of Indian Affairs was instituted there has been developed so intricate a system of management that few, if any, Indian or white, can definitely state where responsibilities are vested and how and why such large sums of money are annually expended from either federal, tribal, or special funds in behalf of the small number of Indians in this country. One will never know the number of Indians who roamed this land during the colonial period. Even now, no definition having been legally made as to the question, "Who is an Indian?" figures vary as to the actual number remaining: in 1934 the Bureau of Indian Affairs gave "234,972 Indians actually enumerated and 93,166 taken from earlier census and estimates." In 1943 the Bureau placed the number at 400,000 including the 32,000 in Alaska.

None of the figures have great validity until one has some standard of measurement as to the amount of Indian blood that constitutes an Indian, and as to who is counted in the roll. The grandchildren of a former Vice-President of the United States are on the rolls of an Indian tribe, as are men, and women who can claim but 1/64th of Indian blood. "The mixed-blood Indjans, it is apparent," says H. L. Shapiro, Associate Curator of Physical Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, "not only constitute a very significant portion of the total Indian population, but they will in the near future form the numerically over-whelming part of it. Between 1910 and 1930 they multiplied their number by 51.03 per cent, whereas the full-bloods increased by 2.59 per cent."

As the tide of white settlers pushed the Indians, who had never been accustomed to settled abodes, into limited areas known as

"reservations," the federal government set up, first in the War Department, later in the Department of the Interior, a special bureau charged with detailed responsibility for the welfare of the more than 200 tribes or remnants of tribes.

The records show 369 formal treaties made with tribes, though it may be seriously questioned as to how much understanding there was on the part of the Indians as to the pledges they were making or as to the authority of the then leaders to bind their tribes by agreements to continue "as long as the grass shall grow; as long as the waters shall run." The records further show more than 4000 laws passed by Congress through the years to regulate these peoples, in their relations to land, tribal funds, the white people about them, etc. To administer these laws and to care for the ever-accumulating details the Bureau of Indian Affairs, under the Department of the Interior, has built up a staff of some thousands of men and women who in the field and at headquarters, at an annual cost of millions of dollars, care for even the smallest details in the lives of Indians.

This complicated — and now thoroughly unrealistic — picture has become a vast, intricate web of laws and statutes, so involved and so overlapping as to seem beyond simplification except by such general Acts as might provide for the fulfillments of Treaties, the cancellation of agreements, and the restitution to the Indians of their properties, funds, etc.

One would not wish to give the impression that all legislation was bad: some of it was good at the time passed; much of it was of its period and lacked social vision; most of it savored, as later legislation has continued to

do, of a paternalism inconsistent with our avowed democracy.

About two-thirds of Indian adults became citizens through tribal treaties with the government or through the passage of special statutes. But in 1924 all Indians born within the United States were declared to be citizens — this act being taken in recognition of the service of Indian soldiers in World War I. The right to vote is not, however, inherent in citizenship, but may be withheld by the state in which a person lives: in two states Indians are disfranchised because they are still wards of the government; in other states they are not allowed to vote as they do not pay taxes.

To many people there is an immediate incongruity in the fact of citizens of a country also being wards of the same government, whatever their mental or physical state. This is particularly true of Indians who are wards because of a decision made in 1881 by Chief Justice John Marshall when called on for a decision as between a Cherokee group, then in the state of Georgia, and the state itself: He ruled that the Indians were "domestic dependent nations" and that "their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to a guardian." This judgment has held for the more than one hundred years since its delivery, never accurately defined in specific terms but bringing into existence federal control of "wards of the government" and building up the detailed control that a guardian exercises over a minor: it remains to this day to plague both Indians and government, no effort having been made to remove this serious inhibition to the development of full citizenship. That doubtless should have been done

when citizenship was given to Indians in
1924, but it was not. Perhaps this fact may
seem to indicate a low state of interest or of
intelligence regarding Indians on the part of
American citizens. Certainly it is not easy to
present briefly a true and fair picture of the
relationship of government officials charged
with responsibility for them — much de-
voted and intelligent service has been given
in the face of abnormal conditions and con-
fused legislation, and we cannot at this date
be sure where failure for certain seemingly
normal procedures should be laid.

Of the Indian population, divided among
200 tribes, about 200,000 still live on reser-
vations — tracts that vary from the large
area of the Navajo Reservation occupied
by some 50,000 Indians, to tiny ones where
but a small remnant remains — in a few
cases so small a group as twenty. Each of
these reservations is under a government
agency with one person in charge or with
large staffs, depending upon the activities
carried on on that particular reservation.
This personnel includes many hundreds of
field employees, while the Bureau at Wash-
ington employs another large group of clerks,
etc., the total of the two groups adding up
to some thousands.* In addition to direct
Congressional appropriations for the service
of the Indian Bureau amounting to about
$30,000,000 annually, about $2,000,000 is
used annually from tribal funds: the Bureau
receives also annually, allotments from other
government agencies, such as P.W.A.,
F.S.A., etc.; one commentator says, "The

* As of April 30, 1938, there were 3,916 Indians em-
ployed in the Indian Service, approximately one-half
of the regular employees; 40 per cent of them proved
to be full bloods and 70 per cent were of one-half or
more Indian blood.

The INDIAN
in the
UNITED STATES

By MRS. FRED S. BENNETT

No other group in this country has so complicated a relationship to the Federal Government as have the 350,000 American Indians. A recent compilation prepared by the Federal Government shows 389 treaties made with Indian Tribes and 4,267 laws enacted by Congress concerning them. "During the century and a half covered by this compilation," says the Foreword, "the groups of human beings with whom Indian laws deal have undergone changes in living habits, institutions, needs and aspirations, far greater than the changes that separate from our own age the ages for which Moses, Lycurgus or Justinian legislated . . . This compilation reveals a tremendous mass of obsolete and anachronistic legislation which weighs upon the backs of Indians and Indian service officials . . . blocking the attainment of objectives desired alike by the Indians, by the Indian Service and by Congress."

Cheyenne Indian Design

Many friends of the Indian people welcome the above study as showing the anomalous position of the North American Indian, as a step toward a more clear-cut and understanding policy for these people and toward their establishment on a basis of citizenship that is unhampered by restrictions not applicable to American citizens of all races.

From time to time various tribes had been accorded citizenship but it was not until 1924 that by Act of Congress this standing was given to all Indians born within the United States. Such Act did not, however, for Indians any more than it does for whites, carry with it the privilege of the vote — a right that may be conferred or abridged by an individual state; but while "it is beyond the constitutional power of any State to deny the right of Indians to vote simply because they are Indians... a few states, particularly in the extreme south and southwest, have attempted to discriminate against the Indians as with the Negroes, by setting up rigid requirements as to registration, residence, etc., so as to make it as difficult as possible for voters in these two classes to meet such requirements."*

There are still about 200 tribes — some of them mere remnants but retaining individual languages and dialects. Reservations have been allotted to these tribes, most of them west of the Mississippi River. On these reservations

*John R. T. Reeves, Chief Counsel.

live some 200,000 Indians. Others have left these homes to go out to mingle with the white population of the country, a trend that seems inevitable as government, church, and other agencies give to the younger people modern education that is broadening and challenging. Increasingly numbers of these young Indians have found employment in the Government Indian Service so that by 1940 it enrolled 4,682, many of whom were in the Office of Indian Affairs in Washington, D. C.

The Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, adopted by a majority of the tribes, seems utterly at variance with the above tendencies in educational opportunity for its trend is toward the continuance of Indian peoples as units within, yet isolated from, the body politic. Certain phases of the Reorganization Act such as the provision for preservation of Indian land, for better standards of living and for training in collective service, merit only praise, but one may ask whether a "group-destiny" be possible for so small a number of people in a Commonwealth of 130,000,000 population.

"Apparently," says a student of Indian affairs, "the Indian is at once to cling to his own folkways and to learn all the white men can give. It is an enticing ideal; but it demands the lack of mental coordination which would lead one to dance in propitiation of the rain gods and at the same time rely on the advice of the Department of Agriculture."

The increasing inter-marriage of Indians and whites must gradually produce a people less race-conscious than an unadulterated blood group might be. The Chippewas, for example, have but 15 per cent full-bloods and other tribes have large admixtures of white blood, a process that began in the very early days and became particularly noticeable after the French and English wars. "What constitutes an Indian?" is a frequent question. Often one-sixty-fourth of Indian blood is recognized as enabling an applicant to be enrolled in a tribe.

## THE PROBLEM OF WARDSHIP

A most fundamental difficulty facing the majority of the Indians is that caused by their "wardship" — a peculiar relation they bear to the Federal Government. It is not possible to explain Indian Wardship with brevity or simplicity. In 1831 the Cherokees, then in Georgia, maintained that they constituted a "nation," and as such could appeal to the court for action against the State of Georgia. The matter was referred to the Supreme Court of the United States and the decision rendered by Chief Justice John Marshall was:

"It may well be doubted whether these tribes which reside within the acknowledged boundaries of the United States can, with strict accuracy, be denominated foreign nations. They may, more correctly, perhaps, be denominated domestic dependent nations. They occupy a

territory to which we assert a title independent
of their will, which must take effect in point of
possession when their right of possession ceases.
Meanwhile they are in a state of pupilage.
Their relation to the United States resembles
that of a ward to a guardian."

This relationship has never been clearly de-
fined in the more than one hundred years since
Justice Marshall's statement, yet it controls and
limits Indian life and relationships at every
turn. An Indian may freely leave his home and
acreage without specific permission but he may
not in many cases sell that same acreage without
specific permission obtained through Act of
Congress. He became a citizen but this did not
abrogate his wardship per se and at every turn
he is hampered by his dual relationships.

In spite of the more than 4,000 laws, as noted
in the recent Compilation, none appears to de-
fine in terms applicable to all tribes, or for all
tribes in severalty, the exact and detailed re-
lationship of Indian wards and the Federal
Government, or to make better the anomalous
position of peoples declared to be citizens of a
free country who yet are restrained in this
citizenship by the not-fully-determined terms
of their wardship. Each case that arises is de-
cided individually and through the years these
have built up much of the "obsolete and anach-
ronistic legislation" on the statute books.

Only Congress can define, limit or abolish
wardship. Many people, both Indian and white,

feel that the time for such action has come.
Laws, treaties, land holdings and trust funds
held for the Indian by the Federal Government
are all affected by this undefined relationship.
Twenty-eight laws regarding Indians were
passed during a recent session of Congress, thus
continuing the accumulation of detailed and
often petty laws, whereas, a few wisely drawn
laws might make the relationship of these
people to the land of their fathers the same as
that of other citizens: the need for special
enactments would thus disappear.

In this year, 1942, when "Democracy" is our
watchword, when men are fighting for that ideal
around the world, when Indian men in large
numbers have joined the American forces, one
may seriously raise the question if this is not
the time for the United States to more carefully
study its relationship to this small minority of
its own population and strive to accord to it,
with generosity overflowing, a full if belated
measure of justice and fellowship. What a gift
this would be to those Indian men now fighting
in foreign lands to keep freedom and democracy
alive in the world!

*Reprinted from THE CHURCH WOMAN*
*by*
COMMITTEE ON STUDY OF WARDSHIP AND
INDIAN PARTICIPATION IN AMERICAN LIFE
Room 69, 297 Fourth Avenue
New York, N. Y.

[ca. 1944]

# Let Us Look at the Indian

by MRS. FRED S. BENNETT

IF ONE be tempted to consider the status of the American Indians as a dead issue, one should study the bills already introduced into the 78th Congress and note the variety of matters that according to legislators need adjustment. The subject matter of such bills ranges from "relief" and "land payments" to the "purchase of certain interests in lands and mineral deposits by the United States from (certain) Nations of Indians." Of these more than fifty bills already introduced, some at least are for the benefit of the named Indian group; but one may wonder why there should still continue the need for such a mass of legislation in regard to so few citizens. Some of this legislation has undoubtedly been stimulated by the ever-increasing budget presented by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, while some may trace its origin to a tardy facing of the type of democracy accorded a small minority of Americans in the "land of the free and the home of the brave," while these same Americans are fighting abroad for that democracy denied them at home.

During the century since federal control

None of the figures have great validity until one has some standard of measurement as to the amount of Indian blood that constitutes an Indian, and as to who is counted in the roll. The grandchildren of a former Vice-President of the United States are on the rolls of an Indian tribe, as are men, and women who can claim but 1/64th of Indian blood. "The mixed-blood Indjans, it is apparent," says H. L. Shapiro, Associate Curator of Physical Anthropology, American Museum of Natural History, "not only constitute a very significant portion of the total Indian population, but they will in the near future form the numerically overwhelming part of it. Between 1910 and 1930 they multiplied their number by 51.03 per cent, whereas the full-bloods increased by 2.59 per cent."

To many people there is an immediate incongruity in the fact of citizens of a country also being wards of the same government, whatever their mental or physical state. This is particularly true of Indians who are wards because of a decision made in 1831 by Chief Justice John Marshall when called on for a decision as between a Cherokee group, then in the state of Georgia, and the state itself: He ruled that the Indians were "domestic dependent nations" and that "their relation to the United States resembles that of a ward to a guardian." This judgment has held for the more than one hundred years since its delivery, never accurately defined in specific terms but bringing into existence federal control of "wards of the government" and building up the detailed control that a guardian exercises over a minor: it remains to this day to plague both Indians and government, no effort having been made to remove this serious inhibition to the development of full citizenship. That doubtless should have been done

Bureau has had the supervision of the
spending of more than $500,000,000 during
the past ten years."

At this time, 18,000 of the young Indian
men with some young women are in the
armed services of the nation and making
good at the tasks assigned them. They came
from reservation and non-reservation homes
to answer the call of their country: 45,000
men and women have gone into defense in-
dustries. When these return from the ex-
periences of war and concentrated industry
they may wish to re-emphasize their own
inherited culture, or they may desire to be
more one with the culture that is about
them. We see the Indians always, says
D'Arcy McNickle, "through the lenses of a
culture which is not his, which he never
claimed as his own, and which he has not
yet desired as his own. . . . We are only at
a place of beginning, and we go on from here.
Not in this country only but wherever in the
world native people are subject to sovereign
powers other than their own a fresh start will
have to be made." God grant that the people
of the United States may be generous enough
and wise enough to give to our "minority"
the right of self-development that they may
add to our national heritage those fine quali-
ties that can indeed be the Indian's contri-
bution. Even a benevolent despotism cannot
do for a people the thing that freedom can do.

Reprinted by permission of Women and Missions,
published by the Woman's Committee of the Boards
of National and Foreign Missions of the Pres-
byterian Church in the U. S. A.

HOME MISSIONS COUNCIL OF
NORTH AMERICA

297 Fourth Avenue New York 10, N. Y.

121-M-CP-3-44

INDIAN WARDSHIP

A DISCUSSION of Indian wardship should properly begin with a definition of both terms. At once we strike the fundamental difficulty in dealing with all Indian matters. Courts and Congress have alike failed to give any definition of the term Indian. And the many decisions and enactments concerning wardship, or "a condition analagous" to wardship, are by no means based on a single definite idea of what that condition may be.

WHAT IS AN INDIAN?

Of course the obvious answer to the question, "What is an Indian?" is: "A person of aboriginal American blood." But how large or small a degree of Indian blood is necessary to mark that person as an Indian in either a popular or a legal sense? There are hundreds, perhaps even thousands who, like the widow of President Woodrow Wilson, are descendants of John Rolfe and Pocahontas. Mrs. Wilson's descent is in the tenth generation, giving her the proportion of Indian blood of one part in one thousand and twenty-four. To the casual glance, this would scarcely seem sufficient to justify referring to her as an Indian; yet "Indians" with no greater proportion of the racial inheritance have been enrolled and have received benefits as members of certain tribes.

Where Indian tribes have been given their land in individual allotments, or where there are distributions of funds to be made under treaty provisions, there are in existence tribal "rolls" made at the time of such allotment or distribution, and kept up to date by the recording of births and deaths. These rolls often include not only many whose degree of Indian blood is exceedingly small, but many others who have no Indian blood whatever. "Inter-married white" is the designation, for example, for those men and women of entirely non-Indian blood who have married into the Five Civilized Tribes, and who received allotments of land at the same time as those of a real blood relationship to the race. Another large group of non-Indians enrolled with these Five Tribes consisted of their slaves, and the descendants of the slaves, freed by the Cherokees, Creeks, Choctaws, Chickasaws and Seminoles after the close of the War between the States in which Indians had been engaged on both sides of the conflict.

Adoption by a tribe has not been uncommon, in the earlier

5

days of inter-tribal warfare. This is not the Hollywoodian ceremony or its "Great Northern" equivalent of the present day, but a bona fide acceptance of an Indian or white captive as a member of the captor tribe. An interesting example of the working out of this adoption¹⁸ in the case of the member of the Crow Tribe known as the Reverend John Frost. His father was an Englishman who had been a surgeon in the United States Army; his mother united the bloods of her Piegan-Blackfoot mother with that of her Mexican paternal forebears. Orphaned when Sioux raiders murdered his father, the boy grew up as a Crow and became a leader in the tribe, though he shared no portion of their blood whatever, and only the smallest proportion of any blood of the Indians of the United States. Yet officially and legally, he was a Crow, chiefly by reason of his residence on the Crow Reservation.

The lean years of the '30s have brought back to Indian reservations and relief benefits many who had long lived apart from any tribal connections. In the white towns and cities where they had lived self-supporting lives after the fashion of their fellow-Americans, many had never been known as Indians. But in hard times, the lure of untaxed lands and government "jobs" or outright relief proved very attractive. "Depression Indians" the Sioux call those who have thus returned to claim the benefits of their racial connection.

It has long been obvious that there should be some official and legal definition of what is meant by the word "Indian," for governmental purposes. Enough has been said to show how the matter of making any such definition has been complicated by previous rolls and laws. Nevertheless, there has grown up, and has on occasions been confirmed by laws in individual cases, the idea that an individual should possess at least a fourth Indian blood in order to claim benefits as an Indian. From time to time, in years past, bills have been introduced in Congress with the intent of defining the word Indian; but though backed by many whose interest in Indian welfare was of long standing, such bills have always failed of passage. In addition to the obvious opposition arising from a Bureau, which like all bureaus, views with alarm any diminution of its powers and scope, there were also the difficulties arising from previous rolls, laws and treaties, under which many recipients of benefits are legally but by no means biologically Indian.¹

In Canada, the term Indian apparently applies only to those of Indian descent residing upon a definite reserve, or in Indian country.² When a member of the tribe marries an outsider, that

fact is expected to imply the removal of the couple from the reservation and from tribal allegiance. Thus the white man who marries an Indian woman does not become an "Intermarried white," but his wife on her part, might properly be considered as an "Intermarried Indian" who had attained the status of a white.²

In Canada, also, an Indian who has applied for enfranchisement may be released from the "distinction" which sets him apart as an Indian and receive his share of the tribal assets.³

In Mexico, where all but a possible 15 per cent of the population have some portion, large or small, of Indian blood, the term "Indian" is used to indicate a way of life rather than any racial division. Those who live in the simpler fashion, in town or country, are "Indios." Yet this is by no means the primitive life to which Indians are popularly supposed to cling, but Indian life and culture modified by three or four centuries of contact with European religious, social and cultural ideals.⁴

Much has been talked lately of the kinship in interest of the Indians of the United States with those below the Rio Grande, in Mexico, in Central America, and in South America. However, the largest estimate of Indians in the United States shows them to be the smallest of fractional minorities in this country, while those of Indian blood in most of the nations below the Rio Grande are an overwhelming majority—literally the nations themselves. There can therefore be no valid comparison in their situation.

² See "Administration of Indian Affairs in Canada" by F. H. Abbott—p. 43.

³ INDIAN AFFAIRS PRIVY COUNCIL OF CANADA: "The Board recommends that Angus Garlow, a Six Nations Indian whose reserve is located in the County of Brant and Halldimand, in the Province of Ontario, who has applied for enfranchisement and who has complied with the terms and provisions of Section 122A as added to the Indian Act, Chapter 41, R. S. C. 1906, by Section 6 of Chapter 26, 8-9 Geo. V., be declared enfranchised and that from the date hereof the provisions of the Indian Act or of any other Act making any distinction between the legal rights, privileges, disabilities and liabilities of Indians and those of His Majesty's other subjects shall cease to apply to the said Angus Garlow and that he shall no longer be deemed an Indian within the meaning of laws relating to Indians."

"The Board further recommends that authority be given for the payment to the said Angus Garlow of the sum of $155.27 from Six Nations funds, being his share of the funds in this case, including the principal of the annuities at the credit of the tribe afore-said to which he belongs."

(Signed) ROBERT LEE BRIDGE
Clerk of the Privy Council

Certified Extract from the Minutes of a meeting of the Treasury Board, held on the 7th day of June, 1921, approved by his Excellency, the Governor General, in Council, on the 15th day of June, 1921.

³ In Mexico, Peru, or Brazil, an Indian is a person who lives as an Indian, without regard to alleged purity of ancestry. Similarly, a person of pure Indian descent who has abandoned Indian behavior thereby becomes, in social and political respects, white. Frank Lorimer in *The Changing Indian*, edited by Oliver La Farge, from a symposium arranged by the American Association of Indian Affairs, Inc., University of Oklahoma Press, 1942; p. 12.

¹ See EXHIBIT A—In Fulfillment of Treaties; also EXHIBIT B—Tribal Funds.

6

2 See.

7

Mexican Indians can not really be wards of their government; actually, or potentially, they are the government itself.

Dr. Ray A. Brown, of the University of Wisconsin, in making recommendations for legislation based on his study of Indian Law, offered the following definition of an Indian: "The word Indian shall mean a restricted Indian ward of the United States still subject to the Acts of Congress specifically pertaining to Indians and to the rules and regulations made in pursuance thereof."

This is perhaps less a definition than a begging of the question, which is generally true of other definitions which have been proposed from time to time. What Indians are still subject to the acts of Congress pertaining to Indians? What ones are still "restricted"? In other words, the definition merely poses the question—

## WHAT IS WARDSHIP?

Wardship in the case of a non-Indian individual is a fairly definite state circumscribed by well-understood rules. It implies some disability in the ward—minority, or physical or mental capacity. It is a relation between two individuals. The guardian of the property or person of a ward is held strictly accountable to the courts as well as to the ward himself. He is supposed to exercise more than the usual degree of care in safeguarding the ward's interests, both personal and financial.

Chief Justice John Marshall, to whom we owe the first authoritative pronouncement on this subject in 1831 considered that the relation between the United States and an Indian tribe bore a resemblance to that between a guardian and his ward. He did not by any means identify the two relationships as the same. In Cherokee v. Georgia, he decided that an Indian Tribe could not as a "foreign nation" bring suit against a State of the Union. The tribes were instead to be regarded as "domestic dependent nations," existing "in a state of pupilage" until their lands were ceded to the United States.

"Their relation to the United States," he went on, "resembles that of a ward to its guardian. They look to our government for protection; rely upon its kindness and its power; appeal to it for

⁴ The late Dr. Moises Saenz, sometime Director of Education in Mexico, in a lecture to Indian Service teachers at Albuquerque, N. M., Dec., 1933, spoke in part, as follows: "There is pride in being Indian, but no discrimination on behalf of the Indian, or the white. He (the Indian) is considered a neglected individual. But there is no movement to keep him Indian, rather a going to the Indian to bring him into the national family, to loosen him into the stream of national life." From lecture notes on *Indian Education* taken by Helen L. Kinnick.

⁵ Hearings on H. R. 7902, 73rd Cong. Second Session—p. 346.

⁶ 5 Pet., I, 1831.

8

relief to their wants; and address the President as their father."

Obviously this theory of a quasi-guardianship was meant for the Tribe, not the individual Indian. A century ago, when this decision was written, neither the United States nor any state or local form of government had assumed to exercise jurisdiction over the internal affairs of a tribe. The United States dealt with a group of Indians as if it were a governmental unit. Frequently it had to create chieftainships and name officials in order that the group might present the appearance of a political entity.

The dealing with Indians as individuals came at a much later date. The conception of wardship changed and developed with the years. Felix Cohen, in the recently published *Handbook of Federal Indian Law*, points out ten different types of interpretation of the meaning of "Wardship." Some of these are for the tribe; some apply to the Indian as an individual; some indicate restrictions; some grow out of benefactions. All, however, deal with the relation of the Federal Government to the Indian.

"The failure to distinguish among these different senses," writes Mr. Cohen, "is responsible for a considerable amount of confusion. Today a careful draftsman of statutes will not use the term 'ward Indian' or, if he uses the term at all, will expressly define it for the purposes of the statute."

The official attitude of the Indian Bureau at the present time is that the words "Ward" and "Wardship" no longer have any real significance. Nevertheless, a condition exists, under which those regarded as Indians are subject to certain restrictions and exemptions; and the same letter goes on to state: "The opinion of most of the legal authorities is that no Indian may now achieve complete 'emancipation' without an Act of Congress."

From all this it becomes apparent that an exact definition of wardship is more than difficult. Perhaps there can be no closer approximation than to say: *Wardship is that peculiar legal situation of those designated as Indians, whereby they are dealt with by the Federal Government in matters in which the average American citizen is dealt with by State or local governments; or whereby the Federal services given to all citizens are given to them under a special racial designation.*

This legal situation did not come about at a single stroke.

⁷ Dr. M. W. Stirling, Chief of the Bureau of American Ethnology, in discussing "Some Misconceptions about the American Indian" states: "The idea of a legal executive head (entirely foreign to the Indians) was fostered by the Colonists because of the aid it gave in the transaction of business, particularly in regard to the transfer of land . . . even the so-called chief among many tribes was recognized as a leader only because of his personal exploits . . . such a leader had no actual authority." *Indians at Work*—Dec. 15, 1936—pp. 31-32.

⁸ Pub. 1942, pp. 169-173.

⁹ Indian Office letter of August 5, 1941, to Mrs. Elaine Goodale Eastman.

