INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION

301 South Seventeenth Street, Philadelphia

C
O
P
Y

April 12, 1943

Hon. John Collier, Commissioner,
Office of Indian Affairs,
U. S. Department of the Interior,
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Collier:

Replying to your letter of the 9th inst.,
my position regarding the "Handbook on Study of Indian
Wardship" is exactly the same as that of Mr. McCaskill.
I had never seen the pamphlet until it was produced at a
recent meeting which he and I attended in New York. I
have not yet read it all, but I have already seen state-
ments in it with which I am not in accord.

BUREAU OF CATHOLIC INDIAN MISSIONS

2021 H Street Northwest
Washington

C
O
P
Y

April 12, 1943

Mr. John Collier
Commissioner of Indian Affairs
Washington, D. C.

My dear Mr. Collier:

Replying to your letter of April 9th, I can say that the character and contents of the "Handbook on Study of Indian Wardship" were unknown to me until two days ago, when I first received a copy of the booklet.

Prior to its publication I understood that this was
to be an unbiased statement of facts pertinent to the status of
the Indians. I find in it, however, a large amount of comment
and the expression of opinions with which I personally am not in
agreement and which I had not anticipated. This makes the work
a program that I would not endorse, I regret to say since my
name is connected with it. Some features of this program seem
to me impracticable at the present time, others undesirable in
themselves. Especially I can not agree with what appears to me
to be one of the main postulates of the program, that the special
services which many of the Indians need and which are being
supplied to them by the Federal Government constitute unfair and
disadvantageous segregation.

HOME MISSIONS COUNCIL OF NORTH AMERICA

297 Fourth Avenue, New York, N.Y.

C
O
P
Y

April 19, 1943

The Honorable John Collier
Office of Indian Affairs
Washington, D. C.

Dear Commissioner Collier:

I regret the delay in answering your recent letter
due to my absence on the field.

In reply I may say that, having in mind the limited
use intended for the Handbook on Study of Indian Wardship, I
am in favor of its publication.

I appreciate of course that many of the items pre-
sented are open to a differing interpretation, that there is
nothing that is intended as conclusive, that these are pre-
sented for the purpose of creating thought and interest in
the subject of wardship.

That wide differences of opinion will come out of
this, there is no question. But it seems to me that it is
something of this kind that we need at this time.

I, will of course be interested in your detailed
observations and appreciate receiving the same at your
convenience.

C
O
P
Y

PHELPS-STOKES FUND

101 Park Avenue
New York

April 21, 1943

Commissioner John Collier
Office of Indian Affairs
Department of the Interior
Washington, D. C.

Dear Commissioner Collier:

Your important letter of April 9th has been read
with deep concern. I am in emphatic disagreement with
many ideas and interpretations in the Handbook on the "Study
of Indian Wardship". The Handbook was obviously prepared
for propaganda purposes by a person hostile to the present
administration. My attitude toward the publication and
toward the Committee is indicated in the enclosed copy of my
letter to Mrs. Bennett, the Chairman of the Committee.

I note with extreme regret that Mr. McCaskill has
resigned from the Committee. His letter of April 8th to
Mrs. Bennett is an excellent analysis of the Handbook. While
I entirely understand his resignation under the circumstances,
I am strongly inclined to recommend that you approve his
association with the Committee in an advisory capacity provided
the Committee faithfully follows the vote in the March 25th meet-
ing to limit the activities to the study of Wardship and
Participation.

After the next meeting of the Committee I will be able
to explain more accurately whether it is worth while for any of
us to cooperate further in the study.

With cordial greetings,

THE NATIONAL BOARD
of the
YOUNG WOMENS CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATIONS
OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

600 Lexington Avenue, New York, N. Y.

COPY

Seattle, Washington

April 27, 1943

Mr. John Collier, Commissioner,
Office of Indian Affairs,
Washington, D. C.

My dear Mr. Collier:

I regret that this answer to your letter of April 9th has been delayed, due to absence from my office.

Both before and after becoming a member of the Committee whose names appeared in the pamphlet I have been interested in the need for a better understanding of this intricate question, and approved the compiling of as brief and simple as possible a statement on the subject from factual material already at hand.

