This

beneficial to both the Federal Government and the remaining members. plan in opinion would encourage many tribal members to remain, and could possibly reverse the 70 percent figure of those that might withdraw, and assure keeping the reservation intact and also assure the sustained-yield cutting of our timber resources.

I would like to register my protest and ask that my name be stricken from the petition inserted in the record by Mr. Wade Crawford, on the grounds that I was misled and misinformed of the contents of the petition, at the time of the signing I was led to believe that this was in opposition to the 20-year bond proposed by Representative Al Ullman only; and the opposition was only to the nature of the bonds (nonnegotiable and nonassignable) and that this was my only opposition to Mr. Ullman's bill, I feel that 50 to 60 percent of the members signing this petition were of the same opinion. I know for a fact that all those signers up to the time that it was presented to me, that 40 percent of those signed up, would much rather have the law, Public Law 587, as amended, repealed rather than have it carried out as written.

In closing I would like to thank and compliment you on the way that you are conducting this complex situation, knowing that this problem is almost unsolvable. I would like to have this letter made part of the record.

Sincerely yours,

ELNATHAN DAVIS.

STATEMENT OF HIRAM R. ROBBINS, MEMBER, KLAMATH TRIBE OF INDIANS

I, Hiram R. Robbins, Sprague River, Oreg., being a member of the Klamath Tribe of Indians of Oregon who has appeared before various congressional committees concerning Indian legislation:

Submit the following plan modifying (using the word in its highest sense) Public Law 587, solving and preserving the people's welfare and resources of the Klamath Indians of Oregon, and the welfare of the people of the surrounding area, and of the United States.

SOLUTION TO KLAMATH TERMINATION PROBLEM

That the Federal Government withdraw completely from the reservation under the following submitted plan:

1. Qualified Indians to take over all salaried positions under their own management except two top management positions, these top positions to be filled by an Indian Council or board of directors securing competent outside personnel.

2. The tribal government and management to handle all sales of timber on the basis of a sustained-yield requirement, and to promote earliest reasonable development of water, mineral, surface, subsurface, and other resources. 3. Property within reservation boundary to be subject to taxation.

4. Tribal members to retain all present hunting and fishing rights on tribal property, subject to minimum regulation from outside authority.

5. The Indians to become United States citizens with all the rights and responsibilities appertaining thereto.

6. The matter of withdrawal of members from the tribe to be handled by the tribal government.

NEED FOR NEW SOLUTION TO KLAMATH TERMINATION PROBLEMS

1. Proposed solutions aim at conservation of the natural resources, but do not conserve the human resources, as witness:

(a) Public Law 587, enacted in 1954, made it possible for many of the Indians to gain easy access to large sums of money, resulting in situations that have raised the enrolled tribal death rate of those in the prime of life perhaps 50 to 60 percent higher than the national average.

(b) Under present and currently proposed solutions the human resources are not given proper consideration. Indians taking their equity in cash would, in many cases, soon have it spent and be reduced to poverty and dependence upon charity, either public or private, many of them becoming public charges for the rest of their lives.

(c) There are now no provisions under existing plans offered that will get the Indians back into a situation where self-reliance and initiative will restore their morale. They need to be offered a situation where they are allowed to secure employment to support and raise their families. The present

system of civil service control over these people tends to appear as a dole from the Government instead of what it actually is, division of income from tribal timber and other assets.

2. Proposed solutions do not conserve for the Indians (to whom they now belong) full benefit of the natural resources:

(a) Present proposals effect conservation of timber, but seem not to consider water, mineral, surface, subsurface, and other resources.

3. Proposed amendments to Public Law 587 would apparently leave much of present tribal property in a nontaxable status, thus causing continued hardship, taxwise, on Klamath County, which already has much nontaxable national forest land within its boundaries.

VALUES OF THIS SOLUTION

(All of these points are presented on the assumption that whatever is best for the people involved and the land is also best for the Nation as a whole.) 1. It would give to the Indians full control of the land and resources that by all rights belong to them.