9

Before discussing its various phases and their effects upon the
Indian, a brief historical summary is necessary.

GROWTH OF INDIAN WARDSHIP

The theory that the Indian possessed only the right of occu-
pancy to the land is our inheritance from colonial times. With some
modifications, French, Spanish, and English explorers and colonists
brought the same idea from Europe to these shores. The final
power and disposition of these lands, by virtue of exploration,
conquest, settlement, or a combination of all three must lie with
the European sovereign. The Indian tribe might occupy the lands
and use them; when they ceased to do so, the lands became the
property of the Crown. Only to the Crown, and not to individual
settlers, could the tribes sell their possessory rights.219

For the purpose of such land purchase it became the custom of
the colonial governments to select certain Indians whom they
considered influential among the Indian communities, and to desig-
nate these individuals as "chiefs" for purposes of treaty making.
Political organization was at a minimum in most Indian groups,
and the "chiefs" who led parties in forays upon other tribes were
not necessarily regarded as counsellors at home. Nevertheless, since
some authority was necessary, it must be improvised where it could
not be discovered. The "kings" and "emperors" of early chronicles
serve only to emphasize the white man's complete lack of under-
standing of the red man's situation—a mental blindness which is
perpetuated to this day in the designation of any girl of part-
Indian extraction as an "Indian princess."

Through the colonial period, in the early days of the Republic,
and until approximately the middle of the last century, govern-
mental dealings were with tribal groups rather than with Indians
as individuals. "Indians not taxed" as mentioned in the Constitu-
tion were those groups occupying lands within organized States,
but not responsible to State laws. The power of Congress "to reg-
ulate commerce" was with "the Indian Tribe." When Indians
individualized themselves by leaving their tribes, they merged into
the white communities and their racial designation was largely
forgotten.

The ward relationship of these Indian groups to the national
government had its most significant statement and definition from
Chief Justice Marshall in the case cited above (Cherokee Nation
v. Georgia) and in another case growing out of the same effort
of the State of Georgia to extend its jurisdiction, not so much

to the Cherokees themselves, as to white men who had come to
reside among them, who were required to take an oath of obedi-
ence to the State. The refusal of Samuel A. Worcester, a New
England missionary, to take this oath, led to the case on Worcester
v. Georgia, in which the decision was rendered: "The Cherokee
Nation is a distinct community, occupying its own territory, . . .
in which the laws of Georgia can have no force . . . The whole
intercourse between the United States and this nation is, by our
Constitution and laws, vested in the Government of the United
States."

For nearly a half century after this decision that intercourse went
on in the form of treaties. These treaties were chiefly matters of
land cessions and purchase. They brought in some cases, as that of
the Five Civilized Tribes of the Southeastern country, the removal
of whole tribes to a new location. In many others, there were
sales to the government of possessory rights to certain portions
of the land over which a tribe had been accustomed to roam while
the occupancy of a designated portion remained to the tribe.
Thus the "Reservation" system grew up—lands reserved from sale
for Indian use. As the treaties carried payments to the Indian
sellers, payments in money, but often in goods, "agents" were
appointed to distribute such payments and carry out other treaty
provisions.

The individualization of Indian lands began, in a few special
instances, a quarter century before the passage of the General
Allotment Act, known as the Dawes Act, in 1887. Such instances
as those of the Indians of the Isabella Reserve in Michigan who,
receiving individual allotments of land in the 1850's, immediately
sold them and became squatters in the State, led to the provision
that allotments should be held in trust by the government for a
period of 25 years, at the end of which time, a patent in fee would
be issued.

While the actual situation of the land during these 25 years
was that of trusteeship rather than guardianship, still the term
"ward" began to be applied to Indians whose lands were so held.
And the assumption began to grow that, trained in industry and
self-support, the allottee would finally receive his patent in fee
and become a member of the normal community life, discharged of
all peculiar legal relationship to the nation, based on racial di-
visions.

1/2 6 Peters 575.

1/3 1824 Stat. 388.

1/4 "Some of the Michigan Indians voted for the first time in the election of 1856, and in the following presidential election one, Blackbird, was severely censured by the Government agent because he voted "the black Republican ticket."—G. E. E. Lindquist in the Southern Workman, April, 1928.

219 Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cr. 87.

101 Const. of U. S., Art. I, Sec. 2.

111 Const. of U. S., Art. I, Sec. 8.

10

11

Many things occurred to defeat this expectation. A court decision eliminating the educative effect of taxpaying,¹⁸ and another permitting the sale of liquor to citizen Indians were among the results which had not been forecast.¹⁸ The speedy growth of the system of leasing individual lands to white men too frequently created in a tribe, not a generation of farmers, but a body of landlords, living on the rental of estates administered without cost or trouble to the Indian owners.¹⁹ And when the period of restrictions came to an end and patents in fee were issued, too often—in fact, in the majority of cases—this was not the prelude to individual ownership but to an immediate sale. The period of tutelage had not impressed upon the Indian any idea that the land was to be a capital asset. It was to be traded off for the desire of the moment ... an automobile, or what you will?

Secretary of the Interior Franklin K. Lane in 1917 inaugurated a new policy in Indian Affairs.²⁰ New policies in Indian Affairs have usually occurred every few years, but this was a change even more drastic than usual. Under the Burke Act, passed a decade before,²¹ it had been provided first, that citizenship should not thereafter be conferred upon Indians until the completion of the trust period and the issuance of a patent in fee to the land; and second, that such a patent could be issued in advance of the twenty-five years if the Secretary decided that the allottee was competent to manage his own affairs. The Lane policy looked to the speeding up of the educative process and the immediate issuance of fee patents to Indians who were able bodied and practically educated and so, presumably, capable of self-support upon the land. To this end competency boards were created on the various reservations and a great number of patents in fee issued. Too often the result was either an immediate sale, or a mortgage with subsequent forfeiture.²²

Thus, over a period of years, came about the alienation which is frequently characterized as an example of white rapacity, cruelty, and injustice. This characterization of the deplored "loss" of Indian lands is an oversimplified explanation of a really intricate situation. It should be borne in mind also that the reservation system had already brought about segregation, and where there is segregation

¹⁵ U. S. v. Rickart, 188 U. S. 432.

¹⁶ Heff Case 197 U. S. 488.

¹⁷ Leasing of land seems to have gotten its impetus from the Act of Feb. 21, 1891 (26 Stat. 794) amending Section I of the Dawes Act, as well as subsequent Acts and Bureau regulations. See EXHIBIT H: Evils of Leasing System.

¹⁸ See EXHIBIT C: Declaration of Policy.

¹⁹ May, 1906, 34 Stat. 182.

²⁰ Previous Acts, for example, that of May 27, 1902, authorized the sale of inherited land while the Act of March 1, 1909, permitted the sale of an allottee's land; the act of June 25, 1910, provided for making a will.

12

one invariably finds exploitation. For along with the sale of land to outsiders went the inevitable processes of life and death, and the Indian lands allotted so freely in the last years of the century, came more and more into possession of the heirs of the original owners with the inevitable inequalities whereby one might be heir to many, and many, heirs to only one.

This process whereby more and more Indians were released from the restrictions of wardship went on until 1934, when a law was passed which later was designated as the "Reorganization Act."²¹

This legislation forbade any further allotment of Indian lands, or the issuance of patents in fee on lands held in trust. It contemplated a return from the individualization system to the tribalism of former years, or what the tribalism of former years was assumed to be. Land purchase for Indians whose lands had been sold, establishment of purely Indian communities and corporations, though the quantum of Indian blood in those participating might be extremely small, together with the creation of large payrolls from depression relief funds, resulted in the addition to Indian reservation rolls of a vast number of names.²² (See EXHIBIT D: Some Misleading Population Figures) Everyone of any previous connection with Indian tribes, indeed many whose grandparents might have severed such a connection, was a potential "Client" for relief or rehabilitation or what not.

While the tendency at present is to reject the word "wardship," the fact of dependency upon the Federal Government is stressed as

²¹ ²² 48 Stat. 986. Introduced in the Congress in February, 1934, and passed four and a half months later in a much altered form, this piece of legislation was first given the names of the chairmen of the Senate and House Indian Committees, and was known as the Wheeler-Howard bill. Representative Edgar Howard of Nebraska was then completing his last term in Congress. Senator Burton K. Wheeler of Montana introduced the bill by request, and in later sessions introduced bills to alter or repeal it. Originally the plan set forth a complete segregation of Indians from white contact, the establishment of Indian communities with rights to Indian land and property far more inclusive than Anglo Saxon law has ever given the State. Many of the provisions of this 48 page projection were definitely contrary to the Constitution of the United States.

There was a great deal of public protest, the larger share of which came from the Indians themselves. The act as finally passed was perhaps one-fourth as large as the original. It provided among other things (1) that Indian tribes should vote whether to accept the new plan of organization; (2) that on voting affirmatively they were then to adopt a tribal constitution and receive a charter, and (3) that following this, they should incorporate to do business as a cooperative body, with the right to borrow money for carrying on such tribal business as might be contemplated. Every detail of every step of this involved procedure must have the formal approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

This complicated double organization was represented to be a return to the old autonomy and communal economy of the tribe, quite irrespective of the fact that it bore no resemblance to actual self-government or to pre-Columbian tribal systems, which varied extremely from one tribe to another, ranging from the almost anarchic to the intensest hierarchial forms, but in no case approaching the "democracy" now declared to be the goal. From being known as the Wheeler-Howard Act, this law was successively known as the Self-government Act and the Organization Act. The name now in use is the Reorganization Act, and a schedule of its acceptance or rejection by various tribes, and the organizations initiated under it, has been appended. (See EXHIBIT F)

²² See EXHIBIT D: Some misleading population figures.

13

never before, and today the Indian Bureau works on the theory that the Indian still undefined—is not only the subject of government supervision in most of the aspects of life, but that such supervision *must* persist from generation to generation with practically no opportunity for his children or his children's children to emerge into normal American living.²³ (See EXHIBIT E: Reassumption of Wardship)

The future effects of this wardlike relationship are thus presumed to be permanent and inescapable. That its present effects reach to all departments of Indian life, is unquestioned. What some of these effects may be, demands our next consideration.

## WARDSHIP AND CITIZENSHIP

To many it is a surprise to learn that Indians are without exception citizens of the United States, if born within the national borders. The greater number of them have been citizens for many years.

This status was attained in several ways—by treaty with other nations, by treaty with the Indians themselves, and by enactments of law. It was granted sometimes to groups or tribes, sometimes to individual Indians. But, by far the greater number of citizens were created by the operation of the General Allotment Act or Dawes Act (cited above). Indians receiving allotments from the time of the passage of that Act until that of the Burke Act in 1906 (also previously cited) became citizens upon the issuance of their trust patents. This same Act conferred citizenship upon Indians who had voluntarily taken up their residence away from the tribe and “adopted the habits of civilized life.”

Allotment proceeded so rapidly under the Dawes Act that in his message to Congress on December 3, 1901, President Theodore Roosevelt reported that “60,000 Indians have already become citizens of the United States.”²⁴ The children of these new citizens of course became citizens at birth.

The Burke Act provided that citizenship should be postponed until the end of the trust period and the issuance of the patent in fee. The creation of citizens was thus slowed up and at the time of the First World War there were still many tribes which were held exempt from the draft because of their non-citizenship. Many of these enlisted voluntarily, and²⁵ it was made possible for many of these, if they desired, to acquire citizenship.

Thus, in one way and another, the majority of American Indians were already citizens of the United States before 1924. The

²³ See EXHIBIT E: Reassumption of Wardship

²⁴ Cong. Rec., 57th Cong., I Sess., p. 90.

²⁵ By an Act of Nov. 6, 1919.

14

Handbook of Federal Indian Law (p. 153) estimates the proportion as “approximately two-thirds.” The remaining third were swept into citizenship by the Act of June 2, 1924,²⁶ which provides:

> "That all non-citizen Indians, born within the territorial limits of the United States, be, and they are hereby declared to be, citizens of the United States."

But the citizenship thus granted was not incompatible with continued guardianship and trusteeship on the part of the Federal Government through the Interior Department or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indeed, this very law went on to declare, as many another law concerning the Indian had done:

> "Provided, that the granting of such citizenship shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of any Indian to tribal or other property."

Citizen or not, he would find the trust remaining upon lands held for him; his name upon a tribal roll would still entitle him to share in any distribution of funds or land which other members of the tribe might receive.

In fact, the courts had already decided that the status of wardship was not incompatible with that of citizenship. While the decision in the matter of Heff (197 U. S. 48) had appeared to sustain the view that a man allotted under the Dawes Act and thereby becoming a citizen, had a citizen's right to enter a saloon and purchase intoxicants, this decision had been superseded, in 1916, by that rendered in the case of U. S. v. Nice²⁷ in which the court said:

> "Citizenship is not incompatible with tribal existence or continued guardianship and so may be conferred without completely emancipating the Indians or placing them beyond the reach of congressional regulations adopted for their protection."

In this and in other decisions the interpretation has been well established, that citizens can be subject to restrictions, exemptions, and special regulations based on the possession of Indian blood or the identification with some group designated as “Indian.”

## CITIZENSHIP AND SUFFRAGE

It is also a surprise to many Americans to realize that the possession of citizenship does not in itself imply the right to vote. Yet a moment's consideration of the subject should remind one that minors, though indubitably citizens, may not vote until a certain age is attained; that women, just as unquestionably citizens, did not possess the right to vote in most States until less than a quarter of a century ago; and that even male citizens of voting

²⁶ 43 Stat. 253.

²⁷ 241 U. S. 591.

15

age may easily lose the right of suffrage temporarily, by removing
from one place of voting to another on the eve of an election.

In other words, each State has its own qualifications for suffrage,
which must be complied with by would-be voters within its borders.
In most of the States, Indian citizens are as a rule able to become
voters in the same manner as white citizens. A few States, however,
still retain laws which result in the disqualification of some if not
all of their Indian citizens.

The constitutions of Idaho, New Mexico, and Washington forbid
the extension of the suffrage to "Indians not taxed." All three
of these constitutions, of course, were adopted at a time when such
Indians were not citizens of the United States. In the case of
the State of Washington, there has twice been a ruling by the
State Attorney General that this refusal of the suffrage is now out
of alignment with the Federal Constitution,²⁸ and it may be assumed
that, acting on such ruling, election boards do not forbid the
vote to Indians who apply on election day. In South Dakota a
similar law has long been without enforcement.²⁹ ³⁰

In Arizona, the exclusion of a large portion of its Indian popula-
tion from voting is based on a State law denying the vote to "per-
sons under guardianship." This provision has been upheld in the
courts.³¹

On January 26, 1938, the Solicitor of the Department of the
Interior issued an opinion (M.29596) in which he stated that in
his judgment the refusal of the franchise by any State to citizen
Indians was unconstitutional. He cited the adverse decisions of the
Supreme Court on two "grandfather" cases, in the matter of Negro
suffrage, as ground for believing a discrimination against "Indians
not taxed" was a racial discrimination and thus incompatible with
the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution. He failed to comment
on the fact that in other instances similar clauses of somewhat
different wording have been held constitutional.

The matter could be adjudicated by bringing a suit in the name
of some Indian of Arizona, a Navajo for example, to whom suffrage
is refused, and carrying the case up to the Supreme Court on a
question of constitutionality. Apparently the Department of the
Interior has so far taken no step thus to validate and confirm
the opinion of the Solicitor. This remains, therefore, a matter
on which the final authority has not been invoked.

²⁸ G. W. Hamilton, Attorney General of Washington: Apr. 1, 1936, Opinion No. 4086.

²⁹ Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, p. 158.

³⁰ "An Indian who has abandoned tribal relations and taken land in severalty separate and apart from his tribe thereby became a citizen of the United States and of this State." State Const. of South Dakota, Art. VII, Sec. 1, State v. Nimrod 30 S. D. 239, 138 N. W. 377.

³¹ Porter v. Hall, 34 Arizona, 308, 271 Pac. 411, 1928.

16

It should be noted, however, that wherever the vote has been
refused to Indians it has been on the ground of his wardship
relation to the Federal Government. The use of the term "Indians
not taxed" is a quotation from the Constitution itself. It applies
not to the lack of taxable property, which is a condition in which
many people of other races may be found, but to the possession of
property withheld from taxation, though such property would be
taxed if owned by a non-Indian. The exclusion from voting of
"Indians not taxed" therefore appears to be based less on the fact
of Indianism than on the fact of non-taxability. It certainly stems
from the idea that the peculiar relation of the Indian to the
Federal Government, in its analogy to wardship, involves an
equal peculiarity in his relationship to the State, which is for-
bidden to tax real estate or to take jurisdiction over his crimes,
or his domestic relations.

The Arizona provision directly excluding from suffrage "persons
under guardianship" illustrates well the segregating and isolating
effect of the wardship relation. If the United States builds and
maintains a Chinese Wall about those whom it designates as In-
dians, absolving them from responsibility to the States in which
their reservations are located, the natural and almost inevitable
result is that the State and its inhabitants regard that wall as a
barrier to equal intercourse. In North Carolina the band of
Eastern Cherokees were accustomed to vote as citizens of the State,
even before the war of the 1860's. Sixty years after that time or
longer, the land of the Eastern Cherokee Band was withdrawn
from the taxation to which it had long been liable, and placed
under the trusteeship of the Secretary of the Interior. The in-
evitable result was that the privilege of voting was withdrawn.

The law of North Carolina requiring that a prospective voter
be able to read and write "to the satisfaction of the election reg-
istrar,"³² there appeared before a board in the vicinity of the
reservation a young member of the Band who was a college grad-
uate, possessing a Master's degree from the University of North
Carolina. He offered to prove his literacy to the judges.

"You couldn't read or write to my satisfaction," one of them
told him, "if you were to stay here all day." In relieving the Band
of land taxation and deepening its wardship status, the Federal
Government had equally injured its status among the people among
whom their lot was cast.

³² A provision of the state election law of North Carolina reads as follows: "A person desiring to register must be able to read and write any section of the Constitution in the English language and must show to the satisfaction of the registrar his ability to read and write any section when he appears and before he is entitled to registration." (State Const., Art. II, Sec. 4, Subsection D.)

17

LAW AND ORDER

In the early days of Indian decisions, the tribes were well apart
from the organized regions of white settlement. Obviously they
managed their internal affairs after their own customs, which
differed from one tribe to another. But as the course of white
inundation went on across the continent, more and more these
tribes, their roaming grounds curtailed, became dwellers on reser-
vations, under the eye of white men, and often in contact with
white communities. The matter of crimes committed upon these
reservations became a matter of which the Federal Government
was at length forced to take cognizance. It was in 1885 that a law³³
was passed, giving the Federal courts jurisdiction over seven major
crimes committed on Indian reservations. The seven were murder,
manslaughter, rape, assault with intent to kill, arson, burglary, and
larceny. By statute in 1909 assault with a deadly weapon was added
to this list; in 1932, incest and robbery. Matters of lesser import
than these were to fall under the tribal courts, if any existed.

The General Allotment Act provided that the Indian, upon
receiving his allotment, should become a citizen of the United
States and of the State in which he lived, and subject to its laws,
both civil and criminal.³⁴ Shortly after allotment began, however,
an amendment was made, one of whose features was the striking
out of the provision for State citizenship and obedience to State
law.³⁵ Thereafter allotted or unallotted, the Indian was thus ab-
solved from any responsibility to State laws while maintaining
his residence among his fellow-tribesmen.

On the other hand, it was held in more than one decision that
the Indian had the right to bring civil suit in either State or Federal
courts, even before he had become a citizen. He could invoke the
law in his own behalf but a substantial body of it could not be
invoked against him in a case of transgression.

For Indians for whom allotment has all but eliminated reservation
boundaries and contact with white people and white communi-
ties is the every day condition of life, there exists a sort of twilight
zone of amenability to law; where tribal courts do not exist,
federal courts are without specific jurisdiction, and local courts,
assuming that Indians are wards, fail to exercise such jurisdiction
as they might possess. States, for example, like Wisconsin and

³³ Act of 1885, 23 Stat. 362.

³⁴ Section 6, Act of Feb. 8, 1887, (24 Stat. 388) reads as follows: "That upon the completion of said allotment and the patenting of the lands to said allottees, each and every member of the respective bands of tribes of Indians to whom allotments have been made shall have the benefit of and be subject to the laws, both civil and criminal, of the State or Territory in which they may reside, and no territory shall pass or enforce any law denying any such Indians within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law."

³⁵ Act of Feb. 28, 1891, 26 Stat. 794.

18

Minnesota, have a considerable number of citizens of some degree
of Indian blood and a former connection with an Indian tribe.
Where these people reside as individuals or families in the white
towns and cities, they are presumably amenable to local laws.
But if they are congregated in a group thought of as "Indian," the
matter of law enforcement among them is usually disregarded.
The attitude of local authority would be, perhaps, "They don't
pay taxes, so why waste county money enforcing laws among them?"
or "It's the business of the Federal Government to look after
Indians." The unenforced statutes are chiefly, of course, those of a
domestic nature—marriage and divorce laws, laws of quarantine
and sanitation, compulsory school laws, and the like.

Since the passage of the "Reorganization Act" there have been
many additions to the list of tribal courts among Indian groups
all over the land. But these courts profess to re-organize after the
fashion of tribal custom rather than according to the white man's
law. So we get such rulings as the circular of 1934, by which the
Secretary of the Interior advised the Hopi Indians that they were
not called upon to obey the State laws concerning marriage and
divorce.³⁶ Today, after nine years of official disregard of State law,
when Hopi men in considerable numbers are being enrolled in the
armed forces of their country, they are finding it difficult to estab-
lish proof of their family relationships in order to get allowances
for dependent wives and children.

Specific legal authority for these tribal courts has never been
enacted by Congress. They are justified by the general principles
of law as pertaining to "domestic dependent nations." The most
effective statement of this principle was given in 1916 in the
case of U. S. v. Quiver³⁷ in these words: "The policy reflected by
the legislation of Congress and its administration for many years
is that the relations of the Indians among themselves are to be
controlled by the customs and laws of the tribe, save when Con-
gress expressly or clearly directs otherwise."

The committee, headed by Professor Ray A. Brown of Wisconsin,
already mentioned, was unanimous in its recommendation that
Indians should be held amenable to the marriage and divorce
laws of their respective States. At present, the marital relations
of the Indian seem to be handled in a manner that can only be
characterized as haphazard. An Indian may make a legal marriage
with bell, book, and candle; if he chooses to dissolve it by an
"Indian custom" divorce, which consists merely in going off from
the rejected spouse, the Indian Service will recognize this as legal,

³⁶ Circular issued Nov. 9, 1934, by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and approved by the Acting Secretary of the Interior, Nov. 17, 1934.

³⁷ 241, U. S. 602.

19

and the offspring of subsequent unions as legitimate, at least for
the purpose of determining heirship. Or an "Indian Custom" or
mutual consent marriage of many years' standing may be termi-
nated and a legal marriage entered into with a different partner.
Viewing this situation, Professor Brown and his committee made
the definite recommendation that special Indian courts "should
not have jurisdiction to grant divorces or annulements." (Hearings
cited above, p. 343) But an "Indian custom" divorce can be had
without even such formality as the recognition of a tribal court.³⁸

There is a strangeness in the idea that many young people of
only a fractional amount of Indian blood, schooled in the language
of the country and acquainted with its customs, should be permit-
ted to flout those customs at will. These people know what the
State law is; have learned also, that they do not need to obey it.

Professor Brown's committee made its studies in the tier of states
running from Wisconsin west to the Pacific. Their conclusions as
to the persistence of tribalism among these Indians is significant.
The report said: "In the area covered by this study, the old
Indian culture has almost disappeared. The old Indian form of
government has gone, tribal authority has broken down, Indian
custom and Indian laws are no longer effective. They can not be
restored because the economic basis upon which they rested has
been largely destroyed. For these Indians the only way ahead is
gradual absorption into or adjustment to the dominant white
civilization.

"The task of helping these Indians to become adjusted is educa-
tional. In the matter of law and order, the lesson they have to learn
is to know, respect, and observe the laws of the State in which
they reside that relate to crimes and misdemeanors, and to marriage
and divorce." (Hearings, p. 345)

INDIAN LAND AND PROPERTY

A brief summary of the land-wardship situation has already been
given. Some of the ways in which Indian lands are held may be
mentioned:

1. *Unallotted reservations* (See EXHIBIT G: *Unallotted Reser-
vations*) in which the title is held by the government in trust for
the tribe as a whole. The great Navajo Reservation is the largest
of these; its nature as desert land makes the plan of individual
allotment difficult if not impossible. Rich timber reserves have
been a factor in the failure to allot in severalty such lands as those
of the Menominee in Wisconsin and the Red Lake Chippewa in
Minnesota. The unallotted land of the Pueblo Indians in New

³⁸ For more recent tribal court procedure see Law and Order Regulations for Indian Offenses, approved by Secretary of the Interior, Nov. 27, 1935.

Mexico, and the groups of Iroquois in New York afford peculiar
legal problems which have prevented official severalization. Here,
as in the case of the Eastern Cherokee in North Carolina, and the
small group of Sac and Fox in Iowa, who afford another instance
of a title resumed by the government, the Indians themselves have
worked out a system of individual land possession and use with-
out the sanction of law. This group purchased out of their own
fund 33 small tracts of land on which taxes are paid to the State.
However, the jurisdiction over the band was ceded by the legis-
lature of Iowa to the Federal Government in 1896.

2. *Reservations which are "open,"* as the ones described above are "closed." On an open reservation allotments have been made at some past date to individual Indians. These open reservations are the greater number and are to be found in all parts of the country. Their lands may fall into three categories: (a) Lands, allotted, patented in fee by the Indians, and so now on the list of non-restricted, taxable property; (b) lands allotted, held under trust patent; and (c) lands still unallotted, either reserved for public uses, or held originally for future allotment (future allotment being now forbidden by the Act of 1934). This unallotted portion may amount to very little, as with the Oneidas in Wisconsin, merely the site of an office or school or church; or it may comprise a wide acreage, as in the case of the Jicarilla Apache in New Mexico, who have individual allotments in the northern part of their reservation and another large territory to the south which is held in trust for the tribe as a whole.

