Page images
PDF
EPUB

6. SHAWNEE AREA FIELD OFFICE

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS,
Shawnee, Okla., June 10, 1958.

Hon. JAMES E. MURRAY,

Chairman, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MURRAY: In compliance with your request of April 17, 1958, we are submitting, in duplicate, our report covering land transactions at this jurisdiction for the period from July 1, 1947, to December 31, 1957.

The jurisdiction of the Shawnee area field office, located in central Oklahoma, consists of approximately 56,000 acres, owned by approximately 10,000 members of 5 tribes: Absentee Shawnee, Citizen Potawatomi, Iowa, Mexican Kickapoo and Sac and Fox.

Estimates of acreages have been made, on exchanges and sales between Indians, when undivided interests in land have been conveyed. All other figures are taken directly from the records of this office and represent the actual figures involved, rather than estimates.

No Federal lands have been acquired since 1930. The Federal land under this jurisdiction was set aside, for agency and school purposes, at the time the allotments were made. There is under advisement at the present time the possibility of transferring approximately 60 acres of our Federal land to the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. The Shawnee Indian Sanatorium (tuberculosis) is located on this tract. We will still have under our supervision a total of 253.09 acres of Federal land. This land is advertised by this office for surface lease under the provisions of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations. There is no mineral lease on the land. None of our tribes have expressed any desire to lease the land, nor has any individual Indian expressed any desire to lease the land.

There are no tribal employees at this jurisdiction.

Sales between Indians are made within their own tribes. No lands have been conveyed between the tribes at this jurisdiction. No lands have been conveyed between our tribes and the tribes of other jurisdictions. For reporting purposes we have placed all sales between Indians under the heading of "Sales to Other Indians in Trust or Restricted Status."

This office fully appreciates your effort to provide the most effective legislation possible and if we can be of any further service, you may be assured that we will give you whatever cooperation we can.

Sincerely yours,

ROBERT D. GROVER, Area Field Representative.

PART I-SHAWNEE

1. How many acres were there in tribal ownership on July 1, 1947? There were 826.25 acres.

How many acres in trust?

There were 826.25 acres.

How many acres which the tribe had acquired in fee?

None.

2. How many acres of trust or restricted land were there in individual Indian ownership on July 1, 1947?

There were 67,699.32 acres.

3. How many transactions, by which tribal or individually owned lands were disposed of (including the placing of unrestricted fee title in the hands of the owners by issuance of patents in fee, certificates of competency, etc.), were consummated during each fiscal year since July 1, 1947?

A total of 216 transactions for 10-year period. (See table attached.) 4. How many acres were so disposed of or removed from Bureau jurisdiction during each fiscal year since July 1, 1947?

A total of 11,212.70 acres during 10-year period. (See table.)

5. Give the numbers of transactions for each year which will be shown in answer to No. 3 above, broken down by the type of transaction.

See table.

6. Give the acreages for each year which will be shown in answer to No. 4 above, broken down by the type of transaction.

See table.

7. How many transactions, by which tribal or individual Indian lands were acquired, were consummated during each fiscal year since July 1, 1947?

See table.

8. How many acres were so acquired during each calendar year since July 1, 1947?

See table.

9. Give the numbers of transactions for each year which will be shown in answer to No. 7 above, broken down by the type of transaction.

See table.

10. Give the acreages for each year which will be shown in answer to No. 8 above, broken down by the type of transaction.

See table.

11. How many acres were there in tribal ownership on December 31, 1957 ?

There were 826.25 acres.

How many acres held by the United States in trust?

There were 826.25 acres.

How many acres which the tribe had acquired in fee? None.

12. How many acres of trust or restricted land were there in individual Indian ownership on December 31, 1957 ?

There were 55,970.61 acres.

13. The acts of June 21, 1906 (34 Stat. 363), and June 17, 1933 (47 Stat. 819), private act of Congress No. 722, 74th Congress, dated June 29, 1936 (49 Stat. 2368) (S. 4152), and the Solicitor's opinion of December 18, 1953 (M-36186), and of September 13, 1956 (Ref. D-55-1153.9), together with several decisions of the United States Supreme Court, have all had some effect upon the disposal of lands in which Mexican Kickapoo Indians have interests. Many allotments were sold between 1906 and 1933 (from the time the restrictions were removed until they were reimposed). Now, under the Solicitor's opinion, above referred to, hearings are being held to determine the citizenship of a large number of Indians who are residents of Mexico. When the hearings become final, and it is determined that these Indians are citizens of Mexico, their undivided interests will fall into an unrestricted status. In instances, entire allotments will fall into an unrestricted status.

Only recent use has been made of the act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 855), as amended February 14, 1913 (37 Stat. 678), and it does not provide a solution to the problem confronting those persons owning land in multiple ownership when all are competent adults, with one owner having a very small share and refusing to sign a consent to sell (since it is a requirement that all competent adults must sign the application or consent to sell).

The Oklahoma Welfare Act of June 26, 1936 (49 Stat. 1967), has been used to a limited degree. Few of the Indians have sufficient money to buy land, although many of them would like to take advantage of the act. This act has been used, in partitioning a tract of land among the owners, to bring the land back into a true trust status, when the land is owned partly in a restricted status and partly in a true trust status, by means of exchange deeds among the Indian

owners.

