Service control, small units (say up to 5 million feet) have, in the past, always been available as well as sales embracing much larger footages. Thus in the past, both large and small operators have always had at least an opportunity to avail themselves of a sale which is compatible to their size. S. 3051 allows only the possibility of the very large to get larger and the complete demise of the small operator in this area. We think it unwise, even disastrous, to have a law that would allow such as a possibility. In further defense of the small operator, one cannot but feel that the economic importance of this small operator has been vastly underrated. In the whole, 10 mills cutting 20,000 feet per day, will employ more men than will 1 mill cutting 200,000 feet per day. In our Klamath area, one is prone only to count the larger mills as lumber producers and completely ignore the small producer and his effect on the economy of this area. To those of us who are close to this problem, the solution is so obvious that one wonders at the fevor that has been caused. The Forest Service has both organization and trained personnel to administer forest lands. Why circumvent the practical and inevitable. We, as lumbermen, have had our differences with the Forest Service in the past, and in all probability will have differences in the future. But this fact does not alter the obvious. One further point of comment. In forest planning, the larger the area the more practical, realistic and workable will a sustained yield plan be. To divide the area into 10 to 15 sustained yield producing areas will divide the effectiveness and workability of each program. It is highly doubtful in our minds that a sustained yield program (based on the 10 to 15 units) will achieve the conservation, water control, and economic stability that is so badly needed in this area. Yours very truly, RICHARD C. MOEHL, Assistant Manager. SOUTHERN OREGON CONSERVATION & TREE FARM ASSOCIATION, Senator RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: Your kind wire of January 31 reached here late Friday afternoon, so it was rather difficult to get anyone back to Washington for the Indian Affairs Subcommittee hearing on the Klamath question, by the 3d, 4th, or 5th of February. Of course, you realize that an association such as ours must have an expression of opinion by its members before we can take action on anything that is controversial, so it is rather an involved program to get the thing set up. However, we do deeply appreciate your wire. I believe that it is safe to say that all of our members want the Klamath timber question settled in a way that will give the Indians a reasonable price for their timber, and yet at the same time will very definitely protect the pine forests of their reservation from complete exploitation. At the present time we very much fear that unless the present existing bill is amended, or a new bill introduced covering these matters, that exploitation of the stand will take place and it will be slaughtered. As you probably know, unless the pine in that area is very carefully harvested under a very strict sustained yield program it is almost impossible to get regeneration. With proper forest practices regeneration comes along in good style, but it must be done under definite forest practices. The settlement of this problem between the Indian needs and wants, and the actual needs and necessities of good forestry on their land is, of course, very very definitely a problem, and one which will take a considerable amount of study. It would seem to me, and I am sure many other feel the same way, that good sense would indicate a moratorium for 2 more years before a definite bill is passed covering the Indian lands on the Klamath Reservation, and during that interim, a committee composed of foresters and Indian people should study various plans and the financial aspects of each, and then submit a joint program that will do the very best job for both parties; namely, the Indians and the forest lands. I believe that this type of suggestion has considerable merit, and I hope that some consideration will be given to it. Again, our sincere thanks to you for wiring us, as we shall always be glad to be informed of these matters. Whether or not we can always attend meetings remains to be seen. Trips to Washington have a way of taking quite a bit of money, and a small association, as you probably know, is not overly endowed with funds at times. Very truly yours, LEWIS L. SIMPSON, Secretary-Manager. ASSOCIATION ON AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS, INC., Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: I have been authorized to express to you the views of the Association on American Indian Affairs on the proposed amendments to the Klamath Termination Act. Although you were not a Member of the Congress in 1954, you may know that during the hearings on termination legislation held that year, this association repeatedly expressed its concern that these proposals were ill conceived and hasty. We were particularly disturbed by the fact that in the case of the Menominee and Klamath Indians, termination was enacted by way of a tie-in sale with per capita payments. As the years passed we were interested to note that our misgivings as to Klamath termination are now shared by the management specialists, respected businessmen appointed by former Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay, who surely do not fall into the categories of "do-gooders" or "professional Indians." As you have pointed out so well, the problem before Congress now is threefold: (1) to provide