3. *Lands purchased for the Indians by the Indian Bureau to*
which no title has yet been issued, either to the tribe or individual.
Such lands are the village sites and often the rancherias set
up in the farther West for the residence of groups of Indians
hitherto homeless; also tracts of land purchased under recent laws
for the estate of different tribes, but still held in government
ownership.

With the exception of lands to which patent in fee has been
issued, all this real estate is untaxable. It is estimated that the
government holds in trust for those Indians still under its charge
an average of two hundred acres per individual. This acreage,
however, is by no means evenly distributed. Nor is it of equal
worth. There are sections where a ten-acre tract would be of more
value, either as capital or for productive use, than a thousand acres
in another part of the country.

This land held by the government is in most cases administered
not only without taxation, but also without expense of either
effort or money for administration." (See EXHIBIT H: Evils of

21

With the exception of a few instances in which the expenses of tribal services have been met from the tribes' own great resources of mineral wealth or other bounties of nature, the general public is taxed to handle the Indian's property as a rental agent. (See EXHIBIT B: Use of Tribal Funds.)

## TREATY PROVISIONS

Besides this landed property there are financial and other interests arising out of the provisions of 389 treaties made with Indian groups up to 1871, when treaty-making was discontinued. Most of these treaties have, of course, long been completely fulfilled and bear no relation to matters of the present day. Others are still in force after more than a century. (See EXHIBIT A: In Fulfillment of Treaties.) The descendants of the New York Tribes, for example, still receive an annual distribution of a yard or two of calico or its equivalent, in accordance with a provision of a treaty made with the Confederation in 1784, and reaffirmed with the United States after the adoption of the Constitution in 1794. In the case of the Oneidas, who removed from New York to Wisconsin a century ago, the distribution of a check for a few cents involves the keeping up of a roll and the mailing of checks to some two or three thousand people scattered all over the United States.

Efforts have been made to secure the commutation of this Iroquois treaty, by giving to the tribe a capital sum which would produce in interest the amount distributed yearly, but this has been opposed by the Indians, who cling to the idea that the existence and fulfillment of this old treaty is continued proof that they are a distinct and separate nation. In spite of the fact that they are entitled to vote in their respective States and exercise that right freely, they maintain they are really of another nation, even to the extent of a separate declaration of war in the present conflict. The retention of this annual payment is an example of the outlawing of provisions by the march of events, like the still enforced provision in the treaty with the Pawnees which provides a salary for a blacksmith whose duty shall be the repair of the Pawnee guns for hunting.

The question which is in doubt is as to the "wardship" of Indians having no legal demand upon the Indian Bureau except, perhaps, the provisions of a treaty under which they have interest in some tribal property. The Minnesota Chippewas are an example. With the exception of the Red Lake group, they were allotted in

accordance with the provision of a law of 1889,⁴⁷ under which a large sum of money was paid the tribe for surplus lands sold the government. That money has stayed at interest in the Treasury of the United States, and practically every year a small amount of money as interest is paid out to each Chippewa as the agreement provides. Periodically, too, the Chippewas bring pressure to bear upon their representatives in Congress to have a "per capita payment" of fifty or a hundred dollars made to them from the capital sum. The law provided that fifty years after allotment the whole sum would be distributed; but so far no attempt has been made to carry out this provision. There are many examples of Minnesota Chippewas who live in other States, who have no land under government guardianship, who obey the laws of the region where they live and take part in its elections, and all that. Their sole connection with the Indian Bureau consists in this small yearly check. What kind of "wardship" this constitutes it would be difficult to define.

In such cases as these it is often true that good sense and good faith require the commutation of the treaty today as much as they required its fulfillment generations ago. That the ministrations of a special government bureau should be needed for so able a citizen as Dr. Arthur C. Parker⁴⁸ was certainly not in contemplation by the parties to the treaties of 1784 and 1794. Nor is the supervisor, Mark Burns,⁴⁹ to mention one of hundreds of Chippewas, active in Minnseota life, the type of person for whom government administration of his funds is required.

## WARSHIP AND EDUCATION

The long history of Indian education cannot here be reviewed. Originally a missionary endeavor, it was taken over by the Federal Government in large measure in the course of the last century. Separate Indian schools were made necessary in the first instance by the distance of the Indian from white schools, and his linguistic or other lacks, making it impossible for him to fit into the public system. These reasons for segregation are no longer applicable in the majority of cases. The trend toward the use of public schools for Indian children began a half century ago and continued vigorously until a few years since. About half the Indian children of school age are in the public schools of the regions in which they live. The segregating impulse of recent developments began

⁴⁷ Act of Jan. 14, 1889—25 Stat. 645.

⁴⁸ Director of Museum of Arts and Sciences, Rochester, N. Y.

⁴⁹ Area Co-ordinator, U. S. Indian Service, Minneapolis, Minnesota.

⁵⁰ Total appropriated for educational services during the fiscal year ended June 30, 1940, amounted to $8,682,764. Not many decades ago a similar amount represented the total annual expenditures for the entire Indian Bureau.

⁵¹ See Article 6, Treaty of Nov. 11, 1794.

⁵² See Oneidas of Wisconsin by G. E. E. Lindquist.

⁵³ See Indians at Work for May-June, 1942, pp. 17-19.

⁵⁴ Treaty of Sept. 24, 1857.

22

23

with the pressing of contracts to accept Federal money for Indian
pupils upon schools which had previously taken such pupils
without special payment.⁵⁷ While this was justified on the ground
that it made better provision for the needs of the pupils possible,
it was unquestionably a strong influence in setting the Indian
child apart from his fellows and creating racial differences and
prejudices which might otherwise have been permitted to lapse.

This was followed by a distinct effort to replace public schools
by federally operated institutions. A number of instances might
be cited in which public schools whose pupils were largely Indian,
with the parents of the children serving upon the school board
after the manner of any rural community, have been changed to
Bureau-managed schools. The lines of wardship are thus drawn
more closely about the young Indian citizen.

The matter of educational loans has also been a means of intensifying the dependence of the Indian. A modest provision for such loans was made in the general appropriation bill until the time of the passage of the Wheeler-Howard Act (The Reorganization Act) in 1934. This new act included a much larger appropriation and its use was at first limited to members of those tribes which accepted the plan of "reorganization."

Under these abundant appropriations of latter days, many young
people of some proportion of Indian blood are receiving loans for
the purpose of attending colleges and trade schools of various
sorts. In order that the loan may be repaid upon graduation, the
usual course is to provide the young graduate with a position in-
the Indian Bureau, where he is granted a special preference under-
Civil Service rules, on the ground of his race.⁵⁸

In still another matter the guardianship of the government has
been extended. In 1897, Congress declared it to be the policy of
the government to make no appropriation for the education of

51 For example, on the Potawatomi Reservation in Kansas the contract for the sale of the Government Day School buildings to the district provided that children of restricted (or ward) Indians living in the district might attend these schools free of tuition. In spite of this the Agency Superintendent in his Annual Report for 1931 writes: "Last year for the first time some tuition was paid (by the Government) for Indian children attending both Brown and Jackson Counties." (Extract from Survey of Potawatomi Subagency, Apr. 1931.)

51a A recent report indicates that 567 participated in these loans for that year, the amount being $109,545 of which $45,980 was spent on college education. Of the 567, 257 were males and 310 females. Of the recipients, the largest number came from the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma—126; Kiowas are next with 29, with the Consolidated Chippewa a desirous of educational loans, there being but one apiece from San Carlos, Apache, Papago, Colorado River Mojave, and the Uintah and Ouray; from the Navajos and Pueblos only 13 and 14, respectively. From July 1, 1935 to June 30, 1940, the total amount for these loans amounted to $467,766.68 of which $81,028.34 had been repaid, leaving an unpaid balance of $385,434.82. According to the Appropriation Act loans are to be repaid "in not to exceed eight years." (From Statistical Supplement to the Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1940, Table XXIII.)

51b See EXHIBIT F.

24

Indian children in any school maintained by a religious sect. The matter was carried to the Supreme Court of the United States and in 1908 a decision was rendered⁵⁹ that this prohibition did not apply to treaty and trust funds belonging to an Indian tribe. Thereafter, a few schools were maintained out of such funds at the request of the Indians themselves.⁶⁰ Gratuity funds, however, were not used for sectarian schools, and the intent of the Congress was further emphasized by the enactment in 1917 of a law providing that "no appropriation out of the Treasury of the United States" should be used "for the education of Indian children in any sectarian school."⁶¹

In spite of the obvious intent of the lawmaking body, the Indian Bureau has in recent years made grants of money to various sectarian schools, justifying this action on the ground that it is providing not for the education of such children, but for their institutional care. (Handbook, p. 242) This by-passing of the Constitution and the courts violates the intent of the law beyond a question. Whether it can be technically defended is a matter which has not been presented for judicial opinion.

MEDICAL SERVICES

Another point made by those computing the enlarged number of
Indians under the jurisdiction of the Indian Bureau of today
relates to hospitals and sanatoria. A man may never claim any
connection with his tribe or with Indians generally, they say;
but he might nevertheless be considered eligible for care at a
government hospital should he apply.⁶³ Such reasoning makes it
virtually impossible for any person of Indian connection, however
independent, to escape from being regarded as at least potentially
a charge upon the government.

52 Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U. S. 50.

53 The following quotation written by Commissioner Leupp will further explain the status of contract schools following the law of 1897: "Several years after the enactment of the law putting an end to public appropriations for contracts with Mission schools, a question was raised whether this prohibition applied to tribal funds as well as Government money raised by taxation for public purposes. The Attorney-General gave his opinion that it did not. Accordingly President (Theodore) Roosevelt ordered that an Indian who was entitled to participate in a tribal fund should be permitted to contribute his share, or any part of it, toward the support of any Mission school he preferred. Two denominations, the Catholics and the Lutherans, took advantage of the order and presented petitions numerously signed by Indians interested in some particular school, asking for the diversion of so much of their respective shares as might be necessary to support and educate a certain number of children at that school. In order to test the right of the Executive to make such a diversion of trust funds, even on the petition of the wards, the Indian Rights Association brought suit in the names of sundry Indians of the Sioux Nation to enjoin the Government from entering into contract with the schools in their neighborhood. The case went to the Supreme Court of the United States, which decided against any restraining order, substantially confirming the administration's claim that the money belonged to the Indians and was properly subject to expenditure in the executive discretion for purposes promotive of their civilization—Francis E. Leupp, *The Indian and His Problem*, p. 297.

54 39 Stat. 969.

55 Indian Office Letter of August 5, 1941, to Mrs. Elaine Goodale Eastman.

25

As late as 1910, Francis E. Leupp, who served as Commissioner of Indian Affairs under President Theodore Roosevelt, pointed out hospitals as services which should properly be provided by other than Federal funds. In *The Indian and His Problem* (pp. 292-293) he wrote: "I have always encouraged the establishment of hospitals by private benevolence rather than by public appropriation. When set up by the Government, half their interest is lost. The Indian has had his moral perspective distorted so long by gratuitous favors from the Treasury that he is apt to look upon a Government hospital as he looks upon a Government ration house, mixing contempt with his appreciation of it."

Almost immediately, however, began the era of increased activity in matters concerning Indian health. The tuberculosis drive of thirty years ago may be considered as a sort of starting point for the expansion of medical services, the building of hospitals and sanatoria. During the '20s, two Secretaries of the Interior were themselves physicians (Drs. Hubert Work of Colorado, and Lyman Wilbur of California), and their interest in matters of physical welfare was mirrored in large appropriations, better equipped institutions, and higher standards of service.

Today there is generally available to one recognized as an Indian a degree of medical attention, of hospital care, of surgical service, which is frequently not at all available to the white citizen living in his vicinity. Moreover, he obtains without cost benefits which his white neighbor can obtain if at all, only at great expense, great distance and considerable difficulty.

With all this the Federal Government does not hold the Indian responsible to any regulations such as are enforced among other citizens to prevent the spread of infection. The State, of course, is without jurisdiction to enforce its rules of sanitation and quarantine. Indeed, the professed intention of fostering the ancient religions of the Indians often has a strong bearing on matters of health, since "religious" ceremonies often have to do with matters of healing, and the nature of the disease does not deter the native shamans from their endeavors. It is but a half dozen years or so since the hospitals, both government and mission, all over the great Navajo Reservation, were filled to capacity with patients suffering from diphtheria. The holding of a series of "sings" over a diphtheria patient, with the attendance of many others of the tribe at the service, proved effectual in spreading the disease far and wide. Enforcement of a quarantine might have confined the epidemic to a few cases.

Thus, medical services are available to the Indian without charge, in most cases, and with comparatively few safeguards in the matter

26

of sanitary regulations. Presumably this freedom from restriction is meant as a kindness; the effect may be far otherwise as the Navajo incident, cited above, illustrates.

Dr. James G. Townsend of the Public Health Service was for several years the first ranking medical officer of the Indian Bureau, in charge of its work at the many reservations and schools over the United States. In a paper read before a conference and published in 1942, he says:

"The time should come when the federal government will curtail the present charitable medical service for Indians ... To build up the Indians' self-reliance and individual independence, certain fees should be collected on the ability to pay."57 Some

Minnaw Hospitals are already operating on this planet.

## SOCIAL SERVICE AND SOCIAL SECURITY

Social service work has grown apace in the Indian Service of late. In some States this falls below the standards of that offered by the State to all its citizens; in others, it is well above that standard. In such States as Wisconsin58 and Minnesota for example, the Federal Government can scarcely duplicate for a small number of people what is done by the commonwealth for its people as a whole. Where such duplication exists, it is unnecessary and the segregation it creates does no service to the Indian.

Oklahoma as a State failed to assume the obligations to its Indian citizens which were promised at statehood (1908). Consequently, the Federal Government has stepped in and Indian recipients of relief are segregated from other citizens on the basis of a "benevolent paternalism."59

In some instances the wardship status of the Indian has tended to exclude him from the operation of the Social Security Act. In Arizona only 19 Indians are recipients of old age assistance according to the records of the Indian Bureau, although hundreds have made application and ordinarily should be included. The state authorities have ruled that since Indians living on a reservation are wards, under Federal guardianship, they should not share in benefits toward which the State contributes 50 per cent of the proceeds. In New Mexico no reservation Indians are entitled

57. *The Changing Indian*, edited by Oliver La Farge, from a symposium arranged by the American Association of Indian Affairs, Inc., University of Oklahoma Press, 1942; p. 41.

58. The amount of appropriations for 77 hospitals and sanatoria for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, amounts to $5,551,936.

59. "State appropriations for direct assistance to Indians of the state have been made at three different times. In 1925 and 1929 moneys were appropriated 'for public health work, particularly as it applied to Indians,' and in 1931 the sum of $13,000 was set aside for relief of the Chippewa Indians at La Pointe in Ashland County."—From: Relief to Indians in Wisconsin, issued by Public Welfare Department, April, 1937.

60. In this connection the "Report of Income to Indians, 1939," from the Rosebud Agency (which also includes for administrative purposes the Yankton Reservation) is illuminating. See EXHIBIT I.

27

to old age assistance on the grounds that they pay no taxes on
real property.

In Mineral County, Nevada, Indians living on the Walker River Reservation were also excluded, the county commissioner alleging that they were "inmates of an institution" and hence not entitled to come under the provisions of the Act. However, the local missionary with the help of leading Indians circulated a petition among the white tax payers of the County and within a relatively short time, the commissioners reversed themselves and accepted the "Indian pensioners."

A few years ago an attempt was made to press legislation (originating in Arizona) to have all Indians come under the Indian Bureau for old age assistance. Fortunately, this failed of passage.

During the past fiscal year approximately $2,500,000 was expended for Indian beneficiaries through the operation of the Social Security Act. This amount, it should be noted, is not included under annual appropriations of the Department of the Interior. The benefits received include not only old age assistance but also aid to dependent children and aid to the blind.

## WARDSHIP IN PUBLIC OPINION

The physical and material results of wardship have so far engaged our attention. But even more important are the effects of the mental attitudes created by the situation of dependence. Public feeling is influenced very largely by the fact that the Indian is a person legally segregated from his fellow citizens, sheltered by the guardianship of a Government Bureau.

Thus comes the tendency to exclude the Indian from the operation of laws and rules applying with reference to other citizens. We have seen the courts of the Lakes region unwilling to take up Indian cases because of the feeling that responsibility lies elsewhere. (The Brown Report on Law & Order, *op cit.* *supra*.) In Arizona and in New Mexico State officials argue against the extension of social insurance and old age pensions to Indians on the ground that this should be a Federal function.

Along with this prejudice goes a vast popular ignorance as to the actual facts. The general public often assumes that an Indian is amply supported by the nation; that rations are supplied at all times; that in spite of education and other benefits bestowed upon him the Indian always "goes back to the blanket" and remains an irreclaimable though picturesque savage.

On this latter point those self-styled "friends of the Indians" who regard him not as benefited, but as abused by Federal action present the obverse of the picture of popular ignorance and mis-

28

representation. These sentimentalists would restore and perpetuate the primitive ways of a life apart from civilization. They envision the Indian as living in an idyllic communal paradise untouched by the ways of the white race. They demand that the Indian don a Sioux war-bonnet, though his own ancestors may never have seen such an adornment; call himself Whirlwind or Raging Buffalo though his family may have borne the name of Jones or Jenkins for generations. For them, the Indian must be picturesque at any cost, even at the sacrifice of all truth and all development.

Of their demands upon the Indian, Dr. Ray Lyman Wilbur, Secretary of the Interior under President Hoover, has this to say, "Showmanship, e.g., commercialized dances and ceremonies, does not lead the Indian to establish himself on an even keel of self-respecting independence. It throws him back upon the masquerade of a manner of life that no longer exists and that can not exist in contact with the present civilization. The problem, simply stated, is this and nothing more: How shall the Indian be converted into a law-abiding, self-supporting member of society? and not, How shall tribal structure be preserved?"⁶⁶⁰

"There is always a prejudice," writes Dr. Arthur C. Parker, of Seneca descent, "against those with special privileges and exemptions and against those who are fostered by paternalism." The continuance and encouragement of tribalism seem to him distinctly a "backward move" and to "place our first Americans in segregated areas like the bears, buffaloes, and elks of our national parks," in his opinion tends "to create a zoological garden rather than to serve the purposes of free citizenship."

Thus speaks an Indian of distinction and achievement; and what of the effect of perpetual wardship upon the average Indian? Can he be otherwise than affected by the demand that he remain forever a child of the Stone Age? He would be something beyond human if he did not take the exemptions offered him, even when they work to his disadvantage. He would be impervious to human influence if he did not imbibe from the sentimentalist the impression of himself as an imaginary Last of the Mohicans instead of a young person of the mid-twentieth century. Regrettable enough, but all too true are the

## PSYCHOLOGICAL EFFECTS OF WARDSHIP

"Jim, where do you get all this?" one Pawnee inquired of another who was furnishing material for a volume of ethnological research.

⁶⁶⁰ "Quoted in "Must the Wild Indian Go?" Literary Digest, p. 24, Sept. 7, 1929.

29

"Oh," Jim responded with a twinkle in his eye, "I give them what they want."

Frequently what the white observer wants is a show, and the Indian gives it to him. Responsibility for his own acts is less often required and less often given.

The dwelling upon real or fancied claims, the expectation of future enrichment based on some loss in the distant past, is a drag upon any race. The Indian is no exception to this rule. "We are not beggars," said a Sioux recently, "the government has not yet paid us what it owes us." The feeling that he must be recompensed on the theory that his great grandparents owned all the territory which they ranged, hunting the buffalo and fighting with other tribes, persists to keep him expectant of future enrichment. Meanwhile, rich in a nursed grievance and an expectation, he is less eager to carve out his own future than would be one not so endowed. Such a claim, if valid in the first instance, would in the case of any other citizen have been long ago outlawed by time. But the Indian has had a long schooling in the idea that he must be repaid for the buffalo his grandfather did not kill.

Indeed he has been encouraged to think that he must still emulate his own grandfather. From the time when one tribe after another seized upon the gun and the horse and found their whole lives transformed by them, Indians have in reality been ready to adapt themselves to changing circumstances. The idea of halting his modern adaptations and imprisoning him in his yesterday's culture is futility itself.

Segregation, years of special treatment, have tended to create racial psychosis that will not persist if the light of common sense is turned upon it. The Indian would not continue his parroting of the sentimentalist tale of Indian wrongs if he realized that he is arraying one-eighth of his ancestry to accuse the other seven-eighths. No wonder H. L. Shapiro of the American Museum of Natural History finds in this persistence of the fiction of Indianism in one who has lost the actual biological status "a somewhat Gilbert and Sullivan aspect."⁶⁰ ⁶¹

A more logical attitude is that of Lee Harkins, a Choctaw-Chick-asaw, whose work on the Tulsa Tribune is not adversely affected by the fact that his grandfather lived by hunting the buffalo. "To pine for the old," he says in an article in the Rotary Magazine,⁶² "is a mark of weakness." He points out that the Indian, defending himself against his enemies, had "no one to protect him from his over-sentimental friends."

⁶⁰ "The Changing Indian," edited by Oliver La Farge, from a symposium arranged by the American Association of Indian Affairs, Inc., University of Oklahoma Press, 1942; p. 26.
⁶¹ "Shall the Indian be kept Indian?", p. 62, May, 1938.

30

"Let us escape from the reservations," he concludes. "Not all at once, of course. Despite all its shortcomings, the Government's policy has been gradual assimilation of the Indians into the civilization that surrounds them. But for the moment, that trend is reversed—and it is against nature and the Indian's welfare. Let us instead be assimilated. Let us be one of you."

This plea of an educated, thinking Indian finds its counterpart in the judgment of Mr. Shapiro.⁶³

"It seems to me, therefore, that in seeking to solve the problem of the Indian, we are only intensifying it. Instead of encouraging the process of assimilation, we are artificially and deliberately impeding such a desirable comsummation."

## NEXT STEPS

The very analogy of the Indians to persons under guardianship suggests a limitation to their pupilage, since the utmost term of disability of an infant is but twenty-one years, and it is rare that the relations of guardian and ward, under any circumstances, even those of lunacy, are maintained for a longer period than this.

So declared the United States Supreme Court, in the case of Felix v. Patrick,⁶⁴ more than a half century ago; but in spite of this pronouncement, the condition of wardship persists and is handed down from one generation to another, in later years so intensified that the Indian Bureau officially holds that an affirmative act of Congress would be necessary to relieve an Indian of his peculiar relationship to itself. Wardship which no act of the individual can terminate carries with it the implication of hopeless, remediless inferiority.

Mrs. Elaine Goodale Eastman, in a recent article in the New York Call, sums up the situation, after discussing the inability of the Indian to handle his own property and the denial in some states of the franchise. "Segregated schools under federal management, arbitrary exemption from taxation and many state laws, and the needless duplication of many social services to which all citizens are entitled add to the oppressive paternalism visited upon this small group of a possible third of a million individuals." In Mrs. Eastman's considered judgment, informed by many years of deep interest in matters Indian, this problem is one "which has been so nearly taken care of by the lapse of time and the forces of nature that the attempt to maintain it artificially by the means of special laws is nothing less than inexcusable."

Obviously no single sweeping enactment will wipe away in a

⁶³ "The Changing Indian," edited by Oliver La Farge, from a symposium arranged by the American Association of Indian Affairs, Inc., University of Oklahoma Press, 1942; p. 27.
⁶⁴ U. S. 347.

31

moment the tangled tissue of exemptions and restrictions that has grown up through a century and a half. Old treaties have to be speeded up by commutation or otherwise; land problems must be worked out by tribe by tribe, often individual by individual. But some first steps toward the goal of normal citizenship for the Indian can and should be taken.

1. The Indian should be made amenable to state law. By far the greater number of Indians are ready for this step, and would benefit greatly by the advanced prestige which it would bring them among their white neighbors. A very simply worded statute would be sufficient to bring about this change.

2. Education in the public schools should be the rule wherever available. Government schools should be open only to those to whom attendance upon a public school is impossible. A simple provision to that effect in the next appropriation bill would establish this practice. Meanwhile, it would be salutary for mission schools to adopt the practice of providing their facilities for those unable to attend public schools.

3. Medical services should be paid for whenever the Indian is financially able to do so. Only those actually indigent should be taken care of in government hospitals without charge. This can be handled by administrative action, but a proviso in the appropriation act would confirm it.

4. Land management should be made a charge against an Indian estate. This too can be done administratively or by legislative proviso.

5. Social services rendered all citizens should be extended to include Indian citizens, and appropriations for doing this on a special racial basis should be eliminated from the Indian appropriation bill. In the same manner agricultural services of the Department of Agriculture, county agents and the like, should be extended to Indians.

These steps would suffice to make a beginning. They would be a start toward the goal of Indian equality before the law with other citizens. They should provide an impetus toward the emergence of the present generation of Indian-Americans from what Mrs. Eastman characterizes as "the clumsy and outgrown bureau and reservation system."

See also EXHIBIT J, Interior Committee's Report on the Meriam Survey of 1927.

32

# A BRIEF SUMMARY

## I. What Is an Indian?

Congress has up to this point failed to give a definition and the word is used for many whose portion of Indian blood is very small, and even for a considerable number having no such blood whatever.

## II. What Is Wardship?

The conception of wardship is both vague and all-inclusive. It may be summed up as the relation of the Indian to the Federal Government in matters in which the average citizen deals with the State or local government or acts on his own initiative.

## III. Growth of Indian Wardship

Wardship has grown up over our entire colonial and national history through a vast number of treaties, laws, and appropriations.

## IV. Wardship and Citizenship

All Indians are citizens, but it has been judicially decided that citizenship and wardship may exist together.

## V. Citizenship and Suffrage

The mere fact of citizenship does not make one a voter. Hence, we find some Indians admitted to the franchise, and others excluded.

