Слике страница

All Europe la anxious about security nml disarmament. They feel security to be a problem in a way wtilcli we never have, because hostile armies have been tramping over their territory time and again for a thousand years. They are anxious to disarm; they have largely disarmed. Germany has no army; England has practically none; France has only 45 per cent of what it had in 1914. and it has reduced its term of service from three years to one. Smaller nations, excepting the new ones in eastern Europe, are In the snme category. But they are all anxious about security. How shall that best be gained?

M. Briand Is a great psychologist as well as a groat statesman; and you will remember perhaps that on the Oth day of last April, the tenth anniversary of the entry of our Government into the Great War, he publicly made to our people a proposal by summoning the Associated Press representatives !n Paris and reading to them a formal statement, not to the Government, but to the American people, that France was ready to join with us in renouncing war an an Instrument of public policy. The Congress was not in session. No official answer was made or perhaps could have been made. The press of the country spoke In warm commendation; organized bodies of all sorts and kinds applauded this suggestion. And now Senator Capper, of Kansas, baa given U3 an opportunity to make rep!}' in terms so simple, so direct, Bo convincing, that a child cnn understand, and without in any way running counter to any of our prejudices or traditions, or raising any of those disputed questions which brought us to grief in the summer of 1010. Senator Capper has introduced into the Senate of the United States a joint resolution declaratory of puldic policy. This is not a law in the sens;' of a statute. Impinging and Immediately binding upon our citizenship: It Is a declaration of policy like the Declaration of Independence Itself. And it Is simple, short, and direct. I see that it is set forth on the paper which has been placed in the hands of those who are present here to-day. Let me say a few words about It.

This declaration of policy consists of three parts: "By treaty with France and other like-minded nations formally to renounce war as an Instrument of public policy and to adjust and settle its International dinputc-s by mediation, arbitration, and conciliation "; "By treaty with France" means the acceptance, open and public and avowed, of M. Hriaud's invitation. "Other like-minded nations" means that we are ready to do tbe same thing with any nation that will take the same position, and I violate no confidence in saying that Great Britain. Germany. Italy, and Japan are ready to-morrow to sign such an agreement with us if we arc ready to make it!

What possible objection can there be to that? We renounce war as an instrument of policy. Senator Cafpbh does not say there will never be any war. That would be foolish. We renounce It as an instrument of policy when we sit down with France and other like-minded nations in a dispute over a tariff; over, if you please, a colony; over any of the things which arise in the dally life of nations. We do not think of war; we do not have It In the back of our heads. We do not have any Army or Navy policy based upon war with that nation. We are not thinking about security In our relations to France and other like-minded nations, still less are we thinking in terms of war.

We like-minded people, civilized on a like plane, have come to a decision that we can settle our differences like honorable gentlemen, face to face: and if the solution is not satisfactory, then by that resort to judicial process which lies at the very basis of our orderly civilization. All that we ask is that wu shall treat France and Great Britain and Germany and Italy and Japan precisely as for 113 years we have treated our neighbor the Dominion of Canada.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what possible objection can there he to that? I confess ray ingenuity was not adequate to suggest any. But two have been suggested from Washington—which Is where I should expect objections to come from. [Laughter.]

It is urged that Inasmuch as the Congress has the power to declare war, the Congress can not make such a declaration as this because It would limit Its constitutional authority to declare war. [Laughter.] Now I submit that argument as simply as I can. In order that you may get its full effect: Because the Congress of the United States has power to declare war, It is constitutionally unable to do anything to promote peace! [Laughter.] Surely the great purposes of the American people have some higher limits than mere war.

Why, Mr. Chairman, when that provision was written Into the Constitution we had already told three nations that we were not going to go to war. We had already told them tlu's, and the very same sentence which says Congress shall have the power to declare war also says that It shall have the power to issue letters of marque and reprisal, that is, to send out privateers to prey on the sea-borne commerce of the world; but do they dare do It? Would they ever dream of doing it? Did not all tbe civilized powers except ourselves join 70 years ago in the Declaration oC Paris whereby privateering was abolished, and did not we ourselves accept that principle at the time of the Spanish War? What then, becomes of the argument? It Is really too silly for words—that because tile Congress has the power to declare war it can do nothing of this kind or really of any other kind, to promote peace! May that argument rest In peace-! [Laughter.]

Then it has been suggested by a legalistically minded person that one Congress cnn not bind another Congress. Therefore, If the Seven

tieth Congress should adopt the Capper resolution, the Seventy-first Congress might repeal it. That is important If true, because logically that would affect every statute passed by any legislative body in the land. Why pass any law, or make any declaration, because the neit session of the same body can repeal or amend It?

