(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Final report"

UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 

UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

The person charging this material is responsible for its 

renewal or return to the library on or before the due date. 

The minimum fee for a lost item is $125.00, $300.00 for 

bound journals. 

Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons 

for disciplinary action and may result in dismissal from 

the University. Please note: self-stick notes may result in 

torn pages and lift some inks. 

Renew via the Telephone Center at 217-333-8400, 

846-262-1510 (toll-free) orcirclib@uiuc.edu. 

Renew online by choosing the My Account option at: 

http://www.library.uiuc.edu/catalog/ 




[COMMITTEE PRINT] 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY 
REVIEW COMMISSION 



FINAL REPORT APPENDIXES AND INDEX 



SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS 
MAY 17, 1977 



VOLUME TWO OF TWO VOLUMES 










^^ 






Printed for the Use of the 
American Indian Policy Review Commission 



'-^ 



[COMMITTEE PRINT] 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY 
REVIEW COMMISSION 



FINAL REPOKT APPENDIXES AND INDEX 



SUBMITTED TO CONGRESS 
MAY 17, 1977 



VOLUME TWO OF TWO VOLUMES 




Printed for the Use of the 
American Indian Policy Review Commission 



U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
WASHINGTON : 1977 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 
Washington, B.C. 20402 



TASK FORCE MEMBERS 



Hank Adams, Assinlbolne-Sloux 

Wilbur Atcltty, Navajo 

Earl Barlow, Blackfeet 

Robert Bojorcas, Klamath 

Sherwin Broadhead 

Matthew Calac, Rincon 

John Echohawk, Pawnee 

Alfred Elgin, California Pomo 

Jerry Flute, Sisseton-Wahpeton 

Raymond Goettlng, Caddo 

George Hawkins, Southern Cheyenne 

Jo Jo Hunt, Lumbee 

Yvonne Knight, Ponca 

Peter MacDonald, Navajo 

Phillip Martin, Mississippi Choctaw 

Lillie McGarvey, Aleut 



Lorraine Mlslaszek, Colvllle 

Edward Mouss, Creek-Cherokee 

Douglas Nash, Nez Perce 

Alan Parker, Chlppewa-Cree 

Browning, Pipestem, Otoe-Missourl-Osage 

Luana Reyes, Colville 

Dr. Everett Rhoades, Kiowa 

William Roy Rhodes, Pima 

Helen Schelrbeck, Lumbee 

Kenneth Smith, Wasco 

Reuben Snake, Winnebago 

John Stevens, Passamaquoddy 

Peter Taylor 

Gail Thorpe, Cherokee-Creek 

Mel Tonasket, Colville 



TASK FORCE SPECIALISTS 



Paul Alexander 

James Bluestone, Hldatsa 

Allan Cayous, Apache-CalvlUa 

Michael Cox, Creek 

Bruce Davies, Oglala Sioux 

Maria Facchina 

Karl Funke, Keweenaw Bay, Chippewa 

Amos Hopkins, Kiowa 

Stephen LaBoueff, Blackfeet 



Paul Llttlechlef , Kiowa-Comanche 

Roberta Mlnnls, Colville 

Kathy McKee, Missouri Cherokee 

Lorraine Ruffing 

Rudy Ryser, Cowlitz 

Sheri Scott 

George Tomer, Penobscot-Mallseet 

Donald Wharton 

Patricia Zell, Navajo- Arapaho 



CLERICAL AND SECRETARIAL 



Elva Arquero, Cochiti Pueblo 

Linda Bethea 

Gail Bradford 

Alice Clark 

Marilyn Dufrane, Mohawk 

Lisa Elgin, California Pomo 

Doris Gadson 

Cynthia Gellner 

Maxine Hill, Onondaga 

Janet Hopkins 

Darcy Johnson 

Dlanne Johnson 

Cheryl Lewis 

Ernestine Lewis 

Gail McDonald, Mohawk 



Barbara Morgan 

Barbara W. Nicholson, Colville 

Dawn Oakes, Mohawk 

Deborah Pope 

Pat Porter 

Colleen Ralney 

Carole Roop 

Emmellne Sblpman 

Cynthia Suver 

Reglna Tsosle, Navajo 

Barbara Thomas 

Toni Villagecenter, Sioux 

Cheryl Wheeler 

Annette Young, Navajo 



(IV) 



CONTENTS 



Appendixes P»w 

A. How the Commission did its work? 1 

B. Bibliography of materials used by the Commission 37 

C. Format for proposed annual report on Indian afifairs 159 

D. Federal programs serving Indians 171 

E. Comments received on the tentative final draft report 193 

Index 

Index 895 

(V) 



APPENPIX A 
HOW THE COMMISSION DID ITS WORK 



(1) 



HOW THE COMMISSION DID ITS WORK 

I. INTRODUCTION AND MISSION SUMMARY 

Throughout the history of Federal/Indian relations, there has never 
been a comprehensive or consistent approach by the Congress and the 
Executive that dealt effectively with Indian problems and, at the same 
time, sufficiently fulfilled Indian needs. Inconsistent Indian policy has 
led directly to a situation of deep despair and frustration among 
Indian people documented by countless alarming statistics reflecting 
deplorable living conditions of Indian people. This frustration has 
been physically manifested in events such as the occupation of the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs headquartere and the modern siege at 
Wounded Knee in 1973. 

On July 16, 1973, Senator James Abourezk (Democrat-South 
Dakota) introduced Resolution 133 to establish the first Indian staffed 
congressional Commission to review American Indian policy. Resolu- 
tion 133 was referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 
and after brief hearings on July 19 and 20, 1973, and on December 5, 
1973, it was considered and passed by the Senate. • 

May 13, 1974, Congressman Lloyd Meeds (Democrat- Washington) 
introduced an identical resolution, House Joint Resolution 881, in the 
House of Representatives. Hearings on the resolution were held before 
the House Subcommil tee on Indian Affairs, and was passed on Novem- 
ber 19, 1974, along with an amendment providing for the creation of 
investigating task forces responsible to the Commission. On December 
16, the Senate concurred on the House amendment and on January 2, 
1975, the resolution became Public Law 93-580, creating the American 
Indian Policy Review Commission. Additional amendments were 
passed entitling the Commission to franking privileges and to accept 
volunteer services from both the private and public sectors. 

The American Indian Policy Review Commission, was mandated to: 

Conduct a comprehensive review of the historical and legal developments 
underlying the Indian's unique relationship with the Federal Government in 
order to determine the nature and scope of necessary revisions in the formulation 
of policies and programs for the benefit of Indians. 

This study was to be conducted by an 11-member Commission com- 
posed of three Senators, three Representatives, and five Indian mem- 
bers selected by the congressional representatives. 

The actual investigations were conducted by 11 task forces working 
within legislative, defined subject areas. Two task forces were added 
later by Commission action. The task forces were each composed of 
three members selected from among the leading authorities in their 
respective fields of expertise in Indian affairs. 

In the development of their reports, task forces utilized research, 
reports, studies, questionnaires, hearings, and site visits. This process 
involved a continued emphasis on direct consultation. The recom- 
mendation of each task force was structured to comply with the man- 
dates of the legislation. 

(3) 



Overall, the task force reports have provided : A study and analysis 
of the legal relationship of Indians to the Federal Government; a 
comprehensive review of existing Federal programs for Indians and 
projections of future needs; an examination of Federal criteria for 
granting recognition; and a study of tribal governments, including 
recommendations for strengthening governments at both the tribal 
and national levels. Other substantive conclusions were arrived at in 
the course of their investigation. Each final investigative task force 
report was due to the Commission within 1 year of the task force's 
day of appointment. The 11 final task force reports were completed by 
September 1976. 

The development of the final report which has provided the basis 
for legislative proposals and administrative practices designed to meet 
the needs of Indian people, has also involved the creation of supple- 
mental reports which reinforce the conclusions reached in the final 
report. In addition to the 11 task forces reports, the Commission has 
compiled sjjecial reports on pressing issues in Indian affairs written 
by authorities in these areas : Individual tribal reports discussing con- 
cerns analogous to task force investigations as independently perceived 
by tribes and organizations ; a comprehensive bibliography and library 
on Indian Affairs; a detailed table of all Federal Indian programs; 
and a complete record of individual complaints, deputations, testi- 
monies, case studies, and recommendations related to the areas of 
study submitted by all sectors of the Indian community. Finally, the 
Commission designed and maintained a unique accounting system 
which has insured internal accountability through the establishment 
of a monthly review of costs and expenditures. This system will facili- 
tate the development of cost benefit analysis. 

The final Commission report, a product of Indian participation, rep- 
resenting "a compendium of information on a scale heretofore un- 
available to the Federal Government," was submitted to Congress on 
May 17, 1977, representing the most comprehensive review of Indian 
policies and programs ever conducted. 

II. ORGANIZATION OF THE COMMISSION 

On January 2, 1975, Public Law 93-580 which provided for the 
establishment of the American Indian Policy Eeview Commission, 
was signed into law. It was a joint congressional commission com- 
posed of three Senators, three Members of the House of Representa- 
tives, and five Indian leaders. On January 27, 1975, the President Pro 
Tempore of the Senate appointed Senators Lee Metcalf, James Abou- 
rezk, and Mark Hatfield to the Commission. On February 13, 1975, 
the Speaker of the House of Representatives appointed Congressmen 
Lloyd Meeds, Sidney Yates, and Sam Steiger as members of the 
Commission. 

Brief Profiles of the Congressional Commission Members 

senators 

James Abourezk (Democrat, South Dakota) was bom and raised 
on the Rosebud Indian Reservation. In 1970 he became the first Dem- 
ocrat since the 1930's to win the Second Congressional District seat 
in South Dakota. In 1972 he was elected to the Senate, where as chair- 



man of the Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the foimer Interior Com- 
mittee, he sponsored and obtained the passage of a large quantity of 
Indian legislation, including Public Law 93-580, which created the 
American Indian Policy Review Commission. He is the chairman of 
the recently established Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. 
He is also chairman of the Administrative Practice and Procedure 
Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee ; chairman of the Parks and 
Recreation Subcommittee on Energy and Natural Resources; and a 
member of the Budget Committee. 

Lee Metcalf (Democrat, Montana) was elected U.S. Representative 
from Montana's First Congressional District in 1952. After four terms 
'in the House of Representatives, he ran for the Senate in 1960, when 
he served until his death. He was a member of the Indian Affairs Sub- 
committee on Public Lands and Resources of the Committee on Energy 
and Natural Resources and chairman of the Joint Committee on Con- 
gressional Operations. Additionally, he chaired the Subcommittee on 
Reports, Accounting, and Management of the Governmental Affairs 
Committee. He died on January 12, 1978. 

Mark Hatfield (Republican, Oregon) served as Governor of 
Oregon for two terms before being elected to the Senate in 1966. He 
has been instrumental in the passage of the Umatilla judgment fund 
legislation, the McQuinn Strip Act, the Klamath Forest Act and the 
Comprehensive Indian Health Care Improvement Act, which he oo- 
sponsored. Senator Hatfield serves on the Select Committee on Indian 
Affairs and is ranking minority member of the Public Works Sub- 
committee of the Appropriations Committee. He is also ranking minor- 
ity member of the Public Works Subcommittee of the Appropriations 
Committee. He is also ranking minority member of the Energy Re- 
search and Development Subcommittee of the Energy and Natural 
Resources Committee, ranking minority member of the Rules and 
Administration Committee and is a member of the Joint Committee 
on Printing. 

REPRESENTATIVES 

Lloyd Meeds (Democrat, 2d District of Washington) has served in 
the House of Representatives since 1964. When he was chairman of 
the House Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the Interior and Insular 
Affairs Committee, he was closely involved in the passage of the Alaska 
Native Land Claims Settlement Act, The Indian Education Act of 
1972, and the Menominee Restoration Act — for his work on the latter 
legislation he received the 1974 National Congress of American Indians 
Congressional award. Congressman Meeds is also a member of the 
Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, Territorial and In- 
sular Affairs, and chairman of Water and Power Resources, all of the 
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. 

Sam Steiger (Republican, 3d District of Arizona) was elected to 
the 90th Congress in 1966 and was reelected to the 91st, 92d, 93d, and 
94th Congresses. A member of the Interior and Insular Affairs Com- 
mittee, he played a key role in resolving the Hopi-Navajo land dispute. 
Mr. Steiger also serv-ed as the ranking minority member on both the 
Government Information and Individual Righ1:s Subcommittee of the 
Interior and Insular Affairs Committee and the Public Lands Sub- 
committee of the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee, and as a 
member of the Commission on the Review of the National Policy 



Toward Gambling. He was unsuccessful in a bid for election to the 
U.S. Senate in the 95th Congress. His vacancy on the Commission was 
subsequently filled by the appointment of Congressman Don Young. 

Don Young (Republican, representative-at-large of Alaska) was 
elected to the 93d Congress, in a special election March 6, 1973, to fill 
the vacancy created by the death of Congressman Nick Begich ; and 
was reelected to each succeeding Congress. He has served as the ranking 
minority member of the Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the Interior 
and Insular Affairs Committee and member of the Ad Hoc Select 
Committee on the Outer Continental Shelf, and the Merchant Marine 
and Fisheries Committee. 

Sidney R. Yates (Democrat, 9th District of Illinois) was elected 
to Congress in 1948 and has served in the House of Representatives 
since that time, except for a 2-year period when he served as U.S. 
Representative to the Trusteeship Council of the United Nations. Con- 
gressman Yates is chairman of the Interior Subcommittee of the House 
Appropriations Committee and a member of the Transportation and 
Legislative Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee. 

ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING 

On March 5, 1975, the congressional members met for their orga- 
nizational meeting. At that meeting. Senator Abourezk was elected 
as chairman of the Commission and Congressman Lloyd Meeds was 
elected as vice-chairman. Both served as chairman of the Indian Affairs 
Subcommittees of their respective Chambers of Congress. The Com- 
mission then adopted a set of rules under which it would conduct its 
meetings. These rules were based on existing Senate rules, which were 
conformed to the requirements of Public Law 93-580. 

Following a brief discussion of office facilities and equipment, the 
Commission moved for the selection of the Indian Commissioners pur- 
suant to section 1(c) of the act. After a review of numerous recom- 
mendations received from Indian organizations, tribes, and legislators, 
the congressional Commissioners chose, by a majority vote, the Indian 
members for the categories mandated in the act. From federally 
recognized tribes, the members selected were : John Borbridge, Tlingit, 
Alaska; Ada Deer, Menominee, Wisconsin; and Jake Whitecrow, 
Quapaw-Seneca, Oklahoma. From nonfederally recognized tribes; 
Adolph Dial, Lumbee, North Carolina. Urban Indians were repre- 
sented by Louis Bruce, Mohawk Sioux, New York. 

Pursuant to section 6(a) of the act, the Commissioners then ap- 
pointed Ernest L. Stevens, Oneida; as the staff director and Kirke 
Kickingbird, Kiowa as the general counsel. Staff consultants were 
also appointed to aid in the development of investigative programs, 
procedures, budgets, and organizational plans. 

Brief Profiles of Indian Commission Members 

federally recognized tribes 

Ada Deer served as chairperson of the Menominee Restoration Com- 
mittee. Mrs. Deer, a trained social worker, withdrew from law school 
to lead the fight against termination and is credited as the single most 



important force behind the success of the Menominee Restoration Act, 
which returned the tribe to Federal trust status. Under her leadership 
the Menominee Restoration Committee developed and submitted plans 
to Congress for the return of the tribal assets to Federal protection 
and, also, a new modern constitution was written and adopted by the 
tribe. 

Jake Whitecrow, a former Quai)aw tribal chairman who served 
on that tribe's business committee since 1953, is the director of the 
Inter-tribal Council of Northeastern Oklahoma, which represents the 
Eastern Shawnee, Seneca-Cayuga, Wyandot, Quapaw, Ottawa, Peoria, 
Miami, and Modoc. The Ottawa and Peoria Tribes in Oklahoma were 
terminated in 1956. He has served on the Muskogee Area Indian 
Health Advisory Board. Mr. Whitecrow is a member of the Quapaw 
and Seneca-Cayuga Tribes, which are both federally recognized. 

John Borbridge is president of Sealaska Corp., one of the 12 
regional Native corporations established under the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act for which he lobbied extensively while serving 
as president of the Tlingit-Haida Central Council. Mr. Borbridge is a 
member of the Executive Committee of the Rural Affairs Commission 
of Alaska and is a member of the Financial Advisory Board of the 
American Indian National Bank. 

URBAN INDIANS 

Louis R. Bruce, Mohawk and Oglala Sioux, received his honomry 
doctorates from Clarkson University and Navajo College, and served 
as BIA Commissioner from 1969-72. Over the years, Mr. Bruce has 
served on President Roosevelt's and President Eisenhower's Advisory 
Indian Committee and was chairman of President Truman's Advisory 
Indian Committee. Mr. Bruce has also been active in the formation or 
early development of the National Congress of American Indians, the 
National Tribal Chairman's Association, and the American Indian 
National Bank. Following his tenure as BIA Commissioner, he served 
as senior fellow for the Antioch School of Law and aided in the 
formation of the Coalition of Eastern Native Americans, and is pres- 
ently the president of Native American Consultants, Inc., and con- 
sultant to the Department of Housing and Urban Development on 
their Indian programs. 

nonfederally recognized tribes 

Adolph Dial, Lumbee, is chairman of the American Indian studies 
Department of Pembroke State University, a member of the Ameri- 
can Indian Advisory Council of HEW's Office of Civil Rights and a 
member of the Board of Directors of the American Indian Historical 
Society. In 1972, he received a grant to research the history of the 
North Carolina Lumbees; which resulted in the recently published 
"The Only Land I Know : A History of the Lumbee Indians," 
coauthored by Mr. Dial. 

FIRST business MEETING 

The 11 Commissioners were sworn in by Supreme Court Justice 
Byron White at the commencement of the first business meeting of the 



8 

Commission on May 2, 1975. The staff presented for discussion and 
approved the operations plans, and tentative schedule and budget for 
the following 2 years. A subcommittee, cliaired by Lloyd Meeds with 
Louis Bruce and Adolph Dial as members, was appointed by the 
chairman to screen applicants for nominations to be members of the 
task forces and to study the need to expand the number of task force 
members and the manner in which those taslc force members would 
conduct their investigations. The subcommittee proposed, for con- 
sideration, the creation of two additional task forces at the Commis- 
sion meeting held on June 13, the professional staff assistant was 
appointed — Max Richtman — and one half of the task force members 
were voted on and appointed. The Commission also created two addi- 
tional task forces pursuant to recommendations of the subcommittee 
which was set up to review the need for additional task forces. These 
two additional task forces were: No. 10 — Terminated and Nonfed- 
erally Recognized Indians, which was separated from the Rural and 
Non-Reservation Indians Task Force. At the Commission meeting on 
July 11, the remaining task force members were appointed and a re- 
view of the plan of operations, tentative schedule and budget of the 
Commission was conducted. In the following 22 months, the Com- 
mission hold a series of nine meetings to review, markup, and finally 
vote on the final Commission report. 

III. THE INVESTIGATING TASK FORCES 

At the May 2, 1975 Commission meeting, the Commission voted to 
create a Subcommitteee on Task Forces composed of Vice-Chairman 
Lloyd Meeds and Commissioners, Adolph Dial and Louis Bruce. The 
Subcommittee on Task Forces met twice between May 2, and the next 
Commission meeting on June 13, to review applications for task force 
positions land letters of recommendations concerning the applications. 
A list of nominees was presented to the full Commission by the sub- 
committee on June 13. Additional nominees were brought to the atten- 
tion of the Commission by individual Commissioners. Each task force 
was elected by the Commission separately and all nominees were dis- 
cussed prior to voting. At the completion of this meeting, one-half of 
the task force members had been elected. The remaining task force 
members were elected at the Commission's next meeting on July 11. 

The act required each task force to be composed of at least two 
Indian members. Subsequently the AIPRC elected 31 Indians to the 
available 33 task force positions. The members represented a cross sec- 
tion from all areas of Indian country. The task force membei-s not 
being full-time employees were authorized to hire full-time specialists 
well versed in the type of work to be performed. 

Between July 20 and August 10, the staff director, the general coun- 
sel, and the staff assistant divided the task forces into groups of three 
and organized briefing sessions. These briefings took place in Denver, 
Chicago, and Washington, D.C. and the determination as to location 
was based on the cost for bringing the various task force members to- 
gether since they resided in diverse parts of the country. General 
plans and orientation materials were prepared and presented to the 
task forces to provide a systematic approach for analyzing problems 
and procedures, which the staff anticipated the Commission would 



9 

want to consider. The briefing session consisted of two major areas of 
discussion, a scope of work, and a plan of operations. The scope of 
work format provided a specific description of the work to be accom- 
plished. A sample scope of work and plan of operations were pre- 
sented to the task force members at each of the sessions. After lengthy 
discussion, these models were refined and finalized, and the task forces 
were instructed to refer to these models in developing their activities 
for the following year. Furthermore, a format was developed which 
standardized the quarterly task force reporting process required by 
Public Law 93-580. 

