CROW INDIANS OF MONTANA

HOUSE OF REPRESONTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,

Washington, D. C., January 21, 1926. The committee this day met, Hon. Scott Leavitt (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

There is a delegation of Indians here from the Crow Tribe, of Montana. We had hoped that the bill amending several sections of the act approved June 4, 1920, would be ready for presentation to-day, but there has been some delay.

A conference was held yesterday in which Senator Walsh took part, and the delegation has been in touch with the office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. They have been here several days, and the matters are now in shape to be presented to the committee and to the Congress. As the members of this delegation wish to return home I have asked them to present their wishes to the committee this morning, giving them half an hour of time before we take up the different bills which are before the committee for consideration. I think they have selected three men to represent the delegation. Who was to speak first?

Mr. HILL. What bill are you talking about, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. The bill has not been introduced. This has to do with some changes in the Crow bill, and I have asked them to present their case in a general way, in regard to the necessity for the proposed amendments so that the members of the committee will have some knowledge of the matter when it is taken up at our next regular meeting.

Mr. FREAR. Are they in favor of it or against it? I understand they will state the case.

The CHAIRMAN. They will state their case this morning, and the reasons why they want the Crow bill amended. Mr. Wheelock, an attorney who represents the Indians, is here.

Mr. HASTINGS. Is this a jurisdictional bill or an allotment bill? The CHAIRMAN. It was a matter of general legislation passed in 1920, known as the Crow allotment bill.

STATEMENT OF DENNISON WHEELOCK

Mr. WHEELOCK. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I appear here simply as a friend of these boys, with many of whom I went to school at Carlisle, and I have been trying while they are here to work out some amendments which will be satisfactory to them. I do not want to take the time of the committee any more than to state the fact that they want changes made in the act of June, 1920, and to introduce the speakers who will support that amendment.

Taking section 1, which is the part that allots the land to the Crow Indians in severalty and refers to the act of 1887 as the law under which they are to be guided, they want an amendment so that there will be no further question as to the jurisdiction of the Federal courts over the Indians. They are in the State courts, of course, in criminal matters. You will remember the act originally turned the Indians over to the State courts. In 1906, Commissioner Burke then being in Congress, they had that law amended so that the jurisdiction of the Federal courts was exclusive until issuance of patent in fee. There seems to be some controversy up in Montana as to the effect of this special bill affecting the original bill of 1887, without the words "as amended." Now, Senator Walsh has promised these men that he would see that the change is made, that the proper language will be inserted.

I think they have selected Mr. Harry Whiteman, who is here, to speak on that particular feature and explain why that change is necessary.

Mr. FREAR. Will you explain to us what jurisdiction is referred to? We have no bill, we have nothing before us, and we are just trying to get hold of this situation.

Mr. WHEELOCK. In the original act of 1887, which allotted lands, the State courts were vested with the jurisdiction, both civil and criminal, over the allotted lands. In 1906 that was amended so that the allottees did not come under the jurisdiction of the State courts until after the issuance of patent. In the other it was a part of the condition of the allotment. You see, there was 25 years, possibly, there before the issuance of patent in fee.

Now, they want this specified, that this amendment shall be applicable to the Crows. The local authorities of Montana contend that the amendment is not applicable under the words of this Crow bill.

I will now ask Mr. Whiteman to speak.

STATEMENT OF HARRY WHITEMAN

Mr. WHITEMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I do not know that I could say anything more in addition to what has already been said regarding the proposed amendment. Our idea is that the addition of that word is simply to clarify matters back there. Some of the boys have been charged with certain crimes, and because of that language there, "the force and legal effect of this shall be as those prescribed by the general allotment act of 1887," the construction placed upon that language by the county attorneys is to this effect, I believe. Under the old allotment act it made the Indians subject to the State criminal and civil laws of the territory where they resided. The question of jurisdiction has been raised by the attorneys defending these boys. That language is used by the county attorneys, saying that the State courts. did have jurisdiction over the Indians, because the general allotment act provided that they were subject both to the State criminal and civil laws; but I believe the policy in the past of the Government is to try the Indians in the Federal court.

Mr. WILLIAMSON. Let me see if I understand this. The language you want is a change whereby Federal courts will have exclusive