are also engaged in foreign commerce, serving Hawaii as a way port to and from foreign ports. It is noted that the bill S. 49 already contains a reservation of regulatory authority to the Federal Maritime Board in respect of service by water carriers between the mainland and any territory of the United States and Hawaii (sec. 116). In view of the current consideration of this bill by your committee and your request for a report as soon as possible, this report is being transmitted to you without the advice of the Director, Bureau of the Budget. Nothing contained herein is to be construed as an indication of the relation of the proposed legislation to the program of the President. Sincerely yours, LOUIS S. ROTHSCHILD, Chairman. Senator JACKSON. Mr. Miles Brandon, National Congress of American Indians, I believe has a statement he would like to make. STATEMENT OF MILES BRANDON, PRESIDENT, ANCHORAGE CAMP OF THE ALASKA NATIVE BROTHERHOOD Mr. BRANDON. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I have here a brief statement that I want to make on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians. My name is Miles Brandon. I am an Eskimo, and I am president of the Anchorage Camp of the Alaska Native Brotherhood. I am also a scholarship trainee in the office of the National Congress of American Indians, half time, and attending night high-school classes and studying voice in Washington. Neither the National Congress of American Indians nor I have recent instructions as to the position of the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native Sisterhood on the specific bills under consideration, but I respectfully ask that you consider the position taken last year by the Honorable Frank Johnson, member of the Territorial Legislature, on the occasion of his 2-month visit in Washington, at which time he did have authority and specific instructions as to the position of the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native Sisterhood. The National Congress of American Indians does have blanket authority to represent the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native Sisterhood on matters affecting Alaska. I am presenting this statement for the National Congress of American Indians. It was our understanding last year that the natives opposed the disclaimer clause which appeared in H. R. 3575 which is identical to the one now appearing in S. 40. The Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native Sisterhood believed, after consulting at least three different lawyers, that the disclaimer clause endangers their land claims. Also, the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native Sisterhood contended that the clauses dealing with funds set aside under the Tongass Act and the Secretary's authority to create Indian reservations have no rightful or proper place in a statehood bill. It was our understanding that wording similar to that contained in H. R. 2535 Senator JACKSON. The bill that passed the House? Mr. BRANDON. Yes-which is identical to that in S. 50 of the last Congress and on which hearings were held in Alaska- was considered by the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native Sisterhood and not objected to. Pending specific instructions which should arrive in the next few ays from the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native isterhood, we respectfully request your serious consideration of mending the disclaimer clause to make certain there is no danger to catives' land claims and of deleting the clauses dealing with Tongass imber funds held in escrow and the Secretary's authority to create reservations. те We thank you for giving us this chance to present our views, and Te would deeply appreciate an opportunity to make a further statement when we receive instructions from the Alaska Native Brother200d and the Alaska Native Sisterhood. Senator JACKSON. Mr. Brandon, I am sure there is no one on this Committee who would be in favor of doing anything to upset the legal rights, whatever they may be, that you have now in Alaska in onnection with the many claims that have been filed by the native Toups. I realize there may be a difference of opinion as to how it ught to be handled, but I want to assure you that, when this mater was taken up before, it was the unanimous position of the committee that we not do anything that would jeopardize those rights. I would like to suggest to you that if you are going to get a statement from your people, that you get it just as soon as possible; because the formal hearings will close Thursday. However, we will try to keep the record open for a while so that you may be able to submit a statement which can be included in the record. Will that be satisfactory? (The following was subsequently received for the record:) NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS, Mr. STEWART FRENCH, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. FRENCH: The committee is respectfully urged to amend the language the disclaimer clause to make it identical to that in H. R. 2535 in the 84th Congress (the same as in S. 50 in the 83d Congress on which hearings were held in Alaska). This, we understand, was satisfactory in the past to the Alaska Native Brotherhood and the Alaska Native Sisterhood. The language appears as follows (from line 25 on p. 28 through 22 on p. 29): "Second. That said State and its people do agree and declare that they forever disclaim all right and title to any lands or other property not granted or confirmed to the State or its political subdivisions by or under the authority of this act, the right or title to which is held by the United States or is subject to disposition by the United States, and to any lands or other property (including fishing rights), the right or title to which may be held by any Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts (hereinafter called natives) or is held by the United States in trust for said natives; that all such lands or other property belonging to the United States or which may belong to said natives shall be and remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of The United States until disposed of under its authority, except to such extent as The Congress has prescribed or may hereafter prescribe, and except when held by Individual natives in fee without restrictions on alienation; and that no taxes shall be imposed by said State upon any lands or other property now owned or hereafter acquired by the United States, or which, as hereinabove set forth, may belong to said natives, except to such extent as the Congress has prescribed or may hereafter prescribe, and except when held by individual natives in fee without trictions on alienation." Sincerely yours, MILES BRANDON, NCAI, Trainee, Delegate BARTLETT. May I inform the committee, Mr. Chairma that the executive committee of the Alaska Native Brotherhood m on this subject in Juneau on February 18. So, as Mr. Brandon sa their views should be here very shortly. Senator JACKSON. Thank you very much. I do want to give you assurance, Mr. Brandon, that the broth hood's views will be given careful consideration. Mr. BRANDON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator JACKSON. The committee has no desire to jeopardize yc rights, whatever they may be. Mr. William Zimmerman is here representing the Association American Indian Affairs. You may proceed. Do you have a statement that you want present? STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ZIMMERMAN, REPRESENTING THE ASSOCIATION ON AMERICAN INDIAN AFFAIRS Mr. ZIMMERMAN. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committ I have to throw myself on your mercy and ask if I may submit a p pared statement before the hearings close on Thursday. Senator JACKSON. Very fine. (The following statement was subsequently received for the recor NATIVE RIGHTS UNDER THE ALASKA STATEHOOD BILL The pending Alaska statehood bill, S. 49 (with Hawaii), contains at least th provisions which, if enacted into law, would seriously jeopardize the rig property, and future welfare of the native (i. e., Indian, Eskimo, and Ale citizens of that Territory. (1) Section 203, paragraph "Second", which in effect would authorize State to appropriate lands to which native groups have valid claims to tit (2) Section 205 (g) (2), which would dissolve the special fund, held possible distribution to native groups, established under section 3 of Tongass Timber Act of August 8, 1947 (61 Stat. 920); and (3) Section 219 (a), which would eliminate the power of the Secretary the Interior to create reservations in Alaska for native groups pursuant section 2 of the act of May 1, 1936 (49 Stat. 1250). For the reasons set forth below, it is submitted that legislation incorporating foregoing provisions would violate the time-honored principle that the land rig of American Indians are entitled to respect and protection, and would depr the executive branch of the Government of an important technique for saving natives of Alaska from the loss of their property. I. POSSIBLE EXPROPRIATION OF NATIVE LANDS Section 203, paragraph "Second", of S. 49 would require that the future St of Alaska, in its constitution, stipulate with regard to native rights as follows: "That said State and its people do agree and declare (1) that they forever discls all right and title in or to *** any real property that is owned by or, for a per of at least three years immediately prior to the enactment of this Act, has been the possession and actually in the use or occupation of any Indian, Eskimo, Al (including any Metlakahtlan Indian or Metlakahtlan), or any community of st natives; and (2) that the title to any such property of *** such natives sk remain subject to the disposition of or extinguishment by the United States to 1 same extent as though this Act had never been enacted. ***” [Emphasis si plied.] Section 203, paragraph "Second", of the statehood bill under consideration the House of Representatives (H. R. 2535), on the other hand, would require t future State of Alaska, in its constitution, to stipulate in part as follows: "That said State and its people do agree and declare that they forever discla all right and title*** to any lands or other property (including fishing right the right or title to which may be held by any Indians, Eskimos, or Aleuts (here after called natives) or is held by the United States in trust for said natives; that all such lands or other property, belonging to the United States or which may along to said natives, shall be and remain under the absolute jurisdiction and control of the United States until disposed or under its authority ***." [Emphasis supplied.] As the following discussion will demonstrate, the foregoing differences in anguage are not mere matters of form, but rather have an important bearing pon future native land rights in Alaska. Traditionally, it has been the policy of the United States to respect native land daims and to treat the original inhabitants of this country as the owners of the erritory which they used and occupied from time immemorial, until their title hereto was formally extinguished by the Federal Government. This policy first ound expression in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which declared that the utmost good faith shall always be observed towards the Indians" and that "their and and property shall never be taken without their consent," and subsequently as confirmed in various enabling acts as new States petitioned to join the Union. Under this policy, a State disclaimer of right and title to real property "owned or Leld" by Indians or which "may be held" by Indians constituted a disclaimer of risdiction over all Indian country within its borders, i. e., all lands, including erritory held under original Indian title, not ceded by the natives or otherwise btained by the United States. The areas so defined, of course, could be easily dentified. With regard to Alaska, the Federal Government has adopted a comparable. although not exactly identical policy. Section 8 of the act of May 17, 1884 (23 at. 24), providing a civil government in that Territory, for example, declares part: That the Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use and occupation or now claimed by them ut the terms under which such persons may acquire title to such lands is reserved for future legislation by Congress." [Emphasis supplied.] The existence of aboriginal possessory rights and claims in Alaska is further cognized in section 14 of the act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1095), and section 27 of the act of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. 