## VI. Law and Order

The Indian citizen in many cases is not held amenable to State laws. He is responsible to the Federal courts for several major crimes, but in less serious matters, practice is conflicting, and a twilight zone of vague responsibility exists.

## VII. Indian Land and Property

Much land owned by Indians, both individually and in tribes, is exempt from local taxation. Much is handled by the Government as a rental agent for the Indian.

## VIII. Treaty Provisions

Many Indians no longer have much connection with the Government except through periodic disbursement of funds under some old treaty. Commutation of such treaties is desirable.

## IX. Wardship and Education

The growing use of public schools has been checked in recent practice, but it should be continued if the Indian is to take the normal place in American life.

33

x. Medical Services

Indians are, generally speaking, given medical and hospital service of a high type. Where they are financially able, a charge should be made.

XI. Social Services

The Federal services, especially for Indians, tend to bring about their exclusion from the services given people generally. There is no justification for this segregation.

xii. Wardship in Public Opinion

The segregation and exemption of the Indian is in large measure responsible for both foolishly sentimental attitudes and prejudices against the race.

xiii. Psychological Effects of Wardship

Upon the Indian himself, the result is a dependency complex, an expectation of benefits, based on an attitude of grievance and complaints.

~~xiv. Wardship. The Indian~~

~~xv. Next Steps~~

As a first step in bringing the Indian into a normal relationship with his fellows, he should be made amenable to State law.

EXHIBITS

34

Exhibit A

Under the heading of *Exhibits* will be found additional data covering among others, such topics as fulfillment of treaties, tribal funds, population figures and trends, evils of leasing system, as well as a listing of tribes and reservations which, under one pre-text or another, have more recently entered into a wardship status.

## IN FULFILLMENT OF TREATIES

There is a record of 389 treaties made with the Indian, and incorporated in the statutes of the United States from 1778 to 1871. The provisions of many of these have, of course, long since been fulfilled in one form or another. However, in current appropriation acts for the Department of the Interior, under which the Indian Bureau operates, there is mention of the "fulfillment of treaties." For instance, the annual Appropriation Act for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1943, (Pub. 645-77th Cong. H. R. 6845) carries under certain headings items which accrue from treaty provisions. One of these is entitled "Annuities and Per Capita Payments" and reads, in part, as follows (p. 28):

* For fulfilling treaties with Senecas of New York: For permanent annuity in lieu of interest on stock (Act of February 19, 1831, 4 Stat. 442), $6,000.

* For fulfilling treaties with Six Nations of New York: For permanent annuity in clothing and other useful articles (article 6, treaty of November 11, 1794), $4,500.

* For fulfilling treaties with Choctaws, Oklahoma: For permanent annuity (article 2, treaty of November 16, 1805, and article 13, treaty of June 22, 1855), $3,000.

* For permanent annuity for support of light horsemen (article 13, treaty of October 18, 1820, and article 13, treaty of June 22, 1855), $600.00.

* For permanent annuity for support of blacksmith (article 6, treaty of October 18, 1820, and article 9, treaty of January 20, 1825, and article 13, treaty of June 22, 1855), $600.00; for permanent annuity for education (article 2, treaty of January 20, 1825, and article 13, treaty of June 22, 1855), $6,000.00; for permanent annuity for iron and steel (article 9, treaty of January 20, 1825, and article 13, treaty of June 22, 1855), $320.00; in all, $10,520.00.

* For fulfilling treaties with Pawnees, Oklahoma: For permanent annuity (article 2, treaty of September 24, 1857, and article 3, agreement of November 23, 1892), $30,000.00.

* For payment of Sioux benefits to Indians of the Sioux reservation.

37

tions, as authorized by the Act of March 2, 1889, (25 Stat. 895), as amended, $200,000.00.

For payment of interest on moneys held in trust for the several Indian tribes as authorized by various Acts of Congress, $725,000.00.

Under "general support and administration" the following item occurs (p. 22):

For general administration of Indian property, including pay of employees authorized by continuing or permanent treaty provisions, $2,620,870.

No attempt has been made to secure the total appropriation for any given fiscal year "in fulfillment of treaties."

Apparently no study has ever been made to determine which treaties are still in effect and which are not, which are "continuing" and which "permanent." Without doubt, some such study is called for, as it would reveal which may be considered "dead," which are partly obsolete, and which are still in effect, as, for instance, those listed in the current Appropriation Act, referred to above. However, there are provisions in old treaties which still give certain Indian tribes hunting and fishing rights. These "rights" have recently been upheld in connection with the Indians' use of ancient fishing grounds on the Columbia River near Celilo, Oregon.⁶⁶

It is of interest to note that certain tribes have treaty agreements whereby so many pounds of flour are ground for their benefit annually. For example, the Crows in Montana may get 1500 pounds ground per family without cost to them.

Exhibit B

## TRIBAL FUNDS

Tribal funds accrue from various sources as, for example, sale of lands, timber, mineral resources, income from grazing and agricultural leases, etc. In the Annual Appropriation Act for the fiscal year, ending June 30, 1943, the following items are noted:⁶⁷

### Indian Lands

Purchase of land for the Navajo Indians, Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah: For the purchase of land, or interests therein and improvements thereon, within the Navajo Indian Reservation in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah, $40,000.00.

⁶⁶ Treaty of Wasco in 1855; the case of Samson Tulee v. State of Washington.

⁶⁷ Not all the details and provisions as given in the original Act (pp. 9-26) are incorporated herewith; for example, in a number of instances sums previously appropriated but not spent are often continued available for the same purposes until expended.

38

Leasing of lands for Navajo Indians: For lease, pending purchase, of land and water rights for the use and benefit of Indians of the Navajo Tribe in Arizona and New Mexico, $20,000.00 payable from funds on deposit to the credit of the Navajo Tribe.

Purchase of land, Confederated Bands of Utes, Utah: The unexpended balances of the amounts authorized to be expended by the Interior Department Appropriations Act for the fiscal year 1941 for the purchase of additional lands and improvements for the Confederated Bands of Utes in Utah, are hereby continued available for the same purposes until expended.

Purchase of land for the Indians of the Round Valley Reservation, California: The unexpended balance of the appropriation of $10,000, contained in the Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1941, for the purchase of land and improvements thereon for the Indians of the Round Valley Reservation, California, payable from funds on deposit to the credit of said Indians is hereby continued available until expended.

Purchase of land for the Indians of the Colville Reservation, Washington: The unexpended balance of the appropriation of $100,000 contained in the Third Deficiency Appropriation Act, fiscal year 1959, for the purchase of land and improvements thereon for the Colville Indians, Washington, payable from funds on deposit to the credit of said Indians, is hereby continued available until expended.

Purchase of land, Flathead Indians, Montana: For the purchase of land, and improvements thereon for the Indians of the Flathead Reservation, Montana, $25,000 payable from funds on deposit to the credit of said Indians.

For the purchase of land and improvements thereon for the Indians of the Omaha Reservation, Nebraska, $1,700, payable from funds on deposit to the credit of said Indians.

Purchase of land, Spokane Indians, Washington: The unexpended balance of the appropriation of $30,000, contained in the Interior Department Appropriation Act, 1941, for the purchase of Indian-owned and privately owned lands, improvements on lands, or any interest in lands including water rights for Indians of the Spokane Reservation, Washington, payable from any funds on deposit to the credit of the Indians of said reservation is hereby continued available until expended.

### Industrial Assistance

For advances to individual members of the tribes for the construction of homes and for the purchase of seed, animals, machinery, tools, implements, building material, and other equipment and

39

supplies; and for advances to old, disabled, or indigent Indians for their support and burial, and Indians having irrigable allotments to assist them in the development and cultivation thereof, to be immediately available, $137,000, payable from tribal funds as follows: Flathead, Montana, $35,000; Navajo, Arizona and New Mexico, $50,000; Fort Berthold, North Dakota, $48,000; Spokane, Washington, $4,000; and the unexpended balances of funds available under this head in the Interior Department Appropriation Act for the fiscal year 1942, are hereby continued available during the fiscal year 1943, for the purposes for which they were appropriated.

## Education

**Support of Indian Schools from Tribal Funds:** For the support of Indian Schools and for other educational purposes, including care of Indian children of school age attending public schools and private schools, tuition and other assistance for Indian pupils attending public schools, and support and education of deaf and dumb or blind, physically handicapped, delinquent, or mentally deficient Indian children, there may be expended from Indian tribal funds and from school revenues arising under the Act of May 17, 1926 (25, U. S. C. 155), not more than $334,375, including not to exceed $44,375 for payment of tuition for Chippewa Indian children enrolled in public schools and care of children of school age attending private schools in the State of Minnesota, payable from the principal sum on deposit to the credit of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, arising under section 7 of the Act of January 14, 1889 (25 Stat. 645).

**Osage Nation, Oklahoma (tribal funds):** For the education of unallotted Osage Indian children in the Saint Louis Mission Boarding School, Oklahoma, $1,500, payable from funds held in trust by the United States for the Osage Tribe.

## General Support and Administration

For general support of Indians and administration of Indian property under the jurisdiction of the following agencies, to be paid from the funds held by the United States in trust for the respective tribes, in not to exceed the following sums, respectively:

**Arizona:** Fort Apache, $60,000; Navajo, $4,900, including all necessary expenses of holding a tribal fair, erection of structures, awards for exhibits and events, feeding of livestock, and labor and materials; Pima (Camp McDowell), $360; San Carlos, $4,240; Truxton Canon, $13,000; in all, $82,500.

**California:** Mission, $26,000.

40

**Colorado:** The unexpended balance of the appropriations under this head (Southern Ute and Ute Mountain) for the fiscal year 1942, including the purchase of land, the subjugation thereof, and the construction of improvements thereon is hereby continued available until June 30, 1943, for the purposes hereof.

**Idaho:** Fort Hall, $1,200; Northern Idaho (Nez Perce), $200, including the purchase of land, title to which shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for the Nez Perce Indians.

**Iowa:** Sac and Fox, $630.

**Minnesota:** Consolidated Chippewa, $1,600 for salary and incidental expenses of the secretary of the tribal executive committee;

**Montana:** Flathead, $24,000.

**Nevada:** Western Shoshone, $2,000.

**North Carolina:** Cherokee, including the construction of a community building, $10,000.

**Oregon:** Klamath, $118,975, of which not to exceed $4,500 shall be available for fees and expenses of an attorney or firm of attorneys selected by the tribe and employed under a contract approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

**Utah:** Uintah and Ouray, $11,000, of which amount not to exceed $4,000 shall be available for the payment of an agent employed under a contract approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

**Washington:** Colville, $5,400; Puyallup, $1,300 for upkeep of the Puyallup Indian Cemetary; Taholah (Makah), $6,600, including the purchase of land, title to which shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for the Makah Indians; Yakima, $1,300 (Yakima, $300; Lummi, $1,000 including the purchase of land, title to which shall be taken in the name of the United States in trust for the Lummi Indians); Tulalip, $5,000; in all $19,000.

**Wisconsin:** Keshena, $83,725, including $25,000 of which not exceeding $5,000 shall be available for general relief purposes and not exceeding $20,000 for monthly allowances, under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, to old and indigent members of the Menominee Tribe who reside with relatives or friends and $5,200 for the compensation and expenses of an attorney or firm of attorneys employed by the tribe under a contract approved by the Secretary of the Interior. In all of the above, not to exceed $381,430.

**Relief of Chippewa Indians in Minnesota:** Not to exceed $49,375 of the principal sum on deposit to the credit of the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, arising under section 7 of the Act entitled

41

Exhibit C

## DECLARATION OF POLICY — 1917

"The time has come for discontinuing guardianship of all competent Indians and giving even closer attention to the incompetent that they may more speedily achieve competency. Pursuant to this policy, the following rules shall be observed:

1. *Patents in Fee:* To all able-bodied adult Indians of less than one-half Indian blood, there will be given as far as may be under the law full and complete control of all their property. Patents in fee shall be issued to all adult Indians of one-half or more Indian blood who may, after careful investigation, be found competent, provided, that where deemed advisable patents in fee shall be withheld for not to exceed 40 acres as a home.

"Indian students, when they are twenty-one years of age, or over, who complete the full course of instruction in the Government schools, receive diplomas and have demonstrated competency will be so declared.

2. *Sale of Lands:* A liberal ruling will be adopted in the matter of passing upon applications for sale of inherited Indian lands where the applicants retain other lands and the proceeds are to be used to improve the homesteads or for other equally good purposes. A more liberal ruling than has hitherto prevailed will hereafter be followed with regard to the applications of non-competent Indians for the sale of their lands where they are old and feeble and need the proceeds for their support.

3. *Certification of Competency:* The rules which are made to apply in the granting of patents in fee and the sale of lands will be made equally applicable in the matter of issuing certificates of competency.

4. *Individual Indian Moneys:* Indians will be given unrestricted control of all their individual Indian moneys upon issuance of patents in fee or certificate of competency. Strict limitations will not be placed upon the use of funds of the old, the indigent, and the invalid.

5. *Pro Rata Shares-Trust Funds:* As speedily as possible their pro-rata shares in tribal trust or other funds shall be paid to all Indians who have been declared competent, unless the legal status of such funds prevents. Where practicable the pro rata shares of incompetent Indians will be withdrawn from the Treasury and placed in banks to their individual credit.

6. *Elimination of Ineligible Pupils From the Government Indian Schools:* In many of our boarding schools Indian children are

"An Act for the relief and civilization of the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota, approved January 14, 1889 (25 Stat. 645), may be expended, in the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior, in aiding indigent Chippewa Indians including boarding home care of pupils attending public, private, or high schools.

*Relief of needy Indians:* For the relief of Indians in need of assistance, including cash grants; the purchase of subsistence supplies, clothing, and household goods; medical, burial, housing, transportation, and all other necessary expenses, $100,000, payable from funds on deposit to the credit of the particular tribe concerned.

*Expenses of tribal officers:* Five Civilized Tribes, Oklahoma: For the current fiscal year money may be expended from the tribal funds of the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Tribes for equalization of allotments, per capita, and other payments authorized by law to individual members of the respective tribes, salaries, and contingent expenses of the governor of the Chickasaw Nation and chief of the Choctaw Nation, one mining trustee for the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, at salaries of $3,000 each for said governor, said chief, and said mining trustee, chief of the Creek Nation at $600 and one attorney each for the Choctaw, and Chickasaw Tribes employed under contract approved by the President under existing law: Provided, That the expenses of the above-named officials shall be determined and limited by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs at not to exceed $2,500 each.

Support of Osage Agency and pay of tribal officers, Oklahoma, $188,670.

Expenses of tribal councils or committees thereof, $25,000.

Compensation and expenses of attorneys, Makah Reservation, Washington, $1,700.

Northern Cheyenne Tribe, Tongue River Reservation, Montana, $600. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, Montana, (Flat-head Reservation, Montana) $5,600.

For compromise settlement of a claim an amount $2,500 payable from funds on deposit to the credit of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes of Indians.

64

In the statistical supplement to the annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1940 the total appropriations for Trust funds (including tribal and Indian Moneys Proceeds of Labor) amounted to $2,854,440.

42

43

being educated at Government expense, whose parents are amply
able to pay for their education and have public school facilities at
or near their homes. Such children shall not hereafter be enrolled
in Government Indian Schools supported by gratuity appropria-
tions, except on payment of actual per capita cost and transporta-
tion.

"These rules are hereby made effective, and all Indian Bureau
administrative officers at Washington and in the field will be
governed accordingly."⁶⁸ ⁶⁹

Exhibit D

SOME MISLEADING POPULATION FIGURES

In the statistical supplement to the annual report of the Com-
missioner of Indian Affairs for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1940,
there are a number of tables giving a summary of data on popula-
tion and other items. Those cited below are from Tables Numbers
I and III.

It is to be noted that the Indian population figure under Indian
Affairs as of January 1, 1940, is given as 394,280. However, Alaska
with 32,464 Indians is included. Under the Five Civilized Tribes in
Oklahoma 77,700 are listed although not more than 27,924 are
claimed as being under the Five Tribes Agency at Muskogee, Okla-
homa, according to available records.⁷⁰ Consequently 62,700 are
fully assimilated into the warp and woof of American life. Perhaps
the only tie-up with the Federal Indian Bureau in many instances
is the fact that tuition is or might be paid to rural school districts
in Oklahoma for those of one fourth or more degree of Indian
blood.

California is credited with having 23,281 Indians, with the Mis-
sion Agency at Riverside listing 7,017. However, the "estimate of
unenrolled Indians" under that jurisdiction is given as 4,000. This
means that not over 3,000 are under the agency (with a relatively
large number non-resident) and the other 4,000 may be considered
"Indians on paper." Moreover, the Sacramento Agency is stated as
having 11,854 Indians, with an "estimate of 10,294 unenrolled."
Obviously then, there are less than 1,600 under that Agency.

How the mixing of blood has gone forward in Northern Califor-
nia is brought out in the following report on the Hoopa schools:
"Of 205 enrolled pupils in the schools during the year 1935-36,

⁶⁹ From "Declaration of Policy," promulgated by Hon. Cato Sells, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, April 17, 1917 and approved by Hon. Franklin K. Lane, Secretary of the Interior.

⁷⁰ Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma Report to Secretary of the Interior, June 30, 1931, by G. E. E. Lindquist.

44

thirty-six were full-blood Indians, twenty-nine were full-blood
whites and the remaining 140 ranged from one-eighth to seven-
eighths Indian blood; certainly amalgamation has been swift and
sure. No additional thoughts relative to the social significance of
this item are essential to this paper; the writer is firmly convinced,
after spending three years in close contact with these various mix-
tures, that the amount of Indian or white blood makes little differ-
ence in the boy or girl—it is the quality of each of the bloods that
are mixed, tempered by environmental conditions, that makes the
individual worthwhile or vice-versa. At the present time, there are
about seven hundred residents of the reservation of whom about
six hundred are classified as Indian, that is, of one-fourth Indian
blood or more."⁶⁹ ⁷¹

In the statistical enumeration already referred to, Michigan has
4,704 Indians, of which 3,000 are listed as unenrolled.

Of those enrolled under the former Isabella Reservation (434)
an investigator of the Indian Bureau⁶⁸⁷² writes as follows: "The
tribal organization of these Indians was dissolved by the treaty of
1855 except so far as it was necessary to carry out the provisions of
the treaty—Nevertheless, the Chippewas of the Isabella Reserva-
tion have organized and incorporated under the Indian Reorganiza-
tion Act." Commenting further on this, the same investigator says:
"Any classification of the Indians of Michigan on the basis of blood
quantum would be practically impossible and comparatively value-
less under the conditions which have developed during the past
century. . . . The Indians of lower Michigan in no sense of the word
constitute a separate group and any attempt to deal with them as
such would be detrimental both to Indians and whites, and very
probably disastrous to the Indians. Certainly the Indian Bureau
should refrain from any attempt to deal with any of the Indians of
Michigan as a separate group." (ibid.)

Oregon is another state where there are hundreds of "paper
Indians." The Grand Ronde-Siletz Agency is credited with 1,782
but included in that number are 810 who owe no allegiance to the
Federal Government, having been "on their own" for several gen-
erations. In a study made of the Indians of Western Oregon by an
Indian Service investigator in 1941 the following paragraphs are
noted:

"The Agency, first at Chemawa and now for the past three years at Salem has maintained a census of the reservation based on the annuity roll closed in 1921. The census is merely copied every

71 From Report of Hoopa Valley Unified School District by Robert U. Ricklefs, Principal, Oct. 15, 1936.

72 A Survey of Indian Groups in the State of Michigan, 1939, by John H. Holst, p. 15.

45

three years with the names of deceased omitted and of births added. Such purports to be a census of the reservation yet it enumerates scores of names of those who have been away from the reservation for years and many of whom have long since established homes elsewhere. Many of them have an imperceptible degree of Indian blood."

"After carefully checking with the allotment roll and other records as well as the present census in the Salem Office, I am here with submitting a reduced list of those who appear to have more claim to appear on a census if such is deemed advisable. But I believe that the official recognition of any form of census or roll of Public Domain Indians would be more detrimental than valuable to them, and at the same time an expensive cluttering of official records implying federal obligations which do not exist, while provoking uncertainty in state and local agencies. The list is submitted for information rather than approval."

"There are no Indian tribes recognized as such in Oregon west of the Cascade range; therefore, there are no tribal rolls." 73

Washington likewise has an estimate of "500 unenrolled" Indians, presumably scattered and allotted on the public domain.

In North Carolina there are 3,472 Indians listed under the Eastern Cherokee Agency. Here again fully half are non-residents. About 1200 are not recognized by the Cherokees themselves as having any right in the band.⁹⁴ ⁹⁵

## Exhibit E Page 14

### REASSUMPTION OF WARDSHIP

By reassumption of Wardship is meant the extension and development of Federal jurisdiction over tribes or tribal bands who at one time or another were released from Federal supervision or who had never been recognized officially as Government wards.

Included in this category would be tribes and bands who through acceptance of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 have once more assumed a status of wardship under the Bureau. Sections 16 and 18 of the Act were interpreted by the Bureau officials as giving "outside Indians" the right to come under its provisions if they so desired "when ratified by a majority vote of the adult members of the tribe." Moreover, since all elections had to be held "within one year after the passage and approval of the Act" (Sec.

⁹³ The Indians of Western Oregon and the Grande Ronde-Siletz Agency by John H. Holst, May 10, 1941, pp. 13 and 15.

⁹⁴ Red Carolinians by Chapman J. Milling, p. 376.

46

18), considerable pressure was brought to bear on tribal groups to get under the date line. (See EXHIBIT F.) Furthermore, the Secretary of the Interior, according to Section 7 of the Act, was authorized "to proclaim new Indian reservations on lands" purchased under its provisions.

Accordingly certain small groups in California, mostly rancherias, who had in the main assumed a nominal relationship to the Sacramento or other Agencies, voted to come under the Act. There are 32 listed (Exhibit F), none having a population over 140 and some with less than 5.

In a recent survey of California Indians,¹⁹ the "conclusion is that the Indians of California are being rapidly acculturated rather than being assimilated and that although they are adapting themselves to white life, particularly in their economy, they are nevertheless preserving themselves in the rancherias as separate social groups, and retaining part of their traditional life." Hence they must needs submit to "a realistic program of economic and social rehabilitation." This in spite of the thesis developed by a recent superintendent of the Sacramento Agency, who states:

"The only goal I am interested in for California Indians is to merge them into the social and economic life of the prevailing civilization as developed by the whites."¹⁹⁻²⁶

The same superintendent states in another connection:¹⁹ ²⁷

"Wardship and full manhood stature do not go together. Every tribal vestige has disappeared in this jurisdiction. White blood is diluting the Indian; white ideas dominate his every thought; he drives a car; he speaks English; he is educated in the public schools of the State; he votes. I, for one, have sufficient faith in the California Indian to believe that, being put upon his own responsibility (with continued guardianship only of real property), he will, within a decade, take his place as an average citizen of a state whose civilization and social institutions are far above the American average.

"My program is definitely to liquidate the U. S. Indian Service in California within ten years."

The groups listed under Michigan include the following: L'Anse (pop. 1,116), Bay Mills (pop. 190) and Isabella (pop. 848). Attention is herewith called to the recommendation of an Indian Bureau investigator as recently as 1939.²⁸ "I believe we must con-

²⁵ Human Dependency and Economic Survey by Allan G. Harper, director, TC-BIA-1939.

²⁶ One Man's Personal and Unofficial View of the California Indian Situation by Roy Nash, Supt. Sacramento Indian Agency, an address to the Western Regional Conference of the National Fellowship of Indian Workers, August, 1940.

²⁷ Narrative Report for the fiscal years 1936 and 1937, pp. 48-49.

²⁸ A Survey of Indian Groups in the State of Michigan, 1939, by John H. Holst, p. 21.

47

clude that the Indians of Lower Michigan have entered into full citizenship and have been so accepted by the State in all of its relations with them; that these Indians neither need nor ask help, special favors, or gratuity from the Federal Government; that such help or subsidy tends to weaken the ties of that citizenship they have attained and which they prize, and that it tends to subject them to the scorn of those who have accepted them as equals; that special Federal laws governing Indians should give way to State laws which govern other citizens under similar conditions; and above all, we must conclude that so far as Lower Michigan is concerned, trust held land, with its implications of Federal wardship, is a menace to Indian welfare and progress, both in its effect upon Indians and in its effect upon other citizens and civic agencies that resent class privileges and prohibitions."

Besides those already mentioned, there are a number of groups in Minnesota who for years have sustained no direct relationship with the Federal Indian Bureau, but who have been taken over by the operation of the Reorganization Act. Such groups are the Lower Sioux at Granite Falls and Prairie Island (pop. 552) as well as large numbers of the mixed-blood Chippewas under the Consolidated Chippewa Agency at Cass Lake (pop. 8,059).

In South Dakota a group of Santee Sioux (pop. 345) at Flandreau, once known as "homestead Indians," but now designated "reservation Indians" since coming under the Reorganization Act, present the following background:

"An interesting experiment in citizenship was made by twenty-five families of Santees in 1869, when they left the agency to take homesteads and become citizens. The location selected was on the Big Sioux River, near the present site of Flandreau, South Dakota. The following year they were joined by thirty-five more families. Some of the homesteads were never proved upon; others were sold. Today some families still remain but the majority have left."

Mention should be made also of the Wisconsin Oneidas, whose Agency was officially closed in 1919. Practically their only relationship to the Federal Government until coming under the 1934 Act was the annuity payments in fulfillment of the old treaty of 1794. Of the population figures listed as 3,128 fully one-half reside away from the former reservation near Green Bay. The Stockbridge Indians (est. 600) long ago severed their wardship relations with the Government, only to reassume same under the aegis of the Reorganization Act. Today their children are enrolled in a segregated Indian Day School although ample public school facilities are available, within relatively short distance.

79-45-G. E. E. Lindquist in The Red Man in the U. S., p. 211.