Gentlemen, the fact of tile matter is this: The Congress of the United States is supposed to represent the American public opinion. If American public opinion, as I believe it does, supports and demands this declaration of policy by this Government, then it holds until American public opinion changes. When American public opinion changes, we shall go to war with somebody, and then any of our brethren who are historically minded may rise in their places and ask what we said on the platform and in the press on August 4. 1014. when the German Government said that the treaty to preserve the neutrality of Belgium was "a scrap of paper." What is sauce for the goose Is sauce for the gander; we too can treat a treaty as "a scrap of paper," If we will.

But my faith in the American people leads me to a different conclusion. My faith in the American people leads me to believe that if conscientiously and carefully, with their eyes open, they take this very practical step with respect to nations on the same plane with ourselves which are responsible and mean to keep their word, that our word will be kept, and that It will be a long, long time before any war breaks out between the nations that join in making this declaration of renunciation in 1027. [ Applause.]

Then the Capper resolution defines an aggressor nation, and thnt, Mr. Chairman. Is one of the most Important steps to be taken in walking the path to peace. Dp to this time there has never been an aggressor nation. Any nation which began war always did It in self-<Iefense: It took the initiative because somebody else was going to attack it; and It Is a military maxim that the best defense is offense—so all wars have been defensive wars. They are arguing now In the magazines and the press, and It is perfectly safe prediction they will still be arguing a hundred years from now, as to who was responsible for the war of 1014. I do not think they have mentioned the United States yet. but we may be drawn into the controversy as the years pass. But here Is a definition of an aggressor nation which is so simple, so easy to understand, and so practical that it tells its own story. No more formal declaration is needed than to accept the definition of an aggressor nation as one which having agreed to submit International differences to conciliation, arbitration or judicial settlement begins hostilities without having done so. If the nation has agreed to submit its differences, or any of them, and does not keep its word, but begins an attack on its neighbor without having submitted these differences to those agencies, it automatically becomes an aggressor. Somebody quickly tells us that foreign offices an; so clever that they can state their case In such a way as to make It almost impossible to determine whether they had agreed to submit an issue to conciliation, arbitration, or judicial settlement or not. But if a nation has made an all-inclusive committal, well and good. If it has made a committal such as we used to make, excluding certain things, well and good. It Is only a question of keeping its word, whatever the terms. Having promised, you keep your word, or become an aggressor nation. That has been put in the Locarno conventions, and you must remember thnt it is now the law of Kurope for till nations west of the Vistula. They have accepted that definition, and we remain, together with Japan, the important powers that are still to declare ourselves satisfied with it.

What harm does It do to be an aggressor nation? In the first place, and most important, it would bring down upon such nation the moral opprobrium of the civilized world. Some practical gentlemen think that moral opprobrium does not matter. Mr, Chairman, It is more powerful in this world of ours than any other single force. There is no nation— I care not what—that could break its word and stand up in the face of the public opinion of these advanced nations without being broken with shame and self-contempt and self-humiliation.

It Is a long generation since Bismarck used hU famous phrase of which we heard so much during the late war. He said, speaking to the Reichstag in about 1878, "In the next war, it will be the imponderables that count," not the things you see and weigh and measure, but tbe Imponderables, tbe judgments of men, the feelings of men, the approval and disapproval of men. And, Mr. Chairman, If there is any thing more certain than another, it is that the prediction of Bismarck was fulfilled and Iliat the last war was won by the weight of imponderables. And they will win every time in a world like ours I It is the imponderables that count! Let us see the nation—that Is, of the uatious that arc advanced, civilized, cultivated, and with grand traditions—that will stand up even before its own public opinion and break its word to the world and so become nn aggressor nation.

Then the Capper resolution contains another paragraph: "By treaty with France and other like-minded nations to declare that the nationals of the contracting governments should not bo protected by their governments in giving aid and comfort to an aggressor nation." That is also covered by Congressman Hrirrox's proposed resolution, which is In tbe form of a statute, which would be an appropriate statute to be adopted following the adoption of the Capper resolution declaring public policy.

What that means Is this, that If there is an aggressive war we are not going to be drawn into a position of protecting our nationals who through greed for gain want to help the aggressor.

A gentleman recently said to me in Washington: "Do you know that if that had been our policy In 1914, we should have lost $700,Oflfl.flOO worth of business?" Then I replied, "Do I understand that $700,000,000 Is your price?" How much do you lose or gain before you do an aggressive thing, and engage in war, or whatever you have agreed to refrain from doing?

Mr. Chairman, that is nil there is to the Capper Joint resolution. Senator Capper said when he gave it to the public that he proposed to test the sincerity of the American people in their talk about peace. You can not get a word In favor of war out of any public man; but you can get very few acts in favor of peace. Talk, rhetoric, ponderous declarations of intentions and belief and faith and high purpose and all the rest of it, but acts—not if they can help it!

M. Briand is a man who has borne the burden and the heat of the day, who has taken his political life in his hands, but who when the curtain falls will be seen to have been the chief factor in the promotion of peace in our generation. lie holds out his hand to America and says, "Can not you who away back in 1778 made this fine declaration with us—can you not now in 1927 under these circumstances make It again?"

