The term "inadvertent" is used. We have examples now over which no Federal agency so far as I know has control in the Rocky Mountain area and in the Far West, where, by reason of private landownership, citizens are unable to get to their private lands and in some instances have great difficulty getting to other public lands.

Any setting aside of reservations should certainly leave room for access to public or other private lands rather than applying a belt around it so that you could not get in.

Senator NEUBERGER. You think this bill would be something, then, that would strengthen the Department of Interior's hand in dealing with these situations, do you, by the declaration of policy by Congress?

Mr. ABBOTT. Properly drawn, the bill would serve as a better guide, not only for the Department of the Interior but to all agencies, and certainly to the public in making clear to them the relationship of these areas to other public-land areas.

Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. That is all. Thank you.

Senator NEUBERGER. Thank you for your testimony. I want to note one thing because, prior to the time Mr. Wood questioned you, I mentioned Pinchot's book. I think if you review it, though I know your time is limited like mine, you would find that, while an enlightened element in the lumber industry and in other user groups did support Pinchot's efforts and those of Theodore Roosevelt to set aside the forest reserves, he makes clear that unfortunately they were quite a small minority, at the original time.

We thank you very much for coming, Mr. Abbott. We thank you for presenting the Secretary's views. We thank you for submitting these proposed amendments which I know the committee will consider very seriously.

If there are no other questions, we will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.

I just want to note this for the benefit of prospective witnesses. We have a very long list of witnesses. I hope that those of you who have prepared statements can paraphrase them very briefly. Your full statements will appear in the record in toto.

(Whereupon, at 12:10, the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p. m. the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will come to order please.
Mr. Lazarus will be the first witness this afternoon.

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR LAZARUS, JR., GENERAL COUNSEL, ASSOCIATION ON AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a prepared statement, Mr. Lazarus? Mr. LAZARUS. No, I do not, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed in your own manner.

Mr. LAZARUS. I will be very brief this afternoon.

For purposes of identification my name is Arthur Lazarus, Jr. I am general counsel to the Association on American Indian Affairs of which Oliver LaFarge of Santa Fe, N. Mex., is president.

This afternoon I would like to address my remarks, and they will be brief, to the section of the wilderness bill which relates to the Indians'

wilderness. I think we have seen an expression in the morning session of unanimity to the effect that the provisions of the bill with regard to the Indians' wilderness should be changed.

The present text of S. 4028 calls for merely consultation with the Indians concern before their lands can be included within the wilderness system.

Senator Murray, in your opening remarks you indicated that you would offer an amendment to change that language to require that the consent of the tribe, band, or group concerned be obtained. That is exactly what I was going to propose today.

The association for which I speak thinks it is wrong in principle to provide for the inclusion of Indian lands within a wilderness system, and therefore the devotion of these lands to a public use, without the expressed consent of the Indians concerned.

These are their lands, not the lands of the United States. The landowner who has possession of the lands and who has the beneficial interest in it should have the right to determine the use that is going to be made of his property.

There is a moral obligation on the part of the United States to see that he is accorded that right.

In addition, I think there is a legal obligation on the part of the United States to see that consent be obtained.

I refer the committee to the Indian Reorganization Act, specifically section 16, which provides, among other matters, that:

Any Indian tribe may prevent the sale, disposition, lease, or encumbrance of tribal lands, interest in lands, or other tribal assets, without the consent of the tribe.

Many tribes have organized in accordance with the Indian Reorganization Act. If consent is not put in the present wilderness bill, it will mean that if we have not openly broken faith with these Indians, that we have broken a contract with them.

Unless you have questions, Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks.

I do have a proposed amendment to S. 4028 which would incorporate the suggestion that I have made in my testimony.

(The proposed amendment referred to follows:)

PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO S. 4028

"THE INDIANS' WILDERNESS

"(d) The Wilderness System shall include such areas of tribal land on Indian reservations as the Secretary of the Interior may designate as appropriate for inclusion upon the recommendation or with the consent of the tribes, bands, or groups concerned, acting through their tribal councils or other duly constituted authorities. Such designation shall not change title to the land or any beneficial interest therein, and shall not modify or otherwise affect the Indians' rights to the land.

"The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to make any modification in, or elimination from, the Wilderness System requested by any tribe, band or group with regard to any area of its tribal land. Nothing in this Act shall in any respect abrogate any treaty with any tribe, band, or group of Indians, or in any way modify or otherwise affect the Indians' hunting and fishing rights or privileges."