48

Exhibit F

INDIAN RESERVATIONS UNDER THE I.R.A.† BY VOTE OF THE INDIANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 18 OF THE ACT*

<table><thead><tr><th>Agency or School</th><th>Reservation or Rancheria</th><th>Tribe</th><th>Total Population (Estimated)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>ARIZONA</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Colorado River</td><td>Colorado River</td><td>Chemeheuvi</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Fort Mojave</td><td>Mojave</td><td>705</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Cocopah</td><td>Mojave</td><td>432</td></tr><tr><td>Fort Apache</td><td>Fort Apache</td><td>Apache</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td>Paiute (Utah)</td><td>Kaibab</td><td>Paiute</td><td>93</td></tr><tr><td>Phoenix</td><td>Camp Verde</td><td>Yavapai-Apache</td><td>451</td></tr><tr><td>Pima</td><td>Fort McDowell</td><td>Mohave-Apache</td><td>205</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Gila River</td><td>Pima-Maricopa</td><td>4,659</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Salt River</td><td>Pima</td><td>1,049</td></tr><tr><td>San Carlos</td><td>Ak Chin</td><td>Apache</td><td>179</td></tr><tr><td>Sells</td><td>San Carlos</td><td>Papago</td><td>2,843</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Gila Bend</td><td>Papago</td><td>228</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>San Xavier</td><td>Papago</td><td>525</td></tr><tr><td>Truxton Canon</td><td>Papago</td><td>Papago</td><td>5,146</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Havasupai</td><td>Havasupai</td><td>201</td></tr><tr><td>Hopi</td><td>Truxton Canon</td><td>Havasupai</td><td>451</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Hopi</td><td>Hopi</td><td>2,538</td></tr><tr><td colspan="4"><strong>CALIFORNIA</strong></td></tr><tr><td>Hoopa Valley</td><td>Trinidad</td><td>Trinidad</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Crescent City</td><td></td><td>16</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Blue Lake</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Colorado River (Ariz.)</td><td>Fort Yuma</td><td>Apache</td><td>819</td></tr><tr><td>Mission</td><td>Capitan Grande</td><td>Capitan Grande</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>inc. Barona</td><td>Barona</td><td>160</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Cuyapapei</td><td>Cuyapapei</td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Laguna</td><td></td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>La Posta</td><td>La Posta</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Manzanita</td><td></td><td>67</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>San Pascual</td><td></td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Santa Ynez</td><td></td><td>90</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Alexander Valley</td><td></td><td>28</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Alturas</td><td></td><td>26</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Big Bend</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Big Valley</td><td></td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Cache Creek</td><td></td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Buena Vista</td><td></td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Cedarville (No residents)</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Cloverdale</td><td></td><td>40</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Colusa</td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td>Colfax (No residents)</td><td></td><td>72</td></tr></tbody></table>

† I.R.A. is the abbreviation for the Indian Reorganization Act.

* Document No. 12237, issued by the Office of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior. NOTE: It should be noted that no Oklahoma tribes are listed herewith as they were declared exempt from certain sections of the Reorganization Act of 1934; Alaskan Indians were included under sections 9, 10, 11, 12 and 16 but not under section 18 which called for the special elections. Hence they are not included in this summary.

49

There is given herewith, the following list:

<table><thead><tr><th>Tribe or Agency</th><th>State</th><th>Acreage of Tribally Owned Land</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Eastern Cherokee</td><td>N. Carolina</td><td>56,849</td></tr><tr><td>Chemehuevi</td><td>California</td><td>28,000</td></tr><tr><td>Cocopah</td><td>Arizona</td><td>360</td></tr><tr><td>Ft. Mojave</td><td>Arizona</td><td>27,592</td></tr><tr><td>Ute Mountain</td><td>Colorado & N. Mexico</td><td>496,440</td></tr><tr><td>Fort Apache</td><td>Arizona</td><td>1,664,872</td></tr><tr><td>Potawatomi</td><td>Wisconsin</td><td>11,200</td></tr><tr><td>Hopi</td><td>Arizona</td><td>501,471</td></tr><tr><td>Keshena (Menominee)</td><td>Wisconsin</td><td>231,690</td></tr><tr><td>Mescaero Apache</td><td>New Mexico</td><td>474,506</td></tr><tr><td>Navajo</td><td>N. M., Ariz., Utah</td><td>14,968,212</td></tr><tr><td>Ft. MacDowell (Apache)</td><td>Arizona</td><td>24,680</td></tr><tr><td>Maricopa</td><td>Arizona</td><td>21,840</td></tr><tr><td>Red Lake (Chippewa)</td><td>Minnesota</td><td>406,086</td></tr><tr><td>Rocky Boys' Band</td><td>Montana</td><td>88,837</td></tr><tr><td>Sac and Fox</td><td>Iowa (Taxable)</td><td>3,253</td></tr><tr><td>Tule River</td><td>California</td><td>49,000</td></tr><tr><td>San Carlos Apache</td><td>Arizona</td><td>1,610,118</td></tr><tr><td>Kaibab</td><td>Arizona</td><td>119,758</td></tr><tr><td>Shivwitz</td><td>Arizona</td><td>28,160</td></tr><tr><td>Pueblos (including Zuni)</td><td>New Mexico</td><td>1,312,665</td></tr><tr><td>Pyramid Lake (Paiute and Shoshone)</td><td>Nevada</td><td>475,140</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td></td><td>22,600,729</td></tr></tfoot></table>

NOTE: The above table based on Statistical Supplement already referred to.

The above enumeration does not include the rancherias of California, nor the colony sites in Nevada, as in many instances these lands are government owned. Moreover, the land recently acquired under the terms of the Reorganization Act is not listed above as such lands are held in trust by the U. S. Government and cannot be classified as tribally owned. Furthermore, there are some 45 agencies which have been partly allotted, there remaining a considerable acreage of land still held tribally.

It is of interest to quote in this connection from an Information Service news-release of the Office of Indian Affairs, June 15, 1942: "The fact that typically Indian lands were not stolen or confiscated, as is popularly supposed, but legally purchased by the Federal Government is the foundation of present Indian Administration, according to the Handbook of Federal Indian Law, today made available for general circulation, through the U. S. Government Printing Office." This official statement is all the more enlightening in view of previous news-releases, issuing from the same office of Indian Affairs in 1934-35 when the Indian was cited as "landless, homeless, and hopeless" because of the land-grabbing whites who had robbed him of his ancient heritage.

56

Exhibit H

## EVILS OF LEASING SYSTEM

That the leasing system proved to be the bane of the allotment policy has long been recognized. This leasing was done, in the main, by the officers of the Government, for the Indian was not yet an owner of the complete title to his land, which was held in trust, according to the law, for a period of 25 years. As already indicated in another section, the practice of leasing lands (largely to whites) was implemented by legislation, the first law being passed in 1891; further changes were made in 1894, 1897, 1900 and 1910.

Commissioner Jones in 1900 issued the following diatribe against what he termed "this pernicious practice":

> "To the thoughtful mind it is apparent that the effect of the general leasing of allotments is bad. Like the gratuitous issue of rations and the periodical distribution of money, it fosters indolence with its train of attendant vices. By taking away the incentive to labor, it defeats the very object for which the allotment system was devised, which was, by giving the Indian something tangible that he could call his own, to incite him to personal effort in his own behalf."

The disadvantages of leasing, apparent in 1900, are no less apparent today.

In the statistical supplement to the annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1940, there is a table devoted to "Lands under the Jurisdiction of the Office of Indian Affairs by Tenure and Use" which gives some rather interesting albeit startling figures.

Of the total acreage reported (55,406,412 acres) 17,573,936 are trust allotted, 36,046,660 tribal, while 1,785,816 acres are government owned. Presumably the latter figure includes the lands purchased under the operation of the Indian Reorganization Act. Thus it is estimated that there is an average of approximately 200 acres for every Indian in the United States.

When it comes to land use, some disquieting figures, illustrating the evils of present day leasing are revealed. On the Crow Reservation in Montana 1,764,968 acres are "used by non-Indians" (that is, leased to whites) while only 182,497 acres are used by Indians. In other words, 9 acres are leased, to every one used, by Indians. A somewhat similar situation obtains on the Blackfeet Reservation, Montana, where 1,069,262 acres are leased and 160,080 used by Indians.

60 Annual Report of Com. of Indian Affairs, 1900, by Hon. William H. Jones.

57

Some other reservations, together with acreage involved, are
listed herewith:

<table><thead><tr><th>Reservation and State</th><th>Indians</th><th>Non-Indians</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Cheyenne and Arapaho (Okla.)</td><td>17,388</td><td>165,384</td></tr><tr><td>Crow Creek (S. Dak.)</td><td>53,083</td><td>170,681</td></tr><tr><td>Fort Belknap (Mont.)</td><td>110,525</td><td>361,384</td></tr><tr><td>Kiowa (Okla.)</td><td>43,535</td><td>434,083</td></tr><tr><td>Klamath (Ore.)</td><td>354,820</td><td>627,210</td></tr><tr><td>Osage (Okla.)</td><td>78,784</td><td>348,441</td></tr><tr><td>Pine Ridge (S. Dak.)</td><td>541,221</td><td>940,183</td></tr><tr><td>Rosebud (S. Dak.)</td><td>320,634</td><td>651,353</td></tr><tr><td>Wind River (Wyo.)</td><td>884,998</td><td>1,027,754</td></tr><tr><td>Winnebago (Neb.)</td><td>20,339</td><td>45,584</td></tr><tr><td>Yakima (Wash.)</td><td>395,163</td><td>617,593</td></tr></tbody></table>

The above figures would seem to indicate that the Indian field service, especially in the areas indicated, is giving a disproportion- ately large share of time and money to the business of land-leasing. Thus the leasing system tends to prolong wardship. Furthermore, the relatively large number of Bureau employees who must give full time to this service is a constant drain on the U. S. Treasury rep- resenting a not inconsiderable sum in the total of "$45,243,277.00 expended and obligated for the fiscal year 1940."

Exhibit I

REPORT OF INCOME TO INDIANS, 1939

Rosebud & Yankton Reservation, South Dakota

<table><thead><tr><th>Source</th><th>Total Amount</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Farm Security Administration Grants</td><td>$ 79,675.00</td></tr><tr><td>Standard Loans-Feed and Seed</td><td>(None)</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities-Food</td><td>26,835.00</td></tr><tr><td>Commodities-Clothing</td><td>2,753.00</td></tr><tr><td>Works Progress Administration</td><td>15,561.00</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Pension</td><td>290.00</td></tr><tr><td>Old Age Assistance</td><td>38,414.00</td></tr><tr><td>Aid to Needy Blind</td><td>1,708.00</td></tr><tr><td>National Youth Administration</td><td>2,332.00</td></tr><tr><td>Pensions (Military)</td><td>21,042.00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$188,610.00</td></tr><tr><td>Education-Food and Clothing</td><td>26,811.00</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>$215,421.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

58

<table><caption>1. Farm Security Administration Grants</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>No. of Cases</th><th>Total Amount</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tripp</td><td>60</td><td>$ 6,672.00</td></tr><tr><td>Todd</td><td>284</td><td>30,904.00</td></tr><tr><td>Mellette</td><td>144</td><td>13,524.00</td></tr><tr><td>Gregory</td><td>46</td><td>3,763.00</td></tr><tr><td>Charles Mix</td><td>161</td><td>24,812.00</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTALS</td><td>695</td><td>$79,675.00</td></tr></tfoot></table>

2. Standard Loans-Feed and Seed
None

<table><caption>3. Commodities</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Food</th><th>Clothing</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tripp</td><td>$ 2,320.00</td><td>$ 159.00</td></tr><tr><td>Todd</td><td>13,575.00</td><td>1,510.00</td></tr><tr><td>Mellette</td><td>5,984.00</td><td>376.00</td></tr><tr><td>Gregory</td><td>141.00</td><td>42.00</td></tr><tr><td>Charles Mix</td><td>4,815.00</td><td>666.00</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTALS</td><td>$26,835.00</td><td>$2,753.00</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<table><caption>4. Works Progress Administration</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Men</th><th>Women</th><th>Total Amount</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tripp</td><td>4</td><td>None</td><td>$ 1,758.00</td></tr><tr><td>Todd</td><td>None</td><td>7</td><td>3,184.00</td></tr><tr><td>Mellette</td><td>34</td><td>38</td><td>2,946.00</td></tr><tr><td>Gregory</td><td>2</td><td>1</td><td>1,479.00</td></tr><tr><td>Charles Mix</td><td>11</td><td>5</td><td>6,194.00</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td></td><td></td><td>$15,561.00</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<table><caption>5. Mother's Pension</caption><tbody><tr><td>Tripp</td><td>(None)</td><td>$250.00</td></tr><tr><td>Todd</td><td>(None)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gregory</td><td>(None)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Mellette</td><td>(None)</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Charles Mix</td><td></td><td>40.00</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td></td><td>$290.00</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<table><caption>6. Old Age Assistance</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Men</th><th>Women</th><th>Total Amount</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tripp</td><td>11</td><td>7</td><td>$ 2,554.00</td></tr><tr><td>Todd</td><td>63</td><td>61</td><td>19,877.00</td></tr><tr><td>Gregory</td><td>5</td><td>4</td><td>1,318.00</td></tr><tr><td>Mellette</td><td>30</td><td>29</td><td>7,508.00</td></tr><tr><td>Charles Mix</td><td>25</td><td>24</td><td>7,157.00</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td></td><td></td><td>$38,414.00</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<table><caption>7. Aid to Needy Blind</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Men</th><th>Women</th><th>Total Amount</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Tripp</td><td>1</td><td>None</td><td>$ 62.00</td></tr><tr><td>Todd</td><td>4</td><td>None</td><td>554.00</td></tr><tr><td>Mellette</td><td>None</td><td>None</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>Gregory</td><td>1</td><td>None</td><td>209.00</td></tr><tr><td>Charles Mix</td><td>3</td><td>None</td><td>883.00</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><td>TOTAL</td><td></td><td></td><td>$ 1,708.00</td></tr></tfoot></table>

59

<table><caption>8. National Youth Administration</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Boys</th><th>Girls</th><th>Total Amount</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Tripp</th><td>1</td><td>1</td><td>$ 114.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Todd</th><td>28</td><td>31</td><td>724.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Mellette</th><td>10</td><td>20</td><td>387.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Gregory</th><td>None</td><td>4</td><td>500.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Charles Mix</th><td>4</td><td>2</td><td>607.00</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><th scope="row"></th><th></th><th>TOTAL</th><th>$ 2,332.00</th></tr></tfoot></table>

<table><caption>9. Pensions—Military and Episcopal Church</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Total Amount</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Rosebud</th><td>$20,001.00</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Yankton</th><td>1,041.00</td></tr></tbody><tfoot><tr><th scope="row"></th><td>$21,042.00</td></tr></tfoot></table>

<table><caption>10. Education—Food and Clothing</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>Total Amount</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row"></th><td>$26,811.00</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>11. Rations Issued—Yankton Only</caption><thead><tr><th></th><th>No. of Recipients</th><th>No. of Rations Issued</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><th scope="row">Work</th><td>62</td><td>125</td></tr><tr><th scope="row">Non-work</th><td>116</td><td>227</td></tr></tbody></table>

It is to be noted in the last item that rations are now issued to the Yanktons. Twenty years ago these people were the most prosperous and self-contained of all the Sioux, their agricultural land being quoted at from $100 to $150 an acre; their animal resources, consisting of horses, hogs, cattle and poultry were valued at $329,229. "Practically no poverty is in evidence." The last phrase told its own story.

Today a majority of the Yankton Sioux are impoverished and largely dependent on the Government, Federal and State, for support. However, it should be borne in mind that 30 per cent of the white farmers have given up and left this county (Charles Mix) in recent years due to a decade of drought and grasshoppers. Some of this white-owned land has been "bought up" by the Federal Government. An instance cited is that of a 1,600 acre farm with $25,000 of improvements being purchased for $10,000.8/1

Exhibit J

## EXTRACT FROM INTERIOR COMMITTEE'S REPORT ON MERIAM SURVEY OF 1927

In 1927 the Institute for Government Research undertook a survey of Indian affairs with special reference to the field service. The report of this survey was published in 1928 under the title

Extract from Survey of the Dakotas by Orville A. Petty and G. E. E. Lindquist, 1940.

of *The Problem of Indian Administration*. Since Lewis Meriam was the director, the report is generally referred to as the Meriam Survey of 1927. The then Secretary of the Interior, Hon. Hubert Work, requested a small committee of field superintendents to make an appraisal of the Survey, the closing paragraph of which is given herewith:

> "It is the opinion of your committee that the time has arrived when some very definite plan should be made looking to actually severing the Government guardianship of many of the Indians and placing them upon their own full responsibility as citizens of the State. A great deal has been said for years about 'turning the Indian loose,' but indifferent progress has been made. This should be an individual matter. No tribe in its entirety would be ready for the step at the same time, but there should be a way by which an 'Indian who has had the educational opportunity and who should be placed entirely upon his own responsibility can be given whatever belongs to him of tribal estate and informed that he is no longer under the supervision of the Government nor has any voice in tribal matters; that being a full-fledged citizen, with the privileges and obligations of such citizenship, he need no longer look to the Federal Government for assistance. Additional legislation is necessary before this can be fully accomplished."

Report of Interior Department Committee on "The Problem of Indian Administration," Dec. 5, 1928.

60

INSERT AT X - second line on page 32

The arbitrary ending by a Federal enactment of all supervisory control of
Indians would leave many of them in bewilderment and also exposed to the machinations
of unscrupulous people, but the fact that remedial steps are not so simple as to be
cared for by one sweeping act, does not mean that an immediate beginning should not
be made looking toward the ending of the detailed paternalistic oversight not given
Indian citizens. "Keep a baby in a carriage and he never learns to walk" is an old
truism: detailed Federal control of Indians plus segregation has made it possible
for thousands of Indian young people and children living in the 1940's to be unable
to speak English.

If another "New Day" is to come for Indians it must be written into all
demands therefore that no unnecessary hardships be theirs, that there be so careful
a phrasing of fundamental Laws and so wise a handling of details as to
avoid this. Paternalism - another word for Wardship, has existed for more than a
hundred years; in spite of it half of the Indian population has of its own volition
left the Reservations and lived in towns and cities all over the United States.
Their preparation and the impetus toward broader opportunities than those offered
on the Reservations has come through the Schools, Federal, Public, and Church, where
a larger outlook came to them. It should be possible, within the next fifteen years,
to direct the attention of Indian students toward the facts and responsibilities of
full citizenship and thus provide leadership in the Tribes for the "New Day" before
them.

One would not seem to suggest that such transitions may be accomplished
with no heart burnings for those who cling to the past - such are sometimes inevi-
table but should affect only a comparatively few of that generation which looks
backward rather than forward.

When, and if, Indians are freed from the status of Wardship and thus re-
moved from those special "entangling alliances" with Federal and State Laws created
by the present situation, there need be no forcing upon them as to their place of
residence - they should as full citizens be free to live in "Indian villages" or
"Indian colonies" so long as they obey such laws as are applicable to all citizens.

* * * * * * *

No definite information is available as to how many of the 389 Treaties
made with Indians are still in force, nor the exact changes that a study of these
would bring in Indian Affairs but all these Treaties have been listed in the most
valuable "Handbook of Federal Indian Law" by Felix S. Cohen, and it is hoped that
such a study may be made. In any case, (etc.)

TO FRIENDS OF THE INDIANS:

May we urge your opposition to four bills pending in the Senate Indian Affairs Committee which together are designed to wipe out the gains made over a decade in restoring to Indian tribes increased autonomy over their own affairs and property. The bills were introduced following the publication in June 1943 of an extraordinary report by the Senate Indian Affairs Committee, condemning both the administration of the Indian Service and the policies on which it is based.

The present is certainly not the time to make changes in a system leading to greater independence, democracy and self-respect among Indians. Whatever reforms are made should be the result of careful study and consultation. The Senate Committee has done neither.

We urge all friends of the Indians to express their written opposition to this legislation, in light of the following analysis, and to address: 1) The authors of the bills; 2) The Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (Senator Elmer Thomas of Oklahoma); 3) Their own Senators; and 4) Members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee from their own State. The members of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee are:

### DEMOCRATS

Elmer Thomas of Oklahoma, Chairman

Burton K. Wheeler of Montana

Carl A. Hatch of New Mexico

Joseph C. O'Mahoney of Wyoming

Dennis Chavez of New Mexico

Mon C. Wallgren of Washington

Ernest W. McFarland of Arizona

Samuel D. Jackson of Indians

Robert M. La Follette, Jr. of Wisconsin*

### REPUBLICANS

Henrik Shipstead of Minnesota

William Langer of N. Dakota

Harlan J. Bushfield of S. D.

E. H. Moore of Oklahoma

*Progressive

## Analysis of the Bills

Senate Bill 1084: Introduced by Senator Burton K. Wheeler on May 3rd, 1943. Referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs; no hearing and no report.

This bill provides that no money shall be expended from tribal funds without specific appropriation by Congress (except among the Five Civilized Tribes).

The bill was proposed in order to transfer the Indian Office's congressionally authorized management of tribal money and enterprise to congressional control. Passage of the bill would, for example, interfere with the use of tribal money to carry on such enterprises as: 1) Pueblo land repurchasing programs; 2) loans to individuals

-2-

from at least a dozen tribal funds; and 3) the operation of certain
Indian saw mills in the Great Lakes region. In effect, the bill
cripples Indian enterprise, for hereafter every tribal operation
would have to be specifically appropriated by Congress. The bill
does not promote Indian effort--it hampers it.

**Senate Bill 1218:** Introduced by Senator Dennis Chavez for himself, and for Senators Burton K. Wheeler, Patrick A. McCarran, E. H. Moore, Harlan Bushfield, William Langer and Chan Gurney on June 10, 1943. Referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs; no hearing and no report.

This bill provides for the immediate repeal of the Indian Re-
organization Act in its entirety, with the exception that the
Revolving Loan Fund would be continued until December 31, 1943.

The Indian Reorganization Act opened the way for Indian self-
sufficiency by providing banking capital for tribes; by placing
Indians' land under Indian control; by enabling Indians to recap-
ture, through purchase, alienated lands; and by permitting Indians
to manage their own affairs. The Indian Reorganization Act received
the endorsement of 74 Indian tribes. Of the 19 groups which reject-
ed it, many now seek ways to adopt its principles. This in itself
attests to the Indians' emphatic acceptance of its purpose. To
repeal the Act would make possible the disposition of tribal assets
upon which Indian self-sufficiency is dependent and subject his
property to alienation as provided for in a subsequent Senate Bill,
1311.

**Senate Bill 1311:** Introduced by Senator E. H. Moore of Oklahoma on July 5, 1943. Referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs; no hearing and no report.

The bill provides for the removal of restrictions on Indian
property now held in trust by the United States.

The bill, among other things would: 1) subject all individual
Indian property, including land, to taxation for state and local
purposes; 2) enable the individual Indian to dispose indiscrimin-
ately of his land to anyone at any price; and 3) require the ap-
pointment of guardians by State courts for all Indian minors whose
share in an estate amounts to more than $300.00. Passage of this
bill would not only remove Indian property from Indian Office protec-
tion, but legally permit the liquidation of the entire Indian estate.

**Senate Bill 1608:** Introduced by Senator Harlan Bushfield for himself, and for Senators Burton K. Wheeler, Dennis Chavez, Henrik Shipstead, and E. H. Moore on December 21, 1943. Referred to the Committee on Indian Affairs; no hearing and no report.

This bill provides for the enforcement of the penal laws of
States on Indian Reservations.

WORLDOVER PRESS

- 2 -

March 22, 1944.

VENEZUELA PUSHING CHILDREN'S OPEN-AIR LIBRARIES

Caracas. --- Two years ago, the idea of a children's library had not been put forward anywhere in Venezuela. Freed from the strong governments which had choked progress for many years, with education booming, and with a widespread eagerness for cultural advances, the regime was impressed when, in Caracas, a number of women leaders, among them Worldover Press correspondents Ada Pérez Guevara and Irma de Sola Ricardo, pointed out the benefits to be derived from placing good reading matter in the hands of boys and girls.

Most unique angle of their program was the creation of an initial library in the open air, where children would naturally find it easy of access. Thus on December 17, 1942, the first library was opened, in Las Caobos Park in Caracas. In the first nine months, this library had served 9,226 readers up to fifteen years of age. It had been contended by the promoters of the idea that "Each Biblioteca Infantil may represent a section of a jail that can be eliminated in the future." The improvement in the outlook and interests of the youthful readers is obvious, and today there are no skeptics regarding the value of such institutions. New functions are constantly being added to the pioneer library, such as directed play. The question in the public mind is how fast the country can go ahead with more of these outdoor libraries, not only in the capital, but throughout the Republic. (Worldover Press.)

--- WP ---

INDIANS LARGEST LANDOWNERS IN CANADA

Montreal. --- Lo, the poor Indian is, collectively speaking, the largest landowner in Canada, according to a return tabled in the House of Commons by Hon. T.A. Creerar, Minister of Mines and Resources.

Indian-owned land in the Dominion, consisting mainly of reserves, amounts to 5,423,734 acres, but only 210,921 acres are under cultivation.

The figures were revealed by the Indian Affairs branch of the Department, which is organizing a campaign to increase production on Indian reserves with special emphasis on subsistence gardens.

The aborigines will also be encouraged to make a substantial contribution to the nation's meat supply by distribution of cattle to reserves on the prairies and of herds of goats in northern Ontario, arranged by the Department.

The drive to increase production on Indian reserves followed revelation of the purchase of a billion dollars' worth of foodstuffs last year from parliamentary appropriations and Indian trust funds for distribution to needy Indians. (Worldover Press.)