I was not a member of the small group delegated to read the manuscript before its publication, but asked the privilege of reading it because I was deeply concerned that it be a study and not a statement of opinion or policy. I did read it hurriedly just before leaving New York and suggested a number of changes I thought needed to be made in the interest of facts rather than opinion. I do not know whether or not these were incorporated in the printed folder.

I have just seen a copy of the pamphlet as printed long enough to read the preface to which our names were attached. This preface does not seem to me to be in line with the purpose of the pamphlet nor to express the corporate thinking of the committee.

I do believe that understanding of the needs of individuals and groups, a variety of policies and programs are all necessary, and that the Indian people themselves and their friends are involved together in the creating of these. At the moment, however, the American scene is changing so rapidly and the Indian people are so involved in these changes that I would find it quite impossible to be an advocate of any one program except the general one of working with both young people and older, that we may all fact the life in which we find ourselves today with as much intelligence, courage and strength of body and spirit as we can muster. Whatever from the past and present is of help toward these ends would be in harmony with my thinking of the kind of program to be advocated.

I expect to be in Chicago May 18th and shall be happy to consider the pamphlet with you at greater length should you so desire.

(over)

C
O
P
Y

Centreville, Md.

May 4, 1943

Hon. John Collier,
Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
Office of Indian Affairs,
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Collier:

I must apologize for having failed for so long to answer your
letter of April 9th.

I did not see the pamphlet referred to, "Handbook on Study of Indian Wardship" until several days after it was published and of course must disavow connection with it. This occurrence emphasizes the difficulty in my present position of keeping in touch with the work of such a group and I accordingly resigned from the Committee some weeks ago.

It seemed to me that it was particularly unfortunate that the
publication in question entirely ignored the social and economic needs
of the Indians and seemed to assume that simply releasing Indians from
any connection with the Federal Government would solve all their
difficulties. This we know is not the case and the point that I
have made was repeatedly emphasized by some of us in the earlier
meetings of the Committee on the Study of Wardship and Indian Partici-
pation in American Life.

C
O
P
Y

April 8, 1943

Mrs. Fred S. Bennett,
Chairman, Executive Committee,
Committee on Study of Wardship and
Indian Participation in American Life,
Room 69, 297 Fourth Avenue,
New York City, N. Y.

My dear Mrs. Bennett:

Recent activities which have taken place in the name of the Wardship Committee raise the question of my continuing as a member of this Committee. You will recall that from the beginning I have desired that I not be considered an active or official member of the Committee; that, rather, I should be looked upon as a consultant or a friendly representative of the Indian Office to be used by the Committee in any way in which I could be of service. I foresee the possibility that my presence on the Committee might prove embarrassing to the Committee and I honestly desired that it should feel free to take whatever action it wished even though such action might be critical of the Indian Service. I was assured, however, that the Committee's sole purpose was to examine the problem, stimulate study by other groups, and not to become aagtagonist for any particular point of view.

The publication of a handbook over the names of the Committee without permitting the members to examine and discuss its contents is something to which I cannot be a party.

I want the record to show that the publication "Handbook on Study of Indian Wardship" was prepared, published, and distributed without my knowledge or consent - that the first intention I had that this publication was contemplated was when a printed copy of it was placed before me at the meeting of the Committee, March 25, 1943, several days after some 2,000 copies had been placed in the mails. Such action constitutes propaganda - not study. It is contrary to every statement of intention and purpose of the Committee.

Even had the handbook proved on examination to be what its foreword claims for it - a "factual statement," I should, nevertheless, have to protest against its distribution without full discussion by the entire Committee and without the Committee's specific authorization. What is more unfortunate is that the publication is inadequate, definitely biased in its presentation of so-called "facts," and sets forth a program of the Committee with a portion of which I am in total disagreement.

I find it necessary, therefore, to disavow the entire publication.
Below, I have set out a few indictments against the pamphlet which, I must
add, are my own personal criticisms and do not necessarily reflect the opinion
of the Commissioner or any other official of the Indian Service.

The author's treatment of the report of the committee headed by Professor Brown is strongly misrepresentative. This report is used as supporting argument for subjecting Indians to State law. On page 19, it is reported that the Brown Committee "was unanimous in its recommendations that Indians should be amenable to the marriage and divorce laws of their respective states". The author fails to point out that Professor Brown and his committee studied only seven States - all in the allotted areas, and that the bill suggested by the Brown Committee specifically omitted the States of New Mexico, Arizona, Oklahoma and the natives of Alaska, thus making the bill applicable to less than one-third of the Indians under Government supervision.