A study of the cause and effect of sales at this jurisdiction discloses that, since a thorough and conscientious examination of the applicant's reasons for selling and establishment of the fact that the sale will be to the best advantage of the seller, there is a definite improvement in the living standard of the seller. Most lands are sold because they are isolated, unproductive, or the owner is employed elsewhere. In most instances the proceeds of the sale are used to buy less isolated homes, more productive land, or a house in town near the place where the owner is employed. Other owners must sell in order to qualify for assistance from the Department of Public Welfare. This, of course, assures them some improvement in their living standards and provides them with security of income. The tribes have undertaken no study of this matter and have expressed no special interest at this time.

14. (a) The only land owned by the tribes at this jurisdiction is their tribal land; they do not own undivided interests in any other property.

(b) Land held by non-Indians and alien Indians has presented problems in leasing. It would be much better for all concerned if there could be some valid means of effecting partition, without lengthy court action. This can be done by a petition to partition when all parties agree, but when one party disagrees, all owners are subject to his will. When a non-Indian owns a rather large share of an allotment, he may simply take possession of it, and it is difficult indeed, if not impossible, to get him to pay any rental to the Indian owners for their share. Furthermore, the non-Indian owner may lease the land to another non-Indian, which adds another complication.

(c) The Indian Reorganization Act is not applicable to this jurisdiction.

(d) There is a great deal of difficulty among the Indians in reaching agreement as to use or disposal of lands. One adult owner, having a minor interest in the property and resentment against the majority owners, can do one of several things: (1) He can move onto the allotment and use it and refuse either to make a lease with the other owners or pay them for the use of the land (under the present regulations this Office cannot advertise a tract of land for surface lease if it is in use by one of the owners nor can we force that owner to pay the others; there is no use to discuss moral issues with him); (2) if the owners want to sell, he can wait until all the owners except himself have signed the application or consents to sell, then hold out on them until they pay him what he is demanding for his signature; (3) if he wants to continue to use the land free gratis as he now can, he can simply refuse to agree to the sale at all, thus depriving the other owners from realizing anything from the land either from leasing or from selling; (4) he can control the leasing of the property by refusing to sign a lease for anyone except his man, forcing the majority of the heirs to accept his choice of lessee (and he usually has some sort of deal worked out with the lessee in advance, whereby certain advantages will revert to him); (5) he may simply decline to sign the application to sell for supposedly sentimental reasons, claiming that he cannot bring himself to dispose of his birthright (this is particularly true when he has only an insignificant share in a highly fractionated tract).

Another problem is the fact that so many of the Indians move often and they simply do not take the trouble to keep this Office informed as to their whereabouts. If any of the owners should decide to prepare an application to sell, it might easily take them 2 years to locate the owners, then prevail upon them to sign, only to be met with refusal at the very last, or, more likely, never be able to find, and secure all the signatures from, the competent adults necessary to complete the application.

As with the non-Indians and alien Indians, some valid means of effecting partition, without lengthy court action, should be established. As the matter now stands, the person holding the minor interest is given undue advantage while those holding by far the majority of the interest have no recourse at all. Unlike non-Indians, they are prevented from disposing of their individual interests, unless one of the owners will arrange for enough money to buy up the shares of the others, which is improbable, since experience has proved such action to be a bad investment. There are many cases where a few of the owners won't sell and continue to cause trouble, as set out under (d) above. As a result, nothing is done. Resentment grows among the owners. There is bickering, refusal to cooperate, retaliation, or else a complete loss of interest, even to the extent of (1) neglecting to answer the inquiries of other owners, (2) neglecting to sign the leases or applications and return them, or (3) moving and preventing the others from locating them.

(e) Very little use has been made of the Secretary's authority to sell heirship lands when the owners have died intestate and have left minor or incompetent heirs, because it is still necessary to secure the signatures of all the competent adults, which is practically impossible on highly fractionated tracts. As an example, the common denominator on the allotment of John Taylor is 45,360,000. There are 121 Indian owners and 3 non-Indian owners. There is production on the land. Most of the owners receive only a few cents per year. The owners have tried, on 3 separate occasions in the past 10 years, to sell the land. Under the present policy of requiring signed consents to sell from all of the competent adult owners, it is impossible to sell this property because 3 owners having a total of one-fifteenth interest among them, have objected to the sale. If their signatures could have been secured, this particular allotment could have been sold under the act of June 25, 1910, because there are more than 20 minors, 2 unprobated estates, and at least 1 incompentent. It is most unusual to find an allotment, in such large ownership, still in a true trust status and capable of the issuance of a patent in fee. Had this allotment fallen into a restricted status, as is ordinarily true in such instances, it would be necessary for the owners to go into court and have guardians appointed for the incompetents and minors. Most Indians simply do not have the money for attorneys' fees and court costs. therefore, the multiple-ownership problem grows and the owners become discouraged.

PART II-SHAWNEE

1. No tracts have been sold which were alleged to have been key

tracts.

2. Neither the tribe nor the individual owner has alleged that any tract sold was a key tract.

3. The tribe has not alleged that any tract sold was a key tract. 4. No key tracts sold out of restrictions.

5. No key tracts sold out of restrictions. We do not have consolidated units for farming, grazing, or timber operations.

6. No tracts purchased can be described as a key tract.

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »