if they accept anything less then the full value of the tribal assets. Actually the Government is obligated to secure every dollar possible for these assets regardless of any injury to others or any adverse effect to any groups of people or any section of the country, and regardless of what plan is followed by them to realize the full value of the assets.

Very truly yours,

DELFORD LANG, Chairman.

STATEMENT OF OLIVIA N. KIRK

Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

BEATTY, OREG., October 29, 1957.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

Hon. SENATOR NEUBERGER: When Congress passed Public Law 587 in 1954 that was one time when the "cart was put before the horse." Ever since then everything regarding the law is going backward. The interest that has been shown by church groups, chambers of commerce, timber companies, and other groups, and the statements I have heard them make leaves no doubt in my mind that the "goose that laid the golden egg" (Klamath Reservation) for the Klamath Basin is going to die a slow death.

Why wasn't all their investigations that are being carried on by different organizations, Senate and Congress done before the bill was passed? Then perhaps a solution could be reached. Now the bill is passed and signed by the President of the United States. Amendments have been introduced and passed by new Members of Congress, and the Klamath termination bill is going no place fast.

I am a member of the Klamath Tribe and along with other members of the tribe voted against termination in any shape or form. Even though we were told by the Commissioner and other members of the Department of the Interior at a meeting at Klamath Agency in 1953, that regardless of what we did or said in our general councils regarding termination we did not have a choice in the matter as we would be terminated regardless. No thought was given to find out who it was going to effect or how.

This law is a good deal for the lawyers in the Klamath Basin. They are sitting back waiting to feather their nests with the fees that they well get from guardianships on our minor children who had no voice in the termination matter. The minors are the ones who will help pay the termination cost, guardianship fees, guardianship bonds, and court costs. By the time a minor reaches the age of 21 there will not be any money left for them to start their life with. The United States Government should be made to pay all of the guardianship costs for the minors.

If the State of Oregon bought our tribal asests, taxes would be raised in the State and Klamath County to help pay for their purchase, and the members of the Klamath Tribes as well as the minors would have to pay taxes to help the State buy our property. The same thing would happen if the United States Government purchased our timber. Federal taxes would be raised all over the United States; and again we the Klamath Indians would be paying into the United States Governments coffers; paying for what is rightfully ours.

Should a private company want to buy our timber we would still be on the dole system. As Mr. Weyerhouser stated, his company could only pay 50 percent of the appraised price and would have to take several years to pay the balance. A private company could not be made to cut under a sustained yield as the timber would belong to them. They would have to pay for their fire protection and other costs to protect their interests. The United States Government should be made to purchase all of the Klamath Indian timber at the appraised price if we have to sell our timber.

Our duck-hunting rights was taken away from us several years ago by a Federal migratory law. The Klamath Indian Tribes did not sue the Government for this. Our duck-hunting rights was one of our treaty rights. I and many other Indian people purchased Federal duck stamps to hunt ducks in season. Could I not ask the Government to reimburse me for buying duck stamps all these years, when it was one of my treaty privileges to hunt in season or out? Judge Solmon, of Portland, in his district court rendered a decision that the Klamath Indians could hunt anytime. And the word "hunt" means hunting anything to be hunted with firearms. He did not specify what kind of bird or animal.

In all the meetings I have attended no one has yet said who will pay the Klamath Tribes for their hunting and fishing rights. To purchase our hunting and fishing rights will run into several million dollars; or did Congress expect us to give up all of our treaty rights for nothing? They have already taken our duck-hunting rights from us; now they want to take our proud rights of being a free American Indian from us by putting us in the soup line, on welfare, and in the poorhouse along with our white neighbor.

We have our water rights on the Klamath Reservation, rights that are recognized by the State of Oregon. This water we have that flows from the reservation is worth millions of dollars to the Klamath Basin and northern California. Who will buy our water rights? I believe that our water rights are worth more than the timber on the Klamath Reservation.

There are thousands of acres of tribal grazing land and wastelands on the Klamath Reservation. I have not heard anyone say as to who will pay the Klamath Tribes for this class of land. So far all I have heard is who will purchase the Klamath Tribes timber.

