STATEMENT OF THE MANAGERS ON THE PART OF THE HOUSE. The amendment of the House does not require conveyances by full bloods of inherited allotted land to be approved by the county court or anyone else. The act of May 27, 1908, required the conveyance to be approved by the county court, and Senate bill 4948, as it passed the Senate, also contains a similar provision to the one suggested herein, requiring the conveyance before it should be valid to be approved by the court having jurisdiction of the estate of the deceased. The necessity for the passage of this act, as will be shown by the report of the House committee, as well as the Senate committee, is because the Attorney General of the United States has rendered an opinion holding that where the allottee died prior to May 27, 1908, although the conveyance was not made until after May 27, 1908, the deed would have to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and the United States court for the eastern district of Oklahoma and the State courts have held that the date of the death of the allottee was immaterial when the conveyance was not made until after the act of May 27, 1908, went into effect. In other words, they held that the provision of the act of May 27, 1908, related to the date of the conveyance and not to the date of the death of the allottee, and this act is to clear up the question or controversy as to the date of the conveyance being approved by the county court. The report (No. 549) of the House on the said Senate bill (S. 4948) is further explanatory of the object and necessity for this legislation, and is as follows: [House Report No. 549, Sixty-second Congress, second session.] The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (S. 4948) to amend an act approved May 27, 1908, entitled "An act for the removal of restrictions from part of the lands of the allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes, and for other purposes," having duly considered the same, reports the bill without amendment and recommends that it do pass. Your committee adopts the report of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs on this bill, which is as follows: [Senate Report No. 548, Sixty-second Congress, second session.] Your committee having had under consideration Senate bill 4948, recommends that it pass. By the act of April 26, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 137), it was provided in section 22 that deeds of full-blood Indian heirs should be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. By section 9 of the act of May 27, 1908, a new method was provided as follows, to wit: "SEC. 9. That the death of any allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes shall operate to remove all restrictions upon the alienation of said allottee's land: Provided, That no conveyance of any interest of any full-blood Indian heir in such land shall be valid unless approved by the court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of said deceased allottee." The Supreme Court of Oklahoma has held that the fact of death, under the act of May 27, 1908, authorized the conveyance of any interest of any full-blood heir to be approved by the probate court of Òklahoma, and many deeds have been taken in accordance with this decision, regardless of whether the allottee died prior to May 27, 1908, or not. The United States district court rendered a decision to the same effect in the case of Harris v. Gale (188 Fed., 712), and no appeal was taken from this decision, which was rendered June 29, 1911-nearly a year ago. Judge Campbell, the United States district judge, in his opinion says: "There being no conceivable reason why Congress should have intended to distinguish between conveyances by full-blood heirs of inherited lands made subsequent to the act of May 27, 1908, where the ancestor died prior to that date and where the ancestor died subsequent to that date, and the language of the act itself not so clearly evincing such an intention as to preclude the contrary construction, it is decided that by the said act any full-blood Indian heir of any deceased allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes is authorized to convey any interest in the lands inherited by him from such deceased allottee, upon approval thereof by the court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of such deceased allottee, whether such death occurred before or after May 27, 1908, and the approval of such conveyance by the Secretary of the Interior is not required. Of course in cases where such heir is a minor, the procedure to secure the necessary order and approval of the court must be as in cases of other minors." The reason for the necessity of this act is that the Interior Department, through the Attorney General, has held that in cases where the death of allottee occurred prior to May 27, 1908, title passing by deed to the heirs could only be valid with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, under the act of 1906. Both the Federal court and the State court having held to the contrary it is necessary that this act should be passed for the purpose of removing the cloud from these titles. For the reasons given the committee advises the immediate passage of this bill. JNO. H. STEPHENS, CHAS. H. BURKE, O TRANSFER OF FORT THOMAS, KY., TO NAVY DEPARTMENT. JULY 22, 1912.