Task Force Plan of Operations 

The initial work of the investigative task forces involved intense 
planning and work coordination. The task force was composed of a 
chairman and two task force members who, together with the task force 
specialists, formulated the basic plans of the task force. The scope of 
work and the plan of operations were the two basic documents which 
described the objectives, tasks, and weighted efforts to be addressed by 
the task force group. 

The scope of work was described in the Commission manual of oper- 
ations under "Proposed Scope of Work Outline" and examples were 
provided to indicate the basic requirements which constitute a scope of 
work. This material was to be thoroughly reviewed prior to formulat- 
ing the final draft for the Commission. 

The plan of operations was discussed in the orientation package and 
the document provided information and guidelines for the plan of 
operations. A definition of the plan of operations in the context of the 
Commission's work was as follows : 

A statement by the investigative task force group proposing specific studies and 
methods of accomplishment identified by priority from the Scope of Work. 

Each task force statement was to be carefully evaluated to insure 
maximum coordination and support for each task force group. 

The schedule was amended in order to provide an overall acceptable 
schedule of field activities. Close coordination was required to obtain 
substance and continuity in the total effort of the Commission. There 
were other activities which required changes as the work progressed, 
and those changes were submitted for further coordination. Basically, 
the plan of operations submittal was divided into five separate catego- 
ries as follows: Narrative; schedule; process (benchmarks) ; budget; 
and reporting system. 

Each of the categories played an important role in the overall devel- 
opment of the Commission's goals and objectives. The task force inves- 
tigative groups had 1 year, by law, to complete their work. The Com- 
mission compiled all reports to formulate substantive recommendations 
and conclusions in a final Commission report prior to January 30, 1977. 
This extended to IMay 17, in subsequent amendments to Public Law 93- 
580. Therefore, great importance was placed upon the development of 
the task force reports. 

Since the American Indian Policy Review Commission's investiga- 
tions were to be accomplished by a task force constituted body, it be- 
came very important that the selection of the members of these task 
forces be accomplished in a manner which would assure the AIPRC of 



10 

a working group which could accomplish hearings, research, and in- 
vestigation in an efficient, accurate, and publicly credible manner to 
Indians as well as to Congress and the American public. 

In early stages of the planning and administrative implementation 
of Public Law 93-580, it became readily apparent that it would have 
been very valuable to have known the problems encountered by other 
Commissions and investigating bodies. There was little record or evi- 
dence about the organizational and functional problems encountered 
by many of the previous congressional Commissions or the past efforts 
of the investigating bodies of the executive branch, however, what has 
come to be known as the Meriam report of 1928 provided some valuable 
information and insight on the constitution of task forces and the 
peculiar problems related to their selection and operation. Some of that 
report's self-criticism became valuable. 

The Meriam report critique was very useful in considering the disci- 
plines needed in the selection of task force personnel and staff. 

The background, disciplines, as well as the credibility of the prospec- 
tive task force members had to be evaluated in advance in order to 
attempt to predict technical and professional quality. The proper mix 
would result in a report which would be acceptable to the Indian peo- 
ple and Congress alike. 

Paramount in the consideration of task force constitution was the 
issue of what type of candidates should be considered. There seemed to 
be at least two clear and distinct possibilities : 

1. A majority of the members could be chosen purely on the basis of 
academic, technical, and professional background. These candidates 
could have been chosen on the basis of their professional and technical 
experience and background. For instance, published authors in 
anthropology, ethno-history, law, public administration, economics, 
and sociology, who had established professional reputations in the 
field of Indian affairs. These individuals might have been Indian or 
non-Indian, The accent would have been entirely on professional and 
technical excellence. 

2. The members could have been chosen from tribal leaders or other 
leadership and professional Indians who specialized in specific areas 
in Indian Affairs, primarily in the policy development area. This 
group would include elected leaders and professionals, mostly of In- 
dian descent who were well-known people who had the confidence of 
Indian tribes and their members. 

In assessing the need for integrity and credibility in the final report, 
the Commission's professional staff recommended to the Commission 
that an effort be made by the Commission to incorporate both qualities, 
however, it was recommended that Indian community credibility 
should be the prime consideration. Subsequently, in May and June of 
1975, the Commission approved a plan of operations which provided a 
means to provide the constituent and technical representation that was 
necessary. 

The Commission believed that Indian representation and input was 
absolutely necessary. 

The members elected by the Commission follow : 



11 

Brief Profiles of the Task Force Members 
TASK force 1 : trust responsibility and federal/indian relationship, 

INCLUDING TREATY REVIEW 

Chairman: Hank Ada/ms 

Hank Adams is a member of the Fort Peck Tribes of Montana, 
Assiniboine-Sioux. He brought to the Task Force on Trust Respon- 
sibility a wide range of skills as a writer, lobbyist, tribal and economic 
consultant, and paraprofessional legal assistant. He has worked vigor- 
ously to prevent the termination of various tribes and has argued 
treaty rights, Indian hunting, and fighting rights, State jurisdiction. 
State taxation and civil rights cases, while making effective use of the 
news media through a newspaper column and numerous published 
articles. 

Member: John Echohawk 

John Echohawk is a Pawnee Indian from Oklahoma. He has been 
elected by the Board of Directors to serve as director for the Native 
American Rights Funds as of October 1977, having previously served 
as director from 1973-75. Mr. Echohawk's tenure has earned him the 
respect of many Indian members of the legal profession and gave 
him a broad understanding of the legal issues confronting Native 
Americans. He received his B.A. and his J.D. degrees from the Uni- 
versity of New Mexico and is a member of the Colorado Bar Asso^a- 
tion. Mr. Echohawk is married and has two children. 

Member: Douglas Nash 

Douglas Nash is a member of the Nez Perce Tribe. He had been 
employed as an attorney for the Native American Rights Fund 
(NARF) and later entered private practice specializing in Indian 
law. He received his B.A. from the University of Idaho and J.D. in 
1971 from the University of New Mexico School of Law. Mr. Nash is 
married and has two children. 

task force 2 : tribal government 

Chairman: Wilbur Atcitty 

Wilbur Atcitty is a Navajo. For 4 years he served as director of 
the Office of Administration for the Navajo Tribe and then for 2 
years as executive-administrator to the chairman. His position gave 
him a first-hand opportunity to observe tribal government and its 
interaction with the Federal Government. He has also worked with 
the Office of Navajo Economic Opportunity to provide management 
and budgeting requirements for reservation housing projects. Mr. 
Atcitty was married and had three children but, unfortunately, he 
was killed in an auto accident in May of 1976 and not replaced on the 
task force. 



93-440 O - 78 



12 

Member: Alan Parker 

Alan Parker is a Chippewa- Cree, and formerly the attorney-direc- 
tor for the Washington, D.C., Office of the American Indian Lawyer 
Training Program and the American Indian Law Center at the Uni- 
versity of New Mexico School of Law. He is presently chief counsel 
for the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs. He has worked 
as an attorney in the Solicitor's Office at the Department of the In- 
terior and for the Indian Civil Rights Task Force. He organized and 
initiated the publication of ihelndian Law Reporter, a comprehensive 
monthly report on developments in Indian law. Mr. Parker is mar- 
ried and has two children. 

Member: Jerry Flute 

Jerry Fltjte has been the tribal chairman of the Sisseton-Wahpeton 
Tribe since January 1975. For 4 years prior to that, he was the tribal 
secretary. Mr. Flute is also chairman of the United Tribes Training 
Center m Bismarck, N. Dak., and is a former secretary-treasurer of 
that organization. He has also served on numerous Indian boards and 
task forces and is a member of the National Congress of American 
Indians and the National Tribal Chairman's Association. He has 
attended the National Indian Training Center in Utah, taking a spe- 
cialized course in tribal government development. Mr. Flute is mar- 
ried and has three children. 

TASK FORCE 3 : FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION AND STRUCTURE OF INDIAN 
AFFAIRS 

Member: Ray Goetting 

Rat Goetting is a member of the Caddo Tribe and currently the 
treasurer of the National Congress of American Indians. He brought 
to the Task Force on Federal Administration and Structure of In- 
dian Affairs 15 years of administrative experience with the Bureau 
of Reclamation, Department of the Interior, and 16 years of experi- 
ence as the owner of a business management consulting firm assisting 
Indian tribes and organizations as well as local businesses in New 
Mexico. In the Bureau of Reclamation, he served successively as a 
regional procedures analyst, regional management analyst, and re- 
gional administrative officer. As a business consultant, he aided ranch- 
ers, small mining companies, manufacturers, and other business con- 
cerns. As an NCAI officer, he has been extremely active in regard to 
Federal-Indian programs and budget processes, and served as a con- 
sultant to the staff of the Commission, prior to becoming a member 
of the task force. 

Member: Mel TonasJcet 

Mel Tonasket: President of the National Congress of American 
Indians, Chairman of the Colville Business Council, Colville Con- 
federated Tribes. He has also served as chairman of the Reservation 
Subcommittee of the Governor's Indian Advisory Council for the 
State of Washington. Involved in the development of the surplus 
lands at Fort Lawton in Seattle for the United Indians of All Tribes 



13 

Cultural Center. On the Indian Advisory Board for Gonzaga Uni- 
versity and Eastern Washington State College, and the Water Com- 
mission re : Indian Water Rights. 

TASK FORCE 4 : FEDERAL, STATE, AND TRIBAL JURISDICTION 

Chairman: Sherwin Broadhead 

Sherwin Broadhead presently residing in Reardon, Wash., is 
working with the Institute for the Development of Indian Law on 
treaty rights involving four tribal groups and is serving as consultant 
to various tribes. He is an attorney, having graduated from George 
Washington University with a J.D. degree in 1961 and is a member 
of the Idaho Bar Association. He fonnerly served as congressional 
relations officer with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and special assist- 
ant for Indian Affairs on the staff of Senator James Abourezk, chair- 
man of the former Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs. He has 
long been an active advocate on Indian tribal sovereignty. 

Meiriber: Judge William Roy Rhodes 

Judge William Roy Rhodes, the chief tribal judge of the Gila 
River Indian Community in Arizona, is a Pima Indian, married and 
the father of five children and three foster children. Judge Rhodes is 
president of the American Indian Lawyer Training Program,, a 
member of the National Indian Court Judges Association, and pres- 
ently a member of the Arizona Governor's Task Force on Police/ 
Community Relations. Prior to being elected chief tribal judge at 
Gil" River, he was involved in law enforcement activities m Mari- 
copa County in the Bureau of Indian Affairs and in the tribal police. 

Memher: Matthew L. Calac 

Matt Calac is from the Rincon Band of Mission Indians. He has 
been on the Business Council of the Rincon Band and has also been 
area vice president of the National Congress of American Indians. 
He has served as the executive director for Americans for Indian 
Future and Tradition, which performs legal, social, and health serv- 
ices, as well as job placement and training programs. He chairs the 
ad hoc Committee on Public Law 83-280 for 29 southern California 
reservations and directs all of the Inter-Tribal Council of Califor- 
nia's efforts relating to Public Law 83-280. He has also been active in 
other important tribal and California Indian organizations. Mr. Calac 
is married and has four children. 

TASK force 5 : INDIAN EDUCATION 

Chairwomxin : Helen Schierbeck 

Helen Schierbeck is a member of the Lumbee Tribe, and is cur- 
rently involved in several projects relating to Indian education. She 
is serving as director of the Special Project on the History and Financ- 
ing of Indian Education for the John Hay Whitney Foundation and 
as service coordinator for three major Indian education organizations. 



14 

From 1966 to 1973, she was closely associated with Federal programs 
and efforts to improve educational opportunities for Indians. Ms. 
Schierbeck has published several articles about Indian education and 
has received numerous awards. She is a doctoral candidate at Vir- 
ginia Polytechnic Institute. 

Member: Earl Barlow 

Earl Barlow is a member of the Blackfeet Tribe. He received his 
B.A. degree from Western Montana College in 1947. He also holds a 
master's degree in education from the University of Montana. Mr. 
Barlow has served as superintendent of schools in both Hot Springs 
and Stevensville, Mont. In 1970, he became directly responsible for 
all JOM programs in Montana. Mr. Barlow is presently superin- 
tendent of schools on the Blackfeet Reservation. 

Member: Lorraine Misiaszeh 

Lorraine Misiaszek, an enrolled member of the Colville Confed- 
erated Tribes, served as an elected tribal council member for 4 years, 
active membership on the Board of Directors of Advocates for Indian 
Education Northwest Tribes, served as an advisory committee mem- 
ber for Spokane's Education TV Services, a trustee for Fort Wrig'ht 
College of the Holy Names, and a member of the National Indian 
Education Association. She holds a B.A. and a masters degree from 
Gonzaga University, Spokane, Wash. Areas of employment have 
been mainly in the education field ; most recently as acting director of 
the Advocates for Indian Education Northwest Tribes whose main 
goal is the development of an educational center which will serve the 
four northwest States in the areas of technical assistance, materials 
information center, and training assistance for education personnel 
ultimately improving educational opportunities for Indian youths. 

task force 6 : Indian health 

Chairman: Dr. Everett Rhoades 

Dr. Everett Rhoades is a Kiowa. He has had extensive experience 
both in practice and in the teaching of medicine. He is presently the 
chief of the infectious disease section of the Univei-sity of Oklahoma 
Medical Center. He is a member of more than a dozen societies and 
organizations, including the American College of Physicians, the 
Association of American Indian Physicians (of which he was presi- 
dent and founder in 1974) , and the National Congress of American 
Indians. Dr. Rhoades has published some 40 articles in professional 
journals. He is married and has five children. 

Memiber: Luana L. Reyes 

LuANA Reyes is from the Colville Reservation in Washington. Now 
executive director of the Seattle Indian Health Board, Ms. Reyes has 
been active in local and national Indian health committees for the last 
15 years. She has also served as the Commissioner of the Seattle Indian 
Services Commission, which houses several Indian programs and has 



15 

been active in other community affairs. As a child, she attended schools 
on or near the Colville Reservation ; she has also studied education 
and business at the University of Puget Sound and the University of 
Washington. She has one child. 

Meinher: Lillian McGarvey 

Lillian McGarvey is an Aleut from Alaska. She is currently di- 
rector of health programs for the Aleut League, a nonprofit organiza- 
tion for the Aleut region. As chairperson of the Native Service Unit 
Board of the Alaska Native Health Board, she is Alaska's representa- 
tive on the National Indian Health Board. She also serves on the 
Board of Directors of the Alaska Chapter of the American Public 
Health Association and is helping the Comprehensive Health Ad- 
visory Comicil of Alaska to draw up a State health plan. In addi- 
tion, Ms. McGarvey is the Secretary-Treasurer of the Aleut Corpo- 
ration, one of the 12 regional corporations set up under the Alaska 
Native Claims Act. She has two daughters and five grandchildren. 

TASK FORCE 7 : RESERVATION AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND PROTECTION 

Chairman: Peter MacDonald 

Peter MacDonald has been chairman of the Navajo Tribal Council 
for 5 years. After graduating from the University of Oklahoma with 
a degree in engineering, he worked with the Hughes Aircraft Co., as 
an engineer and a member of the technical staff. He returned to work 
for his tribe first as director of management, methods and procedures, 
then as director of the Office of Navajo Economic Opportunity. 
Mr. MacDonald has also been very active in national Indian affairs 
and State affairs. He is married and has five children. 

Member: Ken Smith 

Ken Smith is a member of the Wasco Tribe from the Warm 
Springs Reservation. Having graduated from the University of 
Oregon in 1959 with a major in finance and accounting, he has worked 
for the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs for 16 years, originally 
as an accountant and now as general manager for the reservation. In 
addition to having served 3 years on his tribal council, he has been 
active in other civic groups and Indian organizations. He is married 
and has two chldren. 

Member: Phillip Martin 

Phillip Martin is an enrolled member of the Mississippi Band of 
Choctaw Indians. A member of the tribal council since 1957, he has 
twice been tribal chairman, first from 1959 to 1965 and again from 
1971 to 1975. He has not limited his energies to the tribal council, but 
has also been chairman of the board of the Choctaw Housing Authority 
and executive director of the Choctaw Community Action Program. 
Mr. Martin has been president of the Board of Regents of Haskell 
Indian Junior College since 1970 and has also been active in other 
Indian organizations, having served as president of the Board of 



u 

United Southeastern Tribes for two terms and also a member of the 
National Tribal Chairman's Association and the National Congress of 
American Indians. Mr. Martin is married and has two children. 

TASK FORCE 8 : URBAN AND RURAL NON -RESERVATION INDIANS 

Chairman: Alfred Elgin 

The Reverend Alfred Elgin is a Pomo Indian from California. 
Until recently, the project director for the Indian Centers Develop- 
ment Services, which works with numerous urban Indian organiza- 
tions, he is now acting executive director for the American Indian 
Community House in New York City. He has also worked as executive 
director for the Intertribal Friendship House in Oakland and as a 
counselor for the Oakland American Indian Association. He has been 
a leader in several California Indian organizations, such as the Inter- 
tribal Council of California and the California Indian Education 
Association and has served as the Board Chairman for the United 
Scholarship Service and as a board member for the Native American 
Legal Defense and Education Fund. Mr. Elgin has a B.A. in exe- 
getical theology from Bethany Bible College. He is married and has 
six children. 

Memher: Gail Thorpe 

Gail Thorpe is a member of the Sac and Fox Tribe. The eldest 
daughter of the famous athlete, Jim Thorpe, she was born in Okla- 
homa, attended Haskell Indian Junior College and Chilocco Indian 
School and later graduated from business school in Chicago. She is 
currently employed as office manager of the regional office of the Girl 
Scouts in Chicago. Active for many years in Indian affairs, she is now 
president of the Indian Council Fire and secretary of Descendants of 
Jim Thorpe, Inc. Ms. Thorpe has served as an Illinois delegate to the 
Governor's Indian Interstate Council and is the president of Tipi, Inc., 
an American Indian speaker's bureau. 

Member: Edward F. Mouss 

Edward F. Mouss is a Creek-Cherokee from Oklahoma. Now execu- 
tive director for the Creek Nation, he has also worked as the manager 
of New Enterprise Development for Oklahomans for Indian Oppor- 
tunity and as a consultant and staff researcher at the University of 
Oklahoma. He received a B.A. from Oklahoma State University in 
science management in 1965 and then went on to get a masters of busi- 
ness administration from the University of Tulsa in 1970 and a master 
of regional and urban planning in 1973 from the University of Okla- 
homa. Mr. Mouss is married and has two children. 

TASK FORCE 9 : INDIAN LAW REVISION, CONSOLIDATION AND CODIFICATION 

Chairman: Peter S. Taylor 

Peter S. Tatlor is a resident of Arlington, Va., was codirector of 
the Indian Civil Rights Task Force in the Office of the Solicitor, De- 
partment of the Interior. For the past 4 years, he has worked exten- 



17 

sively on the revision and consolidation of Indian law. Mr. Taylor is 
a 1963 graduate of the George Washington University School of Law 
and is a member of the Virginia and District of Columbia Bar Asso- 
ciations. Prior to his service on the Indian Civil Eights Task Force, 
he practiced law in the District of Columbia for 7 years. 

Memher: Yvonne Knight 

Yvonne Knight is a member of the Ponca Tribe of Oklahoma, has 
been a staff attorney with the Native American Rights Fund since 1971. 
She is currently drafting a tribal constitution and bylaws for the 
Menominee Tribe and her work has been praised as a model for the 
development of tribal constitutions. She has been the recipient of nu- 
merous grants and scholarships and is a member of six distinguished 
professional organizations. Ms. Knight received her J.D. from the 
University of New Mexico Law School in 1971 and is a member of the 
Colorado Bar Association. 

Memher: Browning Pipestem 

Browning Pipestem is an Otoe Missouria Osage Indian from Nor- 
man, Oklahoma, and a tribal council member of the Otoe-Missouria. 
Mr. Pipestem, a graduate of the Oklahoma State University Law 
School is a partner in the law firm of Pipestem, Rivas, and Charles. He 
is married and is the father of two children. 

TASK FORCE 1 : TERMINATED AND NON-FEDERALLY RECOGNIZED INDIANS 

Chairwoman: Jo Jo Hunt 

Jo Jo Hunt is a Lumbee from North Carolina. She graduated cum 
laude from Pembroke State University in 1970, and received her de- 
gree from Duke University Law School in 1973. After legal experi- 
ence as a law clerk with a Washington, D.C., law firm and with the 
Washington Office of Pine Tree Legal Assistance of Calais, Maine, 
Ms. Hunt was hired as a counsel for the Indian Affairs Subcommittee 
in the U.S. House of Representatives. She has also been active in sev- 
eral national Indian organizations. 