the maximum reasonable price for the Indians, rather than a fire-sale price; (2) to preserve the Klamath Forest, in the interest of the Nation as well as of the population of the area directly dependent on the forest, which includes, of course, the Indian population; and (3) to provide for a distribution of funds in the best interests of the Indians and their community. We agree with you that S. 2047 provides a desirable solution to the first two aspects of the problem. We also agree with your view that this bill leaves the third aspect unsolved. Yet solution of the third aspect of the problem is vital, more important by far than increasing the price to be paid for the forest. It will do little good to increase the distribution by 25 percent or more if the payments will not provide any lasting benefits for the community. We believe that the record before your subcommittee fully covers the problems relating to the effect of the present law on the future of the Klamath Forest, on the economy of the area, and on the price to be received by the Indians as a result of the liquidation of tribal assets. The record also indicates that the overwhelming majority of the Indians now residing on the Klamath Reservation plan to stay there but that the social conditions of the community are most deplorable. The record does not indicate, however, what improvements can and should be made to create a healthy community life on the reservation. Under the present law the Federal Government is merely to abdicate and leave the Klamath community in a morass. It has been suggested that the void left by the withdrawal of the Federal Government might be filled by banking institutions which would take over as trustees for the assets of tribal members. We do not believe that this course is an adequate solution. What is needed is not only sound management of community assets but, above all, a program for community development. We do not believe that the problem of community development on the Klamath Reservation has been studied sufficiently. We see no evidence of any plans to improve the social climate. We see only a dismal future of a brief spurt of affluence followed by a further decline both socially and economically for the entire Klamath community. On the basis of the present record, we respectfully recommend that your subcommittee approve the fourth proposal submitted by the Klamath Executive Committee, as stated in its letter to you of November 12, 1957, calling for a 2-year postponement of termination, during which period the problem is to be studied by a board which would include representatives of the tribe, the Federal Government, the State, and the public. Sincerely yours, LAVERNE MADIGAN, Executive Director. NATIONAL WILDLIFE FEDERATION, Washington, D. C., February 27, 1958. Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, Chairman, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: The National Wildlife Federation has considered proposals for disposition of lands of the Klamath Indian Tribe in Oregon as provided in S. 2047 and S. 3051. In view of the desirability of retaining valuable timber-producing lands of the Klamath Tribe under sustained-yield management, and indications that private purchasers will not be able to acquire more than a few of the present sustained yield units for long term management at the appraised value under the provisions of S. 3051, it appears that S. 2047 provides the most direct and practical means of assuring the future productivity of these lands. The national-forest sustained-yield program, under which these lands would be placed through the provisions of S. 2047, is best suited under existing circumstances to provide for protection of these lands for the benefit of the local lumber industry. As a part of a national-forest jurisdiction, lands under this bill would also be available for public recreational uses and other purposes consistent with public need. The National Wildlife Federation is gratified that both S. 3051 and S. 2047 provide for addition of approximately 70,000 acres of the present Klamath Indian tribal lands to the national wildlife refuge system under the jurisdiction of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. These lands are of vital importance to migratory waterfowl in the Pacific flyway. We urge your committee and the Congress to give favorable consideration to S. 2047 at the earliest possible date so that it can be enacted during the present session of Congress. Our Democratic Central Committee wholeheartedly endorses Senate bill 2047, regarding Federal acquisition of Klamath forest. A combination of your bill and another to be presented by Mr. Seaton seems advisable. JAMES A. REDDEN, Jr., Chairman. KLAMATH FALLS, OREG., February 1, 1958. Senator RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, Chairman, Senate Indian Affairs Subcommittee, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. The Klamath Falls Citizens Committee submitted petitions signed by 430 people at the hearings before your Subcommittee on Indian Affairs held in Klamath Falls on October 1, 1957. We feel that the statements made in this petition represent the thinking of at least 90 percent of the people in the Klamath Basin and adjoining areas and we sincerely hope that they will be given serious consideration during the hearing now being held. We appreciate very much the tremendous effort you have made to correct the glaring inequities in Public Law 587 and we are willing to do everything we can to assist you. KLAMATH FALLS CITIZENS COMMITTEE. Senator RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, PORTLAND, OREG., February 1, 1958. