Mr. STIGLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. FLANERY. And section 2 is broad language.

Governor MAYTUBBY. I have had no opportunity to study any of those amendments. I have just heard the testimony.

Mr. STIGLER. Thank you.

We will now hear from Mr. Niebell.

STATEMENT OF PAUL M. NIEBELL, WASHINGTON, D. C., REPRESENTING THE CREEK INDIAN TRIBE

Mr. NIEBELL. Mr. Chairman, I am Paul M. Niebell, an attorney, of Washington, D. C., with offices at 1108 Sixteenth Street NW., and I represent the Creek Indian Tribe of the State of Oklahoma. They have asked me to look into this particular legislation and make recommendations on it.

There is a situation here that developed that does need clarifying. However, the Indians feel that they should be protected against cases where there might be fraud, and I understand that the proposed amendment of the Department of the Interior would take care of that situation.

Mr. STIGLER. That is right.

Mr. NIEBELL. And with that exception, I believe that they would not have any objection to the particular legislation.

Mr. STIGLER. Thank you, Mr. Niebell.

Are there any further questions? Does any one else wish to speak? We will now hear from Mr. Ben Dwight, representing the Choctaw Nation.

STATEMENT OF BEN DWIGHT, REPRESENTING THE

CHOCTAW NATION

Mr. DWIGHT. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I am the attorney for the Choctaw Nation. I do not have any authority to represent any individual members of the tribe, and neither does it come within my purview in my duties as general counsel for the nation; but as an individual I think I might well make a short state

ment.

I was deeply impressed with what Senator Gore had to say about the reciprocal morality on both sides. I hope that we have really got to a state where that has become a fact. At least at this point it is not my prerogative to get very deep into that, but to accept it as it is.

In view of that general premise I think I might express the hope and wish that legislation will come out of this deliberation in keeping with an agreement between the proponents of this legislation and the Department.

In general I would say this: Any situation where there is a great group of titles that are unstable-Indian titles particularly-it is bound to have an adverse effect upon the progress of the Indians of the State of Oklahoma; and if this validating legislation can remedy that situation, I think it will have a very wholesome effect upon social and economic continued progress of the Indians in the State; provided, as it has been stated by representatives of the other Indian tribes here,

70598-45-6

that it does not let the bars down and open the gates to fraud. I think that point has been well taken and I believe that the remedy will be adequately inserted in this legislation to take care of that.

I am not familiar with the statistical background of the rights of the Indians or the white people in the basis of this bill, but I do understand from statements that were made here yesterday that some Indians for whom the Department has invested money will be in the same situation that some white people will be; and, on the whole, it strikes me that this committee and the departmental representatives here are proceeding analytically and upon a fair basis and I do hope that the results of these hearings will work to the benefit and best interests of both the whites and the Indians in Oklahoma, in order that we can circumvent a number of the general obstacles that work in a way to thwart the continued progress of the Indians in that section.

Mr. MURDOCK. May I ask the witness one question?

Mr. STIGLER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MURDOCK. You heard the proposed amendments. Do they seem to safeguard the Indians against fraud sufficiently?

Mr. DWIGHT. I think that is quite true. I heard them read and I saw a copy, and in my judgment that is adequate along that particular line.

Mr. SEMPLE. Mr. Dwight, from the statement that you have made I assume you would recommend the passage of this bill as it has been redrafted by the Department.

Mr. DWIGHT. That is right; and I am talking also generally with reference to the different bills that are, as I understand them, in the nature of curative or validating legislation.

Mr. STIGLER. Are there any further witnesses who wish to make statements?

H. R. 1199

Mr. STIGLER. Now we will take up H. R. 1199, which is a bill to amend the act entitled, "An act relative to restrictions applicable to Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma," approved January 27, 1933.

my

Mr. Semple, do you care to make a statement?

Mr. SEMPLE. Just for the record I will say very briefly, because of extended discussion a discussion at this time is wholly unnecessary. This bill seeks to remedy the situation that was brought about by the decision of the Circuit Court of Appeals in the Tenth Circuit in the case of Murray v. Ned, reported in 1935 Federal (second) at page 407, where the court held that purchases lands acquired by an Indian of full blood with unrestricted funds are restricted in his own hands and in the hands of full-blood heirs. That case was decided by the Circuit Court of Appeals on June 2, 1943.

Here is really where proper remedial legislation is necessary. In this case a full-blood Choctaw Indian living down in Marshall County had his own allotment of land, which, of course, was restricted. He had his inherited lands, inherited from members of his family; which of course, were under the qualified restrictions that conveyances must be approved. He had found a tract of land that he had bought with his own money. In other words, it hinges upon restrictions

being upon this land that the Indian had acquired from his own funds, privately without governmental supervision and wholly without Federal regulation, the restriction never having been on the land.