Memher: John Stevens 

John Stevens is a Passamaquoddy Indian from Maine. He has 
been Commissioner of Maine's Department of Indian Affairs for the 
past 4 years. He has long been active in tribal affairs and was em- 
ployed as director of the Passamaquoddy Community Action Pro- 
gram. He also worked in the paper mills for 15 years, during which 
time he was a union leader. He is currently active in a large number 
of local and national Indian organizations, in addition to serving on 
several State councils. 

Memher: Rohert Bojorcas 

Robert Bojorcas is a member of Klamath Tribe. Formerly a coun- 
selor at Central Oregon Community College and at the University of 
Oregon, he was, until recently, business manager and education chair- 



18 

man for the Shoal water Bay Tribe. Mr. Bojorcas is currently working 
with CETA as title III coordinator. He has been very active in the 
affairs of both the terminated Klamath Tribe — serving as a tribal 
council member — and of Northwestern Indian organizations. He has 
attended college and is a graduate of the Indian Manpower Training 
Center in Phoenix. Mr. Bojorcas is married and has two children. 

TASK FORCE 1 1 : ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE 

Chairman: Reuben Snake 

Keuben Snake is a member of the Winnebago Tribe. He is currently 
the education project director of the Sioux City American Indian 
Center. Prior to this, he was a national field trainer for Indian edu- 
cation training in which position he made 80 field trips to 27 States. 
He has also been educational director for the Nebraska Inter-Tribal 
Development Corp. Mr. Snake has organized a number of conferences 
and workshops on alcohol and drug abuse ; he has helped in develop- 
ing projects to deal with these problems and has also helped in estab- 
lishing an alcohol recovery house in Winnebago, Nebr. Mr. Snake is 
active in the Native American Church, is married and has six children. 

Member: George Hawkins 

George Hawkins is a Southern Cheyenne from Oklahoma. After 
years of intermittent work due to drinking problems, Mr. Hawkins en- 
tered a rehabilitation program in 1966. Soon hired as a janitor, he left 
that job to become director of the Cheyenne- Arapaho Alcoholic Re- 
habilitation Center. He is now executive director of the United Indian 
Recovery Association, which he organized. Mr. Hawkins has been 
involved in several other State and national organizations relating to 
alcoholism and has been active in Oklahoma Indian Affairs. 

IV. THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COMMISSION 

How THE Work Was Accomplished 

Between the Commission meetings in March 5 and May 2, 1975, the 
staff concentrated primarily on the legislative interpretation of Pub- 
lic Law 93-580, drafting proper policy and procedural and admin- 
istrative guidelines for the preliminary study review. 

The principal subject discussed by the Commission at its May 2 
meeting was related to the functional duties and delegated authorities 
of the organizational components of the AIPRC : The Commissioners, 
the task forces, and the staff. 

The Commission members decided to meet periodically to establish 
review and approve policies and procedures for focusing and refining 
the objectives of the act which created the Commission. 

The Commission, at the May 2 meeting, determined that the Direc- 
tor, General Counsel, and staff assistant would conduct the adminis- 



trative, operational, and task forces coordination duties on a day-to- 
day basis under the general supervision of the Director. The functions 
that were necessary for the staff to perform were to : Secure services, 
facilities, and necessary equipment ; secure qualified and adequate staff 
to perform necessary studies ; review and process task force quarterly 
reports and forward them for study and comment by the Commission- 
ers ; develop initial research, bibliography and historical materials as a 
reference tool for each task force subject area; develop adequate ad- 
ministrative, financial, procurement, budgetary, and equipment con- 
trols to assure compliance with rules and regulations of the Congress; 
plan, coordinate, arrange and conduct meetings, hearings, and re- 
search, arrange communication contacts with Indian tribes, organiza- 
tions and individuals as necessary to achieve maximum input from the 
national Indian community; plan, coordinate, and arrange meetings 
with governmental units of the executive and legislative branches to 
provide access for interrelated elements to be considered by Commis- 
sion staff and appropriate task forces. 

"The task force members as provided in the act shall consist of three 
members, a majority of whom are of Indian descent." The act required 
such task forces to make preliminary investigations and studies in 
various areas of Indian affairs, including but not limited to nine listed 
general subjects. Sec. 4(d) required the Commission to provide ade- 
quate staff support in addition to the regular Commission staff which 
is charged with the supervisory and task force coordination responsi- 
bilities. The Commission determined that the task force groups would 
operate within the administrative policies and procedures provided 
by the Commission and would perform the following functions: Plan 
and devise the manner in which such investigative work would be car- 
ried out to fulfill the scope of work ; utilize the services of task force 
specialists, technical consultants, clerical personnel and such other per- 
sonnel which may be required to provide a professionally and techni- 
cally adequate support group for presentation of conclusions and rec- 
ommendations on the subject matter before the task force ; review the 
scope and anticipated problem areas of each subject, and evaluate the 
elements in such a manner as to determine whether current activities 
are adequate. Review such problems on a national basis to determine 
whether changes in national policy are needed and what specific 
changes should be recommended ; report to the Director to assure co- 
ordination and adequate supervision of the task force by the Director 
and the staff of the Commission ; devote the amount of time required to 
perform the duties for which the individual task force members have 
been selected. When task force members are unable to perform their 
duties for health or personal reasons, they shall be replaced with inter- 
ested and qualified candidates; attend and review Indian meetings 
which pertain and contribute knowledge and information to support 
the conclusions and recommendations of their task force. 

The following is a graphic illustration of the inter-relationship of 
the various components of the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission : 




COMMISSION 



{ 




People Who Are 
Selected Based 
Their Intimate Knowledge 
of Indian Problem Areas: 
Tribal Leaders 
Tribal Business Managers 
Teachers 
Tribal Planners 
Tribal Committee Chairmen for 
Land Use Planning 
Water Development 6. Rights 
Etc. 



Professional 
Consultants In: 
Statistical Analysis 
Program & Budget 
Technical Writing 
Management Systems 
Administrative, etc. 
as required. 



Expert in 
Investigative 
Research of 
Task Force 
Subject Areas 



Specialists in Task 
Force Subject Areas: 
Hydrologists 
Lawyers 
Economists 

Agriculturists, etc. 
as required by the 
Investigative Task 
Force 



V. THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMIS- 
SION: ITS OBJECTIVES, FUNCTIONS, AND OPERA- 
TIONS 

Within the scope of the Commission's approved direction, the admin- 
istration, operation, and planning processes necessary to implement 
Public Law 93-580 (the American Indian Policy Review Commission) , 
were necessarily complex. In order that no misunderstandings arise 
related to the purposes, goals, and objectives of the AIPRC mission, 
the Commission established specific guidelines which were extracted 
from the legislation and from other adopted procedures in order to 
summarize the planned implementation of the law. This was dis- 
tributed to all Commission members, staff, consultants and task force 
personnel. 

1. Planning Philosophy 

The philosophy of the planning approach was extracted from the 
joint resolution itself in which the Commission's organization and 
purposes were rather explicitly defined. In its initial findings, the 
Congress, in its joint resolution, said that : 

(a) Administrative policy has traditionally shifted and changed without ra- 
tional design and consistent goals to achieve Indian self-suflSciency ; 

(6) There has been no comprehensive review on the conduct of Indian affairs 
since the 1928 Meriam report ; and 

(c) To carry out its responsibilities and plenary powers, the Congress con- 
sidered the review as imperative. 

2. Planning Approach 

The planning approach was deemed necessary after review of pre- 
vious reports, investigations, various task force studies, and oversight 
reports on Indian affairs. In reviewing these, particularly the Meriam 



Report, the professional staff determined that there were two elements 
substantively missing from all previous reviews : 
Indian participation and options, and 
Documented proof of conclusions. 

There had been cosmetic attempts at soliciting Indian opinion before 
but never in a meaningful manner. It was determined that these two 
missing elements would represent the hallmark of AIPRC's review 
and investigations. 

Indian participation and opinion was to be in the form of docu- 
niented and verified records. Indian opinion recorded previously meant 
historical records were to be officially reviewed and included. These 
were in the form of previous hearings, complaints, resolutions, studies, 
et cetera. Current studies being made must be documented in these same 
forms, that is: testimony, hearings, complaints, resolutions, tribal 
studies, and other documented Indian input. These supportable facts 
through Indian participation were intended to provide these two 
missing elements. 

3. Organization 

The act prescribed the general organization with support staff and 
duties to perform. An organizational relationship plan between the 
Commission, professional staff, core staff, consultants and the task 
forces and their specialists was approved at the Commission meeting 
of May 2, 1975. In essence, it provided that : 

The staff director would coordinate the task forces. 
The three-member task force would supervise the activities of 
the specialists. 

The task force central core and administrative staff would relate 
to the task force but would be supervised by professional staff. 

Technical core staff would supply assistance in legal research, 
technical writing, program and budget analysis, and clerical 
research. 

A mix of consultants, task force personnel, support staff, in- 
terns, and professional staff would accomplish the work. 
Subsequently, the above was restated in the original budget request 
and supplementary appropriations request. In addition to the duties 
of the staff director, other supervision was delegated to the staff direc- 
tor by the Chairman of the Commission by motion, and procedures 
were adopted. The Commissioners voted to become ex officio members 
of all task forces. 

4. Administrative Implementation 

The unique nature and mix of the Commission created several oper- 
ational and administrative problems since it was literally the first 
joint-congressional citizen commission in the history of the country. 
Early logistical problems in the administration of the Commission 
were resolved by the staff after consultation with the Senate Financial 
Clerk, Senate Sergeant-at-Arms, the Office of the Speaker of the House 
of Representatives, and the staff of the Senate Rules Committee and 
House Administration Committee. 



22 

The professional staff decided that a minimum amount of funds 
should be expended on early organization and administration in order 
to make a maximum of funds available for the very important task 
force work. With the approval of the AIPRC, the staff, with the 
assistance of one management specialist and an intern, completed the 
entire logistical and administrative support preparation by June 1. 
Although time was of the essence, it was thought that more careful 
preparation would, in the end, better serve the intents of the 
Commission. 

It was initially established that : 

(a) The Commission staff was to avail itself of office space in 
the Subcommittee on Separation of Powers while office space was 
being prepared in House Annex No. 2. 

(&) It was necessary for the staff to submit budget requests to 
the legislative Appropriations Subcommittees in the House and 
the Senate for fiscal year 1975, fiscal year 1976 and fiscal year 1977. 
The budget request for this period was in the amount of $2.6 mil- 
lion. This budget was reviewed and discussed and approved by 
the Commission at its meeting on May 2. 

(c) Administrative operations: Procedures were necessary to 
satisfy the rules of the Senate under whose funding the Commis- 
sion operated. Meetings with the Disbursement Office personnel 
were held and a pamphlet was prepared on employment, travel, 
expenses, and supplies for the use of the Commission members and 
employees. 

(d) A manual of operations including functional statements, 
delegations of authority, administrative policies on employment, 
and accounting was produced which complied with Senate rules. 
Additional details were necessary to provide for the peculiar 
organization of the Commission. 

(e) A separate double entry accounting system was established 
within the Commission to provide for a separate chart of accounts 
for each section including each task force. This provided the staff 
with the capability to closely monitor expenditures in a timely 
fashion. 

A manual which included functional statements, delegations of 
authority, administrative policies on employment, and accounting was 
produced which complied with the Senate rules and legislative require- 
ments. Additional details consisted of provisions which were necessary 
for the administration of a joint congressional citizen's commission 
participation. The following charts illustrate the flow and organiza- 
tion of the AIPRC activity. 



[ 



23 



THE SCHEDULE. Key Daces In The Commission's Lifespan 



1/2/75 7/11/75 
ACT TASK 
APPROVED FORCE 

SELECTED 




7/21/75 8/8/75 10/21/75 1/21/76 
-• • •— 



BEGIN 8/4/75 9/22/75 11/4/75 2/4/76 

TASK ^ ^ ^ ^ 

FORCE V ^ ^ ^ 



4/21/7< 
STS DUE 



5/4/76 



8/75 9/1/75 11/18/76 2/18/76 5/18/76 




•*i2\m{ \ 



Key 




Group A: 


Task Forces 1, 2, 3, 4 


Group B: 


Task Forces 6, 7, 11 


Group C: 


Task Forces 5, 8, 9, 10 



5/16/77 
5/17/77 



Review & Recommendations 
On Tentative Report Due 
From Tribes, States, 
Congressional Offices, e 
Final Review, Mark-up, S 
Approval of Report 
by AIPRC 



Final Report Submiss 



tit Extended by Congr 



. ^ Submitted to Speaker of tl 
^J House i President pro tern 
^^he Senate* 

^fc 6/30/77 Commissi 
Eipires 



24 



ORGANIZATION 



REPRESENTATIVES 




STAFF CONSULTANTS 
Ray Goetting 
John Sykes 



t Responsibility and the 
ral-Indian Relationship 
uding Treaty 




Task Force 


3: 




Federal Ad 


minis 


ration 




ructu 


e of 


Indian Af 


airs 





Task Force 4: 

Federal, State and Tribal 

Jurisdiction 



SPECIAL CONSULTANTS 



ADMINISTRATION 



Task 


Force 


7: 


Rese 


and 


Development 


Resource Pr 


otectlon 




Task Force 10: 


on-Fede 


ail. 



Task Force 1 




Indian Alcoh 
Drug Abuse 


1 and 



VI. HOW THE AIPRC FINAL REPORT WAS WRITTEN 

The last of the task force reports was filed in late September 1976. 
However, preliminary work on developing the AIPRC final report 
had begun in September. 

Two special consultants were engaged to aid in the editorial work 
and write papers of their own: the late D'Arcy McNickle, a noted 
Indian historian, under whose direction a concise history of Indian 
affairs was developed, and Charles Wilkinson, professor of law at 
the University of Oregon, who authored a paper on major concepts 
in Indian law. The McNickle paper appears as chapter 1 of the report 
and the Wilkinson paper as chapter 3. 

The first step in the development of the final report was condensation 
of the 11 task force reports and two special studies the AIPRC had 
generated in its first 18 months of operation. Special reports submit- 
ted by Indian tribes and their findings were included in references to 
the Commission. A gross subject matter outline was prepared. Then, 
each report was carefully studied and examined to extract from each 
the findings and conclusions. These were summarized with appropriate 
reference to the report from which the finding or conclusion was 
drawn. 

These finding and conclusions were then organized under the ap- 
propriate headings of the gross subject matter outline. In addition 
to this, and cataloging of findings and conclusions into a single com- 
prehensive form, the staff developed a set of principles which .ap- 
peared to underlie the findings and conclusions of the various task 
force reports and studies. These principles served as a focal point 
for discussion of the main body of the final report. 

The first substantive meetmg of the AIPRC Commissioners and 
staff was held November 19-23, 1976. Over this 5-day period, every 
facet of the report was discussed. The chapter on the role and legal 
character of tribal government generated the most discussion. The 
debate and discussion between all elements of the Commission were 
considered to be the most stimulating and exciting activity of the 
Commission up to that point. The chapters on Federal administra- 
tion and economic development were found to be weak and in need of 
basic development. There was general agreement on the findings and 
recommendations in matters of social services. However, there were 
notable questions with respect to delivery of services to Indians in 
urban areas and to general eligibility of Indian tribes to qualify for 
Federal domestic assistance programs available to State and local 
governments. 

From December 1976, to March 1977, all effort was bent toward plac- 
ing the report in legible and comprehensible form, and filling in the 
major gaps which had been identified. Commission meetings were held 
January 6, 7; February 4, 5; February 24, 25; and March 4, 1977 
to review the work of the staff, refine the language of the report, 
and sharpen the recommendations which were to be made. The pri- 
mary area of controversy continued to center on tribal government. 



26 

On March 4, 1977, a tentative final draft report was presented by 
the staff to the 11 Commissioners. Eleven hundred copies of this tenta- 
tive draft were mailed to Indian tribes, intertribal organizations, in- 
terested congressional offices. Federal and State agencies, and other 
interested parties, both Indian and non-Indian. Comments were re- 
quested by April 21, to allow time to make modifications in the report 
prior to its final presentation to Congress on May 17. The major area 
of concern highlighted during this period was the continued inade- 
quacy of the chapter on economic development. As a consequence of 
this criticism, this chapter was completely rewritten. 

On May 12, 13, and 16, 1977, the Commission met for the last time. 
Those chapters or portions of chapters which had not previously been 
voted on and approved were reviewed and adopted. The most notable 
of these were the chapters on Federal administration and economic 
development. A foreword and a summary of recommendations were 
adopted, separate statements of Commissioners were accepted, and 
the report was submitted to the Speaker of the House and the Presi- 
dent Pro Tempore of the Senate on May 17. 

The Commission formally expired on June 30, 1977. 

VII. ADMINISTRATION 

Funding in the amount of $2,600,000 was authorized in Public Law 
93-580, as amended, for the financial requirements of the American 
Indian Policy Review Commission for the period January 2, 1975, 
through June 30, 1977, This period of time covered a portion of fiscal 
year 1975, all of fiscal year 1976, the transitional period of July- 
September 1976, and a portion of fiscal year 1977. Budget requests for 
each fiscal year and the transitional period were prepared and de- 
fended successfully before the House and Senate Appropriation Com- 
mittees. In addition, two supplemental requests were secured. The 
total authorization of $2,600,000 was appropriated with the exception 
of $37.68. 

It was evident from the beginning that the Commission had tre- 
mendous responsibilities complicated by a compressed timetable of 1 
year for task force reports and approximately 2 years overall. 

Funds appropriated were disbursed under Senate rules and regu- 
lations through the Financial Clerk of the U.S. Senate. 

Each task force was delegated the entire administration and con- 
duct of its report and each supervised the disposition of its own funds 
in order to further guarantee the independence and integrity of the 
final task force report. 

Because of the complexity of the Commission organization which 
included 11 separate and distinct task forces, a central staff, and sup- 



27 

port staff to the task forces, a budget and accounting system was 
designed and established to provide controls and financial information 
far beyond the requirements established by the Senate Financial Clerk. 

The double-entry system consisted of a general ledger, an expendi- 
ture ledger, a task force cost ledger, and a petty cash expenditure 
ledger. 

Budgets were prepared for each of the 11 task forces, the task force 
support unit, the central staff and Commissioners. Based on these 
budgets, funds were allocated to each of the task force chairmen. 
Using the cost accounting system established, each task force chair- 
man was furnished each month with a financial status report reflect- 
ing, by expense item, the budgeted amount, the amount expended 
for the current month, the accumulated expenditures, the balance of 
funds available for the remaining terms of the task force, and per- 
cent expended. The term of the task force was computed on a per- 
centage basis for comparison with percentage of funds expended. On 
a quarterly basis, and more often during the last quarter of task 
force operations, the director and the professional staff assistant re- 
viewed and analyzed these financial reports and made adjustments 
within and between task forces to make certain that all funds were 
being expended in a timely and appropriate manner and, most im- 
portantly, that over obligations could not be incurred. 

Additionally, (1) a balance sheet was prepared each month reflect- 
ing the current status of funds available from appropriation warrants 
and cash advanced by the Senate Disbursing Office for petty cash, and 
(2) an expenditure statement reflecting total expenditures by ex- 
pense items for the entire Commission for the current accounting 
period. 

Each month, due to the time lag between submission of vouchers and 
payment by the Senate Disbursing Office, a statement was prepared 
reconciling AIPRC expenditures with Senate Disbursing Office ex- 
penditures. 

The accounting procedures also included provision for accrued ex- 
penditures or obligation of funds immediately upon commitment. This 
was extremely important, since statements based solely upon cash 
expenditures do not reflect a true status of funds available for future 
use. 

On at least two occasions, during the life of the Commission, a re- 
view of the financial statements indicated that a continuation of the 
then current expenditure rate would cause an overobligation and steps 
were taken to curtail expenditures. During the last 8 months of the 
term of the Commission, precise projections of expenditures for each 
remaining month were made. 

The following statements reflect the financial status of the AIPRC 
as of July 31, 1977. 



93-440 O - 78 - 3 



28 



AMERKSN INDIAN POUCT REVIEW OQMMISSiaJ 

BAIANCE SHEET 

:AS of JL)IX31,'1977 



Cash In Bank $ -0- 

Mvances Peceivable -0- $ -0- 

Petty Cash -0- 

Funds Available: 

FY 1975 Advance from Senate Contingency Fund 51,084.32 

Less: Expenditures 51,084.32 -0- 

FY 1976 Appropriations 1,860,168. Ooi/ 

Less: Expenditures 1,859,394.00 774. C 

Fy 197T i^ropriations 322,710. 00^^^^ 



Less: Expenditures . 316,842.37 

■ 1977 ;^ropriations 366,000.00^/ 

Less: Expenditures 364,721.39 1,278.61 7,920.24 



Authorization Available - 


- P.L. 


