trusteeship to these needy groups--they would soon become dispossessed of their lands and become dependent upon the counties and the State. While the State of Oklahoma is willing to extend services to Indians, within its means, Federal supervision over these groups should continue in reasonable degree until the job of acculturation is completed.

Many Indian people refuse to deviate from their original cultural patterns and refuse to modernize their thinking. They still cling to their original cultural patterns of 50 or 60 years ago, which means they will still need these special services and assistance from the Government.

LANDS

As of December 31, 1954, the following lands are held by the individual members of the Five Civilized Tribes:

It is estimated there are still approximately 10,000 to 12,000 Indians holding restricted lands who need assistance from the Federal Government during their lifetime.

POPULATION

Since 1907, there has been no accurate enumeration of members of the Five Civilized Tribes. According to a report in answer to the Committee on Public Lands' request of January 3, 1950, population figures show the estimated total number of Indians of one-fourth or more degree of Indian blood by tribes to beCherokees. Chickasaws_

Choctaws..

Creeks

Seminoles

25, 600 3, 200 16,000

16, 640 2,560

Total_-_-_

64, 000

There are approximately 12,000 original allottee Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes who own about 900,000 acres of tax-exempt lands. They are no better prepared to compete in the white man's world today than they were when originally allotted by reason of language handicap, lack of education, etc.

The entire State of Oklahoma is vitally interested in this extension of restrictions from the standpoint of the welfare problem if land is gotten away from Indians by designing land sharks, etc.

Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Aspinall.

Mr. ASPINALL. Judge Welch, you referred to a considerable number of the original allottees who have already received authority to remove the restrictions through the Secretary. By "considerable number" what do you mean?

Judge WELCH. At least several thousand. I have never heard of a calculation being made on that. I am sure it would amount to several thousand original allottees.

Mr. ASPINALL. Then the next question is: Do you think a considerable number will continue to accept this responsibility and apply for the removal of the restrictions?

Judge WELCH. Oh, yes. Under the present existing law or under this change there will be a continuing application by restricted Indians to have their individual restrictions removed.

Mr. ASPINALL. The next question: Do you think there are considerable number who would qualify who have made the application heretofore, who are qualified at the present time, and who may became qualified in the near future who will not make the application on their own initiative?

Judge WELCH. I do not think there are very many.

Mr. ASPINALL. That is all.

Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from Washington, Mr. Westland.
Mr. WESTLAND. No questions.

Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Shuford. Mr. SHUFORD. I just have a question or two brought to mind by my colleague.

On page 2, section (b), the bill provides that

The Secretary of the Interior is authorized and directed to issue, without application, to any Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes

in order to remove the restrictions. Do you not think the bill should have some provision there to give each Indian notice of the removal of the restrictions by the Secretary of the Interior, such as registered mail, or a poster outdoors in the county in which he resides, or notice in the newspaper?

Judge WELCH. Not in the newspaper. I think, and the governor suggests to me here, that registered notice, with a return receipt, would perhaps be the better way to do that.

Mr. SHUFORD. With that notice, do you think he should still have the 6 months' notice or would the 90 days be sufficient for him?

Judge WELCH. Perhaps the 6 months would work out better; 4 months to 6 months; that would not be too long; 6 months.

Mr. SHUFORD. Then you spoke of the heirs inheriting the property such as any other citizen of the United States would inherit from his father. When he does inherit, does he take it without the restrictions?

Judge WELCH. The way the law expresses it is that the restrictions expire when the father dies, provided, however, that if the son is of this restricted Indian blood the son may not sell his inherited interest except by approval of the county court.

Mr. SHUFORD. But that does in effect relieve the restriction?

Judge WELCH. It relieves what is referred to as the Secretary of the Interior restrictions wholly and sets up what is referred to as the county-court restrictions.

Mr. SHUFORD. I think that is all.

Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Rhodes.

Mr. RHODES. What it really does is relieve the restriction against the land and puts it against the person; does it not?

Judge WELCH. No. It still applies to the land, merely by provision that that particular land can only be sold upon application for approval by the court.

Mr. RHODES. If the son is not of restricted blood, then the restriction does not re-arise?

Judge WELCH. Absolutely. If the son is of nonrestricted blood, he can sell that inheritance just like you and I could sell ours.

Mr. RHODES. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. RHODES. I imagine that the main objection which the Five Civilized Tribes have to this bill is the involuntary procedure for removing the restrictions. Is that a true statement?

Judge WELCH. I suppose that is true, yes, because otherwise they would make their own application and initiate the thing themselves, and they have not found any need for this county-court procedure. There have been such a few removals by the Secretary.

Mr. RHODES. Is it a matter of possible loss of benefits which they now get because of their restricted state?

Judge WELCH. I do not understand the answer to that question applied here. As I understood it, the Secretary of the Interior thought that this provision for what we refer to as involuntary removal of restriction should be written into the bill.

Mr. RHODES. It was my understanding from the testimony of Mr. Lee and Mr. Sigler that with this provision the Department could remove some of the benefits which Indians receive, such as hospitalization and educational benefits. Would the possibility that that might happen be part of the reason for the opposition to those provisions of the bill?

Judge WELCH. If that were contemplated, that would provoke opposition. But with those matters generally provided for in legislation entirely separated from the legislation as to restrictions on the property, I have not personally felt that it would be one of the particular problems.

Mr. RHODES. You just do not feel this particular provision is needed? Judge WELCH. I beg your pardon.

Mr. RHODES. You do not feel this particular involuntary provision is needed?

Judge WELCH. The Indians find no reason for that themselves.
Mr. RHODES. That is all.

Mr. HALEY. The gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr. Edmondson.

