Viewing page 78 of 113

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

Page 2
[[comments on right upper side of page]] second subsidizing power is in the Congress to ?? etc under their general power to ?? Indian efforts

legally Congress could usurp this power but [[/comments on right upper side of page]]


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.

[[comment on left side]] not strong enough [[/comments on left side]]

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in the middle paragraph on page 6, that the authority of an Indian tribe to adopt a form of Government be "repealed" in case of "a demonstrated unwillingness or inability of an individual group to function in a reaonably satisfactory manner," is confused and ambiguous. Repeal of the Indian Reorganisation 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 If on the other hand, the recommendation is to the effect that the consititution of an Indian tribe might be repealed by an Act of Congress, it is [[strikethrough]] indeed [[/strikethrough]] a strange proposal to [[strikethrough]] come [[/strikethrough]] come from a body of men dedicated to a ddemocratic form of government. [[strikethrough]]These t [[/strikethrough]]Tribal constitutions under the Indian Reorganisation 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.

Transcription Notes:
---------- Reopened for Editing 2023-11-09 20:23:52