*1 INDIANS TRIBE OF CROW
UNITED STATES.
No. 1-59. of Claims.
United States Court
Nov. Whitaker, J., Jones, Chief
Judge, dissented.
362 Hawkins, C., Washington,
Carl S.
D.
Ralph
for The Crow
Tribe
Indians.
Wiggenhorn,
Hutton,
Wiggenhorn,
G.
Sheehy,
Schütz,
Schütz &
Bil-
John M.
lings, Mont.,
Cragun
Wilkinson,
Bar-&
ker,
Cragun,
John W.
and Charles A.
Hobbs, Washington,
C., on the briefs.
D.
Washington,
Cooperman,
Maurice H.
C.,
Atty.
D.
with whom was
Gen.
Asst.
Perry Morton,
W.
for the United States.
Judge.
MADDEN,
cross-appeals
These are
from a decision
Indian Claims Commission. The
Commission decided that under the In-
dian Claims Commission Act of
seq.,
Stat.
25 U.S.C.A. 70 et
§
Crow Tribe of Indians was
entitled
compensation
30,-
recover additional
530,764.8
land,
acres of
situated in what
south
now
central Montana and north
Wyoming,
central
which the Tribe ceded
Treaty
May 7, 1868,
petition
15 Stat.
In
649.
alleged
to the Commission the Tribe
prior
to the date of it owned
38,531,174 acres,
and that
lands, except
of 1868
it ceded
of its
containing 8,000,409.2
a reservation
acres, to the United States for an inade-
quate and unconscionable consideration.
The Commission considered the case in
stages. First,
two
the Commission held
had, by
that the United States
Laramie, signed
September 17,
of Fort
749, recognized
11 Stat.
the In-
question.
title to the
dians’
lands in
147.
Ind.Cls.Comm.
The Commission
then considered the
of the value
and of
of the lands
the consideration re-
ceived,
concluded
that the lands had May
market value in
of 1868 of an aver-
age
acre,
per
but that
$0.40
the Tribe
ognition. Although
it is
$0,054 per
acre.
we think
less than
received
abundantly
held
decisions
clear that
The Commission
Ind.Cls.Comm.
below,
court,2
will discuss
was unconscion-
which we
consideration
recognize
have held
did
able.
*3
the
lands described
Tribe’s title to the
the
appeals from
The Government
therein,
appropriate make
to
think it
holding
land
Tribe’s title to the
upon
some
the
and
observations
recognized,
from the Com-
and
had been
negotiations
preparation
the
and
of
overruling
of
defenses
mission’s
up
it,
has in
led
to
since the Government
jurisdiction.
judicata
of
res
and lack
vigorously
urge
this case
position
so
seen fit to
appeals from the Com-
Tribe
The Crow
rejected
already
which has
been
lands, con-
the
of
mission’s valuation
by this court.
tending
too low.
that it was
The
of
occasion for and circumstances
for the value
In order to recover
making
Treaty
the
of
of Fort Lara-
the
United
it
States
ceded
the
mie are
of this
recited in the decision
required
1868,
to show
was
the Tribe
case, supra,
court in the Fort Berthold
compensable
possessed a
interest
that it
pages
their our towards ent of Indian Affairs D.D. Mitchell stat- * * * emigrants. ed: “ “ * * * * * I Again, would therefore the boundaries strongly dividing recommend that measures the different tribes have adopted, early period be at as defined; never settled or entering practicable, for into a many trea- is the fruitful source of ty friendship amity, binding bloody strifes, and their and can be peaceable, them to remain concessions, and not removed mutual government equal privileges sanctioned and no be- States. The boundaries molest interfere with one another. ing clearly Kappler, un- Affairs, once established and IV Laws derstood, Treaties, held be each tribe could Senate Document responsible depredations Cong., Sess., p. 70th 1st 1074-1075.” might within committed Negotiations treaty com- between the ”* * * territories. rep- missioners of the United States [Emphasis added.] tribes resentatives began the various Indian turn, an- Commissioner, in his on the Ground near report Secretary In- nual Sep- Territory the Indian on terior, stated: dated November According tember account to an “* -» * circum- proceedings published Under these which was stances, expedi- Republi- newspaper, been deemed has Louis St. during can, ent and measures advisable to take his address to bring day negotiations proper about a understand- Mitchell first ing following: Indians, said, substance, with the which will good prevent will, secure their your “The ears of Father Great among them, by collisions and strife always open complaints of are obligating each remain as tribe to Red his He has heard Children. possible respec- much as within their your game is aware that buffalo and provid- country, tive districts off, your grass and are driven ing that, disputes or difficul- where opening of timber consumed occur, they ties submitted shall be emigrants passing roads *6 government, Indians and the your through countries. For these ” * * * by abide its decision. you. compensate he losses desires to [Emphasis added.] not that He does desire his White Congress February 27, by Act of Children shall drive off the Buffalo appropriated 570, 572, destroy your hunting-grounds, 9 Stat. making $100,000 making you