Another instance of misrepresentation appears on page 26: "...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 facts are that the law, (25 U.S.C. 198), authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to enforce quarantine regulations, and Section 84.27 of Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations was promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior pursuant to the provisions of this Act. The Indian Service rigidly enforces these quarantine regulations.

There are several quotations from Indian Service investigations. These reports are quoted as though they were official published reports, when in reality they are intended for office use only, and represent only the point of view of the investigator. I assume of course that permission of the Office of Indian Affairs was obtained to quote from them. The bias of the presentation is obvious when one realizes that in the same file in which one of the quoted reports is found there is also a report by another "investigator" quite at variance with the one quoted.

Among the next steps advocated by the handbook is the policy of using public schools and closing Federal schools, even to the point of suggesting that mission schools handle children for whom public schools are not available. This proposal ignores the Meriam report, which, while commanding on the whole the placing of Indian children in public schools, recognized that Indian children and Indian families often need more service than public schools ordinarily render, and that the Indian Service should, therefore, supplement the public school work.

It ignores also the report of the National Advisory Committee on Education on the subject of Federal relations to education. This report, made in 1931, called especial attention to the peculiar problems confronted in providing education for primitive and native peoples.

The Advisory Committee on Education, appointed by the President on September 19, 1936, in its "Staff Study Number 18 - Educational Service for Indians," states on pp. 52 and 53, "...the experience of the past few years has indicated that there are serious limitations to the role which these schools (public) can play and that they cannot adequately meet the educational needs of Indians in all localities. "...Where the population is predominantly Indian and where public schools cannot provide an educational program that gives adequate recognition to the particular needs of Indian children, it would appear that the Federal government should undertake the operation and direction of the education of Indian children".

4.

The above instances, which are not all by any means, - plus the omission of many pertinent considerations - serve to give a very definite bias to the whole presentation. To those of us in the Service, who have been giving a great deal of thought to this problem, the treatment in the handbook seems little short of flippant.

I think it will be best for the Committee, as well as for myself, to remove my name from the Committee. I shall be glad to be of any service possible at any time, but I cannot longer serve as a member of the Committee.

Sincerely yours,

(sgd) J. C. McCaskill.

-2-

3. Continuation of Tax-free lands to Indians, (see Bill - S1311)

## II. Indian Self-Government: *

a. Encourage understanding and cooperation among Indians, and between Indians and whites through education and participation.

b. Encourage and utilize natural communities and groupings, so that relationships between Indians and the Indian Office work through the communities. Foster this relationship by:

1. Community Analysts in special situations responsible to the Superintendents for organizing a functioning program.

2. Such programs continued by: 1) Indian Leaders of the communities who are Council members, or 2) Existing qualified Indian Service personnel.

3. That all relationships between Indians and the Indian Office be carried through an individual to Community to Tribal Council to Superintendent system.

c. Tribal Councils be chosen in terms of contemporary functional practice, and assume responsibilities in greater proportion. Further, that those Councilmen be composed of natural leaders who be given adult education facilities. (See Educational Responsibilities, item 4)

1. Include in statutes of Indian crime "embezzlement" and necessary equivalents.

d. Tribal Council and Superintendent act as clearing house through which all divisional directives pass.

## III. Absentee Membership participation: *

a. Guidance agency and placement service assiting both Indians and whites.

b. Provisions for birth certificates.

c. Insure legal protection of rights for those absentee members who have moved away from tribal group.

## II. REQUIREMENTS FOR INDIAN ADMINISTRATION:

### A. Definition of an Indian:

1. Census definition

2. "Ward Indians"

a. Proposed limiting definition in light of wardship: 1) 25% or less "Indian Blood", and/or Tribal definitions, 2) cut from

-3-

U.S.I.S. **boles** those who fail to satisfy
this definition.

b. Explanation of wardship as protection to insure
right of:

1. Tax-free land, (see Bill S-1311)

2. Trusteeship or guardianship for incompetency.

3. Prohibition of receiving liquor through sale, gift, etc.

c. Explanation of wardship as **assistance**
in light of national F. S. A. and Soil
Conservation programs wherein land is made
available for **use**, not **speculation**; as principle,
not commodity.

