In the followg report of the Interior Department the reasons why this legislation should be enacted, and the injustices which would thereby be corrected, are fully set out:

Hon. WILL ROGERS,

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,
Washington, May 26, 1937.

Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your request for a report on H. R. 4407, which would authorize the Five Civilized Tribes, in suits heretofore filed under their original jurisdictional acts, to present claims to the United States Court of Claims by amended petitions to conform to the evidence; and authorizing said court to adjudicate such claims upon their merits as though filed within the time limitation fixed in the original jurisdictional acts.

The Five Civilized Tribes filed original petitions under their various jurisdictional acts which were enacted in 1924. The acts were amended to permit the filing of amended petitions until 1930. Petitions were filed for each of the Five Civilized Tribes in which general allegations were made, which the tribes intended should be amended after accountings had been rendered by the Government for each tribe. The accounting reports were not completed until 1934. Amended petitions were filed to conform to the evidence in several cases, and in some of the new matter was alleged which was not included in the general allegations of the original petitions.

Under date of January 4, 1937, in the case of the United States v. Seminole Nation (No. L-172), the United States Supreme Court held, in effect, that the new material alleged in the amended petition was not within the jurisdiction of the courts, inasmuch as the period within which claims might be filed had expired.

The purpose of the various Indian jurisdictional acts was to permit adjudication of the legal and equitable claims of the tribes on their merits. This purpose would be defeated if claims are to be dismissed on the technical grounds that they were filed too late. The efforts of the Indians to obtain jurisdictional acts, the cost to them of preparing and prosecuting their claims, the efforts of their attorneys, and the great cost to the Government of preparing the accounting and other factual reports, will all have been useless.

Until the Government had completed its accounting and the reports of the facts, the attorneys for the tribes could not state all of the claims with the exactness required for proper consideration by the Court.

The bill in its present form relates only to the suits of the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma. The same situation probably exists with respect to suits of other tribes; for instance, the right of the California Indians to amend their petitions has been brought into question by certain attorneys. The Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, by the act of May 15, 1936 (49 Stat. L. 1272), obtained the right, with the approval of the Court first had and obtained, to amend their petitions at any time before entry of final judgment.

If any legislation is to be enacted, in my opinion it should be general in its application. This could be accomplished by the following amendment:

Insert the word "any" before the word "suits" in line 3, page 1.

Strike out the words "the Five Civilized Tribes under their respective" in line 4, page 1, and all of lines 5, 6, and 7, page 1, and lines 1, 2, 3, and 4, page 2, down to the word "plaintiffs", inserting in lieu thereof the words "any tribe or band of Indians."

The title should then be amended to read:

"A bill authorizing any tribe or band of Indians, in suits heretofore filed under their original jurisdictional acts, to present claims to the United States Court of Claims by amended petitions at any time before final submission of said suits; and authorizing said court to adjudicate such claims upon their merits as though filed within the time limitation fixed in said original jurisdictional acts." The Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget has advised "that the proposed legislation in its present form, or if amended as suggested by you in your proposed report, would not be in accord with the program of the President", and my attention is directed to a communication from the Attorney General on the matter. I quote from the letter of the Attorney General the following paragraphs: "It seems of doubtful advisability to confer such a broad and unlimited per mission, and it would seem more desirable to limit it, if it is to be granted at all, to specific claims or suits, where the facts appear to justify such action.

"Attention is also called to the concluding clause of the bill, to wit, 'under the same law in force when originally tried.' Section 2 of the Second Deficiency Appropriation Act of 1935 (49 Stat. 571, 596) provides that in all suits then pending in the Court of Claims by an Indian tribe, which have not been tried or submitted, the court shall offset against any amount found due all sums expended gratuitously by the United States for the benefit of the said tribe or bands. The above-mentioned clause of the pending bill might have the effect of nullifying this provision, insofar as some of this group of cases are concerned."

Sincerely yours,

SAFEGUARD THE WELFARE OF APPRENTICES

JUNE 7, 1937.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. CONNERY, from the Committee on Labor, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 7274]

The Committee on Labor, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 7274) to enable the Department of Labor to formulate and promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices and to cooperate with the States in the promotion of such standards, having had the same under consideration, report it back to the House and recommend that the bill do pass.

A bill (H. R. 6205) to enable the Department of Labor to formulate and promote the furtherance of labor standards necessary to safeguard the welfare of apprentices and to cooperate with the States in the promotion of such standards, was referred to a subcommittee, and hearings were held on April 22, 23, and 26, 1937. H. R. 7274 is an amended version of the original bill and conforms to the considered views of the subcommittee after consideration of H. R. 6205.