Contrary to what our lawyers thought to be the law, Judge Rice of the circuit court of appeals sustained the Government's contention. that this 40 acres of purchased land, having been purchased by a full-blood Choctaw Indian and having passed from him to his fullblood heirs, was restricted just the same as his original allotment had been restricted.

That was all unheard of and was a blow to the lawyers and the courts and everybody else.

Mr. SCHWABE. Without any indication or notice whatever,

Mr. SEMPLE. Yes, sir. In other words this Indian could have gone across the Red River and bought 40 acres in Grayson County, Tex., and under this it would have been restricted; whereas the whole scheme of the allotment built-up, in progressive stages under acts of Congress, relates to the individual allotment. Here he bought land with his own money without Government restrictions whatever, and the Government took the position that the land was restricted and the Supreme Court of the United States denied a writ of certiorari. When the case was argued this illustration was given, to one of the members of the court, of Alfred Wade who is a very rich Indian. Suppose he goes over in Fannin County and buys 160 acres of land over there and uses money he earned out of his bank holdings-he was a president of a bank. When asked about that, the judge said that land was restricted under this act. He said; "What you fellows have got to do is get Congress to amend or remedy this law. This law makes that land restricted."

I said: "Congress had no idea of putting that restriction; they discredited that in the hearings on the 1933 act." But the court in deciding the case said that land was restricted. I understand the Department agrees that it should be corrected.

Mr. GALLAGHER. That only takes care of that kind of cases.
Mr. SEMPLE. Yes; that is right.

Mr. STIGLER. The Department in their suggested substitute takes care of this bill in section 2, which substitute bill heretofore has been incorporated in the record.

Mr. STIGLER. Is there any further comment by anyone?

Senator GORE. I might cite a case in regard to Osage County where a law similar to that described by Mr. Semple was enacted that property bought with Indian money was restricted. It turned out. when they began to apply the law that a number of the leading business houses in Tulsa, Okla., had been bought by Indians from Indians with Indian money; and it lifted those buildings off the tax rolls and created quite a shock to the finances of Osage County. It took several million dollars of property off the tax rolls, for nobody had anticipated that. So Congress immediately enacted remedial legislation and restored it to its former status, because, under that law as originally passed as has been mentioned many times, the company controlled by Osage money might have bought the Empire State Building in New York City and since that money would have been restricted, that would have taken it off the New York tax rolls. So Congress immediately repealed that legislation as soon as it was called to its attention.

Mr. DISNEY. And Congress did it in a hurry.

Mr. STIGLER. We will now turn to the consideration of the Indian Claims Commission bills-H. R. 1198 and H. R. 1341-with the understanding that later I expect to incorporate these three bills into one and reintroduce the same in the House as one bill, at which time I desire to insert at this point a copy of the bill I introduce. (The bill referred to, H. R. 2640, is as follows:)

[H. R. 2640, 79th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To validate titles to certain lands conveyed by Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes and to amend the Act entitled "An Act relative to restrictions applicable to Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma", approved January 27, 1933, and to validate State court judgments in Oklahoma and judgments of the United States District Courts of the State of Oklahoma

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no conveyance made by an Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes on or after April 26, 1931, and prior to the date of enactment of this Act, of lands purchased prior to April 26, 1931, for the use and benefit of such Indian with funds derived from the sale of, or as income from, restricted allotted lands and conveyed to him by deed containing restrictions on alienation without the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior prior to April 26, 1931, shall be invalid because such conveyance was made without the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That all conveyances made after the date of the enactment of this Act must have the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 2. That nothing contained in the Act of January 27, 1933 (47 Stat. 777), shall be construed to impose restrictions on the alienation of lands or interests in lands acquired by inheritance, devise, or in any other manner, by Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes, where such lands, or interest therein, were not restricted against alienation at the time of acquisition, and all conveyances executed by Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes after January 27, 1933, and before the date of approval of this section, of lands, or interests in lands, which, at the time of acquisition by them, were free from restrictions, are hereby confirmed and declared to be valid, irrespective of whether such conveyances were or were not approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or by any county court of the State of Oklahoma: Provided, That if any such conveyances are subject to attack upon grounds other than the insufficiency of approval or lack of approval such conveyances shall not be affected by this section: Provided further, That the provisions of this section shall not be construed to validate or confirm any conveyance made in violation of restrictions recited in any deed to lands purchased with the restricted or trust funds belonging to any Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes.