There are the natural resources and mineral rights that should be protected for the Klamath Tribes, also the allottee who sells their allotments to non-Indians. What guaranty do we have that after termination we receive a sum of money for our reservation, that the Government will not step in and charge us for the Modoc war, fish hooks and plowing implements, and dress goods that was given our ancestors? Or perhaps they may think up some new debts to put against the Klamath Tribes. By the time they get through dipping into our capital we won't have much left. This is what happened when we received money from the boundary suit in 1937. We paid for a war that was forced on the Modoc Tribe by the United States Government. Our Indian people were being forced on reservations all over the United States by United States troops. While Abraham Lincoln was trying to free the Negro from bondage the American Indian was placed in bondage. Forced them from their ancestral homes and lands. Placing them on small reservations by force and they could not leave this reservation without a permit. Why were not the American Indian educated and trained along with the Negro to be free American citizens side by side. Now look at the Negro race they are treated in the most shameful manner. Forced from schools and homes, treated like some wild animal. The very same descendants whose ancestors brought them into this country and sold them and bought them like animals. In a few years after termination the Indian people will be like the Negro. We will be forced out of schools, towns, and cities. We will be kicked from pillar to post. There is already racial prejudice in our city of Klamath Falls in some places of business-prejudice against the Indian. Who is there to judge his fellow man on the face of the earth? There should be but one judge, our Creator.

If the United States Government did not ratify our treaty in the first place we would never have all of this mess we are in now. Therefore, in fairness to the Klamath Tribes, people of the Klamath Basin and State of Oregon, it is only right that the United States Government buy our reservation, give us every cent we have coming to us in a lump sum and not the dole system. Protect our children and mineral rights and natural resources and not try to shove their obligations and duties off on the State of Oregon or some private enterprise. If this cannot be, leave us alone and do something about abolishing the Public Law 587 even if the Constitution of the United States has to be amended to fit the bill. The United States Government does not have enough money in the United States mint to buy my ancestral home, the Klamath Indian Reservation. Respectfully submitted.

Re S. 2047

Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

OLIVIA N. KIRK.

KLAMATH EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, Klamath Agency, Oreg., November 12, 1957.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs,

Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: As you will recall, you quizzed several tribal representatives respecting their attitude on possible alternatives in the event it is not possible to obtain congressional approval of a Federal purchase bill. The

Klamath Executive Committee has given this additional consideration and submits this letter to you as representative of its majority views.

Briefly, the Klamath Executive Committee presently favors the following alternatives in the order listed:

1. Federal purchase in the manner contemplated in S. 2047, with amendments substantially similar to those approved by the Klamath Executive Committee on October 1 and presented to you during the hearings in Klamath Fails on October 2.

2. The principle embodied in the Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. proposal submitted to the subcommittee on October 4. (As we understand it, this proposal would provide substantially equivalent payment to the Klamath Tribe and members as under the Federal purchase plan. We have no desire or reason to argue the merits of private ownership as opposed to public ownership or the reverse, but we believe that the appraisal standards established in Public Law 587, or something very similar, should be retained as a measure for determining the amounts payable to Klamath members whether there is a sale to the Federal Government, private interests, or both.)

3. Repeal of Public Law 587. (We recognize that this objective might be more difficult than either of the above proposals. We believe that views consistent with this objective expressed by some members of the tribe are adequately covered in the testimony, and there seems no reason for additional comment at this time.)

4. Deferral of liquidating or terminating requirements of Public Law 587 for a period of approximately 2 years, during which time a review board would be established by Congress to make a complete study of the Klamath problem and make recommendations to Congress respecting desirable amendments to Public Law 587. This board should include representatives of the Department of the Interior, Department of Agriculture, the State of Oregon, representatives of Klamath and possibly other counties, Klamath tribal representatives, and public representatives. (While we do not believe this was specifically mentioned during the subcommittee hearings in Klamath Falls and Portland, it is not a new proposal. It was made as long ago as October 29, 1956, when the Klamath Executive Committee met with Commissioner Emmons and members of his staff in Portland, Oreg. To show that it is a matter of public record and has been discussed, we attach herewith a copy of a letter from the Klamath tribal attorneys to Commissioner Emmons dated November 23, 1956. As you will see, this letter reviews the possibilities discussed with Commissioner Emmons. We ask that it should be included in the record following this letter.)

