Page images
PDF
EPUB

1st Session

No. 637

COOPERATIVE SCHOOL BOARD, QUEETS, WASH.

APRIL 9, 1935.-Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. AYERS, from the Committee on Indian Affairs, submitted the

following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 6651]

The Committee on Indian Affairs, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 6651) to provide funds for cooperation with the school board at Queets, Wash., in the construction of a public school building to be available to Indian children of the village of Queets, Jefferson County, Wash., having considered the same, report thereon with a recommendation that it do pass.

For several years it has been the policy of the Indian Department to provide for education of Indian children, wherever possible, in public schools of the State. This policy has prevailed whether the public schools be located on Indian reservations or on adjacent lands. Where permitted by the public schools, this policy has proved eminently satisfactory for the education of the Indian children and in many places it has led to the abandonment of previously established. Indian schools.

In Washington, where the school involved by this bill is located, all of the public schools on Indian reservations and adjacent thereto have displayed a commendable spirit of cooperation with the Indian Department in putting this policy into general effect in that State. Commissioner Collier said, "There has been the utmost assistance and cooperation by citizens and school officials." However, in many instances the burdens assumed by the local school districts have become greater than their carrying capacity, and additions to the present buildings or new buildings must be constructed if the district is to carry on under this policy.

Naturally, by reason of Indian-owned lands or reservation lands, the schools, utilized to the greatest extent by Indian children, find themselves without available funds and without security to raise funds to build additions to present buildings or to construct new buildings. This is caused by the fact that neither the Indian-owned lands

nor the reservation lands are assessable, and in most instances the district is now bonded to its State constitutional limitation.

These school districts had provided buildings and equipment sufficient for accommodation of the white patrons before taking on the Indian patrons, and now, by reason of the increased attendance brought about by their cooperation with the Indian Department, they are totally inadequate to pursue this policy further without help. Additions and new buildings must be had. In many instances, basements, shed and other nondescript buildings are being used for school purposes, when, in fact, they are unfit for such purpose. In all instances the feeling between the white people, who are the taxpayers and who have borne the burden with reference to buildings, and the Indian children and Indian population of the districts has been very amicable. Indeed, there has been no evidence whatever of racial prejudice. The Indian children have been accepted and retained in these schools upon exactly the same basis as white children.

Because of the importance of this and other similar bills before this committee, a subcommittee was appointed to consider all of these Indian educational bills. The subcommittee reported that it found that in defraying overhead expenses for Indian attendance in these schools, the Government is paying a tuition averaging 40 cents per capita per school day for the Indian children attendants. Assuming that a school year is 9 months of 20 school days each, the Government is paying $72 per capita per year. The subcommittee found that this average tuition is less than the average per capita cost for such overhead, leaving a condition where the district is compelled to bear the burden of the overhead shortage in addition to bearing all the burden for buildings and maintenance.

The subcommittee also reported that the average per capita cost for elementary and secondary education in the United States is $87.67 per annum-this varied in different States. This makes an average daily per capita cost throughout the Nation of 484 cents per day as against an average of 40 cents per day paid by the Government for Indian children attending public schools.

The Commissioner of Indian Affairs appeared before the committee and recommended passage of this legislation. He advised that there were at present 33 white children and 28 Indian children attending the Queets School. From this report it appears that by reason of the Indian attendance at this school, both white and Indian children are now prohibited attendance because of the overcrowded condition of the school.

The per capita cost for elementary and secondary education in the State of Washington is $98.64 per annum. This reduced to daily per capita amounts to 54%1⁄2 cents; hence, the payment of a tuition of 45 cents for the Indian children attending this school is $17.64 per capita per annum under the actual cost, or 9%1⁄2 cents per day under actual cost.

The enactment of this legislation is in effect an economy move. The Federal Government by closing the Indian schools formerly maintained and assigning the Indian children to State schools has already effected economies greater than the expenditure proposed, which expenditure would not be a recurring item but in the nature of capital investment. According to the bill, the State schools must continue to take Indian children the same as white children and the expenditure

es the

t suff

on the

dance tment, ithout

v in

being urpose. re the

dings

ts has

ver of

ained

shall be made subject to such further conditions as may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior; hence, all necessary safeguards are thrown around the investment.

If this legislation is not enacted, it will undoubtedly be necessary for the Indian Department to reestablish Indian schools, since it is impossible for the public-school districts to construct the necessary improvements. It is not believed that the public schools should be asked to carry this additional educational burden belonging entirely to the Government. Unless the relief proposed by this bill is brought about, the Indian Department will be compelled to reestablish the Indian schools at a decidedly greater expense and when such schools are reestablished, the per capita cost will treble that now paid to the public schools; hence the statement that this is an economy legislation.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

cases.

