35310 34601 35780 34998 35159 35419 35823 33296 Have son and would like to have money from land or interest to buy home. I do not own home and have hard time paying rent. Yes, both of my inherited properties have producing oil wells on them and are located in two different counties but one oil company purchases the oil and sends the check to the Indian office for disbursement to heirs. We do not receive no statement as to which one of the two fields the payment is made from or nothing in the way indicating the gross production or gross value which I feel is valuable information to me personally. I have attempted an inquiry at the Indian office about it to no avail. Are we entitled to know these problems, rather information? I never know whether I am receiving one payment or both in one, and also from which one of the properties. Do you think I am breaking the law or rule if I ask to see the records that is being kept at the Indian office pertaining to my affair? Yes, but we do not owe no kind of land as we are the heirs of Rogers Ticho, Choctaw roll No. 2347 and Norris John now Tisho Choctaw, roll No. 2835. All the land were sold before their death. What part of the land they owe, I do not know, and where? Let me know more about this information. Yes, I am the State of Mississippi Choctaw Indian, I have a restrictions allotted land. I have 100-A, in McLain County Oklahoma, I have a two well has been completion on land since last January 1959. Oil corporation has lease and drill, and six pipelines crossing my field, and, haven't got any thing out of my land property there. In having heirship land and mineral rights, if we could buy and sell or do whatever we wish we could, we could get ourselves business or maintain property of income and being as it is, either we want to sell to purchase other benefit, the buyers or leasers are hindered because of going through Indian department. So I think our rights should be maintained and I think every one knows right or wrong, fair and unfairness among Indians and we are capable to take care of our own business. I don't know what this is all about. I never did own a land in my life. I receive a very small oil royalty each month. Since last October direct payment was stopped and now my checks goes into the Indian office at Muskogee, and it takes about 2 months before my money reaches me, when before I would receive it one day after it was mailed out from the oil company. It has been explained to me that all direct payments are being stopped until now most people I know drawing royalties are still being paid direct from the oil companies. Do you suppose I can be removed from restriction? I need this money, and can't see why it should be held up so long. In 1936. I got a notice from the inheritance office saying I had $300 coming to me through inheritance. But when I asked for it I was told I didn't have any at my Indian office. This money was supposed to be sent there from the inheritance office. This goes on all the time. Sometimes I get a few dollars from the Indian office, but I don't remember signing anything or selling any land or timber. My mother was PHOENIX AREA OFFICE Questionnaires were mailed to 3,482 heirs of the Phoenix Area and 635-approximately 18 percent-completed returns were received from adults. GENERAL INFORMATION Median age of heirs in the Phoenix Area is 41 to 50 years with the following distribution: 21 to 30, 94; 31 to 40, 117; 41 to 50, 128; 51 and over, 278; no answer, 18. Four hundred and seventy heirs reported having children with a grand total of 1,708. Of the 616 heirs answering the question the majority-374-were heads of households. Median Indian blood quantum for the area is full with 566 full bloods, 15 of three-quarter blood, 31 of halfblood, 12 of onequarter or less Indian blood, 2 with no Indian blood, and 9 did not answer. The majority of heirs in the Phoenix Area live on the reservation-476 on, 147 off, 12 did not answer; 371 live on trusts or restricted land, 209 do not, and 55 did not answer. Welfare assistance was received during 1958 by 123 heirs and 102 of this group live on the reservation. Median income during 1958 for the heirs in this area was less than $1,000. Agency by agency we find that Colorado River, Papago, Pima, and San Carlos were in the less than $1,000 income category, while Nevada was in the $1,001 to $2,000 category and Uintah and Ouray was just on the border between these two categories. It was interesting to note that of the 635 heirs returning questionnaires, fully 402 did not answer the income question. When incomes were tabulated by residence on or off reservations it showed a generally higher income for those living off. Pima agency was the one exception to this. At Colorado River we find the on-reservation group with incomes of less than $1,000 while those living off are in the $3,001 to $4,000 category. At Nevada the on-reservation heirs have a median income in the $1,001 to $2,000 catagory while those living off are in the $3,001 to $4,000 category. At Papago and Uintah, and Ouray the on-reservations group are in the less than $1,000 category and those living off are in the $1,001 to $2,000 category. Computing income by blood quantum for the Phoenix area indicates that full-blood median is less than $1,000, median for those of three-quarters Indian blood is just about $4,000, halfblood is between $2,001 and $3,000, and those of one-quarter or less Indian blood have a median income of $3,001 to $4,000. Income was also computed for heads of households and we find that Colorado River, Papago, Pima, and San Carlos are in the less than $1,000 category, while Nevada and Uintah and Ouray are in the $1,001 to $2,000 category. INTERESTS IN HEIRSHIP LAND One of the questions asked the heirs was how many interests in heirship tracts did they have, how many reservations were the tracts located on, and how many of the tracts were public domain allotments. It was found that many heirs could not answer the questions, 409 since they had no information concerning the extent of their holdings. However, 432 heirs reported holding undivided interests in 1,762 tracts, or an average of 4 each. Seventy-one heirs own interests in tracts located on two reservations. One hundred and forty-two of total tracts in which heirs own an interest are public domain allotments. In the Phoenix Area 127 heirs live on tracts in which they hold an undivided interest. Of this group, 34 ranch or farm the land, 118 are fullbloods, 28 received some form of welfare assistance during 1958, the majority are over 51, and 9 own other lands in fee status. Median income from heirship land for the area is in the $101 to $150 category. By agency we find that Nevada, San Carlos, and Uintah and Ouray are in the $0 to $50 category, while Colorado River, Papago, and Pima are in the $101 to $150 category. The majority of heirs answering the question have visited their heirship lands in the past 10 years and live within a day's drive (300 miles) of the land. ACTIONS Thirty-nine heirs now ranch or farm heirship land in which they hold an interest, and 55 have done so within the past 10 years. Fifty heirs reported attempts to sell some of their heirship interests, and 25 (50 percent) were successful. Percentage of success by agency was 85.7 percent at Colorado River; 75 percent at Papago; 66.6 percent at Pima; 50 percent at Uintah and Ouray; 26.6 percent at Nevada, and at San Carlos 1 heir reported making such an attempt and was unsuccessful. OPINIONS AND PROPOSALS One hundred and twenty-six heirs plan to live on heirship land in the future, and 127 plan to ranch or farm heirship land. These figures are overlapping to the extent that obviously some heirs intend to do both. When asked if they wanted to sell or exchange some or all of their heirship interests, 46 said some, 71 all, 465 none, and 53 did not answer. Obviously, then, the majority do not want to sell or exchange any of their heirship interests. The majority-476— heirs want Bureau of Indian Affairs control over heirship land continued. Fifty-six wanted such controls removed, and 103 did not answer the question. The text of statements by the heirs concerning why they wanted such controls retained or removed are contained in the agency reports following. Heirs were also asked if they wanted all heirship lands sold and the money divided among them. Again a majority-283-of those answering did not want the heirship lands sold. Ninety-seven stated they wanted all the heirship lands sold, 40 wanted some sold, and 283 did not answer the question. We have cross-tabulated the answers to this question by various categories, i.e., blood quantum, residence, etc., to determine if there is any particular pattern among the heirs want 26b. I would like to have the tract(s) of heirship land in which I own an interest sold and my share of the money paid to me. answer An examination of the cross-tabulation indicates that those of onequarter or less Indian blood want all the heirship land sold, five to two, those of half Indian blood want to sell some or all, and those of three-quarter blood are tied with five wanted to sell some or all and five not wanting to sell any. Heirs not living on trust or restricted land want to sell some or all of the heirship land-64 to 57. Question 27 was an attempt to draw from the heirs suggestions to the Congress concerning possible solutions to the problem. The question was worded in such a way as to inform the Indians that possible solutions had been offered in the past and four of these were listed, then space was left for the heirs to make any recommendations he wanted. While the question was not intended to be one of multiple choice it was found that some heirs merely checked off one of the proposed solutions. Other heirs wrote in suggestions that coincided with one or the other of the suggested solutions. Fifty-one heirs felt that those owning the majority interests in the tract should determine its use and/or disposition, 42 felt that a simple majority of the heirs should decide, 7 wanted each heir given the right of appeal to State courts for sale or partition, and 28 felt that all heirship probates should be handled by State courts under State law. These statistics are only valuable for general informational purposes since the heirs differed in interpretation of the question. Many other heirs wrote in suggestions concerning possible solutions to the problem and these are printed within the agency reports. Four hundred and thirty-two heirs answered the question concerning ownership of lands in fee status and 45-approximately 10 percent-do own such lands: 10 had purchased the land, 7 had inherited it, 2 received it through fee patents, 2 by gift, and 24 did not answer the question. The following tables were prepared to place in proper perspective by area office the informational data from the individual returns. TABLE II.-Heirs who have children and the total number |