30 Dellwo, Robert D., attorney, Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, and Kalispel Tribes; accompanied by Joseph R. Garry, chairman, Coeur d'Alene Tribe 40 Grorud, Albert A., attorney, Washington, D.C 45 Additional statement 48 Hovis, James, attorney, the Yakima Tribe 11, 19 Jim, Robert, chairman, Yakima Tribal Council 5, 14 Olney, Orville Nelson, Yakima Indian Tribe 63 Panner, Owen M., attorney, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; accompanied by Olney Patt, chairman, Tribal Council, and Vernon Jackson, general manager 27 Seelatsee, Eagle, chairman, Yakima Enrollment Committee 8 Spokane, Coeur d'Alene, and Kalispel Tribes 43 Totus, Watson, member, Yakima Tribal Council 12 Umtuch, George, delegate, Yakima Tribe 13 Workman, Grace Edsel, enrolled member of the Yakima Nation 45 Yakima Tribe 23 COMMUNICATIONS Hovis, James B., Yakima tribal attorney: letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated April 4, 1968 63 Hubbard, J. Frank, Los Angeles, Calif.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated March 2, 1968.. 65 Johnson, Sam, House of Representatives, Salem, Oreg.: Letter to Hon. Mark 0. Hatfield, U.S. Senate, dated March 1, 1968 63 McLeod, Malcolm S., Seattle, Wash.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated February 26, 1968 66 Mockel, Myrtle B., Tacoma, Wash.: Letter to Hon. Henry M. Jackson, chairman, Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, dated March 2, 196& 66 Nicholson, Narcisse, Jr., chairman, Colville Business Council: Letter to Hon. George Mc Govern, chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, dated March 6, 1968 64 Silva, John P., chairman, Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians: Letter to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs dated February 23, 1968... - - 66 (III) PAGENO="0004" PAGENO="0005" YAKIMA TRIBAL ENROLLMENTS MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1968 TJ.S. SENATE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN A1~'FAIRs OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, Washi'ngton, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:10 a.m., in room 3110, New Senate Office Building, Senator Clinton P. Anderson pre~ siding. Present: Senators Anderson, Fannin, and Hatfield. Also present: James IL Gamble, professional staff member. Senator ANDERSON. The subcommittee will come to order, The purpose of the hearing this morning is to take testimony in connection with 5. 1764, the bill introduced by Senators Morse and Hatfield to repeal section 7 of the Yakima Enrollment Act of 1946. The Department of the Interior and the Bureau of the Budget have submitted favorable reports to the committee on the bill. 5. 1764 and the reports will be made a part of the record at this point. (The data referred to follows;) tS. 1764, 90th Cong., first sess.] A BILL To repeal section 7 of the Act of August 9, 1946 (60 Stat. 968) Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives oj' the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 7 of the Act of August 9, 1946 (60 Stat. 968), which limits inheritance or devise of restricted or trust property of decreased members of the Yakima Tribes to enrolled members of those tribes of one-fourth or more degree of Indian blood, is hereby repealed, but such repeal shall have no effect on the estates of Yakima Indians who died prior to this date. DEPAnTMENT or THE INTERIOR, OFFICE or THE SECRETARY, Washington, D.C., July 7, 1967. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C. DEAn SENATOR JACKSON: Your Committee has requested a report on 5, 1764, a bill "To repeal section 7 of the Act of August 9, 1946 (60 Stat. 968)." We recommend that the bill be enacted. The bill repeals section 7 of the present law with respect to cases arising in the future. The repeal does not operate retroactively. The present law, which would be repealed, makes membership in a tribe a requirement for an heir or devisee to inherit trust or restricted allotments within the reservation. Generally, the right of inheritance is not restricted in such manner, but is governed by the laws of descent and distribution of the State in which such property is located. Although the tribe originally may have bad good reasons for requesting the Congress to enact such legislation, it should be recognized that it works an in- justice upon children who have less than one-fourth degree of Yakima Indian blood or who were born away from the reservation, and it also works an injustice (1) PAGENO="0006" 2 on the non-Yakima spouse who may have helped for years in the building and development of the estate of the deceased member. The repeal of section 7 wIll leave in full force and effect the provisions of the Acts of February 8, 1887 (24 Stat. 388), as amended, and June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 855), as amended, which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to approve wills and determine the heirs of the Indians owning restricted property in accordance with the State laws of descent and distribution. The 1887 and 1910 Acts are now betng applied to the estates of deceased Yakirna Itidians, except as limited by section 7 of the 1946 Act. We believe that in fairness to heirs and devisees of a Yakima Indian, who in many instances are persons ~f Yakim~ Indian blood, a more liberal attitude should be taken toward their right to inl~er1t. Repealing this section would be fair and just, and would permit carrying out the wishes of the husband or wife who holds such trbst or restricted property, or the parent who may wish to see that his children are provided for. Therefore, we recommend its repeal on the ground that It is inequitable. The following Information is submitted with respect to the operation of section 7 in the past: Number of Yakima estates determined since 1946 through June 30, 1966___ 794 Bnrolled Yakimas, including husbands, wives', chIldren, grandchildren, and other relatives, excluded by reason of section 7 of 1946 Act from inheriting (not having required quantum of Yakima Indian blood) 287 Unenrolled heirs, including husbands, wives, children, etc., excluded from inheriting by reason of 1946 Act - 494 Unenrolled spouses limited to life estate in one-half of real property 83 There have been 69 cases, involving 146 tracts, where land has been eonveyed inter vivos to children, spouses, etc., of Yakima allottees who would not be eligible to inherit due to the provisions of the present law. In these cases the grantor reserved life use of the estate. The Bureau of the Budget has advised that there is no objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint of the Administration's program. Sincerely yours, HAERT R. ANDERSON, Assistant Secretary of the Interior. ExEcuTivE OFFIcE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAu or THE BUDGET, `Washington, D.C., July 5, 1967. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S. Senate, New Senate Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This is in reply to your request for the views of the Bureau of the Budget on S. 1764, a bill "To repeal section 7 of the Act of August 9, 1946 (60 Stat. 968)." The Bureau of the Budget would have no objection to the enactment of S. 1764. Sincerely yours, WILFRED H. ROMMEL, Assistant Director for Legislative Reference. Senator ANDERSON. I understand there are several witnesses from the Yakima Tribe in the city who wish to be heard. If I do not call your name and you wish to speak on this legislation, I hope you will let me know for we want to make certain that everyone has an oppor- tunity to express his views. Our first witness will be the Honorable Robert L. Bennett, Com- missioner of Indian Affairs. PAGENO="0007" 3 STATEMENT OP ROBERT L BENN~ETT, COMMISSIONE~ O~' IN~I4~ APPAIRS, DEPARTMENT OP THE INT~RIOR; ACCOMPANIED BY ERi~A WALZ, CHIEF, BRANCH OF TRAVEL OPERATIONS Mr. BENNETT. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Robert L. Bennett, and I have with me Erma Walz, chief of the Branch of Travel Operations of our Washington office. I am gI~ad to appear before this subcommittee to discuss the provisions of S 1764 The purpose of S. 1764 is to repeal section 7 of the act of August 9, 1946. That section provides that only enrolled members of the Yakima Tribe of one-quarter or more Yakima blood can inherit any trust or restricted property of a deceased member, if the property came to the deceased through membership in the tribe or if the prop- erty consists of an allotment on the reservation or the area ceded by the treaty of June 9, 1855. The only exception is that a surviving spouse may take a life interest in one-half of the trust of restricted lands. This restriction on inheritance is unsound and often works a hard- ship on the family of a deceased member. It has been the cause of much ill feeling on the part of Indians belonging to other tribes. Per- sons of one-quarter or more Yakima blood can inherit land on their reservations, but they cannot inherit land at Yakima. It has also created dissention within the tribe itself, since uTiany enrolled members do not have the required blood quantum. In about 800 Yakima estates probated between 1946 and 1966, over 780 persons who were heirs under the laws of the State of Washington were precluded from in~ heriting the land of the deceased because of section 7. In order to avoid the harsh consequences of section 7, in 65 cases, involving 146 tracts, land has been conveyed inter vivos to children, spouses, and others who would not be eligible to inherit the land upon the death of the owner. In these cases the grantor has reserved a life ~estate in the property. It should not be necessary for Indians to have to use circuitous methods such as this to leave their property to members of their family. Over the years various tribes such as the IITmatilla and Warm Springs have had bills introduced which would establish reciprocity or retaliation for the unjust effects of section 7. This Department has ~opposed such legislation on the basis that it would merely compound an inequity. We still adhere to that view and recommend to this corn- mittee that S. 1764 be enacted. Senator A~cDERSON. This was amended in 1946? Mr. BENNETT, Section 7 of the act, August 9, 1946. And it is for the repeal of section 7, so that our heirs at law ~may in- herit in the estates of the Yakima Tribe. Senator ANDERSON. That is what the Yakima Tribe wants? Mr. BENNETT. The Yakima tribal group asked that section 7, as en- acted in 1946 to protect their lands, be not repealed. They thought that if heirs from other tribes or non-Indian heirs were allowed to inherit land on the reservation that they might sell this land or other- wise dispose of it and it would eventually, more or less, pass out of the Yakirna tribal ownership or the Owjiership of Yakima tribal mem- bers. This is the reason why they wanted section 7 and opposed repeal- PAGENO="0008" 4 ing .it~ However, there are several witnesses, here from the Yakima Tribe this morning to testify on that. Senator ANDERSON. Any questions, Senator Fannin? Senator FANNIN. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hatfield? Senator HATFIELD. I would like to ask one question. Is there a report from the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Iudian Affairs, relating to the original act passed on August 9, 1946? Mr. BENNETT. The Department made a report on this legislatiôn~ However, the report was not made to the Congress. It was made to the White House, after passage of the legislation~af~~~ it became a bill. And in this report the Department recommended the signature by the President. There was no report from the Department to the Congress during the consideration of this particular section. Senator HATFIELD. Is that not a little unusual procedure? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir; it is. Senator HATFIELD. Do you know why there was no report made to the Congress relating to the original bill? Mr. BENNETT. No, sir, I do not; other than the Yakima tribal mem- bers were working with some of the staff in the Department in the Bureau of Indian Affairs office in Chicago, and the liaison between the Congress and the tribal members and the Department was carried on here in Washington, and I do not know exactly why there was not a departmental report to the Congress. Senator HATFIELD. Then, if I understand you correctly, the Congress, when it originally passed this section of the act,' did not have the benefit of any study or any report as made by the Department~ Mr. BENNETT. There wa~ no report by the Department to the Con- gress when it was under consideration. Senator HATFIELD. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. What would be the result of this bill, if enacted? Mr. BENNETT. The result of this would be that the estates of the Yakima deceased tribal members would be probated through the usual probate laws governing Indian allotments and the responsibility would be with the Secretary of the Interior. In the probating of the estates, the heirs would be those as prescribed by State laws of the State of Washington, but the estates would be probated by examiners of inheritance under the authority of the Secretary of the Interior, This would mean that the Yakima tribal descendants would be pro- bated in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington under the regulations of the Secretary of the Interior. Senator ANDERSON. Do you have a report now on~ this bill? Mr. BENNETT. We have a report which was filed with this commit- tee on July 7, 1967. Senator ANDERSON. Part of the story is that you are asking the Congress to repeal this. The Congress has the responsibility. Would ~hi~ make the situation better or worse than it now is? Mr. BENNETT. We take the position that, since the Yakima tribal members can inherit on other reservations, we support the position of the members of other tribes that they should likewise have the right to inherit on the Yakima Reservation Several of the tribes have in- troduced bills to prevent them from inheriting, but we have opposed PAGENO="0009" 5 this, feeling that the better procedure would be to repeal section 7 of the 1946 law. Senator ANDERSON. You mean striking it entirely; do you not? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. Has this been approved by the Secretary of the Interior? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir; this is the Department's position. Senator ANDERSON. Do you feel that this is protecting the Indians' rights better than originally? Mr. BENNETT. This would put the Yakima Tribe in the same position as all of the rest of the tribes in connection with inheritance of allotted lands where the inheritance follows the State laws. This would be the only exception on allotted lands that there is in the United States. Senator ANDERSON. Do you, yourself, have any interest in this? Mr. BENNETT. No, sir. Senator ANDERSON. Who proposed it originally? Mr. BENNETT. This was introduced by Senator Morse for himself and Senator Hatfield, and we were asked to make a report on it, and we reported favorably on it. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you very much. Are you going to remain a while? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. Will the Yakima delegation come forward, please? Who is testifying? Mr. James Hovis. They all wish to testify, Mr. Chairman. Senator ANDERSON. Will you identify yourself for the record? STATEMENT OP ROBERT B. JIM, CHAIRMAN, YAKIMA TRIBAL COUNCIL Mr. JIM. Mr. Chairman, my name is Robert B. Jim. I am the chair- man of the Yakima Tribal Council, and I have with me three dele- gates, and the fourth one is on his way from the Willard Hotel. Mr. Eagle Seelatsee, Mr. Watson Totus, and Mr. George Umtuch are here. They are council members selected to testify in opposition to this bill. Mr. George TJmtuch is chairman of the Yakima General Council for the whole tribe. We are the delegates selected to oppose this, along with Mr. James B. Hovis, the tribal attorney, who will present the official statement. Senator ANDERSON. I understand that the Yakima Indians are Op- posed to this bill? Mr. Jn~i. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. This is the bill-~- Mr. JIM. Relating to the Yakima Indians. Senator ANDERSON. And they object to it? Mr. JIM. The Yakima Indians object to it. We intend to submit evidence to the fact that we are opposed to this bill, S. 1764, because our tribe voted this way. This bill has been law for 22 years, so we have prepared oral testimony on this to support our prepared state- ment in opposition to S. 164 in behalf of the Yakima Tribe. I have one other delegate who is coming. He is vice president of the National Congress of American Indians and will be here about 10:80. So, if you want us to proceed, we will do so. 93-379-68-2 PAGENO="0010" 6 Senator ANDERSON. I think you should proceed. I am anxious to know why the Indians object, and why the Department likes it. Mi~. JIM. Yes, sir~ Certainly, Senator Hatfield and Senator Famun,, we would want you to know that this is a privilege to appear before you lioday. We are the official delegation. I think it is only pertinent to note that two of our delegates, Mr. Seelatsee and Mr. Totus were elected from our tribe, having been elected by acclamation of the wb~le tribe in a legal meeting. We, of the Yakima Tribal Council, are selected here under authority of a resolution T-1O-61, section 3(c) of this act. We are the standing delegates representing the Yakima Indian Tribes on all matters for ~ period of 2 years. We are under the additional authority of T-38-56~ resolution of the Yakima Indian Tribe that was approved on the 26th of November, 1956. We are elected for a term of 4 years, and, as I have stated, we have brought the general council chairman who is~ more or less a lifetime appointee, Mr. Umtuch. He was selected as a. delegate to oppose this bill. We are descendants of a treaty made and ratified by the TJ.S~ Senate, and we are the descendants of people who have been there 14,000 years, and we believe that this is an internal matter. As we go along, I would like to introduce the witnesses. First, Mr. Eagle Seelatsee. Senator ANDERSON. Do you wish to have these people appear and~ testify? Mr. JIM. Yes, Mr. Chairman. They are here. Senator ANDERSON. I would like to know why this tribe opposes this bill? Mr. JIM. We have a delegation here. All of these witnesses that we intend to use will try to put across our point, why the actual act was made in the first place. We believe it was made to protect our lands from going out of trust. It is the intention to have these delegates read short statements in support of' our position on this bill. We will start with Mr. Seelatsee. Senator ANDERSON. What about this situation: The Indians say that~ they are opposed to it, and you say you favor it? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. Senator ANDERSON. Why the conflict of opinion? Mr. BENNETT. This is the Yakima Tribe. There are other tribes~ however, who favor the bill. Senator ANDERSON. What about this bill? We have the Yakima Indians here who are opposing it. Mr. BENNETT. This is in the interest of other tribes whose members would be entitled to inheritance on the land of the Yakima Reserva- tion if section ~ were repealed. At the present time, for example, if there was a member of the' Warm Springs Tribe, a lady, who married a member of the Yakima Tribe and her, husband died, she cannot inherit land on the Yakima Reservation, but if the reverse were true, if she would die, her Yakima husband can inherit land on the Warm Springs Reservation. This is' the issue. The Yakima Tribe wishes section 7 to remain as it is, and the members of the other tribes in that area, who have many members' who would otherwise inherit land on the Yakima Reservation, wish section 7 repealed. PAGENO="0011" 7 Senator ANDERSON. How about the other people who can inherit in the reservation? Mr. BENNETT. This is the position we take, because this was the situation ~n every reservation in the country ~except the Yakima Reservation on the inheritance of lodge lands. Mr. JIM. The Osages have similar provisions. Mr. BENNETT. This is on the mineral part, that is true. Senator ANDERSON. I would like to have a statement from you as to why this is now being proposed when the Indians oppose it and as to what the results would be. Are you not the Commissioner? Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir. In our report, the departmental report, we have pointed out that the number of Yakima estates in 20 years, from 1946 to 1966, handled by the probate examiner of the Interior Depart- ment,was 794 terminated, and the enrolled Yakimas, including hus- bands and wives, children and grandchildren, and other relatives who were excluded from participating in the estates, because they did not have one-fourth Yakima blood, were 287. tTnenrolled heirs, includin husbands, wives, and children from other tribes who were exclude from inheritance were 494. So, this is a total of 681 heirs who were excluded from participating in Yakima tribal estates because, while they might have been on the Yakima tribal roll, they did not have the one-fourth Indian blood or they may have been non-Indians or mem- bers of other tribes. Senator HATFIELD. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? Senator ANDERSON. Certainly. Senator HATFIELD. When these people are precluded from inheriting that then escheats back to whom? Mr. BENNETT. It goes to the closest heir of the decedent; rather than being the wife or children, it might be a third or fourth cousin or sOme other relative. Senator HATFIELD. But they are the ones who are still enrolled? Mr. BENNETT. These are the ones still enrolled and of one-fourth blood. Senator HATFIELD. So, the ones who stay around accumulate as op- posed to those who leave the tribe or who leaves, let us say, the actual area and move elsewhere, such as Seattle or Tacoma, do not? Mr. BENNETT. No, sir. Residence is not a requirement; it is the en- rollment. Senator HATFIELD. But if the father is Yakima, the child enrolled are living in Tacoma or Seattle, let us say, they are still Yakima In- dians, and they can be disenfranchised or divested. Mr. BENNETT. Not unless they are less than one-fourth blood. Senator HATFIELD. That is right. Less than one-quarter blood are enrolled. Mr. BENNETT. Yes, sir, that is correct. Senator HATFIELD. But if the father is Yakima, the child enroller at Warm Springs would not be able to inherit? Mr. BENNETT. That is correct. Senator HATFIELD. But if it is the other way around, if the Warm Springs tribesman married a Yakima and lives on the Yakima Reser- vation and that person died, they could inherit from Warm Springs? Mr. BENNETT. That is correct. PAGENO="0012" 8 Senator HATFIELD. So, it is all one way, Mr. Chairman. The Yakima gets it all coming his way, but they do not give out to any others. T can see why they are opposed to change. Senator ANDERSON. Will you please proceed? Mr. JIM. We have Mr. TJmtuch who will touch on that within his own family. We have the situation that some of his children are Yakimas and some areWarm Springs. Senator HATFIELD. I would. like to ask one further question: How was the vote within the Yakima Tribe? Was it unanimous in support of this position? Mr. JIM. Mr. Tjmtuch, I believe, has that. It was 137 to 3, I think that was the vote. It has been running that way-147 to 3. Senator ANDERSON. 147 to 3. Mr. UMTUOH. 137 to 4. Mr. JIM. That was 137 that were opposed to repeal. This was on De~. cember 14, 1967. Senator HATFIELD. What was the total vote? Mr. Jn~r~ I do not know the total.~ He is prepared to submit those minutes. Senator TIATFIELD. Thank you: Senator ANt~RsoN. The Y~kima Tribe is overwhelmingly in opposi~ tion to the bill, and the Commissioner favors it. Senator HATFIELD. It is all coming in their direction. I do not think that is amazing. I would be opposed to it if I were a Yakima. STATEMENT OP EAGLE SEELATSEE, CRAIRMAN, YAKIMA ENROLLMENT COMMITTEE Mr. SEi3~LATSEE. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, my name is Eagle Seelatsee, and I a member of the Yakima Tribe. This bill on the Yakimas has time and time again been before this com- mittee and other committees to try to repeal the act of August 9, 1946. The people of the Yakima Nation have been living under the Enroll- ment Act since it became Public Law 706 on August 9, 1946. There were reasons for proposing such an Enrollment Act. A sur- vey was made by the tribe and it was recommended that the only solution to our problem was to seek legislation through Congress to govern enrollment with the Yakima Tribe. In the years from 1944 to 1946 the General Council and Tribal Council both held meetings and had discussions on the ownership of trust property on the Yakima Reservation changing to fee patent, being sold and, thereby, leaving Indian ownership. This was because many of those allotted on the Yakima Reservation were not of Yakima blood, consequently their first aim was to dispose of these lands in the fastest way possible, get the money and leave the reservation. There were even cases of non- Indian marrying into the Yakima Tribe and murdering his spouse for the sake of securing ownership of the property, only to get a fee patent on the property and sell it. It is the descendants of such allottees who are now proposing such bills to amend and/or repeal the Enrollment Act. The majority of the menThers of the Yakima Tribe, through the action of the General Council, have voted to oppose any move to amend or repeal the Enrollment Act. The General Council has handed down PAGENO="0013" 9 instructions to the Tribal Council and on to the delegates to Wash- ington, D.C., to oppose any bill to amend or repeal the Enrollment Act. It is the belief of this majority that this is an internal matter and should be handled by the tribe itself. We believe that it is our business to know who should be enrolled with the Yakima Tribe ~o enjoy the rights guaranteed to us by the Treaty of June 9, 1855. I have worked with this proposed legislation until it became Public Law 706, on our reservation, the Yakima Reservation. The Bureau of Indian Affairs also worked with that, and the Secre- tary of the Interior's Office and their solicitors worked with us, and the representative from the Fourth District of our home State. It is a good law as far as the Yakimas are concerned. I thank you. