The Daily Alaska empire., 1947-11-19
LAWYER FOR INDIANS TO
 FIGHT SALE
Apparently Attempt Made to Head Off Bids on
 Alaska Timber

A large pulp and paper company which is known to be interested in the establishment of a large plant in Southeastern Alaska has receiv- ed a letter from Washington, D. C., attorney James E. Curry, warning the company that the Department of Agriculture has no power to sell timber on lands which Curry claims belong to his Indian clients, the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Southeast Alaska.
 The letter cautions the company that Curry will take appropriate action" in behalf of the Indians, hut suggests that should the com pany wish to buy timber from the Indians they will be inter ested.
 It is believed that similar letters have been sent to all large pulp and paper companies kndwn to be interested in bidding on the pulp timber which the U s. Forest Ser vice has put up for sale under the recently enacted Tongass Timber Act In an effort to discourage such potential Alaskan investors and keep them from bidding on the timber
 The letter, which was dispatched from Washington month ago to large pulp and paper company in the United States, reads as fol- lows:
 Gentlemen:
 T am advised that you are in- tending to bid on a sale of Indian timber that the Department of Ag- riculture proposes to hold. As at torney for the Indian owner of this timber it will be my duty to take appropriate action for the protec- tion of my clients property rights. I think it only fair that you should know in advance, the nature of my clients rights in this matter, so that you may take account of those rights in making your plans for the cutting of Indian timber.
 My clients, the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska, are Amer ican citizens with the same rights as other American citizens. No Federal official has any right to sell their land or timber without their consent. Any such purported sale will convey no title to the ven- dee. who may be required to turn over to the Indian owners not only the land and the timber involved in any such sale but also any pro fits derived from operations based on such land or utilizing such tim Der. Such was the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the recent case of United States vs. Santa Fe RR Co.,, 314 U. s. 399. The Santa Fe Railroad relied on the assurance of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice that more than half a million acres of land was public land validly vested in the railroad under an act of Congress, but the Supreme Court decided good many years later that the land be- longed to the Indians by right of aboriginal occupancy Thereupon the railroad, notwithstanding all the assurances of title it had re- ceived from administrative officials was compelled not only to turn back the land but to account to the Indians for all proceeds thereof, including all timber cut from such lands.
 Many other purchasers or leasees who thought Federal officials could grant good title to Indian lands un- der acts of Congress purporting to grant them such authority have discovered to their sorrow that such is not the case. (Jones vs Meehan, ITS U. s. l; Cramer vs. United States, 261 U. s. 219.
 You may be told by certain bu- reaucrats that they have power un- der a recently enacted statute, the Tongass Timber Act of August 8, 1947, to sell Indian timber notwith- standing any Indian claims of own ership. This is not true. If you an- alyze that act, you will notice that
 (COntinIIed m Pace Three)