T>o that and let us see a great war break out! When all those notions, the United States, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Great Britain, accept this principle—and most of the others have accepted it at Locarno—how Is an aggressor going to carry on a war? Where is it going to get Its munitions? Where Is it going to get its food supplies? Where is it going to get its raw material? And war would have to be something very different from that through which we have Just come, If these nations make this declaration and keep their word.

Here, Mr. Chairman, is the first chance that has come to us since the war to do, without partisanship, without personal conflict, an act by way of a declaration of policy which is in accord with all our professions, which is sustained by all our precedents, and which If done puts us back where we belong, without any political complications whatever, as leaders in the great procession along the path of peace.

Read, if you will, John May's instructions to our delegation to the First Hague Conference, In 1899, the chairman of our delegation being Andrew D. White, of New York. Read, If you will, the still more important instructions written by Elihu Root to our delegation to the Second Hague Conference, in 1007, of which the chairman was Joseph H. Choate, of New York. Read the statute of the United Stales passed by the Congress in August, 1916, making It a law of this country that we shall settle our disputes In this way; and then tell me what objection there can possibly be to this askcd-for declaration, at this psychological moment, when the world is waiting to know where we stand in fact, and not merely in rhetoric. What objection can there be?

Kvery American, In my judgment, who cares for his country's fame and reputation and influence, should make his Senators and Representatives now understand that this Capper joint resolution is sustained by the overwhelming body of public opinion, and that If and when adopted American public opinion proposes to see that we keep our word.


(A statement prepared by Nicholas Murray Butler for the annual meeting of the trustees of the Carnegie Endowment f->r International Peace at Washington, D. C., May 10, 1928)

Even the most cynical and skeptical observer of movements of public opinion must grant that there is a strong and steady tendency forward to the upbuilding of those institutions of international conference, international association, and international cooperation that Will steadily lessen the danger of resort to international war, at least on any such world wide scale as wiis the case In 1914-1918. It Is becoming increasingly plain that almost everywhere, particularly among the more powerful nations, public opinion on this [joint Is In advance of the action and formal commitments of their governments. This is strikingly true In the United States and it appears to be time in Great Britain, in France, and In Italy. Both in Germany and in Japan ruling public opinion and governmental policy are more closely in harmony, and each is marked by a strong, peace-loving and peacebuilillug tendency.

It must not be forgotten that Germany is wholly disarmed both on land and on sen, that Great Britain has no army of any consequence, that the United States has none, and that France has greatly reduced 1Mb tlie period of compulsory military service and the number of men with the colors. Even In the newer eountiios of eastern and southeastern Europe, where armies of considerable si/e have appeared to be a sort of necessary inheritance, public opinion Is beginning very strongly to question both the wisdom and the cost of these unnecessary Iniurics. If a reasonable way were found to doal with the situation that exists In Rus-ia, a major portion of the disquiet In eastern and southeastern Europe would quickly disappear. Such a way would be

found, undoubtedly, and that speedily, If the present rulers of Russia would refrain from organizing and stimulating antigovernmental propaganda In other countries. In view of our established political practice, we could hardly question the right of Russia to govern itself as it will, provided It surrenders its notion of a world-wide economic and political revolution, to be conducted from Moscow.

Of course, the Scandinavian countries are committed to the most advanced forms of peaceful cooperation. The Latin American countries, particularly those on the South American Continent, arc steadily moving in the same direction. Japan has since the Great War completely changed its point of view in looking out over the rest of the world and can be counted upon to cooperate to the full In any movement to advance international peace.

It is a paradox but a truth that, despite the overwhelming sentiment of the people of the United States, the Government of the United States has for some years past been a chief obstacle to every movement to make war unlikely and to advance the cause of international peace. Our public officials, and particularly our Senators, arc greatly in love with formulas, declarations, and rhetorical flourishes, but when they come to close quarters with practical action they are so concerned with exceptions, reservations, and provisos that their nominally good intentions disappear In the smoke of unreality.

But literally enormous progress has Just now been made through the recent action of the Department of State, taken after Informal conferences with members of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. What has happened in this respect since April 6. 1927, when M. Briand first made his public appeal to the people of the United States to join France In the renunciation of war as an instrument of public policy Is one mure Illustration of the power of public opinion. For months there was no governmental recognition of any kind of M. Brill nil's epoch-making appeal. It soon became evident, however, that American public opinion was deeply couc< rned over this matter and would hold to strict accountability any administration which failed to move quickly and practically in the direction of such policies as would diminish the likelihood of international war. The correspondence which followed is now a matter of public knowledge, and it is justifiable to hope that before many months have passed there may be formal agreement on the part of the United States, France, Great Britain. Germany, Italy, and Japan to renounce war as an Instrument of public policy in their dealings with each other. When this action shall have been taken the liberal conviction and sentiment of the world may well cry Hallelujah!