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Fannin? Senator FANNIN. Has this issue ever been submitted to the enrolled. membership for expressions from them? Mr. SEELATSEE. Yes, sir. Senator FANIN. When was that done? Mr. SEELATSEE. That was in 1946, after the bill was drafted. Senator FANNIN. And they voted in favor of the Enrollment Act at that time? Mr. SEELATSEE. Yes. Senator FANNIN. Do you recall, without trying to state specifically, how many there were for it? Was it a substantial number? Mr. SEELATSEE. Yes, it was substantially in favor of the act. Senator FANNIN. Would you state that they overwhelmingly en- dorsed it? Mr. SEELATSEE. Yes. Senator FANNIN. I presume that that action might he made avail- able for the benefit of the committee. That is the last time that this issue has been presented to the tribal membership, in 1946? Has it been presented since that time? Mr. SEELATSEE. It has been presented a number of times, three or four times, and all proposed amendments were rejected overwhe'm- ingly. The tribe voted all times to retain the act. Senator FANNIN. To the overall membership, not just to the. council? Mr. SEELATSEE. Yes. Senator FANNIN. Would you be able to respond to that? Mr. JIM. Yes, I am sure that we could make the correspondence in ~i to this available to the members of the committee, but the ~ has cc ~ly had this problem before it as Mr.. 1 ri continuously before our tribe 1....1~.L PAGENO="0014" 10 Senator HATFIELD. Yes, Mr. Chairman. If this is a sound principle for the Yakima Tribe, why is it not a sound principle for all the Indian tribes who want to protect their lands? Do you not think there are other tribes that have that same interest, that their lands are in that same position? You understand, this is special legislation which only applies to the Yakima Indians? If this is good for the Yakimas, why should it not be equally ap- plied to the other tribes interested in the same question? Mr. JIM. We believe that these other tribes want this. The trust land is a special status land~ that `is reserved by treaty. Not every other race is part of this treaty. We are treaty people, descendents of treaty signers. Senator HATFIELD. The Yakimas are? Mr. JIM. The Yakima treaty signers signed this and it was ratified by the Senate, and we want to retain that trust land as much as pos- sible. We are prepared to show the allotments that explain that. Senator HATFIELD. Are you the only Indian tribe that has this kind of treaty land? Mr. JIM. No, others have it. The Osages have a similar inheritance provision, as Mr. Bennett said. But we believe that our timber is worth more than oil, that it is more valuable. Oil will run out. Senator HATFIELD. What about Warm Springs? Mr. JIM. They have indicated that they would like the same pro- vision in their act to protect their reservation. I think that if you will review that, it is a problem that we are trying to show, because we are trying to solve the multiple heirship problem. Senator HATFIELD. I happen to be a Senator from that State; the Warm Springs people are not asking for special legislation of that kind. They are asking to repeal the legisation, because they feel that this would be very, very bad for other Indian tribes who enact this type of legislation in retaliation to the Yakimas. They think that everyone will suffer as a result. That is why the Warm Springs people are represented here today, not as a tribe but as individuals within that tribe, to ask for the repeal of this section7. They are not asking for the enactment of this or similar legislation. Mr. JIM. We believe, as Mr. Seelatsee has said, that the Department of the Interior was aware of the proposals in 1945. They knew of the bill before 1946. As a matter of fact, the Indian agent at the Indian reservation advised the tribe to do this. Senator ANDERSON. To do what? Mr. JIM. To make an enrollment law, and this act was the result of it, in 1946. And this, with the help of the Solicitor's Office of the In- terior Department. Senator HATFIELD. We are not directly involved with the enrollment question. That is not the point here for discussion before us, really. We are not going to argue or quarrel with Indian tribes on their qualifications for enrollment. We are talking about the divestment of property. I have the idea that we have no right to divest the Indians of property, these heirships of $100 or less, whether it is $5 or $1,000. It is the principle: We should not divest them of any right. I think that you are divesting people of property rights by the retention of section 7, because, as Mr. Bennett said, 780 persons were heirs under the State of Washington laws and were precluded from inherit- PAGENO="0015" 11 ing the land of a deceased because of section 7. It is not a questi6n of ~enrollment; it is a question of property inheritance. I do not think that is right. Mr. Hovis. I am James Hovis, the attorney for the Yakima Tribe. I might try to clarify some things for the Senator in regard to this matter. STATEMENT OP ~A~ES HOVIS, ATTORNEY, THE YAKIMA TRIBE Mr. Hovis. Other tribes have introduced, or have requested, as has Warm springs, a similar type of legislation. Senator HATFIELD. They have not requested this. Mr. Hovirs. This is the thing, They have requested their Congressmen to introduce it, and it has been introduced in the past. We thought it was an internal tribal matter for the tribes and if Warm Spri~igs wanted to do it, let them do it. We did not oppose their bill. ~&s a mat~ ter of fact, we believe in our hearts and in our own minds that this is the salvation for a lot of the multiple-heirship problems that we have. We think it would be a good thing for all tribes to have similar legisla- tion. It would help solve a multiplicity of inheritances that are bug~ ging every other tribe in the country. We have ~he best program, we think, in this regard, of any other tribe in the country, and we would suggest that we think it is an internal tribal matter, If they want to do it, that is their business, and we not only do not oppose it, we. sug- gest such legislation for all tribes. Senator HATFIELD. Let me clarify the record. I think it needs clari- fication here. I do not want to let it go on the record this way. Warm Springs at no time has proposed similar legislation. I think you are actually wrong when you indicate that. What Warm Springs has pro- posed is that proper legislation be enacted, and if the Yakimas persist in this type of legislation that. there then be the type of legislation ~enacted that would permit, if you please, an action that is corollary to this, a reciprocity action-retaliation to put it bluntly-which would permit retaliation. But at no time have they proposed similar legisla- tion to this. Mr. HQvIS. This can be furnished for the record of the committee, Senator ANDERSON. I wish that you would. Give your own statement ~and present it. Mr. Hovis. We will insert that it~ the record. But, again, we might say this is what Warm Springs wants to do. We did not oppose that bill, that legislation. We feel like this is an internal tribal matter. If Warm Springs wants to do something, wants a program, then that is their business. Basically, our objection to the amendment of section 7 has been, in a large part, dictated by the law of the State of Oregon. Inheritance in Oregon is much different than in Washington. In Ore- gon, you only get one-half interest. Under the State law in Washing~ ton, if you inherit you get the full one-half, and it is forever. This is in the case of distribution. Every different tribe has a different enroll- ment, a different distribution statute in the State, so that in a large sense, at least, if we go back to State law, then the Oregon law would be discriminating against the Yakima, not Warm Springs. The Oregon law would be discriminating against the Yakimas. If the committee wants to attack this program, we would like to see a uniform one. PAGENO="0016" 12 Mr. JIM. Mr. Chairman, the next witness I have is Mr. Totus, who is the chairman of the Land and Legislative Committee and Law and Order Committee of the Yakima Reservatioji. He has for over 24 years represented the tribe. He was one of the members of the tribe when they made this law. He was elected in 1957 by acclamation, so he truly represents the people in our tribe. Mr. Totus? Senator ANDERSON. We will be pleased to hear from you now. STATEMENT OP WATSON TOTUS, NEMBE~ YAKIMA T1~IBAL COUNCIL Mr. TOTIJS. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. My name is Watson Totus, and I have been a member of the Yakima Tribal Council for 24 years. My father was a member of the S~me C~~hcil and a Chief of this tribe before me, as Was my grandfather, All my life I have spent being interested in &ibal affafrs and doing the best that I can for my tribe. I have followed this enrollment problem for many years. We got very disturbed about the problem some 25 years ago when it appeared that our land base was being broken up and tossed to the winds. We even found that there were many people that were marrying our women and Our men just for the purpose of being able to inherit their allotment. We also found out, and were worried about the fact, that the allot- ments were being broken up into many, many interests. We have worked against this multiple heirship and the breakup of our landbase in two ways. First, we were advised and we counseled and talked and, with the aid of th~ Government, we thought that the best th~ing to do would be to provide that only Yakimas could inherit, and this Was agreed upon by our people and by everybody so that section 7 of the Yakima Enroll- ment Act was enacted. This helped keep the land in the hands of the people that it came from-the members of the 14 bands and tribes, Then, the next step that we took, in order to allow people who had been given land from the tribe and could not pass it on to their heirs, to sell it back to the tribe. Also to keep the land in larger parcels so that we would not have large administrative problems, we got our own land act. This act has allowed us to purchase from members who wished to sell, because they can't pass their land on or for other reasons, their interests in allotments or the full allotment itself. We think we have done a good job in this regard, and we have been com- plimented by everyone for our forward*looking ideas in this matter. We have spent a large amount of tribal funds trying to correct the problems created by the General Allotment Act. Prior to the year 1967 we had purchased over $4 million worth of land on Our reservation to help solve the problem. In fiscal year 1967, we spent $625,422 to purchase lands from 408 people. We are doing the same thing in fiscal year 1968, but I do not have those figures avail- able right now, but it is well in excess of $5 million total. In addition to these amounts, there have been sales between tribal members which also has helped that problem. In 1966 there was almost $100,000 in sales, while in 1967 there was about $75,000. From this you can see that we are doing the very best PAGENO="0017" 18 that w~ can to~try to soki~a(~robl~xh within o~ ~iw~ti~ib~,W& f~el that this is an internal tribal ~a~tei ~nd one that w~ ~an besthancUe by ourselves. We have been complimented by evetyon~ before ~s to what we aredoing~tó try to he fair ~ô everybod~fand~et settle the ptob~ lem that everybody has~ Othe~; tribes hai~ ~ J~t~more complicated situations than we have and it is one that has bothered Oongress~ tli~ tribes, the Bur~aü of indian Affairs and everyone. Everyone has told us that we are doing the best jobs ~nd wehope that Gongre~s~will let us continue with our plans and leave us alone in what we think is an ith ternal tribal matter. If this situation is as bad as some of these people say it is, I can assure you that the vote against this bill would b~ a lot stronger. As you can see, a very, very, very small minOrity-~-~three, fotir people-~are the people who are voting for amending the act. The fact that w~ have been doing these tbing~ haB out dowuthe ad~ ministration costs, too, when it comes to the Realty Department at Toppenish. We want to continue to do this. We think it is important that expenses going toward administration be reduced as much as pos~ sible, whether it comes from gratuity funds or from tribal funds. Senator ANDERSON. Any questions,~Senator Faiuthi? Senator rANNU~. I haveiio questions, Mr. Chkirman. Senator ANDERSON. Senator Hatfield, any questions? Senator HATFIELD. No questions. Senator ANDEn5O~. We thank you. Who is next? Mr. Jmt~ The next witness will be Mr. George tTmtuch. He is ëhair~~ ~nan of th.~ Yakima G~ener~l Council. He is presently elected for the term. Also, we may ~t~te so you might kiio* that he was one ef th~ general councilmen ~heñ they made this act ~ome years ago; ~1sø some of his children are eniolled in Warm Springs and some are in Yaki~a. Ithinktln~t should behoted here. Mr. Thjituch? Senator ANDERsoN. We will be pleased to hear from ~O1I now. STA~1VXZN~ ~` GEO1~GE~HT1)t~t, flELEGAT~ ~AlCIMA ~EIBE r. Ut~cn. Mr.~Chairthaunñd methbers of 9~he subcommittee. I ~G~o~ge Uh'itnch, and I have been chaitunan bf the General Council,~i~hith is o~en te every~ adult membéi' 18 years ~ld and up ~f the Yakitha Nafion~ ~ince 19~O. I hwve held the office of vice ehairi~an before tlXis~ The Yakima Enrollment Act was the ~i~h of the members o~ the Yakima General Council. The Yakima General Council still ~tai~d~ by the Y~a~kiMa" Enrollment Act and resists its amendment.. Just at the last Gen~rai Council theetiug, we t~øk this up. We h~U li~ted for rlisdussibn the bill we are here to talk about, S. l764~ The Gener~l Council `s~uted to oppose this bili~ S. 1764, 137 againstun~ ~meMmen~, 3for S. ~764. . ` : E~eryo~e ~ gi~ve~ a right to talk--~-m~st of ithe time of the d~s~ cu~io~i ~ccus ta&ken up~by~ MraThd1e~z, ~whO tallt~d for IS.: 17~4~ She otil~y conv4n~ed two other people to vote~M~ S. ~1f764~ While this is the curre~ttv~th~ onl~ la~t!Decenuber,~ all other vo~s~on the amen~dn~~ent of the~Yakima Enrollment Act showed the same thing~ 93-379-68----3 PAGENO="0018" 14 This act is good for my people, and I support it even though some of my own children are enrolled in:Warm Springs and canEot inherit my trust allotment. Since I am personally involved, you can see I am testifying true. Senator A~oERso~. Did you say. that you have some children in Warm Springs? :1 Mr. UMTUCH. Yes, I have two children enrolled in Warm Springs. Senator A'NDER~ON. How would they feel about this? Do they favor this bill? Mr. UMTUOII. I did not get your question. Senator ANDERSON. I was just wondering how they felt about this, the children that you have in Warm Springs? * Mr. TJMTnOII. It is my wife. She insists that two of the children be on her reservation, so that if there is any inheritance involved there, whys then, they could be responsible for her interests SenathrANnEI~ON. Thank you. Any questithis,: Senator Hatfield? Senator HATFIETJD. ihave no questions. Senator ANDERSON Does that complete your list of witnesses ~ Mr. JIM. I will try to finish up. Senator ANDERSON. I want to be sure that the other side has some time. STATEMENT OP ROEF~T JB~-Resumed Mr. Ji~ Mr. Chairman, 1 think it is only proper to note here that Mr. Smartowit is not here, He is one of our delegates. He intended to get here to oppose this. They are meeting today. So, he is tied up. We would like to have permission fpr him to submit a written statement to the cQm~nittee. 1 Senator ANDERSON. Without ohjectipn,~ie, may do so. Mr. JIM. I have communications from the Pine Ridge Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, the Flatheaci Tribe in Montana, the Shosh~ne Ean- nock Tribe of Idaho, the Lumni Tribe of Washington, and the Na- tional Congress of American Jndians who indicate opposition to this bill today. I think that in order to take as little time astl can, I have written notes specifically on Public Law 706, enacted in 1946, the second session of Congress, H R 61~5, the second session of the 79th Congress As Mi'. Hatfield has said, in order to talk about inheritance, you have to talk about enrollment; so I have here with me a copy of this law, the law that we are talking about. And the reason that there was a problem of people hollering for inhenitance on the reservation is that there were erroneous allotments made by the 1887 Allotment Act, There were 338 allotments that I have listed here that were made to non-Yakirnas on the Yakima Indian Reservation and there were 531 descendants of those people who were allowed to be enrolled by sec- tion 1(a) and section 1(c) of Public Law 706. These people were al- lotted on the Yakima Indian Reservation land, and then they were allowed to be enrolled, those 333 allottees, and then 531 of their de- scendants who have less than one-fourth or no degree of Yakima in their blood who were allowed to be enrolled. This is why we have inheritance difficulties. PAGENO="0019" 15 In 1949, wh~u they wt~re discussing this in the General Council, the point was brought up that this disinheritance li~w was made to keep Yakima trust lands in Yakima inheritance to the Yakima mem hers and to keep it for enrolled Yakima Indians I would quote as a list of the allotments that were made to non-Yakimas. There are 333 here. And alongside of this, without numbers, there are their descend- ants, and it gives their degrees of blood that are non-Yakimas, and it gives the section that they are enrolled under. Senator ANDERSON. Who made that list? Mr Jn~t This list was made by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, from the allotment records at the Yakima Indian Agency So, the problem is, to go back: It begins with the allotments that were made to non-Yakima Indians in the 1887 act. Then, consequently, when the Yakirna Indians-when these gentlemen were present who are delegates here-were making the enrollment law, they allowed those people with allotments and those people had no degree of Indian blood, by sections 1(a) and 1(c) (1) under this act., to be enrolled. Now, it is their descendants who got Yakima Indian land, and then not only got Yakima Indian land but a share of the per capita pay- ments and dividends that were put on deposit in the Treasury of the United States for the Yakima Indians, to the tune of $1,121,870, from 1954 to 1961. And then they shared in the settlement fund to the tune of $2,668,000, which came to a total of $3,746,250, besides the per capita payment that they averaged from 1954 to 1961 of $770 each which would be $770 times 800 which came out to $616,000. Now, they have shared in this. They have been entitled to this, although they have no degree or less than one-fourth of Indian blood, to be a member of the tribe. Have they not shared enough in trust lands? This is a quotation from the allotment records to show bow they shared unjustly.. But those people, gladly have taken the allotments-these people that were non-Yakimas, they would gladly become enrolled-they hardly had any or no degree of Yakima Indian blood, but when there is a measure, Public Law 706, to correct this section .7, to keep this trust land to some extent in the Yakima Tribe's hands, so that we will not be ter- minated from inheriting all of this land out to everybody This was treaty land, a million acres, of Indian reservation land Now, I think that this is something that `should be noted here. I will submit this for the record. . . If you would like to have this information, I have a copy of it here that I would like to submit. . Senator ANDERSON. We will put it in `the files of the committee and make it available to our staff and interested Senators. Mr JIM Fine, I would like to submit that (The information referred to will be found in the files of the sub- committee.) Mr. JIM. The law that we are actually talking about, you cannot understand about it, but section 7 relates to enrollment. Section 1(a) declares allotees must be enrolled and. 1(c) says that those people who are descendants shall be enrolled also. I think that is one of the things that must be considered here. This law and its administration is under the direct supervision of the Secretary of the Interior. There was numerous correspondence di- PAGENO="0020" ~11~ rrecting'ho~vthe Ygkii~uia t~'ibe~sh~uId abide by the law. We a~e dthng ~t)his. We hn~e~u~t m~ii~4~miary~to make en adtht4on. Eveii when t1~ Yakima Itid4at~ Tr~b~ doi~t ~nro11 someone, fo1~ instance, the ~c~re- tary h~ added ~ch example~ ~s Engen~ Lewis Huff~ applithtion No. 440, i~o d~gi~e ~ Indi~an ~Mood it ail~ h~ w~ts eni~olled; TI~oward~Tiy4e ~{uff, ap~pIicatioció147. I brought along these examples to show that *xhich happens. This is imder the supervision' of the Bmrea~n of Indian Affairs approved by the Se~r~*ary. They place the people on the rolls under this act, under 1(c)', which requires that they have no degree ~f Indian blood, ~and they had no degree of Indian blood, There was no question about that4 And then there is Guy Sanford `Harritigton, application No. ~O71. ` ` Therehave been many sthtements made that members `have to return. As Senator Hatfield said to me, if yo~ are in Tacoma or in Seattle or seine place else, you have to do that., `but I brought certified examples f~om Charles Spenc~r, the `superintendent of the Indian age~ny, to the ~effe~t that no' member is dis~timinated against from being enrolled, which is ~ne of the requirements to inherit. We have enrolled them from Kodiak, Alaska Minnesota, Rhode Island, Florida, New Mexico, Texas, North Carol~na~ Kansas, and Utah. So this application of this law by the~Iiidians is' something that is under the supervision of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. ` The other thing is Wh~r is this legislation `against `the Yaki¼ha tn- `dian Tribe ~? Tht~ Os~ges~ave similar prtwisious. Why `did they n~* say, "all IndiaI~s~!? ` ` ` ` The Osages ha~re a discriminatory clause `in theirs.' We think our ~thWbei' is much ~nrdrè &valmtble than the~r ~il', Oil will run out someday. Timber will keep on growlhg. Senator ANDERsON. Can a person be eliminated from his rights in the Osage Tribe ~ Mr. JIM. I am not sure about that, but in the 194~6 act we had an Osage Indian called Mr. Bennett, who ~as an attorney, to help us draft this, and he patterned se~tion 7 after the Osage Act. This is where it is~derived from. S~, I do not know the complications of the Osage Act. I brought. this up to `show that the application of this law on en~ roilment depends upon inheritance. One part without the other would destroy our wbole~ act, and it would lead to termination. This is ~t file of the minutes and the additions to the Yakima Enrollment Act since 1942. It shows that they have been ~enrolled from Alaska to Florida. There have enrolled 633 from 1964 to 1967 and we have rejected 142. ~ou could look threugh these and find put, if you wanted to, that the only rejections are probably the ones that have less than one-quarter blood. There has to be a cut~off someplace. Senator ANDERSO~. I wisl~ you would leave this material here. Mr. Gamble will give you a receip1~ for it, and' will return it if y&n want `it back again. ` ` Mr. JIM. I will leave it for your files. I have additional copies4 Senator A~oitsox. Thank you. It will be made a pari of the files of the subcommittee. ` . . (The `information referred to will be found in the files ~f the 5ub~ committee.) ` ` `` ` Mr. JIM. You have heard delegates here who were there when the ~nroihi~ient' ~Aetwas `made.' `They ~have testified `to ~li~ ~aot IthèJt ~fhe ~ ,j ~ PAGENO="0021" 11 Bureau of Indian Affairs knew ~bo~ut, or was it~ ing~soizi~e ccsmmuni- cation on, this; and after the law was made,. they did SQ immediately, but more than, ~nythiug else, Iii believe they made ~statement that this came from the Yakima Indian General Co~~ciL There have been, n~ less than six or seven votes on this ingeneral cpuncil since then, and they have all opposed the amendmeut of'tbis act. My pepple, are not educated. They believe that if you get too much land inherited out, that there will be a termination to it, because this was treaty land, t~ begin with, given to thes,e people ~vho were non akimas~ * This comes and goes without sa3~iug, ,Mr. Totus and Mr. Seeiatse~ have been with us for manjy~ more years. One w~ there, ~ef~re I kn~w~ that there was a tribal ideutity, although I lived,there, They were, in effect, saying that this is an aet of the general council, and we are the ones that built this up from nothing to sQmething that meai~s something. Now, everybody wants to get in as members un the value of the tim- ber, the farmland that we have developed through our leasing situa- tion and in the cutting of the timber. They all want to get onto this. We Indians are a minority. Where were our rights when the 1887 Al- lotment Act came in? This is just a corrective measure. I think that Mr. Totus has also brought out th~fa~t that in this sees tion 7, as it is applied today, thatthere is.somethiiug like 14& that we~te made "inter vivos", and this is Mr. Anderson's 1ette~ of July 7, 1967,, showing that the authority under section 7 of this act through the Bu~ reau of Indian Affairs, they are now transferring their lands either in patent and fee, gifted, or inter vivos to other members who would not be qualified under theact to inherit. The Washington State Sports Council that is generally opposed to the Indians in 1960, in voting on H.R. 1176, unanimously opposed any amendment to the Yakima Enrollment Act after we explained this~ because they said that this is the only tribe that `says who is an Indian, by having this one~quarter degree cutoff, and, therefore, know which members are entitled to hunting and fishing rights. They supported u~ in this. We do not say that the allotment act was just in alloting our land away, but we say that we are trying to solve the multiple heirship proposition. We come with the support of our tribes almost unani- mously except for n~taybe one-half of 1 percent, and we respectfully request that the Congress and the Senate of the United States gives us the dignity to determine our own future~ We feel that the other people have shared enough in our reservation lands, and we believe that we should be left alone~ that this is an iuternal matter. It has worked for us for ~2 years, If it did not, our people would tell us and not electus. We will answer any questions we may. , We woulcl:like to say that We will stay here and answer all questiOns if you have ahy during this hearing or after, because this is of No, 1 importance to us. We believe this is either termination or not termina- tion, because the land base is the only thing to help these people w'h~ stay on the rese~wation who ar& uneducated and who cannot go some- place else. This is our cduntrjT, We have no, other place to go. We re- spectfully would like to keep this law intact, as we believe that Con- gress intended it to be 22 years ago. PAGENO="0022" 18 Thank you very mnch for your time. Senator ANDERSON. Some people are going to be curious as to how you expunge the minority interests, these people who are not full- blooded who have the idea that they are a part of it, and then you terminate them in their inheritance. I do not kno~w'whether you can do it. Are you nOt terminating it by this? You say "one-fourth or more." Somebody has one-eighth. Where do you put that individual? Mr. Jmi. If a parent has trust land allotments and he has a child that is one-eighth and cannot inherit the land-he is less than one- quarter-then there are various methods of transferring that. He can get patent fee or he can be gifted it-several ways. Senator ANDERSON. If he dies and his descendants have only an eighth interest, they are eliminated, are they not? Mr. Jn~t. Yes, because of their degree of blood. This is a cutoff. Senator ANDERSON. You have some problems. Senator Hatfield? Senator HATFIELD. I think the point is well taken, Mr. Chairman. He would have to be with less blood. Let us say that we have a case of a Yakima woman who marries a IJmatillo, and they have children and they are enrolled other than at Yakima. They are similarly denied. They cannot inherit if they are not one-quarter. Mr. JIM. That was answered before when it was stated it was a choice of the parents generally, and in a case like that where they wanted to be enrolled. Senator HATFIELD. But the point is that they are deemed to be out of the inheritance, even if they are one-half Yakima if they are not enrolled there. A child of a Yakima parent and a Umatilla parent is one-half Yakima but if it is not enrolled a Yakima, that child is denied inheritance at Yakima. Mr. JIM. He is denied inheritance, but his parents can give to him the land so he can patent it, and that son and daughter can inherit it then. There is a departmental authority for that, and they use it now. It has been shown that there are some such cases. In 96 cases they have done this. Senator HATFIELD. Otherwise, that eseheats back to the tribe. Mr. JIM. It escheats back to the nearest relative. Senator HATFIELD. In other words, it could be a cousin, a third cousin, inheriting, but the child could not inherit. Mr JIM If the parent dies without making preparation for it Senator HATFIELD. If a child of a Yakima and a Tlmatilla, who would be one half Yakima-_hjs own daughter or his own son, would not inherit absent the circuitous route introduced to try to circum- vent the law, and any property would go to a third cousin and deny the child of that parent. Mr. JIM. Yes, but generally you will find if a person, like Mr. Totus said there, who knows exactly where his land is, wants it to go to one person, he can change it over to that person, to that Umatilla or to that child. Senator ANDERSON. We will have to have some study on that. I am sure the Commissioner, himself, recognizes the problem. Mr. JIM. Thank you. Mr. Hovis will present our official statement. Senator ANDERSON. Thank you. Go ahead. PAGENO="0023" 19 STATENENT OP ~AMES H .0 VIS, ATTOBNEY THE YAKfl~A TRIBE~- Resumed ~ ~ Mr. Hovis. Mr. Chairman and members of tht~ subcommittee1 I think that our general statement will answer some of the questions that have come up. First, in regard to the answer to the general question that was brought up arnornent ago, people like Mr. TJmtueh at Warm Springs, they make provisions so that the kids who are Yajcimas, that is, his s~ two children who are Yakimas, will inherit his interests, and his children who are Warm Springs will inherit his wife's interests in Warm Springs. This, you see, is of benefit to both sides, because it helps maintain the interest in the allotments within the members of the reservation so that there is a mutuality of interest among tribal members. Now, generally speaking, it has been pointed out here that the Yaki- ma Tribe vigorously is opposed to S. 1764. To give you a few outlines of the reasons they are: First, the Yakima Enrollment Act is a compromise that suited and suits the wishes of the Yakima Tribe and an amendment of one sec tion not considering these wishes and the compromise aspect of the act is unfair. Now, Warm Springs, for example, has an enrollment act that is a little bit more restrictive They stepped the membership down They did not have the enrollment problems that we had. So, you see* that their membership, although they have the very fine and wonderful reservation and their per capita payments are much larger than ours, their enrollment is much less than what ours is So, they have handled their problems. The Yakima Tribe has handled the problems by letting everybody be allowed in it, but providing that the land go back. to the people that it came from. That takes care of those. No 1, I think it should be made clear that section 7 does not control the descent and distribution of any allotment or interests other than~ those held by members of the Yakima Tribe In other words, if there are people who are on the reservation who have an allotment on the Yakima Reservation, section 7 does not apply to those people It only applies to people who maintain their membership in the Yakima Na- tion So, we see these people who are objecting are the people who want the best of everything, who want to be members of the Yakima Tribe and yet control of the distribution of their property goes but at any time they want to give up their enrollment in the Yakima Reservation or the Yakima Nation, then this section 7 does not appeal to the persOn who is in Warm Springs or IJmatilla, if he has the allotment under the reservation; it does not apply to him. It may apply to various others. We feel that the descent and distribution is an internal matter, and it is the position of the Yakima Tribe, and we have no objection to any tribe passing similar restrictiOns on descent or distribution-you can call it retaliatory, if you wish, we think it is ~their business we do not think it is retaliatory-that if that is the way that they want to manage their reservations, we have no Objection to their having similar provi~ sions to section 7. PAGENO="0024" 20 A~O, ~s ~hb~ i~ ~ ~i~1O~thfTh~ !