subsurface rights; so it was not something they didn't think of at all, but it was not made on the tribal lands owned by the members of the tribe. We do know that we have had titanium on the reservation. We know that there are valuable timber resources; and when the termination came up, I felt that it meant the end of the supervision of the Government over the Indians, and, since they were competent to handle their own affairs, that they would then be able to take over their reservation and operate it themselves. The things that they did not understand, surely, with the expense of going out, they could have hired competent people to have managed different things. We had our pumice; we had our timberlands; we had our grazing lands that the nonmembers of the tribe have been getting wealthy on. We could have bought with our funds in the reserve. A lot of people felt that Mr. Crawford when you offered the proposition before the people it was turned down because I imagine he was the instigator of it, but he did have a wonderful plan that was put before, we wanted to put it before the people, whereby we could have all banded in together and made something of our reservation. But it was a plan that would have worked. Now, the plan that they have for the remaining members of the tribe, I have never wanted to withdraw. However, the plan that as I see it now, and understand it, that is put before us, I see no future to it. It seems very inadequate and very lame and I suppose there is no reflection on the management specialists because I realize they have had a very difficult task to try to carry out Public Law 587. Because, as I see it, the little piece of land that is reserved for the supposedly 20 percent of the pe ople that remain, there is nothing set up whereby more, it could be carried on. In other words, it is just sell and sell and sell until there is nothing left to sell. Then if the timber should drop and the market should go down, for every dollar, as I understand it, it would be a loss to each member for every member of $33. I believe that was the amount. Then we have no assurance that the timber market is going to remain up, especially if the other timber is sold to pay off the withdrawing members. Why would they go and pay a big price for this other timber and in the meantime while they are selling all this other, this land, as I see it on the map is isolated away from railroads, or any roads, or any water, and it is going to be hard to get at, and where they have got all this other land, why would they go in and cut that little bit of land for the remaining members? And if this should drop down to-well, each time that would mean a loss of $33 for each member on every dollar, that is $350; isn't it? Or $350 if the $33, if it is $33. In a year's time if it should drop down to the amount where I had it all straightened out here but I'm not going to take the time to look it up. But we have no assurance in the timber that it will not drop clear down to where it used to be years ago, and in that case, as I figured it out, it would amount to about $350 a year for each remaining member. Well, how could they exist on such a thing? Then it brings out the fact that if in order to keep up a livable amount they would have to sell the land that this timber was cut off of. Well, if they sold the land and kept on doing that, how long would those people have anything? What is there to remain for? Then we are told again if we withdraw that our timber would be put up on the market if the Government doesn't buy it and it would be bought at a price that these big lumber companies or whoever bought it would want to pay. What is there to stop them from all going in together and bidding a certain amount and just taking it that way? I can see no future for it at all. I don't see anything that-they talked about the saving of it for the watersheds and the preservation of this land for the wildlife and fish. But what about the people? Does anybody give any thought to the people? and What is a fair price that the Government is supposed to pay? Who is to set the fair price, and how do we know what is a fair price, if it goes on for another 2 more years, who knows what the market will be at the end of 2 years? Senator NEUBERGER. Mrs. McAnulty, let me ask you this question so we come to some conclusion. What do you recommend that the Congress do? Mrs. McANULTY. Well, it is so late in the day, I say, Senator, we have been kept in the dark as to even what is going on. We, the people that are to be terminated, know nothing about these things. Senator NEUBERGER. Mrs. McAnulty, I think you have to address yourself to something that is within the province of the Congress of the United States. Mrs. McANULTY. Yes; I understand that. Senator NEUBERGER. There are only certain things that we can even try to do. This is not a situation of our doing; it is a situation of our inheritance. Now, what do you suggest we do at this point? What policy would you propose that we follow? I want to say this: I think you have made a very good recommendation as to subsurface rights. That is the purpose of a hearing, to find out some of these things. Now, I haven't gone into it fully with the committee staff, but I believe we might very feasibly try to recommend this Federal purchase bill so that the subsurface mineral rights on the