--- WP ---

THE BOOK END

THE POPES' NEW ORDER, a systematic summary of the social encyclopaedia and addresses, from Leo XIII to Pius XII, by Philip Hughes, Macmillan, $2.50. Within the compass of 308 pages, Mr. Hughes presents, largely in their own words, the consistent philosophy, teaching, and pronouncements of the Popes during the last 60 years in such up-to-the-minute problems as world unrest, its cause and cure, the Catholic attitude to the modern State, family life and national well-being, education, the capitalist system and the worker, and international affairs. An excellent index, valuable for writers and speakers; a "must" book for all who are looking toward the post-war world. (Worldover Press.)

--- WP ---

APRIL 1944

Our Times

Published by the Board of National Missions of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, 156 Fifth Avenue, New York 10, New York

AND NATIONAL MISSIONS

VOL. I, No. 4

MINORITY AMERICANS

FOUR hundred thousand American Indians of various degrees of Indian blood, ranging from 100 per cent to one sixty-fourth, are still legal aliens in the United States, the land of their ancestors. It seems necessary to state again and again—perhaps because the Indians themselves are so little vocal — that Indians were granted citizenship in 1924 in acknowledgment of the splendid service they gave in World War I, but that the status of Government wards, established in 1831, was not removed. This status remains to vex them, the states in which they live, and the Federal Government itself. No one racial group can for its own best good be permanently set aside from the pattern of life being woven about it, nor can any nation wisely ignore the component racial elements that shall each make a contribution to the completed fusion.

The present condition has come about gradually. Uncertain as to how to control Indian tribes, at the close of the Indian wars the Government purchased tracts of land and established its puzzling charges by tribes on these sections. During the years there has grown up an increasingly elaborate system of supervision, of schools, and of rules governing the lives of the residents of these areas. Government agents have exercised a detailed, paternal control that on the whole has been kindly and helpful, but it has tended to relegate the group controlled to the status of a subservient people. With a Government staff of more than 8,000 persons there cannot be place for much initiative on the part of the Indian population of the United States. Of their own initiative, however, one-half of this entire group have left the reservations and made new homes in normal American communities. But the "entangling alliances" of wardship, which include Federal control of Indian lands and inherited funds, still follow them.

They are further embarrassed by the fact

that no answer has ever been given to the question, What percentage of Indian blood makes an Indian? As the dilution process continues, all inheritance matters become increasingly involved, and a person of white skin, speaking only English, may find himself rated an Indian and therefore automatically a Government ward. Only drastic—and difficult—Federal legislation can adjust laws that now hinder the full practice of citizenship.

Many friends of Indians fear that hardship may be wrought by such legislation; but certainly provision would be made for necessary safeguards to their immediate futures. Among the Indians, family and tribal ties are very close: one may assume that older people would be sheltered and helped by younger members of the family. If there be that "pitiful remnant" that is left in any fundamental change of status, provision must be made by state governments to care for such individuals. But this help should not be carried on to a younger generation except under conditions that would warrant such care to any citizen.

This year when Protestant churches are specializing on the study of Indians in the United States there may come a new understanding of these "first Americans" not only as a group with interesting customs and mores but also as American citizens debarred from the full exercise of their citizenship by outmoded laws and by a governmental supervision that seems both illogical and futile at this period of their history. A two-fold task faces church endeavor—to train the Indian for the new place in the national life that it is hoped may soon be his; and to aid the people of local communities to see how unrealistic is the segregation of a group forming only three-tenths of one per cent of our population.

M. KATHARINE BENNETT
Chairman, Committee on Indian Wardship
of the Home Missions Council.

OurTimes

## INTO A NEW DAY

THERE is every indication today that the Indians of our country are emerging swiftly from the shell which was built up around them during the past century—built up by reservation life, by a natural unwillingness to participate in American life, and by the deliberate design of many of the white people who dealt with them. Today, of the less than 400,000 who are in the United States, there are 18,000 serving in the armed forces, and about 45,000 in various forms of defense work. Not all Indians live under the reservation system but these figures mean that, of those who do, since the war began there has probably been a movement of 12 per cent of the population into other areas.

Dr. Henry S. Randolph, Secretary of the Unit of Indian Work of the Board of National Missions, points out that the Navajos are a striking example of this tendency. Here is a tribe noted for being almost as primitive as any tribe in the country. It is said that only 5 per cent of them can speak English. Their reservation is a vast desert on which they have led a semi-nomadic existence, making it几乎principally by herding sheep and goats. They have always preferred to live in almost completely isolated family units; community life is for the most part non-existent among them. Yet the traveler along the Santa Fe railroad these days becomes very much aware that many of the Navajos have left the reservations to work in the railroad yards from California to Chicago.

Large numbers of Navajos are coming in as migrant laborers in the great irrigated farms surrounding the city of Phoenix, and living under appallings conditions of squalor. Into industrial centers like Morenci and Flagstaff have poured hundreds of Navajos to work as common laborers.

The Indian to new conditions is remarkable. But there lies the difficulty of the difficulty, for in adjusting themselves to the ways of the people among whom they are now living, they adopt the bad with the good. The use of alcohol has increased. Living conditions adapted only to a desert existence, where the families are perhaps a mile apart, are being perpetuated in communities where the families are only a few feet apart.

In this emergency the church's responsibility is great. It is an agency so

close to the lives of the people that it can give guidance to other agencies seeking to deal with them. The leaders themselves are expanding their vision of what the future holds for the people, and applying their hard-gained knowledge of the people and their ways to preparation for that future.

The Navajos are only one illustration of what is happening within most of the Indian tribes in our nation. But in each case there is a great going forth into the main streams of American life, a going forth which will probably continue through all the postwar period. It is this "new day for the Indians" with which the church must deal, now and in the future.

## INDIANS IN INDUSTRY

THE Rev. David M. Cory, Th.D., is pastor of the Cuyley Memorial Church, Brooklyn, N. Y. This multi-lingual church, with its large group of Indian members, is one of the most interesting of those linked with the work of the Board of National Missions. Dr. Cory has learned the Iroquois language, and on stated occasions conducts services in Iroquois. Thus he speaks from first-hand information when he describes the industrial development of Indians.

For many years the major emphasis in the economic rehabilitation of the American Indian has been upon agriculture. It was assumed that people who were being principally by herding sheep and goats. They have always preferred to live in almost completely isolated family units; community life is for the most part non-existent among them. Yet the traveler along the Santa Fe railroad these days becomes very much aware that many of the Navajos have left the reservations to work in the railroad yards from California to Chicago.

The war with its increasing demand for industrial production has exploded the myth that Indians are inherently unfit for industry or skilled trades. Even a casual perusal of "Indians at Work," an informative periodical published

by the Office of Indian Affairs, would reveal the amazing extent to which Indians are all over the country have entered the ranks of industry in shipyards, lumber mills, airplane factories, and other production centers. This record is only inferior to the response of the Indians to the call of the armed forces.

For many years prior to the war, the Caughawaguna Iroquois, beginning on a bridgehead in the confines of their own reservation on the St. Lawrence River near Montreal, have been engaged in structural steel and iron work.

The average citizen who gazes upon the imposing sky-line of New York, with its vertically lowering sky-scrapers and its horizontally stretching bridges, would be amazed to hear that the aboriginal Americans have played a prominent part in changing the original appearance of Ka-non-no (Iroquois for New York, meaning "Plenty Hickory").

Local 361 of the Structural Steel and Ironworkers, at 550 Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn, counts a high proportion of Iroquois members. Paul Horn (Falling Twigs) is a member of the Executive Board and narrowly missed being elected president of the local a year ago. Other tribesmen are engaged in transportation. The brothers Diabo, John (Bright Canoe) and Michael (Flying Leaf), both active in Cuyley Church, are employed in the freight department of the New York Central Railroad. The women also are frequently found at Mrs. Josephine Schmidt (Blue Sky), the alto of the church's Indian chorus, is a flagmaker employed by the Vincent Spelman Co.

The war has conclusively proved that modern industry is not closed to Indians, but rather that the skill, agility, strength, and courage of the first Americans give them an actual advantage in the exacting and often dangerous tasks of modern industrial production.

The year's graduating class of nurses at Sage Memorial Hospital, Ganado, Arizona, all passed their State examinations with flying colors and are full-fledged R.N.'s. The sixteen probationers represent nine different Indian tribes besides Cuban and Spanish American families. The Navajo student nurses belong to an "Interpreters' Club," an organization which works at the problem of presenting the gospel effectively in the difficult Navajo language.

## INDIAN MISSIONARIES

OF THE SIXTY-EIGHT missionaries of the Unit of Indian Work listed in the 1944 Year Book of Prayer for Missions, there are thirty-three themselves Indians. Their positions and duties are as varied as those of the white missionaries with whom they serve: ministers, community workers, interpreters, lay evangelists, and religious educators. They represent the Sioux, Nez Perce, Ute, Navajo, Pima, Papago, Maricopa, Seminole, and Choctaw tribes.

In addition there are members of the Yaqui and Apache tribes in training for Presbyterian service at the Cook Christian Training School in Phoenix, Arizona. Pastors of mission-aided churches not under the Unit would include members of several other tribes.

There are two great values in selecting Christian leaders to be missionaries to their own tribes. First, they can make the Christian message clearer to their own people than can the white missionary. A seminary student serving for the summer in the Sioux country remarked that he found it difficult to preach to a congregation in which he knew that several members could not understand English. That congregation is regularly served by a minister who is himself of the Sioux tribe, under the skillful and sympathetic guidance of the white general missionary. Second, Indian Christian leaders are alert to the subtleties of expression of need on the part of their people which a white missionary, because of different cultural background, might not learn to recognize. It is not uncommon for Christian Indians to pour out their deepest longings and aspirations in their native tongues, while they remain characteristically silent when constrained to use English.

It is the aim of many of our schools and centers to train more and more adequate representatives of the church to go to their own people with the whole gospel message of salvation and abundant living.

The Makah Indians of Neah Bay, Washington, not only share in Indian-Canadian cooperative church action but take the lead among the white people, finding good response and almost entire lack of racial self-consciousness when there is work to be done together.

OurTimes

## MEDICINE MEN

NAVAJO medicine men are among the strongest and most influential friends Sage Memorial Hospital has on the Reservation today, according to Dr. Clarence G. Salsbury, the medical director, and yet only a short time ago they were the backbone of a solid wall of superstition that made it difficult to persuade patients to come to the hospital for treatment and nearly impossible to secure consent for major surgery. It is seldom today that one or more of these wise old men of the tribe may not be found in our wards. Most of them have come for major surgical operations and in a number of instances they have been won to Christ during their stay in the hospital.

What has brought about the change? There are several reasons. We never ridicule what to a medicine man is a

sacred belief. Good or bad, his religion is as sacred to him as Christianity is to us.

Another factor has been a reputation built up by the hospital over many years for sympathetic interest and expert care for each patient without regard to race, creed, or color.

Still another factor has been the development and use of Indian nurses whose assistance in cultivating the friendship of Indian patients has been invaluable.

Last and far from least is that combination of faith and works, preaching and healing, practical Christianity in action, lives and equipment dedicated to the relief of suffering. Even a steel wall of paganism and superstition cannot long resist that combination.

## ALASKA'S INDIANS

MRS. FLORENCE HAYES, editor of *Women and Missions*, traveler in Alaska, and author of *Arctic Gateway* and other publications on that area, states that years ago, when Sheldon Jackson was agent of education in Alaska, he wrote of the Alaskans, "Don't make the mistake of calling these people 'Indians.' They are not. They differ in every way from our American Indians, and must not be confused with them." But the government insisted on calling the native Alaskans "Indians," probably for want of a better term.

The Alaskan Indians, then, are divided into five groups: In Southeastern Alaska, the Tlingitins, the largest group, the Haidas, and the Tsimpsheans. The Tsimpsheans came over from British Columbia with Father Duncan in 1887 when he broke with his supporting British constituency and settled in the region of what is today known as Mat-Lakatla. This town, self-governed and self-sustaining, through its cooperative-labour-fisheries, power plant, etc., is today a "model" native Alaskan town.

The Aleuts, more in the news today than any other Alaskan Indian group, normally occupy only the Aleutian chain of islands. However, some of them were transported to Southeastern Alaska when the Japanese invasion threatened their security. Fisher folk, above

building the homes in which they now live, they were able to resume their means of earning a livelihood with but little loss of time. One wonders if when the war is over they will not be reluctant to return to their treeless, mountainous, islands, after having known the beauty of the forests of Southeastern Alaska.

The Tinneh, or Athapaskan Indians, live in the interior of Alaska, usually along rivers or other large bodies of water. They, too, are fishers, hunters, and trappers. Along the Kuskokwim River, and up along the Arctic coast, live the Eskimos, about one-fourth of Alaska's normal population. The Indians total approximately another fourth. The white resident population constitutes a half of the population. All these are "before-the-war" figures. Today the whites greatly exceed the native population. And the younger Indians and Eskimos, instead of pursuing their peaceful hunting and fishing, are scattered to the four corners of the earth in various branches of the service, with the rest of Uncle Sam's nephews.

The Presbyterian church has work among the Indians of Southeastern Alaska, and the Eskimos. The Tinnehs are served largely by the Episcopal church, the Aleuts by the Methodists.

Out of the 7,000 place names in New York State, 500 are Indian.

OurTimes

National Excerpts

MR. ICKES SPEAKS

As SECRETARY of the Interior . . . I
make no attempt to conceal my pride in
the record that the Indian is making
for himself in the war—a record that
began with rigorous action by the Na-
vajo Tribal Council. Speaking for ap-
proximately one-seventh of the Indian
population of the United States, the
council unanimously adopted a resolu-
tion in which the first "wherefore"
read:

"... we hereby serve notice that any
un-American movement among our
people will be resented and dealt with
severely." ... And then, in case there
might be any remaining doubt how the
Indians felt, the Iroquois Confederacy,
the Six Nations, declared a state of war
to exist between it and Germany, Japan,
Italy, and all their allies . . . To imple-
ment her part in the Iroquois' declara-
tion of war, Mrs. Jerry Crow, a widow
of the Seneca-Cayuga nation, gave her
five sons to the Armed Forces. Four of
them enlisted; the fifth, after being re-
jected, was taken by the draft, much
to his relief . . . We have no record of
the thousands of small War Bond and
Stamp purchases made by the individ-
ual Indians, but purchases made by
Indian tribes, through the Office of
Indian Affairs, total $2,671,725 . . .
Pueblo and Navajo Indians have given
sacks of corn, mutton, silver jewelry
and rugs in lieu of cash to aid the Red
Cross.

"Indians Have a Name for Hitler," Harold L. Ickes;
Collier's, January 15, 1944.

JOHN COLLIER SAYS

THE death rate among the Indians has
dropped 53.3 percent in the past 12
years, and they are continuing to gain
in numbers slightly faster than the gen-
eral population . . . Additional hospi-
tals, trained medical personnel, modern
schools, and an improved economic
status for the Indians have all contrib-
uted to lowering the death rate among
them. The Indian birth rate has fallen
about 25 percent in the past 12 years,
but this is more than compensated by
the sharp reduction in Indian deaths . . .
The Indian Service introduced sulfa-
nilamide treatment in 1939, and the
trachoma incidence among Indians
dropped from 30 to 7 percent in the
fiscal year 1942 and to 5 percent during
the past year. . . .

Some Indian jurisdictions report that
30 percent of the able-bodied men be-

tween the ages of 18 and 38 have gone
to war; others report 40 percent and
some 60 and 70 percent . . . More than
100 Indian women have joined the
auxiliary military services . . . .

Whether Indians of the post-war era
remain at home or find their way into
the outside world they are going to be
much more critical of conditions both
local and national . . . Promises made
over many years; rights as citizens,
self-government, political equality, eco-
nomic rehabilitation, will take on in-
creased meaning . . . On behalf of the
Navajo boys at an Army camp, a Na-
vajo soldier recently wrote his super-
intendent, "We do not understand the
kind of citizenship that says we can
fight but not vote." In 1924 the Con-
gress declared all Indians to be citizens,
but several States with large Indian
populations still disfranchise the In-
dians.

Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1943.

WHATEVER OUR TRIBE OWNS

I RECALL quite a different occasion, a
meeting with the tribal council, an elec-
tive body, of a Southwestern tribe to
hear a captain of the United States
Army present a request for land. The
Army wanted 400,000 acres of the tri-
bal reserve as a practice range for aerial
gunnery. It would be necessary to re-
move all habitations from the area and
all livestock, since live ammunition
would be used. The area in itself was
considerable, but what weighed heaviest
on the minds of the tribal representa-

ONLY a few months ago the
U. S. Court of Claims granted
a verdict of $5,000,000 to the
Sioux tribe of the Dakotas for
lands illegally taken from them
years ago. Eighteen years have
elapsed since attorneys for the
Sioux started their fight for this
settlement. Yet the chairman of
the Tribal Council telegraphed
Washington: "When our country
is at war, we feel that payment of
these claims should be deferred.
If it will help our country, a few
more years of waiting will be
patiently accepted."

"No War Whoops — But," by Charles Wilson;
This Week Magazine, January 10, 1943. Copy-
right 1943 by the United Newspapers Magazine
Corporation.

tives was the fact that it lay exactly
across their best grazing lands, where
water and grass were most abundant
... It was scarcely populated; in the
Army's eyes, obviously, it was no more
than barren waste. To the Indians it
was home.

"If the Army thinks it will help win
the war," the Chairman said, after there
had been some discussion in the native
tongue and after each member had
been polled, "if the Army wants it, it
can have it. It can have whatever our
tribe owns, if that is necessary"...

"No doubt," I remarked, looking to-
ward the captain, "the Army means to
compensate you for the use of this land.
Perhaps it would be well now to agree
on the terms."

The Chairman never hesitated. He
put the question in his tongue and the
response was instantaneous.

"We ask nothing. Whatever the Army
wants to pay will be satisfactory."

"We Go on From Here," by D'Arcy McNickle; Com-
mon Ground, Autumn, 1943.

A PLACE TO LIVE

THE Councilmen of San Felipe Indian
Pueblo came together to consider a bill
introduced by Representative Clinton
P. Anderson in Congress "to authorize
the exploration of proposed dam sites
located on Indian lands within the
State of New Mexico." These descend-
ants of the first Americans met under a
sense of urgency, fearing that the legis-
lation planned would lead to the loss
of the territory which had been theirs
long before the Spaniard came in 1540.
It was a tense and solemn occasion, and
as a result of the meeting, they wrote
a letter to Mr. John Collier, United
States Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
asking him to help defeat the bill.

"We don't want to lose our land, the
only thing we have to make our livings
by," the San Felipe Indians wrote. "For
years and years to come our children
will be using and needing that land. We
are asking this in the name of our boys
in the armed forces. They want a place
to live when they come home and a
place for their children to live. We are
willing to help in this war and we be-
lieve that is what we are fighting for—
a place to live happily if we win this
war. The boys are fighting to save the
land for the United States; we don't
like to see it happen that they have to
fight to save their own homes from the
United States."

"Our Indians Demand Their Rights," by Harold Butcher.
Travel, September, 1943.

OurTimes

News and Notes, April 1944

SELF RELIANCE

"TOO MUCH of the white man's work with the Indians has been aimed to make white men of the Indians. The one who was most admired was the one who left his neighborhood and went out and made good among white people." This was the comment made by Rev. W. M. Griffin of Vian, Oklahoma. "As for those who were left behind, well, they just stayed behind.

"Now that's not a healthy condition. These privileges ought to be brought back to the Indians where they are. I'm working on a group of young people in our church with just that in view. One girl is very keen about taking nurse's training and coming back to work with her own people. She got the idea herself — with some help from me. She was doing vacation Bible school work one summer with some other young people. She read the books and program materials, and worked with children in two or three centers.

"One day she said reflectively, 'Our people don't live as well as they ought to, do they?' Now I could have said that to her a dozen times and it wouldn't have registered. But in these different villages and farm centers she saw it for herself. That is Step Number One, and a very important one.

"Along such lines as these, the young people are taking a hand in planning not only their own future, but the future of the Indian community to which they belong."

To prepare for the Navajo camp meeting at Tuba City, Arizona—which is one of the most impressive and important features of the year's religious life—the Rev. Carl Higgs and a young interpreter drove 300 miles in calling on 50 Indian families. The attendance ranged from 60 to 225, sometimes at two meetings held simultaneously for different groups. Four adults and a large number of young people made profession of their Christian faith during the meetings.

The 158th Infantry, which was among the troops making the landing on Tarawa Island, had many boys from Tucson Indian Training School in its ranks. Altogether 135 former students of the school are in the armed forces; from Ganado, about 20 nurses are in the services; Dwight Indian School reports at least 109 former students; and

MRS. BRONSON SPEAKING

"INDIANS are people, too." So says Ruth Muskrat Bronson, consultant-at-large for the Indian Service, of Cherokee descent herself, who for thirteen years was Associate Guidance Officer advising young Indians on college and advanced vocational education. Indeed, so deeply sure is Mrs. Bronson that more personal interest in Indians as individuals is needed, that she gave the title, "Indians are People, Too," to the mission study textbook she is just completing for the use of the churches in the coming year. Mrs. Bronson was too much occupied with meeting the date-line on this book to give time for a personal interview, and the account of her achievements and opinions given here has been written after conversation with some of her friends.

The daughter of a Cherokee father and an Irish mother, Ruth Muskrat attended high school in Oklahoma and then entered the University of Kansas. While there, she was sent as a delegate to the Student Christian Federation conference in Peiping, China. The next year she received a scholarship to attend Mount Holyoke College. In her junior year she was selected to present to President Coolidge a gift on behalf of the Indian students in America.

Miss Muskrat taught for a time at Haskell Institute under the Indian Service, and then married Mr. John Bronson of Connecticut. Meanwhile she continued her work as student adviser to young Indians, and in 1937 was awarded the Indian Achievement Medal, given annually by the Indian Council Fire to the most outstanding Indian of the year. Since 1936 Mrs. Bronson has been living in Washington, where her husband is employed. She is a member of the Presbyterian church.

Mrs. Bronson's practical services have been so great that it is both surprising and winning to observe on closer acquaintance that she has the deeply poetical nature of the Indian, and that this, together with her own experiences in working with Indian young people, has made her sensitively aware of the Indian point of view and of the too-frequent ignoring of that point of view by even the most friendly of white well-wishers, whether in government or mission service. The anomalous position that results from the system of wardship, too, is a source of difficulty. "I lived like any other American child at home," Mrs. Bronson said, "I went to college; I earned my own living; I married; I have held responsible positions. But by some legal authorities I am still considered a ward of the government because I am Indian. And if Congress should pass a law restricting the activities of Indians, as Congress can do for its wards, then I, as a ward of the government, would have my activities restricted also. Wardship was intended as a measure of protection, but when, and by what standard, are we to be deemed sufficiently adjusted to the American way of life to no longer need that protection? To keep this situation before its people is a service that the church may well render to Indians and to the United States during the coming year and always, until the condition is remedied."

Sheldon Jackson School graduates in the war include an army nurse.

New York State has six Indian reservations: one in the north, near the Canadian border, one near Niagara Falls, and four in the western and central part of the state. Three of these four — Tonawanda, Cattaraugus and Allegany—are the home of Seneca In-

dians. The ancient government by tribal chiefs still functions in a limited form. The Cattaraugus Tribal Council declared war on "all enemies of the United Nations," and backed it up by contributing 12 per cent of their entire population to the armed forces of the United States. The Rev. David Owl, Cherokee Indian, is pastor of Methodist, Baptist, and Presbyterian Christians in the Cattaraugus Reservation.

OurTimes

THEY WORK TOGETHER

POPLAR AND WOLF POINT, Montana, each has a Presbyterian church with a congregation of white people. In the country area round about are three Dakota Indian churches. No one of the five has been fully self-supporting. A white pastor served the two town churches; a missionary supervisor, one ordained Indian pastor, and Indian evangelistic workers cared for the welfare of their groups.

Wartime conditions took away the white pastor. It was decided that this was a good time to establish a larger parish, including all five churches. The missionary supervisor, the Rev. A. L. Cropp, was asked to be pastor, with the assistance of a director of religious education. The larger-parish plan has now been in operation for nearly a year and is providing a valuable example of interracial cooperation.

The five churches have many common problems and responsibilities. They share in maintaining certain mission projects; and they face similar questions about the welfare of their children. The place of the church in the life of the community, the actual appearance and upkeep of the buildings, are common interests. One group suddenly awoke to the fact that their church building was neither beautiful nor worthy, but that it might be made both with some expenditure of time and effort. They have gone to work on this project. The question of language is not an insuperable difficulty. Although the Indian churches continue to use the soft-flowing Dakota speech, all of the younger people use English readily, and the older people understand it.

There is less race feeling here than in some parts of the country. The white man is not scornful, the Indian does not have to take refuge in self-defending silence. The larger parish plan is off to a good start. It cannot serve as a model for all areas having bi-racial problems; but as an instance of the readiness of both individual church members and administrative officers to work along new lines for the welfare of all, it is a stimulating and interesting project.

At Sisseton, S. D., an interracial larger parish project is being developed, similar to that at Wolf Point described above.

COOK CHRISTIAN TRAINING SCHOOL, Phoenix, Arizona, was founded by the Presbyterian church to train Indian Christian leaders. For thirty-two years it had a part in the training of every native Indian pastor of southern Arizona, and most of the officers and lay leaders of the Indian churches. In 1942 it became part of a wider project shared with the Home Missions Council of North America, that represents twenty-five Protestant denominations. Students now come from Episcopalian, Methodist, and other churches. The present arrangement—as far as Presbyterians are concerned—permits ordination after a student has completed two years at the junior college in Phoenix and the four years of the Cook School. As educational privileges increase, it is expected that the theological training also will become more extensive, and a full four-year college course be required as a preliminary.

The first Seminary-trained Indian minister in Presbyterian work among the Choctaws was ordained during the past year. The Rev. John J. Bohanon was left an orphan as a little boy and was cared for in different government and mission schools. Convinced that he should be a minister among his own people, he entered the College of the Ozarks when a man of thirty, and took his theological training at Austin Theological Seminary in Texas. He was ordained by the Presbytery of Choctaw

in June, 1943, and is serving a group of rural churches in Oklahoma.