5. In the event none of the above possibilities is acted upon, we urgently suggest an adequate extension of time during which sales of tribal property must be made to private interests in order to make cash payments to withdrawing members. (As you know, there is a wide variation in the time required for this function in order to achieve a reasonably adequate price. We believe that the management specialists are best equipped to estimate the time required within which to achieve the desired goal.)

With respect to the last alternative, we sincerely believe that this is a minimum "must" not only for those members of the tribe who wish to remain in the tribal organization, but also those who clamor or understandably desire to sever tribal affiliations. This feeling is based upon the apparently well settled conclusion that withdrawing members will, under the present law, receive considerably less payment for their interests than if a reasonable time is provided. In any of the above possibilities, we believe the Congress should provide, and we request that your subcommittee use its influence to achieve, some method whereby all members of the Klamath Tribe be allowed to continue some form of exclusive hunting and fishing rights at least throughout their natural lives within the present boundaries of the Klamath Reservation. We also request that, particularly in the case of a sale to the Federal Government, careful consideration be given to the question whether mineral rights might be reserved to members of the tribe.

In conclusion, the Klamath Executive Committee wishes to express to you its appreciation for the understanding and unselfish manner in which you are approaching a solution of the Klamath problems.

Respectfully yours,

Committee members present: Delford Lang, chairman; Boyd J. Jackson, yes; Theodore Crume, yes; Dice Crane, yes; J. L. Kirk, Sr., yes; Dibbon Cook, yes.

CERTIFICATION

We hereby certify the contents of the foregoing letter as attached were duly approved in a meeting of the Klamath Executive Committee held on November 12, 1957, with a quorum present. Voting in favor of its submission for the record were five; opposed, none.

JESSE L. KIRK, Sr.,

Chairman.

DIBBON COOK,

Secretary.

WILKINSON, CRAGUN, BARKER & HAWKINS,
Washington, D. C., November 23, 1956.

Re Klamath Tribe, possible amendments to Public Law 587.
Hon. GLENN L. EMMONS,

Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior,

Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR MR. COMMISSIONER: At the meeting with you, members of your staff, and representatives of the Klamath Indian Tribe, in Portland, Oreg., on October 29, I set forth, on behalf of the Klamath executive committee, certain possible amendments to Public Law 587, 83d Congress, the Klamath Termination Act, for discussion purposes. As I advised at that time, these possibilities had been discussed with the Klamath executive committee in a meeting on October 28 and at certain other times in the past, and were presented for discussion. It was suggested that these possibilities should be reduced to writing and supplied to you for consideration in the event you consider submission of amendments to Congress pursuant to the recent recommendation by Secretary Seaton. I shall attempt herein to set forth the possibilities discussed, emphasizing that these are bare outlines and will have to be developed more completely if your Bureau or the Department is willing to give further consideration to any of them.

1. We still believe that the most urgent requirement is that Congress be persuaded to defer for a reasonable time the duties imposed upon the Management Specialists under section 5 (a), (2), (3), (4), and (5). As you are aware, we feel there is a definite possibility that the Management Specialists may be required to carry out the remaining duties imposed upon them under section 5 (a) after the appraisal called for by subsection (1) is completed. We think, for instance, that the Management Specialists have no discretion but to provide for the election called for by subsection (2) after the appraisal pursuant to subsection (1) is "made." We are aware that you have held a contrary view, including the view that in the case of a loan made by a bank, a bank official would never consider an appraisal to be complete until he had checked it and approved it. The short answer to this contention is, in our judgment, the fact that Congress has not, in Public Law 587, provided any such opportunity for the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Department of the Interior, or the Management Specialists to carry out or impose any judgment with respect to the appraisal. As the law reads, the appraisal has been "made" when completed by the appraisers, not by the appraisers and approved by the Secretary or anyone else, and the Management Specialists have no discretion but to proceed "immediately" to afford the opportunity of election under subsection (2).