~hibthers and husbands and children and.bl~ li~ke not being allowed to inherit. The person who holds the allotment, if he wants to make any inter- 1!egal or lifetin~ d1~position o~f his land, hecan'do~ it. lie can give i~to any of h~s chiMr~n~d reserv~ ~ ~if~ti~ne right for himself: senator ANDERSON. Can he give it to some outside pørsc~n? Mr. Hovi~. JtMs tob a~uIndinn ~ he ~a~majk~ a lifetifrie cbs- positicin in trust. He can get a patefit~d fee and make a life~im~ desig- nation. Senator ANDER5O~. How close a tie mu~t `there be-~ofle~sj~tèenth. is that su4~Icient? Mr. Hovis. As long ~ this persnn that he makes this lifetime trans~- fér to i~ a member of any other tribe, it is permissible under thepresent regtilations, `as I understand it. He could not make one `to `Someone ~ho is not a member of another tribe, but it is possible to mak~ it in trust to any other Indian. We think that the Yakima enrollment tends tO go to the heirship problem, where a member with four children has interest in four allotments, the thnde~icy ~ to deed the~ intei~'ests In separate allotments to each child; and the~ like. If the land passes by descent or devise under the act, there tends to be a e~nsolidation of large interests and fewer persons involved. Otherwise, as to the disposition o.f' their propk ~rty, these four children would have one4ourth interest, and this is a ~robiem that T think `involves `or is bothering us all. ~uIes of descent and' distribution vary from tribe to tribe and from ~ta~e t~ `S'tate. If the Yakima ~aw is nnfair `why `not pass an act that ~r~irides uniform rules as to descent and distributioi~ forevery. tribe? £lso we agree that ~S. l7~4 is `discriminatory. The `Osage Tribe, has a similar provision as to mineral interests, but no action is taken by the biliiir that regard.' ` ` ` " ` `Senator ANDERSON~ You hate to hai~e sth~ rule, tho~igh, to make a sound case for it. You cannot say that they `cannot deed it' to `cousins,~ and so forth. Can we `Pass a Federal Statute `foF the inheritance of this property'? ` Mr. H~~s.' I believeth~t Congress has thát'pow~s. 1~n other \vords~ if O~thgress has provided, as they have how, for a'llOt'men'ts, th~ descent `md dis~rib~'tjon of the allotments is ta1~en care of by' State la~ which varies from State to `State. They could' pass a law and say That' all of th~ a'llotnien'ts go to the wife, go to the~ children~any way that Congress `Wo1ld~d~cide. They, could `say that ti~e aThtmentaco~ld go'to the children a~iid could go to the Wives half and half. The Congress could make'any'1a~ that it feels is fair. We are discriminated against under the Oregon `State law1 A wife iS discriminrate~ against under the `Oregon la,w beCause she only gets one-haAf `interest. iu th'eproperty wh4l~ the,hus'band from Oregon i~ married to her and he gets the same amount under section `1, that is~ ~iit if he went under.'the~Sta'te la~!= he would get the ~vhole thing. The Federal: `ent~by' virtu~' ~f' the General APOtment AC~ gave~t~jba~ land~ hy'a~l~n~it `to ~ndiv~d,ib,~ not neCessarily `Yakimai;; ~dtho~t' tri1~aj ~ ~Ot the'U,jbè in faiFiiessbe,abje `to eon~~ trol the'de~cent and di'etrmutjon at this i1i~ine ? ` ` ` H I think'tha~ I'eanpmbably sumn~rize this statement'better Senator HAT1~IELD (presiding). Without objection, yOur `énti~e state~ ment will be placed in the record at the conclusion of your remarks. PAGENO="0025" 21 Mr~ Htw~s. ThY~kirn~ Ti~b~ hás~ b~en `~pj3~sed~ as you ki~wyti this hilt: This ~act was.~fornuiI'ated as tO the ~Yakima Tribe~ It w~s initiated withzr~frren~to~tla~ti'ibe, If we could explain a little bit about the general counciL Every members Senator, above the age of 18 years~ both men a~nd wom~n~ has the right to attend and votes and they vote upon all matters brought before the council. This is unlimited as such. A quorum of 250 members i~ required to start the council, and, thereafter, 175 mu~t remain in att~ndance. The vote of the majority present settles all matters brought before the council, excepting that a two-thirds vote ~is required to repeal or amend rules of procedures, acts, resolutions, ordinances, and tribal codes. * The Yaki'ma Tribe also has a tribal council composed of 15 mem- bers. And most of the business has been delegated to this tribal coun- cil. That is a basic governing body. Before the year 1945, the~ g~nera1 council had directed certain of its members ~tc hivestigate the~ n~iatter ~f' the enro~b1iiu~enb and the propé~ method ~ ~o. Th~ appointed for thi~ ~pk±rpdse ~iiè~po~ed its findings ~to the Y'akhna Geneml Council oa~.~1ebri~ary 20, 1945, aii~ by an o~rerwheh~ing majority\the general ~ lation by Congress authorizing enrollment ef thenaiérnbers Qf the Yakima Tribes ra~ther than to make an enroiiineiat ~thder bh~reguLa~- tions of. the Interior Department~ At this council ~neeting a resoluldon was adopted to include members not only living o~ the Y~kim~Re~ssii- vation proper~ but those who had. secured public domain aIlot1Bei~ts within the area ceded to the United States under the treaty of June:9, 1855. On February 21, 1945, the general council approved a motion direct- ing the tribal council to draft the desired legislation. The rtribal council prepared several drafts a~d ~uibmitted them to the generaJ~ eonncii en March 6, ~46. The general council reje~ted the draft subniitted~ iand after considerable debate selected a committee of ±hè~ gene~al council to assist The Yakima Trib~i4 Oourioiliu preparinga d'iTaftin accord~nce `with the specific directiens of the general counciL At this meeting a * motion was a~p~roved establisbingthe thinimum degree of blood req- uisite for the inheritance ~f trust interests at one~fourth'to corer the general aspects of this act~. * This df~aft, prepared by this committee and the Yakima Tri~bal COuncil in ~ccordance ivitb the wishes of the general councii~; was brought first to Chicago to the Indian Affairs Bureau and back hei~e~n Washington to the Solicitor's Office in the Department of the Interior and was introduced by Congressman Holmes `of our district,.and `it hecamethe law that we have here now. * * * * The Yitkima Tribe e~ery time the ameudmeut has come ~up, has rejected ~the amendmentove~'whelmingly. As was pointed Out her~, last Decembet the vote was IWT t6 3~and the pre~ious ~ forth a vtite wh4~h ~a~'1~4 ~er rej~eetion and fuurag~inet'rcjeCtion~ Prior to the Gei~eral Alithitenl Act helr~ to altotments~~ere deter- mined in accordance with tribaieustoi~i. Si~tbsequentlyi, ith~ Oen~r~1 Allotmen~t Act-~---as were several special allotthent acts-was deter- mined by what tileState law was in the various St~tes, There are some tribes ur~der it that made pro~isioms about descent and distribution in their constitution, So there are varying ways. 93-379-68-----4 PAGENO="0026" 22 PAGENO="0027" 23 about it, where it comes to a right-of-way going in for timber, even though I have a small minority interest, I am the one that they have to ~leal ~ and it creates, a considerable problem, These are not problems that are dreamed up; these are problems that all tribes have to live with all the time. This is the~reason that we suggest that some of these other tribes g~ive consideration to attacking this problem the same way that we have. It may not be as bad a problem on some of these other reservations, because they have restricted their member- ship more than we haVe. Perhaps that was a better way of handling it at the beginning, but you see we have been handling this the other way 21 years. Now, if~ we have to go back, and if we are forced by the Congress. to go back, and handle it another way, then we have gotten~ the worst of the two, and we will have a lot confusion. We reklize that section 7 is a restriction to ~ome for the good of the entire tribe in the n~anagement of reservation property. We realize that, Here is the rationale: This property was reserved by treaty between the United states ~tnd the~e people. These people ar~ the ones that can inherit, the Yakimas, the members of the Yakima Tribe. These are the people that reserved this la~nd. The U.S. Government, through the General Allotment Act, without the consent of the Indians, came in and split this up and~ave it, as has been testified to, to p~opIe who were not Ya]4was. And we feel as if the Yakimas, the people who are Yakimass have the right to get their property back,. because they have had the uses of this all of this time-these other people. We also feel that there are people who are being bothered by this. There is an adequate escape route for them. One~ they can n~ake a life- time distribution of this property to whomever they want to, reserv- ing a life estate. They can get a patent-in-fee, or they can deed their property, et cetera. We believe that the Secretary's report that was filed does not give a true picture about the large number of estates that they are talking about as being iuv~olved in this, because they list ail of the heirs and the like, whiCh distorts the picture. Also, in the Secretai~y's report, they do not point out that there are other limitations on the inherit- ance existing on other reservations. They say that generally there are no restrictions on other reservations. They~ m~l~e that statement with-~ out provi~ling tI~e conimittee with the tu~Ie picture. There are other problems on other reservations, yet this is a probe lern. This is a problem c~dling for uniformity everywhere. If them are any ~qu~stibi~s, I will be glad to an~wCr them. (The statement r ferred tQfollows:) PAGENO="0028" 24 ~ ~ ~ . ~ OtJ~FtT~E OF 4~E~ASONS FOR PØSIT]~~ ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~J~he Yakim~ Tribe has conlirniécl. to oppose any am~kdZneIit l~o ~ ~akima 1~1roIhnent A~t for ~sraHous re~it~oiiis. Th~e rea~dti~ ~ ~t' ou~ h~ thit1irt~ fOrm ~for the benefit Of th~ reader of this statement though not es~a~il& diseussed in this order In a more complete discussion that fô1lotv~ a. The Yakima, EnroUu~ent Act is a compromise ~h~at sl4ited and, s1iits the wishes of the Yakima Tribe and an amendment of one sectiOn not considering these wishes ~ind ~he compromise aspect of the Act is unfalr~ b. The. Ynklitia Enrollment Act, as part of this tribal ~ompromhe, allowed those not of the blQod of the Yaldmas (~i.e. those allotted by the Ui~ited States) to be members in return for the restrb~tions on descent and distribution set out in Section 7. ~`c~ Section ~t does not contrOl the desceift and di~t!ribntiOn of any allotment 01' interest5othe~ than those h~id by ni~naber5 Of ~the Yakima tribe. Any person ~an give up his men~bership and Section 7 wjll have, no eftect on the descent or distribution, However, there are those thi~t want the best of eve~~thi~g. They want to be enrolled, even though they are riot of the blood of the bands and tribes that reserved the Fdservatioii, because they were allotted, and thea they wish their allotment to be unrestricted as agreed as far as descent and distri- bution is concerned. ti Descent and distribution is an internal t4laal m~,tter. The Yakima Tribe has no objection to any other tribe passing Similar restrictions on descent and distribution. e. MemberS ~sn utake lifetime or iutervI~~s~ transfer of their land, Deed to selected grantee with life estate reserved is t1~ commOn ~etl~*d f. 3~akima ~nrolli~ient Act tends to limit multiple heirship problems. For example, where ~ 1n~mber with four chIldren has interésts in four allotments the tendency is to deed the fnterestin setiaMte aThitments to each child reserving aitfe estate In eab}i:to grantor and ~ponse If the land passes ~y descent or devise under the ~a~t,otJiere tend~ to be t~ eotis$licjatjeiI~ of largOi~, interest~ ~tnd fewer persons involved g. Rules of descent and distributiOn varies from tribe to tribe and from State to State. If the !aklma Act is unfair théti wh~ not aa Act that provides tiniform Tules as to descent and distribution forevery tribe. ii. S. 1764 is discriminatory. The Os~ge tribe has a sin~ilar provision as to the mineral interests of Osage allottees. i. The inheritance by non-Indians of trust lands creates administrative prob- lems in partitlôh, leasing and management of trust property. 5. The Federal Government, by virtue of the Genei~a1 lUlotment Aet~ ga~iO tribal lands i~ allotment to indlyidnals not necessarily Yalcimas, without tribal consent. Sboal~i not the tribe in fairness he able to cQntrol the descent and distribution nt this time. 1rxs~onr AND GENaSAL BACTCGROIJNb' The Yakiflia Tribe ~f the State of Washington is and has been opposed to ttmendment of its Yakima Enrollment Act. This opposition is an existing one and ha~ been the conthmed j~OSlti~ti of the Yakima Tribe. The Yakima GenCral Council and the ~akima Tribal Council have in the past i~ejeeteU any attempts tO amend or repeal said Act. ~h1~ Act, as en~ acted, was an Act formulated to respect atE the wi~hes of the ~akima Tribe, and H.R. 6165, whIch became the A~t of August 9,1~46, was initiated by the Yakima Tribe acting through the recognized governlng~bodIes of thb tribe. Let us digress a moment to explain the government of the Yakima General Council, and the second theYakima Tribal Council. The general council meets once a year, or sooner on special occasions, upon 30 days notice to all members of the tribe. Every tnelnber above the age of 18, both i~qen and women, has a ri4it to attend, ezpress his views, and vote U~Ofl all mat- ters brought before tlie Council. There is unlimited debate on all questiQas. A quorum of 250 mem~érs is r~quired. Oace a ciucrum is present bhsineSs proceeds as long as tbe~ are I~5 members present to transact buslnes~, and vote of the majority present settles all matters brot~ght before the council, with the excep- tion that a two-thirds vote is required to repeal or amend rules of procedures, acts. resolutions, ordinances, and tribal codes. The Yakima Tribe also has a tribal council composed of 14 members. The tribal ~council members are elected by the Yakima General Council for a term of 4 years, 1rhe tribal council meets once a month, or sooner, at the Yakima Agency and bandies all the matters of the tribe; and by general council resolution dated PAGENO="0029" 25 February ~ :L~44, ~LM ~ath~ed~ b~ ~eso~uti~n T~S-56, dated t~eee*fl~er 6, 19~ 1~as autboritE~tø ti~ari~et ~j11 t~b:~1 ~usi~iess wJt~, Ute exee~tjon ol! bustz~e~s t~u~t by its, n~titW~h~s~1o ~e~t~Uie ~ thaUhe g~fle~U CowieU wis1~es to d1~cuss, The Yakinia Tribal Council are the elected representatives of the Yakima Tribe. ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ With this understanding of the government of the Yakima `Fribe we will con~ tinue the ~xari~ath~e oVthe hi~tb~3 èf the Yakilna Enr~llme~it ~et. ~ ~ BefOre ~ th~ year f~4~ the Yak1th~t Ge~ê1~al Coui~cIl had dlre~ted certain of~ ifs. members t Investigate the po~sib1Iit~ of ~ec1iring enroiiñent ofthe membei~ of the tribe and the j?rOper method of doing so. The `committee' appointed for this purpose reported its findings to the Yakima General Council on Fel~ru~ry 2O~ 1945. By an ov~rwhohnin~ mnJorit~r the general coulicil yoted' 46 si~ir~ legislatioi~ by Congress autbprizhig enrollment ofthe members of the Ykkhha Tribe, rather than to mak~e an enrollment "und~r the regulations of the Interior Department. At this c~tth~li a resolutlot~ms1 adopted to include members not only living on the Yakitha Ensetvafion'pr9De~, hIlt also thoSe who had secured ~ubl1c dom~i~i allotments ~vtth1n the area eede~l tO the United States under the Treaty of Julie 9, 1855 On Febrnary 21, 1945, the general Council approved a i~idtion dlrecttng `the tribal counCil to draft the dt~1red legislatioli. The tribal Council prepared sevex'al drafts and submitted them to the general council held on March 6, 1946. The general council rejected `tile drafts submitted and after considerable debate selected a committee of the general councjl to assist the !~akima Tribal Cauncil ~n preparing a draft in accordance With the specifk~ d1rect16ns~o1~ the general co~th- dl. At this council a motion was, approved, establl~hin~ the minimum d~greè of blood requisite for the inheritance of trust interests at one-fourth or mo~'e of' th,e biood of the 14 tribes w~iiCh constitute the 3?~akima Nation. This draft, prepared by thIs committee and the Yakima Tribal Couhell in ac- cordance WIth the wishes of the gqneral council, Was embodied in hR. 6165, 79th Congress, 2nd' Se'ssiOn, and wa's introduced by' Congressman Hal Heithes,. of the State o~ Washington. This bill, enacted into law by Congress and approved August 9, 1946, repreSented the will of the great majority of the Yaklma Tribe and still does. ` ` The Yakima Tribe has, every time the amendment of this Yakima ~nFolimCnt Act comes up, rejected overwhelmingly any amendment thereto. The record's Of your committee will show such action. The Yakima Trit~al council has been tili- animous in its objection t~ the amendment of' the Yakima `Enrollment Act. Previously the' ~enerai council on a predecessor bill voted 174 for rejection tO 4 "against rejectioli. The `~akima' General Council in Deceluber of last year rejeCted 5-1736 by a VetO of 13~' to 3. naSCENT AISD DIsrtulrnTIoN TRIBAL MATTE1i Prior to the General Ahlet~iTteñt `Act heirs to allotments were determined in accordance with trlba]~ custom.' `S~uhsequently, the General Alldt~ent Act, like several special allotment acts, modified this rule and substituted State law a's a standard for the determination of heirs~ An.important and unhappy consequence of this shift has been the multiplication of the number of heirs in some `instancea and the subdivision of interests in dead allotments. Section 7 of the Ynkima En- rollment Act was enacted to specifically correct this problem. Many IRA ti~ibes, then with the counsel of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, placed a similar restric- tion in their constitution and others have specific acts limiting who may inherit.. Where there are no such limitations State law continues to control. Ihere again this causes estates 40 pass differently a's State laws Of descent and distribution vary from State to state. ror example since it is most approprl~te w~ would like' to discuss the dif~er~nce between the laws of Oregon and Washington. In Wash- ington under ~tEte Law, Were it'not for Section 7 a wife would' Inherit an allot- ment. However, because of Section 7 ~f. she is not on.e~fourth ,Yakith~t She inherits a life estate, In one-half of the real `property, In Oregon the wii~, `ttnde~ State Law, inheritS a life estate ill ,tme-half the reai praperty. `So you see that where a Warm Springs member from this Oregon Tribe Is márried~o a Yakilna member they are both in the same position. ?~o mattOr who the sttrth~or' is they take the same by descent and distribution. This was an additional rOaSon for' the enact- ment of Section 7. We cannot but wonder, in the advocacy of 5-1764, of why the Yakimas are being singled out. If Congress feels that pre~ent i~ules ef descent and distribution are unfair and that this is a matter that warrantS Its attelition, then we suggest that the only solution that would be fair would be a uniform PAGENO="0030" PAGENO="0031" 27 Mr. JIM. I think that we ha~re left out a prepared statement, Mr. Chairman. Iwould appreciate your taking the time, and we will be glad to answer any questions at anytime. It is of No. 1 importance here. We oppose this act wholeheartedly; we have tried to represent the feeling of the people in full. Thank you very much. Senator HATFIELD. Thank you. You may be interested to know that we will conclude this testimony at noon, and then we will reconvene at 2 o'clock this afternoon. The Chafrman, Mr. McGovern will hear the continued testimony at 2 o'clock. So, you will be welcome to say anythi~ig further at that time. `I will not be able to be back at 2 O'clock. Mr. Jm~t. Mr. Umtuch has some statements he would like to present. Senator HATFIELD. I think Senator `Anderson said they would be made a part of the files. We will check. We will now recess until 2 o'clock this afternoon. (Whereupon, at 12 m., a recess' was thken until 2 p.m., this same day.) AFTEI~NOON SESSION Senator 1\frGOV~RN (presiding)~ Mr. Pamier, I want to apologize for being late. It looks like we are going to have a series of live quorums this afternoon, and we may be harassed here a little bit; but we will start, in any event. Mr. PANNnR. I did not testify. Senator MCGOVERN. You did not get on at a1l~ Mr. PANNEII. The Commissioner was on for about 10 minutes and then the ~akimas were on for the rest of the morning. Senator MCGOVERN. I see. STAThMENT OP OWEN M. PAWNER, ATTORNEY, ~ONPEDERATED TRIBES OP TilE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OP OREGON; AC. COMPANIED BY OLNEY PATT, CEAIR~AN, TRIBAL COuNCIL; AND VEEWON jACKSON, GENERAL MANAGER Mr. PAN~En. Senator, I have furnished a written statement to the committee, and in the interests of getting to the point, we will depart completely from that because we realize you have a difficult schedule. I have with tne here today Mr. Olney Patti who is the chairman of the tribal council, and Mr. Vernon Jackson, who is the general manager. The chairman would like to say' just a few~ wofds, and then turn it back to Vernon Jackson. Mr. PATT. Senator, we are appearing here on the so-called `Yakima Enrollment Act. Members of the Yakima delegation, among whom are my close friends, very good friends, and Ming a responsible group such as they are, I would imagine that this weighs rather heavily on their conscien~e at times.' Deep down I think they wonld like to effect a change in the Enrollment Act `themselves. I think they have acc~m- plishe& their desired resnlits, according to their~ statements, when they `initiathd this a~t for the pifrpose of keeping their land intact. It would appear to tis,thaV thn a~th~s been effective. 1 think they have accom- plished their'deMred results. , ` ` PAGENO="0032" 28 ~t think It is of veiry littie~ thiportaric~ insofarr ~sinhe~ritance~ of firop~rt~ on ~ther reservation~ is ~om~,erned. 