STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD MERRICK, CHIEF OF THE LAW DIVISION, FIVE CIVILIZED TRIBES, MUSKOGEE, OKLA.

Mr. MERRICK. I read the redraft and it is almost word for word House Bill 6900. The first section is not changed except to insert the word "adult." I do not know whether Mr. Hastings knows it but it is a fact that all minor enrolled Indians will be adults two years from now. All females are adults now and all the males will be adults two years from now. The second section was redrafted en the lines suggested by Congressman Roach at Muskogee, that they leave the jurisdiction in the county court and provide that the Secretary could, by rules and regulations, prescribe the procedure. The rest of the bill is like House Bill 6900.

The CHAIRMAN. That would fix it so that the courts would be forced to notify your probate attorneys or some person in the department when the guardians were being appointed?

Mr. MERRICK. Yes, sir; the department to adopt rules that they be notified.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the purport of the section?

Mr. MERRICK. Yes, sir; it was the suggestion of Congressman Roach at Muskogee.

Mr. ROACH. I will make a further observation in regard to the closing portion of the bill. I have never seen the copy before. That is in regard to agricultural leases as to whether or not this proposed law would subject the owners of the property to losses, unnecessary expensive delays, and annoyance in leasing those agricultural lands? Mr. WALLEN. It certainly would not under that proposed law for this reason. The Indian is under the supervision of the field clerk and would be at his office for application to be taken for the lease to be approved by the field clerk and transmitted to our office and returned. There was a misapprehension on the part of some menbers of the committee that it was proposed to have it all transmitted to the Secretary of the Interior for approval of agricultural leases. It has all been approved by our office down there. No leases are submitted up here except oil and gas leases and assignments in accordance with Congressman Hastings's bill.

The CHAIRMAN. That would effectively do away with forged leases, forged deeds, etc.?

Mr. WALLEN. Yes; and this middleman stuff, the professional lease men. The Indian would get full valuation under the worth of the lease and it would be paid to him through the department.

Mr. HASTINGS. What do you say on that point where the lands of the restricted Indians are concerned before the county courts of the counties in which the land is located, to give authority to approve those leases and make all of them invalid unless they were approved, but making it mandatory to notify your representative so that he could be present to introduce testimony and be heard and take appeal the same as any other attorneys would in the name of the United States for the benefit of the Indian?

Mr. WALLEN. In reply to that there comes in the same question of extra time to be consumed by members of our department in transacting a little business of surface leasing, agricultural leases and journey to hearings at courts where probably $30 or $50 involved in

benefits to the Indian and the field clerk and land appraisers appraise the valuation of the lease, valuation of the lands for sale, restrictions to be removed, etc. It would save a great deal of time to the department and to the Indians.

Mr. HASTINGS. I hesitate to go into it, but all of your field clerks are human and there is some criticism against them as well as the courts. All your field clerks at all times have not been under civil service?

Mr. WALLEN. No. There have been some temporary appointments in filling their places.

Mr. HASTINGS. You recently transferred a few months ago the field clerk from the district that I lived in, with headquarters at Stillwell under the jurisdiction of Adair and Cherokee Counties. He was a civil service employee who had been in the Government service a number of years and was a very efficient man.

Mr. WALLEN. Yes, sir; got along very well.

Mr. HASTINGS. There were not any charges preferred against him, were there?

Mr. WALLEN. I do not know what that would have to do with this. We have transferred him and there was no additional appointment made. We were forced to reduce and his assitant was placed in charge, Mr. Butler, and is now handling the office.

Mr. HASTINGS. Butler was employed in the office?

Mr. WALLEN. Butler was under the clerical civil service.

Mr. HASTINGS. Is he eligible for appointment with his civil service status?

Mr. WALLEN. Yes, sir. We reduced the force that much. We had to get within the $20,000 cut in our appropriation and Mr. Wachtel got another position.

Mr. HASTINGS. I asked whether there were any charges preferred against him?

Mr. WALLEN. I have the records, if necessary. I think there was nothing serious in that respect. We were reducing and we got that down as far as we possibly could.