The report of the Honorable William J. Fitzgerald, chairman of the subcommittee, to the full committee on the bill (H. R. 6205) follows:

THE UNITED STATES APPRENTICESHIP PROGRAM

In considering this bill (H. R. 6205) it is essential that an understanding be had of the apprenticeship problem in the United States, the reasons for the problem, and the corrective measures undertaken to solve it. It is also essential that we have a clear understanding of what is meant by the term "apprentice." An apprentice is an employed youth who spends approximately 85 percent of his time learning a skilled trade through organized experience and teaching on the job. In addition to this training he receives nominal wages progressively increasing with his advancing skill. An apprenticeship system is an arrangement whereby all persons entering a skilled trade do so under conditions or standards which assure them full training in every process, division, and tool of the trade, supplemented by study in related subjects.

After listening to the witnesses who have appeared before the committee and after examining the documents and evidence submitted, we come to the conclusion that there has never been an adequate system for the training of apprentices in the United States. The United States Census reports for 1930 reveal information which is startling to those who recognize the implications. They

show that there were some 750,000 young men and women under 25 years of age employed in skilled trades who were not receiving organized training. They were, no doubt, picking up a little information as they worked, but practical men who have themselves learned trades and other practical men who employ skilled workers have informed us that skilled mechanics cannot be made by the "pick-up" method.

The economic progress of a great industrial nation such as ours is largely dependent on the skill and genius of its workmen. It is surprising, therefore, that definite national steps had not been taken long ago to assure an adequate supply of skilled workmen and at the same time provide young people much-needed employment in the trades.

The evidence presented to us shows that a few of the more forward-looking individual employers, employers' associations, and trade-unions have carried on excellent apprentice training programs, but these afforded opportunities to but a few of the thousands of young people who should benefit from such training. Those who have conducted sound apprenticeship programs are the foremost advocates of a nationally integrated apprenticeship system.

PURPOSE OF THE BILL

Before 1934 there had been no national approach toward having labor standards of apprenticeship accepted. The Federal Committee on Apprentice Training has established a workable approach, has brought together national trade associations and labor organizations to formulate apprenticeship programs acceptable to both groups, has cooperated with State and local groups interested in apprenticeship, and has served in an advisory capacity to both employers and employees in setting up practical programs for training skilled workers. The bill (H. R. 6205) permits the continuance of the work which is now being done by the Federal Committee on Apprentice Training and which has proved of great value to industry, labor, and young people. The Federal Committtee on Apprentice Training was appointed by the Secretary of Labor in June 1934 under authority granted by Executive Order No. 6750-C, to provide for genuine apprentice training under the National Recovery Administration codes and at the same time safeguard labor standards. So effective was the work of the Federal Committee under the National Recovery Administration that it was decided to continue it after the National Recovery Act was declared unconstitutional. Its administration was placed under the jurisdiction of the National Youth Administration. In September 1936 the President, in a letter to the Secretary of Labor, requested the transfer of the Federal Committee on Apprentice Training to the Department of Labor and directed that an appropriation to cover this activity be included in the Department's budget. Such action was approved by the National Youth Administration and by the Federal Committee on Apprentice Training. It was recognized that the work should be placed on a permanent basis.

Accordingly, the Department of Labor included an item for the work of the Federal Committee in its appropriation request for 1937-38 and the Budget Bureau recommended to the Congress an appropriation for this work during the coming fiscal year. However, the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives was of the opinion that it could not approve this item as a matter of policy and that the assignment of functions should have special consideration by Congress. In accordance with this decision, H. R. 6205 was introduced by Mr. Fitzgerald of Connecticut and referred to the Committee on Labor.

The committee is of the opinion that the development of an adequate apprenticeship system is not an emergency program. There is constant need for some Federal agency to bring employers and employees together in the formulation of national programs of apprenticeship and to attempt to adjust the supply of skilled workers to the demands of industry. This is a logical function of the United States Department of Labor.

The forces which give rise to the prediction of a shortage of skilled workers in some trades were not set in motion by the depression alone. Because of the inadequacy of American apprenticeship, a large part of the supply of skilled labor came from abroad. The setting up of immigration bars dried up this source of supply. The effect of the immigration laws on the supply of skilled labor, however, was discounted because of the fact that it was erroneously believed the automatic machine was rapidly making the all-around skilled workman unneces sary; and because it was expected that technical schools could provide all the training required for skilled work. Another cause was the failure to emphasize