theory. We believe that these people should be fully informed and protected from any such adverse consequences. Therefore, we believe that no segment of our people should be placed in a position that would permit them to suffer the same injustices and inequities being suffered by the so-called remaining members of the Klamath Reservation.

Senator Church at hearings held on and about the Colville Reservation in October of 1963, on matters concerning termination legislation, stated among other things:

I do want to make one observation with regard to this legal fiction of incompetency, I must say that the witnesses who have spoken here and who have testified this morning strike me as being extraordnarily competent people, and I do not know when I have heard testimony more lucidly presented or more feelingly presented than I have heard thus far today.

And Senator Church after he returned from the field made the following statement:

I must say that my impression of the witnesses-and I saw a great manywas that they were an extremely articulate and impressive group of people. And they came and stated their case with such fervor and such conviction as to be very moving. And I do not see upon what theory the Federal Government can or should insist upon continued wardship over a people, the majority of whom want to be free of it.

And Commissioner Nash, of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, made the following statement before the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs on May 15, 1962:

Let me say, Mr. Udall, that it is not a part of the thinking of this Department that Colvilles either on or off the reservation are likely to dissipate cash assets if placed in their hands. This is a very highly cultured group with a business educational level of a very high order.

These statements from high governmental officials who have contacted the Colville Indians should provide sufficient proof that the Colville Indians are capable of handling their own affairs and are capable of making wise economic decisions with respect to their equity in their Indian estate (reservation) held in trust by their guardian the Federal Government.

We have witnessed the misery and losses suffered by the so-called remaining Klamath Indians which was caused by the remaining member clause in their termination act, therefore, we should be able to benefit from their experience. The Colville Indian Association asks that the remaining member clause provision be eliminated from subsection (e) of section 6 of S. 1413.

In conclusion, I would like to add my request that the members of the association be present and be given an opportunity to testify before the Indian Claims Commission under oath in respect to statements that were made at a hearing held before that Indian Claims Commission.

I summarize some sections.

Senator FANNIN. The testimony has been given, Mr. Edwards, by the parties here today, the members of the Colville Indian Association. I am wondering if you would have a definite number of Indians? How many Indians are represented by this association?

Mr. EDWARDS. Do you have that figure, Mary? About 700, as I remember.

Mrs. WONG. Seven hundred and twenty-one are paid members and followers.

Senator FANNIN. May I ask how many of those would you estimate are also members of the Colville Business Council?

Mr. EDWARDS. None.

Mrs. WONG. Some of them were.

Senator FANNIN. But if requested you could give a list of 700 Colville Indians that are members of the Association?

Mr. EDWARDS. Yes.

Mrs. WONG. I want to add that this would be kind of difficult because the members of our association do not like to make their names known for fear of reprisals from the Indian Bureau.

Senator FANNIN. If you are going to represent a group of Indian citizens and say they are members of an association I would think it would be proper for you to be in a position to give the names of the members involved.

Mrs. WONG. Providing it is not given out to just anyone that is snooping around and wants to usurp our organization.

Mr. TOULOU. There are some people who are working in different jobs and there would be reprisals. They would lose their jobs.

Senator FANNIN. There is not any intent on the part of the committee to work any hardship on any of the people involved. At the same time the committee does have the right to have the information furnished if you are going to use it as part of your testimony.

Now, Mrs. Wong.

STATEMENT OF MRS. MARY HALL WONG, COLVILLE INDIAN

ASSOCIATION

Mrs. WONG. My name is Mary Hall Wong. I am the treasurer of the Colville Indian Association. I am also the chairman of the Colville Indian Association membership drive. I am a past president of the Roger School PTA in Tacoma. I am president of the Colville Indian Women's Republican Club. I am precinct committee woman in my area, 284 Pearce County, Sixth District. I am election board worker. I am a voting member of the Central Committee of the Republican Club, and I am the mother of six fine children. I have a son who is a designer for the National Bank of Washington in Seattle, a daughter employed in the mortgage and loan office in Seattle, anothers on who is with Boeing of Seattle, a son who is a Lincoln graduate, and one daughter who will be graduating this spring and another daughter who will be graduating next year.

I feel that with qualifications such as these I am qualified to manage my own affairs. This is a straight forward and honest statement. In my statement I wish to bring out facts of why we are so divided. I hope my statement will help this committee gathered here today for better understanding of our Colville people.

