178 SMITHSONIAN MISCELLANEOUS COLLECTIONS VOL. I33 



a hundred cattle for a Chilean from San Jose de Mariquina; 50 of 

 these died of starvation that winter. Since then we have to get per- 

 mission from the Chilean office to burn down trees." 



Although the Araucanians are following the traditional pattern of 

 land ownership, they are worried and confused over laws that have 

 been formulated by Chilean legislators in recent years (or are now in 

 the process of being formulated) regarding Araucanian land tenure. 

 Said one: "No one seems to know exactly what it means, or what 

 the outcome will be." 



According to a summary by Lipschiitz ( 1948) on legislation as of 

 1947, dealing with Araucanian ownership of land in Chile, the landed 

 property of the Araucanian Indians in Chile is subject to a 1931 law 

 by which all the former Indian laws (1853 to 1927) are abrogated. 

 This law regulates the division of lands owned collectively by Indian 

 communities (probably those owned by a kunpem), and requires that 

 the division of land so owned be accomplished when one-third of the 

 owners request it. The impact of cultural conflicts can be surmised, 

 and is discernible in the following quotation of the summary : 



In 1942 a project for a new law was elaborated by a special parliamentary 

 commission. The latter pleaded even more strongly for a "liquidation" [literally] 

 (Art. 15) of the communities and for replacing collective ownership by small 

 private holdings. The proprietors of these shall be re-united into Indian Coopera- 

 tive Associations (Art. 63) into which non-Indian proprietors of former Indian 

 holdings might be admitted (Art. 65). This project caused, according to official 

 statements, considerable unrest among the Indians. A new Commission was 

 created by the Government to include also representatives of the Indians them- 

 selves. The Commission reverted from the concept of "liquidation" to the 

 former concept of "division" when requested by one-third of the members 

 (Art. 13), but pleaded for the right of even one member of a community to 

 separate and to become a private owner of his share in the communal land 

 (Art. 20). The concept of Cooperative Associations was dropped but special 

 facilities as to loans when sought for (Art. 67) and so also educational facilities 

 [can be enjoyed] (Art. 68). 



Though the existing law and all the projects for a new law of Indian landed 

 property agree that division or abolition of the ancestral community based on 

 collective ownership is desirable, all recognize tacitly or expressly that this is not 

 the solution to the native problem. They are unanimous that the Indian small 

 private holder has to be protected against the easy loss of his holding; and that 

 consequently the Indian has to be deprived of the right to sell or mortgage the 

 holdings, though his private property. The concept that the private holdings 

 resulting from the "division" or "liquidation" of the Community should be re- 

 united into Cooperative Associations, also was sought for as a protective meas- 

 ure. The latest project of the Government, which is of July 1947, proposes the 

 creation of a kind of "Indian Office" (Corporacion de Asuntos Indigenas) with 

 the special task of organizing Indian agriculture irrespectively private holders, 

 communities, or cooperative associations (Art. i). 