93- 


-580 


(as amended) 




2,600,000.00 


Less: 

1975 Advance from Senate Contingency 

1976 ;^)propriation 

1976 Supplemental 
197T Appropriation 
197T S\5>plemental 

1977 Appropriation 
1977 Supplanental 


Fund 


51,084.32 
1,500,000.00 
385,168.00 
300,000.00 
710.00 
263,000.00 
100,000.00 


2,599,962.32 


Accrued Expenditures 
1976 
197T 
1977 














6,542.98 
948.00 
384.00 



7,874.98 
TOOM, ASSETS $ 15.832.90 



LIABILITIES AND FUND BAIANCE 
Reserve for Eiicunibrances 

Advance from Senate for Petty Cash $ -0- 

Expenditures 25z 



Authorization - P.L. 93-580 (as amended) 




2,600,000.00 


Less: Expenditures 






1975 


51,084.32 




1976 


1,859,394.00 




197T 


316,842.37 




1977 


364,721.39 


2,592,042.08 



TCfTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND BAIANCE $ 15,832.90 

Reflects transfer of $25,000 authorized between FY 1976 ard FY 197T. 
Reflects transfer of $3,000 authorized between FY 197T and FY 1977. 



r- a\ I 00 



29 



ss 


s 


§ 


s 


^S 


s 


ssgs 


oo 


Oi 


ss ' 


s 


m 


3 


S " 1 


' s 


' sss§ 


VD 


o 


ss' 


?? 


r~ 


^ 


""S 


CO 


-" - 


a\ 


^ 



§g 


76,206.00 

7,349.00 

11,844.00 

5,950.00 
28,638.00 

7,971.00 

13,565.00 

9,430.00 

209.00 

4,417.00 


P § 

2 i 






D li. 
Z 2 O 

< W 






1 .H ^ n ko 



o T > 



^ o o r^ (N ^3* o^ 









247.17 
245.49 
878.62 
702.61 
599.86 
628.23 
685.37) 
567.90) 
313.02) 
314.00) 
277.15 
289.63) 


S 




^»<^^iC2C2;;I-'Ci 





S Sn li £ " 


s 


S§?^S§ 


.H 


s 


^ninor-ovDtNnoor-^oo 


& 


r~ 


D in rsi in r- 


o 


£S^2S ' 


i 




!2i5;SotntC?;3§f2SSo 

r^^O(^n.Haj^oo(NOO ■* 


i 




^P^SSS 


5 


S""""^ 


§ 


VC 


^ .n^ .n^ ^^ ^ 


r^ 


5 



o o o o o o 



r.mr-.m-a-mcT.rMO'a'fM.HO 


ro 


00 


1- 




CM 




' 


Hoovn^r-ooininnHO-rr^ 


m 


VD 










c 
















^-s;?£ss-ss5^s 


g 


g 


■^ 






.Ti 


^1 






:^l 














o 




c 




en 


GO 














































•"i 


jj 


' 




U 


"8 









•lis 5 vv 

HI ^ H tn (U <u 

wS S -H to en g 
o o o c <D ffl H 
S £ S ra fl S 



^ r""' 



m'^l 



3.3 



Sh i o 4J m oj dj 
y q -H ui c u o 



ft « -p 



Q '.a « 



O •• 10 ^ 

S § § 1-H 8 



en Di -H a 

■^ ^ .s .5 g i g. 






30 

Amebican Indian Policy Review Commission 

reconciliation fiscal year 1976 

July 31, 1977 

AIPRC expenditures $1, 859, 3&4. 00 

Less outstanding vouchers 1, 939. 28 

Total 1, 857, 454. 72 

Senate disbursing vouchers 1, 858, 445. 48 

Less posted as increases to appropriation 990. 76 

Total 1, 857, 454. 72 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 

reconciliation fiscal year 197t 

July 31, 1977 

AIPRC expenditures $316, 842. 37 

Senate disbursing vouchers 317, 102. 37 

Less posted as increase to appropriation 260. 00 

Total 316, 842. 37 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 

reconciliation fiscal year 1977 

July 31, 1977 

AIPRC expenditures $364, 721. 39 

Less outstanding vouchers 966. 96 

Less correction 70. 00 

Total 363, 684. 43 

Senate disbursing vouchers 363, 684. 43 



31 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 

CORE 

FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT FOR M5NTH ENDING JULY 31, 1977 



ITEM 

SALARY AND OOMPENSATION 
Indian Conmissioners 
Staff 

Support to T/F t, Cam. 
Student Stipend 



618 contracted Studies 



TRAVEL 

Indian Conmissioners 

Congressional -Conmissii 

Staff 

Staff Consultants 

Hearing Expenses 
Office Supplies 
Conmuni cations 
Newspapers, Magazines 
Printing & Reproduction 

TCflAIS 



BUDGET EXPENDITURES 
7/1/75- 7/1/75- 
9/30/76 9/30/76 



BALANCE 
FY 1976 
t. 197T 



42,000.00 
159,300.00 
342,200.00 

23,000.00 


S 46,172.63 
159,292.54 
325,362.66 
18,511.94 


$(4,172.63) 

7.46 

16,837.34 

4,486.06 


78,000.00 


84,128.22 


(6,128.22) 


126,000.00 


104,645.63 


21,354.37 



35,834.74 1,665.26 



24,000.00 


24,824.67 


(824.67) 


2,000.00 


1,752.83 


247.17 


25,000.00 


24,754.51 


245.49 


57,000.00 


54,121.38 


2,878.62 


6,000.00 


7.685.37 


(1,685.37) 


28,987.00 


32,300.02 


(3,313.02) 


•29,000.00 


50,314.00 


(21,314.00) 


3,000.00 


1,722.85 


1,277.15 


12,000.00 


$985,713.62 


(2,289.63) 


S 994,987.00 


S 9,273.38 



BUDGET 
10/1/76- 
6/30/77 


EXPENDITURES BALANCE 
10/1/76- FY 
6/30/77 1977 


$ 23,454.00 

54,987,00 
121,980.00 


S 22,256.67 
54,986.93 
119,890.92 


51,197.33 

.07 

2,069.08 


51,747.00 


54,245.20 


(2,498.20) 


24,459.00 


24,458.84 


.16 


7,349.00 


7,349.08 


(.08, 


11,844.00 


12,145.07 


(301.07) 


5,950.00 
28,638.00 


5,753.41 
29,228.05 


196.59 
(590.05) 


7,971.00 
13,565.00 
9,430.00 
209.00 
4,417.00 


8,282.65 
12,669.90 
8.543.19 
209.01 
5,066.47 


(311.65) 
895.10 
886.61 
(.01) 
669.47 


$366,000.00 


$365,105.39 


S 894.61 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 
Task Force #1 Trust Responsibilities and the Federal-Indian Relationship 
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977 
Task Force Term July 21, 1975 to July 20, 1976 



Account 
Number 



t?r ^ 




613 
615 



629 
630 
631 



Salary & Compensation: 
Task Force Members 

Consultants: 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Travel: 
Task Force Members 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Hearing expenses 

Total 



91,208 
of T F #1 is lOOZ completed and 96 



22,050 
8,300 



13,558 
5,430 
1,466 



22,304.07 
8,268.84 



11,543.85 

4,917.45 

994.47 



-0- 88,012.03 96.5% 
5% financially expended. 



101.0% 
99.6% 



85.1% 
90.6% 
67.8% 



(254 .07) 
31.16 



2,014,15 
512.55 
471.53 



32 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 

Task Force 112 Tribal Government 

Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977 

Task Force Term July 21, 1975 to July 20, 1976 



Account 
Number 



^>^ 



613 
615 



629 
630 
631 



Consultants: 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Travel : 
Task Force MembeiR 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Hearing Expenses 

Total 
Reduction 5/31/76* 



19,234 
21,000 



18,475 
12,150 
6,450 



667 
111. 442 



33.73) 
-0- 
-0- 



(88.73) 



19,447.31 
24,465.42 



17,074.57 
10,545.25 
5,344.84 



112.243.30 



The term of TF #2 is 100% completed 
♦Share of cost of Historical Indian 



92.4% 
86.8% 
82.9% 

45.5% 

96.7% 



-0- 
100.7% 



(213.31) 
(3,465.42) 



1,400.43 
1,604.75 
1,105.16 



3-865.70 



and 100.7% financially expended. 
Priorities and Policies 1900-1975 



-4,667.00 
(801.30) 



performed by Task Force #3. 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 

Task Force //3 Federal Administration & the Structure of Indian Affairs 

Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977 

Task Force Term July 21, 1975 to July 20, 1976 











yj" ^/ H / 


/ 










/ 


Account 
Number 


Expense Item 


A 


y/ 




Salary & Compensation: 












605 


Task Force Members 
Consultants: 


25,500 


-0- 


29,188.24 


114.5% 


(3,688.24,1 


613 


Task Force Specialist 


40,79{ 


-0- 


38,294.23 


93.9% 


2,495.77 


615 


Task Force Consultant 
Travel: 


6,80( 


-0- 


23,143.53 


340.3% 


(16,343.58) 


629 


Task Force Members 


20,00( 


-0- 


23,563.90 


117.8% 


(3,563.90) 


630 


Task Force Specialist 


12,601 


-0- 


13,194.18 


104.7% 


(594.18) 


631 


Task Force Consultants 


9,0b( 


-0- 


15,555.71 


172.8% 


(6,555.71) 


635 


Hearing Expenses 
Total 


5.00( 


-0- 


3,536.02 


70.7% 


1,463.98 




119, 69( 


-0- 


146,475.86 


122.4% 


(26,785.86) 




Increase 5/31/76* 

Total adjusted 


+23,33: 


-0- 


-0- 


-0- 


+23.335.00 




143,02: 


-0- 


146,475.86 


102.4% 


(3,450.86) 




The term of Task Force #3 1 


3 100% c 


omplete 


1 and 102.4% 


financially 


expended. 



♦Transfer from other Task Forces for share of cost of Historical Indian 
Priorities and Policies —1900-1975 project. 



33 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 
Task Force 04 Federal, State & Tribal Jurisdiction 
Financial Status Report for Month ending July 31, 1977 
Task Force Term July 21, 1975 to July 20, 1976 











/ 


Account 
Number 


Expense Item 


/ 


y/ 


605 


Salary & Compensation: 
Task Force Members 


22,900 


-0- 


24,061.69 


105. IX 


(1,161.69) 


613 
615 
619 


Consultants: 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Contracted Studies 


29,200 
10,750 
3,100 


-0- 
-0- 
-0- 


29,1A9.72 
5,878.10 
3,110.00 


99.8% 
54.7% 
100.3% 


50.28 

4,871.90 

(10.00) 


629 
630 
631 


Travel : 
Task Force Members 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 


20,95( 
21,43( 
1.72( 


(88.73) 
-0- 
-0- 


23.19A.81 
20,012.75 
1,465.45 


110.7% 
93.4% 
85.2% 


(2,244.81) 

1,417.25 

254.55 


635 


Hearing Expenses 

Total 
Reduction 5/31/76* 

Total adjusted 


6.35( 


-0- 


8,680.50 


136.7% 


(2,330.50) 




116, 40( 
-A.66 


(88.73) 
-0- 


115,553.02 
-0- 


99.3% 
-0- 


846.98 
-4,667.00 




111,73 


(88.73) 


115,553.02 


103.4% 


(3,820.02) 



The term of Task Force #4 is 100% completed and 103.4% financially expended 
*Share of cost of Historical Indian Priorities & Policies~1900-1975 
project performed by Task Force #3. 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 
Task Force #5 Indian Education 
Financial Status Report for Month ending July 31, 1977 
Task Force Term August 18, 1975 to August 17, 1976 






> A 



Expense Item 



'^l 



</ 



^"-^ 



613 
615 
619 

629 
630 
631 



Salary and Compensation: 
Task Force Members 

Consultants: 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultant^ 

Contracted Studies 

Travel: 
Task Force Members 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Hearing Expenses 
Total 



The term of Task Force #5 ife 100% 



29,764 
5,212 
12,000 

19,207 
2,50.0 
3.246 



65.27 

-0- 

-0- 



28,860.51 
8,926.60 



17,401.90 
4,670.35 
2,642.38 



Tj:!? 



97.0% 
171.3% 
105.7% 

90.6% 
186 . 8% 
81.4% 



letei and 103.8% financially expended. 



903.49 

(3,714.60) 

(681.28) 

1,805.10 

(2,170.35) 

603.62 

(3.587.61) 



34 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 
Task Force #6 Indian Health 
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 
Task Force Term August 4, IQTS ^n Anpiiar 'H, 



%'^^; 



613 
615 

629 
630 
631 



Salary and Compensation; 
Task Force Members 

Consultants: 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultant 

Travel; 
Task Force Members 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultant 

Hearing Expenses 

Total 
To replace funds taken in 
excess 



(192,56) 21,559. 



-0- 
16,000 

24,700 
5,900 
8,200 



-0- 
-0- 

496,48) 
-0" 
-0- 



100 
H2.000 



689,04) 
-0- 



95,704.63 
The term of Task Force #6 is 100% completed and 103.9% 



• -0- 
34,197.22 

22,952,74 
3,132.98 
5,791.45 

8.070.44 



95,704.63 
-0- 



-0- 
213.7% 

92.9% 
53.1% 
70,6% 



-0- 
C18,197.22) 

1,747.26 
2,767.02 
2,408,55 

(3.070.44) 



(15,604.63) 



103.9% (3,604.63) 
financially expended. 



Account 
Number 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 

Task Force #7 Reservation & Resource Development & Protection 

Financial Status Report for Month ending July 31, 1977 

Task Force Term August 4, 19 75 to Auejist 3. \976 



rT ^. 



Expense Item 



\^ 




613 
615 
617 

629 
630 
631 
635 



Salary and Compensation: 
Task Force Members 

Consultants: 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 
Task Force Researcher 

Travel: 
Task Force Members 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Hearing Expenses 
Total 

Reduction 5/31/76* 

Total adjusted 

The term of Task Force ill 



24,937 
27,297 
6,200 



11,545[312.00) 
11,31C 



16,646 
6,30C 



25,047.70 
19,706.23 
6,751.75 

15,260.39 
9,256.27 
19,085.69 



100.4% 
72.2% 
108.9% 

132.2% 
81.9% 
114.6% 



115,34(t312.00) 
-4.66 



94 . 3% 
-0- 



110,67 
100% d 



(110.70) 
7,590.77 
(551.75) 

(3,715.39) 
2,053.73 
(2,439.69) 



6,537.97 
-4.667.00 



*Share of cost of Historical Indian Priorities and Policies 
project performed by Task Force #3. 



3% financially ixpended. 
1900-1975— 



35 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 

Task Force tf8 Urban and Rural Non-Reservation Indians 

Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977 

Task Force Term August 18, 1975 to August 17, 1976 









/ 


^<Kv.^ / 


/ 


Account 
Number 


Expense Item /^^b"' 




605 

613 
615 

629 
630 
.631 
635 


Salary & Compensation: 
Task Force Members 

consultants: 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Travel: 

Task Force Members 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

learing Expenses 
Total 


44,228 

16,986 
6,652 

27,871 
8,047 
1,951 
4,140 


-0- 

-0- 
-0- 

48.48 
-0- 
-0- 
-0- 


45,410.05 

17,883.14 
6,652.35 

26,942.64 
7,587.73 
1,592.03 
4,911.69 


102.7% 

105.3% 
100.0% 

96 . 7% 
94.3% 
81.6% 
118.6% 


(1,182.05) 

(897.14) 
(.35) 

928.36 
459.27 
358.97 
(771.69) 




109,875 


48.48 


110,979.63 


101.0% 


(1,104.63) 



The term of Task Force #8 is 100% completed and 101.0% financially expended. 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 
Task Force #9 Indian Law Revision, Consolidation & Codification 
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977 
Task Force Term August 18, 1975 ta_Aii«ui 




Consultants : 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 
Task Force Researcher 

Travel: 
Task Force Members 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Hearing Expenses 

Total 
Reduction 5/31/76* 



18,103 
15,000 
13,900 



4,50C 
1,60C 



18,606.45 
11,327.35 
13,218.56 

6,355.87 
3,625.17 
1,459.25 



89,845.06 
-0- 



102.7% 
75.5% 
95.1% 

75.7% 
80.5% 
90.6% 



6.4% 
-0- 



(503 

3,672 

681 



2,041. 
874. 
150. 



he term of Task Force #9 is 100% completed 6, 90.4% financially expended. 
*Share of cost of Historical Indian Priorities and Policies~1900-1975~ 
project performed by Task Force #3. 



36 



613 
615 

629 
630 
631 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 
Task Force #10 Terminated and Non-Federally Recognized 
Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977 
Task Force Term August 18, 1975 fn Anyar ]7. 1976 



Salary and Compensation: 
Task Force Members 

Consultants: 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Travel : 
Task Force Members 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Hearing Expenses 
Total 



/5 to, 






18,106 
6,500 

26,70( 
4,97 
4,90d 



-0- 
-0- 

(290.8 

A8.4i 
48.481 



18,107.23 
20,086.44 

20,977.74 
5,754.51 
5.382.97 



100. OX 
309.05: 

78.6% 
115.7% 
109.9% 
161.4% 



106.7% 



The term of Task Force #10 is 100% completed and 106.7% financially expended 



(1.23) 
(13,586.44) 

5,722.26 . 

(779.51) 

(482.97) 

(3,071.87) 



(8,138.63) 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 

Task Force // 11 Alcohol and Drug Abuse 

Financial Status Report for Month Ending July 31, 1977 

Task Force Term August 4, 1975 to August 8. 1976 



Account 
Number 






629 
630 
631 



Salary & Compensation: 
Task Force Members 

Consultants: 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Travel : 
Task Force Members 
Task Force Specialist 
Task Force Consultants 

Hearing Expenses 
Total 



12,700 
10, 
5,00( 



.20 
8. 3D 
-0' 



(598. ID 



5,808.98 
16,449.22 



13,431.98 
8,095.50 
4,468.53 



72,334.14 



105.8% 
76.7% 
89.4% 



.02 
1,316.78 



(731.98) 

2,454.50 

531.47 

(1,813.67) 



The term of Task Force #11 is 100% completed and 98.6% financially expended 



APPENDIX B 

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MATERIALS USED BY THE 
COMMISSION 



(37) 



APPENDIX B 

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF MATERIALS USED BY THE 
COMMISSION 

[Compiled by Catherine K. Romano and SuzAnne Ahn] 

INTRODUCTION 

This bibliography represents some of the major research documents 
used by the Commission and its task forces in the investigation of 
their respective subject areas and in the formulation of recommenda- 
tions to Congress contained in their final reports. In many instances 
these materials complement those footnoted in the reports. Under- 
taking a comprehensive bibliography was far beyond our capability. 
This is, rather, a selected listing of the more easily obtained docu- 
ments used, which has been compiled from items in the Commission's 
central research files, the list of items borrowed from the Library of 
Congress and from certain bibliographies included in task force re- 
ports. The following materials were also chosen for their availability 
to the researcher in Indian affairs and can be obtained by the public 
as published documents or through organizations or from Govern- 
ment agencies by means of the Freedom of Information Act. Entries 
are arranged alphabetically by general subject categories. We found 
it useful, however, to list in separate sections all U.S. General Ac- 
counting Office reports, Federal court cases, law review articles and 
congressional documents. An additional section on bibliographies and 
bibliographic services is included as an aid to the researcher. 

During its study, the Commission recognized the lack of a central 
means by which to identify and locate information on Indian affairs 
and, further, has realized the crucial role of historical policies and 
relationships that span 2 centuries in forming a perspective for Fed- 
eral decisionmaking on Indian issues. Accordingly, the Commission 
formally recommended to Congress that the Library of Congress 
should compile for publication in several phases a collection of na- 
tive American studies resources. 

Permanent records of the Commission including its research files, 
unpublished hearings transcripts, and administrative records are 
deposited in Record Group 220, Natural Resources Branch of the Na- 
tional Archives, Washington, D.C. 20408, and are available to 
searchers. 

The Commission wishes to express its thanks to Nina Meiselman, 
intern, and Deborah Pope, clerical assistant, for their valuable as- 
sistance in preparation of the bibliography. 

(39) 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Introduction 39 

Bibliography of the Commission 

Agriculture 43 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of 43 

Alaska 44 

Alcohol and drug abuse 45 

Allotment 49 

Budget 50 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S 50 

Child welfare 55 

Commerce, U.S. Department of 56 

Commission on Civil Rights, U.S 57 

Credit and loans 58 

Crime and criminal law 58 

Demography 59 

Economic development 60 

Education 65 

Employment 76 

Environment 77 

Federal administration 77 

Food and nutrition 78 

Health • 79 

Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Department of 84 

Housing 87 

Hunting and fishing rights 87 

Indian Civil Rights Act 88 

Indian organizations 88 

Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) 88 

Indian Self-Determination Act 89 

Indians 89 

Interior, U.S. Department of 99 

Johnson O'Malley Act 100 

Jurisdiction 101 

Land 103 

Menominee restoration 105 

Micronesia 106 

Mineral resources 106 

Natural resources 110 

OflBce of Economic Opportunity, U.S 111 

Oklahoma 111 

Preference, Indian 111 

Recognition 112 

Sovereignty 113 

State-Indian relations 113 

Taxation 114 

Termination 115 

Treaties 116 

Tribal government 117 

Trust relationship 118 

Urban and rural Indians 118 

Water resources 122 

Special Materials 

Bibliographies 125 

Federal court cases on American Indian issues 129 

Law Review articles 143 

Reports issued by the General Accounting OflBce 153 

(41) 



BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE COMMISSION 

AGRICULTURE 

Getty, Harry T. The San Carlos Indian Cattle Industry. Tucson, 
Univ. of Arizona Press, 1974. 