2. It would put the Indians in a position to work out their own future by their own labor and management, thus providing them the opportunity to maintain self-respect and self-reliance through relief from a system of Federal supervision as maintained in the past.

3. It would materially lessen the probability of many of them becoming public charges, as would likely happen under other plans submitted.

4. It would protect the timber resources of the reservation from unwise cutting practices and depletion.

5. It would conserve to the Indians their proper rights in all resources of the reservation.

6. It would guarantee to the whole Klamath Basin the following:

(a) Continued proper regard to control of water runoff, thus conserving power projects, irrigation, and so forth, that are now dependent upon proper management of the reservation land area.

(b) Continued sound economic practices and development in the area, thus favorably affecting the area's economic well-being and also that, indirectly, of other areas.

7. It would benefit Klamath County through:

(a) Increased tax revenue because of reservation lands being subject to tax.

(b) Probable lower public welfare costs.

(c) A stable economy supported by proper management of water runoff, by selective cutting of timber.

(d) Offsetting Federal purchase of Klamath Marsh for a national wildlife refuge, by placing the Marsh on the county tax roll, with probabilities of its development for recreation, hunting, and fishing.

(e) Effecting a program toward early development of mineral and other Reservation resources.

8. It would benefit the Federal Government through:

(a) The increase in tax returns.

(b) Reduction in Federal expenditure through lessened expense in the Indian Service of the Department of the Interior.

Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

PRINEVILLE, OREG., February 7, 1958.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: In reading today's Portland, Oreg., Journal on the hearings at Washington, D. C., concerning the appraisal of assets of the Klamath Reservation I was both shocked and amazed at your proposal to repeal a portion of the 1954 law permitting tribal members to withdraw and of turning the reservation over to the tribe.

We tribal members would indeed be in a worse predicament than the one in which we are presently involved if this were to happen. Exactly whom did you have in mind to take over this tribal management when you suggested it? Surely you couldn't expect the tribal representatives and delegates to handle so complex a problem. I am definitely opposed to any such fantastic plan.

98089-58-pt. 2-18

You have worked closely with these men and seen how they have thus far handled our tribal affairs. You know of the friction, dissension and bickering that keeps them from any constructive level-headed thinking. On every issue presented there has been a seesawing back and forth, then they have agreed to measures and bills which they later stated they wouldn't have approved if they could do it over.

If any such plan was adopted as a last resort we would need the assistance of a staff of outside, impartial officials with qualifications to deal with a variety of problems. It could never be handled satisfactorily through any local group within the tribe. Having to give up our valuable resources under the present laws S. 587 is bad enough without repealing that for less favorable conditions.

I implore you to reconsider any such thought that the reservation should be turned over to the tribe.

Mr. Neuberger, why does the Federal Government wish to terminate their supervision over the Klamath Indians in the first place? You are a sponsor and author of this Public Law 587 under instructions, I presume, but can you honestly and sincerely state that you feel these Indians are ready to face termination? There are still many questions concerning termination that I would like to have answered although I have read and studied all the material compiled in the hearings record, however, I won't take the time to list them all now.

My complaint is that this legislation has been too rapid. I honestly don't believe the majority of the members understand it thoroughly. We are soon going to be asked to cast a vote as to whether we wish to remain in the tribe under a management plan or withdraw and be paid off. So far the management plans are still in the planning stage or at least I haven't the faintest notion of its provisions and I'm sure the other members don't either. How can we be expected to know which plan would suit us better when they are not available for us to study before voting?

Supposing the majority of the members now favor neither plan and oppose termination since they have had time to study and weigh these plans. I believe a poll should be taken immediately to determine exactly how each person feels about these proposals. It should be conducted in a house-to-house canvass and by mail to all the members living off the reservation. You keep referring to a survey conducted by the Stanford Research Institute on which they base their claim that approximately 70 percent of the tribal members favor withdrawal. When was this survey made? Was this survey made in the early stages when the termination plan was first being rumored about the reservation or does it represent a recent survey?