Pima Indian lay workers under the supervision of a white missionary are carrying on active Christian work among the Papago Indians.

Alaskan Indians have never accepted the reservation system. Balancing the advantages of government assistance against the responsibility of doing things for themselves, they have chosen the latter. Despite probable racial derivation, too, they insist that "We are Alaskans," rather than Indian, Aleut, Eskimo, or white. In Southeastern Alaska an important influence in maintaining the spirit of self-reliance and independence of the natives is the Alaskan Native Brotherhood and its companion Sisterhood. A Grand Camp Convocation was held in the early winter, at which the discussions showed the determination of the Indian people to keep themselves banded together as the best means of meeting some of their own social, educational, and economic problems. The Sitka group has gone to work to repair its fire-damaged building. Sheldon Jackson School has helped with materials and volunteer labor. The Junior organization in the school has come to life and is again functioning. It is encouraging to know that the Brotherhood leaders realize the need for a unified effort in meeting their own problems in the postwar world.

Study Theme: Indians

THE THEME for mission study in the home mission area this coming year will be the American Indian. This issue of OUR TIMES AND NATIONAL MISSIONS is devoted to the subject of Indians, especially as connected with the Presbyterian church.

The textbooks for next year's study issued by the Missionary Education Movement are now in the works, as publishers say, and will be in print during the spring. Twelve years ago, when this theme was last before the churches for general study, all of the textbooks were written by white people. This year two have been written by Indians. These are, *Indians are People Too*, by Ruth Muskrat Bronson, a sketch of whom appears elsewhere in this issue, and *Speaking of Indians*, by Ella C. Deloria.

With a worldwide war going on, that has arisen out of conflict between the democratic and the totalitarian point of view, Americans must set their own house in order; and particularly must Christians at this time press for the removal of barriers of political and personal discrimination against minority groups in this supposedly democratic country.

I enclose a typical Oklahoma tribal charter, that of the Caddo Tribe, in which the period for extension of Secretarial review has passed, with no attempt by the Secretary to extend the period. The Caddo Tribe, therefore, is now free to make various contracts, leases, and distributions of tribal property, as specified in section 5 of its charter, without review by any official of the Indian Bureau or the Department.

I hope that you will agree that these charter provisions constitute a real step forward in pruning away departmental supervision of the conduct of our Indian citizens.

FSC:mjt

Enclosure 920.

Copy to Indian Office
thru McCaskill

2

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR

WASHINGTON 25. D. C.

JUN 9 1944

Mr. Royal B. Hassrick,
American Association on Indian Affairs, Inc.,
381 Fourth Avenue,
New York, New York.

My dear Mr. Hassrick:

I am enclosing a copy of my address before the Conference for use
in THE AMERICAN INDIAN. I have made only a few slight revisions, but
these I am anxious to see carried out in the published version. You will
recall that in response to my inquiry you advised that the article
would not have to be cut for publication. If you find that you were
overoptimistic and that cuts must be made, I would have no objection
to your cutting out the first page and the first two lines on the second
page, in which case the subtitle and preceding two lines on page 9 should
also be cut.

As I expect to be out of town for the next month, I shall probably
have to rely on your energy in the matter of proofreading. You might
send a copy of the galley proof to my office, if you have time, for
forwarding to me, but do not count on receiving it back in less than
10 days.

At page 10 there is a footnote on which I must ask you to fill in
the appropriate date of the Collier article referred to, which was pub-
lished by the Indian Defense Association some time in the 1920's as I
recall.

I hope you don't mind these impositions.

FSC:ld
Enclosure 2928417.

By MRS. FRED S. BENNETT

Cheyenne Indian Design

From time to time various tribes had been accorded citizenship but it was not until 1924 that by Act of Congress this standing was given to all Indians born within the United States. Such Act did not, however, for Indians any more than it does for whites, carry with it the privilege of the vote — a right that may be conferred or abridged by an individual state; but while "it is beyond the constitutional power of any State to deny the right of Indians to vote simply because they are Indians ... a few states, particularly in the extreme south and southwest, have attempted to discriminate against the Indians as with the Negroes, by setting up rigid requirements as to registration, residence, etc., so as to make it as difficult as possible for voters in these two classes to meet such requirements."*

## THE PROBLEM OF WARDSHIP

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
WASHINGTON 25, D. C.

July 19, 1944.

My dear Mr. Hassrick:

Having just returned from an Alaskan trip I am curious to know what is happening with the paper that I submitted to you on June 9 for publication in _The American Indian_. If you could drop me a note telling me of publication plans, I would appreciate it very much. Incidentally, the Indian Office would like to know what arrangements can be made to secure reprints.

FSC:mjt

REFER IN REPLY TO THE FOLLOWING:

ADDRESS ONLY THE
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON

JUL 27 1944

MEMORANDUM for Mr. Cohen.

Miss Singer has asked that I look over your proposed letter to Mrs. Bennett regarding the pamphlet "Indian Wardship".

The first paragraph on page 6, commenting on the Indian's "status of wardship under the Bureau," is not clear.

In the second paragraph on page 9, decentralization of education is set off as an alternative to segregation. I think this is not quite clear. Does decentralization mean the placing of Indian children in public schools? The next paragraph starts off with "A similar tendency..., in the field of medical services." Does this "similar tendency" mean some kind of decentralization? I also question the accuracy of the statement that tribal funds are used more and more to cover the expenses of medical services. A few tribes do finance their own medical programs and the regulations permit the collecting of fees from individuals for medical services. The practice of collecting fees is not very widespread in the Indian Service. Many of us feel that an adequate health program must go much further than what can be financed by the Indians themselves.

I don't know the extent to which you want to go into a general evaluation of the pamphlet. Its total impact is that wardship is a paramount evil to be overcome even though the Indians be stripped of all their property and forced to eke out an existence as best they can. The report obviously favors legislation to repeal the Indian Reorganization Act, to lift all restrictions from Indian property and subject them to taxation, to make all Indians subject to the laws of the states in which they live, and to withdraw all appropriations for essential services such as schools and hospitals. Mrs. Bennett herself, I believe, feels these should be accomplished say within 10 to 25 years. The pamphlet itself sounds no warning as to the dangers of great speed, and its authors, I am sure, would advocate practically 100% of the recommendations set forth in Senate Report 310.

It seems to me that the discussion of wardship, if it is to be intelligent and sympathetic towards the Indians, must visualize in part some of the things likely to happen to Indians should the proposed program be adopted.

In its original version, the pamphlet was shot through with innuendos. Have they been eliminated from the present version?

Mr. Felix S. Cohen
--2

July 6/44

I could continue my reasons indefinitely but perhaps they are included under these four major causes. I might add that I further feel that if we allow this period of world history to pass without meeting our obligation to the Indians we shall have "missed the train" and there may not be another one for sometime.

I dare to be frank enough to say that I had hoped that the present Administra-
tion, having a longer period of service than any previous one, would solve some
of the fundamental difficulties: the legislation has often seemed to add compli-
cations to an already complicated situation.

All this may sound to your technical mind as though I had a feeling that
the needed processes were simple - on the contrary I believe they are bewilder-
ingly complex, so much so that I would be glad to drop my little share in
trying to improve the Indian status. However, both my interest in them and my
conscience forbid that.

One cannot but think much of the Indian men and women who have gone into the
Army and into Defense Industries - one wonders what their reactions will be when
they return to Reservation life.

I do still continue anxious to know the answer to the question I asked you
in New York in May as to an Indian who renounces his status as an Indian - whether
his children are counted as Indians or not, whether the Government gives to him
his share of tribal funds, and land, or the equivalent for the latter in land funds -
as to the approximate number of Indians who have renounced such status as Indians
and as to the number who have asked to be reinstated. You may recall that some
one spoke of this from the floor but there was no discussion of the floor. I asked
you for it but you were not ready to commit yourself to an answer then.

Thank you for sending me the Charters of the Montana Cheyenne Tribe and that
of the Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma and the list of "Chartered Tribes." It would be
futile for me to try to enter into discussion of these in a letter: I shall hope
that I may stay in Washington in the Fall long enough to talk with you - striving
not to ask too much of your time and patience.

I am, with much appreciation of your courtesy and with every hope that we
emateurs and the Bureau may see more truly eye to eye as each understands better
the plans and purposes of the other, and work together for the full freedom of
our Indian fellow-citizens.

COPY

Aug 4 1944

Mrs. M. Katharine Bennett,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Wardship
of the Home Missions Council,
297 Fourth Avenue,
New York, New York.

My dear Mrs. Bennett:

I am sorry that it has taken so long for me to send you my comments on the pamphlet *Indian Wardship*. I have been away from Washington for a month in the interim and have not been able to attend to this matter as promptly as I would have liked. Of course, you realize that these are my personal views and not necessarily the official expressions of either the Indian Office or the Department of the Interior. And despite its lengthiness, this letter undoubtedly has omitted discussion of some points on which we differ.

In the first paragraph of the pamphlet entitled *Indian Wardship*, it is stated that a fundamental difficulty in discussing the subject is a result of the fact that the courts and Congress have filed to define the term "Indian." It must be noted that there are several examples to the contrary. A few such instances are the following court decisions: *Nagle v. United States*, 191 Fed. 141 (C. C. A. 9th, 1911); *United States v. Higgins*, 103 Fed. 348 (C. C. Mont., 1900); *Sully v. United States*, 195 Fed. 113 (C. C. S. D., 1912). The following are some of the statutes which have attempted to define the term: 48 Stat. 984, 988, 25 U. S. C. 479 (Indian Reorganization Act); 40 Stat. 564, 25 U. S. C. sec. 297 (Indian Appropriation Act of May 25, 1918); 27 Stat. 260, 261 (control of liquor traffic); 29 Stat. 506; 35 Stat. 312 (Five Civilized Tribes); 41 Stat. 1249 (Osage). It is perhaps a term whose definition is not always agreed upon, but this is the case with many, if not most, of the terms used by the legal profession. The scope of such terms varies in different periods of our history. One need go no further than the terms "police power" or "interstate commerce" to realize what radical changes are made in the meaning of legal terminology.

With respect to adoption of individuals as members of Indian tribes discussed in the second paragraph of the section entitled *What Is An Indian?* it has long been recognized that in the absence of express legislation by Congress, an Indian tribe has complete authority to determine all questions of its own membership. In certain allotment statutes, the Secretary of the Interior has been given authority to promulgate tribal rolls. Such rolls, as for example among the Five Civilized Tribes, are usually the authenticated rolls of each tribe which have been approved by the Department. It was the intention of Congress to make those rolls conclusive as to eligibility for allotments. Therefore, the inclusion of individuals with only a small degree of Indian blood, or none at all, depends upon the rules and regulations of the particular tribe with regard to membership. The basis of this power derives from the character of an Indian tribe as a distinct political entity. The Supreme Court has recognized the authority of a tribe to qualify the rights of citizenship which it offered to its adopted members,

Cherokee Intermarriage Cases, 203 U. S. 76. The act of August 9, 1888 (25 Stat. 392), was designed to exclude from the right to share in tribal property white men who were admitted into tribal membership.

As to those freedmen and slaves who were enrolled by the Five Civilized Tribes, mentioned in the pamphlet as examples of individuals of non-Indian blood who have received benefits as Indians, this was done in recognition of the considerable intermarriage between the Negroes and the Indians, and in order not to cause prejudice against them. By treaty they were granted equal rights with Indians and the right to share in tribal funds and property. It must be remembered, however, that in all such questions, the tribe has the right to determine the qualifications of its members. It is necessary that such tribal recognition be obtained before a non-member, as, for example, the Reverend John Frost, mentioned on the top of page 8 of the pamphlet, may become a member. It was not his residence as such that made him a Crow, but the recognition by the tribe that was determinative of his status. Of course, such tribal recognition would also be necessary as to those Indians described in the next paragraph of the pamphlet, who for all apparent purposes had severed their tribal connections and later returned to renew their tribal membership. Smith v. Bonifer, 154 Fed. 883 (C. C. D. Ore.). It must also be remembered that tribal membership is a bilateral relationship, and a member of a tribe is at full liberty to terminate that relationship when he so desires.

It is true that the legal and ethnological uses of the term "Indian" may vary, which unquestionably has enhanced the difficulties of those dealing with Indian problems. The social factors involved in a particular community may determine whether an individual is called an Indian or not. Legislators also when they use the term, are generally dealing with a group distinguished from non-Indian groups by public opinion. A working definition of the term, which encompasses the majority of individuals to be included, is suggested in the Handbook of Federal Indian Law, page 2. This definition is based on the qualifications that some of the ancestors of the Indian lived in America before its discovery by the white race, and that he be considered an Indian by the community in which he lives. Another definition contained in the Indian Reorganization Act, includes members of a recognized tribe under Federal jurisdiction and their descendants residing on a reservation, as well as persons of one-half or more Indian blood. The courts have generally followed the rule laid down in United States v. Rogers (4 How. 567) to the effect that an individual cannot merely by association be considered an Indian.

I do not feel that the comparison made by some people between the Indians of the United States and those of the countries south of our border is inappropriate, as stated in the pamphlet. In this country too, those who have taken up residence apart from a tribe and adopted habits of civilization do not usually come within the scope of legislation dealing with Indians. Here also the way of life and the associations of the person determine his status in the community. And it cannot be doubted that Indian life in this country has been modified by association with the white man's religious and social culture. It is not necessary to look further than the work accomplished by missionary groups alone to realize this. The fact that in countries like Mexico a large part of the population has Indian blood does not invalidate the comparison as in many respects both groups face the same problems of preserving their own culture while being subject to other influences.

2

It is unnecessary perhaps to attempt to surmount the difficulty of precisely defining the term "wardship" as is done in the section entitled *What is Wardship?* In the Handbook of Federal Indian Law it is pointed out that certain of the interpretations of the term "wardship" are confusing, such as making it synonymous with noncitizen or beneficiary of a trust, because these meanings either have no necessary connection with the other senses of the term or have no factual justification. As you know, for instance, the fact that all Indians are now citizens has not changed their ward status. The definition suggested in the pamphlet on page 9 uses the term "special racial designation," whereas it is generally now recognized that the Federal Government is dealing primarily not with a particular race as such, but with members of certain social-political groups towards which it has assumed special responsibilities. Moreover, the congressional power over Indians as wards is limited to the extent that where Congress has not exercised its power, the individuals concerned would not be wards in the sense of subjects of Federal administrative jurisdiction. The peculiar relationship of the United States to the Indian tribe, which has significant similarities to the common law concept of the relationship between a guardian and ward, most nearly justifies use of the term "wardship."

The section in the pamphlet entitled *Growth of Indian Wardship*, in dealing with the historical background of intercourse with the Indians, omits any discussion of the fundamental basis of such intercourse, the protection of the Federal Government over the various tribes. The decisions cited in the pamphlet, as well as the whole course of judicial history in this country, indicate the emphasis the courts have placed on this principle. One method used to protect Indian title has been to prevent injudicious alienation. In those cases where the treaty terms provided that the United States should relinquish and quitclaim certain territory to the Indian nations, those nations could dispose thereof only to the United States (Treaty of January 9, 1789, 7 Stat. 28). Usually it was provided that the Indian nation could not treat with individuals or individual States. The reason that provisions for reservations were commonly inserted in treaties is that the Indians were accustomed to that kind of communal ownership. The lands reserved to them were those which they had not ceded to the United States and over which they continued to exercise the rights of ownership. The "reservation system" was simply a continuance of Indian ownership as recognized and protected by the Government of the United States. The payments made, whether in funds, goods or services, were for value received. These payments were customarily made to the Indian Tribe as the treaties, in which the payments were provided for, were considered in the light of international agreements.

The individualization of Indian lands had its beginning almost a century before the General Allotment Act rather than with the allotments made in 1850, as indicated in the pamphlet. The original allotments were made in treaties as an incident to the transfer of Indian lands to white ownership. In such cases tracts of land were sometimes "reserved" for the use or occupancy, or ownership of designated individuals or families. It was not until almost the middle of the nineteenth century that the allotment system was used as an instrument for terminating tribal existence. The desire to protect the Indian against sharp practices leading to his landlessness was an important reason for continuing the restrictions against alienation even where land was allotted to individuals.

The first provision for the individualization of Indian lands is found in a treaty negotiated with the Choctaws on November 16, 1805 (7 Stat. 98). In 1817, the treaty with the Cherokee Nation for an exchange of land made the first allotments

2

3

and formulated the idea of individual title with restrictions on alienation
(Treaty of July 8, 1817, 7 Stat. 156). As early as 1798, tribal lands of the
Oneida Nation were allotted to individuals or families by the tribe (unpublished
treaty, Archives No. 28).

Although the principle of allotment undoubtedly was intended to release the
Indian from the special treatment he had formerly received, this was not to be
accomplished at one stroke. The prohibitions against alienation have been broadly
interpreted by the courts, because it was soon realized that many Indians had not
yet attained a sufficient degree of competency to be entrusted with complete title
to their lands. Potter v. Vernon, 129 Okla., 264 Pac. 611. It was a logical step
to realize that as Congress has extraordinary power over Indian tribes as wards,
individuals of the tribe also are subject to the same sort of control in matters
affecting their tribal relations, including ownership of tribal land.

On page 11 of the pamphlet a distinction is suggested between trusteeship
and guardianship of the allotted land of Indians during the 25-year period.
Actually guardianship over land is a relationship which is not recognized by the
courts. It is true that individual Indians may have received allotments of land
and still be considered as under the guardianship of the Federal Government. This
may also be the case in some respects even after he receives a patent in fee to
his allotment.

The decision of the court in the case of *United States v. Rickert*, 188 U. S. 432, to the effect that the subject of the trust is a Federal instrumentality and hence not liable to State taxation quotes the opinion of the Attorney General delivered in 1888 to the same effect (19 Op. Atty. Gen. 161, 169). It can therefore hardly be said that the decision of the court 'had not been forecast,' as stated in the pamphlet, page 12. In regard to the liquor laws, it should be noted that in 1916, the court in *United States v. Nice* (241 U. S. 591) overruled *Matter of Heff* (197 U. S. 488), which permitted the sale of liquor to citizen Indians.

In the paragraph (p. 12-13) discussing the effects of alienation under the
allotment system, it is stated that the reservation system by bringing about
segregation resulted in exploitation of the Indians. There is no evidence that
the tribal ownership of reservations results in less income to the Indians than
non-reservation property. In fact, any data which we have examined point to a
contrary conclusion.

The discussion of the Reorganization Act and its purposes found on page 13
of the pamphlet is somewhat misleading. The purposes of the act are set forth in
the report recommending the enactment of the measure (S. Rept. 1080, 73rd Cong.,
2d sess.) and nowhere is it intimated that the idea was to return to "what the
tribalism of former years was assumed to be," as stated in the pamphlet. As far
as tribal constitutions are concerned, the act had little or no effect upon the
substantive powers of tribal self-government vested in the tribes, but merely
regularized the procedures of tribal government and modified the relations of
the Interior Department to the activities of tribal governments. The extent to
which tribal powers are subject to departmental review or approval is a matter
on which the various constitutions differ from each other. For instance, under
the revolving credit fund established by the Reorganization Act, presumably

4

referred to in the sentence "everyone of any previous connection with Indian
tribes ... was a potential client for relief or rehabilitation or what not"
(p. 13), the Government deals with the tribal authorities who are charged with
the responsibility of making loans to members. The tribe is given the respon-
sibility of taking care of its own welfare and is given control of its own economic
activity. The control exercised by the Secretary is authorized by mutual agreement
with the tribes, designed to enforce the terms of that agreement. It is a contract
between the parties binding on both the Government and the tribe. Each tribe has
authority to determine all questions in regard to tribal membership except where
Congress has legislated on the subject, and the provisions on membership found in
the various constitutions vary widely. The general trend is away from the notion
of membership running with Indian blood, and for the most part they recognize that
membership in a tribe is a political relation. The sharing in tribal property is
made correlative with the obligations that fall upon the members of the community.
This explanation perhaps shows why the statement above quoted from the pamphlet
is objectionable and an erroneous interpretation of the basic aims of the Reor-
ganization Act.

In connection with the effect of the Indian Reorganization Act on the allot-
ment system, it must be pointed out that after an allotment has been approved, an
allottee is still entitled to have the land allotted to him (Op. Sol. I. D.,
M. 28086, July 17, 1935, 55 I. D. 295), and can enforce this right by bringing
action to obtain a trust patent (See Arenas v. United States, No. 463 Oct. Term,
1943, decided by the Supreme Court May 22, 1944; Vachon v. Nichols-Chisholm
Lumber Co., 126 Minn. 303, 148 N. W. 288, 290 (1914)). The statement that this
legislation forbade the issuance of patents in fee on lands held in trust is
also incorrect.

The next paragraph in the pamphlet dealing with the alleged increased depend-
ence of the Indians on the Federal Government is also misleading. In the dis-
cussion concerning Federal administrative power over Indians found in the Handbook
of Federal Indian Law, it is stated: (p. 103)

"The claim of administrative officers to plenary power to regulate Indian conduct has been rejected in every decided case where such power was not invoked simply to implement the administration of some more specific statutory or treaty provisions."

As has often been stated, it is the announced policy of the Office of Indian
Affairs gradually to permit the various tribes to take over all the functions of
their social and economic existence. Most of the tribal charters provide for the
progressive withdrawal of Government supervision. Mr. McCaskill has summed up
the recent trend in Indian administration in a paper prepared for the First Inter-
American Conference on Indian life held in April, 1940:

"Thus we see the Indian Office divesting its authority into
three directions; first among other agencies of the Federal Govern-
ment which have specialized services to render; second among the
local, state, and county governments, which are much more closely
associated with the problems in some areas than Washington can be;
and finally among the tribal governments which have organized govern-
ing bodies, and which expect eventually to take over and manage all of
the affairs of Indians. Perhaps thus, but not at once, it may be found
possible to cease special treatment, special protective and beneficial
legislation for the Indians, and they shall become self-supporting, self-
managing, and self-directing communities within our national citizenry."

5

Exhibit E entitled *Reassumption of Wardship* cited in support of the proposition that Indians are not permitted "to emerge into normal American living," makes a mistake often found, that is, to confuse the relationship of the Federal Government and the Indian as "a status of wardship under the Bureau." There is no basis for the view that the powers of the Interior Department are as broad as those of Congress. This Department's authority must be conferred by statute or treaty provision in every case. Act of July 9, 1832 (4 Stat. 564, 25 U. S. C. sec. 2), amended by the act of March 3, 1849 (9 Stat. 395).

As section 16 of the Reorganization Act merely provides that a tribe may organize and adopt a constitution by a majority vote of the members, it depends on the provisions of the particular constitution whether "outside Indians" may be adopted by a tribe. The sentence in Exhibit E (p. 46 of the pamphlet) referring to the scope given sections 16 and 18 of the Reorganization Act by the Office of Indian Affairs indicates a misunderstanding of the method used to permit tribes to come within the application of the act. Furthermore, Exhibit F, entitled *Indian Reservations under the Indian Reorganization Act by Vote of the Indians In accordance with Section 18 of the Act*, which is referred to in order to prove the "considerable pressure" that was brought to bear on tribal groups, is merely a list of the Indian reservations that are by vote of their members within the scope of the act. There is no indication from the list, or any other evidence submitted, that the tribes were not in favor of taking such action. It should also be noted that on June 15, 1935, an amendment to section 18 extended to June 18, 1936, the time within which an election could be called. It also must be remembered that Federal jurisdiction continues over tribes excluded from the operation of the Reorganization Act (Memorandum Solicitor I. D., July 17, 1935).

It is interesting to note from the report, *The New Day for the Indians* (1938) the following excerpts concerning the present attitude of many people who have worked on Indian problems, towards the work accomplished under the Reorganization Act:

> "... these concrete experiences point dramatically to the new world of opportunity that has been opened to all Indian tribes by the development of three cardinal principles of present-day Indian administration: Indian self-government, the conservation of Indian lands and resources, and socially directed credit. On almost every reservation today, even on reservations that voted to reject the Indian Reorganization Act, one finds a deep and growing concern for these basic principles, a conscious striving to secure their application to local problems, the beginnings of constructive achievement, and hope for the future where there was once only hopeless regret for the past.

> "The Indian Reorganization Act further authorized the various Indian tribes to take over positive control of their own resources and to carry on tribal enterprises as membership corporations under a gradually vanishing federal supervision.

> "The principle of Indian self-government was carried to a new phase when the Indians themselves were asked to vote on whether or not the law establishing self-governing powers should apply on the different reservations. The great majority of the Indians voting on the question voted in favor of the Indian Reorganization Act. ...

6

"One significant change in the direction of Indian self-government can best be put in negative terms. During the century from 1833 to 1933 hundreds of laws affecting Indian tribes were enacted and a great part of these laws, perhaps a majority of them, in some way deprived the Indian tribes of rights or possessions they had once enjoyed. Since 1933 no law has been enacted which took from any Indian tribe, against its will, any of its liberties or any of its possessions.

"... In short, the Indian estate that a few years ago was being dissipated and destroyed is today being conserved, amplified, and improved for the benefit of the Indian people today and for the unborn Indian generations.

"Economic planning is no new thing on Indian reservations. The Blackfeet adopted a five-year development plan in 1921, and it was later copied on many other reservations. What is new in the economic planning under the present administration is that whereas formerly the Indian Service planned for Indians and dealt with Indians as individuals, the Indian Service now yields to the tribes that have incorporated under the Indian Reorganization Act a large share of responsibility for developing and administering a reservation economic plan...."