Mr. HASTINGS. I think I am entitled to know whether there were any charges preferred against Mr. Wachtel? He was a field clerk and if there were any I want to know it. I tried to get this information and I have not been able to get it yet. There is some criticism against the transfer of these field representatives and, of course, if Mr. Wallen has not any other charges than reducing the force, that is a sufficient answer, but if there are any additional charges against him I think I am entitled to know.

The CHAIRMAN. While I do not see just where it comes into this investigation-I am just stating my thought about it-I can not see any harm in the witness stating whether or not there were charges and whether he was removed on account of that.

Mr. WALLEN. No, sir; there was not any such charge; he was not removed on that account. We have tried to do the best we possibly can for our service and that was in my judgment the best policy. We had that boy in charge and he is getting along well with his work there; I do not know about any complaints.

Mr. ROACH. Before you get away from that, we had up agricultural leases in which I was particularly interested in making inquiry,

and I will make this observation in answer to a question that Mr. Hastings asked Mr. Wallen as to his opinion as to the practicability or advisability of placing the approval of those agricultural leases in the county courts and making appraisement and notifying the department. I believe I am justified in stating that the testimony up to the present time in these hearings shows that a large number of these agricultural leases are small in character, involving very small amounts, and oftentimes apparently cases that should be acted upon promptly. The very fact that a small amount is involved and the necessity for prompt action, it seems to me, would be an argument against creating delay or having appraisements and notifying the department, and this, that, and the other, for a very small item of business, a matter of routine largely. I am not asking a question, but if there is any law drawn it ought to be drawn with that matter kept in mind whether if it places them under the department or in the county courts, that that situation should be avoided, unnecessary delay in transacting small items of business.

Mr. HASTINGS. My question contemplated this, that if a restricted Indian and a white man, a tenant, want to make a lease for a term of years, they would notify the representative of the superintendent, either his field clerk, the probate attorney, or some one designated by him who was convenient, and they would go out to the county judge's office and have the matter there presented in chambers or in the court to the county court, so in the presence of the representatives of the superintendent the court could make inquiry and the field clerk could make recommendation, or the probate attorney could make his recommendation in proper form as to whether or not he thought that was sufficient value and have an order entered either approving or disapproving. Then I am in sympathy with a provision making it a crminal offense to cloud the title of a lease that is not so approved.. That relieves this situation from criticism. Mr. ROACH. It is already a criminal offense to forge these leases and they do that right along, the testimony shows.

Mr. HASTINGS. Make it a criminal offense to put one on record that was not approved. That will relieve the situation from the charge of favoritism in a Government office or the State courts, and it will protect the Indian. They can go up there and have the leases approved in a short time. There are not so many of them, it occurs to me, with restricted Indians. It is with some degree of reluctance, but let me say to you that there are charges that have not been brought before this committee of favoritism by the Government representatives down there. That phase of it has not been investigated. I hesitate to bring witnesses in here, but suppose you have some field clerk who wants to show favoritism to this lessee or that lessee. This is a check on him as well as on the county It insures a fair value to the restricted Indian for his land. It gives the Government a right to be represented and it prevents clouding the title with a whole lot of these leases, that I am not in sympathy with any more than any one else.

Mr. ROACH. In passing from the subject I will make this observation, and do it unhesitatingly, that from the evidence thus far in this case it seems to me that there has been substantial evidence of the necessity for legislation with respect to the control of these

agricultural leases. Just what the character or form of the legislation should be I am not ready to discuss with you, but it does seem to me that calls for legislation,

Mr. HASTINGS. You and I do not disagree on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Do we not also agree that some legislation is necessary to do away with the so-called dual system? It seems to me that is just as important as this. There ought to be some way provided where in many of these cases you do not come up to a stone wall and stop.