The CHAIRMAN. We are glad to have that. As you say, I have already promised to present an amendment along the lines which you have discussed.

I do not think I have any other questions.

Do you have any questions, Mr. Stong?
Mr. STONG. That was section 16?

Mr. LAZARUS. 25 U. S. C. 476.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much for your statement.

Mr. LAZARUS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. The next witness is Mr. William Essling, chairman of the Ely, Minn., Citizens Committee.

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ESSLING, CHAIRMAN OF THE ELY,
MINN., CITIZENS COMMITTEE

Mr. ESSLING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Might I identify myself a little further?
The CHAIRMAN. You may.

Mr. ESSLING. My name is William Essling. I live at St. Paul, Minn. I am an attorney. I am a property owner in northern Minnesota. My property is located in what is called the Superior National Forest.

I should like to indicate to the committee the persons that I am speaking for here. I should like to call attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that I am speaking for the citizens and residents of the three counties in which the Superior National Forest is concerned or is located.

My remarks will be directed to that portion of the bill that affects the Superior National Forest. I am not acquainted with the other parts of the United States involved in the bill, but I should like to call attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that there are 216,000 people living in these 3 counties.

The Superior National Forest, the boundaries of the forest, occupy approximately 50 percent of the area of these 3 counties.

One of the things that has caused some misunderstanding between the residents of the forest area and perhaps the sponsors of the bill is the fact of the ownership of the land within the boundaries of the Superior National Forest, together with the ownership of the land in the five roadless areas referred to in the bill as mentioned.

Generally, it is my understanding that the ownership in the forest boundaries is only about 50 or 60 percent federally owned. The land area within the three roadless areas, according to the latest figures that I have from the Department of Agriculture indicate that 26 percent of the land area in the 3 roadless areas affected are nonfederally owned.

Fourteen percent of that land area is in private ownership and the balance of the 26 percent is in State and local ownership.

I speak particularly for the citizens of the city of Ely who have designated me to speak to you through their mayor and city council and through the 13 community organizations in the city of Ely who have banded together to suggest proposed amendments to this bill.

I also speak with specific authority for the county of Cook. The county of Cook is occupied or is within 75 percent of the boundaries of Superior National Forest.

However, the ownership of the land is diverse. There are some 3,000 people living in the county of Cook.

In the city of Ely which is approximately 7 miles from the southerly border of the roadless area, there are approximately 7,000 people. I mention that fact, Mr. Chairman, so that we will understand that these people are vitally concerned with the recreational activities that are conducted in this area.

There are three major industries in northern Minnesota. They are mining, timbering, and recreation. Strange as it may seem, recreational activities and the catering thereto are the first and principal business of all of the citizens in this area. They are vitally affected by the provisions of this bill because they feel that the use limitations provided in the area have vitally affected their economy.

Then I could call attention, too, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that I speak for a number of citizens in villages and communities located in the forest but outside of the roadless area. They are citizens in the towns and villages of Buyck, Crane Lake, Crook, and for the residents and citizens of Ash River Trail and Amicon Lake, all of which are in the Superior National Forest, all of which are engaged principally in the occupation of recreational activities.

The CHAIRMAN. Would this bill interfere with the recreational programs that you have reference to?

Mr. ESSLING. Mr. Chairman, I have a report which I hope I may submit to the committee to be incorporated in the record if the committee saw fit. It is a report from the chamber of commerce of Ely, Minn., who made an economic survey of the effect of the policies of the air ban administration or the air ban Executive order and proposed effect of this bill.

The economic report which I would like permission to submit is in the form of a letter. I am sorry to say that all I have is a photostatic copy because my notice came so quick. This survey made by these business people shows that they have suffered a loss of income in excess of $850,000 annually, and it has been on the increase due to the use limitations that have been applied to this area.

(The letter referred to follows:)

Hon. J. P. GRABEK,

CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, ELY, MINN., April 22,1958.

Mayor, City of Ely, Ely, Minn.

DEAR MAYOR GRABEK: Pursuant to your request for a complete résumé of our situation with regard to the economy of our city, I am herewith submitting the following report:

Prior to World War II, the Ely area had 44 resorts only a small percentage of which were completely modern establishments. At that time we had 3 motels and 4 canoe outfitters in addition. There was also seaplane service to remote resorts and lakes.

Beginning in 1945 the number of resorts increased tremendously as the postwar boom went into full effect. Between 1945 and 1948 the number of resorts increased to 61 in 1946; to 78 in 1947 and 1948. The number of motels increased accordingly from 3 to 11 and the number of canoe outfitters from 4 to 9.

