Indian Land Transactions. 85-2, 1958. Committee Print

type of transaction as a sale to fee status. See authorities at beginning of title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, part 121.

11. See item 5 above.

12. To fee status by guardianship sale.-There are no true guardianship sales in the usual sense of that term conducted by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. In certain instances where the consent of all of the owners to the sale of land is required and minors or non compos mentis Indians are involved, the appointment of a legal guardian to grant such consent is required. The sale, however, is conducted by the Bureau under its supervised sales procedure as described in title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, sections 121.9-121.31. The only places where guardianship sales are conducted by the courts are at Osage and Five Čivilized Tribes in Oklahoma, under authority of statutes of special application to those jurisdictions.

We trust this will give you the desired information.

Sincerely yours,

(SGD) E. V. Urz, Assistant Commissioner.

ANALYSIS OF VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING DISPOSAL OF INDIVIDUAL INDIAN TRUST LANDS TO FEE STATUS

To: Hon. James E. Murray.

From: Indian Affairs.

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LEGISLATIVE REFERENCE SERVICE, Washington, D. C., July 18, 1958.

Subject: Volume of transactions involving disposal of individual Indian trust lands.

Tables enclosed herein are designed to show volumes of transactions involved in the disposal of individual Indian lands to fee status, 1948-57. They were prepared in response to a telephone call from Mr. Victor O. Reinemer on June 9, 1958. Precise definitions of the various types of transactions have been requested of the Indian Bureau to assist in the interpretation of these data. The returns from Five Civilized Tribes were late and had to be supplied in an appendix since they were not available at the time statistical calculations were made.

Table I shows area totals, by years, of individual Indian land transactions. It will be seen that in volume of transactions over the 10 years in question Muskogee is in the lead, followed by Aberdeen, Billings, and Anadarko in the order named. Intermediate are Minneapolis, Sacramento, and Portland in the order named. Gallup and Phoenix show very few transactions.

The sense of table I then is that in searching for the background of individual Indian land transactions one would commence with areas having the highest totals. Within these areas would be found. the individual agencies with the highest volumes of transactions.

Tables II through X show the totals of individual Indian land transactions, by agencies, for the period, 1948-57. Table II (Aberdeen) shows that the highest volume of transactions were at Fort Berthold followed by Pine Ridge, Rosebud, Cheyenne River, and Standing Rock in the order named. Table III (Anadarko) shows the highest volume of transactions at Kiowa, followed by Osage, Cheyenne-Arapaho, and Pawnee in the order named. Table IV (Billings) shows the highest volume of transactions at Crow, followed closely by Fort Peck, and then Black feet and Flathead in the order named. Table V (Gallup) does not indicate any notable volume of individual land disposal transactions. Table VI (Minneapolis) shows the greater number of transactions in Minnesota agency followed fairly closely by the other jurisdiction, Great Lakes. Table VII (Muskogee) shows a vast preponderance in volume of transactions at Five

1 Source of tables I-XII: Returns to questionnaire of April 17, 1958, addressed to certain Indian Bureau agencies by the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs.

Civilized Tribes agency. Table VIII (Phoenix) shows no sizable volume of transactions in disposal to trust status of individual Indian land. Table IX (Portland) shows the largest volume of transactions in northern Idaho, followed by Colville, and western Washington in the order named. Table X (Sacramento) shows a vast preponderance of transactions in California agency.

The next table XI lists the agencies without regard to their area affiliations, in the order of their volume of transactions from greatest to least. Five Civilized Tribes should precede Fort Berthold, having a total of 4,447 transactions. After Fort Berthold in order of volume greatest to least of the first dozen are Crow, Fort Peck, Minnesota, California, Blackfeet, Pine Ridge, Kiowa, Great Lakes, and Rosebud.

The last table, table XII, gives totals by types of transactions, with the agencies arranged in terms of gross volumes. The design of this table is to explain the nature of the transactions involved in the disposal to fee status of individual Indian lands. Here again Five Civilized Tribes should head the list. At Fort Berthold it can be seen that takings for public purposes overshadow the list. At Crow, Fort Peck, and Blackfeet patents in fee overshadow sales to fee status, and may be, in considerable part, the results of private laws.

WILLIAM H. GILBERT.

TABLE I.-Bureau of Indian Affairs, area totals, individual Indian land disposal

transactions