1 do hOtthjhk it meai~s too much t~ them. Sd ~ith that II wouid like to turn it back to our ~ttofney. Mr. PANN1~R. Thank you, Olney. Senator, the Yakima Inheritance Act, section 7, provides, briefly, that no one who is not a member of the Yakima Tribe and who does not have 25 percent or more of the blood of the Yakima tribal mem- bers can inherit trust property. on the Yakima Reservation,, either real or personal property. This act was passed in 1946, and there was a ~good bit of comment eibout it this morning by the Yakimas. I am not sure whether a vote of the Yakima people was taken before the act was passed. I do know there were Some general council meet- ingsin which it was shown the tribe favored the bill. As it was pointed out here this morning, the Interior Department made no report until after the Congress had passed the bill. We are not sure exactly why, but they did recommend it after it had passed. They recommended that the President sign it. Now some 20 years have indicated the drastic consequences of this section 7, in particular. It is bordering on unconstitutional. I think ~rdbabl~ Congress had the po~er and the regulation o~ Indian affairs to do it, bu~ it ~wo~i'k~ ~ terrible injustice on not only other tribes but On individual Ya~ldth~, There was mentioned here this morning by the Yakitna delegation that the Yakima Tribe has repeatedly Supported the continuation of this act, hut these are at general council meetings, at meetings on the ~S~rvati~j1 ~*he~e the pre~ntatjbn h~s been made that this will re- sult in termination to the Yakiina Tribe or Some drastic consequences to the Yakima Tribe if this is changed. Every other tribe that I know of has the same situation that we are asking you to put the Yakimas in. That is, if you repeal section 7, they will be in the same position that the Warm Spring's, Umatillas, all of the other Northwest tribes are in. For years we have introduced ~reciprocity legislation, ~e. type of legislation or another, in an attempt to correct this situation. What *happ~ns is that a Yakima family, where the wife is Yakima, and the husband is a Warm Springs, have children. Some of them may be Yakima childi~en and some of them Warm Springs because, as you know, enrollment depends on their residence at the time the ci~ild was born, so that when a Yakima member dies the Yakima children in- herit all of their parents' property on the Yakima Reservation, and his share of the property on the W~trm Springs Reservation, for example. Mr. Jackson will mention some of these specific ~xan~ples~ and I might ndd to that, as Car as I know, I am quite sure, that there has never been a vote of all of the members at any kind of a general election other than a general council meeting on the reservation. We have attached to our statement four written Statements by Yakima members who are opposed to this pi~ovision of the act. These are four that we picked up at the Warm Springs Agency. They have signed letters, and the letters are in there for the renord. In addition to that, I have a copy of a letter, the o~iginaJ of which was sent to PAGENO="0033" 29 the committee from Malcolm McCleod, who represents a number of the Western Washington tribes, opposing it. Bob Deliwo will follow me here, representing some other tribes. Basically we cannot expect; big delegations because these do not affect tribes. These affect individuals, and they simply cannot get back here. In past years the Yakirna Independent Indian Association has testi- fied in favor of the repeal of this section, and in 1960 the house of Representatives passed this same repeal of section 7 that we are asking the Senate to pass now. Senator Hatfield this morning received a telegram from the Yakima Independent Indian Association again urging the repeal of this sec- tion 7. So there are many Yakimas who favor repeal. What it does, it prevents a Yakima member from leaving his property to his children and frequently third cousins or fourth cousins obtain the property when the children are disinherited as a result of this act. Now, there was some testimony here by the Yakimas- Senator MCGOVERN. Would the same thing apply to a wife or a husband? Mr. PANNER. Yes. A Warm Springs wife who is married to a Yakima man may have worked all of her life accumulating or improving this trust property, and then find that because she is not a Yakima member she is disinherited except for a courtesy right that they give her, that is, the use of half of the property for her lifetime. Senator MCGOVERN. I see. Mr. PANNER. Mr. Hovis mentioned this morning, that it should be clear for the record, that State laws differ, and he mentioned that in the State of Oregon, the dower and courtesy rights were different than in the State of Washington. That is true. But that only applies in the absence of a will and it does not affect children. In other words, none of the State laws disinherit children of a person when the parent dies, but this act, in effect, disinherits children, wives, cousins, anyone who is not a Yakima member, and it frequently will result in escheating the property to the Yakima Tribe. The Interior Department has set forth some good statistics in their report to the committee. They have pointed out that, in almost 800 cases since this bill was passed, both enrolled Yakimas and non-Yak- imas have been disinherited as a result of this. The Yakimas say this is an internal matter. Well, it is not an internal matter. We love the Yakimas. We work with them frequently. We think they are a fine tribe. But in this they are being selfish, and it is not an internal matter. As Chairman Aspinall mentioned when we testified last month over in the House, the Yakimas simply want to inherit on the other reservations but not permit inheritance on their reservation. Their motives, in passing this originally and in Congress passing it, were good. That was to preserve the land base, and a strong argument is made by them that this "helps us preserve our land base." Yes, it does. But we have that same problem at Warm Springs, a very com- parable tribe, and we tried to solve that by having the tribe purchase back interests of non-Indian owners. Just to disinherit them is ter- ribly unfair, and it creates problems that a practicing lawyer such as Bob Deliwo and I simply cannot explain. When you have one child, brother and sister, one child a Yakima and one a Warm Springs, the 93--379-68--5 PAGENO="0034" 30 Yakima inherits all of the property at Yakima and half of the prop- erty at Warm Springs, so some horrible results are worked by reason of this. We actually now have in effect a uniform law except for this statute. There has been some mention here that the Osage rrribe down in Oklahoma may have some comparable provision with respect to min- eral rights. I do not know about that. I have never heard of it, but we do know that in the northwest area there is nothing like it, there is no other tribe that has anything like it. It is basically unfair and the Bu- reau has supported repeal of it for 10 years that I know of. Consistently the Yakimas have made good presentations and claimed and created enough confusion to indicate that this is an internal mat- ter. It is not an internal matter any longer. We feel that all of the tribes should have the same situation, and the Yakimas have at least as much and probably more resources than most of the tribes to protect their land base. This situation got so bad that in 1965 the Oregon Legislature passed a joint resolution unanimously urging the Congress either to enact a reciprocity bill, which is not the answer, or to repeal this section 7. Mr. Umptuch, who has testified here this morning, said he feels he is honest and fair in testifying for this Yakima bill because he has Warm Springs children. But the fact is that Mr. Tjmptuch can, because of his knowledge of the subject, through a device of deeding it to his Warm Springs children and reserving a life estate, overcome the effects of this act. But he is a little more aware of this than the great majority of the 5,000 Yakimas. The rest of them, as we know, just do not do these things. It costs money. It is hard to go ahead and deed away your property ahead of time and then take a chance of maybe having to get your children to sign it back if you ever need it. So this is not the answer and the an- swer is simply, I think, the elimination of this section 7. We will be happy to answer any questions. Mr. Jackson has a few specific examples that he would like to give you. Thank you, Senator. Senator MCGOVERN. Thank you very much, Mr. Panner. (The statement referred to follows:) STATEMENT OF THE CONFEDERATED TRIBES OF TUE WARM SPRINGS RESERVATION OF OREGON INTRODUCTORY The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon is a Federal Corporation chartered under the Wheeler-Howard Act (48 Stat. 984) of June 18, 1934, as amended (49 Stat. 378) on June 15, 1935. The tribe has ap- proximately 2,000 members. The reservation covers 564,210 acres and is located in Middle Oregon. Like most reservations, the Warm Springs reservation has problems with fractionated interests and multiple ownership of allotted lands. There are over 700 tracts of land which are individually held involving over 4,000 separate ownerships. Over the past 15 years, the tribe has spent more than a million dollars of its mOney in an effort to eliminate these fractionated interests in allotted lands. An additional 125,000 dollars will be spent in 1968 for this pur- pose. A substantial amount of the monies so spent has been paid to members of the Yakima Tribe for their interests in lands at Warm Springs. PAGENO="0035" 31 YAKIMA ENROLLMENT ACT OF AUGUST 9, 1946 (60 STAT. 969) By the provisions of Section 7 of the Yakima Enrollment Act, only enrolled members of the Yakima tribes of one-fourth or more blood of such tribes can inherit the interest of a deceased Yakima member in trust property. The only exception is that the surviving spouse may be entitled to a one-half interest in the property for life. rj~his is the limit the spouse can inherit no matter what contribution he or she may have made to the family assets. Members of the Yakima tribe continue to inherit trust property at other reser- vations but the members of the tribes having such other reservations cannot inherit at Yakima. This Section 7 of the Yakima Act was apparently intended to aid the Yakima tribe in preserving its land base for Yakima tribal members. While Section 7 undoubtedly helps in this regard, it has a drastic, punitive, effect on not only the members of other tribes but on the Yakima member also. Since a person may not belong to more than one tribe and since membership is frequently determined by the residence of the parents at the time of birth, many families have some children who belong to the Yakima tribe and some who belong to the other tribes. Parents who are Yakima members are denied the right to leave their non-Yakima children any of their property. They may deed the real property to the non-Yakima children before their death, but this is cumbersome, expensive, and has many disadvantages. A deed is not effective with respect to personal property or money. The result is the disinheritance of many children, while their brothers and sisters may receive substantial assets even though this is not iii- tended by the parents. The statistics included in the Department's Report and the examples cited in the letters from the Superintendent at Warm Springs which are attached to this statement establish that these situations are occurring regularly and with drastic consequences. Let's look at Example No. 1 on the letter of January 23, 1968. ImagIne trying to explain to the two sons of 1)aisy Heath Clydehawks why they received nothing from their mother's estate and their 4 cousins inherited all of their mother's property. What's worse, there was nothing Daisy could have done about it unless she had been willing to part with the ownership of the property before her death. Lawyers reluctantly advise people to transfer their property to their children before death, even with a life estate reserved bcause a change in circumstances may require a sale or mortgage of the property. It's been necessary to make such explanations regularly since this Act was passed in 1946. For at least the last 9 years that I am aware of, the members and representatives of the Warm Springs, TJniatllla and Nez Perce Tribes have been struggling to either eliminate Section 7 or to get a reciprocity bill passed, without success. In 1960 the House passed a similar bill, HR. 1176, but the bill did not pass the Senate. The injustices that have occurred since 1960 now demonstrate that Section 7 should be repealed. We are not opposing the Yakimas in their attempts to regulate their internal a ffairs but when the regulations so unfairly affects not only the members of other tribes but individual members of the Yakima Tribe as well, it ceases to become an internal affair. As shown in the departmental report, almost 300 Yakima mem- bers have ben disinherited because they did not meet the blood requirements of Sc~tion 7. It is one thing to establish the blood requirements necessary to become a member of the tribe and quite another to establish blood requirements to take property away from the rightful heirs. Almost 600 members of other tribes have had their property taken away from them because of Section 7. In past years, individual Yakimas not connected with the tribal government have testified before the Congress in favor of the repeal of Section 7. I'm sure if it bad been practical to give notice to all the individual members and if they'd bad funds available, some individual Yakimas would be here testifying today. The situation became so bad, that in 1965, the Oregon Legislative passed Senate Joint Memorial No. 8 urging the Congress to repeal Section 7 of the Yakima Act, or in the alternative that a reciprocity act be passed. CONCLUSION The Yakimas have the same basic problems with fractionated interests and multiple ownerships that the Warm Springs Tribe and other tribes have. These problems can't be solved by such an unfair provision as Section 7. Section 7 ac- PAGENO="0036" 32 tually results in confiscation of property without compensation since, if there are no heirs eligible under its provisions, the property escheats to the Yakima Tribe, even though decedent left children surviving. I am authorized by the tribal attorneys for the Umatilla and the Nez Perce Tribes to say that they will file statements supporting S. 1764. We respectfully urge its adoption and thank you gentlemen, for the opportunity to appear before you. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WARM SPRINGS AGENcY, Warni ~Springs, Oreg., January 23, 1968. Mr. VERNON JACKSON, General Manager, Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon, Warm Springs, Oreg. DEAR MR. JACKSON: We are advised you are planning to be in Washington, D.C. January 24 and 25 to attend the Sub-Committee Hearing on HR. 7178 entitled "A Bill to amend the Act of August 9, 1946 (60 Stat. 968), providing for the prepara- ti.on of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation." A review of the Warm Springs probate records indicate examples can be recited of extreme cases of the Yakima heirship involvement betwen the Yakima and Warm Springs enrollees. However, we feel it advisable to recite only a few of the day to day typical cases wherein direct blood descendants have not or will not inherit Yakima trust interests in real property under the present 1946 law. On the Warm Springs Reservation side, however, the "heirs at law" or the "natural heirs" will inherit in the Warm Springs trust individual ownerships. Over the past 15 years, the Warm Springs Tribes have spent more than one mililon dollars of Tribal moneys to eliminate non-Warm Springs ownership in the alloted lands. An additional $125,000 will be spent by the Tribes in 1968 for this Purpose. A large percentage of the above acquisition moneys has been directed toward Yakima interest in the individually owned land. Transactions betwen individuals to eliminate Yakima interests in Warm Springs lands will increase the total several thousand dollars more. The Warm Springs Reservation has more than 700 individually owned trust allotments or tracts with individual interest therein totalling over 4,000. A large percentage of these individual interests are owned by members of the Yakima Tribe. The ownership problem in itself presents many problems in the develop- ment and management of reservation resources. As we all know, this is multiplied several times by multiple, diverse ownerships. The above is recited as a small portion of the over-all problem presented by heirship ownership and the Yakima Act of 1946 and is intended as background for the following discussions. The Warm Springs Reservation contains 564,210 acres, more or less. The Yak- ima Reservation contains 2,117,225 acres, more or less, The Yakima Reservation is roughly 31/2 times the size of the Warm Springs Reservation, both in area and membership. The Act of 1946 was an attempt by the Yakima Tribe to contain their Yakima trust lands in Yakima ownerships without regard to the rights of an interest owner to pass title to the natural heir or heirs at law. In operation, the Act may have some containment effect for the Yakima Tribe in holding a con- stricted enrollment and land ownership base. It does so, without regard to the non-qualified heir and without regard to the depleting effect on trust land ownership held by other tribes. Further, it denies the legal and natural heirs the right to own property under the natural laws of descent. To legally avoid the Act of 1946, several methods of transferring ownerships have been used by some owners of Yakima trust interests in the past few years. The effects of these actions have been minimum to the entire problem. The actions are costly and time consuming-costly to the Tribes and to the Bureau. Too, a majority of the Yakima owners are past middle age, are elderly and unschooled in property title transfers. This means that in a majority of heirship cases, no action has been taken by the trust property Interest holder to transfer title to property during his lifetime to the natural heirs. A good example is a gift con- veyance of property reserving~ the life estate to the grantor. As stated above, such title actions are time consuming and create additional costs. With your permission and without prejudice and conflict of interest, we will recite an example of the above within your own family. Mrs. Georgiana Jackson, your mother, is an enrolled member of the Yakima Tribes. Your father, Charles PAGENO="0037" 33 Jackson, is an enrolled member of the Warm Springs Tribes. Your mother had four children, one eiarofledat Yakima and the other three at Warm Springs. ~he has extensive Yakima property holdings, some at Warm Springs. In the abs&~ce of any title transfers during her lifetime and regardless of a will, the Yakima property will all descend to the one Yakima heir, the Warm Springs property to all four children. If she leaves a will, the will can only be operative in so far as the Warm Springs properties are concerned. Since there are vast differences in property values, the Yakima heirs' inheritance will far exceed the value of the Warm Springs properties, thus creating a gross inequity. The following examples taken at random from the Warm Springs files set forth clearly some of the inequities we have discussed, see attachment. 1~kvornple 1.-The Warm Springs heirs inherit trust property valued at $420 (the Warm Springs heirs are also heirs at law, or natural heirs). The Yakima heirs (in 5th degree) inherit lands valued at $3,270. Ba~ample 2.-The Warm Springs heirs inherit trust property valued at $60.00 (the Warm Springs heirs are also heirs at law, or natural heirs). The Yakima heirs inherit lands valued at $15,106.66. B~rample 3.-The Warm Springs heirs inherit trust property valued at $1,224.83 (the Warm Springs heirs are also heirs at law, or natural heirs). The Yakima heir (in 5th degree) inherit lands valued at $15,182.47. The operation of the Act omits five Warm Springs heirs and leaves the Yakima property all to one Yakima heir in the 5th degree. From the examples, one can readily see the inequities discussed herein above. The acerages of land are not shown. Many legal minds advise that the Yakima Act of August 9, 1946 (60 Stat. 968) has proven to be unconstitutional in its operation. Amendatory action has been and is seriously needed. Sincerely yours, S~uperintendcnt. [Attachment] Example 1.-Alice Scott (Daisy Heath Clydehawks), Yakima Alottee No. 1539 Heirs at law: Walter Heath, Warm Springs unal Son. Roy Heath, Warm Springs unal Do. Value of Warm Springs property: $420. Heirs to Yakima property: (Probate No. 9164-60)- Louis (Lottie) Sweowat, first cousin (5th degree) 1/4. Gilbert Sweowat, first counsin (5th degree) 1/4. Johnson (John) Sweowat, first cousin (5th degree) 1/4. Lillian S. Sawyahlil, first counsin (5th degree) 1/4. Value of Yakima property: $3,270. Example 2.-Hattie Mosstocken (Hattie Charley, Hattie Yallup or Hattie Wolfe), Yakima Allottee No. 4448 Heirs at law: Agnes Yallup Heath, Yakima Unal Daughter. Lucy Wolfe, Warm Springs TJnal Do. Eva Wolfe Ike, Warm Springs Unal Do. Matilda Wolfe, Warm Springs TJnal Do. Esther Wolfe, Warm Springs Unal Do. James Wolfe, Warm Springs Unal Son. William Begay, Yakima Unal Grandson. Helen Begay, Yakima Unal Granddaughter. Value of Warms Springs property: $60. Heirs to Yakima Property: (Probate No. 2729-58)- Agnes Yallup Heath, daughter 2%. William Begay, grandson 1/4. gelen Begay, granddaughter 1/4. Value of Yakima property: $15,106.66. PAGENO="0038" 34 Example 3.-Agnes Teaius (Agnes Olydehawks Scott) Yakima Allottee No. 4551 Heirs at law: Melvin Olydehawks Scott, Warms Springs Unal Son. Ardis Clydehawks Scott, Warm Springs Unal Daughter. Leander Clydehawks Scott, Warms Springs Unal Son. Dan Clydehawks Scott, Warm Springs Unal Do. Della Clyclehawks Scott, Warm Springs Unal Daughter. Value of Warm Springs property: $1,224.83. Heirs to Yakima property: (Probate Nos. 5431-50 and 8700-54)-_ Sallie Hashneth, cousin (5th degree) All. Value of Yakima property: $15,182.47. In the above examples the owners are attempting by one legal means or an- other to correct the inequities during their lifetimes. A Last Will and Testament of properties is not sufficient and is not operative to all heirs under the law. The only processes left open are sales and gift deeds to owner's heirs made during the owner's lifetimes. The examples recited herein are but samples of the problem and can be multi- plied many times. The operation and effect of the Yakima Act is deemed unconstitutional by many. Sincerely yours, ~S~uperinten~ent, POST OFFICE Box 385, Warm ~pring8, Oreg. Mr. VERNoN JACKSON, Ewecntive Director, Confederated Tribes of Warm S'prings, Warm springs, Oreg. DEAR Mn. JACKSON: I am furnishing you with the following information for whatever use it may be to you. ) I am a 1/4 degree enrolled Yakima Indian. My children are not eligible for enrollment with the Yakima Tribe because they are 1/s degree Yakima. Under the present Yakima Inheritance law my children are not able to inherit any of the Indian trust property which I own. And in this day if you do not own prop- erty, you do not own anything because in the years to come this is the only asset that will continue to increase in value whether it is "Indian" QF not. Secondly, under their election laws no one can say anything about tribal busi- ness unless they are personally present to make a voice vote. In other words there is no such thing as an absentee ballot. These two things discriminate against members of a minority group and this is contra to national present day policy. Remedial action, such as the repeal of the inheritance act and allowance for absentee ballots, is necessary. Very truly yours, Mrs. Runv DEAN LENO. To Whom It Might Concern: My name is Hazel Queahpama Tewee, I am of 4/4 Indian blood, I am enrolled at Yakima Agency, 61 years of age and have six children all enrolled at Warm Springs Agency. I hold trust interests at the Yakima reservation, I have been told that under the 1946 Yakima Inheritance Act, my children, who are members of the Warm Springs Tribe, cannot inherit any of my Yakima trust property. This I do not like, it is not fair to my own children. Children of a Yakima parent should he allowed to inherit trust property at Yakima or wherever the property is located. The law is not fair, it should be changed to permit our children to have our trust property when we pass on. HAZEL QIJEAHPAMA TEWEE. To Whom It Might Concern: My name is Dorothy Quaeinpts Ike Cassaway, 48 years of age, an enrolled Yakima Indian of % degree Indian blood and own interest in 21 allotments or tracts of land. I am the mother of five children, four are enrolled at Warm Springs and one at Yakima. The Warm Springs children under the existing Yakima law cannot inherit at Yakima, only the child enrolled at Yakima can inherit there. In the event of death, I want to distribute my property fairly PAGENO="0039" 35 among my children. To do so under the Yakima law, I will be required to deed the property I wish to leave to my Warm Springs enrolled heirs during my lifetime. This is a costly, time consuming process requiring the making of sepa- rate deeds at the cost of surveys and conveyance costs of approximately $75 per deed. The law should permit me to make a will disposing of all my property in one instrument. The Yakima inheritance law should be corrected to allow children of a Yakima parent or natural heirs to inherit from their Yakima father, mother or husband or wife. DoRoTHY QTJAEMPTS IKE CA5SAWAY. To Whom It Might Concern: My name is Irene Quaempts Queahpama Hernanden, 59 years old, an enrolled Yakima of 4% degree Indian blood, have six children and hold interests in trust interests at Warm Springs Reservation. I also hold trust interests and rights at the Yakima Reservation. Under the present Yakima inheritance laws, none of my children will inherit any of my Yakima trust property or interests in event of my death. The Yakima interest will pass on to Yakima enrolled cousins. This is an unfair law. It denies my children the right to inherit property and assets I have saved for them over the years. If I deed the property to them now, it will take money I cannot spare to pay the costs of conveyance and surveys; lf I happen to suddenly die, they will not inherit. What should I do? The present law is unjust. iRENE QUAEMPTS QTJEAHPAMA HERNANDEZ. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, WARM S~nixos AGENCY, WARM SPRINGs, OREG., March 1, 1968. Mr. VERNON JACKsON, General Manager, Confederated Tribes of the Warm springs Reservation of Oregon, Warm Springs, Oreg. DEAR Mn. JACKsoN: In reply to your request for information and examples to be used at the hearing to be held March 4, 1968 by the Interior and Interior Affairs Sub-committee on Indian Affairs on 1764 to repeal Section 7 of the Yakima Inheritance Enrollment Act of 1946; there appears to be little additional information that would add to the information supplied in Agency letter of January 23, 1968 and May 4, 1967 with examples recited therein, except for the enclosed statements by Yakima allottees and enrollees two exhibits of ownership breakdowns and some additional comments. The examples recited in the January 23, 1968 and May 4, 1967 letters are good illustrative examples and not extreme examples reflecting the problem. House Hearings on N.R. 7653, a related bill on January 24 and 25, 1968 has resulted in much discussion by concerned Indian people, the Warm Springs Tribal Council and others who are or will be directly involved. Statements have been handed in by four enrolled Yakima owners of trust interests, copies of which are at- tached; and two examples graphically showing: (1) internal (within the Yakima Reservation) results of the operation of the 1946 Yakima Act and (2) a current Warm Springs Tribal land acquisition case reflecting involvement in multiple ownership plus the trust, fee and enrollment status of the owners. There yet remains after nearly 12 years of effect under the law, a large number of Yakimas who are not familiar with force of limitations under Section 7 of the law until the realistic facts are brought home to them through probate action or testamentary preparation. Then it is either too late to take curative action or they find that they are faced with time consuming, expensive procedures. A gift conveyance from owner to grantee will average roughly, $75 per transaction depending upon the values of the Yakimn property and documentation necessary, The Yakima Tribes finance a part of the Yakima real estate operations by a sys- tem of fees charged on each transaction. The fees are assessed on a fee scheduled based on the values involved. Therefore, an owner in interest to trust property or interests if faced with several problems (1) takes no action and allows the provisions of the Act of operate with the Yakima interests passing only to the Yakmia heirs, or (2) gift deed the interests to their non-Yakima heir(s) or (3) sell the interests and allocate the proceeds. This last procedure is time consuming and quite often subject to other certain procedural restrictions. PAGENO="0040" 36 STATEMENTS You have had handed to you a statement by Mrs. Ruby Dean Leno. Mrs. Leno is an enrolled member of the Yakima Tribes, her children are not enrolled, is a knowledgeable person and has for several years been attempting to resolve her situation since her children will not inherit her property. Mrs. Leno has resolved to sell her interests. She has been advised the sale will require time to consumate. During this period she has no protection in the rights of her husband and children to benefit in her estate in event of death. The statement of Mrs. Dorothy Quaempts Ike Cassaway refers to 21 trust interests in Yakima property. Mrs. Cassaway has been attempting the past year to convey a part of her Yakima interests to her Warm Springs children. She has found the gift conveyance procedure time consuming and expensive. Mrs. Hazel Queahpama Tewee has been concerned since she had the provision of the Yakima Act explained to her. She is only one of many who have not realized how effectively the Act operates to limit her heirs in her Yakami property. Mrs. Irene Quaempts Queahpama Hernandez is also concerned and has been a ssessing the processes and actions necessary to secure her Yakima interest to her children. Three of the above have retained their original trust allotments in addition to other trust Yakima rights and interests. The two examples attached speak for themselves. No. 1 outlines the family history in a Yakima probate case wherein 16 living blood heirs are denied the right to inherit in the estate, while the entire estate passed to an adopted son not of the family blood. The 16 are not enrolled Yakimas who do not qualify be- cause of residency, blood quantum or other reason. Exhibit No. 2 Warm Springs Allotment No. 317, Nellie Whitley, deceased, is an example taken from one of the current Warm Springs Tribal acquisition cases. It is an illustrative of multiple ownerships and the related problem. This ex- ample reflects the difference in the basic principles involved; i.e. the Yakima con- tainment by arbitrary denied of inheritance by any except Yakima enrolled persons as opposite to the functional normal rights of inheritance followed by an equitable extinguishment of the ownership in favor of the Warm Springs Tribes. The Yakima procedure appears morally and constitutionally unjust, the Warm Springs process requires financing and funding but is nevertheless fair and con- stitutional. The owners then benefit by an American, democratic process in their inheritance right. There should be added to the Departmental letter of July 7, 1967 under the statistics section, "Escheated to Yakima Tribes, four eases." There are enclosed for your reference, copies of Agency letters of January 23, 1968, May 4, 1967, and related attachments, three statements by Yakima enrollees, and Examples 1 Yakima case and 2 Warm Springs eases. The goal of containment of reservation Interest and property ownership is ideal, the method of containment in an equitable manner is the problem that con- fronts us. Sincerely yours, $xperintencl.cnt. Senator MCGOVERN. We will now hear from Mr. .Jackson. Mr. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator McGovern. It is indeed a pleasure to appear before you and discuss these prob- lems we are now facing. But, first, I want to say that personally we do not have anything against the Yakimas. They have called us blood brothers, and we in turn have called them the same way. We celebrate the same celebrations, we enjoy the competitive sports with them, basketball, bowling, baseball, but we all abide by the same rules in those things. When it comes to this, the enjoyment or the fine relationship seems to part. It is just because of this one section in the law. Now, the first of these examples I want to discuss concerns a Yakima enrollee. Her name is Alice Scott, and ended up as Daisy Heath Clyde- hawks. She had two sons who are unallotted. She had some Yakima property, but she also had four relatives enrolled at Yakima but not PAGENO="0041" 27 enrolled at Wai~m Springs. So they enjoyed the privilege of in~eriting one-fourth each of the propei4y she bad at Yakii~ia~ Nov, the property at War~m ~prings w~s worth $420. ~J'l~e p~pert~ at Yakima was worth $3,~7Q~ 1~ere we have the cape ~c4~ tw~ sçnis ~bs were completely disinherited in this one case. Example No. 2 also concerns a Yakima~aJlottee, Hattie rWolfe, and she had ~ number of heirs-at-law. Five of these were enrolled at Warm Springs, three were Yaldma enrollees, and they all enjoyed the p~iv~. ilege of inheriting the Warm Springs proj~erty, which amounted to $60, eight of them altogether. But when it came to the Yakima prop- erty, the five that were enrolled at Warm Springs were disinherited,. and only three were heirs to the property1 The property at Warm Spring~ amounted to $60, the property at Yakima amounted to $i~5,i06.. Case No. 3 is named Agnes Teams, She had five heIrs-at~law. Three~ were Warm Springs eni~oliees but unallotted. They inherited Warm Springs property valued at $1,224.83. When it c*gne to the Yakima~ property they were completely disinherited. All ~of the Yakin~a prop~ erty was inherited by a cousin, of the fifth degree1 The v~t1ue of the property was $15,182.47. Now, you take just these three examples alone, thee total wdue of the Warm Springs property amounted to $1,704.83, The total amount of the Yakima property that the Warm Springs people were disin- herited from was $33,559.13, a difference of $31,854.30, in just those three examples that we pulled out of the files. It was mentioned a while ago, too, that there were three that had voted against this, only three that ha4 voted against this section 7 originally, I have here four statements signed by Yakima enrollees who are bitterly opposed to this sectic~n 7 of the law. Qne is working at Warm Springs. She is a 4/4 degree enrolled Yakima Indian. She has property' on the Yakima Reservation. She has grandchildren. Yet~ s~ie cannot will this property under the present circumstances to her grandchildren or to her husband or to her son or daughter. She can take this longer' route by deeding it, but supposing in the process something happened to her, she would still lose out on the property, so she' f~els she is fac- ing a hopeless situation. This is another case, this' is a full-blooded Indiait itanied Hazel Que'ahpama Tewee. She is enrolled at Yakima, 61 years of' age, and ~he has six children all enrolled at Warm Springs. She holds trust iflter,ests~ on the Yakima Reservation, and she has been told that undei the. 1~46 Yakima Inheritance Act her `children, who are members of the Warm' Springs Tribe, cannot inherit any of th~ Yakima property. She' ~ys,, "This I do not like, it is not fair to my children. Children of ~1rakima parent should be allowed to inherit trust property at Yakima or wher- ever the property is located. The law is not fair, and. should b~ ~hanged to permit our children to 1~iavë our trust prbp,erty when we p~s or~." It is signed by Hazel Quoahpama Tewee. No. 3 also concerns ,a full-blood Yaki~na enrollee, 48 years of age. She has five children. Four of them are, enrolled at Warm ~Spriiigs,, one at Yakima. The Warm Spri~gs children, under the exi~sting laws,, cannot inherit the Yakima property. One child is enrolled at Yakima,, so she said, "In the event of death, I want to distribute m~ property fairly among my children. To do so under the Yakim~i law, I will be required to d~ed the property I wish to ieave to'~ocy ~S~it~Springa PAGENO="0042" 38 enrolled heirs during my lifetime. This is a costly, time-consuming process requiring the making of separale deeds at the cost of surveys and convey~nce costs of approximately $75 per deed. The law should permit me to make a will di~posing of all my property in one instru- ment." "The Y~akima inheritance law," she goes on to say, "should be cor- rected to allow children of ~ Y~kima pareiit or natural heirs to~inherit from their Yakima father, mother, htisband, or wife." It is signed Dorothy Quanempts. Thatis No.3. No.4 also `involire&- SenatorMcGovER~r. These are all `Yakima tribal people? Mr. JAc1~soN. All livi~jgin on~ place. Se~at~r MCGOVERN. Mr. ~Pa'hner, What deteFmines whether the child in an enrollee of the tribe or iiOt? It it his birthplace? Mr. PA~rER. Residence generally, Senator. What happens is' that `if they have `the necessary blo~d quantities and if thfry maintain ~a'reeidence within the Yakima Reservation or within the' Cededi are~the~ W~e then eligThle for enrollment. If they do not m~dntain a residence within that area they are noteligible. At W~th4 Springs, `if"they:are a' member or a~child of a member of the neces~ar~jr blood quantnm, and they have, a residence within the reservation, they ~re `eligible for enrollment there, so that a'~Yakiina father a~id a Warm Springs mother who ai~e living on the Warm Springs Reservation will ordinarily hakre their children enrolled at Warm Springs. It was thentioned this morning by Mr. Hovis that they enrolled members into the Yt~ikima Tribe all over the United States, I think those people still have to have a residence within the ceded' area in order to get enrolledt I am not sure about that, but I believe that is the rule. Mr. JACItSON. Sir, may I reacl'this whole thing? Senator~MoQovERN. I am sorry to interrupt you. Mr. JACKSON. This is written by Mrs. Irene Quaempts Queahpama Hernandez: My name is Irene Quaempts Queahpama Xlernandez, 59 years old, an enrolled Yakima of % degree Indian blood, have six children and hold interests in trust interests and rights at the Yakima Reservation. Under the present Yakima in- heritance laws, none of my chilçlren will inherit any of my Yakima trust property or interest in event of my death. The Yakima interest will pass on to Yakima enrolled cousins. This is an unfair law. `It denies my children the right to inherit property and assets I have saved for them over the years. If I deed the property to them now, it will take money I cannot spare to pay the costs of conveyance and surveys; if I happen to suddenly die, they will not inherit. What should I do. The present law is unjust. And it is signed by Mrs. I~ernandez. These are just four examples. One mo~e ,that I would like to discuss. I am closely, I think, related to the Yakima people, as closely as anyone. My mother is a ~Yakima Indian enrolled. She has property there~ My brother is enrolled at Yakima. My two other, brothers, at Warm Springs. Now, my mother has mad~ a will, she wants to will ~he property' to some of her grand- children who, are enrolled at Yakima. We have explained t~ her that this just cannot be done beca~ise they won't- Mr. PA*~ER. EXCUse me, you thean~ enrolled ~t Warm Springs; Mr. JACKSON. Yes. This cannot be done because of this act, you know. So even if she does make a will `this will cannM be recognized PAGENO="0043" 39 beca~use of the existing laws; so that it wonid be best for her now to deed the property to the youngsters. Well, then, when you de~d ~the property to the youngsters-~-- Mr. PANNZR. She n~a~ want it back~ a life estate. She cannot sell it without their signatures ormortgage. Mr. JACKSON. Trustees or these fellows who handle managed prop- erty. They may appoint somebtdy that she does not agree with, they may sell the property. Senator MCGOVERN. Actually, from the standpoint, as I now under- stand it, of this restriction, it originally was intended to accomplish- what would be the differenc~ frt the legal principle involved if yOu had a law `that sMd~you could not deed property to a, nontr~bal ~iember? What is the differenc~betwee~ saying,you ~anuot doit by inheritance as against preventing it by a deed? Mr. PANN~R, I think oh pr~inciple you can d~ the same thing. There is no difference in principle. Either way it is a for~eiture of a vested interest in property. I do not think iii any ether situation, other tha~n the Indian situation, that the Congress would even consider it. There has been some suggestion here by the Yakimas that if we do not like their act we should get a similar act passed, you see. Well, ( am sure you would not pass one. You certainly should not, because in effect what it would do' would be to permit us to just disinherit every- one. We could say no one ever can own property under any~ circum- stances outside of Warm Spring members which, from the standpoint of the tribe, `might be desirable. In other words, there i's an interest in holding this land base together. But it has to be balanced with the individual rights as wçli. ` ` ` This is why we are embarked on a program of acquiring these rights whenever the land goes out of non-Indian ownership or nonmember ownership. We attempt to acquire those interests back, and we have spent a lot of money, and `we are continuing to do it. If the Yakimas `want to protect their land base, then I think they should operate within the same area that we all do. Senator MCGovERN. `So you have no quarrel with the intent of the law? ` Mr. PANNER. No, sir. In ~act~ they suggested this morning we were trying to regulate their enrollment `performance. We are not. We rec- ognize, in other words, the Yakimas should be allowed to set such rules as they want for enrollment to the tribe. That is a different situation, though, than taking property away from somebody who has acquired. If you have got a wife, mayrbe ason who ha~ built a home on this prop- erty for his family, worked aU his life to get that family in shape or to build it up, and all of a sudden he is dismherited because he is not a Yakima, that is a bad situ~ti~n~ Mr. JACKSON. Sir, this has become ~more important in the northwest because there are so many intermarriages new, among the tribes that pretty soon we will just have one big tribe in the northwest area instead of Yakima, Warni'Spring~ and so forth. , Senator MCGOVERN. But an Indian from another trjbe, let us `say from your tribe, who marri~s a. Yakitha does not beGome a member of `the Yakima Tribe. ` ` ` Mr. PANNER. No. ` ` ` Senator MCGOVERN. Not even through marriage? PAGENO="0044" 40 Mr. PAW~EL She ca~n~t~ In, other words~ they cannot belong to two tribes unless they give up their member~ip in ç~e~ and that ha~ never happened, Theoretically ~t conid happ~n, bnt nobody woi~ild ~yer take that chance to have it happen~ so sh~ d~e~ not e gI~she is ~ Warm Springs woman or a Warm Springs rna~ rwho marries ~i spou~e from Yakima, that is iL Senator MCGOVERN. OK. Did you have any other q~estions? Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. De~ilwo. STATEM~1ft OP ROBERT D. D~LLWO, ATTORNEY, S~OKA~E, COBUR d'ALEN~ AND KALISPEL TRIBES; *ACCO~PANIED BY J~OSEPH R. kiA1t1~!, dEAI1~'IAN, COEUB d'At TETBE Mr. DEu~wo. Mr. Chairman, Senator McGovern, I am Robert Dellwo, arid 1 am an attorney fdr the Spokane Tribe, which is near S1~okane, Wash. ~ the Kali~pei Tribe also in that area; a~iid the Coeur d'Alen~ Tribe. Silthg with me today i~ Joseph R. Garry, who is th~ chairman of ~iie Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and a men~b~r~ of the State Senate of the State of Idaho, ahd who was the president of the International Con- gre~ of American Indians for 8 years, and a recognized national leader in Indian nffair~. 1 have my roots~ I might say, in the Flathead country, born and raised on the Flathead Reservation, and very familiar with that area. It is difilcult fot me to think of any points that have not been covered. Perhaps I can bring out one or two things. The first point is geographically, Senator, that here we have in the central part of the State of Washington a large tribe of over 5,000 `~embers with a land base. Surrounding it are these other tribes. For `e~ample, to the north is the Oohtille Tribe, and the Spokane Tribe which I represent. To the northeast is the IKalispel Tribe and Coeur d'Alene Tribe. To the east is the Nez Per~e Tribe, and to the'south is the Warm Spring~ and Umatilla Tribes. These tribes surround the Yakima Tribe and historically and traditionally and up to the pres- ent time, the Yaki*ia area ha~ been a kind of crossroads, an extremely hospitable tribe ?w~th lots' of activity, sports and so forth and, as a result, from the ~rery origin of these reservations there is a complete ~degree of interma1rtiage and intermixttire between these tribes and the ~Yakima Tribe. Another point I wanthdto make is that'back in the reservation~days wh~n they were heing formed~ most of these tribes ~were in the nature ~f confederations; for instance, the Confederated Colvilles. In the case of Coeur d'Alene Tribe, nearly half of the so-called Coeur d'Alenes were members of' other tribes who happened to live on the reserva- tion and who Were swept intO enrollment in the enrollment days, and in the ~llotment days, so that actually on to their rolls went a num- ber of Flatheads, Spokanes, Yakimas, and so forth. So there was a buiit4ñ intermarriage. Therefore,we have the tradition of a history of intermixing of these tribes; commerce, and the intermarriage between them that is the rule rather than the exception. PAGENO="0045" 41 This~ oi~ c~u~~tth~ `Yakimas Wet ointhig out that this was, in their opinion, ~h internal private matter. Each of the tribes that I represent, and all of the tribes With which I am familiar, have the same problems of enrollment ~s do the Yakimas. For example, in the case of th~ ~3oeur d"Aiehe `Tribe, ~as pointed out bythe Yakimas this morning, th~e are over 1~O m~mbers who could not prove a drop of Indian blOod if their lives depended ~on it. This is a private matter.~ I~f a tribe wants to do something or seek legislittion to more~ Or ~Ie~s decontaiiiinate their t~oi1~ of n~h~ Indians and to strengthen their enrollment, that may be a prii~&t~ personal matter. But when they enact a law that, in effect, d~sinherit~ members of other tribes, true Indians, of course, this becomes a mat- ter of real interest to other tribes and is no longer a private intei~nal matter. In my practice among the Indians for the last 18 years I have observed and worked innumerable Indian estates and I Could cite, as did the Warm Springs Tribe, innumerable examples where there is a mixture of children on the Yakima Tribe and ah the Coe~r `d'Alene or one o~the other tribes, and the Yakima~ are inheriting on the reservations that I represent. Of course, the members of th~ tribes that I represent are not inheriting on the Yakima.' Let me mention juSt a couple of matters.~ For instance, We bai~b the Isadore family~ iii the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, a large f~milj'~ t~in4 `through a seejuence of about' 50 years of `intertharringe and death~ and descent, and ~O forth, I `have ob~er-ve'd the Yakima mem~be~s ~f that family inheriting' inte~e~ts on `nearly 20 allotments at Coeur d~Alene, which have a totM' `value `Of `né~rly' $2~50,00~ of the niost valnable wheatlands in' `the Ooeur d'Alene area, and yet the Coeur d'Alene members of the sathe family have i~iherited nothing on the Yakima Reservation. I have in mind ~tnôt1rer caSe `in `which a Yakima was married' to a Ooeur d~A'lene Ihdiah `âp~'d' p ticipnting through the years'in bh~ Coeur d'Alene estates, a'ha ~yet'th1al!1y on his dèath,'because there were no eligible `Y~tkin~ia heirs,' his~ estate' oh the ,YaI~hn~ Eeser'v~tioi~ escheated to the tribe and none of the Coeur d"Alehe members of thiLt family could inherit. " ` There is another' factor that I Would like' to `mention, `and `that is where you have a ~large tribe jn the middle, and smaller t'ribes'Surronnd; ing it, and where tJh~ wealth of this centtal~ tribe is greatet' per eaPit~ than the wealth Of the si~frrounding tribe~ `there is the ~en~ency, wlf~ you have mixed,parentage~ to enroll the `children, ~t leust part Of'thetn, with the 1~rgèr, tribe. F~or `that' reason, sa'y a member of the Kalispe~ `Tribe, with which Mr. ~Githble an~ I have `beefl' `ta'Ik~ng in the last `COuple of years, ha~ a stn'all enrollment' of"lOO members but it has' an `actual Indian population, ~rou `might"say, of seveuMil hundred. Th~ reason for this is that a majority of the children' are etirolled With other tribeS,~the Spokane, `the Ooeur d'Alene, the FPa'thé'ad alid' `the Yakima wottld be the best ,e~am~les and, therefore, ~in family ~af~r family you ,have the Yakiias inheriting on `the KaliSpel~' but, the iCalispel members of the family not iikherithi~g on the Y4kima,~ánd ,ou~ `experienée great' tension and turmoil wi~hih these families. You find families torn apart, and they do nOt und~erstand'this and'of co'urse~a~ Mr. Panner pointed out, as a practicing attorn~y representing `tndh~ns~ it is almost impossible to explain. PAGENO="0046" 42 I wanted to ask Mr. Garry now who, as I introduced him, is the chairman of the Coeur d'Alene Tribe, to add his comments. Mr. Garry. Mr. GARRY. Thank yo~i, Robert. Senator MCGOVERN. Mr. Garry. Mr. CARRY.. I think everything here has been just about said, and I have very little more to add. I do want to confirm what Mr. Deliwo has set forth is the position of the Coeur d'Alene Tribal Council, of which I am.chairman, inopposi- tion to section 7 of the Yakima Act. I have a relative who had to enroll on the I~alispel, and her husband is a~ Yakima. But by reason of the fact that they could not inherit any- thing on the Yakima, she had the children enrolled on theKalispel. I do feel that something should be done to sort of straighten this around so that all tribes would be on an equalfooting, reciprocity legis- lation or some such thing as that, but at least to maybe make it pos- sible for the tribes, members of other tribes, to inherit within the Yakima Reservation. This would not only solidify the nation but at least they would have equal rights. That is about all I have to say at this time. Senator MCGOVERN. Thank you,Mr. CArry. M~. DELLwo. I would like to clarify one thing about the residence requirement for enrollment. The tribes I am familiar with have no residence requirements. For example, if you have a husband and a wife, one Yakima and one Coeur d'Aiene, living on the Cocur d'Aiene Reservation, the parents can p~ick which tribe their children are en- rolled with They can enroll their childre~n on the Yakima Reser~ ation even though they reside in the Coeurd'Alene area. Senator MCGOVERN. Providing one parent or the ether has inem- bership ~ Mr. DELLWO. Yes. The only requirement is that one parent or the other have membei~ship, and you frequently find these families where half are one tribe and half are of theother 1~rjbe. Senator MCGOVERN. But once they make that decision then they are bound by this legislation, Mr. DELLWO. Yes. Senator MCGOVERN. If they choose other than the Yakima Tribe. Mr. DELLWO~ Yes; and you will run into many of these situations. For example, on the Kalispel Tribe they did not have assets for a num- ber of years They might register all of their children on the ad)acent tribes, the Yakima or the Spokane. You run into families such as the Campbell family on the Kalispel where all of the children are reg- istered on the Spokane, and it makes no difference in inheritance. But if they are all registered as Yakimas, then, of course, they could in- herit on the Kalispel but those who are registered as Kalispels could not inherit on the Yakima. Senator MCGOVERN. I see. Since they have that option with the chil- dren, why wouldn't they take advantage of that? I suppose there are other reasons why they prefer that they not do it. * Mr. DELLw0. Well, yes; there are many other reasons. There is tribal loyalty and tribal affiliation. There is a dominant member of the family who want the children to be Coeur d'Alenes. Senator MCGOVERN. Yes. PAGENO="0047" 43 Mr. Th3LLwo. Also, if everybody took advantage of their option, then you would have a tremendous growth of Yakimas. Everybody would be registering Yakimas in order to inherit on the ~akimas, and there would be a shrinking away of membership of the other tribes. Senator MCGOVERN. Well, thank you ve~ry much. (The statement referred to follows:) $TATEMItNrT ON 13Efl~ALP or SFOI~ANE. C0ETYR D'ALENE AND KALISPEL TRIBES The writer is attorney for the Spokane, Ooeur d'Alene and Kalispel Tribes and has been authorized and requested to submit this statement in behalf of those tribes urging the enactment of S. 1764. In preparing this statement the writer has knowledge of the coRtents of statements prepared by the attorneys for the Warm springs and Ijmatilla Tribes and finds that all of the points and arguments made by them would apply equally to the three tribes he represents. Each of the attorneys has cited examples of Indian ~probates where great injustices resulted by reason of the enforcement of Section 7 of the Yakima Enrollment Act. The writer could cite innumerable other examples, all to the same point, He is involved at the present time in a large Indian will contest case in which three Yakima Indians are inheriting nearly $200,000 worth of wheat lands on the Ooeur d'Alene Reservation. These Yakima heirs are grandchildren and great grandchildren of deceased Indian coh~les who were mixed Yakima and Ooeur d'Alene. Large estates on both reservations accrned through a series of probates and marriages. The Yakima members of the family are inheriting freely on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation but the Coeur d'Alene members cannot inherit on the Yakima Reservation. This is a large estate. The same thing has happened in numerous smaller estates. The wrIter has observefi the close relationship between the Yakima Indians a~id the various neighboring tr4be~. In looking at the map one can see that the Yakima ReCervation is centrally located with the Colville, Spokane, Kalispel, COeur d'Alene, Nee Percé, Timatilla and Warm Springs Tribes ~surrotrnding it. What is true now has bèeti true since the beginning of the reservations. The central location of the ~Yakin~a Tribe, its various attractions, the hospitableness Of the Yakimas has made it a kind of gathering point or crossroads for the Indian people. As a réstilt, intermarriage has been the rule rather thhn the exception. In the typical family of mixed tribal affiliation ~ou have a Yakima parent and a ~parent enrolled with some other tribe. The children are often divided in their enrollment. As the generations succeed each other this mixture of Yakinm and the blood of other tribes becomes more and more complicated and widespread and the problems of beirship will eNtend from generation to genera- tion. In a situation of this kind to provide by law that only the OnrolledYakimas with satisfactory Yakima blood ciuantum can inherit on the Yakima reservation resuitsin almost unbelievable inequities and injustices. A nnmber of possible solutions present themselves: 1. EnaCt a sithilar law goferhing all of the othe~ tribes. 2: Generate a will and lariti transfer prograul in which precautions are taken by individual members of ~th~r tribes against inheritance on their reservations by Yakima Indians. 8. Repeal Section 7 oftheYakinm Enrollment Act. The conclusion is obvious. The only practical solution is the repeal of Section 7 by the enactment ofS. 1764. ConuR D'ALENE REsoLuTIoN Whereas, the Coeur d'Alene Tribe has always considered Section 7 of the Yakima Enrollment Act to be patently unfair and has urged its repeal, now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED: That the Coeur d'Alene Tribe does hereby express its support of S. 1764 which, if Onacted, would repeal Section 7. The Coeur d'Alene Tribal Council has noted the statements being filed in behalf of the Warm Springs and TJmatilla Tribes. These statements could be endorsed by the Coeur d'Alene Tribal Council without change. Everything said in them In support of S. 1764 applies with equal force on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation. PAGENO="0048" 44 ~I3eipg fIlM herewith' ~ ~furl~hef~ statement h~y our attorr~e~r Robert D. i~flwo ~who ts ~peakiug ix~ were ~et~i1 foi~ the ~oeur, 4'Al~ ~pol~a~e' ~d ~lisp~l Tribes~ ~ çrhe exi~fe~jc~o~ S~ction ~ ~in the ~Yaki'ma' ]~nr Imef~t 4~1~ Is e of `the mo~t `unfair, unjust ai!td lhe~itz~blé thMgs that ~ hI IndhIh I~Mi~ As~~1Vtr. ~Delltv~ relates, there is a great fr~aef~c~r ~of h~termarriage ~betweeu oar tribal members `and those of other tribes, including thQ5e c4~ tjie' Yahii~m, Coivilles. ~latl~eads, Kalispels, Nez Perce, Spokanes and Yakimas all inherit land interests on `our reservation, Our wembers likewise inherit land interests on alj the QtJller reserva- tions-EXCEPT ON THE YAKIMA RESERVATION. In the case of the' Yakima PrIbe~,its members can inherit freely on wir reserva- tion, bat brothers, sisters and spouses In the same f5anMly cam~iet hdierit,on t~e Yakirna Reservation. We have many allotments on the Coenr d'Alene Reserva~- tion `in c~bich Yakima Indians have inherited interesta These ar~ often split families where one spouse Is eoear d~Alene and the other Yakiina. Part of the `children ~`ua3r be on the Coeur d4Alene rolls `and part on tile Yakima rolls. The `~`Yaklma"~ children inherit their parent's inthrests an the Coeur d'4dene `Reserva- tion, but rtha' Ooeur d'Alene children `do not inherit those on the Yakima. We could cite many other examples, all iliustratin~ the `unfairness of Section 7. `We sti~ofigiy `urge the enactment of S.'1764. , St"Ot~A~'tE REsoLuTtor~ `Whereas, the `Spokane Tribe is vit~fly iutere~ted in the enactment of hR. 765~ ~and 5. 1764' which, if enacted, would rep~al Sectiop 7 of the Yal~lma 1~lnroilulent Act which has worked so many injustices on our reservation and among our peo- ple, and ` ` Whereas, our interests in seeking repeal of said Section 7 a~e identical to those `of the Warm Springs Tribe, the Umatilla Tribe, the Coeur d'A'lene ~rlbe, the Kalispel Tribe &nd, in fact, all tile tribes of Oregon, Idaho an4I ~stern Washing- `ton in which there is a freque~~y of 1ntermar~t~gew~th Yakiuw 1ndi~ns ~nd of famili~ tilatare part Yakima ~nd part some ~other tribe, now, therefore, Be `It ReeaZ'~ed: That the Spoka~e Tribe does hereby annoimcelts,suppoi-t ~or HR. 7653 and 8, ~t784 and'urgestheir enactment into law. In announcing our support for these bills gn4 urging the repeal of said Section ~7, we hereby adopt as if set `out In this resOlution the ~fo1Jowing ~tatewents si~h- mitted hI behalf of other tribes by our attorney Robert ~., PeUwo~ We adopt and approve all of the comments in the statement dated J~nuary ~ 1968 entitled' "Statement of the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reser- vation of Oregon~' and sttbmitted and signed by their attorney Owep `~. `P~nneii. `We also adopt andapprove the statement that the Warm Spri~g~ Tribe will fiJe `In the hearings before the Senate Interior Committee on S. 1764. Every~h~~g ~atd in this stfttenitent would apply to the Spokane Tribe. We adopt and approve all the comments in tile statement dateil January 2~, 1968 ontltled "Statement ou'iBehakf of the Confederated Tribes of the Iimatilia Indian Reservation in Support of ILR. `7658" submitted and signed b~ the tribe'~ `attorney Mark C. McClanaha'n. We also adopt tilesitnilar statement tile Umatilla Tribe will file in the Senate bearings on 5. 1764. .&s in the case~ of the Warm ~Spr1ngs Tribe every com~uent that Mr. MeClanaban makes in that statement would apply with equal force on the Spokane BeserratiOn. We adopt as a part of this resolution the statement being filed b~ Robert P. `Dellwo, dated March 1, 1968, `as attorney for `the Spokane, Coeur cI'Aiene and ~Ka1ispel Tribes. ` , , As each of the attorneys explains, nothing Is more Inequitable than the fact ~f `the Yakima Indians inheriting freely on each of our reservations while our tribal ~menibers, often children or spouses in the same families, cannot inherit on the `Yakima Re~ervatjon. We urge the ~uactm'ent of'S. 176~t. ` ,J~ALTSPEL REsoLUTIoN Whereas, the Kalispel Tribe ha~ members who bare b~en advnrsely affected by Section 7 of the Yakima Enrollment ACt which would be re~eaie'd by 5, 1764, now,' therefore, BE IT RESOLVED that `the Kalispel Tribe does hereby express it support `~for S 17044 ` PAGENO="0049" 45 In lieu' O~ a 1etigth~ stat~itient iti~ ~npport of its posltiOx~, the Içalispei 1TtIbe~ calls th~ Senate~'I'nte~ior Committee's attentiOn th the ~tat~n~eiit~ being ~fiied in behalf of the Warm Springs and Umatilla Tribes. These statemet~ts set out in some detail the reasons for the repeal of said ~ec,tion ~. AM of th~ pQ~n~s and arguments urged in behalf of those' tribes' wOuld apply equal'y in the; case of the Kalispel Tribe. we' also adopt as part of our1 statement the ~tatexnent by our attoriie~ t~obert ]~ ~eTlw~d~ked 1\~arcl~1, 196&~ beip~ t~ied here)V41t~ The repeal of Section 7 would remove a most unjust a~cl inequitable ri~ile ol~ descent ~the etistence of which has actually catiset máu~ in~tai~iceS of strahied relations between Kalispel and Yakima Indians and has in 5~ne cases torn families apart We urge enactment of S. 1764. Senator MCGOVERN. Is Mrs. Workman here? STATEMENT OP GRACE EDSEL WORKMAN, ENROLLED MEMBER O~ THE YAKIMA NATION Mrs. WORKMAN, I am an enrolled member of the Yakima Nation. I presently reside here in Maryland, and my husband is a District policeman. I would like to go on record as being opposed to this bill. I had no previous knowledge of the hearing before this morning's paper, and when I heard of it I did come down right away. I wanted people to know that we are aware of this and of the consequences that will happen if this amendment is passed. This will have no immediate effect on myself and my husband's family, but it will have an effect on my people of the Yakima Nation. We have the right, just as all other people have the right, to be a' self-governing body, and that is the reason the Yakima was set' `up' for the Yakima people by treaty. We have our own council, we do our own governing, and I think we should have the right to decide what will happen to our land. Senator MCGOVERN. Is your husband a i~iember of the tribe? Mrs. WORKMAN. No. Senator MCGOVERN. He is nOt. So that if anything should happen tcr you your interests would not pass on to your husband. Mrs. WORKMAN. No. Senator MCGovERN. Yet you favor retaining- Mrs. WORKMAN. I do. Not for myself but for my people. Senator MCGOVERN. Well, thank you very much, Mrs. Workman. T appreciate your testimony. Mr. Grornd, we will be glad to hear from you now. STATZMENT O~' ALB1~RT A. GROIWD, ATTO1fl~,' WASHINGTON, D.C. Mr. GIIORTTD. I am Albert A.~ Grorud. I will identify myself., I served for about 98 years as a sta~ member on this committ~. I was desig- nated special assistant a~d attorney for the committee and also an investigator of the su'bcoiifmittee `whibh é~dsted for about ~8' or 2Q~ yearS, which in~resti~ated the Indian Affairs of the United StateS,~ and I was in charge of it. I have been familiar with the Yakima Eeservktion for about, for' some 40 years. I have visited the reservation frequently, and I will say~ PAGENO="0050" 46 about this act of 1946 it was enacted ir~IproperJy, and it was promoted by the Indian Office, its promotion began several years before the enactmentof the law. The Indians have never had the say of whether or not they approved of this legislation. In 1934 or 1935 the question of whether or not to adopt the Wheeler- Howard Act came before the tribe, and they had a secretarial election and everyone, every member, living on the reservation, and outside voted and rejected the Wheeler-Howard Act overwhelmingly. Commissioner Collier at that time did not like such action so he proceeded in about the year 1940 or 1941 to promote this legislation. It is in effect another Wheeler-Howard Act. But the Indians never liked it. I mean they never had a chance to vote on it. I retired from this committee in 1955, and after that I represented an organization of the Yakima Indians which was very active for several years, petitioned the Secretary of the Interior for a secretarial election, but we never could get the approval of the Secretary. When we did try to elect opposition candidates to the tribal council, the chairman of the meeting would declare no quorum present, and adjourn the meet- ing, without date of such as took place at the annual meeting and elec- tion in July 1955, without a vote taken, and when fall came further postponements and delays were made which delayed the election for months, until the winter of 1958 when it was a difficult matter to travel from the west side of the Cascade range to the east side of the mountain range. I feel it is my duty to come here and represent the majority of the Yakima Tribe. SenatQr MCGOVERN. Mr. Grorud, why did, in yoi~tr judgment-you say the BIA actually pushed this legislation? Mr. GnoImD. Oh, yes. Senator MCGOVERN. Why? Why would they be interested in legis~ lation of this kind? Mr. GRORUD. Well, they had the Wheeler-howard Act and wanted the Yakimas added to it, but the Indians rejected that, and- Senator MCGOVERN.. I see. Mr. GRORUD. And as it is now. Commissioner Bennett testified before the subcommittee of the House on the IJllman bill. He stated to the committee that the Yakirna Tribe is against this legislatiQn. This is not true. The Yakima Tribal Council is, but ~not the tribe. I would say that the tribe is for this legislation. Senator MCGOVERN. The rank and file. Mr. GRORtJD. Yes, to repeal section 7. But it does not go far enough. It should be amended to include section 4, and all the provisions of the act. In 1960 Congressman Tollefson introduced a bill, H.R. 1176, to re- peal this act, and the Department submitted a reportthat would favor repeal of sections 4 and 7. So we acceded to that, and it passed the House on April 19, 1960. It came to the Senate on April 20, 1960, and it never was con- sidered by the Senate. The Senate did not adjourn until September 1960, however, the tribal council, by its delaying tactics, was strong enough to defeat consideration of this legislation `during the 79th Congress. PAGENO="0051" 47 Now, the Yakima Reservation is probably one of the most pro- ductrve reservations in the United States. They have an irrigation project that is probably the most productive in t~he United State~, but 90 percent of the acreage on the project is farmed by non-Indians. So. in effect, the Indians afe landlords and collect the rentals. Senator MOGOV~RW~ They lea~e it out ~ Mr. GRORTID. Yes, atid it is a bad situation. I would suggest that the Secretary call an election so that every Indian will have an opportunity to say whether or not they will agree to legislation of this kind, and I predict that, knowing the Yakima Indians as I do, that perhaps 90 percent of them will vote in favor of repealing the entire act, and I believe that in order that the committee may be wholly informed, an election should be held. Now, the Yakima Indians have been very much encouraged by this new activity by the two Senators from Oregon in introducing this bill which would repeal section 7. If the Yakima Tribe is afforded an op- portunity to vote at a properly conducted election, a vast majority will favor the repeal of the act of 1946. I do not know, it used to be about 4,600 members of the tribe, and about half of them live off the reservation. A lot of them live in Seattle, Tacoma, and other coast cities on the west side of the Cascade Range. Senator MOGOVERN. But you think in a referendum or election of some kind that the overwhelming majority of the tribal members would vote to repeal this section? Mr. GRORtID. Yes; they are in favor of repealing the entire act. Senator ~IoGovERN. Yes. Mr. Guontrn. But they would be very grateful even if section 7 were repealed. Senator McGoVERN. Yes. Mr. Gnoutm. It is a very bad situation. Senator MCGovERN. So you say the majority of them are in favor of the bill that is before the committee? Mr. GRORUD. Yes. But they would ask to amend it which includes section 4. It passed the House which repealed section 4 and section 7, so we felt it would go tbr~mgh. But the tribal council wa~ strong enough, I assume politically, to defeat it ftom being c~onsiderOd by the Senate. Senator MCGovERN. Thank you very much. Mr. GEORUD. Thank you very much. I would like to get permission to file a statement and get sufficient time. The Indians whom I represent have no money to hire anybody. Senator MoGov~uw, We will keep the record open for a few days. Mr. GRORUD. I would like to have about 30 days. How about 20 days? Senator MoGovi~RN. Can you do it in 15? You cannot get it ni in a couple of weeks? 1 Mr. GRORTJD. A couple of ~weeks. All right, I wjll try to do that. I do all the work without any help; It is difficult, but I will prepare my statement within that time. Senator McGoveRN. Thankyou, Mr. GRORTJD. Thank you. Mr. PANNER. Mr. dhairnaan, if I might, about this last statement, I would like to say even though I am in favor of repealing this section, I do not believe that a great majority of the Yakirnas would over- PAGENO="0052" whelmingly favc~r this repeal, and I am not sure that is relevant, in a~iy event.. The Congress passed this~ act, ~s this witness has testified, and even if the Yakimas: were in favor of it you could understand why the~t were because it is eseheating land bank to the, tribe~ I would resist anything that delays it because this bill has been sti~uggling for 10 years .now, and I even hate to hare this gentleman have ~ weeks to file a statement if it ipight slow up this committee. This thing has been at it for 10 yearsnow, iuad it needssorn~ction. I am also autho~i~ed to say that the Tjbeatilla Tribe, which is aiiother big tribe in the area, is filing and .hastfiled, I believe, with Jim a writ- ten statement ~tpgqrting repealof th seetioia T; Senator MCGOVERN. All right. Thank you ver~ tnuch. Mr. PANNER, Thank you. Senator McGovEu~. 1 appreciate it. (The additional statement referred to is as follows:) ADDITIONAL STArEMENT BY ALBERT A~ GRORUD, ATTORN1IY AT LAW, WASHINGTo~c, D~C. I submit that the record r~veala that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Robert L. Bennett, the delegates representing the TYakirna Tribal Council, Robert B. Jim, Eagle Seelatsee, Watson Totus, Ueorge Umtilch, and its Attorney, James B. Hovis, by their manifestations before the Committee merit censure. Their deviation from `rectitude and suppressing the truth was apparent, all of which was for the purpose to mislead and deceive the Congress of the United States and its dul~v authorized Committees. The matter for consideration before the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs is S. 1764, providing for the repeal of Section 7 of the Act of August 9, 1946: (60 Stat. 968). An Identical bill (HR. 7653) is now pending before the House. Legislation which became the Act of August 9, 1946, originated in the House of Representatives by the introduction of H.R. 6165, 79th Congress, on April 17,, 1946, entitled: "To provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, and for other purposes." It is my belief that the make-up of such a title was an invention and a con- coction created by the Indian Bureau, its of~1cials, agents and employees with the aim to mislead and deceive the Cong~e~ss. The officebf tl~e Bureau of Indiab Affairs, du~lng the period of time, between April 4, t946, thd August 9~ 1946, was located in the City of Chicago, Illinois. Following isa legislative history `of II~R. 6165, 79th Congress, Second Session : April 17, 1946. Tntroduced in the House of Representatives, By Congressman Hal Holmes, of the 4th Congressional District, State of Washing~ou, and referred to the Committee on Indian AffairS, copy of which follows: [H.R, 6165, 79th Cong., Second Sess.] A BILL To provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of tbe Yakima Reservation, Wasbthgtos, end fOr other purposes fle it ~,nao~etZ b~j ~he ~5enate and House of Ilepresentatives of the TJnit~d states states of A~nerica in Congress assembled, That the secretary of the Interior be, and he is h~ereby,~ authorized and directed, with the a4vice and consent of the Yakima Tribal Council, to prepare a roll showing the members of the Yakigia Tribes living on the date o~ the approval of this Act, which roll shall be kept cUrrent and shall constitute the othcial membership roll of the Yakilna Tribes fQr' all purposes. No person who is enrolled with any other tribe of Indians or whO~ has received an allotment of land on any other reservation shall be enrolled under the provisions of this Act. The following shall J~e placed on the roll: (a) All living persons who received allotments on the Yakima Reservation, except by fraud. (b) All living persons who are of the blood of the fourteen original Yakima ~ribes, parties to the treaty of June 9,1555 (i~ Stat, 951), and who baPe received allotments on the p~hltc domain within the area ceded to the United States by the Yakima Tribes by the treaty of 1855. PAGENO="0053" 49 (c) All living p~sons~ ~hO~ hav4~ mitlntalne4 a cl~micil~ i'th~uou~ly fi~om January 1, 1941, until the dat~Of~ffl~r0~kl of thl~ Act ôñ the YàlWnh ~e~vatf~ or within the area ceded by the treaty of .June9, 1855 (12 Stat. 951), and who are (1) descend~flhl~ of pe~ns ~ho r ~I~ed aiiOl~ments on the Yakima Reservation, except by fraiid~ or~ (2) de~e~Tthlnts of persons of the blood of the fourteen orig- inal Yakima Tribes who re~etved allotments on the public domain within the area ceded by the said treaty of 1855. All living children born after Januàr~V 1, 1i~41 but prior to the date of approval of this A~t to a ii~t~on entitled to eiirollmenl~ under this subsection shall likewise be entitled to enrollment hereunder. (U) All children of one~fourth or more blood of the Yakima Tribes born after the date of approval of thiS Act to a parent who is an enrolled member and maim' tains a domicile on the Yakima Reservation or ~itbln the ai~ea ceded by the treaty of June 9, 1855, at the time of the birth of the child. Sue. 2. Any person of one-fourth or more of the blood of the Yakima Tribes who may be excluded from enrollment under the provisions of section 1 of this Act may apply for membership at any time and be enrolled upon the approval of the applieat1ox~ by a two-thirds vote of th~ Ynklina Tribal Council. Applications for enrollment under this section on behalf of minors and persons mentally 1ncorki~ petent may be filed by any enrolledlflember of the Yakima Tribes. Sue. 3. Corrections in the roil prepared hereundet~ b~ striking therefrom the name of any person erroneously placed on the roll or by adding to the roll the name of any person erroneously omitted therefrom, may be made at any time by the Yakima Tribal Council. Sue. 4. E\~ery person whose name appears on the roll prepared hereunder who holds no vested right, title, or i~iter~st in or to any restricted or trust land oil the Yakima Reservation or within the area ceded by the treaty of June 9, 1855, ttnd who has l~ailed to maintain any tribal affiliations or a residence on the reser-~ vation or within the ceded area for a period of five consecutive years, shall no longer be considered a member .o~ the YakIma ~ribes, and his name shall be re- moved from the rolls. It shall be the duty of the Yaki~a Tribal Council to determine, subject to review by the Secretary of the I~iterior, loss of member-i ship in each case. Sue. 5. The Yakima Tribal ~ouncil may adopt and enforce ordinances, subject to review by. the Secretary of the Interior, governing the expulsion of members for any cai~se deemed by the council to be sufficient. Sue. 6 No person whose name shall hereafter be placed on the roll of the Yakima tribes shall be entitled to any back annuities or pei~ capita payments made to the members of the tribes out of tribal funds which were authorized to be paid tb the member~ of the tribes before such person's name shall have been placed npon ~ttCh roll. Sue, 7. Heveafter only enrolled members of the Yakima Tribes of one-fourth or more blood of such tribes shall inherit ~r take by devise an~ interest in that part of the restricted or trust estate of any deceased member of such tribes which came to the deceased member through his membership in such tribes, or which came to the deceased member by virtue of an allotment of land on the public domain ~titTiin the ai~ea ceded by the treaty of June 9, 1855 (12 Stat. 951), except that the surviving spouse of less than one-fourth of the blood of the Yakima Tribes may receive by inheritance or devise the use for life of one-half of any restricted ot trust lands of the deceased membCr located dn the Y~tkima i~idlan 1h~servatlon or within the area ceded by the treaty of Jiflie 9, 185~. April 18, 1946. Chairman of the House Committee on Indian Affairs requests Secretary of the Int~r1or for ~h1s repurt om the bill (H.B~ 6165). Copy of letter reqiie~sting rppo~rt, fellows (~ORIE~ITTEE ON INDIA~ ATrATES, J~ioUsR or ]~E~PRESEvTATIvES~ Wd8hinx.Qton~ ~ April 18, 1946. SmIRETARY or TJI~ INTERIoR, Was1i~ngton~~ ~D.Q. Mx DEAR MR. SECRETARY: Mr. Holmes h~s introduced H.R. 6165, a bill "~Po provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservatioh, Washingtoil, and for other purposes," which has been referred to this Committee. / It is requested that a report be shbmitted on this bill as soon ~ poi~b~ For your informiltioP,rI am enç~l~siI1g b~ewith two eopj~s 0 this~ b~. SinCerely ydurs, ,, mE~BX~C~SO~, ~ PAGENO="0054" 50 April 22, 1946. Seeret~ry of the Interior replies to the Chairman's request. A copy of the Secretary of tInt Interior's letter, follows: U.S. DEPART~&ENT OF R~IE INTER~oj~, Or~rics OF THE SOLICITOR, Washington, D,C., April 2~, 1946. Ron, HENRY M. JACKSON, Chairman, Committee onVlndian Affairs, house of 1~epresentatives. M~ DEAR MR. JACKSON: The Secretary has received your letter of April 18 requesting a report on H.R. 6165 introduced by Mr. Holmes. A report will be submitted to your Committee at the earliest possible date. Sincerely yours, HERBEBT J. SLAUGHTER, Chief, Legislative Division. No record of any such report, wbi~h was promised by the Secretary was ever received by the Committee. V April 16, 1946. A. memorandum for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, signed by W. H. Flanery, Chief Indian Division, Department of the Interior, a copy of which is as follows: V V V U.S. OEPAETMENIT OF THE INTERIOR, OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR, V Washington, D.C., April 16, 1946. Memorandum for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. V Attached is a copy of a draft of a bill to provide for t1~e preparation of a mem~ bership roll of the Indians of the Y~kima ~eserva~ion, Washington, and for other purposes. This bill has been drafted after a number of discussions over the past week with, the Yakima deleg~~j~flV of Indians, coth~Osed of Messrs. Yallup, See- latsee, So Happy, and Saltiskin. Tn the prepathtion Of the di~aft we have merely tried to put itt legislative form the thoughts the Ind!ans themselves have. It has been explained to them that the bill, if introduced, will be refer~,ed to this De- partment for report and that the initial report will be prepared in your office and submitted to the Congress through the usual channels, It has been made clear to them that our participation in the drafting of the bill carries no coihmitment with respect to the kind Of report that may be thade on the bill. The Indians pro- pose to have their rej~r~sentatlves in the Congress lntro~luce the bill. V V V W. IL. FL4~NERY, V V Chief, Lndian Division. April 26, 1946, A memorandum for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs supple- menting the memorandum of April 16, 1946, as follows: V V US. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, V OFFIvE OF THE SOLICITOR, V V Washington, D.C., April~6, 1946, Memorandum forthe COmm!ssiOner of Indian Af1~airs. V ~upplem~nting my. memorandum to yo~ of April 16 cliclosing a copy of a draft of a bill to provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, Washington, I am enclosing a suggested substitute for sec- tion 7 of the bill, copies of which were handed to the members of the Yakima dele- gation after they had arranged for theintroductionVof the bill. V Section 7, as originally drafted, was defective in failing to make it clear that the provisions of that section extended to lands, and the proceeds derived there- from, located on the Yakima Reservation, or in the ceded area, which the decedent might have acquired by inheritance or devise from prior deceased Indians whether the prior deceased Indians were members of the tribe or not. The sug- gested substitute should have your consideration in drafting a retort on the bill, which has been introduced as H.R. 6165. W. H. FLANERY, Chief, Indian Division. No record of any hearings held on the bill (HR. 6165) by the Rouse Committee on Indian Affairs. July 10, 1946. Reported to the House (H. Report No. 2484) by the Chairman of the House Committee on Indian Affairs, recommending its passage with an amend- ment deleting section 7 and substitute the following Words: PAGENO="0055" 51 `~EEere~tfter only enrolled members of the Yakirna Tribes of one-fourth or more blood of such tribes shall take by inheritance or by will any intetest in that part of the restricted or trust estate of a deceased member of sttch tribes which came to the decedent through his membership in such tribes or which consists of any interest in or the rents, issues, or protits from an allotment of land ~itbin the Yakilna Reservation or within the area ceded by the treaty of June 9, 1855 (12 Stat. 951), except that a surviving spouse of less than one-fourth of the blood of the Yakima Tribes may receive by inheritance or devise the use for life of one- half of the restricted or trust lands of the decedent located within the Yakima Reservation or Within the area ceded by the said treaty of June 9, 1855." A copy of the House Report No. 2484, 79th CongreSs, dated July 19, 1946, follows: [Rouse of RepresentativeS, 79th Cong., second sess., Ilept. No. 24841 PROVIDING FOR PREPARATION OF A MEMB1~IRSHIP ROLL OF THID INDIANS OF THE YAKIMA RESERVATION, WASH. The Committee or~ Indian Affairs to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 6165) which directs that the Secretary of the Interior prepare a roll showing the mem- bers of the Yakima Tribes and which shall constitute the official membership roll of the Yakima Tribes for all purposes, having considered the same, report favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill as amended do pass. The amendmep~t js as follows: On pages 4 and S delete section 7 in its entirety and substitute therefore as section 7 the worda: "Hereafter only enrolled members of the )~akima Tribes of one-1~ourtIi or more blood of such tribes ~ball take ~y inheritance or by will any interest in that part of the restricted or trust estate o1 a deceased member of such tribes which came to the decedent through his membership in such tribes ~r which consists of any interest in or the rents, issues, or profits from an allotment of laud within the Yakima Reservation or within tb~ area ceded by the treaty of June 9, 1855 (12 Stat. 951), except that a surviving spouse of less than one-fourth of the blood of the Yakima Tribes may receive by inheritance or devise the use' for life of one- half of the restricted or trust lands of the decedent located within t~ie Yakima ~eservatiou or within the area ceded by the said treaty of June 9, 1855.", This amendment has been incorporated in this bill at the suggestion of the De- partment o1~ the Interior in order to clarify the intent o~ this act~ The Interior I)ep~trtWept is in. favor of the passage of this b1ll~ and, has recomm~flded its enactment. The original bill was formulated as a result of the requests of the members of the Yaki~na Tribal Council. The Committee has accordingly considered this bill and recommends its successful passage. July 16, 1946~ Passed the House as ametided by the Committee, without de- bate. A `copy of that part of thO Congressional Record Of July 1~3, 1~46, which redords the procedure followed, is as follows: [From the Congressional Record, July 16, 19461 `PRE]MJIATION OF MEMBERSHIP ROLL OF YA~IMA INDIANS `The bill (H.E. 6165). to provide for the pr~paratiOfl of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima R~sçu~t~tiOn, Wash,, and~~Qr other purposes, was con- sidered, Qrderel to a third reading,. read the third time, apd passed. YA~WA REsERVATIoN INPIANS The Clerk called the bill (H,R. 6165) to provide for the preparatioi~ôf a mem- bership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservatloll, Wash., ai~d' fOr other purposes. There being no objection, the Clerk read the bill, as follows: Be it enacted, etc., That the 5,ecrPtftry of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed, with the adtice and consent of the Yakirna Tribal Council, to prepare a roll, showing the members of the Yakima Tribes living on the date of the approval of this act, which roll shall be kept current and shall constitute the official memberShiP roll of the Yakima !1?ribes for all purposes. No PAGENO="0056" 5~2 p~rso~t who ~s enrojied ~yith ~wy Qther tribe of Indians ~r who has r~c~4ve~1 ~an ~a~b~mç~i$ of land on any Qther re~ervation ~haU beenrofled u~de~ the prQv1siou~ ~of t~1iis i~èt. The foilqwing s1~ã1~ be placed on the rçll: (a) All ~ivii~g persons who received allotments on the Yakirna Rese~yajiQn, except hfraucj. (b) AIlliving persons who are `of the blood of the 14 ori~ina1 Ynkima Tribes, parties to the treaty of June 9, 1855 (12 ~tat. 951), and who ~aye received allot~ ments on the public domain within the area ceded to the~ ~Jriited $tates by the Yakima Tribes by the treaty of 185~. (c) All living persons who have maintained a domicile co~tinuousl~~ from ~January 1, 1941, nutil the date of approval of this act on the Yakima Reservation or within the area ceded by the treaty of June 9, 1855 (12 Stat. 951), and who are (1) descendants of persons who received allotments on the Yakima Reservation, except by fraud, or (2) descemiants of persons of the blood of the 14 original Yakima Tribes who received allotments on the public domain within the area cO~1~d lYy the said treaty of 1855. All living children born after January 1, 1941, but prior to the dat~ of approval of this act to a person entitled to enrollment under this subsection shall likewise be entitled to enrollment hereunder. (d) All ~hildren of one-fourthor more blood of the `~akitnt~ Tyibes born after the `date of approval of this act to a parent who Is an enrolled member atid main- -taln~ a - domicile on the Yakima ~1eservation or within, the area ceded by the trettty Of 3~hne 9, 1855, at `the time of the birth of the child. Sso. ~ Any petson of ore-fourth or more of the blood of the'Yakllna Ttibes who may be excluded from enrollment under the provisions of section 1 of this act may apply f~r membership at any time and be é~rolied u~o~% tire `a~~provaI of -the a~plleatlon by a two4hir4s vote of the Yltkima Ti4bal Council. ApplicatIons for enrollmei~t under this section on behalf of minors and persons mentally lh~o~n~ntent may be filed by anyenrolled member of the Yakima ~r~bos. SnO. `8. Corrections In the roll prepared hereunder, by st~lking therefrom the name of any person erroneOu~ly 1~laeed oa the roll or by addi~ig to the roll. the -name of any person erroneotisly omitted therefrom, may be made at any time by the Yakitha Tr~4bal Council. Sac. 4. 