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Retel hearings on Klamath question. In general, our industry favors private land ownership to maximum practical extent. However, because of involved Klamath situation and because Management Specialists report is not yet available, our Oregon committee has not finally decided on its recommendations. Further consideration probable at our March meeting but that apparently will be too late for your hearing. Thanks for invitation to appear. Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, ERNEST L. KOLBE, Western Pine Association. LAS VEGAS, NEV., February 2, 1958. Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Have long pleaded for Federal purchase of Klamath marsh and timberlands. S. 2047 accomplishes purpose without any ifs or gimmicks. However, if compromise measures are needed to insure passage S. 3051 merits consideration. Despite possible patchwork ownership, main objectives of preserving the marsh and orderly timber management would be achieved. Regards. Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, VIRLIS L. FISCHER. KLAMATH FALLS, Oreg., February 4, 1958. Washington, D. C.: Re your letter January 20th on proposed bill by Secretary of the Interior on Klamath termination. Mr. Shaw away until March. Regret we are unable to convey his preference. Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, MODOC LUMBER CO., E. W. MALONEY, Forester. MEDFORD, OREG., February 3, 1958. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: From present hearings sincerely hope Congress enacts legislation to adequately protect legitimate rights and expectations of Klamath Indian people, those who do and do not desire liquidation and also adequately protect community, State and Federal interests. Only through Federal acquisition can sustained yield of ponderosa forest be assured which offers large and small operators equal opportunity. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER, MARIE M. BOSWORTH. KLAMATH FALLS, OREG., January 30, 1958. United States Senate, Washington, D. C.: The Klamath County Land Use Committee recommends that the forest resources of the Klamath Indians be sold only on terms of sustained yield. This would protect the economy of Klamath County and the entire Klamath River Basin against the flagrant destruction of its very valuable water resources. GEORGE STEVENSON, Chairman, Klamath County Land Use Committee. Chairman, Subcommittee on Natural Resources. Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER, LEBANON, OREG., February 12, 1958. Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.: Women's State Missionary Board in behalf of over 4,500 members of Oregon Christian churches urge delay in sale of Klamath tribal lands. Mrs. EDNA L. BURKE, Executive Secretary, Eugene, Oreg. CHILOQUIN, OREG., February 7, 1958. Re Klamath Termination Act. Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER, United States Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR SENATOR: As you know, I am an enrolled member of the Klamath Indian Reservation and chairman of the Klamath tribal executive committee of the Klamath Indian Reservation, and that the delegates are now in Washington appearing before the congressional committees concerning your bill now in Congress, and I wish to tell you personally, on my own behalf, that I personally support your bill now pending in Congress, S. 2047, which provides for Federal purchase of the assets of the Klamath Indian Reservation, and I wish to have you know that I feel this bill will best serve the interests of the Klamath people. I was unable to journey to Washington to attend the hearing on account of illness but want to be on record as saying that I am in favor of what you are doing. You have my permission to use this letter for the Congressional Record if you so desire. I am, DEAR MR. NEUBERGER: I have read carefully the Secretary of the Interior's proposed bill to amend the Klamath Termination Act, and introduced by you "by request." I feel that the basic principals of both the Department's S. 3051 and S. 2047 introduced by yourself, are somewhat similar in that they both advocate a Federal purchase, however I felt that the Department waited too long in making their intentions known and that this prevented a careful study by persons interested in the Klamath situation. I have not changed my position and still feel that the principals of a Federal purchase is still the most logical solution to the problem to date, the testimony of the majority of the Klamath tribal delegation will confirm our thinking at home. Instead of an election to withdraw or remain (as provided in the present law, Public Law 587, as amended, under some sort of a legal entity) why not let those that wish to withdraw do so, but pay them off according to their Klamath tribal blood, this would be in conformity with a corporation dividend distribution, after all in a corporation you would only be entitled to the amount of shares you hold in that corporation, our situation would be somewhat similar say that a fullblooded Klamath wanted to withdraw, for practical purposes we will use round figures to illustrate, 2,000 tribal members and an appraisal price of $120 million, this fullblood would be entitled to a 100 percent distribution or $60,000, and a half Klamath would be entitled to 50 percent or $30,000, and so forth, those that chose to remain would be permitted to do so under Federal trusteeship, and a date set by the United States Government and the tribal members remaining, on a date when Federal trusteeship can be lifted, this would be |