It Is most unfortunate that the phrase "outlawry of war" has been applied to the proposals now pending. Renunciation of war as a public policy by governments which have it in their power to declare war Is one thing, and a very practicable thing. On the other hand, to oullaw war—meaning to pass a resolution declaring It a crime and not to be countenanced—is a mere empty gesture and can have no real significance whatever. What Is now proposed is, fortunately, the renunciation of war as an Instrument of public policy.

There are several other things which the Government of the United States may do and should do in order to resume our traditional national policy and to satisfy enlightened and progressive public opinion:

In the first place, we should bring to an end the preposterous agitation that has existed heretofore, both here and In Great Britain, for increased naval armaments, by leading the way In a revision of the laws of neutrality as these affect sen-borne commerce. The only possible excuse that Is left for a huge naval expenditure Is that r,f protecting a nation's commerce in time of war. It Is no longer a difficult matter to protect this commerce by law, thereby making unnecessary battleships, submnrlnes, destroyers, and all their Ilk, and enabling us to confine our naval vessels to cruisers to be used for police purposes, and which may truly be described as a navy of peace. All the- militaristic naval gentlemen and all the representatives of the big armament makers are, of course, violently opposed to this humane proposal; but, despite their outcries, public opinion is about ready to demand It.

A syndicated article has been going about through the press indicating that our Government shall enter into no agreements of any kind, but should retain complete *' freedom of action" and "command the world's respect with flyiug machines, submarines, fast cruisers, and a mercantile fleet bigger and better than any other." This Is the pestiferous barbarism of a bygone age and should have no place In the thinking or the conduct of the American people at this time in the world's history.

In the- second place, the Congress should adopt the Joint resolution Introduced by S-nator Tappkb in December last, which accepts a perfectly practicable definition of "aggressive war" and indicates our attitude toward such aggressive war. No constructive criticism has been offered by anybody of the Capper resolution. Should such a declaration bo made by the Congress, then our legislative power would have given all possible support to our treaty-making power in affirming and announcing our national policy against war.

In the third place, since all the nations of the earth, except ourselves nnd Russia and Mexico, are banded together in the League of Nations, which Is the- most impressive devi lopinent of International cooperation in all history, we should make it our steady policy to cooperate with tlie League of Nations In Its humane and progressive nets. This we have recently begun to do. but we should cooperate, not tardily and grudgingly but willingly and helpfully. Were these things done, the perplexity which now hangs over Europe and South America because of the constant contradictions between our professions and our nets would he removed and the movement to renounce war as an instrument of national policy and to build those institutions of conference, conciliation, arbitration, and Judicial action, that arc are ready to take the place of war, would mark a long stride forward.

Finally, we might easily remove the only possible ground for unfriendly feeling toward us on the part of the people of Japan by a very slight change in the language of our existing immigration law. which, while not Increasing the number of Japanese who may now lie admitted each year, would touch the pride of the Japanese people by placing them on the same plane with other foreign countries in respect of immigration. If aliens of the Japanese race were admissible as quota immigrants, it would not increase the present quota for Japan. One hundred would still be the maximum number of natives of that country that could be charged to such quota during a single year, but the form of the action on our part would greatly please the Japanese people. They can be counted on to be our enthusiastic and generous associates in every constructive international movement.


Mr. CURTIS. I move that the Senate take a recess until to-morrow nt 11 o'clock.

The motion was agreed to; and (at 5 o'clock and 45 minutes p. m.) the Senate took a recess until to-morrow, Wednesday, May 16. 1928, at 11 o'clock a. m.

Tuesday, May 1~>, 1928

The House met at 12 o'clock noon.

The Chaplain, Kev. James Shera Montgomery, D. D., offered the following prayer:

Infinite God, attend our prayer as we praise Thee for the divine light that falls upon our pathway. May tliis providence stir in us the virtue of gratitude. Let Thy presence consecrate our labors, give support to those who bear burdens, and sustain all when the light burns low. We thank Thee that Thou wilt never cause us a needless tear. O lead us to ever open our hearts to the great source of divine help. Be Thou with this generation of men. Shield all hearts from the arch prince of hate, whose vicious passions full like daggers upon Thy Innocent children. Keep the heart, the mind, and the very soul of our country from all things that profane God, and may purity, honor, and Christian chivalry be the blossoms that shall forever lie on her fair brow. In the name of the Son of Man. Amen.

The Journal of the proceedings of yesterday was read and approved.


A message from the Senate, by Mr. Craven, its principal clerk, announced that the Senate had passed without amendment a joint resolution of the House of the following title:

H. ,T. Res. 184. Joint resolution designating May 1 as Child Health Day.

The message also announced that the Senate had passed a bill of the following title, in which the concurrence of the House of Representatives was requested:

S. 4-105. An act authorizing the Detroit River Canadian Bridge Co.. its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain, and operate a bridge across the Detroit River nt or near Stony Island, Wayne County, State of Michigan.

