ernment feeding these people and handing them money unless it is getting something for it. If we can put this relief labor to work upon the construction of this dam, then we will not only take care of them, but we will be building something for the future and we will not be coming back here upon our knees next year, looking for more money. Mr. TABER. How many Indians are there in this reservation? Mr. O'CONNOR. There are 2,747 Indians. There are also white people on the same reservation. Mr. TABER. What kind of farming do they do; all sorts of farming? Mr. O'CONNOR. It is all sorts of farming. Mr. TABER. Miscellaneous farming? Mr. O'CONNOR. Miscellaneous farming, yes. Mr. TABER. Dairy and grain? Mr. O'CONNOR. But it is just enough for their own use, outside of the forage. They have got to raise forage for cattle. The Government has given them cattle in the past and they have got nothing to feed them with. Mr. TABER. How many families did you say there were here? Mr. O'CONNOR. There are about 2,747 Indians and about onefourth of that would represent the number of families. Mr. TABER. About 650 families? Mr. O'CONNOR. 600 or 650 families. But here is the importance of this, gentlemen. This reservation is surrounded by these 10 counties, and this work, in connection with the construction of the dam that I am talking about, will give labor to all of these white people surrounding this reservation. Mr. WOODRUM. Mr. O'Connor, as you know, this subcommittee is the deficiency subcommittee. We handle matters of supplemental or deficiency estimates. Now, with reference to this dam that you are talking about, has that been presented to the regular subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee handling those items of appropriation? Mr. O'CONNOR. It has not been. But here was my thought about it. I thought that we could get Mr. Hopkins to put up the full amount of this, because they are going to have to feed those people anyhow. He told me last night that he could not do that, but he would go half way. If we could get the other $750,000, and use the land as security, in other words, make it reimbursable, he would put up the other $750,000. But it has not been presented as yet. COST OF PROVIDING PUMPING FACILITIES FOR FORT PECK RESERVATION IRRIGATION SYSTEM Mr. WOODRUM. What about the Fort Peck item? Was that presented in the regular manner? Mr. DODD. Mr. Chairman, the $100,000 item was included in the Department's estimate to the Bureau of the Budget and was not allowed in our regular estimates. We discussed it with the Interior Subcommittee, briefly, but there was no estimate before the subcommittee. Notwithstanding that, the Senate inserted an item of $100,000 in the regular bill. That went out in conference. Now, however, this $100,000 item is supported by a budget estimate and represents the second half of a 2-year program started with a regular appropriation in the regular 1937 appropriation bill. Mr. TABER. How much is this going to cost? Mr. O'CONNOR. Another $300,000, besides this. Mr. TABER. To make available Mr. O'CONNOR. Thirteen thousand acres. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How many acres are there in the project now, roughly? Mr. WATHEN. At present there are 22,700 acres under constructed works and this pumping project, pumping plant, pumps out of the Missouri River just below the Fort Peck Dam. The total cost of providing pumping facilities and canal facilities for the entire 13,000 acres under this pumping unit would be $500,000. We propose, however, to develop the first unit of 5,000 acres, and it will require $300,000 for that. The first $100,000 has been appropriated and expended. This item of $100,000 represents the second year's program. $100,000 next year then will bring in 5,000 acres, leaving $200,000 that would be required to bring in the additional 8,000 acres, after the first 5,000 acres have been put to use. Mr. WOODRUM. Will these Indians work the land after you get it fixed up for them? Mr. WATHEN. We think they will. They have shown an inclination to work it. The present Indian operated land on the Fort Peck Reservation does not look so good, in that they are leasing quite a little of their irrigated land to whites to raise hay. But that is due to the fact largely that the Indians themselves do not have enough cattle to supply their entire range, and they lease the range. Therefore they lease the little irrigated lands to the white farmers to raise forage. Mr. BACON. How much is land worth per acre there? Mr. WATHEN. Our estimate is that that land with irrigation facilities is worth around $60 to $75 an acre. Mr. TABER. Where does the money come from for this purpose, out of the Treasury? Mr. DODD. That is a