In 1931-32, there were 6,685 cases filed and in 1932-33, there were 4,337 cases filed. In 1931-32 there were 9,138 petitions filed and in 1932-33 there were 6,460 petitions filed. In 1931-32 there were 9,934 persons admitted to citizenship and in 1932-33 there were 6,382 persons admitted to citizenship. In 1922 there were about 1,400 bankruptcy cases filed during the fiscal year and in 1932 there were 2,495 cases filed. In 1933 they numbered 2,162.

Statistical information on file in the Department of Justice shows that during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1934, exclusive of bankruptcy proceedings, a total of 1,047 new cases were commenced in this district. During this same period 1,033 cases were terminated, and at the close of the fiscal year there were pending 1,956 cases. During the same year 2,153 bankruptcy proceedings were commenced in this district, 1,924 were terminated, and 2,406 were left pending at the close of the year.

These figures readily show the great increase of business in this court and the fact that, unless another judge is appointed, the court will be seriously handicapped in the disposition of criminal and civil cases with reasonable dispatch and the requirements of litigants will be interfered with and delayed for an unreasonable time.

Because the cases filed in the district court readily fall into three classifications and divisions, it has been customary for the court to hold criminal, civil jury, and nonjury sessions. The nonjury sessions include equity, admiralty, bankruptcy, and jury-waived law cases. It was the practice of the court to assign one judge to each division for the term.

The death of Judge Lowell on November 30, 1933, has made it impossible to carry out this program. One judge at the present time has a strong list of jury cases awaiting trial and the other judge has every day of the term assigned to nonjury cases. This leaves the court without a judge for the criminal session. It will be necessary to call in district judges from other parts of the circuit to render assistance but, because of the fact that other district judges are so busy in their own courts, it has been impossible to receive assurance of immediate assistance.

The judicial conference recommendation in 1930, 1931, 1932, 1933, and 1934, as contained in the reports of the Attorney General for those years, follows:

District courts-Removal of restrictions upon the appointment of successors in existing judgeships. Apart from provision for additional judges, the conference has heretofore directed attention to the need of removing restrictions upon the filling of vacancies in certain existing judgeships. The conference has carefully considered the desirability of the removal of these restrictions so that successors can be appointed in the cases in which vacancies occur, where experience has shown the necessity of having a permanent, instead of a temporary, judgeship. As a result of its examination of conditions in each district, the conference last year recommended that the following judgeships should be made permanent by removing the existing limitation upon the appointment of successors: "Two in the district of Massachusetts", etc.

The committee is of the opinion that the vacancy on this court caused by the death of Judge Lowell has created an emergency which makes imperative the passage of this act in order that the work of the court may not be seriously impaired by a congestion of dockets and that criminal cases presented before this court may be tried with dispatch, and litigants before the court may have their cases disposed of within a reasonable time.

о

SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER COURT ORDER

APRIL 9, 1935.- Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union and ordered to be printed

Mr. WEAVER, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

REPORT

[To accompany H. R. 5455]

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the bill (H. R. 5455) to amend an act entitled "An act to regulate the manner in which property shall be sold under orders and decrees of any United States courts", approved March 3, 1893, as amended, after consideration report the same favorably to the House with amendments, with the recommendation that the bill, as amended, do pass. The committee amendments are as follows:

1. Page 1, line 12, after "sold" insert "as a whole or in separate parcels"

2. Page 3, line 6, strike out line 6 and the first seven words in line 7 and insert in lieu thereof "After a hearing of which notice to all parties interested shall be given by publication or otherwise as the court may direct, the court".

3. Page 3, line 19, after the word "value" strike out the period, insert a colon and the following:

Provided further, That before confirmation of any private sale the terms of such sale shall first be published in such newspaper or newspapers of general circulation as the court having jurisdiction may direct at least ten days before confirmation; and such private sale shall not then be confirmed by said court where a bona fide offer has been made, under such conditions as said court may prescribe, which offer shall guarantee at least a 10-percent increase over the offered price specified in such private sale.

H. R. 5455 amends the existing law which regulates the sale of property under order or decree of a United States court. Present law provides for public sale of real estate, and also for private sale. When a private sale is had the property must be appraised by three disinterested appraisers and may not be sold for less than two-thirds of the appraised value. Due to the wording of the act which provided for private sales (Public Law No. 426, 73d Cong.) uncertainty has arisen whether the requirement that the property be appraised

« PreviousContinue »