The discussion in the section entitled *Citizenship and Suffrage* seems to imply that there is legal justification for the exclusion by a few States of Indians from the privilege of suffrage. The "inevitability" of this result is somewhat doubtful. Most States are coming to accept the fact that Indians as citizens should have the franchise and undoubtedly will continue to do so. The incident cited on page 17 of the pamphlet concerning the refusal by the member of the North Carolina election board to be satisfied with the proof of literacy of the Indian who was a college graduate merely indicates that in some of our States individuals are chosen for positions involving discretion, who are not suited to fill them. We can hope that as time progresses, there will be less provincialism and a better understanding of the principles of democracy, when the privilege of voting will be granted to all citizens regardless of race, color, or creed.

In the section entitled *Law and Order*, it is stated that the first legislation dealing with criminal jurisdiction over Indians is found in the act of 1885. As a matter of fact, the first Federal enactment dealing with crimes by Indians against non-Indians in Indian country was the act of March 3, 1817 (3 Stat. 383). The Trade and Intercourse Act of 1834 (4 Stat. 729, 733), extended to Indian reservations the general laws of the United States as to punishment of crimes committed in any place within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction of the United States.

Section 239 of the Criminal Code, making offenses by non-Indians against Indians, and vice versa, punishable in the Federal courts in accordance with State laws existing at the time of the passage of this act (July 7, 1898, 30 Stat. 717 and 48 Stat. 152), are exceptions to the statement in the pamphlet (p. 18) that Indians are absolved from responsibility to State criminal laws. It may also be stated as a general proposition that in matters not affecting

7

either the Federal Government or the tribal relations, an Indian has the same status to sue and be sued in State courts as any other citizen. Citations to this effect can be found in the Handbook of Indian Law, p. 379. It is true, as stated on page 18 of the pamphlet, that he may sue in a State court to redress wrongs committed outside a reservation. But the mere fact that an Indian is a party plaintiff will not give the Federal courts jurisdiction in a civil proceeding. The usual requirements that there be diversity of citizenship or a Federal question involved must be shown.

It has long been recognized that in regard to the regulation of domestic relations, Indian tribes have the widest latitude. This jurisdiction has often been recognized by both State and Federal courts. Under the Reorganization Act, usually no review of the jurisdiction of the tribal court is required. As the customs of the various tribes differ in some respects from the mores of our civilization, it is not surprising that their courts sometimes apply different laws. For instance, their recognized marriage customs are considered just as "legal" as marriages performed by a preacher or justice of the peace.

As to enforcement of quarantine and sanitation laws mentioned at the top of p. 19 of the pamphlet, regulations of the Secretary provide that agents and employees of the State may enter on tribal land reservation or allotment for the purpose of inspecting health and enforcing sanitation and quarantine regulations (act of February 15, 1929, 45 Stat. 1185). The same act permitted regulations authorizing truant officers to enforce laws of States requiring regular school attendance.

Another important step in the same direction, was the passage of the Johnson-O'Malley Act (48 Stat. 596), which provides for Federal-State cooperation in the fields of Indian education and medical attention. This is a significant indication of the tendency toward decentralization of activities in these fields.

The point is made in the section entitled *Indian Land and Property* that lands held by the United States for the use and occupation of Indians is untaxable. This is not unusual. That no land to which the Government has title may be taxed is such a well-recognized principle that it requires no citation.

With regard to the leasing and sale of individual lands, as well as of tribal lands, by the act of February 14, 1920 (25 U. S. C. sec. 413), the Secretary of the Interior was authorized and directed to charge a reasonable fee for the work incident thereto to be paid by the vendee, leasee or from the proceeds of the sale. As amended in 1933 (47 Stat. 1417), this section now authorizes the Secretary to collect a reasonable fee for all work performed for Indian tribes or individuals. It is clear that the expenses of the administration of Indian lands are derived partly in this way rather than from taxes paid by the general public.

In the section concerning *Treaty Provisions*, doubt is expressed as to whether Indians who merely receive payments in fulfillment of treaty provisions are still wards of the Federal Government. It is recognized that Indians who have been adjudged competent to manage their own affairs cease to be wards in the sense that they are no longer restricted from alienating their property but remain wards in the constitutional sense that they are subject to certain acts of

8

Congress relating to Indians. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe mentioned on page 22 of the pamphlet as an example of this tenuous relationship, has been organized pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act and in accordance with its Constitution and Bylaws has a well-defined working relationship with the Federal Government.

In the matter of education of Indians, discussed in the section entitled *Wardship and Education*, it is felt that recent years have shown a trend to decentralize Federal educational activities along Federal-State lines rather than to segregate. The report of the National Advisory Committee on Education (1931) is illuminating. The series of special statutes by which Congress appropriates money for the maintenance of public schools attended by Indians likewise is significant.

In the field of medical services, there is a growing tendency to regard an adequate health program as the responsibility of the Federal Government, not only for its Indian population but for all its members who cannot obtain such services without financial assistance. Under regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, agents of the State may go upon Indian lands to make health inspection and enforce sanitation and quarantine regulations. The statute authorizing this procedure was enacted in 1929 (45 Stat. 1185, 25 U. S. C. sec. 231). Therefore the statement (p. 26) that "the Federal Government does not hold the Indian responsible to any regulations ... to prevent the spread of infection" is inaccurate.

Social security benefits have been held by the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior to be applicable to Indians (Memo. Sol. I. D., April 22, 1936). Most States agree with this view and are actively assisting in the application of the Social Security Act to Indians. It is the aim of all who are interested in the welfare of Indians to see the disappearance of any duplication of effort in this direction. The Federal Government undoubtedly will discontinue its endeavors in proportion to the acceptance of the responsibility by the various States.

Several citations noted in the pamphlet are incorrect. They are given correctly as follows:

<table><tr><td>Cherokee Nation v. Georgia</td><td>5 Pet. 1 (1831)</td><td>(footnote 6)</td></tr><tr><td>Worcester v. Georgia</td><td>6 Pet. 515 (1832)</td><td>(" 12)</td></tr><tr><td>United States v. Rickert</td><td>188 U. S. 432</td><td>(" 15)</td></tr><tr><td>Act of May 27, 1902</td><td>32 Stat. 275</td><td>(" 20)</td></tr><tr><td>Act of March 1, 1907</td><td>34 Stat. 1015, 1018</td><td>(" 20)</td></tr><tr><td>Act of June 25, 1910</td><td>36 Stat. 856</td><td>(" 20)</td></tr><tr><td>35 Cong. Rec., pt. 1, 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 90.</td><td></td><td>(" 24)</td></tr></table>

Although the above discussion represents for the most part a criticism of statements made in the pamphlet, I feel there are many common objectives which we share. The gradual decrease in paternalism and special treatment for the Indians are among the major goals which I believe we both agree with. Perhaps there is some difference of opinion as to how it should be accomplished. But this should not prevent a better understanding of the work being done by the Federal Government and the group which you represent.

Sincerely yours,

Felix S. Cohen,
Associate Solicitor.

WASHINGTON 25, D. C.

AUG 4 1944

Mrs. M. Katharine Bennett,
Chairman, Committee on Indian Warship
of the Home Missions Council,
297 Fourth Avenue,
New York, New York.

My dear Mrs. Bennett:

I am sorry that it has taken so long for me to send you my comments on the pamphlet *Indian Warship*. I have been away from Washington for a month in the interim and have not been able to attend to this matter as promptly as I would have liked. Of course, you realize that these are my personal views and not necessarily the official expressions of either the Indian Office or the Department of the Interior. And despite its lengthiness, this letter undoubtedly has omitted discussion of some points on which we differ.

In the first paragraph of the pamphlet entitled *Indian Warship*, it is stated that a fundamental difficulty in discussing the subject is a result of the fact that the courts and Congress have failed to define the term "Indian." It must be noted that there are several examples to the contrary. A few such instances are the following court decisions: *Hagla v. United States*, 191 Fed. 141 (C. C. A. 9th, 1911); *United States v. Higging*, 103 Fed. 348 (C. C. Mont., 1900); *Bully v. United States*, 195 Fed. 113 (C. C. S. D., 1912). The following are some of the statutes which have attempted to define the term: 48 Stat. 984, 988, 25 U. S. C. 479 (Indian Reorganization Act); 40 Stat. 564, 25 U. S. C. sec. 297 (Indian Appropriation Act of May 25, 1918); 27 Stat. 260, 261 (control of liquor traffic); 29 Stat. 506; 35 Stat. 312 (Five Civilized Tribes); 41 Stat. 1249 (Oarge). It is perhaps a term whose definition is not always agreed upon, but this is the case with many, if not most, of the terms used by the legal profession. The scope of such terms varies in different periods of our history. One need go no further than the terms "police power" or "interstate commerce" to realize what radical changes are made in the meaning of legal terminology.

*Cherokees Intermarriage Cases*, 203 U. S. 76. The act of August 9, 1888 (25 Stat. 392), was designed to exclude from the right to share in tribal property white men who were admitted into tribal membership.

As to those free men and slaves who were enrolled by the Five Civilized
Tribes, mentioned in the pamphlet as examples of individuals of non-Indian blood
who have received benefits as Indians, this was done in recognition of the con-
siderable intermarriage between the Negroes and the Indians, and in order not to
cause prejudice against them. By treaty they were granted equal rights with
Indians and the right to share in tribal funds and property. It must be remembered,
however, that in all such questions, the tribe has the right to determine the
qualifications of its members. It is necessary that such tribal recognition be
obtained before a non-member, as, for example, the Reverend John Frost, mentioned
on the top of page 8 of the pamphlet, may become a member. It was not his resi-
dence as such that made him a Crow, but the recognition by the tribe that was
determinative of his status. Of course, such tribal recognition would also be
necessary as to those Indians described in the next paragraph of the pamphlet, who
for all apparent purposes had severed their tribal connections and later returned
to renew their tribal membership. *Smith v. Bonifer*, 154 Fed. 883 (C. C. D. Ore.).
It must also be remembered that tribal membership is a bilateral relationship,
and a member of a tribe is at full liberty to terminate that relationship when he
so desires.

It is true that the legal and ethnological uses of the term "Indian" may vary,
which unquestionably has enhanced the difficulties of those dealing with Indian
problems. The social factors involved in a particular community may determine
whether an individual is called an Indian or not. Legislators also when they use
the term, are generally dealing with a group distinguished from non-Indian groups
by public opinion. A working definition of the term, which encompasses the major-
ity of individuals to be included, is suggested in the Handbook of Federal Indian
Law, page 2. This definition is based on the qualifications that some of the
ancestors of the Indian lived in America before its discovery by the white race,
and that he be considered an Indian by the community in which he lives. Another
definition contained in the Indian Reorganization Act, includes members of a
recognized tribe under Federal jurisdiction and their descendants residing on a
reservation, as well as persons of one-half or more Indian blood. The courts have
generally followed the rule laid down in *United States v. Rogers* (4 How. 567) to
the effect that an individual cannot merely by association be considered an Indian.

I do not feel that the comparison made by some people between the Indians of
the United States and those of the countries south of our border is inappropriate,
as stated in the pamphlet. In this country too, those who have taken up residence
apart from a tribe and adopted habits of civilization do not usually come within
the scope of legislation dealing with Indians. Here also the way of life and the
associations of the person determine his status in the community. And it cannot
be doubted that Indian life in this country has been modified by association with
the white man's religious and social culture. It is not necessary to look further
than the work accomplished by missionary groups alone to realize this. The fact
that in countries like Mexico a large part of the population has Indian blood does
not invalidate the comparison as in many respects both groups face the same prob-
lems of preserving their own culture while being subject to other influences.

2

In the matter of education of Indians, discussed in the section entitled *Wardship and Education*, the fact is that recent years have shown a trend to decentralize Federal educational activities along State lines rather than to segregate. The report of the National Advisory Committee on Education (1931) is illuminating. The series of special statutes by which Congress appropriates money for the maintenance of public schools attended by Indians likewise is significant.

In the field of medical services, there is a growing tendency to regard an adequate health program as a governmental responsibility, not only for its Indian population but for all citizens who cannot obtain such services without financial assistance. Thus what might once have been considered a peculiar privilege of Indians can no longer be so viewed. Moreover, the statement (p. 26) that "the Federal Government does not hold the Indian responsible to any regulations ... to prevent the spread of infection" is inaccurate. Under regulations of the Secretary of the Interior, agents of the State may go upon Indian lands to make health inspection and enforce sanitation and quarantine regulations. The statute authorizing this procedure was enacted in 1929 (45 Stat. 1185, 25 U. S. C. sec. 231).

<table><tr><td>Cherokee Nation v. Georgia</td><td>5 Pet. 1 (1831)</td><td>(footnote 6)</td></tr><tr><td>Worcester v. Georgia</td><td>6 Pet. 515 (1832)</td><td>{ " 12}</td></tr><tr><td>United States v. Rickert</td><td>188 U. S. 432</td><td>{ " 15}</td></tr><tr><td>Act of May 27, 1902</td><td>32 Stat. 275</td><td>{ " 20}</td></tr><tr><td>Act of March 1, 1907</td><td>34 Stat. 1015, 1018</td><td>{ " 20}</td></tr><tr><td>Act of June 25, 1910</td><td>36 Stat. 856</td><td>{ " 20}</td></tr><tr><td>35 Cong. Rec., pt. 1, 57th Cong., 1st sess., p. 90</td><td></td><td>{ " 24}</td></tr></table>

Although the above discussion represents for the most part a criticism of statements made in the pamphlet, I feel there are many common objectives which we share. The elimination of all forms of discrimination against Indians is certainly a major goal which I believe we both have at heart. Perhaps there is some difference of opinion as to which of the many peculiarities of Indian legal status are disadvantages and

9

which are advantages. On that question I am inclined to think that the Indian
himself is the best judge. I also think that it is more "paternalistic" (in the
bad sense of the word) to deprive Indians of access to Federal medical and bank-
ing services, for instance, than it is to let them make up their own minds as to
whether they will use such services. But this should not prevent a better under-
standing of the work being done by the Federal Government and the group which you
represent.

Copy to Com'r Collier
Mr. McCaskill

10

JONATHAN M. STEERE
President

CHARLES CHAUNCEY SAVAGE, JR.
Vice-President

Indian Rights Association

301 SOUTH SEVENTEENTH STREET
PHILADELPHIA 3

CHARLES E. PANCOAST, 2D
Treasurer

CHESTER E. FARIS
General Secretary

AMELIA R. LINDLEY
Assistant Secretary

DR. HAROLD B. ALLEN

DR. JOSHUA L. BAILY, JR.

MRS. RUTH MUSKRAT BRONSON

E. LEWIS BURNHAM

DR. HOWARD COMFORT

MARK A. DAWBER

BOARD OF DIRECTORS

MRS. ROBERT P. FRAZIER

REV. FREDERICK R. GRIFFIN

MRS. CHARLES F. GRIFFITH

DR. THOMAS JESSE JONES

LAWRENCE E. LINDLEY

ULRIC J. MENGERT

CHARLES E. PANCOAST, 2D

CHARLES J. RHOADS

CHARLES CHAUNCEY SAVAGE, JR.

J. HENRY SCATTERGOOD

JONATHAN M. STEERE

JOHN J. SULLIVAN

ISAAC C. SUTTON

THOMAS WISTAR

MRS. GEORGE WOODWARD

EDWARD WOOLMAN

DR. DONALD R. YOUNG

my dear Mr. Cohen,

4/17/44

Thank you very much for your help by telephone on Status of Suffrage for Indians.

Now another question has been raised. 100 Indians in North Carolina vote.

Since I am to be away a few days, would you please send information on this directly to Miss Mabel F. Knight, 150 St., 1300 St., 1300 W. 15 Man (Suite 55) and mail duplicate information to us.

President

MRS. NORMAN VINCENT PEALE

First Vice-President

HERMANN N. MORSE

Second Vice-President

MRS. CHARLES E. GRIFFITH

Recording Secretary

CARL HEINMILLER

Treasurer

BETTIE S. BRITTINGHÁM

HOME MISSIONS COUNCIL OF NORTH AMERICA
INCORPORATED

THE INTERCHURCH AGENCY OF HOME MISSIONS BOARDS AND SOCIETIES OF TWENTY-THREE DENOMINATIONS

CONSTITUENT BODIES

NATIONAL BAPTIST

NORTHERN BAPTIST

CHURCH OF THE BRETHREN

CHURCH OF GOD

CONGREGATIONAL-CHRISTIAN

DISCIPLES OF CHRIST

PROTESTANT EPISCOPAL

EVANGELICAL

EVANGELICAL AND REFORMED

FRIENDS

UNITED LUTHERAN

AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL

AFRICAN METHODIST EPISCOPAL ZION

COLORED METHODIST EPISCOPAL

METHODIST

AMERICAN MORAVIAN

PRESBYTERIAN, U.S.A.

PRESBYTERIAN, U.S.

UNITED PRESBYTERIAN OF NORTH AMERICA

CHRISTIAN REFORMED

REFORMED IN AMERICA

UNITED BRETHREN IN CHRIST

UNITED CHURCH OF CANADA

AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY

AMERICAN SUNDAY SCHOOL UNION

297 FOURTH AVENUE, NEW YORK 10, N. Y.

TELEPHONE GRAMERCY 5-4658

Executive Secretaries

EDITH E. LOWRY

MARK A. DAWBER

September 13, 1944

Mr. Felix S. Cohen, Associate Solicitor
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Cohen:

I am much chagrined that no acknowledgement has gone to you of the receipt of your letter of August 4, addressed to me at the office of the Home Missions Council. After some delay this was forwarded to my home address where again it was held, finally reaching me at Buck Hill Falls, Pennsylvania a few days ago.

There I had no copy of the pamphlet "Indian Wardship" which you discussed in your letter, so I could not clearly understand your explanatory statements until I could compare the printed material and your comments thereon. My apologies are, of course, that I did not acknowledge the receipt of your manuscript immediately on its arrival. Summer vacations are demoralizing -- this is my only excuse. I am hoping that August has been your vacation period and that you have not known of my rudeness.

Unhappily the issue of "Indian Wardship" pamphlet was exhausted and a second edition, somewhat more brief, was already in print and only waiting binding before its delivery, when your letter was finally opened by me, so any suggestions you made could not be incorporated therein. I have not yet a copy of this new edition-- when I have it and have compared the two editions and your comments I shall write you again.

I am more and more impressed with the belief that the Bureau and those of us in various organizations are impelled by the same hopes for the Indians, that our differences are those of methods through which to accomplish changes and of the speed with which we hope to attain the ends. To me it is anachronistic that a country that is sending its sons to free minorities about the world does not free its own -- with full justice and rightness for all. It is my full belief that this can be done and may I add that I feel the Bureau of Indian Affairs is the informed and vital agency to accomplish all this. These people who express unasked-for opinions!

In the fall if it be possible I want to go to Washington with the hope of talking with members of the Bureau.

With many thanks for your help, I am,

FSB:R

November 15, 1944.

Miss Katherine Morus,
Managing Editor, The American Indian,
53 Jane Street,
New York, 14, New York.

Dear Miss Morus:

The Indian Office would like 1,000 copies of the "Citizenship" reprint and I would like 100 for myself. Will you be good enough to see that 1,000 copies are sent to

Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
Merchandise Mart,
Chicago, Illinois

and 100 copies to me at the above address, and that we are separately billed in the proper amounts? (I assume that the total cost will be divided on a 10 to 1 basis.)

I think the story you suggest on Indian cooperatives would be very interesting. I wonder if Dr. Gene Weltfish would have enough data, or could get enough data, to do the piece. If not, I suggest that you try Karl Peters, Office of Indian Affairs, Juneau, Alaska, who has personally assisted in organizing a good many native stores in the Territory.

FSC:mjt

and theologians that the potato (a) was poisonous, (b) was the cause of many diseases, (c) permanently destroyed the fertility of the soil in which it grew, and (d) was not mentioned in the Bible. This opposition was broken down only by such extreme measures as the royal threat to chop off the ears and noses of Prussians who refused to plant and eat potatoes, the organization of a corps of "Potato Missionaries" in other parts of Germany, and the more subtle French method of Louis XVI and Parmentier of growing large fields of potatoes in public places and strictly forbidding passers-by to take any or taste this forbidden fruit.²/ Only 70 years ago most white authorities considered the tomato to be poisonous to human beings and this was one more evidence that the Indians who had created this noblest of vegetables were mentally deficient. Seventy years ago, most white people thought that the Indian custom of exposing large amounts of the human epidermis to the sun's rays was either unhealthful or downright sinful. And many medicines which the Indian Medicine Men had discovered or invented,—witch hazel, cascara sagrada, oil of wintergreen (of which aspirin is a derivative), cocaine, quinine, and all the rest,— had to meet suspicion and hostility before they won professional and public acceptance.³/

I mention these things merely as instances of the widespread and deep-rooted human attitude that regards the strange and unfamiliar as necessarily inferior to the accepted and commonplace. My plea today

²/ See W. E. Safford, *The Potato of Romance and Reality*, Journal of Heredity, vol. 16, p. 113, 175, 217, 219-223.

³/ See E. E. Edwards, *American Indian Contributions to Civilization* (U. S. Dept. of Agric., 1934), p. 8. For a popular account of the opposition of the medical profession to quinine, see Thurman Arnold, *Symbols of Government*, pp. 17.

is that we who are the heirs of all the world's civilizations and
cultures should rise above this weakness and, instead of trying to
remake all Indians in our own image, that we seek to guarantee to the
Indian in practice the realm of freedom which is his under the law.
That realm of freedom will include, perhaps, practices and institu-
tions which some of us may despise; but let us not forget that many
of the qualities of Indian life which were once despised have con-
tributed to the richness of our American life today. It is because
we as a nation have been tolerant of many differences, many races, and
many ways of life, that we have been able to develop the strongest,
the wealthiest, and the freest nation on the face of the earth. In
England the Lord Chancellor is the keeper of the King's conscience; in
this democracy of ours where the people is King, the King's conscience
is kept by groups like those represented at this conference. Yours
is the sacred trust of reminding the King, in the days of his strength
and power, of the obligations he owes to the weakest of his subjects,
that we as a nation may not succumb to the poisons of pride and intol-
erance which have destroyed powerful states and mighty kings before us.

19

and theologians that the potato (a) was poisonous, (b) was the cause of many diseases, (c) permanently destroyed the fertility of the soil in which it grew, and (d) was not mentioned in the Bible. This opposition was broken down only by such extreme measures as the royal threat to chop off the ears and noses of Prussians who refused to plant and eat potatoes, the organization of a corps of "Potato Missionaries" in other parts of Germany, and the more subtle French method of Louis XVI and Parmentier of growing large fields of potatoes in public places and strictly forbidding passers-by to take or taste this forbidden fruit.²/ Only 70 years ago most white authorities considered the tomato to be poisonous to human beings and this was one more evidence that the Indians who had created this noblest of vegetables were mentally deficient. Seventy years ago, most white people thought that the Indian custom of exposing large amounts of the human epidermis to the sun's rays was either unhealthful or downright sinful. And many medicines which the Indian Medicine Men had discovered or invented,—witch hazel, cascara sagrada, oil of wintergreen (of which aspirin is a derivative), cocaine, quinine, and the rest,— had to meet suspicion and hostility before they won professional and public acceptance.³/

2/ See W. E. Safford, *The Potato of Romance and Reality*, Journal of Heredity, vol. 16, p. 113, 175, 217, 219-223 (1925).

3/ See E. E. Edwards, *American Indian Contributions to Civilization* (U. S. Dept. of Agric., 1934), p. 6. For a popular account of the opposition of the medical profession to quinine, see Thurman Arnold, *Symbols of Government*, pp. .

18

19

bureaucracy, or whatever it is that faithful public servants are
called by the critics of any Administration, has been extended to
the rest of our population. I think that, on the whole, American life
is richer and more secure today because, instead of wiping out the
Federal services that were once peculiar to Indians, we have extended
them to the rest of our population.

Across the span of our national history this problem of assimila-
tion and acculturation is not a new one. For many decades whites re-
garded the peculiar Indian custom of burning certain weeds and inhaling
the smoke with peculiar horror, even as a proof of the depths to which
worship of the devil had degraded the native inhabitants of this land.
But eventually the rest of the world revised its judgment and adopted
the Indian's tobacco, pipe, cigars, and cigarettes. So it has been
with many other peculiarities of Indian life. Only dire starvation com-
pelled the white colonists to accept that great contribution of the
Indian to the world's food supply, Indian corn, and all that goes with
its culture, including the planting of pumpkins in corn fields, the
munching of popcorn, and breakfasts of flapjacks and maple syrup north
of the Rio Grande and tortillas south. Only 70 years ago most white
authorities considered the tomato to be poisonous to human beings and
this was one more evidence that the Indians who had created this noblest
of vegetables were mentally deficient. Seventy years ago, most white
people thought that the Indian custom of exposing large amounts of the

17

human epidermis to the sun's rays was either unhealthful or downright sinful. And many of the medicines which the Indian Medicine Men had discovered or invented,—witch hazel, cascara sagrada, oil of wintergreen (of which aspirin is a derivative), cocaine, quinine, and all the rest,— had to meet suspicion and hostility before they won professional and public acceptance. ∗

I mention these things merely as instances of the widespread and deep-rooted human attitude that regards the strange and unfamiliar as necessarily inferior to the accepted and commonplace. My plea today is that we who are the heirs of all the world's civilizations and cultures should rise above this weakness and, instead of trying to remake all Indians in our own image, that we seek to guarantee to the Indian in practice the realm of freedom which is his under the law. That realm of freedom will include, perhaps, practices and institutions which some of us may despise; but let us not forget that many of the qualities of Indian life which were once despised have contributed to the richness of our American life today. It is because we as a nation have been tolerant of many differences, many races, and many ways of life, that we have been able to develop the strongest, the wealthiest, and the freest nation on the face of the earth. In England the Lord Chancellor is the keeper of the King's conscience; in this democracy of ours where the people is King, the King's conscience is kept by

18

groups like those represented at this conference. Yours is the
sacred trust of reminding the King, in the days of his strength and
power, of the obligations he owes to the weakest of his subjects, that
we as a nation may not succumb to the poisons of pride and intolerance
which have destroyed powerful states and mighty kings before us.

19