PLAN FOR ADJUSTMENT OF CLAIM OF STATE OF OKLAHOMA v. UNITED STATES MONDAY, APRIL 3, 1939 UNITED STATES SENATE, COMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS, Washington, D. C. The committee met, pursuant to call, in the hearing room of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Senate Office Building, at 10:30 a. m., Senator Elmer Thomas of Oklahoma (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Thomas of Oklahoma (chairman), Chavez, Frazier, Donahey, Wheeler Ashurst, Bulow, Hatch, O'Mahoney, Johnson of Colorado, and Shipstead were present either in person or by proxy. Present also: Senator Josh Lee. Hon. Robert L. Owen, Hon. William Zimmerman, Jr., Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and C. W. King, Esq., special counsel, who with Albert C. Hunt, Esq., represent the State of Oklahoma. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. This meeting was called for the purpose of considering Senate Joint Resolution 69. Subsequent to the introduction of Resolution 69 the attorneys for the State of Oklahoma presented a new and amended resolution and requested that I introduce same. I introduced the amended resolution on March 28, and it is known as Senate Joint Resolution No. 109. As I understand, the claimants desire to have the committee consider the latter resolution in place of the former resolution. The history of the matter is as follows: At the last Congress a resolution was introduced proposing to secure some benefits for the State of Oklahoma because of the failure of the Indians of Oklahoma to pay taxes on their property, and it is contended by the State that inasmuch as Indians do not pay taxes in Oklahoma upon their property, the State should not lose the taxes. The only other source from which money could be secured would be the Government of the United States. In order that the record may be complete, without objection, I will introduce the printed hearings held last year and ask that same be made a part of the hearings on the resolution just mentioned, Resolution 109. It will not be necessary to reprint the hearings that were had last year but, for all intents and purposes, the contents of the hearings will be made a part of these hearings and will be available for whatever value they contain. As I understand it, it is the desire of the claimants to have the committee consider Senate Joint Resolution 109. At this point I will place first a copy of Resolution No. 69 into the record, which is to be followed by Resolution 109, being amended Senate Joint Resolution No. 1 69. These resolutions follow Senate Resolution 168, Seventy-fifth Congress, on which hearings were held during that Congress. The Secretary of the Interior's report on Senate Resolution No. 168 (75th Cong.) is as follows: Hon. ELMER THOMAS, THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, Chairman, Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate. MY DEAR SENATOR THOMAS: Further reference is made to your letter of August 5, requesting a report on Senate Resolution 168, authorizing the Committee on Indian Affairs to hold hearings to determine the alleged loss of revenue sustained by certain States due to exemption from taxation of Indian lands, etc. In connection with this proposed study, attention is invited to the fact that at a meeting of the National Emergency Council, on December 17, 1935, the President appointed a committee, composed of the Attorney General, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Acting Director of the Bureau of the Budget to make a study of the problem arising from the acquisition of real property by the Federal Government and the consequent loss of tax revenues by the States and lesser political subdivisions because of the exemption of such property from State and local taxation. In compliance with Budget circular, dated June 30, 1936, reports showing the area and approximate value of Indian lands and improvements exempt from State and local taxation as of June 30, 1936, were secured by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and forwarded to the Procurement Division of the Treasury Department for compilation and study. A request from the Director of Procurement is now pending for additions and changes up to and including June 30, 1937, and this information will later be made available. It is understood that the Director of Procurement now contemplates the submission of reports by field units promptly after a change in real property is made in order to keep this data current. It appears also that a similar study was made by a subcommittee on Indian Affairs in accordance with Senate Resolution 282 and Senate Resolution 432 (71st Cong.) and a copy of the subcommittee's partial report, dated April 13, 1932, is on file in this Department. Presumably, no final action was ever taken on the recommendations of this subcommittee. While the records will doubtless show that there are some instances in which the States and lesser political subdivisions are disadvantaged by reason of Federal ownership or control of real estate, in general it is believed that the various States and other political units derive as much benefit from compensating advantages of Federal ownership or control of tax-exempt property as they lose in uncollected tax revenues. Moreover, it is a well-known fact that the lands existed as Federal domain before the States were created and the State and county governments were established with full cognizance of this fact. It is hardly consistent for the States now to contend that a loss is sustained in tax revenue because of the existence of such tax-exempt property within their borders. If, after giving consideration to these facts, the Committee on Indian Affairs desires to proceed with a further study of this matter, I have no objection to passage of Senate Resolution 168. Sincerely yours, (S. J. Res. 69 and 109 are as follows:) CHARLES WEST, Acting Secretary of the Interior. [S. J. Res. 69, 76th Cong., 1st sess.] JOINT RESOLUTION Proposing a plan for the adjustment of the claim of the State of Oklahoma against the United States arising from the tax exemption of Indian lands and the products thereof, and for other purposes Whereas the Constitution of the United States requires the States of the Union to be admitted on terms of equality; and Whereas the inhabitants of the States to be erected out of the lands of the Louisiana Purchase were expressly pledged the right to be admitted as States on terms of equality; and Whereas the United States removed thirty-one tribes of Indians from fifteen other States, relieving such States of tax-exempt Indian lands and putting this burden exclusively upon the inhabitants of Oklahoma, thus imposing a serious |