expenses just of for the without restitution. with of the treaties the Indian tribes But the same time that he is will- designated prairies. ing you just compensation D. D. President to make you may Fitzpatrick injuries receive, Mitchell to act ex- he Thomas for right his letter to pects as Mitchell, In commissioners. will exert the of free May 26, 1851, passage under date of for his Children over White informing running through your him of as a his selection the roads commissioner, any countries, In- of in- the Commissioner and restitution for re-emphasized they may you juries need to or Affairs dian receive from through provide compensation passing for your people, whilst right way your across their use of the of For the countries. lands, maintaining peace be- purpose and stated: of nations, two for tween the important, practicable, “It to parties, protection of all he desires establish for each tribe some fixed recognition you a of his from boundaries, they within which military posts, such to establish stipulate generally reside, should to posts neces- as he deem other sary. agree and each should not intrude assigned within the limits to another justice may without tribe ranging its consent. If in “In order that ar- be done nation, proposed your such boundaries it is each that there portion country country geographical be a be of divided into not country included where it has been their hab- districts —that and its go periodically designated pursuit it shall be of boundaries game, recognized rivers, lines, it should be mountains and as a such as ground country enjoy what neutral where all will show each will nation they are located. the boundaries of the of the tribes. claims and where recognized doing These as is not intended boundaries were In this it away any your purposes from much of for take you, rights determining rights destroy your there- Indians’ or they to, Indians, pur- hunt, fish, pass coun- as or over the were or poses accepting try, responsibilities be But will there- as heretofore. be expected nation will that each for. depredations responsible for
held September The fact that on territory, un- committed within pointed Mitchell not out clearly can shown less it be “going hunting prohibited upon people nation commit- of some other Nation, territory so into the them, nation will ted and then long (St. peace,” remained * * * responsible. held be 1851) Republican, Louis November ****** imply preroga- does not otherwise. you peace be- made are such tives title “When your entry preclude others here assem- nations all tween bled, Indeed, territory question. no occasion there will country recognizing going parties purposes title into of the one war regularize [Emphasis parties add- of other another nation.” is to territory. Republican, October Louis within the St. ed.] 26, 1851 report, Finally, his note edition The November transmitting 11, 1851, dated November day reports Republican the entire In- to the Commissioner September 12 Affairs, stated: dian Mitchell “ desig- * * * attempt “given up to an laying off territory map on the nate geographical rather into nations, and to mark it very regard domains, I as a national ** * and bounds. metes measure, important as it inasmuch tion, particularly among themselves, “ [*] ** [*] After [*] [*] the metes much consulta- [*] Indians and the same time will ment quarrel take among themselves, ascertain away enable the who great are cause *7 govern- the de- and at depradations here- nations were pradators, of the several bounds in agreed upon.” [Emphasis committed.” after be original] import state- of these numerous by offi- This was another illustration of the fact Government United States ments the United that States Government had clear to be mistaken. is too cials important recognition Treaty role in the of of of purpose the by establish, domains of the United the various the as between the tribes towas tribes, Treaty signatory of Fort Laramie.3 and the various States Treaty May negotiated, 7, of 1868 was that to note in the brief of interest It is country in which the States in this Crows lived the United filed which “your country” “your land”, Nation of The and in the case Crow court argued States, 11-248, that the Government No. 81 Ct.Cl. the v. 238, page appears the statement at of circumstances of Commis- which brief “ * * * Taylor Printed sioner could have had the Records 671 of volume meaning assuredly Claims, no other most the United States Court —and meaning position in no other had the minds of Government took Indians —than Government to the Crows made clear had ownership recognized in their their Laramie had lanas. of Fort They point were told that then the Govern- The Government title. Crows’ buy desired to them the which had been ment several references ed by and use settle remainder of the Affairs Commissioner made part Taylor, during a land after suitable to the the council