3. <u>Indian Claims:</u>

1. Statement

2. Additional monies appropriated on this basis to recapture needed tribal lands.

C. Educational Responsibility:

Entirely compatible with a program which insures just
protection and necessary assistance to a people who are
approaching the goal of self sufficient participation
within the wider American society through their own way
of life is an educational program whose purpose is to
train Indians to solve their own problems. The effective-
ness of this program is based upon the ability of
educators to make the social adjustment of the Indian
comparable with his needs. The type varies with each
Indian group - each of which demands definition. Thus,
this education is to train people to live in their
society, and in turn ours.

1. Encorporated into the Ed. System an explanation of the
world in which the child lives. *

2. A curriculum which merges the academic with the practical, beginning at an early period and continuing throughout the secondary schools. *

3. That bilingual training be increased, and special
emphasis given to English mastery.

4. That Education be directed toward the development of leadership. Includes an Adult Educational program of inclusive character. *

5. That Indian professional training be increased as a
right of all citizens, but that professionally trained
Indians shall not be encouraged to assume administra-
tive positions within the U.S.I.S. *

6. That training in arts and trades for self support
be continued. *

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, INC.

381 Fourth Avenue .

New York City

FIRST MEETING OF THE LAW PROGRAM STUDY COMMITTEE--AUGUST 31, 1943

Present:

Mr. Jules Randal, Chairman pro tem

Dr. E. A. Hoebel

Dr. Harry Shapiro

Mrs. Edgar L. Rossin

Mr. Royal B. Hassrick, Research Secretary

Absent:

Mr. Bridgham Curtis

Mr. Charles deY. Elkus

Mr. Howard S. Gans

Mr. Oliver La Farge

Dr. Frank Lorimer

Judge Nathan Margold--Advisor

Mr. Felix Cohen--Advisor

LAW COMMITTEE PROGRAM

STATEMENT: On August 31, 1943 the Law Committee proposed to identify and consider the topics within the following outline. It will be noted that each item demands not only "legal" opinion, but requires consideration of their broader national, political and social implications. Therefore, each proposal is hereby appended for thorough investigation and discussion.

A. INDIAN CLAIMS:

The host of claims growing out of breached treaties and compacts of past years have not been settled. The amount of money is so great that the Bureau of the Budget might oppose settlement even if Congress set up an Indian Court of Claims.

(In the original Indian Reorganization Act, provision was made for an Indian Court of Claims, but was stricken out of the bill by Congress, due to the above and other considerations.)

The Administrative Committee recommends a study of this problem be made, looking towards pressing for proper legislation at the earliest possible moment.

B. DEFINITION OF AN INDIAN:

A definition of an "Indian" should be formulated and incorporated in Congressional bills, and work for legislation delimiting the type of Indian who is subject to government stewardship. Such "Definition" must be flexible; must involve both biological and sociological considerations.

C. LEGAL SANCTIONS FOR SELF-GOVERNMENT:

1. Experiments in Self-Government: In this case the Law Committee will work in an advisory capacity with the Social and Economic Rehabilitation Committee which is making a special investigation of this problem. (See Social and Economic Report, August 12, 1943, page 2, section C, attached.)

2. Elimination of Wardship: (This item is collated with and dependent upon the "definition"; see item B above.)

D. ELIMINATION OF INDIVIDUAL HEIRSHIPS:

Special consideration of Heirship or Allotted Land Problems: As above, the Law Committee will work in an advisory capacity with the Social and Economic Rehabilitation Committee which is making a special investigation of this problem. (See Social and Economic Report, August 12, 1943, page 2, section B-II.)

E. CONSIDERATION OF FEDERAL VS. STATE SUPERVISION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

Changes in Bennett letter:-

1. Page 1, 1st para. - sentence omitted, one added.

2. Page 2, "or more" added, 2d para. end of 6th sentence.
"We" changed to "I", 1st word, last para.

3. Page 5, 1st full para. - Citations changed.

4. Page 6, 1st para. - sentence added.

5. Page 9, 1st full para. - phrase added, 1st sentence.
2d full para. changed.

OK?

R.S.

PROGRAM

Opening Session

Thursday Evening, April 20th . . . . . 8:00 p.m.