reservation lands be held for the Indians for a period of, let's say, 25 or 50 years, and I am going to look into amending the bill in that respect. But what other policy do you advise us to follow? Mrs. McANULTY. Well, I feel this way about it, Senator Neuberger: I have never felt that we should ever at any time break up the reservation. Our people have considered it home. I have always stated that no matter how. But as Mr. Davis said this morning, they talk about the things that are going on down in the South now, but are the people in Klamath County going to welcome our people into the homes? I know of instances where they won't even rent to an Indian, and the termination isn't going to make white people out of them. They are still going to be Indians and treated as such. What about that? What is their money going to be good to them for if they can't buy a home and they have to live in a place where they don't want to live? Now I am speaking of all of us together. I am not just speaking of 2 or 3 that have always had homes, maybe. I am speaking of all of us. I am putting myself in it as one of the people on the reservation. Are they going to be treated like people should be treated? No. I can answer that truthfully now. They are not. It is wonderful as long as they have money. When the money is gone they are just Indians. Now, those are the things that my people are going to have to face. Senator NEUBERGER. In 1954? Mrs. McANULTY. I don't believe they did understand it any more than they understand this now. Senator NEUBERGER. Let me say this: This is what puzzles me. You know I have only been in the Congress 212 years. I came there after termination had been effected, and it was the law of the land. But the thing that has puzzled me ever since I first went on the Indian Affairs Subcommittee is that I have met hardly any members of the Klamath Tribe who have told me they favored termination. And yet it is my understanding, and I would like to check this with Mr. Gamble and Mr. Wolf, who have been with the Federal Government longer than I have: Isn't it true that, when the termination bill was put through in 1954, the Klamath Indian Tribe was officially on record in favor of the bill? Is that right or wrong? Mr. WOLF. That is what Mr. Jackson testified. Senator NEUBERGER. He did testify to that this morning, and that is a fact of record, isn't it? Mr. GAMBLE. It is. Senator NEUBERGER. That is what puzzles me and perplexes me. Mrs. MCANULTY. Termination and the selling of the reservation was definitely not understood. I know that it wasn't. I worked on different committees, and I worked there, but I didn't even understand it. How would the people that are out on the reservation, that know nothing about these things, know that their homes and everything around them, and the reservation itself was to be because of the termination of the supervision, Government supervision over the Indian? Now that is something I didn't even understand. Senator NEUBERGER. I realize that Secretary McKay and the group around him favored termination, and yet I have never felt that President Eisenhower would have signed Public Law 587 if he had felt that the Klamath Tribe as such was opposed to it, or if representation had been made to the President by the Klamath Tribe, and I am puzzled why now there are some of you who say what a great mistake termination is. I am inclined to agree with you in many respects, but why was that not said in 1954 when the law was passed by Congress and the President signed it? That is what I don't understand. Mrs. McANULTY. As near as I can explain it, Senator, the withdrawal bill and the termination, the supervision of the Government over the Indian and the $250 per capita, the payment which the Indians needed so badly, is your answer. Senator NEUBERGER. You mean that $250 per capita payment? Mrs. McANULTY. That was merged in with it. That is your answer. A lot of those people were destitute. Senator NEUBERGER. You remember I asked a question earlier this morning. Mrs. MCANULTY. I am answering it in plain words. Some of the people were destitute and they needed this money, and all they could see, a lot of them can see now, is this $50,000, or $40,000, that they are going to get when the timber is sold. Now, there is your answer. Senator NEUBERGER. Let me ask you this, Mrs. McAnulty; we must get along. What would you recommend? You were here this morning, I think, when I discussed alternatives with Mr. Jackson and his associates. Of all the alternatives you heard mentioned, which would you prefer? Mrs. MCANULTY. Well, there isn't much choice in any of them. I don't prefer any of them because if I would prefer the Government paying for it, buying the timber at a price, but I would like to know what that fair price was. Is it going to be a special price made for the Government to buy, or would it be a fair market price? Senator NEUBERGER. Well, I think you heard Mr. Jackson recommend that my bill be amended to eliminate the appraisal method set out in the bill, and that the appraisal being worked out by the Management Specialists be accepted as final. I think that was Mr. Jackson's recommendation. Would you think that was agreeable? Mrs. McANULTY. Well, I don't know whether I would or not. I don't know who is making the appraisals; whether they have a special appraisal. Who