with the Crow marked off for which the Crows in November 1867 at Indians Commission, grant The Indian Claims procure by treaty its tial to opinion able through on this as- perpetual way exhaustive of a pect case, after consideration Indian lands if the Indians did not findings evidence, all the made of fact by right own the same of occu- pancy.” of law with reached conclusions agreement complete which we are in ex- concluded, The court p.at 333: cept particular one which discussed language “The while heading opinion. under the last respects in all the technical being In addition to with in accord what wording used in other Indian trea- interpretation think is correct is, think, ties we when con- sufficient Laramie, of Fort the conclu- sidered in connection the in- with sions of the Indian Commission Claims purpose strument as a whole and the are in accord with decisions of parties thereto, intent this court. clearly territory indicate that the In Fort Berthold of the Indians was to delimited in 1930, 71 Ct.Cl. decided protec- accord with their claims court, opinion in a careful and able bounds, tion assured them within its in consideration of the Booth, Chief Justice held that recogni- Treaty of Fort Laramie was privileges secured to the United tion the United States the Indians’ its citizens.” treaty. title to lands described in the answering said, p. The court In Assiniboine Indian Tribe v. United argument very which the de- States, denied, 77 Ct.Cl. certiorari heavily fendant so relies this case: U.S. S.Ct. 78 L.Ed. court, concluding says after As- “The defendant the territo- prove provisions simply sinboines had failed to rial were mutual possession recognition by had title immemorial the Indians of their territory segrega- certain lands north of the Missouri River claims they claimed, said, gov- pages them, positive tion 370- without recognition 371: ernmental or verification contention, of the same. This as we plaintiff’s “The with refer- it, view concedes the com- that when ence to what is called Fort Lara- approached missioners the Indians quite mie different. The by right occupancy their title expressly granted territory all the within embraced plaintiff tribe made recognized by treaty was the com- plaintiff September 17, with the representing *8 missioners the Govern- treaty], 1851 Fort [The ment, and that what the did purposes give one of its was to segregate was to the same into in- each tribe some fixed boundaries dividual tribal allotments. In other they stipulate within which words, the Government not rec- generally reside. to It was also de- ognized title, Indian never give at Indians, sired to some com- it, by disputing time treaty, but solemn pensation for the interference with following negotiations, (cid:127) hunting ex- expeditions Indian agreed pressly emigrants each tribe was to passing caused territory region.” assured title to the [Emphasis set Pacific coast Surely supplied.] aside it. was not essen- nothing they they kome. There in the record could sell it or not as suggests pleased, and, they it, which shows even did sell signing until this time could demand valuable consideration May 1868, any 7, accept on statement they, was car- and refuse to less than as willing vendors, accept.” ried to the Crows which could have were to 671 shaken their belief that country owned the Printed Records of the Court of Claims treaty, pages delimited the 1851 at 1009-1010.
369 States, filed settle United In The Crow Nation 1935, 238, 271-272, company. States decided 81 Ct.Cl. again its view reaffirmed this court ofOne the contentions of the Govern- Laramie. of Fort company ment was that should be charged 13,300,000 with acres of lana urges strenuously Government which the wrongfully said had been Government Court, in Supreme
here that the company received be- Railway Co., Pacific v. Northern States they lay cause within Indian reserva- 210, 264, 317, L.Ed. 61 85 U.S. S.Ct. tions. The Government said that lands “overruled” has decided embraced of Fort Laramie Berthold, Assiniboine and and another Indian that of Octo- court. a con- Nation Such eases 17, 1855, ber 11 Stat. were excluded clusion is not warranted. grant company from the By July 2, the Act of Stat. language of the 1864 Act which excluded 365, the United authorized the arguing lands, “reserved” Trea- Company Pacific Northern Railroad of Fort ties Laramie and of 1855 “re- telegraph railroad and line from build a served” the lands described in it right Puget Superior to A Lake Sound. signatory Indian tribes. through way public of granted lands was Supreme Court held the Govern- company, railroad and the ment’s unsound, contention and that the agreed “extinguish, United States rapidly lands had not been “re- public be consistent with served”, saying that the treaties “did policy In- and the welfare the said not create technical reservations as have dians, the Indian titles