I read an article in the newspapers which stated that the best way to get over anger or other frustrations is to sit down and write a letter to your tormenter, then to read the letter and destroy it. This is supposed to rid oneself of emotional disturbances.

This may work in some cases but I do not think it will help me. You see, this nagging feeling does not concern me alone. I am lumped together with other individuals. Whatever befalls these other people will also happen to me. A decision must be made concerning our

lives and our property. We cannot and must not stand in the way of progress. I have been told that in any great decision made, some one is determined to come out with hurt feelings. So with this in mind I feel it is time to place our cards on the table, bare what is in our hearts and call a spade a spade, so to speak.

I would like to briefly outline some of the problems which have beset the Colville Indians for many years. I base my comments on close association with the Colville Indian problems for many years and although I speak for myself only I know that there are others who share my views.

Every year since I can remember my mother would say to me, "We will win our claim and we will all receive much money." And every year I thought the Indian problem would be resolved. Well, my parents are gone. They died waiting in vain and now we are in the fifth generation since our imprisonment began. Without stretching my imagination, I refer to reservations as glorified concentration

camps.

It is time for this system to come to an end, a long overdue end, and I feel that this system should be brought to an end. It is also time for the Indians to share the blame for our predicament along with our lawmakers. Indians cannot stick together and work toward one common cause. This gives the lawmakers of the land the idea that we Indians really do not know what we want. As examples of this situation, in our own Colville Indian Association there has been publicized dissention from its beginning when Chief Bernard founded the organization. Disagreement is not always bad because it encourages an exchange of thoughts and ideas. It only becomes bad when it is publicized so that outsiders know that there is disagreement among the members of the organization. Disagreement should lead to discussion then bring about the best solution, but this is not always the case.

There are those who want to make the reservations a sovereign nation. It is too late. In the case of the Colvilles 75 percent of our people have had to move away from an economically depressed area to an area where they can provide for themselves. On the other half of the coin we have the Colville liquidation promoters. In the beginning they wanted complete liquidation of the reservation assets, but somewhere along the line they compromised and placed a withdrawal clause in their termination bill. When I asked Babcock, the newly elected council's legislative adviser, why they switched after she worked and succeeded in getting her members elected to the council by campaigning on the liquidation issue which newly elected members were elected because they pledged to work for liquidation issue, which newly elected members were elected because they pledged to work for liquidation of the Colville Reservation, Ruby's answer is that she does not feel that we should deprive those who want to retain their lands and their homes, that this is not right. This is a noble gesture but not a wise one. The withdrawal clause and the entity that it creates has been thoroughly studied, using the Klamath termination act and subsequent results as the subject. This termination method is not wise and the remaining Klamaths are not enjoying long-range financial security.

Still another group is the petitioners party. This group opposes termination, period.

A fourth group is made up of the Inchelium people who request that before the Colville Indians go any further in termination that we have a complete investigation of all the wrongs we have suffered these past years. Our people have been kicked off the tribal rolls while foreign Indians have been added to the rolls in their places. We should be reimbursed for all the injustices we have had to suffer. The Inchelium people maintain that if a person has one drop of Colville Indian blood, he or she should be on the rolls. These people who live in the Inchelium area and around the Kelly Hill area are my people. They are the ones who fought all their lives to get their claim before the courts and I will go along with them on their plea for a complete investigation of the wrong deals they had had to suffer.

Another group, I suppose, are those people who were simply placed on our reservation not as an original part of the reservation but later. When they had a chance to work with my uncle, while he was alive, and when he held meetings in Nespelem, Wash., he was ridiculed with such words as this: "You are a bum, you do not own anything." "We don't have to listen to you." Barnard never received any support from the Nespelem people. I thought perhaps I might get a better reception, so I held a meeting one summer day. Only seven people attended. One Nez Perce, one from the Moses Tribe and the rest were Colville Indian Association members who were close friends of mine. So I, too, gave up.

Last but not least, one major problem for the Colvilles was that when any legislation came up anywhere the Indian Bureau officials would gather up other old chiefs and transport them to Washington, D.C., at tribal expense. But when my Uncle Bernard went to Washington, D.C., and everywhere else he went on Indian business, he had to depend on his own money and donations directly from the Indian people, and later, Colville Indian Association funds. These are the reasons for the Colville problem:

(1) Inability or refusal of the Indian people to work together. (2) Lack of funds with which to operate effectively.

