ASSINIBOINE NATION OR TRIBE OF INDIANS

JUNE 28, 1937.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. O'CONNOR of Montana, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany S. 641]

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 641) conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear, examine, adjudicate, and enter judgment in any claims which the Assiniboine Indians may have against the United States, and for other purposes, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass with the following amendment:

On page 5, line 14, strike out the word "from" and insert in lieu thereof the word "for".

The following is taken from the report, dated February 10, 1937, on S. 641 submitted by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs:

The bill is for the purpose of recommitting to the Court of Claims certain claims of the Assiniboine Indians for land alleged to have been taken by the Government of the United States. In the previous case the court set off against a judgment for certain treaty lands of these Indians, which it found had been taken by the Government, moneys paid to the Indians for their interest in other lands. It also set off against the judgment certain expenditures by the Government for the maintenance of Indian agencies, etc.

The committee is of the opinion that it was not the intention of Congress in passing the previous jurisdictional acts to provide that these sums of money should be set off against the claim for treaty lands of these Indians taken by the Government.

The bill, therefore, recommits the claims to the court, waives the defense of res judicata, and provides that these sums of money shall not be set off against a judgment for the treaty lands of the Assiniboine. The bill also fixes the minimum value of the lands taken at 93 cents per acre. The evidence introduced in the previous case showed value for these lands, at the time they were taken, at $1.50 per acre to $3 per acre.

The Government did not introduce any evidence of value except treaties between Indian tribes and the Government of the United States by which lands were purchased from Indians.

An examination of such treaties discloses a wide range of prices for the land, a number of them running from $1.50 to $2.50 per acre and even higher.

★6-30-37

In view of these facts, the committee recommends that the bill provide that, if the court find that lands of these Indians were illegally taken, judgment shall be entered in the sum of 93 cents per acre.

The basis of this value for the lands is arrived at from the following considerations:

In United States v. Blackfeather (155 U. S. 218) the Supreme Court stated that, in the absence of proof of the value of Indian lands, the Court would not hold the Government as trustee in that case for a sum in excess of the minimum statutory price for Federal public lands, namely, $1.25 per acre.

Subsequently, the Court of Claims in Ute Indians v. United States (45 Ct. Cl. 440, 461-463), followed the Blackfeather case and fixed the value of lands of the Indians which had been included by the Government in forest reservations at $1.25 per acre.

However, the Court of Claims in Indians of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. United States (71 Ct. Cl. 308), suggested that from this sum should be deducted the cost to the United States of surveying and selling the land. In the case here sought to be recommitted to the court, there was in evidence a letter from the Commissioner of the General Land Office estimating the cost of surveying and selling public lands, including overhead cost, at $0.21457 per acre. The Commissioner stated in the letter, however, that one item of these costs, namely, fees and commissions, was 50 percent higher in certain States, including Montana, than in the country generally. The letter of the Commissioner does not state the proportion of the entire cost represented by this item, but it is unquestionably large. If, however, the cost generally of $0.21457 per acre be increased by 50 percent, it would make the total cost $0.3217 per acre. Taking these figures as a fair estimate of the cost of selling and surveying the exact value arrived at would be $0.9283 per acre. Inasmuch as in arriving at this figure 50 percent of the entire cost generally has been added and the figure of $0.3217 is, therefore, undoubtedly higher than if 50 percent of the item "fees and commissions" only were added, the committee has fixed the sum of $0.93 per acre as the value of the land. A letter from the Acting Secretary of the Interior relative to S. 641 follows:

Hon. ELMER THOMAS,

Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs,

WASHINGTON, May 6, 1937.

United States Senate.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Further reference is made to your request for a report on S. 641, conferring jurisdiction on the Court of Claims to hear, examine, adjudicate, and enter judgment in any claims which the Assiniboine Indians may have against the United States, and for other purposes.

The bill is almost identical with S. 3053, Seventy-fourth Congress, the principal difference being the substitution in line 17, page 4, of S. 641 of 93 cents in place of $1.25 in the corresponding section of S. 3053.