1~Jvery person Whose name apt~ears on the roll prepared hereunder who bolds no ~est~ right, title, or intereSt in or to any restricted Or trust land on the Y~k1ma Reservation or within the area ceded by - the treaty, Of June 9, 18~5, s~l who has fajied to maintain any tribal `afiliiátions Or a residence on the reser- vation or w1thft~ the ceded area for a period of five cOnsecktive gears, shall no ~longer be cOnsidered a member of the Yakima Tribes, ath his name shall be reniOvk~d' from the roli~t It shall be', the dtlty of the Yakima Tribal Council t~ ~determIhe~ subject tO re~lew by the Secretary Of the Interior, loSs of membershl~ in each case. Sac. 5~. The Yakhna PrIbâi Council may adopt and enforce o-Fditiances, subject to review by the SOcretai~y of the Interior, governing the etpulsioh of membe1~ for any cause deemed by the council to be sufficiëbt. - Sue, 6. No pe~rson whose name shall hereafter be placed on the roll of the Yalthria Tvibes shall be entitled to any back annuities or pe~ capita payments made to the members of the tribes out ~f tribal funds which were au-th~rl~ed te be paid to the members of the tribes before such person's name shall have been placed upon such roil. ` Sac. 7. Hereafter only enrolled members of the Yakima Tribes of one-fourth ~or more blood `of suCh tribes shall inherit or take by devise any interest in that ~p~rt of the restricted or trust estate of any deceased member through his mem- bèrsb}p `In such tribes, or which came `to the deceased member by virtue of an aliotmeht'nf ia~nd en the ~tib1lC domain within the area ceded by the treaty' June 9, 1855 (12 Stat. l~51), except that the surviving spouse of less than one- fourth of the blood of the Yakima Tribes may receive by inheritance or devise the use for life of one-half of any' restrictdd or trust lands of the deceased member located on the Yekima IndIan Reservation or within- the area ceded by tile trea~of J~utie ~, 1~5. - - WitiRhd following' committee amendment: - - - Page 4, line 14, strjke qut all of-section 7 andinsert: - - "SEe. 7. Uereafteroijly ~n~rolléd inezube)~ Qf the Yakhna Tribes of, one-$~ourtb or -nr~re blood~~f-~uch-t-ribes sh~l take by iir11~ritance or `by will and hiterest i,n that part of the re~tr1cted or tr~rst estate of a 4~ceased memb~r of si~ch tribe~ ~~c1i came to the dèéetke~t 1~hrol~gh hii ~emberi1up In such tiibe~ or which con~sists of an~V in~ete~t in ç~r tIre e~It~ issues or profits frqm ai~ allotrient oi~ land within PAGENO="0057" 53 the T~akima Reservatior~ or within the area ceded by the treaty of June 9, 1855 (12 Stat. 951), except that a surviving spouse of less than one-fourth of the blood of the Yakima Tribes may receive by inheritance or devise the use for life of one- half of the restricted or trust lands of the decedent located within the Yakima Reservation or within the area ceded by the said treaty of June 9, 1855." The committee amendment was agreed to. The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the table. July 17, 1946. The bill was received in the Senate and referred to the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. No record of any hearings on the bill (H.T~. 6165) by the Senate Committee on indian Affairs. August 1, 1946. Reported to the Senate by the Chairman, Senator O'Mahoney (S. Report No. 1925, 79th Congress, dated August 1, 1946). Copy of the printed report follows: The Committee was not polled, and a good reason why; because such Senators as Wheeler, Thomas, Hatch, Chavez, McFarland, LaFollette, Shipstead, Langer, Busbfield, Moore, and Robertson, were members of the Committee. [Senate, 79th Cong., second sess., Rept. No. 1925) MEMBERSHIP ROLL OF THE YAKIMA INDIANS, WASHINGTON The. Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H.R. 6165) providing for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, Wash., and for other purposes, having considered same, report t1~ereon with the recommendation that it do pass without amendment. This bill has been considered by the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House. On July 10, 1946, that committee submitted its report (H. Rept. No. 2484) to the House, recommending its passage, and on July 16, 1946, It passed the House. A copy of the said House Report No. 2484 is attached hereto arid made a part of this report August 2, 1946. Passed the Senate. H.R.~ 6165 being listed on the Citlendar with measures which there were no objection. The House had adjourned sine die when H.R. 6165 passed the Senate. Thi~ was the last day of the 79th Congress. The Senate, on this day convened at 12 o'clock noon and adjourned at 7:27 P.M., sine die. The House convened at12 o'clock t~oon and adjourned at 5:43 P.M., sine die. A copy of that part of the Congressional Record (pages 10728 arid 10729) records the discussions bad concerning H.It. 6165, is as follows: (An objection by one Senator would have defeated the bill.) [From the Congressional Record, Aug. 2, 1946) Tim CALENDAR Mr. BARKLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate pro- ceed to consider the House measures on the calendar to which there is no ob- jection, beginning with Calendar No. 1955, which is the point at which the last tall of the calendar ended, except for two Senate bills; and of course, as I have stated, there is no point in having the Senate consider Senate Bills at this time, inasmuch as the House of Representatives has already adjourned. I also ask that House bills to which amendments have been proposed by Senate committees be not called, for the same reason. The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so ordered; and the clerk will proceed to state the measures on the calendar under the agreement just entered. * * * * * * * PREPARATION OF MEMBERSHIP ROLL OF YAKIMA INDIANS The bill (H.R. 6165) to provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, Wash., and for other purposes, was con- sidered, ordered to a third reading, read the third time, and passed. August 3, 1946. Subsequent to the passage of the bill by the Congress and Its adjournment sine die a communication re H.R. 6165 from the Bureau of the PAGENO="0058" 54 Budget, addressed to the Secretary of the Interior, a copy of said communication follows: ExECUTIvE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU or THE BUDGET, Washington, D.U~, August 3, 1946. The Honorable, the SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. MY DEAR MR. SECRETARY: The. Bureau of the Budget has received the attached facsimile of an enrolled enactment of Congress for the purpose of reporting to the President thereon as to whether there Is any objection to its approval: H. R. 6165. To provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, Washington, and for other purposes. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget will appreciate it if you will send to the Bureau, by messenger, in accordance with Budget Circular No. A-9, your comments on the enrolled enactment Including where a specific amount is not shown, an estimate of its probable cost, so that your views may be presented *ith the report of the Bureau to the President. Very truly yours, F. J. BAILEY, Assistant Director, Leg4~slative Reference. August 3, 1946. Subsequent to the passage o~ the bill by the Congress and Its adjournment, sine die a Communication re HR. 6165, from the Bureau of the Budget suggesting a substitute for section 7. Copy of said communication is as follows: EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, BUREAU OF THE BUDGET, WASIIINGTOT, D.C., AUGUST 3, 1946 Section 7. Hereafter only enrolled members of the Yakima Tribes of one- fourth or more blood ~f suc~i Tribes shall take by inheritance or by will any interest in that part of the restricted or trust estate of a deceased member of such Tribes which came to the decedent through his membership in such Tribes or which consists of any interest in or the rents, Issues or profits from an allot- ment of land within the Yakima Reservation or within the area ceded by the treaty of June 9, 1855 (12 Stat. 951), except that a surviving spouse of less than one-fourth of the blood of the Yakima Tribes may receive by inheritance or devise the use of life of one-half of the restricted or trust lands of the decedent located within the Yakima Reservation or within the area ceded by the said treaty of June 9, 1855. (Note. The foregoing Is a Suggested Substitute for Section 7 of "A bill to provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, Washington, and for other purposes." The incorporation of the substitute provision can be given consideration in the preparation of a report on the bill after It is introduced and referred to the Department for report.) August 7, 1946. Subsequent to the passage of the bill by the Congress and its adjournment on August 2, 1946, sine die a communication from the Secretary of the Interior and addressed to James Webb, Director of the Budget, recom- mended that the President be requested to approve H.R. 6165. A copy of said communication reads as follows: THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, D.C., August 7, 1~46. Hon. JAMES E. WEBB, Director of the Budget. My DEAR MR. WEBB: Reference is made to the request of Assistant Director Bailey for the views of this Department on the enrolled bill, HR. 6165, "To pro- vide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, Washington, and for other purposes." I recommend that the President be requested to approve H.R. 6165. This bill was introduced at the request of the Yakima Indians for the purpose of defining more accurately who should be entitled to enrollment in the Yakima Tribes. Its provisions would limit the privilege of enrollment, insofar as persons now living are concerned, to persons who lawfully received allotments on the Yakima Reservation, persons of the blood of the fourteen original Yakima Tribes who received allotments on the public domain within the area ceded to the United States by the Yakima Tribes in the Treaty of June 9, 1855 (12 Stat. 951), and persons who are descendants of allottees in either of the foregoing classes if the PAGENO="0059" 55 domicile of such descendants Is within the Yakima Reservation or the ceded area. Insofar as persons born after the date of the approval of the bill are concerned, its provisions would limit enrollment to children who are of one-fourth or more Indian blood of the Yakima Tribes, and who are born to a parent who is an en- rolled member and maintains a domicile within the Yakima Reservation or the ceded area. A further important restriction, imposed by section 7 of the bill, is that only enrolled members of the Yakima Tribes of one-fourth or more Yaklina blood may take by Inheritance or will any interest in the restricted or trust estate of a deceased member, which come to the decedent through his membership in the tribes, or which consists of an interest in allotted land within the Yakima Res- ervation or the ceded area, except that a surviving spouse of less than the requisite degree of Yakima blood may take a life interest In one-half of the restricted or trust lands of the decedent. I believe that the approval of HR. 6165 would be of real benefit to the Yakima tribes by assisting them in conserving the tribal estate In bona fide Indian owner- ship. The costs involved in the administration of this measure, if approved, would probably be nominal. Sincerely yours, J. A. KEUG, Secretary of the Interior. The Senate Calender, Committee on Indian Affairs, Legislative Calender No. ~, dated August 2, 1946, page 2 list the names of the mem1~ers of the full Committee; as well as the names of the members of the subcommittee on senate ResolutIon 79. On page 46 records the Senate legislative history of HR. 6165. CopIes of the title page and pages 2 and 46 of the said Calender are, as follows: COMMITTEE ON Th~DIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. SENATE, LEGISLATIVE CALENDAR, 79TH CONGRESS, FINAL EDITION, AUGUST 2, 1946 yOSEPH C. O'MAHONEY, Wyoming, Ohatrmcsn BURTON K. WHEELER, Montana ROBERT M. LA FOLLETTE, Ja., Wisconsin ELMER THOMAS, Oklahoma HENRIK SHIPSTEAD, Minnesota CARL A. HATCH, New Mexico WILLIAM LANGER, North Dakota DENNIS CHAVEZ, New Mexico HARLAN r. BUSEFIELD, South Dakota ERNEST W. MCFARLAND, Arizona B. H. MOORE, Oklahoma GLEN H. TAYLOR, Idaho EDWARD V. ROBERTSON, Wyoming B. P. CARVILLE, Nevada JULIAIe B. SNOW, Clert~ BSTTYELLEN HEATE, AsSi8taflt Clerk SUBCOMMITTEE ox SENATE RESOLUTt0N 79 JOSEPH C, O'MAHONEY, Wyoming, Chairman BURTON K. WHEELER, Montana DENNIS CHAVEZ, New Mexico ELMER THOMAS, Oklahoma HENRIK SHIPSTEAD, Minnesota ALBERT A. GRORUD, ~peciaZ Assistant B-24, July 17, 1946, HR. 6165, To provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, Washington, and for other purposes. July 10, 1946: Reported to House. (H. Rept. 2484.) July 16, 1946: Passed House. July 17, 1946: Referred to Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Aug. 1, 1946: Reported to Senate. (S. Rept. 1925.) Aug. 2, 1946: Passed Senate. Aug. 9, 1946: Approved. (Public Law No. 706.) (60 Stat. 968) During the months of March and April 1946, and a long time before and after said period of time, the Bureau of Indian Affairs was located in the City of Chicago, an Indian liaison staff being located in Washington, D.C. A delegation from the Yakima Tribal Council, consisting of Thomas Yallup, Alex Saluskin, Eagle Seelatsee (the same Eagle Seelatsee who also appeared and testified before your Committee on March 4, 1968), and Louis So Happy. This PAGENO="0060" 56 delegation spent several days in Chicago and several days in Washington, D.C., during the months of March. and April 1946, performing work in connection with the promotion of the said proposed enrollment legislation. A draft of a proposed bill which, had been prepared by the Bureau of Indian Affairs was finally presented to Congressman Holmes for introduction, who, on April 17, 1946, introduced H.R. 6165, and it was referred to the House Committee on Indian Affairs for consideration. These delegates visited me at the Senate Committee's offices in the Senate Office Building, during the first days of April 1946. The said delegation discussed with me proposed legislation which it wished to have introduced in the Senate. Senator Mitchell was persuaded to introduce such a bill (5. 2152) on May 4, 1946, entitled: "Authorizing the Secretary of the Interior to pay salary and expenses of the chairman, Secretary, and interpreter of the Yakima Tribal Council and other committees appointed by said Yakima Tribal Council, and official degelates of the Yakima Tribe, and for other purposes." These delegates at no time during our conservation and discussions mentioned or referred to the fact that they were in Washington for the purpose of pro- moting the so-called Enrollment Bill. However, after their departure, under date of April 4, 1956, a telegram addressed to me from Kenneth R. L. Simmons, Minne- apolis, Minnesota, reading as follows: "Kindly help my good friends the Yakima Tribal Delegation introduce their en- rollment bill through Congressman Holmes and Senator Magnuson in the House and Senate. * * *~ There is no record of Senator Magnuson ever introducing any "Enrollment Bill". The Yakima Tribe consumated their contract with ~~nneth H. L. Simmons as tribal attorney, on February 7, I94t~E Mr. Simmons took ~no part in 4lie promotion of th~ ~o-calleçI "enrollment bill" while his t~nur~ as tribal. attorney existed, Under date of April 26, 1946,1 received froni Mr. ~in1thohsaletter relative to the legislation embodied in said S. 2152,copy ofwhich Is as follows: SIMMONS & ALLAIt, LAw~YERS, Billings, Mont., April 26,1946. Mr. A. A. G~o~ua, Attorney, Senate Indian Affairs Committee, Senate Office~Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR Mn. GRoiiuo: The Yakima tribal delegates conferred with me here in Billings yesterday and advised me of the iuany kind Vonsiderations given them by you on their recent trip to Washington, D.C. As their tribal attorney, I want to now express my appreciation to you for your thoughtfulnes5 They are very much interested in a bill which you assured them would be introduced by Senator Hugh Mitchell of the State of Washington, providing, among other things, for funds for tribal delegates to Cover travel expenses and allow salaries for such delegates when on duty on and off the reservation Has this bill been drafted and introduced in either the Senate `of the House? I shall appreciate your full advice. Whatever I can do to aid in the matter kindly let me know. Sincerely yours, KENNETH R. L. SIMMONS, Yakima Tribal Attorney. On or about July 1, 1946, I discussed the legislative situation concerning Indians with the Chairman of the Committee who, among other things, stated that this late of the Session, when there are no bills on the calendar which are ready for consideration, that it was his judgment that there would be no further hearings by the Committee during the last Session of the 79th Congress; that it would be all right for me to proceed and take my vacation at any time. Guided by the said conversation with the Chairman, I left Washington shortly after July 1, 1946, and remained in Montana during the remaining days of July and most part of the month of August, returning to Washington during the month of September 1946. During my sojourn in Montana, I visited with Mr. Kenneth R. L. Simmons, at Billings, Montana, who then was the "Tribal" attorney for the Yakima Tribal Council. During the course of our conversation I asked Mr. Simmons to explain PAGENO="0061" 57 to mc the reason Why th~ ~akinia Council delegation did not discuss the me~its of the propOsed "cni'ol1rn~nt bill" with mc when they were in Washington, instead of waiting until they reaèlled you in Minneapolis en their return trip home. `ou, at their request, sent me a telegram asking me to help the Yakima Delegation to have their enrollment bill introduced (a copy of telegram referred to is herein- above set forth). Mr. Simmons replied, as follows: "The Yakima Tribal Council was instructed by Commissioner Collier and Assistant Commissioner William Zimmerman to avoid you," or words to that effect. I was not present in the city of Washington at any time during the Congres- sional activities which took place concerning HR. 6165. It can be seen that all of. the activities conducted in connection with the pro- motion for the introduction and passage of HR. 6165 were had by the Indian staffs andtlle members of the Yakima Tribal Council. The record is void as to a showing that the said draft of a proposed bill was ever submitte~ to the whole.tribc for approval ortCjection. The Indian Bureau staffs from the Washington office, from the Chicago office, from the Portlancb area office~ audi of the local agency staff at Toppenish, Wash., were all actively engaged in th'e promotion for the introduction and passage of the so-called "allotment" bill from the year 1939, or 1940, until the passage by the Congress on August 2, 1946. The Yakima Indians did not realize the serious consequences which would result from the enactment of the Act of August 9, 1946, until the members of the Tribal Council hegan to exercise their authority given them under the pro- visions of the said Act, such as (1) striking names of members off the roll who had not lived on the Reservation, for five years, (2) striking names of members off the roll who are of the 1/4 Indian blood, who have not participated in tribal activities or functions for five years, (3) striking names of members off the roll who are unallotted, or had disposed of their allotments, and (4) denying members the right to inherit or take by will any part of deceased's trust or restricted estate of spouse, parents, or other relatives, By reason of such actions by' the Tribal Council, a petition requesting the repeal of the Act of August 9, 1946, was cirt~uiated among the Yakima tribal members and signed by 427 adult members of the tribe. A delegation consisting of two menlbers of the Yakima Tribe were selected to proceed to Washington for the purpose of presenting said petition to members of the Congress, and to request that legislation be introduced in accordance with the prayer of said petition. On their arrival in Washington this delegation first contacted Senator Harry P. Cain, a Senator from the State of Washington, who, after being advised of the ill effects brought to the Yakimas by reason of the enactment of the Act of August 9, 1946, promptly, on August 16, 1951, introduced legislation (S. 2013) providing for the repeal of said Act. A copy of said petition and a copy of Senator Cain's remarks accompanying his introduction of S. 2103, appearing on page 10315, Congressional Record of August 16, 1951, follows [l~'rom the Congressional Record, Aug. 16, 19511 STATEMENT or SENATOR HARRY P. CAIN IN CON~TEOT~ON W~~xi TIlE INTRODUCTION or S. 2018, To REPEAL THE ACT or AUGUST 9, 1946, PRovIDING ron THE PREPARA- TION or A MEMBERSHIP ROLL OF THE INDIANS øF THE XAKIM4 Rrs~cnvATIoN Mr. President, I introduce for~ appropriate reference a bill providing for the repeal of the act of Apgust 9, 1946 (60 Stat. L., p. 968), which act provides, among other things, the delegation: of power and authority to the secretary of the Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Yakima Tribe Council, to admin- ister the afCai~rs o1~ the Yakima Indians, including the preparation of a member- ship roll of the Indiahs of the Y~akl1na Reservation in the State of Washington. Members of the Yakima Tribe, who assert that they represent the majority, claim that the provisions of the saiclaçt of Aug~ist. 9, 1946, were improperly and dishonestly explained to these rndians before its enactment. They further assert that the Bureau of Indian Affairs, through its agents, were determined to carry forward the program and philosophies of the Wheeler-Howard Act, which act theretofore bad been overwhelmingly rejected by the Yakima Indians~ I ask unanimoim consent that a petition dated March 21, 1951, addressed to me concerni~ig this proposed legislation be appropriately referred and printed in the Becord at this point a~ a part oJ~ ~y rem~rks~ PAGENO="0062" 58 The bill (8. 2013) to repeal the act of August 9, 1946, providing for the prepara~ tion of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservatlou, Introduced by Mr. Cain, was read twice by its title and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The petition is as follows: PETITION WASHINGTON, D.C., March 21, 1951. Hon. HARRY CAIN, U.S. Senate. Mv DEAR SENATOR CAIN: We herewith present a petition signed by 427 mem- bers of the Yakima Tribe of Indians, these signatures representing at least 2,000' of our members. The petition sets forth as follows: "Whereas Public Law No. 706, Seventy-ninth Congress, second session, chapter 933 (H.R. 6165)-An act to provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, Wash., and for other purposes-was approved August 9, 1946: "Whereas the Congress' long-established objective has been to encourage the Indians, particularly the young Indians, to become self reliant, self sufficient,. and independent; "Whereas this act goes against these objectives and Is a step backward rather than forward because- "A. The tribal council is given the absolute power to strike from the roll at any time (1) Any Yakima of ~ or more blood who has not lived in the Yakima country for 5 years, or (2) Any Yakima of 1/4 or more blood who has not joined in tribal activities or functions for 5 years, who Is without allotment or inherited interest but who is otherwise eligible, to be allotted or to inherit. "Ewamp~e.-A young Yakima of full blood or one-fourth goes away to trade school. He learns a trade and finds employment in a distant city, out of the Yakima country. He supports himself and perhaps marries and raises a family,. but lives where his job is, which is out of the Yakima country. His parents are allotted on the Yakima Reservation and want their own flesh and blood son to inherit their allotments. But he cannot inherit, unless he quits his job and moves back. "E~vampZe.-A Yakima of full blood or one-fourth lives on the Yakima Reser- vation but he does not join in tribal activities or functions, He does not mix around, but stays strictly to himself. He may find himself stricken from the roll because he did not maintain any tribal affiliations. "The result is that Indians are encouraged not to find work or occupation beyond the borders of the Yakima country and are encouraged not to become independent, for fear of being disinherited by their own tribe and unable to inherit from their own people. "B. There is no simple or convenient appeal procedure set up for appeal from the tribal council. "Whereas the clause `who has failed to maintain any tribal affiliations' Is so loose and Indefinite that it can be arbitrarily and capriciously used to exclude otherwise deserving Yakima Indians, and therefore, vests despotic powers in the tribal council; "Whereas the act deprives allottees and persons with inherited interests of the natural expectation and assurance, that their descendants, who are the natural objects of their bounty, will Inherit, but `sets up an unnatural scheme, which can cut off their own flesh and blood, and creates complex problems of who is to inherit instead: Now, therefore be It "RESOLVED, That this act be repealed or changed to eliminate the evils mentioned. "Dated In February 1951. "HATTIE Punvis H0PT0wIT (And 426 others)." The principal reason for this petition Is the request for a repeal of the act of August 9, 1946 (60 Stat. 968). Among other things it provides for the prepara- tion of a new membership roll of the Yakima Tndian~. We believe this legislation was instigated and promoted by the Indian Bureau through a tribal council controlled by it. The Yakima Indians had rejected the Wheeler-Howard Act aproximately 10 years before the Indian Bureau and the tribal council started to promote the legislation contained in the act of August 9, 1946. In other words, when the Bureau and its tribal council failed to sell the Wheeler-Howard Act to the PAGENO="0063" 59 Yakinia indians, they prOceeded to do something to bring the Wheeler-Howard Act to the Indians through a deceitful scheme, which apparently worl~ed. In about the year 141 the Indian Bureau, its representatives and its tribal council started and continued their underhanded methods to Induce the Yakima Indians to adopt the provisions of the Act of August 9, 1946. The provisions of this act were never properly and honestly explained to the Yakinia Indians in general, for If they had been the act would have been rejected just as over. wbelmln~ly as the Wheeler-Howard Act was. Th~ Yakima Indians did not realize the effect of this act until recently, when the tribal council which was established under the provisions of this act com- menced to exercise its authority. The Yakima Indians now find themselves in the hands of a tribal council dominated by the Indian Bureau, which tribal council is squandering the monies belonging to the Yakima Indians. We, the undersigned, representing the majority of the Yakima Indians, respect- fully beg your assistance in obtaining repeal of Public Law 706. HATTIE Punvis HOPTOWIT, 1~Ltn~rNzE McCoy WHITETooT. (and 46 others). In all of the Congresses, with the exception of one or two, since the 82nd Con- gress, legislation has been before the Congresses for its consideration, and hear- ings having been held on several bills providing for the repeal of the Act of August 9,1946. We direct your attention to House Committee hearings of March 12, 13, 18,. and 20, 1959, on H.R. 1176, 86th Congress, Serial No. 7, page 93, captioned, "Appendix", the Committee note follows: "(Committee Note.-~-Tbe following letter from Mr. B. J. Wilton, Ohairman~ Yakima Indian Association of Washington State and the attached exhibits have been submitted as a general refutation of the statements made by Mr. James B. Hovis, Yakima Council Attorney and members of the Tribal Council, before the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs on March 12, 13, 18, and 20, 1959, with reference to hearings on H.R. 1176, 86th Cong.)" For convenient reference, a complete copy of the printed hearings before the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs on H.R. 1176, 86th Congress, Serial No. 7, is furnished. (The hearing referred to is in the files of the Committee.) The witnesses, on March 4, 1968, who testified in opposition to the repeal of Section 7 of said Act of August 9, 1946, claim that the retention of said Act has caused the members of the Tribe to work together peacefully, harmoniously and prosperously for more than 20 years without successful interruption, when in fact the enactment of the said Act has proved a hindrance to progress. The Yakima Reservation is one of the most productive reservations in the United States. The Yakima irrigation project is perhaps the most productive of all Indian irrigation projects, yet, for the most part, these irrigated lands are leased to non-Indians. The latest official report on the Yakima Indian land use,. available to me is for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1945, which records that the Indians operated 12,141 acres and non-Indians operated 67,703 acres. I do not believe that this situation has changed materially. Such stagnation and lack of progress is largely due to the enactment of the Act of August 9, 1946, and the archiac system of procedure in the election of tribal councilmen. Once elected as councilmen, such election usually follow a continuance to serve for life, followed by the election of their sons and grandsons. At the hearing on 5. 