Seaplane service served approximately 23 resorts and private places on Basswood, Crooked, and Lac LaCroix; in addition to taking out hundreds of passengers on camping trips to remote spots from where canoe trips were started. Hundreds of families from all over the Nation vacationed at resorts accessible by road while adults and older youngsters took advantage of seaplane flights to remote resorts; while other members of the family relaxed and enjoyed vacations at the nearby places.

During 1947 and 1948, conservationists took up their battle to force a ban on seaplanes operating in the area. The Presidential Air-space Reservation which was signed December 17, 1949 by President Truman did not go into full effect

until July 1953 when the operating seaplanes were seized by the Federal Government.

During the controversy, the chamber of commerce conducted a survey to estimate how much financial economy would be lost when and if the seaplane service was banned. The statisticians came up with a figure of over $850,000. Conservationists pooh-poohed the figure, calling it fantastic. They tried to point out that the increase of the number of people on canoe trips would offset this figure. Some thought that people who couldn't use seaplane service would still use facilities at other points accessible by launch along the border lakes.

This did not materialize. Instead seaplane service out of Fort Frances, Ontario, Canada, increased 20 times over. In a story by Ed Shave in the Minneapolis Sunday Tribune last summer, it was pointed out that there were over 20 seaplanes operating out of Fort Frances over just 3 and 4 prior to Ely's air ban. Shave quoted "Rusty" Myers, Fort Frances seaplane operator, as crediting the increase to his flying business directly to the air ban at Ely. This represents untold thousands of dollars of financial economy that Ely would have continued to utilize in its economy. It proved that most people who had been flying out of Ely, had been pushed on to Canada.

Meanwhile the Federal Government, aided by the Thye-Humphreys acquisition bill which provided an additional $2 million, began acquiring resorts accessible by launch on Basswood Lake. One by one, these resorts sold out until there are today only 5 operating where once 23 served the public demand. It must be pointed out here that in its earlier negotiations, the Federal Government told chamber of commerce committeemen, that Basswood Lake between Minnesota and Ontario borders is so highly developed that there would be no acquisition in that area. All they were interested in, they said, was the Crooked Lake area. Nevertheless, the resorts on Basswood were approached and arranged to sell out, one by one, leaving only 5, of which only 2 are considered large and accommodating from 50 to 125 people.

In the 1958 publication of the Ely Booklet only 64 resorts are listed-where there once were 78-a net loss of 14, all but 4 of these listings are in the near vicinity of Ely; only 4 on Basswood Lake where once there were 23. Motels remain the same in number, 11; and canoe outfitters remain the same in number, 9; indicating that since the air ban, there has not been an increase in this category.

This overall loss, estimated in purchasing power, employment, and accommodation of spending guests has cost Ely-not the estimated $850,000 mentioned in 1947 and 1948-but upward of several million dollars since the air ban.

Yes, the chamber of commerce has continued to develop publicity concentrating on the accommodations remaining. It has spent several thousands of dollars annually-spending more money than any other city in the State of Minnesota-concentrating on the promotion of the tourist business. The season advance claims that the business would be better than ever were mainly optimistic propaganda, designed primarily to stimulate a forward, hopeful attitude.

In July of 1957, several resorts got together to find out why since the 4th of July they were operating at only 55 percent capacity at a time when they should have had at least an 80 or 90-percent occupancy. The slump was reported general throughout the tristate area of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan. But, then, border crossings at International Falls and Pigeon River were reporting new highs as more Americans crossed over into Canada, seeking what they had been used to at Ely and the entire border-lake area.

The Carlton County Vidette several years ago editorialized that business was booming since the air ban at Ely. The editor in pointing out "the growth of the industry," neglected to state that the entire "growth" he refers to as coming since the air ban actually happened between 1945 and 1949.

Since 1949, the number of resort accommodations has been at a decrease. Certainly, we are doing everything we can to promote what we have left. Our resorts are modernizing, and offering additional accommodations, such as swimming pools, tennis, golf, and other recreation.

But with the loss of our border lake facilities through Government acquisition and loss of seaplane services, we have lost the magic of outdoor recreation attraction and are now relegated to the position of being another resort area like any other, anywhere.

Canoe country is a wonderful thing in its place, but the business derived from same benefits only a few directly. This business cannot begin to fill the losses or the economic gap created when seaplane services were discontinued by Presidential order.