McGinnies, Goldman and Paylore. Food^ Fibre and Arid Lands. 
Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1971 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. A Bihliography on the Agriculture 
of the American Indian. Prepared by Everett Edward and Wayne 
Rasmussen. (U.S.D.A. Miscellaneous Publication Number 447) 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1942. 107 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Special Task Force for American 
Indian Affairs. Survey of the Navajo Reservation^ Famvington, 
New Mexico and Window Rock, Arizona, October 20-23, 1975, 
Washington, 1975. 

-. Survey of the Seminole Reservation, Hollywood, Fla., Jan- 



uary 12-16, 1976. Washington, 1976. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indians 
in Agriculture. (Missouri River Basin Investigation Project Bul- 
letin 422) Bozeman, Mont., July, 1956. 

AGRICULTURE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Financial and Technical Assist- 
ance Provided by the Department of Agriculture and HUD for 
Nonmetropolitan Planning District in Fiscal Year 1976; 6th An- 
nual Report to the Congress. Washington, 1976. 

-. Project and Geographic Breakdown: Budget Estimates 



1977. Washington, 1976. 477 pp. 



. Rural Development Goals; Second Annual Report of the 

Secretary of Agriculture to the Congress. Washington, June, 1975. 
59 pp. 

Rural Development : Information and Technical Assistance 



Delivered by the Department of Agriculture in Fiscal Year 1&7U. 
Fifth Annual Report to the Congress. Washington, 1975. 94 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Amer- 
ican Indians in Transition. (Agricultural Economic Report No. 
283) Washington, 1975. 

(43) 



93-440 O - 78 - 4 



44 

. "Cultural Crossroads: American Indians in the 70's," The 

Farm Index. (Nov.-Dec, 1974) : 1^14. 

. Farm Real Estate Market Developments. Washington, July, 

1973. 35 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farmers Home Administration. 
Rural Credit for American Indians: A Handbook of FmHA Pro- 
grams. Washington. 23 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Civil Rights. Participation 
in VSDA Programs hy Ethnic Groups. Washington, July, 1971. 
90 pp. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of Equal Opportunity. Report 
on Follow-up to Indian Surveys. Washington, Spring, 1975. 

. Report on Pilot Indian Surveys. Washington, Summer, 1974. 



. Equal Opportunity Report; USD A Programs 1972. Wash- 
ington, 1972. 118 pp. 

. USD A Programs 1976. Washington, 1975. 205 pp. 



U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Service. Guide 
to Federal Programs. Washington, 1975. 

ALASKA 

Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. Swmmary^ Project Description of the 
Trans Alaska Pipeline System. Anchorage, Sept., 1974. 

Bancroft, H. H. The Works of HubeH Howe Bancroft, Vol. XXXIII, 
History of Alaska, 1830-1886. San Francisco, A.L. Bancroft Pub- 
lishers, 1886. 

Getches, David. TJie Borough Concept in Alaska; The Inupiat People. 
Boulder, Colo., Native American Rights Fund. 

Hippler, Arthur. Barrow and Kotzebue: An Exploratory Compar- 
ison of Acculturation and Education in Two Large Northwestern 
Alaska Villages. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community 
Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, Dec, 1969. 

. From Village to Town: An Intermediate Step in the Accul- 
turation of Alaska Eskimos. Minneapolis, Trainmg Center for 
Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, Oct., 1970. 

Kleinfeld, Judith. Land claims and native manpower staging regional 
and village corporations under the Alaska Native Vlaims Settle- 
ment Act of 1971. Alaska Native Foundation, 1973. 

Kresge, D. Bristol Bay: A Socioeconomic Study. Univ. of Alaska, 
1974. 



46 

Native American Rights Fund. The Fifth Disaster — the Colonization 
of the North Slope. Boulder, Colo., Jan.-Mar., 1975. 50 pp. 

Rogers, George. Change in Alaska: People^ Politics^ and Petroleum. 
Seattle, Univ. of Washington Press, 1970. 

Schuyten, Peter J. "A novel corporation takes charge in Alaska's 
Wilderness." Fortune, Vol. 92 (Oct., 1975) : 158-168. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public Health 
Service. Eskimos^ Indians and Aleuts of Alaska — a Digest. Wash- 
ington, Mar., 1963. 47 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. ■2(c) Report: Federal Programs and 
Alaska Natives. Task I — An Analysis of Alaska Natives' Well-Be- 
ing; Task II — Federal Programs for Alaska Natives' Benefit; Task 
III — A Survey of Natives' Views. 2 Vols. Washington. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Report 
to the Secretary of the Interior by the Task Force on Alaska Native 
Affairs. Washington, 1962. 

-. Review Committee Report Number '2 for Program Agreement 



EOOC lJt200493 Between the Central Council of the Tlingit and 
Haida Indiana of Alaska and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Wash- 
ington, Nov., 1974. 52 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian 
Education Resources Center. Alaska Natives Need Assessment in 
Education. 2 Vols. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 18) 
Washington, 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Programs 
related to the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act, through 
June 30, 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1976, 25 pp. 

U.S. Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska. 
Alaska Natives and the Land. Anchorage, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 
Oct., 1968. 

U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971 (P.L. 92-203) : History and 
Analysis. Prepared by Richard S. Jones. Washington, May 22, 1972. 
100 pp. 

ALCOHOL AND DRUG ABUSE 

Agencies and Programs 

Iowa, Office of the Governor. Comprehensive Treatment Program for 
Indian Problem Drinkers. (NIAAA/NCALI Search Document 
#0000009629) Des Moines, 1971. 

Miller, Sheldon, E. Helmick and Lawrence Berg. "Alcoholism: A 
Statewide Program Evaluation." American Jom-naZ of Psychiatry, 
Vol.131 (1974): 210-214. 



46 

Shore, James and Billee Von Fumetti. "Three Alcohol Programs for 
American Indians." American Journal of Psychiatry^ Vol. 128 
(May, 1972) : 1450-1454. 

Stevens, John W. Indian Alcoholism Field Survey. (NIAAA/NCALI 
Search Document #0001009948) Rockville, Md., 1972. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Health Services 
and Mental Health Administration. Highlights of the Indian 
Health Program. Rockville, Md., Sept., 1971. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National In- 
stitute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. NIAAA/NCALI Search 
on Evaluation of Indian/ Alaskan Programs. Rockville, Md., 1976. 

Special Report to the Congress on Alcohol and Health. Wash- 



ington, Dec., 1974. 

Second Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health: 



New Knowledge. Washington, June, 1974. 

"U.S. Journal : Gallup, New Mexico — Drunken Indians." New Yorker., 
Vol.47 (Sep. 25, 1971). 

Wilson, Lawrence and James Shore. "Education of a Regional Indian 
Alcohol Program." American Journal of Psychiatry., Vol. 132 (Mar., 
1975) : 255-258. 

Cultural 

Adler, Nathan and Daniel Goldman. "Gambling and Alcoholism, 
Symptom Substitution and Functional Equivalents." Quarterly 
Journal of Studies on Alcohol., (1969) : 733-735. 

Baker, James. "Indians, Alcohol and Homicide." Journal of Social 
Therapy, Vol. 5 (1959) : 270-275. 

Berreman, Gerald. "Drinking Patterns of the Aleuts." Quarterly 
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 17 (1952) : 503-514. 

Broody, Hugh. Indians on Skid Row. Canada Northern Science Re- 
search Group, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop- 
ment, 1971. 

Curley, Richard. "Drinking Patterns of Mescalero Apache." Quarterly 
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 28 (Mar., 1967) : 116-131. 

Dozier, Edward "Problem Drinking Among American Indians. The 
Role of Sociocultural Deprivation." Quarterly Journal of Studies 
in Alcohol,Yol. 27 (1966) : 72-87. 

Drilling, Vern. Problems with Alcohol Among Urban Indians in 
Minneapolis. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Pro- 
grams, Univ. of Minnesota, Aug., 1970. 



47 

Everett, Michael. "Anthropological Expertise and the Realities of 
White Mountain Apache Adolescent Drinking." Paper presented 
at the Society for Applied Anthropology, 1973 Annual Meeting. 

Ferguson, Frances. Change from Without and Within, Na/vajo In- 
dians'' Response to an Alcoholism Treatment Program in Terms of 
Social Stake. (NIAAA/NCALI Search Document #0000010518) 
Rockville, Md., 1972. 

Ferguson, Frances. '•''Stake in Society'''' theory used in evaluation of 
Navajo Indians in an Alcoholism Treatment PrograTu. Dissertation 
Thesis, Univ. of North Carolina, 1972. 

Hamer, John H. "Acculturation Stress and the Functions of Alcohol 
Among the Forest Potawatomi." Quarterly JourrwH of Studies on 
Alcohol,Yol.26 (1965) : 285-302. 

Hamer, John H. "Guardian Spirits, Alcohol and Cultural Defense 
Mechamsms.^^ Anthropological (1969) : 215-241. 

Heath, Dwight B. "Prohibition and Post-Repeal Drinking Patterns 
Among the Navajo." Quarterly Journal of Studies on AUohol, Vol. 
25 (1964): 119-135. 

Hippler, Arthur E. "Alaskan Athabascan Technique for Overcofti« 
mg Abuse." ^rc^^c, Vol. 27 (1974) : 53-57. 

Honigmann, John J. and Irma. "How Baffin Island Eskimos Have 
Learned to Use Alcohol." Social Forces. (1965) : 73-83. 

Kim,Yong C. Study of Alcohol Consumption and Alcoholism Among 
Saskatchewan Indians. (NIAAA/NCALI Search Document 
#0000011905) Report. Rockville, Md., 1972. 

Kline, James A., Vitali V. Rozynko, Gary Flint, and Arthur C. 
Roberts. "Personality Characteristics of Male Native American 
Alcoholic Patients." International Journal of the Addictions., Vol. 8 
(1973): 729-732. 

Kunitz, Stephen J. and Jerrold E. Levy. "Changing Ideas of Alcohol 
Use Among Navajo Indians." Quarterly Journal of Studies on 
Alcohol,Yol.B5 (1974) : 243-259. 

Kunitz, Stephen J. Navajo Drinking Patterns. Yale Univ., Ph.D. 
Dissertation, 1970. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 1971 (Micro- 
film #70-26, 1974). 

Kuttner, Robert E. and Albert B. Lorincz. "Alcoholism and Addiction 
mJJrhamzedSiouxlndia.ns.^^ Mental Hygiene (1967) : 530-541. 

Lemert, Edwin M. "The Use of Alcohol in Three Salish Indian 
Tribes." Qu/irterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 19 
(1958): 90-107. 



48 

Levy, Jerrold E. and Stephen J. Kunitz. Indian Drinking: Navajo 
Practices and Anglo- American Theories. New York, John Wiley & 
Sons, 1974. 

Levy, Jerrold E. and Stephen J. Kunitz. "Indian Drinking: Prob- 
lems of Data Collection and Interpretation." M. Chafetz, ed. Pro- 
ceedings, 1st Annual Alcoholism Conference of NIAAA 
(1971) : 217-236. 

Littman, Gerard. "Alcoholism, Illness, and Social Pathology Among 
American Indians in Transition." Journal of Public Health., Vol. 60 
(1970). 

Littman, Gerard. SoTne Ohservations on Drinking Among American 
Indians in Chicago. Paper presented at 27th International Congress 
on Alcohol and Alcoholism on Sept. 6, 1964. 

Pinto, Leonard J. "Alcohol and Drug Abuse Among Native American 
Youth on Reservations: A Growing Crisis." National Commn. on 
Marijuana and Drug Abuse, Drug Use In America: Problem in 
Perspective^ Vol. 1. 

Pliner, Patricia and Howard Cappel. "Modification of Affective Con- 
sequences of Alcohol : A Comparison of Social and Solitary Drink- 
ing." Journal of Abnormal Psychology., Vol. 83 (1974) : 418-425. 

Porter, Margaret E., Theodore A. Vieira and Gary J. Kaplan. "Drug 
Use in Anchorage, Alaska : A Survey of 15,634 Students in Grades 
6-12." J(mmal of the AM A, Vol. 223 (1973) : 657-664. 

Savard, Robert Joseph. Cultural Stress and Alcoholism: A Study of 
Their Relationship Among Nomajo Alcoholic Men. Univ. of Min- 
nesota, Ph.D. Thesis, 1968, social work. University Microfilms, Ann 
Arbor. (Microfilm #69-1532). 

Schaefer, Richard T. White Lightning and the Redmen: American 
Indian Arrest Rates for Alcohol-Related Offenses. Paper presented 
to the Department of Sociology, Western Illinois Univ., May, 1973. 

Sievers, Maurice L. "Cigarette and Alcohol Usage by Southwestern 
American Indians." American Journal of Puhlic Healthy Vol. 58 
(1968): 71-82. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health 
Service, Task Force on Alcoholism. Alcoholism: A High Priority 
Health Problem. Section One, Dec, 1969; Section Two, Feb., 1970; 
Section Three, Apr., 1970. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education^ and Welfare, National Insti- 
tute of Mental Health. Suicide, Homicide and Alcoholism Among 
American Indians: Guidelines for Help. Rockville, Md. (1973). 



Westermeyer, Joseph and Gretchen Lang "Ethnic Differences in Use 
of Alcoholism Facilities." International Journal of the Addictions, 
Vol. 10 (1975): 513-520. 

"Whittaker, James O. "Alcohol and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe II. 
Psychodynamics and Cultural Factors in Drinking." Quarterly 
Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 24 (1963) : 80-90. 

Medical 

DeCarli, Leonore and Charles S. Liebar. "Fatty Liver in the Rat 
After Prolonged Intake of Ethanol With a Nutritionally Adequate 
New Liquid Diet." Journal of Nutrition (1967) . 

Jolliffee, Norman and E. Morton Jellinek. "Vitamin Deficiencies and 
Liver Cirrhosis in Alcoholism." Quarterly Journal af Studies on 
Alcohol, (Dec., 1941) : 544^583. 

Kunitz, S. J., J. E. Levy and M. Everett. "Alcoholic Cirrhosis Among 
the Navajo." Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, Vol. 30 
(1969). 

Siegel, Harvey H. Alcohol Detoxification Programs. Springfield, 111. 
Thomas, 1973. 

Westermeyer, Joseph J. Alcohol Related Problems Among Ojihway 
People in Minnesota: A Social Psychiatry Study. Univ. of Min- 
nesota, 1970, Health Sciences. University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, 
(Microfilm #71-18,837). 

Peyote 

Albaugh, Bernard J. and Philip O. Anderson. "Peyote in the Treat- 
ment of Alcoholism Among American Indians." AmeHcam, Journal 
of Psychiatry, Yo\. 131 (1974) : 1247-1249. 

Brand, Stewart. "Indians and the Counter-Culture." Clear Creek, 
Vol. 18 (1972): 34-37. 

Simmons, Benjamin F. "Implications of Court Decisions on Peyote 
for the Users of LSD." A Journal of Church and State, VoJ. XI 
(1969): 83-91. 

Slotkin, J. S. The Peyote Religion. New York, Octagon, 1975. 

ALLOTMENT 

Fritz, Henry. The Movonent for Indian Assimilation. Philadelphia, 
Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1963. 

Gates, Paul W. Fifty Million Acres: Conflicts Over Kansas Zand 
Policy 18S4-1890. New York, Atherton Press, 1966. 



50 

Otis, Delos Sacket. The Dawes Act and the Allotment of Irvdian 
Lamds. Norman, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1973. 

Priest, Loring Benson. "The Congressional Decision to Use Force," 
The Western Americam, India7i, Richard Ellis, ed., Univ. of Ne- 
braska Press, 1972. 

Schurz, Carl. "Present Aspects of the Indian Problem." The North 
Americam, Review, No. 296 (July, 1881) : 1-24. 

U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Indian Affairs. Lands in Sever- 
alty to Indians. Report No. 1576, 46th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, 

May 28, 1880. 

U.S. Congress. House. Report of the Joint Committee Appointed to 
Consider the Expediency of Transferring the Indian Bureau to the 
War Department. Report No. 93, 45th Cong., 2d Sess. Washington, 
1879. 

Dissenting Report. Report No. 93, 45th Cong., 2d Sess. Wash- 



ington, 1879. 

BUDGET 

U.S. Community Service Admin., Div. of State and Local Govern- 
ment, Office of Operations. Federal Outlays in {each State) Fiscal 
Year 1975. 50 Vols. Compiled for the Executive Office of the Presi- 
dent, Washington, 1976. 

. Fiscal Year 1976. Washington, 1977. 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget. The Budget of the United 
States Government Fiscal Year 1975. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 
Off., 1974. 

. Fiscal Year 1976. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS, U.S. 

General 

U.S. Deartment of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. American 
Indian and the Federal Relationship. Mar., 1972. 

■. BIA Manual of Operations. 25 Vol. 



. Career Development Opportunities for Native Americans. 

Washington, 1975. 56 pp. 

-. Estimates of Indian Population Served hy the Bureau of 



Affairs: September, 1968. Prepared by Office of Program Coordina- 
tion. Washington (unpublished) , Mar., 1969. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch 
of Education. Basic Needs of Indian People, Special Report, 
June, 1957. Washington, 1957. 



51 
Akea Offices 

Navajo Tribe, Office of the Chairman. Issue Papers Prepared hy the 
Office of the Chairman, Navajo Tribe for the Bureau of Indian Af- 
fairs Management Review of the Navajo Area. Vol. I — Narrative; 
Vol. II — Documentation. Aug., 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 
Executive Review of eastern area program management capahility, 
executive representation, technical assistance capacity and eastern 
area tribal requirements, Washington, (mimeo), Aug., 1975. 35 pp. 

Budget 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Budget 
Justifications, fiscal year 1976. Washington, 1975. 143 pp. 

Budget Justifications, fiscal year 1977. Washington, 1976. 



121 pp. 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Natural Resources Division. 
The Bureau of Indian Affairs Budget Preparation Process. 
(mimeo), July, 1975. 189 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Report on Financial Mancbgemervt 
and Program Information Systems. Prepared by Arthur AnderSbn 
and Co. (D.O.I. Contract No. 14-01-001-1424) Washington, June, 
1972. 250 pp. 

Education 

Arizona, Department of Education, Division of Indian Education. 
1975-1976 Arizona Peripheral Dormitory Program, Flagstaff, Hol- 
brook, Snowflake, Winslow. Phoenix, 1976. 

Navajo Educational Survey. Prepared by Comprenetics, Inc. (B.I. A. 
Contract #N00-C-1420-6279). Beverly Hills, Calif., June, 1975. 
163 pp. 

Henninger, D. and N. Esposito. "Regimented Non-Education Indian 
Schools." The New Republic. (Feb. 15, 1969). 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Control 
of Indian Education in BIA /Schools: Presidential/Secretarial 
Objectives for Secretarial Operational Planning System. (Research 
and Evaluation Report Series No. 29) Washington, May, 1974. 22 pp. 



. Control of Indian Education in BIA Schools: A Progress 

Report. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 29.01) Wash- 
ington, Aug., 1974. 

Control of Indian Education in BIA ScJwols: A Progress 



Report. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 29.02) Wash- 
ington, Sept., 1974. 9 pp. 



52 



. Gordrol of Indian Education in BIA Schools: A Progress 

Report. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 29.04) Wash- 
ington, Feb., 1975. 33 pp. 



. Control of Indian Education in BIA Schools: A Progress 

Report. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 29.06) Wash- 
ington, July /Aug., 1975. 17 pp. 

-. Control of Indian Education in BIA Schools: A Progress 



Report on the Presidential/ Secretarial Objective. (Research and 
Evaluation Report Series No. 29.03) Washington, Oct./Nov., 1974. 
29 pp. 



. Doorway toward the light; the story of the special Navajo 

edu/}ation program. Prepared by L. Madison Coombs. Washington, 
1962. 

-. Fiscal Year 1977 Statistics Concerning Indian Education. 



Washington, 1971. 34 pp. 

-. N ondiscrimin/itory Educational Assessment of Native Ameri- 



cans Proposed Rules and Regulations. Washington, Jan., 1976. 18 pp. 
. Off -Reservation Boarding School Project. (Research and 



Evaluation Report No. 11) Washington, Aug., 1972. 21 pp. 



. The preparation of B.I. A. teacher and dormitory aides. Pre- 
pared by AVCO Economic Systems Corp. 3 Vols. Washington, Apr., 
1973. 