Mr. EDMONDSON. Mr. Chairman, I would just like to compliment Judge Welch and Governor Maytubby for the splendid statements which both of them have presented, which I think sum up very well the attitude of the Indians with whom I have spoken about this legislation. Judge WELCH. We certainly thank you, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee.

Mr. HALEY. Thank you very much.

We will attempt to meet this afternoon at 2 o'clock. Of course, that is predicated upon the basis of securing unanimous approval for the committee to sit during the deliberation in the House today. With that understanding, the committee will stand in recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a. m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 2 p. m., this same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Mr. HALEY. The committee will be in order.

I believe the gentleman who was testifying had completed his testimony. We will call the next witness.

Before that, I might state that while we have permission to sit during the debate in the House, a rollcall may come at any moment. Of course, if it does, we will have to recess or adjourn the hearing. While

I do not want to cut anyone off, I will appreciate it if we can move along as fast as we possibly can, because many of these witnesses have come a long way, and I certainly want to try to accommodate them. We have people here who we can get to later on, people who are in Washington, and I would appreciate it if they could give their testimony a little later in the hearings, when we have additional hearings. They will then have the opportunity of presenting any statement or additional testimony.

Mr. ASPINALL. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous-consent request that we have the statements of Mr. Belvin, Mr. Davidson, Mr. Walker, and Mr. Gibbs, Mr. George Harjo, Mr. P. J. Harjo, and Mr. John F. Davis, all from Oklahoma, representing the tribes concerned in this legislation, and that we question them altogether after all of them have made their statements.

Mr. HALEY. Are there any objections? If not, it is so ordered.

STATEMENT OF HARRY J. W. BELVIN, PRINCIPAL CHIEF, CHOCTAW NATION, OKLAHOMA

Mr. BELVIN. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, I am Harry J. W. Belvin, chief of the Choctaw Nation, and I have with me one of my councilmen, that is, the president of our council, in Haskell County, Jack Davidson, who will appear with me. If you do not mind, I would like for him to sit with me.

I wish to first express my appreciation, gentlemen, to our Congressmen, specially the Oklahoma delegation, those who have worked so hard on this problem for us, and the opportunity to come and have some voice in this pending legislation.

I also wish to express appreciation to those other good people who have been helping us in this affair which we think is so vital to a certain segment of our Indian society and people. I want to express also to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Indian Office, and the Secretary's Office, because they have also worked with us, and met with us in council, and talked to us right up to the officials, regarding this affair, and we feel they are conscientiously interested in helping us get this legislation passed.

I would like to say this, that I have been as I say sometimes jokingly to the Indians that I speak to in my duties as chief of the Choctaws, and Indian all my life, which takes in some 54 years. This is not a new thing to me. Being one-half Indian blood myself, I was of a 60-degree of Indian blood who had my restrictions removed shortly after I became 21 years of age, and I know what it means to have restrictions removed because soon after that I sold my land, invested in cattle, put them on my father's ranch, and eventually I lost land, ranch, cattle, and all, and then I had to become more or less like the white man, go borrow money again and go into business until finally I kept on and after so long a time I bought my land back. But it has been a struggle, and I know when this protection is taken away from the Indian people many of them are going to be handicapped greatly, because, and this is very true, so many of them today are still handicapped because of language difficulties, and because they are not yet assimilated into the white man's society.

You might think why is the process so long and slow. I cannot exactly explain why it is so long and slow. We understand the Gov

ernment is working for many, many years to get out of the Indian business and settle the Indian problem. That probably accounts for part of it. Maybe the Government program has not worked just as it should. But I do not want you to misunderstand me. I feel that the Government has had a very good program, and I am very thankful for what it has done for my people.

Here is a thing that for 50 years the Government has shown, I think, interest and thrift in, trying to protect these people in their property rights. After all, the Indian has been an inherent landowner, a landlord. At one time he owned this entire continent.

Now the Five Civilized Tribes, confining my remarks now to them, they have yielded a lot. They took their allotments in several years, Governor Maytubby explained this morning, in order that Oklahoma might become a State. Some of these things, in restorations, and making the land tax free, were done, I think, in part payment for value received, which we might say was a service assumed and not imposed. The Indian people of a certain degree of Indian blood have been protected in this property right which I think has been of great importance. If, on the other hand, restrictions are removed, we might say terminated automatically under the operation of law, and when this law in 1956 expires, we do feel, as so aptly expressed already, that chaos will result.

I was talking with an attorney who is, by the way, connected with the Indian Service, and I think his heart is in this for the Indian people. He said, "Bill, I want to tell you something. I already know many people who have a card file on these Indians and a description of this property. You will find people are going out with a few $10 bills and will be offering these Indians some new $10 bills for their property, and they are going to buy it for a song. You will find one of the biggest steals since Oklahoma has become a State." I think the man has something there.

In talking to a lot of fullbloods regarding this, they want their restrictions continued for protection. I realize when they do become apt and able to take care of their own business they could get their restrictions removed by convincing the Secretary of the Interior, or some of those working in the field under the Secretary, that they are able to take care of their business with proper prudence. In that light, they would like to have these restrictions continued for a definite time or for their lifetime. Of course, some of the Indian property did become taxable after 1931, I believe it was, and we have instances on record where some of this property has been sold by the county treasurer, according to law, and some of the Indian people did not even know it was up for sale. I don't know how many of them have come to me and asked me how to reclaim that property.

I asked how come they lost it, and they said, "We didn't know it was up for sale." They had not been used to paying taxes, and, therefore, this thing slipped up on them. I say that to you to show how easy it is for them to lose their property.

When these Indians have been educated not only from the standpoint of literary education, but from the standpoint of dealing and managing their own business, and so on, which we are gradually trying to train them to do, with our good laws and the practices of those in authority, until that day comes I think it would be well for the Gov