Evening star., 1952-01-06
Let indians Choose Own Counsel

An important issue bearing on the rights of
American Indians as citizens is at stake in hear
ings being held at the Department of the Interior.
The question to be decided is the extent to which
the Secretary of the Interior through the Com
missioner of Indian Affairs has authority to
restrict the choice of attorneys and the drawing
up OF contracts by Indians The immediate sub
1ect OF the hearing is set of rules governing
counsel and contract privileges of the tribes The
rules would give the Government greater control
in this area than it has had in the past They are
being protested by the American Bar Association,
the Association on American Indian Affairs the
American Civil Liberties Union and by many of
the Indians themselves. The briefs against the
rules are so persuasive that Secretary Chapman
was wise in granting a hearing. Certainly the
proposed rules represent reversal of the trend
toward Indian self-government of such drastic
nature that they should be adopted only as a
last resort against some definite threat to the
welfare of the Indians. No such threat has been
alleged by the Government
The proposed rules came to light in the
Federal Register last August. They would sub
stantially extend the Interior Secretarys un-
contested control over choice of competent coun-
sci and fixing of reasonable fees. The ABA
charges that the new restrictions would discour-
age competent attorneys from serving Indians.
in claims contracts, control expense payments
and otherwise hamper Indians in making free
choice of counsel. The ABA brief stresses that
while the Secretary has power over contracts
made by unorganized tribes the 1884 Indian
Reorganization Act, comforting full citizenship
on all native-born Indians and enlarging their
powers of self-government, specifically restricted
Federal authority over counsel and contracts
While the act says that choice of counsel and
the fixing of fees (arel to be subject to the
approval of the Secretary of the Interior the
Interior Department and the Indian Bureau up
to now have construed this language as giving
them authority only to protect organized tribes
against unscrupuous or incompetent lawyers and
as giving them no control over details of con-
tracts.
Former Interior Secretary Krug took view
Of this matter completely contrary to that eX-
pressed in the proposed regulations. He told
Congress at hearing in 1947: 1T seems to me
that the selection of counsel is one of their (the
IndanS) basic rights that have nothing to do
with. If an Indian tribe comes to me and
wants certain attorney to represent them their
claim is that they need an independent coun-
Selor. They perhaps feel that they need protec-
ton against the Interior Department as much
as against any other agency or outside individual
or firm. have no real basis for turning that
man down if he is an attorney in good standing
In his profession. If you can find such a basis
for me wish you would give it to me- If I turn
him down on any other grounds, either appear
to desire yes man for the Interior Department
to dish out patronage for an Indian tribe
among the legal profession"
Aside from questions raised as to validity
of the proposed rules the advisability of giving
a bureau or department the power to select
oey" for u,he,
the Government itself may be in the position
of adversary is dubious to say the least Legis-
lative history of the 1884 emancipation" law
indicates that Congress wanted to lessen-not
enlarge bureaucratic intervention in Indian
affairs. Why this highly desirable objective
SHOULD be brushed aside now needs some explain
ing by the advocates Of more intervention.