. Special Education Guidelines. Washington, 1972. 34 pp. 



U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian 
Education Resources Center. Chief Area Office Education Officers 
Quarterly Conference held at Las Vegas, Nev., October IJ1.-I6, 1975. 
(Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 34.02) Albuquerque, 
Jan. 1976. 93 pp. 

-. Educational Needs Assessment in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 



(Research and Evaluation Report No. 9) Albuquerque, June 1972. 
22 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo 
Area Office. Directives for Implementation of Educational Policy 
and Practices in Navajo Area Elementary Schools. Mar. 1973. 49 pp. 



. Report on Assessment of Pupil Performance 197 3-19^ Jf. School 

Year. Window Rock, Ariz., Dec, 1974. 48 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of 
Indian Education. Fiscal Year 1975 Statistics Concerning Indian 
Education. Lawrence, Kans., Haskell Indian Junior College Pub- 
lication Service, 1976. 



\ 



53 

History 

Brookings Institution, Institute for Government Research. The 
Problem of Indian Administration. (The Meriam Report) Wash- 
ington, D.C., 1928. Reprinted. New York, Johnson Reprint Corp., 
1971. 

Freeman, J. Leiper, Jr. The New Deal for Indians: A Study in 
Bureau-G ommiittee Relations in American Government. Disserta- 
tion, Ann Arbor, Xerox University, Microfilm, 1952. 

Indian Affairs: A Report to the Congress hy the Commission on the 
Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. (The 
Hoover Report) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1949. 800 pp. 

Schmeckebier, Lawrence, F. The Office of Indian Affairs: Its His- 
tory^ Activities and Organization. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins 
Press, 1972. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Management Review and Appraised 
System. 4 Vols. Prepared by Booz, Allen and Hamilton, Consult- 
ants. Washington, Nov. 15, 1950. 

Report to the Secretary of the Interior hy the Task Force on 



Indian Affairs. Washington, July 10, 1961. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Committee of 
One Hundred on Indian Affairs. The Indian Prohlem. Washing- 
ton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1924. 

Zimmerman, W., Jr. "The Role of the Bureau of Indian Affairs 
Since 1933." Annals of the American Academy of Political and 
Social Sciencesj^o.^ll (1957). 

Legislation 

U.S. Congress. S. 1816 and H.R. 10560 (bills). Indian Resources 
Development Act of 19&7. 90th Cong. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Legis- 
lative Program., Second Session, 94th Congress. Memorandum to 
Central Office Directors and Area Directors from Ralph Reeser, 
Congressional and Legislative Affairs staff. Washington, Oct. 2, 
1975. 

-. Letter to Presiding Officers of All Governing Bodies about 



reservation programs and proposed legislation. Mar. 21, 1967. 

Management 

U.S. Civil Service Commission, Atlanta Region. Special Inquiry at 
Cherokee Indian Agency, Department of Interior, Cherokee, North 
Carolina, July 29, 30, 21, 191! U. Atlanta, 1974. 



54 

U.S. Civil Service Commission, Bureau of Personnel Management 
Evaluation. A Report on Haskell Indian Junior College, Lawrence, 
Kansas. Nov., 19Y4. Washington, 1974. 

U.S. Civil Service Commission, Chicago Kegion Office. Personnel 
Management Evaluation at Bureau of Indian Affairs, Minneapolis 
Area Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Jan. 20-25, 1975. 11 pp. 

U.S. Civil Service Commission, Dallas Region Office. Personnel Man- 
agement at Bureau of Indian Affairs Area Office, Albuquerque, New 
Mexico. Mar., 1975. 

Personnel Management at Navajo Area Office, Bureau of In- 



dian Affairs, Gallup, N. Mex. May, 1975. 

-. Personnel Management at Bureau of Indian Affairs, Musko- 



gee, Oklahoma. Oct., 1975. 39 pp. 

U.S. Civil Services Commission, Denver Region Office. Evaluation of 
Personnel Management at the Uintah and Ouray Agency, Bureau 
of Indian Affairs, Ft. Duchesne, Utah. Oct. 15-18, 1974-. 

-. A Report on Intermountain School Bureau of Indian Affairs, 



BHgham City, Utah. Pel. 28-Mar. 10, 1972. 

U.S. Civil Service Commission, Seattle Region. A Report on Equal 
Employment Opportunity and Labor Management Relations 
Chemawa Indian School, Salem, Oreg. Feb. 24-28, 1976. 17 pp. 

Organization and Reorganization 

National Congress of American Indians. Federal/ Indian Policy and 
B.I.A. Realignment. Washington, Fall. 1974. 

U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Sub-Task Force on Native 
Self -Determination. Crane Report on an Independent Agency, 1971. 
Washington, D.C., 1971. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary, Bureau of 
Indian Affairs Central Office Realignment. Memorandum from the 
Asst. to the Secretary-Indian Affairs, Marvin L. Franklin, Wash- 
ington, Apr. 10, 1973. 75 pp. 

-. Management Review of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. (The 



Preston Report) Washington, May 27, 1971. 76 pp. 

Programs 

Clinton, Lawrence, Bruce A. Chadwick and Howard M. Bahr. "Voca- 
tional Training for Indian Migrants Correlates of 'Success' in a 
Federal Program." Human Organization, Vol. 32 (Spring, 1973) : 
17-27. 



55 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Your Right to Indian Welfare: A 
Handbook on the BIA General Assistance Program (Clearinghouse 
Publication No. 45). Washington, Dec, 1973. 49 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. A Follow-Up Study of 1963 Recipi- 
ents of the Services of the Employment Assistance Program, Bu- 
reau of Indian Affairs, Washington, Oct., 1966. 53 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian 
Action Team Program. Washington, Dec, 1974. 9 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Chicago 
Field Employer Assistance Office. Annual Report 1968-1969. Chi- 
cago, III., 1969. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division 
of Credit and Financing. Annual Credit Report. Washington, 1972. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division 
of Law Enforcement Service. Indian Reservation Criminal Justice: 
Task Force Analysis, 197Jr-19^5. Washington, 1975. 135 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Ed- 
ucation Resources Center. Relocation of the Roswell Employemnt 
Training Center Indian Police Academy. Albuquerque, Dec, 19^2. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Audit and Investigation. 
Review of the Indian Action Team Program, Bureau of Indian Af- 
fairs. Washington, Nov., 1975. 35 pp. 

CHILD WELFARE 

Farris, Charles E. and Lorene S. "Indian Children : The Struggle for 
Survival." Social Work, Vol. 21 (Sept. 1976) : 386-389. 

Kadustrin, Alfred. Child Welfare Services. (2d. ed.) New York,Mac- 
millan Co., 1974. 

Unger, Steven, ed. The Destruction of American Indian Families. New 
York, Assoc on American Indian Affairs, 1977. 90 pp. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Social and Re- 
habilitation Service. Legal and Jurisdictional Problems in the De- 
livery of SRS Child Welfare Services on Indian Reservations, (un- 
published) . Prepared by Center for Social Research and Develop- 
ment, Univ. of Denver, Oct., 1975. 102 pp. 

Wallace, Helen M. "The Health of American Indian Children : A Sur- 
vey of Current Problems and Needs." Clinical Pediatrics, (Feb.. 
1973) : 83-87. 



56 
COMMERCE, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

Battelle Memorial Institute. Field Reports and Final Evaluation of 
Economic Development Administration Planning Grants. Washing- 
ton, May, 1970. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administra- 
tion. Annual Reports {1971 through 197 U). Washington. 

-. Evaluation of Impact of T ourism/ Recreational Projects for 



EcorwmiG Development Administration. 3 Vols. (National Tech- 
nical Information Service COM-73-11697). Prepared by Centaur 
Management Consultants, Inc., Washington, June, 1973. 

-. An Evaluation of the Public Works Impact Program: Final 



Report. Jan., 1975. 

-. Indian Economic Development: An Evaluation of ED Ah Se- 



lected Indian Reservation Program. 2 Vols. Washington, July, 1972. 
-. Indian Industrial Parks Funded hy EDA. Washington, Sept., 



1975. 
. Indian Planning Grant Study. May, 1975. 60 pp. 



. Qualified Areas Under the Public Works and Economic De- 
velopment Act of 1965 As Amended. Washington, Aug. 15, 1975. 82 
pp. 



. Results of a Partnership Between the American Indian and the 

Economic Development Administration. Washington, June 30, 1975. 
101 pp. 

Results of a Partnership Between the American Indian amd 



the EDA. Aug., ld7S. 

-. Summary of Case Studies: Evaluation of EDA Rural Devel- 



opment Activities in 16 Areas. Washington, 1970, 43 pp. 

-.An Updated Evaluation of EDA Funded Industrial Parks., 



1968-197^. June, 1974. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Minority Business Enter- 
prise. Higher Education Aid for Minority Business. Washington, 
1970. 

-. OMBE Funded Organizations Directory. Washington, Jan. 1, 



1976. 48 pp. 

-. Policy and Program Recorwmendations and Delivery Mecha- 



nism Design for Federal Strategy to Reach and Aid Business Devel- 
opment on Ame.rican Indian Reservations., Final Report., Initial 
Draft. Prepared by Frank Martinez, First American Management 
Systems, Dallas, Tex., 1974, 73 pp. 



57 - 

. A Proposal to Plan and Implement an Indian Business Pro- 
gram Based on the Fiscal Year 1972 Supplemental Appropriation. 
Prepared by Cresap, McOormick and Paget, Inc., Dec. 3, 1971. 

U.S. President, 1969-1974 (Nixon) . Executive Order No. 11625. Wash- 
ington, Oct. 13, 1971. Authorization for OMBE. 

Executive Order No. 11458. Washington, Mar. 5, 1969. Creat- 



ing OMBE. 

COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS, U.S. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Civil Rights of Americam, 
Indiam. (Clearinghouse Publication No. 35) Washington, Apr., 
1972. 

. Employment, Housing and Justice. Washington, 1961. 400 pp. 



. Employment of American Indiwns in New Mexico and Ari- 
zona. Washington, Nov., 1972. 200 pp. 

. Hearing Held in Window Roch, Arizona, Oct. 22-U, 1973. 



Vol. 1 : Testimony ; Vol. II : Exhibits. Washington, 1973. 

-. The Nawajo Nation: An American Colony; A Report. Wash- 



ington, 1975. 144 pp. 

-. Report of Investigation: Oglala Sioux Tribe, General Elec- 



tion, 197 A. Washington, Oct., 1974. 28 pp. 
. The Southwest Indiam, Report. Washington, May, 1973. 



U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Arizona Advisory Committee. 
Indian Employment in Arizona. Washington, D.C., Feb., 1975. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Indiana Advisory Committee. 
Indiana Migrants: Blighted Hopes, Slighted Rights. Washington, 
Mar., 1975. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Montana— North Dakota— South 
Dakota Joint Advisory Committee. Indian Civil Rights Issues in 
Montana, North Dakota, and South Dakota. Washington, Aug., 
1974. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Nebraska Advisory Committee. 
Nebraska^ Official Civil Rights Agencies. Washington, U.S. Govt. 
Print. Off., 1975. 101 pp. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, New Mexico Advisory Committee. 
The Farmington Report: A Conflict of Cultures. Washington, July, 
1975. 171 pp. 



68 

CREDIT AND LOANS 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Annual 
Credit and Financing Report. Four reports: 1969 through 1972. 
Washington. 

U.S._ Department of the Interior. Office of the Secretary. Provisions in 
tribal coTistitutions regarding mortgaging of tribal lands. Letter to 
Senator Abourezk. June 25, 1973. 

U.S. Laws, Statutes. Indian Financing Act of 197 Jf.. Approved Apr. 12, 
1974, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (Public Law 93-262, 88 Stat. 77) Wash- 
ington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. 

CRIME AND CRIMINAL LAW 

Bureau of Social Science Research. "Comparative Parole Treatment 
of American Indian and non-Indian Inmates of the U.S. Federal 
Prisons, Fiscal Years 1973 and 1974." Prepared by Byron Swift 
and Gary Bickel. Papers on Poverty and Law. (Mimeo) Washing- 
ton, Dec, 1974. 24 pp. 

Conn, Stephen and Arthur E. Hippler. Final Report — Ermnonak Con- 
ciliation Board., a Model for a New Legal Process for Small Villages 
in Alaska. Univ. of Alaska, Institute of Social, Economic and Gov- 
ernment Research, 1974. 

Hippler, Arthur E. and Stephen Conn. "Traditional Athabascan Law 
Ways and Their Relationship to Contemporary Problems of 'Bush 
Justice'; Some Preliminary Observations on Structure and Func- 
tion." Occasional Papers., Univ. of Alaska, Institute of Social, Eco- 
nomic and Government Research, 1972. 17 pp. 

Minnesota, Office of the Governor. Govemor''s Commission on Crirae 
Prevention and Control, 1976 Comprehensive Plan. Minneapolis, 
1976. 

National American Indian Court Judges Association. Justice and the 
American Indian, Vol. 3: The Effect of Having No Extradition 
Procedures for Indian Reservations; Vol. 4: Examination of the 
Basis of Tribal Law and Order; Vol. 5: Federal Prosecution of 
Crimes Committed on Indian Reservations. Washington, 1974. 

Native American Rights Fund, the Indian Corrections Projects. 
Alternatives to Incarceration: A Report on the Swiftbird Correc- 
tions Center. Boulder, June 30, 1976. 

Stratton, John. "Cops and Drunks : Police Attitudes and Actions m 
Dealing with Indian Drunks." International Journal of the Addic- 
tions, Vol. 8 (1973) : 613-621 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Arizona Advisory Committee. 
Adult Corrections in Arizona. Washington, Dec, 1974. 189 pp. 



59 

U.S. Congress. Senate. S. 1 — . A bill to codify, revise, and refonn title 
18 of the United States Code. 94th Congress, 1st Session. Washing- 
ton. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1975. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Division 
of Law Enforcement. Indian Law Enforcement Histoinj. Wash- 
ington, 1975. 

I U.S. Department of Justice. Statement of Roger Pauley, Deputy 
Chief, Legislation and Special Projects Section, Criminal Division 
before the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, Committee on the 
Judiciary, House of Representatives concerning S. 2129 and related 
bills. Mar. 10, 1976. 

[U.S. National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws. 
Final Report : A Proposed New Federal Criminal Code. Washing- 
ton. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 

^Von Hentig, Hans. "The Delinquency of the American Indian." 
American Journal of Police Scien/ie (1945) : 75-84. 

DEMOGRAPHY 

(U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Population: 1970. Vol. 1, Char- 
acteristics of the Population. U.S. Summary. PC(1)-B1 Washing-* 
ton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 366 pp. 

1970. Subject report; American Indians. PC (2) -IF. U.S. 



Govt. Print. Off. 1973. 192 pp. 

-. 1970 Subject report; Housing of selected racial groups. HO 



(7) -9. Washington. U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 132 pp. 

-. 1970 TFe, the First Americans. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 



Off. 19 pp. 

. 1970. Unpublished data. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 



U.S. Bureau of the Census. Report prepared for the U.S. Congress 
American Indian Policy Review Commission: Task Force on 
Terminated and Non- Federally Recognized Indians. Population., 
Education and Socio-Economic Data for Counties with JfiO'^r 
Indians. 1976. 

-. Report prepared for the U.S. Congress American Indian 



Policy Review Commission: Task Force on Terminated and Non- 
Federally Recognized Indians. Tribe by County : Population Data 
for Counties with S5+ Indians, 1976. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of tlie 
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evalution, Office of Special 
Concerns. A study of Selected Socio-Economic Characteristics of 

03-440—78 5 



60 

Ethnic Mhiorities Based cm the 1970 Census. Volume III : Amer- 
ican Indiana. (HEW Publication, No. (OS) 75-122) Prepared by 
Urban Assoc, Inc., Washington, July 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Estimates 
of resident Indian population and labor force status, hy State and 
reservation. Mar., 1973. 19 pp. 

-. The States and their Indian Citizens. By Theodore W. Taylor. 



Washington, 1972. 307 pp. 

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

General 

Barsh, Russel L. "Corporations and Indians: Who's the Villain?" 
MBA, Vol. 46 (June, 1975) : 11-13. 

Development Finance Companies, Aspects of Policy and Operation. 
The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968. 

Friedman, Wolfgang G. and George Kalmanoff, (eds.) Joint Inter- 
national Business Ventures. New York, Columbia Univ. Press, 1961. 

Gillmor, Frances and Louisa W. Wetherill. Traders to the Navajo, 
The Story of the Wetherhills of Kayenta. Albuquerque, Univ. of 
New Mexico Press. 1967. 271 pp. 

Jeanneau, Joseph A. Band Development Training Program Facilita- 
tor''s Manual. Prince Albert, Sask, Canada, Training Research and 
Development Station, 1975; 5 Vols.: Vol. 1. Introduction to the 
Training Program ; Vol, 2. Problem Solving and Communication ; 
Vol. 3. Understanding Government ; Vol. 4. Economic Development 
Process ; Vol. 5. Economic Development Process. 

Lee, Richard. "Tourism and the American Indian Nation." Travel 
Trade Magazine (July 23, 1973) . 

Lewis, William Arthur. Development Planning, the Essentials of 
Economic Policy. New York, Harper & Row, 1966. 

McNih, Frank. The Indian Traders. Norman, Univ. of Oklahoma 
Press, 1972. 393 pp. 

Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Develop- 
ment Co-operation: Efforts and Policies of the Members of the De- 
velopment Assistance Committee, 197 If. Review. Paris, France, Nov. 
1974. 325 pp. 

Plananalysis, Inc. and Sterling Institute. Model Tribal Program Man- 
agement System. Encino, Calif., 1976. 



61 

Scliaab, J. "Indian Industrial Development and the Courts." Natural 
Resources Journal^ Vol. 8 (1968) : 303 

Sneistrap, Paul Peter. The Economy of Greenland. Copenhagen, Den- 
mark, C. A. Reitsel, 1967. 

Snodgrass, Marjorie P. Economic Development of American Indians 
and Eskimos 1930 Through 191^7. Washington, U.S. Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1968. 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe, Office of Planning and Development. 
Review Commentary on DMB^s Interagency Staff Study Report on 
Federal Field Organization for Indian Programs. Fort Yates, N. 
Dak. Mar. 7, 1973. 76 pp. 

United Nations Industrial Development Organization. 1968 Manual on 
the Use of Consultants in Developing Countries. United Nations 
Sales No. E.68II.B.10, New York. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. Rural Development^ Financial and 
Technical Assistance Provided hy the Departnnent of Agriculture 
and the Department of Ilousimg and TJrhan Development for Non- 
metropolitan Planning Districts in Fiscal Year 1975., Sixth Annual 

\ Report to the Congress. Washington., 1975. 108 pp. 

lU.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Serv'ice. Rural 
5 Development : Fifth Annual Report of the President to the Con- 
I gress on Government Services to Rural America. Washington, 1974. 

. Guide to Federal Programs for Rural Development. Washing- 



ton, 1973. 262 pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administra- 
I tion. Buyers Guide to Products Manufactured on American Indian 
i Reservations. Washington. 

'U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indians Affairs, Division 
of Indian Business Enterprises. List of Representative Manufactur- 
ing Enterprises Located on or Near Indian Reservations. Wash- 
ington. 

I U.S. Federal Power Commission, 1970 National Power Survey. Wash- 
; ington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1970 

LT.S. Federal Trade Commission. Los Angeles Regional Office. System 
on the Navajo Reservation. June, 1973. 

U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. American Indian Business Di- 
rectory : A Working Handhook. (OEO pamphlet 6164-3) Washing- 
ton, 1972. 



62 
Special Studies 

Arizona, Commission on Indian Affairs. Survey of the Havasupai 
Reservation. Phoenix. 

Arizona, Department of Economic Planning and Development. 
Arizona India/m Demogra'phic Data: Needs and Recowmendations. 
Prepared by Benjamin Taylor. Phoenix, 1971. 

Bean, Lowell John. Morongo Indian Reservation : A Century of Adap- 
tive Strategies. Washington, D.C., Center for the Study of Man, 
Smithsonian Institution, July, 1974. 

Deloria, Vine, Jr. The Lummi Indian Coinmunity: The Fishermen 
of the Pacific Northwest. Washington, D.C., Center for the Study 
of Man, Smithsonian Institution, 1975. 

Dana Larson Eoubel & Assoc. Irrigation Feasibility Study Crow 
Creek: Tribal Fann: Engineering Report 1975. (Unpublished). 
Crow Creek Keservation, S. Dak. 1975. 41 pp. 

DeMallie, R. The Pine Ridge Economy: Cultural and Historical Per- 
spectives. Washington, D.C., Center for the Study of Man, Smith- 
sonian Institution, 1975. 

Doyon, Limited. Arwmal Report: 1973. Fairbanks, Doyon, Ltd., 1973. 