The message further announced that the Senate had agreed to the amendments of the House of Representatives to bills of the following titles:

S.2084. An act for the purchase of land in the vicinity of Winneniucca, Nev., for an Indian colony, and for other purposes:

S. 8305. An act to authorize allotments lo unallotted Indians on the Shoshone or Wind River Reservation, Wyo.; and

S. 4045. An act granting the consent of Congress to the Highway Department of the State of Tennessee to construct a bridge acioss the French Broad River on the Newport-Asheville (N. C.) road mar the town of Del Rio, in Cocke County, Tenn.

The message also announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendments of the Senate to the bill (II. R. l^li.Sti) entitled "An act making appropriations for the Navy Department and the naval service for the fiscal year ending June 80, 1029, and for other


Mr. SMELL, from the Committee on Rules, reported the following resolution, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed:

House Resolution 207

Kcsulrcd, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be In order to move that the House resolve itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the t'nion for the consideration of H. U. 11.7-5. for the apportionment of Representatives in Congress. That afler general debate, which shall be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed three hours, to be equally divided and controlled by those favoring and opposing the bill, the bill shall be read for amendment under the five minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the committee shall arise and report the bill to the House with such amendments as may have been adopted, and the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.


Mr. SNELL. from the Committee on Rules, also reported the following resolution, which was referred to the House Calendar and ordered printed:

House Resolution 208

Rcxolrcil, That upon the adoption of this resolution it shall be In order to move that the House resolve itself Into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for the consideration of 11. K. 5773, to provide for the construction of works for the protection and development of the lower Colorado Itiver Basin, for the approval of the Colorado River compact, and for other purposes. That after general debate, which sh.'ill be confined to the bill and shall continue not to exceed eight hours, to be equally divided and controlled by those favoring and opposing the bill, the bill shall be read for amendment under the nve-minute rule. At the conclusion of the reading of the bill for amendment the committee shall arise and report the bill to tie House with such amendments as may have been adopted, ami the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and the amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit.


Mr. LINTHICUM. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that after the reading of the Journal to-morrow, and the disposition of business on the Speaker's table. I may have 10 minutes in which the address the House.

Mr. CRAMTOX. Mr. Six-aker, reserving the right to object, to-morrow Is Calendar Wednesday, and with the important business that Is to be considered to-morrow, I shall have to object.

Mr. LINTHICUM. Mr. Speaker. I want to address the House on the subject that is coining up. because debate is cut off, and I did not have a moment in which to discuss It in general debate.

Mr. CRAMTON. That can be taken care of to-morrow.

Mr. LINTHICUM. It can not. l>ecause the time is limited.

The SPEAKER. The Chair prefers not to recognize Members to ask unanimous consent to address the House on Calendar Wednesday.


Mr. McKEOWM. Mr. Si>eaker, I ask unanimous consent to extend my remarks in the Record by printing therein my own remarks made on bill H. R. 1200O, extending the period of restrictions in the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma, and also upon a repcrt of the Department of the Interior on House Joint Resolution 255. providing for a loan of Jfli.ijOO.OOO to the Clux-taw and Chickasaw Tribes of Indians, and for other purposes.

The SPEAKER. Is there objection?

There was no objection.

Mr. McKEOWX. Mr. Speaker. I call attention to the remarks I made on H. R. 12000, a 1)111 by Mr. Leavitt, extending the period (if restrictions in the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma, which passed the House under a parliamentary situation which precluded those (ipposed to the bill in its present form an op|H>rtunity to be heard. Also, I call attention to the report of the Secretary of the Interior on House Joint Resolution 255, which is adverse to the resolution.

The matter referred to is as follows:


Mr. McKxowN. I will s:iy at the outset that I have been alwayi and am now in favor of the proper protection of the Indians. It was my thought that Congress ling made mistakes already in this matter of the removal of restrictions in Oklahoma for this reason, as stated by my colleague Mr. Swank, tliat there are Incompetent Indians among the less than full bloods just the same as there are among while people. We talk about trying to protect the Indian. Some white people are just as incompetent to handle their estates and they squander their estates and you can not stop it. It Is wrong, but it happens. If you look around you, you will ftnd a lot of white children inheriting large fortunes who soon squander them and are improvident.

What I would like to sec done, and I think ought to be done, in this legislation is to set aside in the Choctaw and Chickasaw country SO or 100 acres that will be nontaxable and inalienable, not only for the present allottee but nontaxable and inalienable as long as it shall be occupied as a home by any one of that family. That seems to tie it up a great while, but the treaty with the Seminoles gave 40 acres to members of the Seminole Nation, that was nontaxable and inalienable in perpetuity, and the courts construed that to mean that whenever the alluttee dies it then becomes taxable.

I am opposed to this bill in its present form because it does not protect and at the same time give a responsibility that the Indian ought to have. Now, to illustrate, you extend his restrictions on 1GO acres of land. I think I know this Indian problem pretty well, because I at one time had a large Indian clientele.