There is too much at stake for them to be asked to vote on these matters without being fully informed. It appears to me the Indians are being forced into accepting termination.

Exactly what are the plans for the people now residing on the reservation after termination is completed?

It would be easy for me to vote in favor of termination and to withdraw from the tribe because I don't own an allotment of land on the reservation and have lived off the reservation for approximately 18 years, however, my concern is for the members living there that own land and property. Surely, we could all use that money if it was paid directly to us as individuals to use to good advantage but if it is held in trust and paid to us in various small amounts over a period of years we will be in the very same position as we are with the present per capita. I also strongly resent the implication that I am incompetent to handle the affairs of myself and my children as implied by the setting up of these trusts and guardianships. I do realize the necessity of these protective measures to help those that need it. However, they are going to need further help than they have received thus far to enable them to take their place in society. This will take time and training. Has anything been done toward helping them in this manner?

It would indeed be wonderful for the Klamath Indians to become an independent, self-supporting, respected, law-abiding group of citizens and I firmly believe they will in due time. However, they will have to work to attain this status and it will take more time than they have been allowed under the termination plan.

Once more before closing I will ask you to spare the Klamath Indians the folly of letting them try to manage the reservation under their own planning. If Public Law 587 has to be carried out then I would also be in favor of

Federal purchase in order for the members to receive their full and just share of tribal assets.

There is so much more I would like to include here but as time is of the essence I shall conclude.

Yours truly,

FLOREINE W. THRASHER.

THE CALIFORNIA OREGON POWER Co.,
Medford, Oreg., February 14, 1958.

Senator RICHARD NEUBERGER,

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR NEUBERGER: Pursuant to our request that the record of the hearings of your subcommittee on the Klamath Indian Reservation be held open until February 20, we are submitting the following general proposal. We should state at this point that we favor the purchase of the Klamath Indian Reservation by the Federal Government. If legislation to accomplish this purpose fails to receive affirmative action by the Congress, we ask that legislation to implement our proposal be considered as a substitute for Public Law No. 587. There are seven problems that should be considered in legislation for termination of the Federal Government's custody of the Klamath Tribe.

1. To provide funds to pay the tribal members who wish to withdraw. 2. To preserve the tribal heritage for those who wish to remain.

3. To preserve the timber resources in sustained yield.

4. To preserve the tribal lands adapted to wildlife preservation in their present state.

5. To protect the watershed covered by the reservation.

6. To provide a means whereby the tribal lands would continue to be administered by a trustee.

7. To provide trusteeship for those members who are minors or incompetent. To meet these needs, the following proposal is made:

(a) That portion of the tribal lands classified as best suited as a wildlife refuge be purchased by the Federal Government to be administered by the Fish and Wildlife Service.

(b) That the Klamath Tribe organize as a legal entity. That the Federal Government provide funds sufficient to pay in full those members of the tribe who elect to withdraw on the basis of their equity in the appraised price, these funds to be repaid to the Federal Government over a period of 50 years, without interest, at the rate of 2 percent annually.

(c) That an independent trustee be selected on a competitive basis, subject to approval by the Government, to act as trustee of the tribe until such time as all advances by the Federal Government have been paid in full. The trustee should perform the following functions:

1. Operate the timberlands owned by the tribe on a sustained-yield basis. Sell the annual allowable cut from these timberlands to the highest bidder. Make contracts for long-term sales, or in any other manner develop the highest return in dollars to the tribe. In no case is the return to the tribe to be less than the appraised value of timber offered for sale.

2. Develop the mineral resources of the reservation to bring the highest possible dollar return to the tribe.

3. Lease or otherwise develop the non-timber-producing lands of the reservation to obtain the highest possible dollar return to the tribe.

4. Collect and disburse the funds arising out of the management of the reservation, making payments for

(a) local taxes;

(b) annual payments to the Federal Government; and

(c) payments to the tribal members entitled to payment.