Treasury appropriation. Mr. WATHEN. It is a Treasury appropriation. Mr. TABER. You said that it is reimbursable. Has the Treasury put up the funds to cover the 22,000 acres that are already under irrigation? Mr. WATHEN. Yes, sir. Mr. TABER. Has it been reimbursed? Mr. WATHEN. Partially only. There has been very little of it reimbursed. Mr. TABER. To what extent? Mr. WATHEN. There has been very little of it reimbursed. Mr. WATHEN. In effect it is not reimbursable if it applies to the índian-owned lands. Under the Leavitt Act of 1932, no assessments for construction are made against Indian-owned land until the Indian title is extinguished. Mr. TABER. That is, as long as the Indians own it, they do not have to pay? Mr. WATHEN. They do not have to pay construction. Mr. O'CONNOR. But they have to pay maintenance? Mr. WATHEN. They have to pay maintenance. Mr. TABER. They do not have to pay for the dams or the ditches? Mr. WATHEN. That is right. Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How much have we expended up to date? Mr. WATHEN. The total expenditures to date on the Fort Peck Reservation are $877,453.75 for construction. Mr. BACON. And how many acres are there in the whole Fort Peck project? Mr. WATHEN. The repayments on that have amounted to $17,998.44. Mr. BACON. What is the acreage covered by this expenditure of $877,000? Mr. WATHEN. Twenty-two thousand seven hundred acres now under constructed works. Mr. BACON. We have already paid, then, about $40 an acre on this land? Mr. WARHEN. Yes, sir. Mr. BACON. And we now propose to spend $23 per acre; is that right? Mr. WATHEN. This $500,000 expenditure will bring in new 13,000 acres. Mr. BACON. Thirteen thousand acres, new? Mr. WATHEN. Yes, sir. Mr. WOODRUM. How much will the construction cost amount to per acre? Mr. TABER. It comes to about $40 an acre. Mr. WOODRUM. What would be the chance of its being reimbursable if it falls into white ownership? Mr. WATHEN. As soon as Indian title is extinguished assessments will be started on a 40-year repayment basis. Mr. WOODRUM. What kind of soil do you have there? Mr. WATHEN. Very good soil. They can raise sugar beets and do some general farming. But the principal advantage up there in irrigation is to raise forage for stock. We think this will be devoted almost exclusively to forage, probably at least 90 percent of it. Alfalfa will average around two to two and a half tons per acre. wild hay comes to about one and a quarter tons per acre. The Mr. O'CONNOR. May I add, Mr. Chairman, that in Montana we estimate that good irrigated land is worth around $75 an acre, where the water rights are good and the soil is good. good. And I know that the soil is good in that territory. I earnestly urge you gentlemen to allow these items, as they will be of untold benefit to the people in that part of Montana. By doing this work it will add to the capital wealth of the country and avoid their being on relief in the future. Mr. WOODRUM. If that is all, gentlemen; thank you. Mr. DODD. I have here a justification statement for this Fort Peck item, which I offer for the record. Mr. WOODRUM. It may be put in the record. (The statement referred to is as follows:) The 1937 Appropriation Act contained an item of $100,000 for the first installment on a proposed construction program intended particularly to install a pumping plant and to construct the necessary canals and laterals to carry water to land on the Fort Peck Reservation. Our estimates for fiscal year 1938 sought to obtain funds for continuing this program. The amount requested was not allowed by the Budget Bureau. Full details concerning this item are included in the regular estimates submitted to the Bureau of the Budget in the fall of 1936. To cease operations at this time on the Fort Peck Reservation will render useless the work that has been done and will result in a higher final cost through disbanding the construction group and delaying the completion of the project. The need for this development has been emphasized by the drought which this early in the calendar year is hitting some portions of Montana and particularly the Fort Peck Reservation. Unless this system is completed the Fort Peck Indians will have no assurance that they ever will be able to raise sufficient crops for subsistence purposes. TUESDAY, JULY 27, 1937. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE STATEMENTS OF S. A. ANDRETTA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT; E. R. BUTTS, ASSISTANT GENERAL AGENT, AND WILLIAM T. HAMMACK, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, BUREAU OF PENSIONS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SALARIES, FEES, AND EXPENSES OF MARSHALS, UNITED STATES COURTS, 1931 Mr. WOODRUM. In House Document No. 311, under the head of "Salaries, fees, and expenses of marshals, United States courts," you have an item of $37.65, deficiency for the fiscal year 1931. Mr. BUTTS. Mr. Chairman, this is a claim that has been audited and approved by the Comptroller General. It is a storage claim, and the reason for the delay is that the claimants, as they state, overlooked presenting the bill, and did not discover their mistake until recently when checking over some old accounts. Mr. WOODRUM. It has been checked by the Comptroller General? Mr. BUTTS. Yes, sir. SUPPORT OF UNITED STATES PRISONERS, 1932 Mr. WOODRUM. You have a deficiency estimate of $445.75, for the fiscal year 1932, under the head of "Support of United States prisoners." Mr. BUTTS. This is also a claim that has been audited and approved by the General Accounting Office. It is for the maintenance of Federal prisoners in the Cleveland, Ohio, jail. The reason for the delay is that it was originally submitted by the sheriff, but not being in proper form was returned to him for correction. At about that time the sheriff retired from office, and it was just recently that an examiner of the State comptroller discovered the bill in the files of the office; the present sheriff not knowing it was there. It was withdrawn, revised according to our instructions, and is now submitted for payment. REPAIRS AND EXTENSION TO WAREHOUSE AT FEDERAL INSTITUTION FOR WOMEN, ALDERSON, W. Va. Mr. WOODRUM. You have a supplemental estimate of $70,000 for repairs and extension to the warehouse at the Federal Institution for Women, at Alderson, W. Va., to be expended under the direction of the Attorney General by contract or purchase of material and hire of labor and services and utilization of labor of United States prisoners, as the Attroney General may direct. Mr. HAMMACK. This is to restore a warehouse which was practically demolished by an explosion. In the first instance this warehouse, was too small, under the estimate we provide for enlargement. Mr. CANNON. What was the date of the explosion? Mr. HAMMACK. At noon on June 12. Mr. BACON. What was the cause of the explosion? Mr. HAMMACK. The superintendent had been using an inflammable substance for disinfectant purposes, or for killing insects. The substance was carbon disulphide, which is recommended by a Department of Agriculture Farm Bulletin for that purpose. It has been used successfully for many years. The recommendation contained in the bulletin is to the effect that carbon-disulphite has been used for 15 years for disinfectant purposes, and that it has never caused any damage unless there was carelessness in its use. We have had an investigation made in this particular instance, and there was no carelessness; but what evidently happened was that there was a short circuit in the wiring somewhere in the building. There was nobody in the building at the time of the fumigation. Mr. WOODRUM. How much did the building cost? Mr. HAMMACK. Originally it was built as one of a group of buildings, and we do not have any way of knowing what this particular building cost. Mr. WOODRUM. How old is it? Mr. HAMMACK. It was built in 1926. It was a part of the first installation. This Alderson Institution was constructed in two groups. The first group was intended to house 200 inmates, and the later group was to take care of an additional 300 inmates. Mr. WOODRUM. You do not have any statement of the cost of it? Mr. HAMMACK. No, sir; we could only estimate it on the cube basis. It would be about $25,000; but it was built under a general contract for a group of buildings in which to house 200 people. Mr. WOODRUM. Was the warehouse completely destroyed? Mr. HAMMACK. No, sir. Mr. WOODRUM. You are proposing to replace it at a cost of $70,000. Mr. HAMMACK. Yes, sir. Mr. WOODRUM. Why is it necessary to put up a building that is so much more expensive to replace the one that was damaged? Mr. HAMMACK. We are not putting up a more expensive building. We are proposing to put up the cheapest or least expensive type of building. Mr. CANNON. What is the additional cubic footage? Mr. HAMMACK. Fifteen thousand square feet. Mr. TABER. What is the cubic footage of the other building? Mr. HAMMACK. 6,888 square feet. Mr. TABER. With this building you will have 15,000 cubic feet. Mr. HAMMACK. In this new additional building or extension we will have 15,000 square feet, bringing the total capacity to practically 22,000 square feet. Mr. LUDLOW. You are proposing to construct a new extension entirely. Mr. HAMMACK. We are proposing to repair the old building and construct an extension. Mr. WOODRUM. According to the statement in the justification, the extension will cost $37,500. Mr. HAMMACK. Yes, sir. |