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. Mr. FIELDS, from the Committee on Military Affairs, submitted the following REPORT. [To accompany H. R. 24561.] The Committee on Military Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 24561) for the transfer of the military reservation of Fort Thomas, Ky., to the Navy Department, having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass, and submit. the following report: Your committee finds, upon investigation, that Fort Thomas, Ky., a military reservation of 141 acres, has been practically abandoned by the War Department for about three years, being in charge of two caretakers. It further finds from the report of the Secretary of War, submitted to the chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs on May 18, 1912 (and hereinafter submitted as a part of this report) that the War Department has recommended to Congress the sale of certain military reservations with a view to utilizing the proceeds to bring about a readjustment of the stations of the mobile troops of the Regular Army in the United States. The Secretary of War further states that" the post of Fort Thomas represents an outlay of $626,965.78 from the funds appropriated for the support of the Army, and it is estimated that the reservation can be sold for $250,000." The Secretary of the Navy, in his remarks of June 7, 1912, in reference to this bill says: In order to increase the efficiency of the Marine Corps it is highly desirable to establish a central depot for the training of recruits, enlisted in the States east of the Mississippi River; and on February 2, 1912, understanding that the War Department did not intend to again garrison Fort Thomas, Ky., which offers many advantages for the above purpose, I made inquiry of the War Department as to whether there was any objection to the transfer to the Navy Department of the Fort Thomas Reservation. Replying, the Secretary of War stated that while the garrison had been withdrawn temporarily, it was highly probable that this post would be required upon the return of several regiments from the Philippine Islands, and that the War Department was not willing at that time to surrender the reservation to the Navy Department. The Secretary of the Navy concluded by saying: While the Navy Department still considers that the transfer of this reservation for the purpose stated would be most advantageous to the Marine Corps, it has no desire to press the transfer if the post in question is needed by the War Department. In view of the fact that this reservation has been abandoned for some three years, and the War Department has recommended to Congress the sale of certain military reservations with a view to utilizing the proceeds to bring about a readjustment of the stations of the mobile troops of the Regular Army of the United States, it is the opinion of your committee that it would be unprofitable to longer retain the Fort Thomas Reservation for the use of the War Department; and as the proof shows that this reservation represents an outlay of $626,965.78, and the maximum appraisement of same is $250,000, it would represent a loss of $376,965.78, if put upon the market at its full appraisement. Your committee therefore recommends that it be transferred to the Navy Department, where it will be of greater profit to the Government of the United States, and, in conclusion, we submit, in full, the report of the Secretary of War, which is as follows: WAR DEPARTMENT, May 18, 1912. The CHAIRMAN COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AFFAIRS, House of Representatives. SIR: I have the honor to return herewith House bill 24561 referred to me for information and remark. The War Department has recommended to Congress the sale of certain military reservations with a view to utilizing the proceeds to bring about a greatly needed readjustment of the stations of the mobile troops of the Regular Army in the United States. If the policy of the War Department to concentrate mobile troops in large posts at strategic points near centers of popluation and supplies does not meet with the approval of Congress, and funds are not made available for necessary construction to carry out this policy, it will be necessary to regarrison Fort Thomas until accommodations can be provided for the full garrison of mobile troops in Hawaii and the Panama Canal Zone. By reason of the fact that six regiments have been ordered withdrawn from the Philippine Islands the total available accommodations in the United States will be taxed to the utmost to provide shelter for these troops pending the dispatch of additional regiments to Hawaii and the Canal Zone. The post of Fort Thomas represents an outlay of $626.956.78 from the funds appropriated for the support of the Army and it is estimated that the reservation can be sold for $250,000. For the reason that the War Department can not at present state that Fort Thomas is no longer needed as a military post and for the further reason that if the policy of concentration above referred to is adopted, the War Department must consider Fort Thomas as an asset to be made available in carrying out the policy without drain upon the public funds, it is recommended that the bill herewith be not given favorable consideration. HENRY L. STIMSON, Secretary of War. Very respectfully, |