appointed the other appraisers besides the ones that the Management Specialists were making? Was that done by the Government? Senator NEUBERGER. It has been done under the direction of the Management Specialists, it is my understanding, and that was what Mr. Jackson had reference to. Mrs. MCANULTY. I think whatever appraisal they arrive at, and it is a fair appraisal. Mr. WOLF. If the appraisal that the Management Specialists hope to have on October 21, were satisfactory to you, would you then say that you would be in favor of Federal purchase? Mrs. MCANULTY. Yes; I would. Mr. WOLF. And, if it weren't satisfactory, what would you think should be done then? Mrs. McANULTY. Well, if repealing the law would mean going back under the Indian Bureau, I would say that we wouldn't be any better off than we were before. Senator NEUBERGER. There was a figure used last night in an article, I believe, on the front page of the Klamath Falls newspaper, the News and Herald, which gave an appraised figure of $113 million. Would you think that was a fair appraisal? Mrs. McANULTY. I would say so. But I still feel that, if they could repeal the law in such a way so as to let the Indians themselves make the plans that they wanted to make, it would be fine for whatever they wanted to do, but to repeal it and put us back under the Indian Bureau, where you can't even cut a tree on your own land without a lot of redtape, why, I can't see where we would be any better off. And I do feel, though, that if the State was, if the Government didn't buy it and the State did want to buy this land, I believe that something could be worked out on that, since they are going to put it, if ample security was made for the children's funds, since they are not going to allow the children to have any way instead of putting them under all these guardians that are going to charge such exorbitant prices for guardianship, if they would put sufficient security to see that these children receive their money when they reach majority, and then pay the adult members the amount that they were supposed to receive for the sale of their timber, I believe that would be a sensible way for the State to retain their resources that they are worried so much about, and their fish and game and wildlife deal, and nobody would suffer from it. I believe that could work out. Senator NEUBERGER. Mrs. McAnulty, thank you very much for coming, and I think you have performed a very useful service in calling to our attention particularly the subject of subsurface rights, and Ĭ am going to see to it that an amendment is prepared to S. 2047 dealing with that. Thank you so much. The next witness will be Mr. Orth Sisemore, attorney of Klamath Falls, and I believe he is accompanied by Mr. Nelson Reid for a citizens committee. I understand from Mr. Gamble that you are appearing in place of Mr. Sisemore, is that correct? Mr. NELSON REID. I believe so, yes. Senator NEUBERGER. Mr. Reid, we are pleased to see you today? STATEMENT OF NELSON REID, REPRESENTING KLAMATH FALLS CITIZENS COMMITTEE Mr. REID. I have a petition that has been signed by some 430 people, not only of this immediate area but also some from adjoining areas such as Bend, Medford, and Ashland. I would like to read it. Senator NEUBERGER. All right. Mr. REID [reading]: PETITION TO THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS IN REGARD TO PUBLIC LAW 587 We, the undersigned, have given much thought and careful consideration to Public Law 587. There appears to be three possible basic plans for the termination of the Klamath Indian Reservation: (1) The immediate sale of the tribal timber lands in relatively small tracts to the highest bidder. (2) The sale of the tribal timber lands to the State of Oregon, to be cut on a sustained-yield basis. (3) The sale of the tribal timber lands to the Federal Government, to be cut on a sustained-yield basis. We are definitely opposed to plan 1. To offer the timber for immediate sale in relatively small tracts would certainly result in a "boom-and-bust" economy, not only for this but for adjacent areas. It would glut the already depressed timber market to the point where the Klamath Indians could not hope to receive stumpage prices comparable to the prices they have been getting. Worst of all, purchasers of relatively small tracts could operate under State of Oregon forestry regulations which could mean practically "clear cutting." Relatively small tracts of timber cannot be harvested economically on a sustained-yield basis over a period of years. The "clear cutting" of much of the reservation would result in great damage to the water resources of this area upon which our agriculture and power depend. The principal streams that feed Upper Klamath Lake, that great reservoir for our irrigation and power development, all flow out of the Klamath Indian Reservation. To denude this great forest area could easily result in damaging erosion and a disastrous water shortage in dry years. It would hurt our economy, not only immediately but for years to come. We are opposed to plan 2, to have the State of Oregon purchase the reservation because of practical economic and political problems involved. We do not believe that the people of Oregon would be willing to vote a bond issue for such purchase where the benefits to most of the voters are so indirect. Such a bond issue |