When you extend these restrictions it. is true you extend homestead restrictions. I would prefer that you make it 80 or 100 acres In the Choctaw and Chickasaw country and permit them to select it, and if I liad my way about it I would make him live on that land, till it, and cullivatc It, but I can not do that, and Congress can not do It because he will not stay on It.

Mr. Sproul. It is not material if Congress does not have such power.

Mr. McKEOWN. You own pass that law but you can not make him stay out there. Here is what the Indian complains about. He says this: "I have here 320 acres." That is the average allotment in the Choctaw and Chickasaw country. You take oft* the restrictions from 160 acres under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Indian Affairs, but in taking those restrictions off that 160 acres the department controls the funds and the Indian has no opportunity to exercise any business control over it, and to-day under the law in Oklahoma a full blood Indian with 320 acres of land can not legally contract for burial ex[K*nses or physicians' fees for himself or any member of his family. If you extend these restrictions, which no doubt you will do and which you ought to do—I do not see the haste for it at this time, hut that is a matter with Congress— the surplus land of these Indians you propose to restrict, you ought to permit the competent ones to have an opportunity to have their restrictions off without any supervision by this department. Here is what takes place.

Mr. Hill. Will not that happen under this bill?

Mr. McKKOWN. No; It will not happen under this hill, because the department will continue to hold their funds.

Mr. Hill. Yon said competent Indians.

Mr. Mckeown. I mean the ones they remove restrictions from. There are very few cases where they remove restrictions and give the Indian a chance to sell his land himself or to have the funds when they sell it.

Another thing I will call your attention to is that we have an Indian agent who docs not have very much authority, who (roes out and looks at the landr and if he sells a piece of land for an Indian the funds are restricted. The Indian makes an application and he has to make two or three trips to the Indian agent's office to see if his check has come, when It is sold to make improvements on his homestead. The Indian if he gives him a chance will eat up or live up that money, and from time to time he comes to the Indian agent and wants money to pay grocery bills, and he prevails upon the Indian agent as lie would on you or me or anybody else. There is no question but what the removal of the restrictions indiscriminately by act of Congress, as it was done in 1908, has not been to the benefit of the Indians and for the reason that you measured the removal by the degree of blood and said these Indians should have their restrictions removed because they did not have half Indian blood. The result is that a lot of them nold their lands and are now without laud.

What I would like to insist upon here Is to see this bill amended and continue the restriction on at least 80 acres in the Choctaw And C'hickasaw country, and you can make it apply to the rest of It. A man ought to have at least 80 acres for each member of the family. lift them have the trust period, issue a competence certificate by the department up here as they do with those other Indians. They have all got their patents. Then put the extension of their restrictions upon tbo President.

Mr. Hill. You would like to see the bill amended so that each Indian would get not over 160 acres, or 80 acres?

Mr. McKKOWN. Yes. When you talk about the taxes, we have all got that same question in all the Western States. I am not here to discuss that question of taxation, because Oklahoma came Into the Union with full knowledge and with the full idea that Congress would

always regulate the question as to taxes. I want you to make It 80 acres of land, so that the head of the family when he is dead and his children come in who have no land or allotment, they will have a home to live In. About the most touching thing to me is to see a bunch of landless Indians with no place to go and they have to live among their Indian friends. There Is one characteristic of the Indian. Before we ever had any governmental restriction there was no such thing as an orphan child among the Indians. If an Indian died and left a dozen children, the Indians of that neighborhood took them into their homes and raised them to manhood and womanhood as if they were their own children, nnd that is the way they are to-day. A well-to-do Indian down there takes care of his kinsfolk. Go to a wealthy Indian out there and you will find a dozen or a half a dozen of his relatives around almost any time If they are unfortunate and have no money.

The citizens of Oklahoma as in other States carry a heavy burden In caring for these Indians. When a full-blood restricted Indian is in need of something where does he get it? From his neighbors, a merchant or some one that is a friend. He does not send to Muskogee.

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. The gentleman's statement with reference to the taxation matter left the inference with me that the gentleman is not In favor of my amendment.

Mr. McKnowN. 1 did not mean to discuss that. I was discussing this other phase of the question.

Mr. Howakd of Oklahoma. The Inference is still left from your first remarks as to your position and I wanted that cleared up.

Mr. Mckkows. All right. I will give you my Idea about this taxation. There is no provision in this bill that will require these oil companies to pay taxes, as I see It, on the oil that they are going to take out of these unrestricted lands. You have a provision here attempting to do it. but I do not think it does it. The oil companies have escaped their just taxes in Oklahoma by claiming that they were instruments of the National Government in taking out oil from under these lands and it has been sustained In the courts that they were instruments of the Government, and because they were instruments they have not had to pay their taxes.

Mr. Si'not'L. That applies to what particular Indians?

Mr. McKuowN. Where it is a restricted Indian allotment.

Mr. Si'Iiort. It does not apply to the Osages?