1764, March 4, 1968, the Tribal Council witnesses, also Commissioner Bennett, constantly inferred that the Yakima Tribes are in favor of retaining the said Act of August 9, 1946, when the fact is that the enrolled members of the tribe has never had the opportunity to vote as to its acceptance or rejection. The overwhelming vote in favor of retaining the said Act claimed by the Tribal Council witnesses is usually by votes taken in the (Teneral Council tally ing 137 votes for retaining the Act and 3 votes against. The issue as to whether or not the Yakima Tribe favors the retention of the said Act has never been submitted to the enrolled of the Tribe. Such votes at 137 to 3 in the General Council are also illegal, because quorums were not present and voting. A quorum in the General Council is 250 to start with, thereafter 175 members must remain in attendance for legal business. The only occasion which the members of the Yakhna Tribes have been the opportunity to vote on any proposition was on the matter of whether or not they PAGENO="0064" 60 should exclude themselves from the application of the Wheeler-Howard Act, now generally known as the Indian Reorganization Act. Such an election was held on April 20, 1935. The result of this election was, 361 votes for and 733 votes against. A copy of the notice of said election, follows :* NOTICE TO MEMBERS OF TIlE YAnIMA TRIBE OF INDIANs 1. In accordance with the provisions of Section 18 of the 4ct of June 18, 193~1 (48 Stats. 984) otherwise generally known as the Indian Reo~g~nization Act, the Secretary of the Interior on the 19th day of February 1935 authorized a call for an election by secret ballot to determine whether the members of the Yakixrla Tribe of Indians shall by such election exclude themselves from the applicatiQl4 of the Act above-cited. 2. April 20, 1935 has been duly appointed as the day for such election. 3. Further, iu accordance with said Section 18 and in observance Qf the ReqI~4re- ment of the 30 days notice therein provided for such election, there i~ hereby posted this 12th day of March, 1935, notice to all members of the Yakima Tribe of Indians eligible to vote under the provisions of the said Act that such election will be held between the hours of 8 o'clock am. and 5 o'clock p.m. on the 20th day of April, 1935. C. R. WHITLOOK, ~uper4ntend,ent. Mr. George Umtuch, on March 4, 1968, before your Committee testified, as follows: "Just at the last General Council meeting we took this up. We bad lIsted for discussion the bill we are here to talk about, S. 1764. TheGeneral Oobncll voted to oppose this bill, S. 1764, 137 to 3." Here is another case of an illegal vote by the General Council and the enrolled membership of the Yakima Tribes ignored. The issue as to whether or not the enrolled membership of the Yakima Tribe favored the introduction and passage of HR. 6165 was submitted to the enrolled membership for their expression. Mr. Seelatsee testified, on March 4, 1968, that iii 1946 a draft of a proposed bill was submitted to such membership, who by their votes overwhelmingly endorsed such draft. I assert, based on the record herein disclosed, that Mr. Seelatsee's testimony is untrue. The Yakima Indians have, ever since about the year 1951, constantly pleaded for a "Secretary election procedure." They have been unsuccessful. Commissioner Glenn L. Emmons has also suggested an election procedure for the Tribal Council to follow, but his suggestion was answered with the following rebuke, "To hell with Emmons, we are a sovereign nation, we do what we please." Mr. Glenn L. Emmons' said letter, addressed to Mr. George Umtuch, Chairman, Yakima General Council, dated October 7, 1955, follows: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, BUREAU OF INDIAN AFrAIRs, Washington, D.C., October 7, 1955. Mr. GEORGE UMTUOH, lihairman, Yalcima General Council. M~ DEAR MR. TJMTUCH: During the past two months I have received a great many letters as well as phone calls and personal visits pertaining to the elec- tion of members to serve on the Yakima Tribal Council. Some of these communi- cations objected to the manner in which the meeting on July 15 was held; others supported the action that was taken. I, of course, am deeply concerned about any confusion or controversy that might exist concerning the election of tribal officials to conduct the afI~airs of the Yakima Tribe. I do not pretend to know all of the facts concerning the current controversy among the tribal members of the Yakima Reservation and my only concern is that within a reasonable time an election be held that will ,give each tribal member an opportunity to express himself on who should represent the Tribe in an official capacity. I am sure that you as well as all members of the Tribe want to conduct your affairs on a business-like basis and that you also share my concern in making sure that the will of the majority of the people prevails. In this spirit I am writing you and would like to suggest a number of steps that might be taken to insure that the forthcoming election which you have announced for November 28, 29, and 30 be a really representative election. I hope that you will understand that these suggestions are in no ways a reflection on the present couneil or on any member of the Tribe and are made only in the interest PAGENO="0065" of trying to straighten out some of the present misu~iclerstandings that are hurt- ing the Yakima people. My sugge~t1ens are as follows 1. You have announced an election for November 28, 29, and 30. It is my understand&ng that you have many other items to take up besides purely election affairs. In order that all members of the Tribe who are eligible to vote may participate, I suggest that you pick a specific time during which the actual ballot- ing will be held. Since you have announced a three-day meeting it would seem desirable to set, for example, the afternoon of the second day from two to six for the actual balloting time. In this way all members Will know that they must be there by two o'clock if their voice is to be heard. 2, since you do not have a constitution, rules, or regulations to govern your operatiOns, your elections have been conducted by custom and there appears to be some question as to the actual rules of custom under which you are operating. I understand that you are putting these rules of custom, under which the election will be operated, down in writing. This is a very good idea and I hope that a copy of these rules and regulations plus an announcement of the exact balloting time will be sent to each eligible voter of the Tribe. 3. Since the election is to be held during the latter part of November and the weather might be inclement, I suggest that you hold it at a place that is most easily accessible to the majority of the members and that it be at a meeting ball that has adequate seating sj~ace to hold all of the members present. If the at- tendOiice is greater than the capacity of the hall, provision should be made for counting the votes of those people in adjoining rooms or outside. 4. Since this is a tribal election, all Bureau personnel have been advised not to participate in the election nor to take any part in its supervision. I understand that the Tribe has selected a committee of disinterested persons to assist with elections. I believe this is a step in the right direction and a very wise move and I congratulate you for taking such a step. If the above suggestions are followed I am sure that the Yakima people will elect a representative council at the November meeting and, further, that the Yakima people will respect and support that choice during their term of office. If for any reason a representative election is not held at the time announced then I believe it would greatly damage the prestige and the operating efficiency of the Yakima Tribe. In `such an event in order to protect the interest of the entire Tribe It would no doubt be necessary for me to recommend to the Secretary that he withhold his recognition and to call a Secretarial election under rules and regula- tiOns which he would prescribe. I am confident, however, that Secretarial action will not be necessary and that there will be no difficulty in getting the required quorum in November and choosing a truly representative council. I believe that the difficulties that have arisen over the July meeting should be avOidOd in the future at all costs. I strongly urge that you in cooperation with the Tribal Council and other Yakima members work out some written procedures that can be formally adopted for all future elections after the election in Novem- ber. It seems to me that such Clection procedures should provide for established polling places throughout the reservation with absentee balloting or providing for- voting entireJy by mail. The election for councilmen should be open to all adult members of the Yakima Tribe whose names appear on the Yakima Tribal roll regardless of the place of residence. In order that you may have some information as to how other tribal elections have been and are being conducted, there are enclosed copies of regulations gov- erning the Osage, Navajo, and Fort Peck elections. Aside from the Navajo regu- lations the other regulations enclosed were issued pursuant to specific statutes passed by Congress. The Osage Tribe, however, drafted its regulations and pat- terned them after the Oklahoma State Election Regulations. The Yakima Tribe might desire to pattern its regulations after the Washington State Election Regu- lations. This would have real advantages in that the tribal members would have to acquaint themselves with only one set of election procedures. It will be noted that in some of the enclosed regulations, employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs take a part in conducting the elections. This Bureau does not look with favor on Bureau employees participating in tribal elections even when asked to do so by the tribal governing bodies. In recent years we have prohibited such participation. It is requested, therefore, that in drafting regula- tions to govern Yakima tribal elections, no provision be made for employees of the Bureau to participate in the conduct of the election. Any member of the Yakima Tribe who is employed by the Bureau will, of course, be free to vote in tribal elections. PAGENO="0066" 62 Please be assured that I am not critical of any official or member of the Yakima Tribe. My only interest in writing you this letter and making these suggestions is to try and clear up some of the past misunderstandings that have arisen and to make it possible to have an election that no one can challenge and to elect a tribal council that will be truly representative of the Yakima people. Sincerely yours, GLENN L. EMMONS, Commissioner. Enclosures. RE COMMISSIONER ROBERT L. BENNETT Supported by the record herein set forth concerning this whole matter was, and now is, available to the Commissioner. It is my belief that he should have frankly and without an unbiased and prejudiced mind told the Committee the true facts. Mr. Bennett, together with the tribal witnesses before your Committee, in- sisted on giving your Committee the impression that the Yakima Tribe favor the retention of the provisions of the said Act of August 9, 1946. Mr. Bennett also stated that a departmental report on H.R. 6165 was made to the White House, after its passage by the Congress. However he failed to offer same for the record of this hearing. There is no such report on file with the National Archives. Since Commissioner Bennett evidently has the access to same., I submit it was his duty to offer it for the record of this hearing. Mr. Bennett also stated that if section 7 is repealed, the Yakima estates of deceased Indians will be probated according to the laws of the State of WashIngton, which state- ment is true, but the Indian Bureau does not follow the law, it has modified the law by some departmental regulation, which regulation is responsible for the troublesome fractionated heirship problem. It is an axiomatic proposition of law that a departmental regulation does not supersede a statutory law. The Indian Bureau should be made to respect and follow the law. Much has been written and said about the constitutional rights of the Indians. If the Indian tribes were permitted to select their attorneys who would represent them instead of having the so-called "tribal attorneys" to represent the tribal councils who are adjuncts of the Indian Bureau, the Indians' constitutional rights would be solved. The Senate Committee on Indian Constitutional Rights should look Into the matter of Indian constitutional rights. A good place to start with would be the Yakima Reservation, then the Colville, Spokane, Warm Spring, Flathead, Black- feet, Ft. Peck, and the Sioux Reservations in North and south Dakota. By reason of the foregoing, herein above set forth we respectfully ask that S. 1764, be amended by striking out all after the enacting clause and insert the fol- lowing: "That the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, Washington, and for other pur- poses,' Approved August 9, 1946 (60 Stat. 968). Is hereby repealed." Further, by reason of the foregoing herein above set forth, we respectfully ask that a secretarial election be called for the purpose of affording all of the enrolled members of the Yakima Tribe an opportunity to express themselves regarding this issue. For convenient reference I submit the material: Senate hearings on S. 809, S. Con. Res. and S. 331, 85th Congress. House hearings on H.R. 4005, Serial No. 26, 85th Congress. House hearings on H.R. 1176, Serial No. 7,86th Congress. Communication, addressed to Glenn L. Emmons, From Yakima Indian Associa- tion, dated August 22, 1955 and September 20, 1955. A communication addressed to Elwin A. Nellis, Editor Yakima Daily Republic, dated July 24, 1963, and a letter addressed to Congressman Hale, signed by John 0. Crow, Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, attached thereto. (The material referred to is in the files of the committee.) Senator ANDERSON. In addition, I will include in the record certain communications we have eceived from parties interested in the legis- lation. PAGENO="0067" 63 (The data referred to follows:) Hovis, 000NRILL & ROY, Yakima, W~sk., April 4, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, U.~9. ,8enate, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR JACKSON: In reference to the discussion that the Yakima Tribal delegation had with you and your staff on March 7, 1968, regarding 5. 1764, I wish to report as follows: Upon the delegation's return to the Yakima Reservation two proposed amend- ments to S. 1764 were discussed with the full tribal council on March 13, 1968. The purpose of this discussion was to give direction to the undersigned as to how to compromise with other tribes. ¶rhe first amendment would be to amend S. 1764 to allow Section 7 to be retained but to provide that Yakimas not to able to inherit from other tribes. The other was to provide that Section 7 be retained but that compensation shall be paid to those who cannot inherit for the interests they otherwise would not inherit. Because of sickness we were unable to further con- sider this matter until April. While the Yakima Tribal Council still stand by their statement that they have no objection to other tribes having the same provision or passing retaliatory legislation, they do not believe that they have the authority in face of overwhelm- ing action against any amendment by the General Council to propose any amend- ment. Therefore, my hands are tied in discussing compromise with other tribes. I was so Instructed by the Tribal Council at their meeting April 3, 1968. The Yakima Tribal Council is uniformly against the passage of 5. 1764 or any amendment to Public Law 706, 79th Congress, and request your support in this regard. Sincerely, JAMES B. Hovis, Yakima Tribal Attorney. STATEMENT OF ORVILLE NELSON OLNEY, ROLL No. 1894, YAKIMA INDIAN Tnina We of the Yakima Indian Progressive Association endorse and urge passage of Z. 1764. Our association Is strongly in favor of any legislation that would eliminate any discriminatory provisions, or deny us or our heirs our constitutional rights contained in the act of August 9, 1946 (60 Stat. 968) providing for the preparation of a membership roll of the indians of the Yakima Reservation. Section 7 of the act denies heirs with less than one quarter degree of Yakima blood to inherit. A non-Yakima spouse who has spent a lifetime helping develop the property is denied the right to inherit. We ask that section 7 of the act be repealed on the grounds that it is inequitable. Our association represents many people living on the reservation, many living o~ the reservation where they can best provide for their families, and those serving In the Armed Forces all over the world. STATE OF OREGON, HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, &tlem, Oreg~, March 1,1968. Hon. MARK 0. HATFIELD, New ~S'enate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR MARK: My close association with the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation brings me in frequent contact with many of their internal problems. Recently I have been talking to some of my friends and constituents on the Reservation concerning Senate Concurrent Resolution 11, introduced in the 90th Congress by Senator McGovern and others, on February 17, 1967. This resolution has been well received by many thoughtful leaders of the Warm Springs Confederated Tribes. They believe that it will assist in the up- dating of the thinking of, and allow a new approach for, Congress on matters pertaining to Indian affairs and Indian problems. If this resolution Is approved, the future deliberations will not be restricted by past resolutions on this subject which may have become obsolete by this time. PAGENO="0068" 64 As an illustration, the following clause in Senate Cpncu~rent Resolt~tlon 11 has tremendous potential f~r Jastjng benefits to most Tribes: "The Indian and~ Alaska native governing bodies should be recognized as having the full authority to determine the extent and manner of utilizing all available resources for their communities." It is the concensus of those with whom I have talked on the ReservatiOn that the enactment of this reso1ut~on will surely enhance and strengthen many of the present constructive statutes, as well as much of the pending legislation or~ this subject. I am told that many Tribal members, and representatives, of the Treaty Tribes of the Columbia River will be testifying on behalf of this resolution. I urge you to give it your favorable consideration. Sincerely yours, SAM JOHNSON. CONFEDERATED PEUEES, COLVILLE RESERVATION, COLVILLE INDIAN AGENCY, Ne.spelem, Wash., March 6, 1968. Hon. GEORGE ~MCGovEnN, U.S. Senate, Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairo~, Senate Interior ~ Insular Affairs Committee, New Senate Oyflce Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR CHAIRMAN MCGOVERN: Enclosed herewith please find a copy of Colville Business Council Resolution numbered 1966-246, dated August 26, 1966, which will further Support our position as being strongly in favor of early enactment of 5. 1764. Under Section 7 of 25 U.S.C. 607, entitled "An Act to Provide for the Preparation of a Membership Roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservations, Washington, and Other Purposes" (60 Stat. 698, August 9, 1946) only enrolled members of the Yakima Tribe can inherit property on that Reservation. There are many intermarriages between Indians enrolled in the Yakima and Colville Tribes and the children of these marriages are enrolled in either tribe, with the result that brothers and sisters may be members of different tribes. Thus, mem- bers of both tribes become entitled to inherit lands on both Reservations. Those enrolled in the Yakima Tribe can and do inherit on both, but because of Section 7, no member of the Colville Tribes can inherit any Yakima property. We feel this is inherently unfair and discriminatory to the Colvilles. It is conservatively estimated that there are approximately 70 Yakima en- rollees married to members of the Colvifie Tribes. The total acres of land on the Colville Indian Reservation inherited by Yakirtia enrollees encompasses approximately 5,899 acres. This is compared to approximately three to four thousand acres of land on the Yakima Indian Reservation in which Colville enrollees have in inherited interests. Section 7 of the Yakima Enrollment Act of 1946 should be repealed since it is unfair and discriminatory to all other Indian Tribes. Without Congressional action, this unjust law will continue to prejudice the Colvffles and all other Tribes that intermarry with the Yakimas. We fervently hope that your Com- mittee will lead the way in having this law repealed. In conclusion, we wish to thank you and members of your distinguished Com- mittee for the opportunity to express our wholehearted support of early passage of S. 1764, 90th Congress, 1st Session. Respectfully submitted, NARCISSE NICHOLSON, Jr., Chairman, Colvill~ Business Council. [Enclosurej RESOLUTION OF THE COLVILLE BUSINESS COUNCIL Whereas, the Colville Business Council ~5 concerned with the in~uitable situ- ation that prevails as to the Colville Confederated Tribes because of discrimina, tory provisions of Section 7 of 25 U.S.C. 607, entitled "An Act to Provide for the Preparation of a Membership Roll of the Indians on the Yakima Reservation, Washington, and Other Purposes (60 Stat 968, August 9, 1946)"; and Whereas, under Section 7 only enrolled members of the Yakima Tribe can inherit Property on that Reservation; and Whereas, there are many ilitermarriages between Indians enrolled in the Yakima and Colville Tribes and children of these marriages are enrolled in PAGENO="0069" 65 either tribe, with the result that brothers and sisters may be members of different tribes; and Whereas, enrolled members of the Yakima Tribe can and do inherit property on both the Yakima and Colville Reservations, but because of Section 7 no mem- ber of the Colville Tribes can inheut any Yakima property and Whereas, the above re~sult is inherently unfair and discriminatory to the Col~ yule Tribes; and Whereas, also as a result of Section 7 owners of prop'~rty on the Yakima Reser- vation are prevented from disposing of their propert~ as they may wish, in sharp contrast to the rights held by other citizens of the United States; and Whereas, the Business Council has also reviewed Senate Joint Memorial 8, which passed the Oregon, Legislature May 6, 1965, and the statement on behalf of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation in support of Senate Joint Memorial 8, both of which indicate that the Umatilla Tribes also suffer from the discriminatory provisions of Section 7 and Whereas, the United States Department of the Interior also desires that Sec- tion 7 be repealed; and Whereas, legislation has been introduced in the United States Congress to repeal Section 7, now, therefore, Be It Resolved that we the Colville Business Council meeting in Special Ses sion at the Colville Indian Subagency Nespelem, Washington acting for and in behalf of the Colville Confederated Tribes this 26th day of August 1966 do hereby go on record urgIng and requesting that legislation be passed in the pre- sent session repealing Section 7, or if no action is taken by the present Congress, that legislation to repeal Section 7 be introduced and passed in the next Con gress; and Be It Further Resolved, that the Business Council approved the statements made on behalf of the TJmatilla Confederated Tribes, and fully supports the posi- tion taken by the Oregon Legislature in passing Senate Joint Memorial 8 and Be It Further Resolved, that the Business Council fully endorses and supports the United States Department of the Interior in urging repeal of Section 7. The foregoing was duly enacted by the Colville Business Council by a vote of 8 For; 1 Against, under authority contained in Article V, Section 1(a) of the Constitution of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, ratified by the Colville Indians on February 26, 1938, and approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on April 19, 1938. NESPELEM, WAsH., February 29, 1968. lion. GEoRGE MCGovERN, U.S. Senate, Chairman Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Senate Interior ~ Insular Affairs Committee. New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.: Please accept this telegram as the position of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Washington, as being strongly in favor of the early en- actment of S. 1764 on which hearings are being held on Monday, March 4, 1968. We are deeply concerned with the inequitable situation that prevails as to the Colvilles because of discriminatory provisions of section 7 of 25 USC 607, en- titled "an act to provide for the preparation of a membership roll of the Indians of the Yakima Reservation, Washington and other purposes." (60 stat. 968 August 9, 1946.) This will reiterate the previous action taken by the Colville business council by enactment of resolution numbered 1966-246, dated August 26, 1966, a copy of which will follow. Please have our views and position read into the hearing records reflecting that Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reser- vation are fervently in favor of early enactment of 5. 1764. Respectfully yours, NARCISSE NICHoLsoN, Jr., Chairman, Colville Business Council. Los ANGELES, CALIF., March 2, 1967. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, D.C.: We of Yakima Indian Tribe ask you to put forth every effort to strike out section 7 of the act of 1946 which eliminated many from the Yakima Tribe. I'm having Mr. Albert A. Groud to represent me there. Thank you for your effort. J. FRANK HUBBARD. PAGENO="0070" 66 TACOMA, WAS$., March 2, 1968. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, U.S. Senator, Washington, D.C.: I am a member of the Yakilna Tribe. Majority members are overwhelmingly for the repeal of section 7 af Yakima Enrollment Act of 1946. Albert A. Grorud is familiar with our problem. We wish him to represent us on March 4th. MYRTLE B. MOCKEL. MALCOLM S. MCLEOD, ATTORNEY AT LAW, SJ~ATTLR, WA~H., February 26, 1968. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR "Scoop": I wish to go on record as being against the Yakima Eziroll- ment Act, ar~d in favor of the bill which will abolish this discriminatory, unfair and impossible piece of legislation. I have had in the course of the last eighteen years of work with the Indians, numerous instances where widows, `orphans and elderly defenseless persons have been denied their inheritance by this vicious act, because they were unable to hire a lawyer and unable to provide the proof that their Indian blood exceeded one-quarter so that they could inherit their own family's property.' I would estimate that in the past several years, over one million do11~trs worth of property has been forfeited by various Indian heirs because of the unfair provision of the Yakima Enrollment Act. I would appreciate it if you could use your good office to see that the bill is passed that will abolish this discriminatory statute. Thank you for your courtesy. Cordially yours, MALCOLM S. MCLEOD. EVERETT, WASH., February 23, 1968. COMMITTEE ON INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS, UJ~. Senate, Washington, D.C.: Regarding Senate Bill 1764, Section 7 eliminatIon, we are in favor of the pas- sage of S. 1764. It is not right as laws stand for Yakimas to inherit trust lands elsewhere and we don't inherit in Yakima Tribe after we becozue intermarried Into their Tribe. This was brought before Stillaguamish Tribe as several are married into Yakima Tribe. We also have few Lummi Tribe members here who have married into Yakima Tribe and have no inheritance after Yakima member died. JOHN P. SILvA, Chairman, Stiflag'uamish Tribe of Indians. Mr. JAcKsoN. I want to ask you a question. What difference would this make, supposing the majority of the Yakima people were in favor of it? We still would not gain anything. Senator MCGOVERN. Congress does not have to await a referendum on any issue to act. Mr. JACKSON. That is right. Senator MCGOVERN. And I think the point that the witness was making is that the position of the tribal officers does not necessarily reflect tribal opinion. But I think the point is well taken that that is an irrelevant matter in terms of what Congress ought to do in dis- charging its own function. PAGENO="0071" 67 We have got another roilcall here, and I am going to have to run. Mr. GRORTJD. Thank you very much. Senator MCGOVERN. I think we have heard all the witnesses and we will stand adjourned today. (Thereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the hearing in the above-entitled matter was adjourned.) 0 PAGENO="0072"