SEC. 3. That no order, judgment, or decree in partition made, entered, or rendered subsequent to the effective date of the Act of June 14, 1918 (40 Stat. 606), and prior to the effective date of this Act, and involving inherited lands of enrolled and unenrolled members of the Five Civilized Tribes, shall be held null, void, invalid, or inoperative, nor shall any conveyance of any land pursuant to such order, judgment, or decree be held null, void, invalid, or inoperative because the United States was not a party to such order, judgment, or decree, or to any of the proceedings in connection therwith, or because the United States, its agents, or officers, or any of them, was not served with any notice or process in connection therewith, and all such orders, judgments, decrees, and conveyances are hereby confirmed, approved, and declared valid.

[CLERK'S NOTE.-Subsequent to the time of the introduction of the above bill, H. R. 2640, the full Committee on Indian Affairs met and considered the bill. As it still did not meet with the approval of the entire committee, rather than report out the bill amended, it was decided that a new bill be drawn up which would be agreeable to everyone and that this bill be reported out in lieu. Accordingly, a new bill was drawn up, embodying the suggested amendments, and was introduced and reported out by Mr. Stigler, which bill has the unanimous approval of the Committee on Indian Affairs.]

(The bill referred to, H. R. 2754, and the report on the bill, Rept. No. 382, follow:)

[H. R. 2754, 79th Cong., 1st sess.]

A BILL To validate titles to certain lands conveyed by Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes and to amend the Act entitled "An Act relative to restrictions applicable to Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma", approved January 27, 1933, and to validate State court judgments in Oklahoma and judgments of the United States District Courts of the State of Oklahoma

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That no conveyance made by an Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes on or after April 26, 1931, and prior to the date of enactment of this Act, of lands purchased, prior to April 26, 1931, for the use and benefit of such Indian with funds derived from the sale of, or as income from, restricted allotted lands and conveyed to him by deed containing restrictions on alienation without the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior prior to April 26, 1931, shall be invalid because such conveyance was made without the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided, That all conveyances made after the date of the enactment of this Act must have the consent and approval of the Secretary of the Interior: Provided further, That if any such conveyances are subject to attack upon grounds other than the insufficiency of approval or lack of approval such conveyances shall not be affected by this section.

SEC. 2. That nothing contained in the Act of January 27, 1933 (47 Stat. 777), shall be construed to impose restrictions on the alienation of lands or interests in lands acquired by inheritance, device, or in any other manner, by Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes, where such lands, or interest therein, were not restricted against alienation at the time of acquisition, and all conveyances executed by Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes after January 27, 1933, and before the date of approval of this section, of lands, or interests in lands, which, at the time of acquisition by them, were free from restrictions, are hereby confirmed and declared to be valid, irrespective of whether such conveyances were or were not approved by the Secretary of the Interior, or by any county court of the State of Oklahoma: Provided, That if any such conveyances are subject to attack upon grounds other than the insufficiency of approval or lack of approval such conveyances shall not be affected by this section: Provided further, That the provisions of this section shall not be construed to validate or confirm any conveyance made in violation of restrictions recited in any deed to lands purchased with the restricted or trust funds belonging to any Indian of the Five Civilized Tribes.

SEC. 3. That no order, judgment, or decree in partition made, entered, or rendered subsequent to the effective date of the Act of June 14, 1918 (40 Stat. 606), and prior to the effective date of this Act, and involving inherited lands of enrolled and unenrolled members of the Five Civilized Tribes, shall be held null, void, invalid, or inoperative, nor shall any conveyance of any land pursuant to such order, judgment, or decree be held null, void, invalid, or inoperative because the United States was not a party to such order, judgment, or decree, or to any of the proceedings in connection therewith, or because the United States, its agents, or officers, or any of them, was not served with any notice or process in connection therewith, and all such orders, judgments, decrees, and conveyances, which are subject to attack solely by reason of any of the infirmities enumerated by this section, are hereby confirmed, approved, and declared valid.

SEC. 4. If any provision of this Act or the application of such provision to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Act and the applicability of such provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

[H. Rept. No. 382, 79th Cong., 1st sess.]

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 2754) to validate titles to certain lands conveyed by Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes and to amend the act entitled "An Act relative to restrictions applicable to Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes of Oklahoma," approved January 27, 1933, and to validate State court judgments in Oklahoma and judgments of the United States District Courts of the State of Oklahoma, having considered the same, report favorably thereon without amendment and recommend that the bill do pass.

On March 1 and 2, 1945, your committee held hearings on the following three bills: H. R. 1197, H. R. 1199, and H. R. 1200. Both the Department of the Interior and witnesses from Oklahoma were heard.