Mr. Mc-kkown. I am talking about the Five Tribes, which this bill deals with.

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. Will the gentleman tell me how we can read into this bill any provision that will make legal the collection of the oil tax on Seminole and Cherokee homesteads at the present time?

Mr. Mckeown. When you made It nontaxable, that is no reason why the oil company that takes out seven-eighths of the oil ought to escape paying taxes.

Mr. How.uid of Oklahoma. Will the gentleman yield there?

Mr. McKEOWN. Yes.

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. Does not the gentleman know that in the case of Large r. E. B. Howard, auditor of the State of Oklahoma, the United States Supreme Court decided that the State could not collect this tax from either the oil men or the Indians, with restrictions on the laud such as the Seminoles and Cherokees had?

Mr. Mckeown. That is what I am trying to tell the committee, and the reason is they claim to be instruments of the United States Government to take out this seven-eighths of the oil that they take out. They are not Instruments of the United States Government and ought not to be permitted to claim that to escape taxation.

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. I fought that case through the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Oklahoma, nnd I would be pleased if the State could collect that.

Mr. Lktts. Why has not Congress legislated in regard to that matter?

Mr. McIvKOWN. I think it should.

Mr. Letts. I see no difficulty.

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. It is not put up to them.

Mr. McKKOWN. They could. They have been held to be agents of the United States Government and ought not to be permitted to claim such exemption from taxation.

Mr. Hill. They are in the same position that the Government would be in taking out the oil.

Mr. Mckkown. Yes; but they should not be permitted to claim that.

Mr. Letts. What would be a simple provision to take care of that whole situation?

Mr. Peavey. Suppose Congress would legislate to make it possible, for the State to collect taxes on this oil that Is being removed, to protect the Indians, would It exceed In benefit to the State the $10,000.0(10, provided in this amendment?

Mr. McKKoWN. Mr. Howard bus that figure.

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. Every farmer In Oklahoma who has an oil well on his land pays a gross production tax and pays an nd valorem tax on his farm.

Mr. I'KAVEV. That does not apply to restricted land.

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

Mr. Howahd of Oklahoma. No; they do not have any gross production tax or ad valorem tax or anything else and will not If this bill passes, on their homesteads.

Mr. Pkatbt. My question is if they paid the tax—you are also claiming the State would get this sum of money.

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. When I was State auditor this was tested out in the courts and we employed the best legal talent we could and the decision was against us, and I would be glad to see some provision In the statutes that would tax this oil.

Mr. McKEowx. I would suggest a simple sentence in tills bill, In that connection, which says that the lessee under any oil lease approved by the department for oil, coal, or any other mineral, is not nn agent and shall not be considered an agent of the Government or the department.

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. Yes.

Mr. Mckkown. I have taken up a great deal of your time, but this is an Important bill to Oklahoma.

Mr. Ahextz. Would not this room be filled with representatives of oil companies if you suggested something of that kind?

Mr. McKKOwx. I do not care how many of them come. This is a fair proposition. That Is all we want.

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. When we passed the Osage bill which put an oil tax on oil lands in 1!)21( up until 1931, the oil men agreed to It.

Mr. Exglebrigiit. Are you or are you not in favor of this amendment that Mr. Howard has suggested 7

Mr. Mckeown. Of course I am in favor of It, If we can get it through Congress; I will vote for it.

Mr. Letts. As I understand your viewpoint, you recognize there are other matters that ought not to be jeopardized.

Mr. McKeowN. I favor cutting this amount of acreage down to 80 acres and then make it nontaxable and nonalienable until such time as the President of the United States by Executive order may take it off.

Mr. Sproul. Will the gentleman read section 3 of the bill for the benefit of the members of the committee? It is apropos to that question.

Mr. Mckeown (reading):

"That all minerals, Including oil and gas, produced on or after April 26, 1931, from restricted allotted lands of members of the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma, or from inherited restricted lauds of full-blood Indian heirs or devisees of such lands, shall be subject to all State and Federal taxes of every kind and character the same as those produced from lands owned by other citizens of the State of Oklahoma; and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to cause to be paid, from the individual Indian funds held under his supervision and control and belonging to the Indian owners of the lands, the tax or taxes assessed against the royalty interest of the respective Indian owners in such oil, gas. and other mineral production."

Mr. Sproul. Does not that cover the general point?

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. That has been fought out by these lessees of this land that have these leases. You can not make a statute retroactive like that.

Mr. Arentz. How long do these leases run?

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. As long as oil and gas are found in paying quantities.

Mr. Letts. The legislation does not provide for any reassessment of values or reconsideration of these matters?

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. None at all. They lease that land under one-eighth or one-sixth royalty, and they produce the oil, and in the case which I referred to, which was carried to the United States Supreme Court, the court held that they were agents of the Government and could not be taxed, and there are hundreds of them in Oklahoma to-day that are operating.

Mr. Letts. Under the laws under which the leases were drawn.

Mr. Arextz. And there will be a great many new ones in the future.