to all lands fall- many other treaties and acts of Con- ing operation act, under the and gress.” page at U.S. 61 S.Ct. acquired in the donation the [road] page named this bill.” 13 Stat. 367. To The Court discussed the treaties in the railroad, aid in construction of the following language: granted company every was also alter- “By an Act of June public land, mineral, nate section lying along not lying west of Mississippi line, the railroad River, not within the States Mis- twenty per amount of sections mile souri Territory and Louisiana or the passing side of the line when designated Arkansas, as In- through territories, per and ten sections country. dian fee all this ter- through grant mile states. The lim- ritory was in the United sub- ited to to which “the United States ject occupancy. the Indian title, reserved, sold, granted, have full The treaties of 1851and 1855 did not appropriated, or otherwise and free from alter the status of the lands de- preemption, rights, claims or purpose scribed in them. The definitely the time the line said road peace those treaties was to establish given company fixed.” The amity warring between lands in lieu ex- select other of those tribes inter sese and between the tribes and the United States. To grant. cluded from the 367-368. Stat. *9 Many problems arose in the course of country end territory of the construction of the railroad each tribe was described and the the determination of lands the what agreed respect tribes to bound- Finally, by railroad was to receive. aries named in the treaties. No al- 25, 1929, of June 46 Act Stat. teration in of the status the United States declared forfeited to the up had occurred to the date of defi- United States certain -asserted nite location of the Northern Pacif- company, and directed the institution line. About seven hundred ic’s miles proceedings adjustment for the of of the railroad of the traversed the area grant. Act, Pursuant to that suit the treaties. was embraced contrary language a con- not to cific. in the This is Northwestern Treaty Fort Laramie case of Shoshone was whether the Box Elder that the clusion recognition by Treaty July 30, 1863, the United Stat. constituted title. The title. That Shoshones’ States of the Indians’ urged Treaty to establish Shoshones the Box Elder purpose was Treaty Treaty clear, amity was to of Fort peace is also similar Laramie, pointed fixing to the Fort Bert- of the boundaries that the fact hold, territory Assiniboine, country tribe” each Nation cases “the holding in this purpose. As have court Fort Laramie to be
was done for that
treaty
recognition.
a
above,
of United
a basic element
shown
peace
policy
to secure
Supreme
held, however,
Court
responsibility
establishing
tribes’
recognize
Treaty
the Box Elder
did not
respective ter-
depredations within their
distinguished
Treaty
It
title.
Fort
ritories.
Laramie, stating,
pages
at
349-
U.S.
page
WHITAKER, exclusive use pied, possessed, and recover on the prior to years time occupied, possessed and owned” aboriginal ownership, verse from rial. because described acres. occupancy use and title”, be exclusive all the show sustained, other rival claimants individual’s must be shown reservation; The A mere immemorial, had possession, a claim of If this aboriginal ownership, immediately plaintiff world, It September the lands were occupancy it does then claim to the lands from land use and claim of claim its claim sometimes not claim plaintiff’s claim primary tribe time comprising States; 17,1851, it had possession adverse owned, of exclusive from occupancy. Alike an exclusion title to land bases immemorial is not sufficient continuously set is based proposition called; time and, thereto apart to is, Indian or along with 38,531,174 any fails. of all the for immemo- exclusive instance, alone use “Indian it certain by ad- “occu- many grant must from held, it as that title not on to to to time immemorable. to the article territories knowledgement, the aforesaid Indian mine.] privilege the aries hereby recognize and prejudice any rights or claims cluded within the metes and bound- heretofore in ing [*] Then nations do ther Article 5 thereof. majority. “The “It making over following continues: follows is, however, hereinafter ” aforesaid Indian assigned any of to is set out in hunting, fishing, not I call of described.” other tracts rough do the tracts recognition hereby to particular territories, It reads understood each lands; designated, of description surrender acknowledge' the country, abandon or tribe, nations do of in opinion or country [Italics attention part: pass- and the that, they fur- viz: of ac- in- as. of Supreme Court world. parties to this trea- Several tribes were Railroad, 314 Fe Pacific Santa ty, Sioux, Cheyennes, Arrapa- page 62 S.Ct. U.S. hoes, Crows, perhaps another page said: 86 L.Ed. 163,- or dealt with tribe two. The necessary establish “Occupancy 000,000 of