321). To date, however, Congress has not ettled native claims to land titles in Alaska by legislation, nor has any adminisrative unit of the Government successfully completed negotiations with native roups for the relinquishment of their possessory rights. Thus, native claims to real property in Alaska remain now as they were 70 years ago, unconfirmed, yet nextinguished. With this background in mind, particularly the failure of Congress to confirm possessory land titles in Alaska, the vital distinction between protecting lands hich "may be held" by natives (H. R. 2535) and protecting lands "owned" by atives (S. 49) immediately becomes apparent. Real property which "may be eld" by natives would include all lands to which they assert a claim of title, pending a determination of the validity of that claim as promised in the 1884 act; real property which is "owned" by natives, on the other hand, would not include any lands to which they assert only an unconfirmed claim of title, regardless of the alidity of that claim. Because of delay by Congress in recognizing or settling possessory rights in Alaska, therefore, the net effect of the latter provision would be to authorize the State of Alaska to appropriate lands which legally should now belong to native groups and which morally should belong to them until they agree To a sale. The conclusion that the term "owned by," as used in S. 49, must be narrowly construed, thus violating native possessory land rights, instead of broadly interpreted to protect Indian rights as in earlier enabling acts, finds ample support in The committee report on its predecessor, S. 50, as amended, of the 83d Congress. In the first place, that report speaks only of provisions "designed to protect the gitimate needs of natives" [emphasis supplied], not of provisions designed to protect native possessory rights or the lands to which they are entitled. Secndly, the report mentions "the potential cloud on land titles arising from the aims made on behal. of certain natives," and then goes on to state that the bill will "assure a clear title to the State on all land grants," a result which obviously an be accomplished only if native land rights are ignored. Thirdly, the report declares that "the committee has carefully avoided passing judgment on the alidity or invalidity of any such native claims," but nowhere declares that the ands which are covered by such claims may not be selected by the State. If enacted into law, therefore, S. 49, unlike any previous enabling act, would stablish procedures whereby lands claimed by natives may freely be selected and disposed of by a future State, regardless of the validity of those claims. This immediate loss of native property interests would be mitigated under pending bill only by (1) a provision protecting native rights to certain lar owned outright or actually possessed and occupied by them, and (2) an impl promise that at some indefinite time in the future native claims may be adju cated, and that they may then receive a money judgment from the Fede Government for the lands taken from them and perhaps title to the lands whi remain unappropriated. Realistically, the former provision would be of lit practical benefit, since the areas covered thereby are relatively small. ] latter promise sounds particularly hollow to the natives who want their o lands now and not Federal money later, who already have waited 70 years the United States to carry out its promises to grant them title to their r property, and who now know that they are not entitled to compensation for loss of their lands in the absence of a specific legislative direction to pav. The law is well settled that the Federal Government, in the continental Uni States as well as in Alaska, has the absolute power to extinguish Indian title land, regardless whether that title arises out of aboriginal possession or is bas upon a treaty or statute. For the taking of territory held under "recognize title, a tribe is entitled to just compensation (Shoshone Indians v. United Sta 324 U. S. 335 (1945)). In the case of Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United Sta decided on February 7, 1955, the Supreme Court ruled that native titles Alaska have not been recognized, and that native groups in that Territory; not entitled to an award under the fifth amendment for the loss of property claim by virtue of original Indian title. This decision, however, definitely does 1 hold that Indians have no rights in lands claimed through aboriginal occupan since the decision cites with approval the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall Johnson v. McIntosh (8 Wheat. 543 (1823)), which states in part that India "were admitted to be the rightful occupants of the soil, with a legal as well. just claim to retain possession of it, and to use it according to their own discretion The Tee-Hit-Ton case thus declares merely that the burden is upon Congress protect these rights and to compensate for their loss. As now worded, S. 49 d not carry out this dual obligation. The natives of Alaska, like their nonnative neighbors, overwhelmingly des to obtain statehood at the earliest practicable date. In simple justice to t former groups, who comprise over 20 percent of the population of that Territo it is urged that the language of section 203, paragraph "Second", in H. R. 25: as amended, be adopted, and the State thus prevented from appropriating lar claimed by the natives until the extent and validity of these claims are det mined. As an alternative, the following changes in S. 49 are suggested: Page 28, line 9: Delete the words "property that" and substitute "or oth property, including fishing rights, that may be held,". Page 28, line 15: After the word "or" add "which may belong to". In order that the status of native claims may be clarified, it is further reco mended that the report relating to this section express the desire of the committ that native claims be equitably settled in the near future pursuant to other leg lation. In such manner, the rights of the natives will be wholly protected, f procedures for the confirmation or extinguishment of native land titles will encouraged, and the economy and future development of the future State Alaska will be placed upon a firm foundation. 2. THE TONGASS TIMBER FUND Section 3 (a) of the Tongass Timber Act of August 8, 1947 (61 Stat. 920 established a special fund for income from the Tongass National Forest in Alash which fund, in the words of the committee report on S. 50, 83d Congress, was aside "until the ultimate determination as to whether certain Indian claims lands contained in the Tongass National Forest have any validity." In 194 the natives were promised that the special fund, which now amounts to ov $1 million, would be held for eventual distribution to them if their claims we deemed valid. Section 205 (g) (2) of S. 49 would repeal section 3 (a) of the 1947 Tonga Timber Act, and further would provide that the fund henceforth be treated ordinary income from the national forests. In fact this provision does n adversely affect native claims in the Tongass National Forest and probab would not affect any subsequent native recovery based upon valid claims that area, since Congress undoubtedly would appropriate a sum sufficient satisfy any judgment against the United States with regard thereto. T |