here, too, because that is one that was passed out by the House. But, historically, the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives never had jurisdiction of the Indians or the Indian affairs. Mr. MADDEN. What committee considered it in the Senate? Mr. ROGERS. It was the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights. It came, I think, out of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. MADDEN. Did they proceed to have that legislation as a separate piece of legislation and on second thought incorporate it in the civil rights bill? Mr. ROGERS. What they did, as I outlined to you, they passed the Senate bill, S. 1843, on December 7, 1967, without objection--unanimous in the U.S. Senate. Mr. MADDEN. Which included this Indian bill? Mr. ROGERS. Which included the Indian bill. So Senator Ervin, when he had written the civil rights up, he put the rights of the Indians in there and it went in. Mr. MADDEN. Ordinarily, if there was not a civil rights bill, Senator Ervin would probably have had the Indian legislation as a separate bill. Mr. ROGERS. You mean he had already passed the bill over there? Mr. MADDEN. You are talking about this bill. Mr. ROGERS. No; the Indian bill, S. 1843. Mr. MADDEN. Why did he not send it over as it passed without including it here? Mr. ROGERS. He sent it over and it was referred to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee when it got over here. Mr. MADDEN. How did he get this bill in the Senate? Mr ROGERS. The history of it shows, I think, that Senator Ervin offered it as an amendment and the Senate took it. Mr. MADDEN. What State is Senator Ervin from? Mr. ROGERS. North Carolina. Mr. MADDEN. Are there many Indians in North Carolina? Mr. ROGERS. Yes; there are. Mr. MADDEN. Of course, the Indians have not been around here very long and I was wondering Mr. ROGERS. May I tell you the story of how he got the Indians. I mentioned the story of when the Cherokee and the Creeks were moved Mr. MADDEN. And they hung the chief. Was that out of North Carolina that they hung the chief? Mr. ROGERS. There is a bunch that did not get out. They got in the hills of North Carolina and stayed there. They stayed in North Carolina and Tennessee, and then the tribe went on to Oklahoma and set up the Cherokee Nation and those that were left in the hills soon got together, and if you want to go over the mountains into North Carolina you will find Cherokee, N.C., which is a rather flourishing little town made of the ones that were left. One of the big problems that the Cherokee Nation and the boys out in North Carolina wonder what the interest may be in some of the tribal rights of some of the Cherokee Nations in Oklahoma. Mr. MADDEN. That makes it very plain. Mr. ROGERS. You see, when I read in the paper that they set up a committee over in the Senate to protect the constitutional rights of 92-367-68-pt. 1- -5 everybody, I wondered exactly what they had in mind. I understand that any Government employee that wants to make a complaint can do so to his committee. Mr. MADDEN. Anyhow, this Indian legislation that is incorporated in this bill passed unanimously in the Senate? Mr. ROGERS. I am so informed. I have not personally checked the record. Mr. MADDEN. And the Senator, evidently in his committee, was very anxious that it be incorporated into law, or it would not be in this bill. Mr. ROGERS. That is right. Mr. MADDEN. Do you not think we might be doing the Senate a great favor, although they have not reciprocated very much—I remember 14 (b) and there were about seven and eight Senators who would not allow the Senate to vote on it? It might be good and beneficial, and benefit millions of people over this country by the adoption of this resolution. The immediate consideration and enactment of this bill might prevent some of these riots. Maybe if this bill was passed a month ago this thing would not have happened in Memphis yesterday. So I want to thank you and the Judiciary Committee for the outstanding work you have done. I am trying to get legislation through this Congress this year in order to relieve a critical situation. I want to thank Senator Ervin for taking up the welfare of the Indians too, because we have been a long time getting around to that, and we ought to accommodate them by getting this resolution out and passed and signed by the President. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Anderson, do you any questions? Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. I think my distinguished colleague from Indiana has raised a very important and interesting point that maybe deserves some comment. Any of us on this committee who regard the Senate amendment to H.R. 2516 as maybe a little bit less than perfect are immediately attacked as being enemies of civil rights and open housing. On the other hand, I think the colloquy between Mr. Madden and the gentleman who is now in the chair indicates this bill has been weighted down with matters and issues that are decidedly extraneous to the whole question of civil rights, and yet the gentleman from Colorado, I would think, now finds himself in the position of carrying water for those people who may even be, as Mr. Madden suggested, enemies of civil rights legislation per se are loading this bill down; yet the gentleman would be opposed to going to conference and refining this bill to the point where it would deal exclusively with important issues of civil rights. Mr. ROGERS. I think Mr. Celler pointed out yesterday, and I think the examination of this bill will show, that all of the provisions, with the exception of the Indians, is something that the House Judiciary Committee has passed. Mr. ANDERSON of Illinois. That is the point I am making. There is an exception and it is an exception that occupies, I think, a total of six titles of the bill. I want to make one other observation. There are some who take a rather cynical view of the legislative process and suggest there is some "piddling" and "fiddling" going on because we are conducting these hearings, I want to thank the gentle man from Colorado, but I just cannot help but think what a wonderful privilege I have; for almost an hour I have been privileged to listen to him discuss six titles of this bill and that is about three-quarters of the time that will be available to the Members of the House in considering the entire bill with all of its ramifications. I want to thank you for the statement. It was very helpful. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Bolling, do you have anything to ask? Mr. O'NEILL. No. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Matsunaga? Mr. MATSUNAGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wish to commend the gentleman from Colorado for the excellent statement. I think the statements he has made this morning really clarify the Indian provisions, and I can see the germaneness of the Indian provisions to the original bill, I am inclined to fully support the entire bill. About how many tribes are involved here? Mr. ROGERS. I tried to ascertain that number, but depending upon the number that are still on the reservation, and I do not think they have counted them lately, they are the ones who usually carry out the provisions of the tribal council. In my own State, there are the Utes, and they have a reservation in the southwest part of the State and extends over into Utah. There are a number of tribes in Arizona and New Mexico, as well as South Dakota, as I understand from our colleague from South Dakota. Mr. MATSUNAGA. What is the approximate number in tribes, as well as total population? Mr. ROGERS. You mean how many, approximately the number of Indians that may be involved? Mr. MATSUNAGA. That will be affected by this bill. Mr. ROGERS. As I understand, at least 14 States are involved in it. The population on the tribal reservations may vary and the Indian associations, as I say the figure has not been obtained and I do not know. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Are the figures available? Mr. ROGERS. Yes, I am sure that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, or the Secretary of the Interior can outline them and I am sure— I say I am sure, if you will take the hearings that the Senate had in connection with it, I think it can be supplied. Mr. MATSUNAGA. I was appalled at your statement that the jury fee still stands at 50 cents today. Why do we allow this? Mr. ROGERS. That is the question for the tribal council. You see, when I am talking of that, you have the tribal council, which under Federal law, is limited to imposing a $500 fine and 6 months penalty. Mr. MATSUNAGA. Now, the bill would provide against cruel and unusual punishment. According to whose custom, whose standards, will we judge what is cruel and what is unusual? Mr. ROGERS. The objective, as set forth in this legislation, is that the Secretary of the Interior shall consult with the Indians, Indian tribes, and interested agencies of the United States. Now, that is his obligation and when we placed a limitation upon him that he should see that the rights and privileges under the Constitution of the United States will be guaranteed. It would be then, according to Federal decisions interpreting the eighth amendment to the Constitution. Mr. MATSUNAGA. I am inclined to agree with an earlier statement, with the gentleman from Indiana, that I think the Indians have had it long coming to them and this, I believe, will help to elevate the standard of our fellow Americans to a point of dignity. Thank you. Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. Mr. COLMER. Is there anything further, Mr. Rogers? Mr. ROGERS. No, sir. Mr. COLMER. Mr. Rogers, there are a number of things I would like to have gone into here with you, but you confined your testimony to the Indians and I will confine my questions to that. A lot of the questions that I will ask about the Indians apply to the rest of the bill. There are some other people here who want to be heard and the committee will thank you for your time. Mr. McCulloch. Mr. McCULLOCH. I prefer to follow the chairman of the Judiciary Committee after he has concluded his testimony. Mr. COLMER. Very well. Mr. Dingell. STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN D. DINGELL, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Mr. DINGELL. I would like to thank the committee for the privilege of appearing before you this morning. For the record, I am John Dingell, a Member of the Congress from the 16th District of Michigan. I would like to discuss, briefly, a matter that I think should be brought to your attention, which is on page 46, title X, the so-called civil obedience section of the bill. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that you recall I have long Mr. COLMER. What page? Mr. DINGELL. Page 46. Actually, 46 and following through the bottom of page 49. As you recall, Mr. Chairman, for a long period of years I have had considerable interest in responsible firearms and arms control legislation. It has long been my position that this country should have legislation which permits possession of firearms, and for the legitimate sporting and self-defense purposes, and I have sponsored a number of pieces of legislation to impose some responsibility and limitation on the right to own firearms and the right to use firearms. I am concerned about the so-called Civil Obedience Act of 1968 and the title which appears there because, if applied in an area of calm, when there is no strife and passions are not running high, in all probability that section would create little mischief for the individual. Mr. COLMER. What? Mr. DINGELL. It would create little mischief for the individual. However, if this section were to be applied in times when passions are running high, when emotions are at fever pitch and where there is some civil disorder, conceivably it could be applied, possibly as ex post facto law, by excited prosecutors acting under the pressures of public opinion to punish certain persons for possession, for use, for ownership of firearms, or for teaching the use of firearms. Conceivably, it could be utilized for acting against persons who might possess substances which might be explosive in nature or flammable in nature, but the owership and intent of the individual concerned might be innocent. The interesting thing about this section, Mr. Chairman, is that it does not deal with the act of the criminal, misuse of the firearms, unrelated or other circumstances, or to the teaching of the application or the making of firearms. It is triggered by something that takes place later. That is the use of the firearm in some kind of civil dis order, or criminal misuse of the firearm. This criminal misuse then relates back to the original act of demonstrating the use of a firearm demonstrating or teaching of the application of the use of a firearm. The result of this could be that a person who innocently showed a neighbor how to use a firearm might be conceivably, at a later time, charged with a violation of this section by reason of the neighbor, at a later time, using that firearm in defense of his home. One might conceivably be charged with a crime, or rather violation of section 231, because unbeknown to him, that neighbor might have used that firearm in some portion, or in some section, in some way related to a riot. This, conceivably, could have an extremely dangerous effect on him and on the Negro citizen in terms of the ability to buy a firearm. It is highly doubtful that a hardware store will sell a shotgun to an innocent Negro citizen in a time of approaching, what we have been led to call in recent years, "long hot summers," because, conceivably the owner of that store might be chargeable with Knowing or having reason to know or intending that the same will be unlawfully employed for use in, or in furtherance of, a civil disorder which may in any way or degree obstruct, delay, or adversely affect commerce or the movement of any article . . . This is very broad language. It is language that can be stretched to cover an abundance of circumstances not altogether known to the parties of the circumstance at the time a firearm is sold or demonstrated. Now, there was some languge interpreting this which was entered into during the Senate debate. There was an attempt to expand this very broadly to include firearm sales or other matters by certain individuals of the Senate, who were long known to the opposition of the ownership of firearms for lawful purposes, sporting and defense purposes. I believe that the fact that the criminality of the act is triggered by circumstances unrelated to the happening, that the going forward should raise questions in the minds of a good legal draftsman, because the crime mortality of the act is not necessarily the sale, but it is the later use of the firearm or the explosive which may be used. Now, I have no defense for explosives. I think explosives are something which really should be most rigorously controlled. But a firearm used by sporting persons, by a large number of citizens, and they |