of thousands of reindeer in the Arctic, and one theory is that the reason for the decrease is that there were simply too many deer there and they overgrazed the range and it will take a long, long while for it to come back.

Senator CORDON. Mr. Critchfield, have you any other information that you have in your data that the committee should have other than this information with reference to these reserves?

Mr. CRITCHFIELD. I did not give you the total figure including the reindeer reserves. The total figure is 4,269,500, including the reindeer reserves.

Senator CORDON. That is reservations that have been made of specific land areas for some type of native use or service?

Mr. CRITCHFIELD. That is right. That includes the 32 that we requested to be revoked. It does include, however, such acreage as might be involved in the 16 that are going to be transferred over to the local school district. But in that case, the acreage would be very small and would not seriously affect the total.

Senator CORDON. Any other transfers or action with reference to that matter, I would think could be handled as well after statehood as before. I can see no particular advantage in attempting to do anything in an admission statute with reference to it.

Mr. CRITCHFIELD. I would like to point out, of course, that the Bureau is working from time to time on eliminating the withdrawals in areas where we have no use. I think one of our big problems, of course, is the manpower to get the job done rapidly. It is a matter of getting it done as soon as we can.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, might I ask Mr. Critchfield one question?

Senator CORDON. Yes.

Mr. LEWIS. Did these seven reservations that you mentioned include the Hydaburg Reservation?

Mr. CRITCHFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. LEWIS. As I understand it, Mr. Bennett, the Hydaburg Reservation no longer exists by reason of the decision in what is commonly called the Hydaburg case?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, that is pretty close to a statement on it. You had it up before you very recently. I know that. For all practical purposes, the principal objective of that reservation certainly was put out of the way with the action of the court.

Senator CORDON. Tell us a little bit about that.

Mr. LEWIS. Well, I think Mr. Bennett can explain the decision of the court better than I, because he has had more occasion to study it. Senator CORDON. Help us out here, Mr. Bennett.

Mr. BENNETT. I don't want to take on the job of explaining that case which covered a good many issues.

Senator CORDON. What was its nature?

Mr. BENNETT. Well, it had to do with the nature of the contention that the action of the Secretary was sufficient to give the natives in that area exclusive rights. That was litigated at great length and many issues and statutes were involved in it. But the net result was that the action of the Secretary contributed nothing and that the general laws of the Congress dealing with the regulation of fisheries prevailed, and the action of the Secretary did not restrict that area exclusively for the fishing of the natives.

I imagine Mr. Slaughter back here has probably analyzed the socalled Hydaburg case in much greater detail than I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a decision of the Alaska Federal court? Mr. BENNETT. No; that was a decision of the Supreme Court, as I recall it.

Mr. SLAUGHTER. The Hydaburg case is the decision of the United States District Court.

Senator CORDON. Mr. Slaughter, let's hear from you on that. I would like to know, as long as we are discussing it, just what we are talking about. In the first place, the Hydaburg case had to arise, by what I gather here, by virtue of some Executive or administrative order of reservation. Right?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. Well, if I can summarize the Hydaburg case very briefly, Hydaburg is right down here in the extreme southeastern

corner.

The CHAIRMAN. It is just off the coast from Ketchikan, is it not? Mr. SLAUGHTER. A little ways from Ketchikan, but it is quite close. The 1936 act authorized the Secretary of the Interior, under certain circumstances, to establish reservations for natives of Alaska. The Secretary did establish a reservation at Hydaburg which included water as well as land, and included within the water area of the reservation was a trap, a fish trap, operated by the firm of Libby, McNeill & Libby. Libby, McNeill & Libby claimed that the reservation was invalid, and the United States brought an action to enjoin them from operating the fish trap.

Senator CORDON. In the district court in Alaska?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. In the district court in Alaska. The district court opinion covered quite a wide range of matters, but the really essential thing, it seems to me, on which the district judge decided the case was that he felt that the natives had not used and occupied the Hydaburg area in a sufficient manner to justify the establishment of the reservation, because the statute referred to the establishment of areas which were in the use and occupancy of the natives or which were adjacent to such areas, summarizing its terms very briefly. The judge felt that on the facts that had been presented to him in that case, the use and occupancy did not exist, and therefore the action of the Secretary in setting up the reservation was ineffective to establish the reservation. Therefore, Libby, McNeill & Libby's fish trap was still entitled to stay there, and the injunction was not issued.

Senator CORDON. And that had its finality in that decision and has not been appealed?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. That has not been appealed.

Senator CORDON. When was the decision rendered, approximately? Mr. SLAUGHTER. Approximately 3 years ago.

The CHAIRMAN. The Supreme Court?

Mr. SLAUGHTER. No; just the district court of Alaska.

Mr. LEWIS. And the time for an appeal has elapsed.

Senator CORDON. What was the area involved in acreage, does anybody know?

Mr. CRITCHFIELD. About a hundred thousand acres.

Mr. CoOTE. 110.

Mr. LEWIS. That would reduce the figure that was furnished Mr. Critchfield by that amount if the effect was to do away with the reservation.

Senator JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, I had a question I wanted to ask.

Senator CORDON. Certainly, Senator Jackson.

Senator JACKSON. Am I correct in my understanding that these Indian claims in Alaska for the most part are predicated upon the theory that the Indians have an aboriginal right to certain areas of land and water in Alaska as distinguished from some right accruing from treaty, Mr. Lewis?

Mr. LEWIS. That was the basis, as I understand, for the reservations.

Senator JACKSON. But could I get sort of a general answer to that question?

