Status of ‘Indian Possessions, Revealed in Letter
Washington, D. C.
August 5, 1931
Hon. Arthur M. Hyde,
Secretary of Agriculture,
Washington, D. C.
My dear Sir:
Herewith please find a letter
from James E .Murphy and a
group of Auk Indians, writing
from Juneau, Alaska, the peti -
tion addressed to the Commis
s.oner of the General Land Of
fice, in relation to the claims of
the Auk Indians to their village
site, located about 12 miles
north of Juneau, on the shore
of Auk Bay.
While the petition disclosed
the fact that the old Auk vil
lage is included in the boundar
ies of the Tongass Forest Reser
\ation, it may be of advantage
to call your attention to the Acts
of Congress which seem to con
fer the right of continued pos
session and occupancy on these
natives to their village sites,
notwithstanding their inclusion
in the Tongass Forest.
I am informed that this old
village site was occupied by tho
Auk people with their houses,
totem poles, cemeteries, etc., in
the years 1884 and 1900. These
dates are mentioned because of
the Acf 3 of Congress passed in
those 3"?ars, to which reference
ic now made.
By t’ .e Act of Congress en
titled, ' An Act providing a Civil
Goverr nent for Alaska,” 23 Stat
L. 24, I ec. 8, Congress provided:
. .“Thethe Indians or other
person' in said district shall net
be disturbed in the possession of
lands rotually in their use or
occupation or now claimed by
them, the terms, under, which
such persons may acquire title
to such lands, is reserved, for
future legislation by Congress.”
That Act was passed, and ap
X
proved by the President on May
17, 1884, and on that day these
Auk natives were “actually in
the use and occupation” of this
village site, and their rights
thereto were reserved by the
Act of that date.
The Courts cf Alaska have
held that:
“The Act of Congress of May
17, 1884, providing a civil gov
ernment for Alaska, also pro
vides that 'the Indians or other
persons in said district shall not
be disturbed in their possession
;.f ary lands. actually, in tlr-ir
use or occupation or now claim
ed by them, but the terms under
which such persons may acquire
title to such lands are reserved
for future legislation, by. Con
gress.’ .By this, provision, all
persons in the peaceable pos
session of lands in. Alaska. ON
THE DATE OF SAID ACT, arc
guaranteed the right to ulti
mately acquire a perfect title to
such lands through such legis
lation as Congress may enact
for that purpose.”
Young v Goldstein, (D.C., 97
Fed. 303.
Sutter v Heckman, 1 Alaska
Law Report, 188.
This policy of protecting the
Alaska Indians in their villages
and lands continued in subse
quent Acts of Congress, espe
cially applicable to Alaska.
26 Stat. L. 1095, Sec. 14.
31 Stat. L. 321, Sec. 27.
This Act provides that:
..“The Indians or person'’ con
ducting schools cr missions in
the District shall not be di ’tv b
ed in the possession oil :rr? ^ ids
NOW ACTUALLY IN THEIR
USE OR OCCUPATION. * * * but
nothing contained in this Act
shall be construed to put in
force in the District the general
land laws of the United States.”
Sec. 95, Compiled Laws of
Alaska, 1913.
United States v. Berrlgan,
2 Alaska, 442.
Johnson v Pacific Coast S. S.
Co., 2 Alaska* 224.
McGrath v. Valentine, 167
Fed. 473.
Worthen v. Alaska Juneau
Mining Co., 229 Fed. 966.
Whelpley v. Grosvold, 249
Fed. 812.
So far Congress has not en
acted any legislation for the
further control or disposal of
lands “actually in the use or oc
cupation or now claimed by
them,” nor arranged any “terms
under which such persons may
acquire title to such lands,” all
cf which is yet “reserved for fu
ture legislation-by Congress.”
In short, all lands in the ac
tual use and occupation of the
Alaska natives on May 17, 188-1,
as well as on the dates when the
Acts of 1891 and 1900 were pass
ed, are yet in a state of reserva
tion, “reserved for future legis
lation by Congress.”
The Auk Indian village lands
in controversy here seem to be
in the Tongass National Forest,
and the complaint of the In
dian is that the officials in this
service are leasing the same in
small tracts to white citizens
and refuse to permit the peti
tioning Auk owners to rebuild
their houses, to garden, or to
continue to use and occupy; the
same.
It is suggested that these In
dian possessions never became
a part of the Tongass National
Forest or any other Forest ser
vice reservation, by reason of
the clause in the Proclamation
of the President creating the
Tongass Forest, which clause
reads as follows:
“That this proclamation shall