land. All the named acres question aboriginal of possession is a domain at. roamed over this vast tribes any any par- determined No one of them claimed to be will. fact it, part it were estab- question If of them fact. ticular but each the lands fish hunt and as a fact claimed the lished in, enjoy were, included area. the entire otherwise use and Walapais not in- was home Warfare between the tribes ancestral frequent constituted of them claimed sense because each territory occupied rights exclu- equal No one of lands. definable (as Walapais distin- sively use and occu- them exercised exclusive any over pancy part wandered guished lands of them. over from Walapais tribes) many then Treaty recognized Fort Laramie ” mine.] [Italics title.’ ‘Indian claimed that each tribe in the en- 163,000,000 acres, prove that tire because it had had ex- In order Article- apart portions occupancy set 163,- which use and these clusive 000,000 tribe, plaintiff immemorial acres time tribe never- provided theless “the alone on Fort Lara- aforesaid relies ** 17, 1851, September nations do not surrender the In- ofmie hunting, fishing, privilege of passing Commission bases its deci- Claims dian treaty. tracts over the, terms alone hereto- sion plaintiff described.” shows fore [Italics not think mine.] doI maintain impossible question presented L.Ed. 210. The It seems me grant public exclusive that plaintiff has shown tribe whether the July 2, immemorial occupancy railway by lands to 1864, from time use and the act they sue, in view acreage reserved embraced said to be Treaty. 5 of the Fort several Article Indian tribes *14 out they they Treaty. railway made not, not have Laramie claimed If have The They petition. that tions, in their the reserva- the case stated lands Indian were not Attorney they own- public the lands; were but have not shown but the which property account General filed a Court ers they the bill in the District Washington, for the Eastern sue. District alleging paragraph the XXIX that stated prove the Parties must grant expressly excepted reserved de- the petitions. the case That is Treaty that the Fort Laramie not It is defend. on to fendant is called set aside these a reservation lands as against a claim defend called Indians, they reser- were Indian might but which plaintiff made grant vations at the time of the if we But petition. in the did not assert railway in 1864. asserted suppose plaintiff had railway part demurred to growing Laramie Fort out of claim the bill. The matter it— was referred to a Treaty, one instead of special treaty master, who held in rights an extensive acquired under that it opinion did not create had before—what which it had not Indian pur- reservations. He said result? pose peace was to establish previously This court has considered between the tribes and the United States question and has that the .decided and between tribes, the several and noth- Treaty apart Fort Laramie did set reser- ing more. affirmed, The District Court vations for the tribes. as did Supreme also the Court. case was Fort first Berthold Indians v. quote We Supreme from the Court’s States, 71 United Ct.Cl. In that 308. opinion length: at some (cid:127)case, held that the set aside “Paragraph XXIX of the bill al- reservations for the Indians who were leges September parties Treaty, treaties of to the Fort Laramie 17, 1851, 17, judgment granted “upon October was basis United States ‘reserved’ certain [the the amount Indian tribe] * * * might large lands for Indian tribes. have obtained areas time taken.” at the were This was “In accordance with the master’s followed in Assiniboine Indian Tribe v. recommendation, the court below States, United 77 In Ct.Cl. sustained the agraph par- motion to dismiss States, United 81 Nation v. Ct.Cl. ground XXIX on the that the suing the tribe was under a question granted lands in were jurisdictional act, question .special company by the Act of 1864 and the raised, but the case tried on was not Resolution of 1870. We think the n assumption that the Fort Laramie right. court was Treaty plain- a reservation for did create “By Act of June Blackfeet, al., The same is true et tiff. lying west of Mississippi States, 81 v. United Ct.Cl. Nations River, not within the States of Mis- treaty. similar under a Territory souri and Louisiana or the designated Arkansas, of these cases went to None the Su as In- However, country. preme dian Court. fee of all this acquired territory the Indians was in the what United Treaty subject Laramie Fort was considered Indian of occu- Supreme pancy. decided Court The treaties of 1851 Ry. Northern States v. Pacific not alter United did the status of Co., 264, 278, 311 U.S. S.Ct. pur- lands described in them. The The case to this: estab- then comes down pose towas of those treaties recog- amity The Fort not war- Laramie did peace and between lish ring nize time and be- had had from Crows inter sese