The bill would remand to the Court of Claims all the claims of the Indians mentioned which were formerly determined by said court and decided April 10, 1933, with amendments of special findings of fact, December 4, 1933. (See 77 Ct. Cls., 547.) The bill in fact waives the defense of res judicata and requires the court in its reconsideration to eliminate certain offsets and counterclaims charged against the Indians in the prior suit, which, apparently, were expenditures not made especially for the benefit of the Indians but more particularly for the benefit of the Government itself. It would also require the court to eliminate from the set-offs the value of certain lands allotted to these Indians on the Fort Belknap and Fort Peck Reservations and the amounts received by them from the sale of the surplus reservation lands. It would further require the court to determine the value of certain land set aside for the Assiniboine Indians by the treaty of September 17, 1851 (11 Stat. L. 749; 2 Kappler 594). In the judgment of the court in this case these lands were held to have been disposed of by the United States without having been ceded by the Indians or any payment made therefor. The court is required to award a minimum net value of 93 cents an acre for such lands.

The court in its decision held that the Fort Laramie treaty lands, consisting of 6,477,940 acres, were appropriated by the Government, and it placed a valuation of 50 cents an acre, or a total of $3,238,970, thereon, which was set off against certain lands north of the Missouri River, and other credits amounting to $4,227,474.56. The reservation allotments were not evaluated or actually set off against

the Indians by the court for the reason that the other set-offs were in excess of the amount fixed as the value of the Fort Laramie lands.

The revaluation of the Fort Laramie treaty lands at 93 cents an acre would amount to $6,024,484.20; deducting the amount of offsets allowed by the court, viz, $4,227,474.56, would leave a balance of $1,797,009.64 which the Indians might recover should the bill become law. Elimination of other offsets would increase the amount of the recovery.

The difference between $1.25 in S. 3053 and 93 cents in the current bill was arrived at by taking the $1.25 acreage value, which has been held by the Supreme Court in a number of cases, especially in the case of the United States v. Blackfeather (155 U. S., 180), as being the value which should be allowed the Indians to compensate them for their land, in the absence of definite proof as to its value, where such land has been disposed of by the United States without payment, and deducting therefrom 32 cents, which is the amount reported by the General Land Office as being the estimated cost of surveying and selling public lands of the United States, including overhead, fees, and commissions. This would amount to the net proceeds which the Indians should receive for each and every acre of land so taken and administered by the United States.

In the Blackfeather case, supra, the court set a definite standard for Indian lands, which standard had been adhered to more or less consistently, although the court, in the case of the Indians of the Fort Berthold Reservation v. The United States (71 Ct. Cls., 308) allowed the Indians but 50 cents an acre net, on the theory that such amount represented the difference between $1.25 an acre and the actual cost of surveying and selling the public lands of the United States. In this connection see the Ute Indians v. The United States (45 Ct. Cls., 440), in which the court awarded the full amount of $1.25 an acre for certain forest lands set aside by the United States.

A typographical error appears in the bill to which attention may be invited at this time. The word "on" appearing in line 11, page 2, should be "in". The word "from" in line 14, page 5, should be "for".

The Bureau of the Budget has advised "that neither the proposed legislation nor your proposed favorable report thereon would be in accord with the program of the President."

PUNISHMENT FOR REPEATED VIOLATIONS OF NARCOTIC LAWS

JUNE 28, 1937.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed

Mr. TowEY, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 6283]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6283) to increase the punishment of second, third, and subsequent offenders against the narcotic laws, after consideration, report the same favorably to the House with amendments with the recommendation that as amended the bill do pass.

The committee amendments are as follows:

Page 2, line 2, strike out the period at the end of section 1 and insert in lieu thereof a comma and the following:

whenever the fact of such previous conviction is established in the manner prescribed in section 3 of this act.

Page 2, line 10, after the word "third", strike out the words "or subsequent" and after the word "offense" strike out the comma and insert "of any offense subsequent thereto,".

Page 2, line 13, strike out the period at the end of section 2 and insert in lieu thereof a comma and the following:

whenever the fact of such previous convictions is established in the manner prescribed in section 3 of this act.

Page 3, line 6, after the word "shall", strike out the word "require" and insert in lieu thereof "inquire of".

Page 3, line 7, strike out the words "it is alleged".

Page 3, strike out all of lines 8, 9, and 10, and the first two words on line 11, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

If the defendant states he is not such person, or if he refuses to answer or remains silent, a plea of not guilty shall be entered by the court,.