Introduction: Dr. Mark A. Dawber, Chairman; Executive Secretary, Home Missions Council

Speaker

Eduard C. Lindeman, Director of the American Association on Indian Affairs

INTEGRATION OF INDIANS INTO AMERICAN LIFE

Committee Presentations

Friday Morning, April 21st . . . . . . 10:00 a.m.

"The Status of Indians"

Jay B. Nash, Presiding; Chairman of the Indian Committee of the American Civil Liberties Union

Speaker

Felix Cohen, Solicitor, Department of the Interior

NEXT STEPS FOR ACQUIRING FULL CITIZENSHIP FOR INDIANS

Friday Morning, April 21st . . . . . . 11:30 a.m.

Discussion

Jay B. Nash, Presiding

INDIAN STATUS IN AMERICAN LIFE

Friday Afternoon, April 21st . . . . . . 2:30 p.m.

"Problems Facing Indians in the Post-War World"

G. E. E. Lindquist, Presiding; Society for Propagating the Gospel among the Indians

Speakers

Gene Weltfish, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University

THE IMPORTANCE OF COOPERATIVES TO INDIANS IN THE POST-WAR WORLD

W. David Owl, Cattaraugus Reservation, New York

EFFECT UPON INDIANS OF PARTICIPATION IN THE WAR

Robert Chaat, President of the National Fellowship of Indian Workers

SOME PROBLEMS FACING INDIANS AS THEY RETURN TO THE RESERVATIONS

Friday Evening, April 21st . . . . . . 8:00 p.m.

"Legislative Interest"

Isaac Sutton, Presiding; Director of the Indian Rights Association

Speakers

John R. T. Reeves, Chief Counsel, United States Indian Service

RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DISPOSITION OF INDIAN CLAIMS

John G. Meem, Director of the New Mexico Association on Indian Affairs

SPECIFIC LEGISLATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INTEGRATION INTO AMERICAN LIFE

Saturday Morning, April 22nd . . . . . 10:00 a.m.

"Common Elements for Interest and Action"

Mark A. Dawber, Presiding; Executive Secretary, Home Missions Council

Summary

AMERICAN INDIANS ARE PROTECTING YOU ON ALL WAR FRONTS

Because . . .

Almost every Indian subject to Selective Service is with our Armed Forces—

The majority of them volunteered, and

They volunteered in a much higher proportion than white citizens.

Indian men not capable of active service labor in our war industries;

Indian women serve as nurses and in the war factories;

Indian men and women buy millions of War Bonds;

Contribute heavily to War Relief Funds; and

Share with their fellow citizens the losses of battle.

but . . .

AMERICAN INDIANS NEED YOUR PROTECTION

To prevent

The loss of their lands,

The exploitation of the economic productions, and

The liquidation of wise Federal controls developed to protect their minority rights.

Therefore . . .

A POST-WAR PLANNING CONFERENCE ON

INDIAN AFFAIRS is being called to:

Bring about fuller understanding of the problems Indians will face in the Post-War World, and

To consider ways and means of giving Indians the protection they need.

Post-War Planning
Conference
on
Indian Affairs

April 20th through April 22nd, 1944

SPONSORS

INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION
HOME MISSIONS COUNCIL OF NORTH AMERICA
AMERICAN ASSOCIATION ON INDIAN AFFAIRS

Meetings to be held at
Russell Sage Foundation — East Hall
130 East 22nd Street
New York, N. Y.

PROGRAM

Opening Session

Thursday Evening, April 20th . . . . . . 8:00 p.m.

Speaker

Committee Presentations

Friday Morning, April 21st . . . . . . . 10:00 a.m.

"The Status of Indians"

Speaker

Friday Morning, April 21st . . . . . . . 11:30 a.m.

Discussion

Jay B. Nash, Presiding

Friday Afternoon, April 21st . . . . . . . 2:30 p.m.

Speakers

Gene Welffish, Department of Anthropology, Columbia University

Friday Evening, April 21st . . . . . . . . 8:00 p.m.

"Legislative Interest"

Speakers

Saturday Morning, April 22nd . . . . . . 10:00 a.m.

Summary

Because . . .

but . . .

To prevent

The loss of their lands,

Therefore . . .

# 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