Indian tribes occupancy immemorial exclusive use and tween the tribes and apart the area them under set States. To this end Treaty, cre- territory not described Fort Laramie and it did each tribe plaintiff respect the agreed ate a However, tribe. reservation for the the tribes boundaries named [*] “Section 3 [*] limits the land treaties. grant to something it had not had before. did I do think give to each tribe lands as to which the tribes, Treaty, Before the each of the sold, reserved, title, ‘have full *15 Arrapa- Sioux, Cheyennes, the the the appropriated, granted, or otherwise hoes, and the claimants Crows were rival other preemption, or and free from By 163,000,000 the to the entire acres. line rights, at the time claims or 163,000,000 acres were divid- fixed, definitely of * * road is said up portions apart each ed set to were contends *.’ The Government right tribe. No tribe had the exclusive em- that this section excludes enjoyment part set to the use and of the treaty for limits braced within the apart it, have sort of a to but it did ‘reserve’ treaties the reason that the right therein. Bht no stretch for in them all the lands described imagination it could it be asserted that signatory We Indian tribes. give treaty to each was intended to unsound. think the contention is apart domain set tribe title to the vast Supreme pointed each. As out to noted, the treaties “As have we case, supra,, in Court the Northern Pacific reservations technical did not create in this would the case one of the tribes many and acts treaties as have given man, each woman and child have Congress. They not set aside did miles, square than about one- more territory for the exclusive a defined city fourth of the area of the ington. of Wash- the usual nor contain use of a tribe apart plaintiff The area set Agent for provisions for an Indian larger than the State of Ohio. tribe is farming opera- schools, in assistance It could not have been intended vest in tions, described etc. title to such vast domain. So^ them 163,- of 1851 amounts see, far I received can and, 000,000 that described acres and' was a better to hunt 37,000,000 Treaty of 1855 to apart area set to them than fish case of one In the acres. had. the other tribes tribes, considered if the it reservation technical to create a right, deprivation of this For the man, allotted to have would compensation, are entitled to more woman, in the tribe child compensation certainly is much but ” eighteen square miles.1 than taking payable for than that less plaintiff Court, tribe had title or to which master, District special enjoyment. exclusive use and Supreme had before them Court Claims Commission and the The Indian court opinions of this thought majority cases, supra. 40 cents an acre was. Blackfeet Berthold taking compensation for the fair title. contradiction opinions are direct Their what, paid was .054 acre for The tribe Fort Berthold said we what I think this fair taken. com- in the Blackfeet case. case, and assumed 163,000,- of 1868 as a reservation to note interest 1. It is larger larger than the Grow is than that an area acres of Massachusetts and Rhode states Is- ex in the United state acres, 30,000,000 combined, and the land cept and Texas. Alaska apart larger 8,000,000 than the state of Ohio. acres set amount tribe had and for what pensation took. defendant
what the So, consider even made, might has it still have
tribe paid was the consideration shown Hence, unconscionable. dis- Commission Claims petition.
missed I dissent. reasons
Pot these say that Chief
I am authorized
Judge joins in dissent. JONES Washington, Gittings, Jr.,
Thomas M. C., plaintiff; D. John W. Gaskins King King, Washington, C., & on the D. brief. Orlikoff, C., Washington, David D. INSTITUTE TECHNICAL
CENTRAL *16 George Atty. with whom was Asst. Gen. Doub, defendant; Joseph Cochran B. STATES. UNITED Grigsby, Arlington, Va., on brief. No. 77-57. Court of Claims. JONES, Judge. Chief 1, 1960. Dec. plaintiff operates a school in the provides State Missouri which both correspondence resident courses. It necessary has approval obtained the the Veterans Administration for the ed training ucation and of Korean War provided veterans as for in the Veterans’ Readjustment Assistance Act of seq., et Stat. 663 seq.* U.S.C. 901 § et alleged It seeks to recover allowances 265(b) due under section act, of this 680,** training 66 Stat. relative to its Korean War veterans in its resident courses. relieving aid in
In order to the ex- penses that incurred would be educa- submitting reports tional institutions Admin- and certifications Veterans 265(b) provides stration, section fol- lowing : pay Administrator shall
“The institution educational each required reports to submit to the Administrator certifications title, an allowance at under this per month for rate $1.50 eligible in and veteran enrolled at- ** seq. § 38 U.S.C.A. § Now 38 U.S.C.A. et Now