Viewing page 24 of 26

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

     In the view of the fact that some of the signers of this report exhibited intelligent concern for their Indian constituents and showed respect for the principle of fair dealing, we find it hard to believe that these men could have read the report on which their names appear. We say this because the matter contained in this report reveals profound ignorance of Indian issues, while the recommendations offered in the report, if followed, would result in violations of fair play to which Indians are entitled.

     These are unkind charges to lay against any group, in Congress or elsewhere, and the statements are made reluctantly. The Subcommittee's report assumes there is no good faith, or logic, or wisdom in any spokesmen -- Indian or non-Indian -- who may have differed with the views expressed in this report. This leaves no room for charitableness.

     With regard to the charge of ignorance, the report speaks for itself. The following are cited:

     1) In the matter of tribal membership, referred to in the second paragraph of page 2 of the report, Indian tribes were deciding membership questions long before the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 and the adoption of written constitutions under that Act,. The power to make such determinations is inherent in an Indian tribe and was not delegated by the Congress to the tribes, as the report asserts.

     It is not clear who is being slurred by the statement that "certain elements" manipulate tribal rolls to suit themselves, but it is a fact, easily verified, that persons of little or no Indian blood were placed on tribal rolls by Government officials on many occasions prior to 1934. Any fair appraisal of the enrollment procedures followed by tribes since 1934 would certainly reveal a high standard of official conduct.

     2) The recommendation in the middle paragraph on page 6, that the authority of an Indian tribe to adopt a form of Government be "repealed" in case of "a demonstrated unwillingness or inability of an individual group to function in a reasonably satisfactory manner," is confused and ambiguous. Repeal of the Indian Reorganization Act, if that is what is intended, would not repeal the authority of an Indian tribe to govern itself either under a written constitution or in accordance with unwritten customary law. If on the other hand, the recommendation is to the effect that the constitution of an Indian tribe might be repealed by an Act of Congress, it is a very strange proposal to come from a body of men dedicated to a democratic form of government. Tribal constitutions under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 were adopted by a majority vote of the members of the tribe, and are open to amendment and to revocation by a vote of the same members, not by an Act of Congress.

     3.  The reference to the Handbook of Federal Indian Law in the following paragraph on the same page is silent on the Revised Edition of that Handbook which appeared in 1943. The intention here appears to be to stress the out-modedness of a book published in 1940, and the fact that the book was later revised would have minimized this point. 

--380--