The Kansas Act of 1940[1] addressed the means by which Congress could use its power under the Indian Commerce Clause to authorize a state's ability to exercise jurisdiction in certain instances.
The Act was a precursor to the Indian termination policy and in essence was a kind of "trial legislation" to see if such transfers would be effective.
[7] Bruce cited six reasons the Federal Government might support the transfer: Up until this time, Kansas had exercised jurisdiction over offenses, including those listed in the Indian Major Crimes Act, but when that authority was called into question, the state sought clarification of its authority.
[10] The 1938 version of the bill would have given Kansas state authorities exclusive jurisdiction over criminal offenses occurring on reservations, prevented federal prosecution and punishment of major crimes in Indian country, and prevented the Federal Government from asserting authority within Kansas under the General Crimes Act.
[11] On January 5, 1939, House Resolution 3048 and Senate Bill 372 were introduced and lawmakers were advised that the proposal was supported by the Indian tribes.
The correspondence is not part of the legislative record, but instead housed in the National Archives and may or may not have been brought to the attention of the rest of the Congress.
[18] The Act was a precursor to the Indian termination policy and in essence was a kind of "test law," to see if such transfers would be effective.
[17] The fact that state jurisdiction over most matters had occurred previous to the passage of the House concurrent resolution 108 issued 1 August 1953 was one of the reasons for including the New York, Kansas and North Dakota Indians in those marked for immediate termination.