The above general proposal has the following advantages:

1. When compared to Federal purchase at the appraised price, the cost to the 'Government of interest-free money for 50 years would be less to the Government than perpetual ownership for the reason that the return on the Federal investment if the tribal assets were purchased at the appraisal price based on the present allowable cut would be approximately 2 percent per year.

If taken in as Forest Service lands, the Forest Service would pay 25 percent of the value of the annual cut to Klamath County in lieu of taxes, which would reduce the net return to the Federal Government to a rate of 11⁄2 percent. from which a further deduction for management expense would be made. This would be

perpetual. Under the interest-free proposal, and assuming that 50 percent of the tribe would wish to withdraw, requiring a Government advance of 50 percent of the appraised price of the reservation, the Federal Government would subsidize the tribe in the amount of $45 million over a period of 50 years, assuming the Federal cost of money to be 3 percent. Under full ownership by the Federal Government, again using 3 percent as the cost of money, the Federal Government would, during 50 years, subsidize the Indian lands acquired in the amount of $60 million, which represents the difference between net income and net cost. These are approximate figures, of course.

2. The proposal would satisfy the tribal members who wish to withdraw as well as those who wish to retain their heritage.

3. The timber resource would be operated under the sustained-yield principle for the benefit of the local area, the State and the Nation.

4. Would provide, through an independent trustee, a more flexible method of operation through which desirable contracts could be made in support of the investment necessary if full utilization of the timber resource is to be accomplished, which would benefit both the tribe and the area.

5. At the end of 50 years, the Federal Government would be paid in full, the trusteeship terminated, and the property returned to the tribe free of all indebtedness.

6. The Federal Government's present trust responsibility would be terminated immediately.

Very truly yours,

Re S. 2047.

Hon. RICHARD L. NEUBERGER,

FRANK JENKINS.
GLENN L. JACKSON.

WILKINSON, Cragun & BARKER, Washington, D. C., February 19, 1958.

Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I am writing with respect to certain statements made by Mr. Wade Crawford when he testified before your subcommittee considering S. 2047 and S. 3051 on February 7. I do this since I believe some of Mr. Crawford's statements are inaccurate, and I believe the record should be corrected. For that purpose, I ask that this letter be included in the record.

Mr. Crawford testified, in substance, that the argument that Public Law 587 amends or abrogates the Treaty of 1864 between the Klamath and Modoc Tribes and Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians and the United States is inaccurate. He said this could not be so because the treaty was for a term of only 20 years, from 1864. I have again reviewed the treaty (16 Stat. 707; II Kappler 865), and can find no basis for the assertion by Crawford. Article I provides that the area reserved by the tribes shall be "the residence for said Indians [and] held and regarded as an Indian reservation. ***" Articles IV and V contain provisions for payment of certain consideration promised by the United States. Some of these promises are to be met within a period of 20 years. It may be that Mr. Crawford is confused by such references, but it is clear from a reading of the whole document that it is an agreement in perpetuity without regard to any time limitation.

Mr. Crawford also testified, in substance, that the four members of the executive committee who preceded him in testifying represent only themselves and do not represent the Klamath Tribe. The four are elected officials of the Klamath General Council and the executive committee of the Klamath Tribe. Following the testimony of Mr. Crawford, I requested from the Klamath Indian Agency a statement respecting the election of June 28, 1956, an election which decided the membership of the executive committee and designated the officials of the Klamath General Council. A copy of the certification of the election boards is attached. It should be noted that Wade Crawford and Ida Crawford were successful candidates for membership on the executive committee. This, in fact, is the status which allows and justifies the attendance of Mr. and Mrs. Crawford at hearings before your subcommittee. The same applies to the other Klamath witnesses.

Mr. Crawford next made the point that the Klamath General Council had accepted Public Law 587. In a meeting of July 29, 1954, the Klamath General Council considered, along with other business, a report from Messrs. Boyd J..