Mr. ROACH. I will make the statement that it calls for legislation. Mr. HASTINGS. Let me put this sort of a situation before you, that there is a charge of favoritism by some of these Government representatives. Theoretically, leaving it to the Government representative is all right provided those people are always under civil service and always act in the interest of the restricted Indian and are always fair and impartial and men of the very highest character. Now let me, in the presence of the superintendent, give you a case of a man that he is not responsible for, but it is this sort of situation. Here is a man by the name of Ben Colbert, field clerk in the district in which I live, with headquarters at Stillwell. That fellow was so partisan that he would not allow a restricted Indian to trade except in certain designated stores in Stillwell. If a restricted Indian got into trouble he would not approve or O. K. any account or pay any attorney unless he employed certain attorneys. That was brought to my attention by letters and statements of people beyond any question. I protested to the department. I did everything on earth I could to remedy the situation, not in the interest of any person, but in the interest of fair dealing, and in more than nine months' correspondence finally got him transferred to another place, and finally he was dismissed from the service, I think. That sort of situation can not be tolerated, and I want this committee to know-

Mr. ROACH (interposing). It ought not be tolerated.

Mr. HASTINGS. I want this committee to know that there is a great deal of criticism against some of the local officials of that country, and it is not all one-sided.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not here for the purpose of protecting anybody connected with the department. I am just as anxious to have criticism of the department, if it is honest criticism, as I am of the courts or anyone else.

Mr. HASTINGS. Let me state another thing. I will state, as I have all along, and before the superintendent, it is not personal with me; I have not recommended the appointment of a single probate attorney, but I have stated, and I state again, that the very best class of probate attorneys are not appointed. A great many of them are appointed on political recommendation. I am not charging that to Superintendent Wallen, but I am stating the fact. In the last appropriation bill it provides that they should not be appointed until after competitive examination. That appropriation was effective July 1 last. They are not made upon Mr. Wallen's recommendation, I suppose. They are made by the office here. I am not directing it to him, but I am directing it to the system. Our investigation down there disclosed that two of these men had not satisfactorily passed the civil service examination when we were there in Novem

ber, five or six months after July 1. We did not get their names disclosed then. I afterward wrote to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and I wrote the Civil Service Commission. At first I got an evasive reply from the Civil Service Commission, but when I wrote a more pointed letter I got this reply, which I will insert in the record, giving the names of the probate attorneys, and the names of the two who failed to pass the examination. They were Peter Deichman and Matthew Robertson. But it shows that all of these men made extremely low grades, and, in my judgment, are not the class of men that should be appointed as probate attorneys down. here in Oklahoma.

(The letter referred to is as follows:)

Hon. W. W. HASTINGS, M. C.,

UNITED STATES CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION,
Washington, D. C., December 2, 1924.

House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. HASTINGS: Referring to your letter of November 19, 1924, and also to one dated December 1, in regard to certain persons employed as probate attorneys for the Five Civilized Tribes in Oklahoma, I have the honor to state that five of the persons mentioned competed in the examination held June 4, 1924, and received eligible ratings as follows: James Hubert Finley, 81.75 (disability preference); Robert Crockett, 80.25; Robert B. Drake, 77.25; Dudley B. Buell, 72; William M. Simms, 72 (disability preference). These eligibles are now on certification for permanent appointment.

The papers of Peter Deichman and Matthew Robertson have just been completed, some delay having been occasioned by their applications being returned to them for correction. They received ineligible ratings. They are employed temporarily under authority of section 2 of Rule VIII, pending the selection of eligibles.

By direction of the commission,

Very respectfully,

JOHN T. DOYLE, Secretary.

What I have been insisting on all the time before the committee, and on the floor and elsewhere, is that if we had the very highest class appointed as probate attorneys, such as the law contemplates, I do not believe there would be any friction with the courts or trouble with the courts, and hence, I do not believe that all the trouble is due to what is supposed to be called the dual system. I do not believe that the most efficient men have been appointed. I do not see how the department is justified in carrying under the law these probate attorneys for five or six months after July first as temporary employees. I think they ought to have been governed by that provision in the last Interior Department appropriation bill passed some time prior thereto, and the civil service examination should have been held prior to July 1; I do not believe that any of these men should have been carried upon the rolls who do not come within the provisions of that law.

Mr. ROACH. I agree entirely with what you say, that in any condition that results unfavorably to the Indians, if we legislate at all, we legislate in favor of the Indian-not the department or the county courts in Oklahoma, but the Indians. What I wanted to ask you is this: What law can we pass other than we now have requiring these attorneys to be under civil-service examination that would remedy this situation?

Mr. HASTINGS. I think the department ought to be censured for not complying with it technically.

24076-24- -32