Gilbreath, Kent. "Business Development on the Navajo Reservation." 
New Mexico Business, Vol. 25 (Mar. 1972) : 3-10. 

Jones, Dorothy M. Patterns of Village Growth and Decline in the 
Aleutians. Fairbanks, Institute of Social Economic and Govem- 



Kolstad, C. D., D. P. Grimmer, P. Reno and J. M. Tutt. Appropriate 
Technology and Economic Development. U.S. Energy Research 
and Development, Admin. Contract No. W-7405-Eng. 36, Los 
Alamos, N. Mex,, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory of the Univ. of 
California, Oct. 1976. 13 pp. 

Manuel, M., J. Ramon and B. Font ana. Dressing for the Window: 
Papago Indians and Economic Development. Washington, D.C., 
Center for the Study of Man, Smithsonian Institution, 1975. 

Marshall, Kaplan, Gans and Kahn. Oglala Sioux Model Reservation 
Program. 12 Vols. San Francisco, Marshall, Kaplan, Gans and 
Kahn, 1969. 

Michael, Robert Elias. The Economic Problems of the Rio Grande 
Pueblos. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, American Studies, 
Univ. of New Mexico, May, 1976. 290 pp. 



63 

Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians. Accelerated Progress Through 
Self -Determmaf ion : Second Annual Report of the Choctaw Self- 
Determination Project^ July 1, 1972-0 ct. 31^ 1973. Philadelphia, 
Miss., 1973. 59 pp. 

'Multi-Housing and Management Systems, Inc. The S.E.R.A.T.E. 
Report: An Action Plan for the Standing Rock Sioux. Nashville, 
Mar. 18, 1975. 

"Tlie Navajos: High, Dry and Penniless." The Nation 220 (Mar. 29, 
1975) : 359-63. 

Pueblo of Laguna. Puehlo of Laguna Corrwmmity, Economic and 
Capital Impro^'enients Prograin. Laguna, N. Mex. 1974. 

Reno, P. and B. Bahe. "Navajo Indian Economic Planning: The Nav- 
ajo Indian Irrigation Project." '•'•Neio Mexico Bushiess., Vol. 26 
(Nov. 1973) : 3-12. 

I Ruffing, Lorraine. Economic Development and- Navajo Social Struc- 
tu.re. Washington, D.C. Center for the Study of Man, Smithsonian 
Institution, 1975. 

-. "Navajo Economic Development Subject to Cultural Con- 



straints." Economic Development and Cultural Change., Vol. 24 
(April, 1976) : 611-621. 

'Sealaska Corporation. Juneau, Sealaska Corp., 1972. 

■Stevens, Susan M. Passamaquoddy Economic Development in Cul- 
tural and Historical Perspective. Washington, D.C. Center for the 
Study of Man, Smithsonian Institution, 1973. 162 pp. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administra- 
tion. Forest Products Complexes for Processing Timber From the 
Colville Indian Reservation and Ferry County., Washington. Pre- 
pared by Bovay Engineers, Inc., Washington, June, 1965. 

-. Feasibility Study of an Industrial Park on the San Carlos 



Apache Indian Reservation., Arizona. Prepared by L. H. Bell & 
Assoc. Washington, Nov. 1967. 



. Architectural and Engineering Review Report: Firehawk 

Recreational Commercial Complex^ Rosebud Siouo' Reservation., 
S. Dak. Prepared by Walter Butler Co. Washington, Dec. 6, 1968. 



. Rosehud Sioux Industrial Development Project. Prepared by 

Kirschner Assoc. Inc., (EDA Contract No. 8-35136) Washington 
D.C, Feb. 1969. 

. Crow Reservation Tourism Facilities. Washington, 1972. 



64 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Plamm.hig for 
the Umatilla Indian Reservation: Initial Comprehensive Planning 
Investigation. Prepared by C. Hill. (HUD Contract Grant No. 
CPA-OR-1 0-1 6-1006) Pendleton, Oreg. Confederated Tribes of the 
Umatilla, Dec. 1973. 

Pinenut Allotments: A Study in Developmental Policy Plan- 



ning. Prepared by Murray-McCormick Environmental Group of 
Nevada. (HUD Project No. CPA-NV-90-39-1007(H)) Stewart, 
Nev., Washoe Nation Tribal Council, July, 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs Manage- 
ment of the Initial Installation of System Developed for the Black- 
feet and Fort Belknap Indian Reservations., Montana. Prepared by 
Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. (Contract No. (50 C14 
204403) Billings, Mont., Sept. 10, 1973. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Planning 
Support Group. The Sisseton Reservation Area: Its Resources aiid. 
Development Potential. (BIA Office of Planning, Report No. 204) 
Billings, Mont. Nov. 1972. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. The Zuni 
Indian Reservation: Its Resources and Development Potential. 
(Planning Support Group, Report No. 207 Billings, Mont. 1973. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Tourism 
Development. Tourism Development Plan for Seminole Tribe of 
Florida. Denver, Mar. 1974. 69 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Multi- 
mode Transportation and Utility Corridor Systems in Alaska: A 
Preliminary., Conceptual Analysis. Washington, Oct. 1974. 77 pp. 

Utah, Office of the State Planning Coordinator. The Navajo Econom- 
ic-Demographic Model. Prepared by Ross Reeve, Rodger Weaver, 
Eric Natwig. Salt Lake City, 1975. 



. The Navajo Economic-Demographic Model: NED A Method 

for Forecasting and Evaluating Alternative Navajo Economic 
Futures., User'^s Guide. Prepared by Bruce M. Stowell. Salt Lake 
City, Jan. 1976. 47 pp. 

Tribal Development Plans 

Brady, Consultants, Inc. Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation Compre- 
hensive Planning Report. Spearfish, S. Dak. Sept. 1973. 217 pp. 

Colville Confederated Tribes. Overall Economic Development Plan. 
1975-76. Nespelem, W^ash. 1975. 

Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, Planning Board. Comprehensive 
Plan., Vol. /, Population and. Economy Study. (HUD Contract No. 
CPA-NC-04-19-1035) Cherokee, N.C., July 22, 1974. 



65 

Hoopa Valley Business Council. Overall Economic Development Plan 
71^ : Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation. Hoopa, Calif. 1974. 

Oneida Nation. 701 Comprehensive Planning Program — Oneida In- 
dian Reservation. Prepared by Oneida 701 Planning Staff. Green 
Bay, Wis. 

Shoshone and Arapahoe Tribes, Wind River Economic Development 
Planning Program. Wind River Reservation. Wyo. July 30, 1975. 

Stevens, Thompson & Runyan, Inc. Swlnomish Comprehensive Plan. 
2 Vols. Seattle, Wash. Feb. 1972. 

U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administra- 
tion. Program for Economic Development: Umatilla Indian Res- 
ervation., Pendleton, Oreg. Prepared by Ernst & Ernst, Washing- 
ton, D.C. Oct. 1969. 



. Economic Study and Plan: Fort Hall Indian Reservation. 

Prepared by Economic Research Assoc. Washington, D.C, Apr. 
1973. 200 pp. 



. 197Ji.-1978 Revised Overall Economic Development Program: 

Warm Springs Reservation. (EDA Project No. 07-05-15016) Wash- 
ington, D.C, Apr. 1974. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. General Plan : 
Duck Valley Indian Reservation. Prepared by Environmental Con- 
cerns, Inc., Owyhee, Nev. Duck Valley Indian Tribal Office, July, 
1972. 91 pp. 

Washoe Nation General Plan. Prepared by Murray-McCor- 



mick Enviromnental Group of Nevada. (HUD Project No. CPA- 
NV-09-39-1000) Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Te<Jh- 
nical Information, Washington, D.C, Dec. 1973. 

-, Overall Economic Developtnent Plan for the Chippewa Lac 



du Flambeau Bamd. Lac du Flambeau Reservation. Prepared by 
Arie Dewaal, Washington, June, 1974. 102 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Havasupai 
Plan: Tlie Secretarial Land Use Plam. for the Addition to the 
Havasupai Indian Reservation. Phoenix, Mar. 12, 1976. 

EDUCATION 

General 

Adams, Evelyn. American Indian Education: Government Schools 
and Econonm'ic Progress. American Education Series, No. 2. 1946 
Reprinted. New York, Arno Press, 1972. 

Anderson, Hovson D. and Walter C Ellis. Alaska Natives: A Survey 
of Their Educational Status. 1935 Reprinted. New York, Kraus Re- 
print Co., 1971. 



66 

Arizona Depai-tinent of Education. Arizona School Law Index^ Phoe- 
nix, 1974. 

Bass, W. An Analysis of Academic Acliievement of Indian High 
School Students in Federal and Public Schools^ A Progress Report. 
Albuquerque, Southwestern Cooperative Educational Laboratory, 
1969. 

Blanch, Lloyd PI Educational Services for Irulians. Prepared for the 
Advisoi-y Committee on Education. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 
Oif., 1939. 

Blunie, Paul. An Evaluation of Institutional Vocational Tralrung 
Received hy American Indians through the Muskogee Oklahoma 
Area Office of the BIA. Stillwater, Oklahonm State Univ., 1968. 

Cavender, Chris. An Unbalanced Perspective: Two Minnesota Text- 
hooks Examined hy An American Indian. Minneapolis, Training 
Center for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, Sept. 1970. 
21pp. 

Coombs, L. The Educational Disadvantage of the Indian American 
Student. (E.R.I.C.-ORESS, Las Cruces, New Mexico Keprinting 
Service.) Albuquerque, New Mexico State Univ. 

Dine Blsaad Naniliih Navajo Language Review. Arlington, Va. Cen- 
ter for Applied Linguistics. 

Forbes, J. Calif omia Indian Educatwn., Rejyort of the First All- 
Indian Stateioide Conference on California Indian Education. Be- 
thesda, Md. ERIC Document Reproduction Service, 1967. 

Fuohs, Estelle Krause, R. Havighurst, and Ziegler. Teachers for 
American Indian Youth and Cwyficuluin for AmeHcan Indian 
Youth. Minneapolis, Training Center for Couinmnity Programs, 
Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Fuchs, Estelle, MacGregor and Aurbach. The Status of AmeHcan In- 
dian Education. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Pro- 
grams, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Fuchs, Estelle and Robert. Havighurst. To Live on This Earth : Ameri- 
can Indian Education. Garden City, N.J., Doubleday. 

Hackbert, Peter H. First Interim Report on Adult Indian Literary 
and Educational Attainment in Oklahoma. Norman, Okla. Ameri- 
can Indian Institute, Nov. 1975. 45 pp. 

Hammond, Karon Sherarts, R. Woods and A. Harkins. Junior High 
Indian Children in Minneapolis : A Study of One Problem School. 
Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Programs, Univ. of 
Minnesota, 1970. 



67 

Hanson, Lorie, Arthur Harkins, Karon Siherarts and Richard Woods. 
Suburban School Children ami American Indians: A Survey of Im- 
pressions. JMinneapolis, Training Center for Coninmnity Programs, 
Univ. of Minnesota, May, 1970. 49 pp. 

Harkins, Arthur, Karon Sherarts and Richard Woods. The Formal 
Educatiooi of Menominee Indian Children: Sociocultural amd Socio- 
economic Background Factors. Minneapolis, Training Center for 
Comniunity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

. Indian Education in Min/rieapolis: An Interim, Report. Minne- 
apolis, Training Center for Comnnmity Programs, Univ. of Minne- 
sota, Dec. 1969. 35 pp. 

Havighurst, Robert and Birchard. Boarding Schools for Indian 
Youth and tlie Design, of the National Study: Sampling^ histru- 
ments and Field Research Methods. Minneapolis, Training Center 
for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Idaho, Department of Education. Indian Education Annual Report 
1971^-1975. Boise, 1975. 35 pp. 

Indian Students and Guidance. (Guidance Monograph Series) Bos- 
ton, Houghton Mifflin, 1971. 

Jones, Louis T. Amerindian Education. San Antonio, Naylor Co., 
1972. 

Kleinfeld, Judith. A Long Way From Home: Effects of Public High 
Schools on Village Children Aioay From Home., p. 119. Center for 
Northern Education Research and Institute of Social Economic and 
Government Research — Univ. of Alaska. 1973. 

LaFlesche, Francis. The Middle Five: Indian Schoolboys of the Oma- 
ha Tribe. Madison, Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1963. 152 pp. 

Ma^nies, J. Bilingual Education in Arizona. Report 3., Bilingual Pro- 
gram)^ in the Southwest. Bethesda, Md. ERIC Document Reproduc- 
tion Sei-vice, 1967. 

Mertzberg. Hazel W. Teaching a Pre-Columbian Culture: The Iro- 
quois. Albany, New York State Education Department, Bureau of 
Secondary Curnculum Development. Rev. 1975. 77 pp. 

Michigan, Commission on Indian Affairs. An Evaluation Report on 
the State Office of Indian Education. Lansing, Jan. 1976. 21 pp. 

Michigan Department of Education. A Position Statement on Indian 
Education in Michigan Witli Recommendations and Guidelines. 
Lansing, 1974, 49 pp. 

INIontana, State Board of Education. Indian Culture Master Plan. 
Helena, Mont. Dec. 15, 1975. 



Mickelson, Norma and Charles Galloway. "Cumulative Language Defi- 
cit Among Indian Children." Exceptional Children (Nov. 1969) : 
187-190. 

National Advisory Council on Indian Education. Indian Education: 
The Right to he Indian: The Third Annual Report to the Congress 
of the United States. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1976. 

National Education Association. Educational Needs of American In- 
dian People. Prepared by Carl DoAvning. Washington, D.C., Dec. 10, 
1975. 11 pp. 

Project 1975: Educational Neglect^ On-Slte and Research Re- 



ports., Working Papers for Partimpants Conference on Educational 
Neglect, Felruary 15-18, 1975. Washington, D.C., 1975. 

National Indian Training and Research Center. Puhllc School Survey 
of Construction Aid Needs Related to the Education of Reserva- 
tion Indian Children. Tempe, Ariz. Mar. 1975. 58 pp. 

Natioiixal Study of American Indian Education: Research Reports. 2 
Vols. Minneapolis, Office of Community Programs, Univ. of Minne- 
sota, 1970. 

Navajo Tribe, Division of Education. Strengthening Navajo Educo.- 
tion. Window Rock, Ariz. June 1973. 

New York Education Department. Social Studies: Grade 7 — Our Cul- 
tural Heritage; Grade 8 — United States History. Albany, 1965. 132 
pp. 

Northern State College, South Dakota. Model Program for Orienta- 
tion and Retraining of Teachers, Counselors, and Administrators in 
Education of Exceptional Indian Children. Feb. 1973. 150 pp. 

Oklahoma, Department of Education. 27th Anmual Report of Indian 
Education in Oklahoma. Oklahoma City, 1974. 

Oklahoma State University, College of Education. Indian Education 
Needs Assessment Project. 4 Vols. Stillwater, Mar. 1976. 

Ortiz, Alfonso. Project Head Start in an Indian Connmunity. Chicago, 
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1965. 70 pp. 

Parmee, Edward A. Foimwl Education and Culture Change: A 
Modem Apache Indian Community and Government Education 
Program. Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1968. 

PoDewitz, Thomas. "Reform as Political Discourse: A Case Study." 
School Review, Vol. 84 (Nov. 1975) : 43-69. 

Porter, Pat. "The Failure of Indian Education." Contemporary Edu- 
cation {¥2i\\,lTiZ). 



Ramirez, Bruce. Background Paper on American Indian Exceptional 
Children. Paper presented to the National Advisory Council on 
Indian Education at its Jan. 16-18, 1976, meeting in Reno, Nev. 

Rudman, Jack. Civil Service Examination Passbook : Indian Educa- 
tion — Elementary Teaclier. Brooklyn, National Learning Corp., 
1971. 

. Civil Service Examination Passbook : Indian Education — Sec- 



ondary Teacher. Brooklyn, National Learning Corp., 1971. 

Selinger, Alphonse and Robert R. Rath. The American Indian High 
School Dropout: The Magnitude of the Problem. (Field Paper No. 
30) Portland, Oreg., Northwest Regional Education Laboratory, 
Feb. 1900. 

Smith, Marie H. Higher Education for Indians in the, American 
Colonies. M. A. thesis. New York Univ., 1950. 

South Dakota, Department of Public Instruction. Title I Activities in 
Selected South Dakota Schools, fiscal year 1971. Pierre. 

Szasz, Margaret. Education and the American Indian: The Road to 
Self -Determination 1928-1973. Albuquerque, Univ. of New Mexico 
Press, 1974. 

United Scholarship Service. 'TAe Necessity of Education is Admitted. 
Denver, 1972. 48 pp. • 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Educational Re- 
sources Information Center, Clearinghouse on Rural Education and 
Small Schools (ERIC-CRESS). Development of Yocational Edu- 
cation Programs for American Indians. Las Cruces, N. Mex., Oct. 
1909. 

. Indian Parent Involvement in Education. A Basic Sources 



Book. Las Cruces, New Mex. June, 1973. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Edu- 
cation. Descnptive Case Studies of Nine Elementary School Media 
Centers in Three Inner Cities. Washington, 1968. 



. Emphasis on Excellence in School Media Programs : Descrip- 
tive Case Studies Special Purpose Grant Programs. Washington, 
1969. 227 pp. 

A Handbook on Evaluation for Title IV Indian Education 



Act Projects. Prepared by CPI Assoc. Inc., Washmgton, 19^3. 

Indian Education a,nd Civilization. Prepared by Alice C. 



Fletcher, Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 1888. New York, 
Kraus Reprinting Co., 1973. 



70 

. Legislative Analysis of the Federal Role in Indian Education. 

Prepared by Vine Deloria, Jr., (Unpublished), Washington, 1975. 

. National Indian Education Assoc. Library Project. Identifica- 
tion of Info'rm.ation Needs of the American Indian Cornnm/nity 
That Can Be Met hy Library Services. Washington, June, 1975. 330 
pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Alaskan 
Native Needs Assessment in Education Project ANNA. (Indian 
Education, Eesearch and Evaluation Report Series No. 18) 2 Vols. 
Albuquerque, 1974. 

. Annual Rejmrt of the Superintendent of Indian Schools., 1882- 

1910. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 

. Basic Needs of Indian Peoyle : Special Report. Washington, 



. B.I. A. SclwoTboard Handbook. Washington, 1969. 

. Evaluation Report of the Center for the Study of Migrant and 

Indian Education, Toppenish, Washington. Prepared by Paul R. 
Streiff. (Research and Evaluation Report No. 8) Albuquerque, 
Summer, 1972. 

Guidelines for Teaching Concepts of Fairness, Justice and 



Democracy in BIA and Tribal-Contract Schools. (Curriculum 
Bulletin No. 18) Albuquerque, Aug. 1975. 25 pp. 

. Higher Education Evaluation: Student Characteristics and 



Opinions. Washington, June 25, 1973. 

Indian Education — Steps to Progress in the 70^s. Washington, 



1973. 



. Institute for AmeHcan Indians Arts Transition Evaluation. 

Washington, Oct. 1972. 

Off -Reservation Boarding School Project., Research and 



Evaluation Report. Washington. Aug. 1972. 

-.Residential School Analysis, fiscal year 1976. Washington, 



1976. 



. Survey of Bilingual Education Needs of Indian Children. Pre- 
pared by National Indian Training and Research Center. (Research 
and Evaluation Report Series No. 36) Albuquerque, Oct. 1975. 

-. Ta^k Force Report on Anadarko Area Residential Schools. 



Anadarko Area Residential Schools. Anadarko, Okla. Feb. 1976. 



71 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian 
Education Resources Center. Amended Annual Program Plan for 
Fiscal Year 1976 Under Part 5, Education of the Handicapped 
Act as amended hy Public Law 93-380. Albuquerque, June, 1976. 
177 pp. 

-. An Analysis of Academic Achievement of Indian High School 



Students in Federal and Public Schools. Prepared by William P. 
Bass. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 37) Albuquerque j 
May, 1971. 

■ . Leadership Conference in Elementary Science Education Uni- 
versity of New Mexico. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 
19.00) Albuquerque, Summer, 1975. 22 pp. 

. Student Rights and Responsibilities : A Progress Report. (Re- 
search and Evaluation Report Series No. 25-B) Albuquerque, Apr. 
1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Student 
Rights and Responsibilities : A Review of the Draft of Program 
Guidelines. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 25-A) Al- 
buquerque, Feb. 1974. 33 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Navajo 
Area Office. A7't. Window Rock, Ariz. 1971. 

■ . Guidance Curriculum Guidelines. Window Rock, Ariz. 1971. 

. High School Guidance. Window Rock, Ark. 1973. 



.Navajo Area Health and Physical Education Cu/n^iculum 

Guidelines. Window Rock, Ariz. Oct. 1974. 

-. Nofvajo Area Language Arts Project: NALAP. 2 Vols, Win- 



dow Rock, Ariz., 1973. 
. Nawajo Area Science Cwriculum. Window Rock, Ariz., 1975. 