(3) Archaic tribal constitutions which prevent full participation of all the Indian people.

I was asked before I came-now we have a very nice old gentleman, who is a life member of the Colville Indian Association. His name is Marcel Arcasa. He is now living in Portland, Oreg.

Senator FANNIN. Do you want to insert his statement in the record?

Mrs. WONG. Why, it is kind of confusing. I better read it because it is kind of confusing. It is only two pages.

Senator FANNIN. All right.

Mrs. WONG. Marcel Arcasa has asked me if I were given an opportunity to speak at any important meeting that may arise concerning Colville Indian legislation to bring up the illegal timber sales.

Marcel's complaint is about the tribal council depleting our virgin timber and he is afraid that our most valuable asset will be all done away with before we are terminated.

Marcel has spent the better part of his life in the study and research of the timber industry.

Senator FANNIN. Mrs. Wong, may I just interrupt you for a minute? The chairman said he would not take any testimony not germane to this bill. Do you consider this germane to the bill?

Mrs. WONG. It is our timber asset, our greatest asset. Our greatest asset in this termination is the timber, and it is 90 percent of our asset, so I believe that this is.

Senator FANNIN. How does it reflect on the timber asset as far as the bill is concerned?

Mrs. WONG. I am going to quote what was taken out of a magazine. Senator FANNIN. All right. Fine, if you will please.

Mrs. WONG. Yes. It is not my words or his words. It is somebody elses.

Here is his statement.

Mr. Arcasa in this statement quotes articles from various magazines. His statement reads:

STATEMENT OF MARCEL ARCASA

I have been doing some research in our public libraries and I find that the association is not alone on how it views our relationship with the Federal Government.

I would like to quote from the magazine American Forest, December 1957 issue wherein George Weyerhaeuser of the Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. made a statement with regard to the Klamath Indian termination, as follows:

"*** the Government is playing two roles in the Indian matter, that of guardian of the Indians, and therefore, dutybound to obtain the best possible price for the timber and that of sovereign, which means the Government is also responsible for the economy of Oregon. The proposal suggested by George Weyerhaeuser at the hearings held by Senator Neuberger in Oregon would permit industry to purchase the Indian timber at a price which would include the sustained yield and other carrying costs. The Government, as the guardian would then pay the Indians what amounts to a subsidy to make up the difference between sustained yield liquidation purchase prices."

I think Mr. Weyerhaeuser being such an important businessman especially in the timber industry and with his vast experience in the timber industry qualifies him as an expert who knows what he is talking about. I think we would be well advised to follow his suggestion. Mr. Weyerhaeuser is entirely correct in saying the Federal Government as a sovereign is responsible for the economy. The association also very strongly feels that when the Federal Government carries out its duty as a sovereign and protector of the economy that it should do it in such a manner so as not to make a small segment of our population such as the Indian the wards in this case to sacrifice, and therefore, be responsible for protecting the economy Quoting Mr. Weyerhaeuser further from another source, the January 22, 1958, issue of the Christian Century elaborating on price Mr. Weyerhaeuser was reported to have set forth:

"*** the sale price suggested as possible for even larger companies to pay is only 40 percent of the value. The further suggestion is, therefore, that the Federal Government pay the difference as an obligation to the Indians."

So as you can see Mr. Weyerhaeuser's estimate of Indian losses caused by market impact consideration would amount to a 60-percent loss to the Indians. The present wording of section 6(f) will automatically prevent other nonIndians in the lumber economy from losing by the Federal Government purchasing the Colville Indians forest assets at this established unfair low price derived from a theoretical market impact which was never to be allowed to materialize. The association objects to we Colvilles, who are rendered helpless by our guardian, the Federal Government, being forced to take such great losses on our forest assets.

The Colville Indian Association and the Weyerhaeuser Timber Co. are not just isolated cases of someone taking this stand. I want to quote another statement of an unidentified forester on page 68 in the August 1957 issue of the magazine American Forest quoted as follows:

"The first consideration is the Indians and their welfare. The second is the continuation of a high level of management practices on the lands involved. If the lands are to be turned over to the Federal Government at a retail figure the Indians should receive, the Federal Government cannot justify the acquisition on the basis of the long-paying terms management practices. It can only be justified on the basis of wholesale prices plus a direct indemnity to the Indians.