Mr. Letts. Some of the men representing the State of Oklahoma ought to have been here fighting about that time.

Mr. Howard of Oklahoma. At that time we were being forced down there to do anything we could to get out from under the Washington carpetbag Government.

Mr. MoKEOwN. I will make another suggestion. The Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians, as far as I know, are the only Indians left in the Five Tribes that have not had their tribal affairs wound up. Of course, the failure to wiud them up is because the Government has not been able to dispose of their coal lands. I am in favor of the amendment of my colleague Mr. Cahtwuioht in that there is a moral obligation on the part of the Government in dealing with these coal lands, because those Indians at one time could sell those coal lauds and had an offerto buy those coal lands at $30,000,000. The Congress refused to permit the department to sell them. Now the department is unable to sell them at any price or within their appraisal. If the Government would not let them sell them and now the Government can not sell them at

the present time, It follows that the Government ought to take some steps along that line.

Mr. Sprocl. The coal land would not have been subject to taxation as long as the Indians owned it, neither would the proceeds of the sale.

Mr. Mokkown. I am not talking about the tax, but about the settlement which I think the Indian should receive on what he has coming to him on this tribal property that remains undisposed of. That is what I am driving at—undlsposed-of tribal property. The Indians at one time had a chance to sell it and the Government would not let them, and now the Government can not sell it. It ought to do one of two things—-lend to the Indians sufficient money to enable the Indians to live and hold this property until it can be disposed of, or the Government ought to take It over.- That is my position about that.

I hope the committee will give us a bill that we can whole-hcartedty support, and 1 think If you can fix this so that the Indians will liav* 80 acres of land nontaxable and nonallenable to keep for a homestead down there for the years to come that you will benefit these Indians more than extending it to 100 acres.

Department Of The Intebior,

Waahinolon, May 12, W». Hon. Scott Leavitt.

Chairman Committee on Indian Affairs,

House of Representatives.

My Dear Mr. Leavitt: Reference is made herein to H. J. Res. 255, entitled "Joint resolution providing for loan of $2,500.000 to Choctaw and Chiekasaw Tribes or Nations of Indians, and for other purposes," and to your request of April 10, 1928, for a report thereon.

The joint resolution authorizes to he appropriated, out of any funds in the Treasury of the United States not otherwise appropriated, the sum of $2,500,000 and the making therefrom, by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, of a per capita payment to the members of the Choctaw and Chicknsaw Tribes of Indians. The joint resolution provides that the said sum of $2,500,000, together with interest thereon at the rate of 4 per cent per annum, shall be reimbursable out of the property of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Tribes.

It Is Inferred from the Joint resolution that the reason for the proposed loan Is the financial distress of the members of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in Oklahoma owing to the ravages of the boll weevil and the consequent failure of the cotton crop.

Reference Is also made in the Joint resolution to the great value of the undisposed tribal property of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations in the custody of the United States.

In the annual report for the fiscal year 1927, submitted by Charles I* Ellis, district superintendent in charge, Five Civilized Tribes Agency, the unsold tribal property of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations and the estimated value thereof were stated as follows:

Tribal school and Improvements $107, 200. 00

Four vacant and forfeited town lots 25.00

Unsold lands, including unallotted, timber, and surface of the segregated coal and asphalt lands, being approximately 1.200 acres of lana heretofore forfeited, and 9,!l(i9.9(i acres of the reserved surface of the segregated coal and asphalt lands, amounting to 11,724.85 acres.- 117. 240. SO Unsold coal and asphalt minerals 9, 403, 699. »6

Total estimated value of unsold tribal property of

the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations 9, 628,170. 86

The report further indicated that the amounts yet uncollected from the purchasers of tribal property on the deferred installments of the sales price aggregated as follows:

Amount uncollected from sale of tribal land $391, 357. 80

From sale of coal and asphalt minerals 531,480.47

From sale of reserved surface of segregated coal and

asphnlt lands 75,990.19

From sale of town lots 656.28

From sale of reserved town lots __ 1,843.00

Totnl amount yet uncollected of the deferred In-
stallments of the salt's price of tribal property
sold 1, 001, 333. 74

Steps looking to the sale, tinder existing law, of the coal and asphalt deposits and other tribal property of the Choctaw aud Chickosaw Nations will be taken at the earliest practicable date consistent with the best interests of the tribes.

In II. R. 9858, Seventieth Congress, it was contemplated that the United States should purchase the segregated coal and asphalt deposits belonging to the Choctaw and Chiekasaw Nations. I was unable to recommend favorable consideration of the proposition. Relative thereto reference is herein made to my letter of March 19, l'J28, to you In regard to H. R. 9858.

The records of the Indian Office show a per capita payment from the tribal funds was made to the Cboctaws and Chlekasaws of $40 in 1904, of $33 in 1900, and of $20 in 1908, and that the following payment* were made since 1912:

« ПретходнаНастави »