Even if our fears might prove unjustified, we believe that such an amendment is desirable to be on the safe side, to be conservative of the rights of the Klamath people and their neighbors, and to forestall a possible disaster should the administrative reading of the statute be in error. For, as we have advised you, we are aware that some members of the Klamath Tribe have been advised by counsel that a mandamus action requiring the Management Specialists to proceed with the election under subsection (2) will lie immediately following completion of the appraisal by the independent appraisers, an event which we understand is scheduled to be completed on or about February 17, 1957. Even unsuccessful litigation should be avoided if possible. We can see no damage resulting to the Klamath Tribe or the United States if Congress is persuaded to defer the steps called for following subsection (1) of section 5 (a) and none has been pointed out to us by any representative of the Bureau of Indian Affairs or the Department of the Interior despite repeated inquiries whether

any potential injury would result from such an amendment. We call attention to the fact that disregard of the possibility that the administrative reading of the statute with regard to the vesting of rights instantly upon completion of the appraisal may be a reckless disregard of the liability which may thereby be inflicted on the United States for mismanagement of this trust property.

In short, unless some such injury is apparent to the Department, we see no reason for further avoiding or resisting such an amendment. If such an amendment is sponsored by the Department of the Interior, we suggest the necessity of a further amendment which will specifically authorize additional sales of timber on the Klamath Reservation during the period prior to termination. As the Department is well aware, a sizable portion of the Klamath Tribe, and probably many of the neighboring merchants, are dependent upon per capita payments to members of the Klamath Tribe from tribal timber sales. Although the solicitor has issued an opinion to the effect that such sales may be made during the period prior to termination under prescribed conditions, the question has been raised whether section 22 of Public Law 587 implies that Congress intended that no additional timber-sales contracts be made. We deem it advisable that any such uncertainty be clarified.

2. We believe it essential that a longer period for termination be provided to allow opportunity for education of the Klamath people on (a) the meaning of termination, and (b) basic training in management, particularly if all or a portion of the tribe is to assume responsibilities for management of all or a portion of the tribal property.

3. Public Law 587 requires individual members of the tribe to elect whether to withdraw or remain in the tribe and participate in some plan to be subsequently prepared. We submit that the Department should consider whether this procedure should be reversed and the plan prepared first, and whether it is more equitable to individuals to provide more data and prospective plans as a basis upon which individuals may make more intelligent decisions respecting their future.

4. Section 5 of Public Law 587 contemplates a division of property between the "ins" and "outs", the "ins" to thereafter have the remaining tribal property handled through a "trustee, corporation, or other legal entity." Assuming that the Department of the Interior is persuaded that, on the basis of studies to date, Public Law 587 will cause a forced sale of a substantial portion of the reservation, will result in sales at depressed prices, will adversey affect the economy of the surrounding area, will eliminate valuable watershed protection, and intensify a welfare problem, we submit the following possibilities as substitutes for the plan presently set forth in section 5:

(a) Federal purchase of the entire reservation or all forest land included within the reservation. This, possibly, oversimplified, is the proposal developed several months ago by the management specialists. It contemplates issuance of debenture bonds payable in 20 annual installments to all members of the Klamath Tribe. As we understand it, the proposal contemplates a price based upon an appraisal most favorable to tribal members. It also contemplates that such members may have an opportunity to surrender bonds at an accelerated rate at a discount. We raise the question whether the indiscriminate opportunity to discount at a reduced rate is advisable, since it would allow less cautious members of the tribe to dissipate the proceeds and possibly create a welfare problem well in advance of the period provided for full payment.

(b) Contractual arrangement with Forest Service of the United States Department of Agriculture under a contract or contracts, the land to be relieved of the trust which now requires supervision by the Secretary of the Interior. Under this possibility, the law could prevent or discourage alienation of the land, and it could be managed by the Forest Service under a contract with the tribe, profits from timber sales or other sources to be distributed in substantially the same manner as in the past. An alternative might be provided by division of the reservation between the "ins" and the "outs" and the negotiation of two contracts with the Forest Service, the one running to the "outs" to be for an indefinite or definite term as determined by the Congress, possibly with provision that the individual interest be alienable.

(c) There appear to be at least three possibilities under common trust arrangements:

(1) Remove the trust restriction on tribal land and authorize or direct the tribe to enter into a trust arrangement with nongovernmental sources looking toward management of all tribal property and distribution of income much in