Senator CORDON. We have Mr. Barney here who is going into the overall question. We have not reached that yet. We got sidetracked here because of the mention of a particular piece of litigation.

Senator JACKSON. I just wanted to get the background. We have passed-and I was a coauthor with Senator O'Mahoney-the Indian Claims Commission Act, which gave the Indians in the United States proper the right to present claims, all of which grew out of some alleged treaty violation. It was my recollection that Alaska was unique in that there was no claim made under any treaty as to any violation of their rights.

Mr. LEWIS. That is correct, Senator.

Senator JACKSON. So it is an entirely different situation than we would find.

Mr. LEWIS. Yes, it is.

Senator JACKSON. I was trying to refresh my recollection on this. That is all. It has been a long time.

Senator CORDON. Surely. If we have finished with that reservation, I would like to turn to Mr. Barney.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, there is one point, I believe, that might be helpful, and that would be the use of these reservations. Do you have the information, Mr. Critchfield, on the use of these reservations, and the extent to which the Bureau administers them?

Mr. CRITCHFIELD. Well, I made a summary here of the statements that have been submitted in the field in various reports. I don't have the information as to the amount of the acreage in each case that is being used.

Senator JACKSON. What is the total acreage of Indian reservations in Alaska?

Mr. CRITCHFIELD. Including the hospital and school and reindeer sites, something over 4 million.

Senator JACKSON. The reindeer area involves a lot of land in the Far North that is not of the best; is that correct?

Mr. LEWIS. Senator, it involves a relatively small amount of land, about 60,000 acres, I believe, on the mainland of Alaska. Its principal acreage is this island.

Senator JACKSON. St. Lawrence Island?

Mr. LEWIS. Yes. This island has, I believe, about 1,200,000 acres. The rest of the reindeer land only involves three sites.

Senator JACKSON. Can these reservations in Alaska be reduced by Executive order?

Mr. LEWIS. There is a distinct legal question there as to whether the authority of the Secretary extends merely to the creation and

ends there, or whether giving him the authority to create in turn gives him the authority to revoke. I don't think anybody could settle that merely by a solicitor's opinion.

Senator JACKSON. Well, it would require litigation in the courts. Mr. LEWIS. Either that or legislation.

Senator JACKSON. Yes. You can do anything by legislation. Unless there is acquired property right.

Mr. LEWIS. That is the reason I brought that up. I do not believe that there is an acquired property right that would be taken away by reason of doing away with the reservation, legislativewise. If there is a property right of any character under this aboriginal theory, that would not be done away with merely by doing away with the reservation.

Senator CORDON. Senator Jackson, the total reindeer reserves is 1,269,000 acres, of that 1,205,000 being a single island, leaving about 60,000 acres total in the other 3. That is according to the testimony of the Department here. There has been considerable discussion with respect to the history of the handling of the reindeer industry, if one might call it that. They are going into it further. The information before us at the present time indicates that it hasn't been too successful, with only a very few Indians who seem to have taken hold of the thing and taken any interest in it. It seems to the chairman that in view of the fact that 1,200,000 acres is on 1 island there, and which Delegate Bartlett indicated the Territory of Alaska did not have any particular interest in having anything done about it, that would leave only 60,000 acres well up in the northern portion of the Territory, the northwestern portion. It seems to the chairman, under the circumstances, there isn't any problem there and it need not worry us in working out this legislation. We are, of course, interested in the overall Indian claim status, what it is, what has been done about it, what the courts have held with reference to it, what the views of the Department have been, the Department of Justice, and is with respect to the claims, and other information of that character that will aid this committee in reaching its conclusions as to how the State might acquire a pretty vast acreage up there clear of any Indian claim. That, in a few words, is what we are after, Mr. Barney. If you can help us in that field, we will be most grateful.

Mr. BARNEY. All right, sir. I would be happy to.

Mr. LEWIS. Mr. Chairman, before we get into this, may I mention again the fact that Mr. Critchfield has these tables that show the uses of these seven reservations and the administrative handling of them that might be of interest. If it is, he has the information available.

Senator CORDON. Is it in such shape that it would be intelligible if the charts or tables were placed into the record? Will that give us the information if we placed it into the record?

Mr. CRITCHFIELD. Yes, I think so. They show the use, they show the Executive order, the date established, for the information of the committee, they show the location and acreage. It does not reflect the fact that in many of these cases

Senator CORDON. Well, you might as well go forward and place into the record what you think might be helpful to us in the way

43175-54-14

of information with respect to what is being done. First, what are the uses for which the reservations were reserved, and what are the uses to which they are being put?

Mr. CRITCHFIELD. We would be glad to prepare a statement showing the uses of these reservations.

Senator CORDON. If you can do that, then we can place that statement and these tables into the record. That will give us a rather comprehensive picture of the seven reservations. What about the 16 or 17 others?

Mr. CRITCHFIELD. Yes, sir.

(The information to be furnished follows:)

Reservations in Alaska established by act of May 1, 1936 (49. Stat. 1250)

72,000

Akutan

Diomede

3, 200

100,000
35, 200

Secretary's proclama- Dec. 20, 1943 | Hunting, fishing, village site.

tion.

..do.

Hunting, fishing, ivory arts and

crafts, birds eggs.

Hunting, fishing, village site.
Hunting, fishing, berrying, trap-
ping.
Do.

Hunting, fishing, cannery.
Hunting, fishing, trapping.

1 See U. S. v. Libby, McNeil and Libby, U. S. District Court, Alaska, 1st Division. 2,100 reindeer in the area adjacent to the south side of Norton Sound.