.Social Studies: Grades: Beginners — 4- Window Rock, Ariz., 

Aug. 1970. 

i U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office of 
Education. Proceedings of a Conference on Early Childhood Edu- 
cation for American Indians Held March 5-7., 1968. Washington, 
D.C., 1968. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Eligihility for 
Bureau of Indian Affairs Services: Impact of Public Lata 93-638. 
Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Oct. 20, 1975. 



72 

. Indian Legal Activities. Statiis of Land Reserved for School., 

Agency, and Cemetery Purposes on the Kioica., Comarwhe and 
Apache Reservations , Oklahoma.. Memorandum to the Commissioner 
of Indian Affairs, Aug. 12, 1957. 

. Status of title to lands resei^ed for school and agency purposes 

on the former Kiowa., Comanche., and Apache Indian Reservations., 
Western OMahoma. Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Af- 
fairs, Jan. 15, 1960 (M-36510) . 

. Yankton Sioux School Lands. (Nathan R. Margold). Mar. 1, 

1&34 (Memorandum M. 27671) . 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor, Division of 
Public Lands. Effects of Act — March 11, 19Ji.8 — Within Boundaries 
of Uintah and Oiuray IndioM Reservation. Memorandum to Com- 
missioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs. June 9, 1961 (D-59-1140.9). 

U.S. National Advisory Committee on Education. Federal relations 
to Education, parts 1 and 2. Washington, D.C. 1930. 

U.S. Office of the Vice President, National Council on Indian Oppor- 
tunity. Between T\oo Milesto')ies : The First Report to the President 
of the United States. (Unpublished) Washington, 1972. 

United Tribes of North Dakota Development Corporation. A Proposal 
for the Development of American Indian Curricula. May, 1971. 22 
pp. 

Washington, Superintendent of Public Instruction. 1975 Annual Re- 
port Washington State Johnson O^M alley Education Programs for 
Indicm Children. Olympia, Wash. 1975. 

. Pre-College Indiam. Youth Conference: What 23 Youths Think 



About Their High Schools. Olympia, Wash. 1968. 

Winer, Lillian Rosenbaum. Federal Legislation of Indian Education, 
1819-1970. Unpublished thesis, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, 
1972. 

Funding 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peoples, Legal 
• Defense and Education Fund. J. n Even Chance: A Report on Fed- 
eral Funds for Indian Children in Puehlo School Districts. 1971. 

Smith, Susan and Margaret Walker. Federal Funding of Indian Ed- 
ucation: A Bureaucratic Enigma. Washington, Bureau of Social 
Science Research, May, 1973. 142 pp. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National In- 
stitute of Education. R&D. Fumding Policies of the National In- 
stitute of Education: Review and Recommendations. Washington, 
Aug. 1975. 109 pp. 



73 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and "Welfare, Office of Ed- 
ucation, Office of Indian Education. The Indian Education Act of 
.1972: Report of Progress for the Second Year of the Program, 
Washington, Apr, 14, 1975. 

. Justificatioiis of Ap'propriation Estimates for Committee on 

Appropriations Fiscal Year 1977 : Indian Education. Washington, 
1976. 

Specific Schools 

American Indian Higher Education Consortium. Public Law 93-638 
Indian Community College Survey Supplemental Data Sv/mmary. 
Denver, 1976. 

Arizona, Department of Education. A Study of Selected Public 
Schools On and Off Indian Reservations in Arizona. Phoenix, 1976. 
89 pp. 

Belding, Nanceye, Richard G. Woods and Arthur M. Harkins. Evalua- 
tion Report of the .1968-1969 University of Minnesota Cultural 
Education Specialists o/nd Associate Program: Indian American 
and Afro-American Aspects. Minneapolis, Training Center for 
Community Programs, Univ. of INIinnesota, June 1969. 

Blackbuni, Guy. "Rough Rock Demonstration School : A View from 
Within." Arizona Teacher (Jan. 1972) 5-23. 

Erickson, Donald. "Failure in Navajo Schooling." Parents Magazine 
(Sept. 1970) : 66-113. 

Godner, James, Richard G. Woods and Arthur M. Harkins. Charac- 
teristics and Attitudes of 1908 Haskell Institute Stud.ents. Min- 
neapolis, Training Center for Community Programs, Univ. of Min- 
nesota, July, 1970. 

Language and Related Characteristics of 1968 Hashell Insti- 



tute Students. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Pro- 
grams, Univ. of Minnesota, July, 1970. 

Harkins, Arthur and Richard Woods. Problems of Cross-CulturaZ 
Educational Research and Evaluation: The Rough Rock Demon- 
stration School. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Pro- 
grams, Univ. of Minnesota, Dec. 1969. 22 pp. 

Harkins, Arthur, I. Karon Sherarts and Richard G. Woods. Public 
Education of the Prairie Island Sioux: An Interim Report. Min- 
neapolis, Training Center for Community Progi'ams, Univ. of Min- 
nesota, Dec. 1969. 72 pp. 

Navajo Tribe, Division of Education. Developing a. Comprehensive 
Plan for Navajo Education: Seminar I. Compiled by Lyle O. 
Wright and G. Mark Schoepfle. Window Rock, Ariz. 1975. 



74 

. NCEP {Navajo Comprehensive Education Plan). Window 

Rock, Ariz. Feb. 16, 1976. 72 pp. 

. Navajo Community Educational HeaHngs Transcripts. Vols. 

2-7. Window Rock, Ariz. Feb. 1976. 

Nevada, Department of Education. Stewart Indian School^ Report of 
the Visiting Committee., Nov. 197 If.. Carson City, Nev. 

New York, Education Department, Office of Cultural Education. 
Akwesasne Mohawk. 2 Vols, (language textbooks). Prepared by 
Title IV Program, Salmon River Central School. Albany. 

O'Brien, Charles A. The Evalu/ition of Haskell Indian Junior College., 
1884-197 Jf. Unpublished thesis. Master of Liberal Studies, Univ. of 
Oklahoma, Norman, 1975. 95 pp. 

Sandstrom, Roy H., ed. Clash of Cultures ., A Report on the Institute 
on American Indian Students in Higher Education., St. Lawrence 
Univ. July 10-28, 1972. Canton, N.Y., St. Lawrence Univ., 1972. 

Sherarts, I. Karon, Arthur M. Harkins, Richard Woods and Karen 
Nordby. The Formal Education of Menominee Children at the High 
School Level: Teachers. Minneapolis, Training Center for Com- 
munity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, July, 1972. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Office of Ed- 
ucation. Proceedings : Indian Education Training Institute., Pacific 
Northicest Indian Center, Gonzaga University, Spokane, Wash- 
ington, August 5-8, 1971. Washington, D.C., 1971. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. All Indian 
Study Commiisslon Report, Intermountam School, Brigham City, 
Utah. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 24.01). Albu- 
querque, Sept. 1974. 

-. Curriculum Guide 1975-1976, Sherman Indian High School. 



Riverside, Calif. 1975. 

-. Evaluation Report, Miccosukee Indian School, Mlccosukee, 



Florida, June 1^-5, 1975. Prepared by Cy Maus, Stephen M. Fain 
and Eugene Leitka. (Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 
06-B). Albuquerque, 1975. 

-, Evaluation Report of Career Education and Safety Education 



Choctaw Agency School System,, Philadelphia, Mississippi. (Re- 
search and Evaluation Report Series No. 23-B) Albuquerque, May, 
1975. 58 pp. 

Evaluation Report of the Special Scholarship in Lato for 



American Indians, University of New Mexico School of Law. Pre- 
pared by George W. Underwood and James R. Pierce. (Research 
and Evaluation Report No. 12). Albuquerque, Summer, 1972. 



75 

. An Evaluation Report: The Pierre Indian School Final Re- 
port on Ohjective No. 1 : Evaluation of the 1972-73 School Program. 
(Research and Evaluation Report Series No. 22). Albuquerque, 
Dec, 1973. 

Flandreau Indian School Education Plan. Flandreau, S. Dak., 



1973. 



. Ft. Sill ORBS Su7^^ey. (Research and Evaluation Report Se- 
ries No. 19) Albuquerque, July, 1973. 

'■''Friends''' for the Indians: 100 Years of Education at River- 



side Indian School. Anadarko, Okla., 1971. 
. The Haskell Transition Evaluation: Ilaskel Indian Junior 



College, Lanrrence., Kans.., Sept. 28., 1972. (Research and Evaluation 
Report No. 7) Albuquerque, Oct., 1972. 

-. Intermountain Boarding School: Infoi^matlon Update. (Re- 



search and Evaluation Report Series No. 2-1.02) Albuquerque, 1975. 
Intermountain Evaluation Task Force, A Report. (Research 



and Evaluation Report Series No. 24.00) Albuquerque, June 1, 1973. 



. Navajo Education Survey. Prepared by Comprenetics. (B.I. A. 

Navajo Division of Education Contract No. NOOC 1420 6279) Win- 
dow Rock, Ariz., June, 1975. 

Rough Rock School Evaluation. (Research and Evaluation 



Report Series No. 03.10) Albuquerque, Spring, 1974. 89 pp. 

-. San Juan Day School Evaluation. Research and Evaluation 



Report Series. No. 27) Albuquerque, 1974. 74 pp. 

-. Strident Rights and Responsibilities : A Law Focused Cur- 



riculum, for American Indian High School Students. Prepared by 
Frederick Wilson. (Curriculum Bulletin No. 18.01) Albuquerque, 
Nov., 1975. 

-. Wahpeton Indian School, Project MESA. Brigham City, 



Utah, 1972. 32 pp. 

. The Institute of American Indian Arts Background Infor- 
mation. Prepared by John W. Tippeconnic, Jr. Albuquerque, Oct. 4, 
1972. 



. Institute of American Indian Arts. Future Dlrectlo'ns in Na- 
tive American Art. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1974. 

Management Review Team. Management Review Survey. 



Flandreau Indian School, November 10-13, 1975. Washington, Dec. 
19, 1975. 75 pp. 



76 

U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. Convniunity School at Rough 
Rock. Prepared by Donald A. Erickson and Henrietta Schwartz. 
(Contract No. B89^534. Available through the U.S. Department 
of Commerce, Clearinghouse for Federal Scientific and Technical 
Information, Springfield, Va.) Washington, Apr. 1969. 

White, Emily and Ann Lewis. Ahwesasne leivennanotakwa. N.Y., 
Salmon River Central School, 1973. 

Wolcott, Harry. A Kwakiutl Village and School^ Studies in Educa- 
tion and Culture Series. New York, Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 
1967. 

Woods, Richard and Arthur M. Harkins. Education-Related Pref- 
erences and Characteristics of College- Aspiring Vrhan Indian 
Teenagers: A Preliminary Report. Minneapolis, Training Center 
for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, May, 1969, 

EMPLOYMENT 

California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor 
Statistics and Research. American Indians in California. San Fran- 
cisco, 1965. 

Robbins, Lynn A. "Navajo Participation in Labor Unions." Lake 
Poioell Research Project Bulletin., No. 15 (Dec, 1975). (National 
Science Foundation) . 

Taylor, Benjamin J. and Dennis O'Connor. Fort Apache Reservation 
Manpower Resources. Tempe, Bureau of Business and Economic 
Research, Arizona State Univ. 1969. 

Thurow, Lester. "Not Making It In America : The Economic Progress 
of Minority Groups." Social Policy^ Vol. 6 (Mar.- Apr., 1976) : 5-11. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Arizona Advisory Committee. In- 
dian Em-ployment in Arizona. Washington, Feb., 1975. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Montana Advisory Committee. Em- 
ployment Practices in Montana: The Effects on American hvdians 
and Women. Washington, Aug. 1974. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, New Mexico Advisory Committee. 
Indian Employment in New Mexico State Government. Washing- 



U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Index to Pub- 
lications of the Manpower Administration., Januaoy 1970 through 
Jume 1975. Washington, 1975. 

. National Indian Manpower Conference, December 1971. 

Washington, 1971. 



7? 
Manpoiver Programs in Rural Areas. Washington, Jan., 1973. 



U.S. Departments of Labor and Health, Education, and Welfare. Man- 
power Report to the President. Washington, Apr., 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Division 
of Einfloyment Assistance Annual Statistical Summary 1971. 
Washington, 1971. 

. Employment Assistance : Future of Navajo Labor Force An- 



nual Report 1975. Window Rock, Ariz. 1975 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Audit and Investigation. 
Revieio of Adult V ocational Training an/1 Direct Employment As- 
sistance Programs., Bureau of Indian Affairs. Washington, 1976. 

ENVIRONMENT 

Commoner, Barry. The Closing Circle : Nature^ Mam,., and Technology. 
New York, Alfred Knopf, 1971. 

Fleetwood, Blake. "The Tribe That Taught Cat Dancing." New Times, 
Vol.5 (Oct. 31, 1975): 37-41. 

Gordon, Suzanne, Black Mesa, Angel of Death. New York, John Day, 
1973. 

Kemper, Will. Environmental Protection of Indian Lands and Appli- 
cation of N.E.P.A. (Paper 8) Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foun- 
dation, 1976. 

Kneese, Allen and Charles L. Schultz. Pollution, Prices, and Public 
Policy. Washington, D.C. The Brookings Institute, 1975. 

Stacks, John. Stripping : The Surface Mining of America. San Fran- 
cisco, Sierra Club, 1972. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Southwest Entergy Study: An Eval- 
uation of Electric Power Generation in the Southwest. Washington, 
1972. 

Westinghouse Corp. Four Corn£rs Regional Developnnent Study Pro- 
gram: A Study of Development Guidelines Including the Analysis 
of Economic Potential and the Concept of a New Town for the Four 
Comers Region. June, 1969. 

FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION 

Collier, John, "United States Indian Administration as a Laboratory 
of Ethnic Relations." Social Research, Vol. 12 (1945) : 265. 

Danziger, Edmund, Indians and Bureaucrats. Urbana, Univ. of Illi- 
nois Press, 1974. 



78 

Gaillard, Frye. "The Indians and the Bureaucrats." The Progressive 
(1973). 

Landis, James. The Administrative Process. New Haven, Conn., Yale 
Univ. Press, 1928. 

Sorkin, Alan L. American Indians and Federal Aid. Washington, D.C. 
The Brookings Institute, 1971. 

U.S. Department of the Treasury, Office of Eevenue Sharing. Native 
American Governments and the General Revenue Sharing Program. 
Washington, April, 1975. 

Indian Tribes and Alaskan Native Villages Entitlements^ En- 



titlement Period 6. Washington, May 23, 1975. 

U.S. Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service. Extension of 
Federal Indian Programs to Other Indians. Prepared by Stephen 
A. Langone, Washington, May 19, 1970. 

U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Executive 
Reorganization : A Historic Review. Prepared by Ronald C. Moe. 
Washington, Jan. 6, 1977. 

U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Federal 
Programs of^ Assistance to American Indiana. Prepared by Richard 
Jones. Washington, Apr., 1975. 

U.S. Office of the Vice-President, National Council on Indian Oppor- 
tunity. A Study of Federal Indian Domestic Assistance Programs. 
Washington, Feb., 1974. 

Warren King and Assoc. Government.^ Education., and Welfare Task 
Force Programs^ Case Study Report. Chicago, 1971. 

FOOD AND NUTRITION 

Calloway, D. H. and W. Chenoweth. "Utilization of Nutrients in 
Milk and Wlieat Based Diets by Men With Adequate and Re- 
duced Abilities to Absorb Lactose." American Journal of Clinical 
Nutrition, Vol. 26 (Sept., 1973) . 

"More Than Tea and Toast." The Crusader (Winter- Spring, 1973). 
(New York, Food Research and Action Center). 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food and Nutrition Service. Do- 
nated Foods Distributed by Outlet., Quantity and Cost. Washing- 
ton, Aug. 22, 1973. 



. Family Distribution Program: Quantity and Estimated 

Cost of Food Recommended for Distribution. Washington, Oct. 1, 
1973. t, , , 



79 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Nutrition, 
Growth mid Development of North American Children. Prepared 
by William M. Moore, Marjorie Silverberg, and Merrill Read. 
("DHEW Publication No. 72-26 NIH.) Washington. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Interdepart- 
mental Committee on Nutrition for National Defense and Division 
of Indian Health. Blackfeet Indian Reservation: Nutrition Survey 
August-September 1961. Washington, 1964. 

U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Back- 
ground on, the Termination of the Food {Commodity) Distribution 
Program for Needi/ Families and Individuals. Washington, Nov. 
30, 1973. 

Ratified American Indian Treaties That Include Payments 



in Food. Pi-epared by Stephen Langone. Washington, Dec. 14, 1973. 

U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Emergency Food and Medical 
Services. The Ages of Hunger . . . From P re-Natal to Elderly: A 
Report on the Operation of Federal Food Programs. Prepared by 
Food for All, Inc. Washington, D.C., June, 1972. 

White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health. Final Re- 
port. Wasliington, U.S. Go\i:. Print. Off., 1970. 

HEALTH 

Aberdeen Indian Health Service. Suicide and Suicide Gestures. 
Aberdeen, S. Dak., July, 1972. 

Adair, John and Kurt Dueschle. The PeopWs Health. New York, 
Appleton-Century, Crofts, 1950. 

. "Some Problems of the Physician at the Navajo Reservation." 

Human Organization., Vol. 16 (1958) : 19-23. 

Alaska Native Plealth Board. Evaluation of Medical Care Provided 
to Alaskan Natives. Anchorage, Alaska Native Health Board, 1976. 

American Medical Association, Committee on Health Care of the 
Poor, Committee on Government Services. Health Care of the 
Annerican Indian. Chicago, American Medical Association, Dec, 
1973. 

American Public Health Association. Governing Council. Education 
in the School Comtnunity Setting. A position paper. New Orleans, 
Apr., 1975. 

Attreaye, C. L. and M. Beisre. Service Networks and Patterns of Uti- 
lization, Mental Health Programs, Overview and Recommienda- 
fions; Eight parts: Aberdeen, Albuquerque, Anchorage, Billings, 



80 

Navajo, Ohlahoma, Phoenix, and Portland. (IHS Contract No. 
HSM 110-73-342). 

Association on American Indian Affairs (AAIA). Federal Policy 
and American Indian Health Needs; Report of the Sixth National 
Conference on Indian Health. New York, AAIA, 1974. 

Barrow, Mark V. Health and Disease of Am£7ncan Indians North of 
Mexico. Gainesville, Univ. of Florida Press, 1972. 

Basso, K. H. Heavy With Hatred: An Ethnographic Study of 
Western Apache Witchcmft. Thesis, Department of Anthropology, 
Stanford Univ., Palo Alto, Calif., 1967 : 172 pp. 

Bergman, Robert L. "A School for ]Medicine ]Men." American Jour- 
nal of Psychiatry, Vol. 130 (1973) : 663-666. 

Bittker, Thomas E. "Dilemmas of Mental Health Service Delivery 
to Off-Reservation Indians." Anthropological Quarterly, Vol. 46, 
No. 3 (July, 1973). 

Braasch, E. W. F. and B. J. Branton. "Survey of Medical Care 
Among the Upper Midwest Indians.-' Journal of the AM A, Vol. 
139, No. 4 (Jan. 22, 1949) : 220-226. 

Burkhaltcr, Barton R. "The Papagos 3-Level Model of Political 
Process and Health Improvement, A Culture-Specific Intervention 
AVliich Reduced Infant Gastroenteritis." Modeling and Simula- 
tion, Vol. 5, Pt. 1. Proceedings of the Fifth Annual Pittsburgh 
Conference, Apr. 24-26, 1974. 

Castaneda, Carlos. The Teachings of Don Juan: A Taqui Way of 
Knowledge. New York, Simon and Schuster, 1974. 

Chorha, Ronald W. and J. L. Sanders. "Planning Models for Tubercu- 
losis Control Programs," Health Services Research, Sum.mer, 1971 : 
144^164. 

Devereaux, George. Mohavse Ethnopsychiatry : TJie Psychic Disturh- 
ances of an Indian Trihe. (Bu.reau of American Ethnolo.rrV' Bulletin, 
No. 175, 1961). (Report.) Washington, D.C., Smithsonian Institu- 
tion Press, 1969. 586 pp. 

Fields, Suzanne. "Folk Healing for the Wounded Spirit." Innovations, 
Vol. 3, No. 1 (Winter, 1976) : 2-24. 

Fortune, Robert, "Health Care and the Alaska Native: Some Histor- 
ical Perspectives." FoZarTVoz^c^, No, XIV (1975) : 1^2. 

Hallowell, Irving A. "Values, Acculturation and Mental Health." 
American Journcd of Orthopsychiatry (1950) : 732-743. 



81 

Helper, Malcolm M. and Sol L. Garfield. "Use of the Semantdc Dif- 
ferential to Study Acculturation in American Indian Adolescents." 
Jou7vial of Personality aiid Social Psychology^ Vol. 2, No. 6 (1965) : 

817-822. 

Hill, Charles A., Jr. "Measures of Longevity of American Indians." 
Public Health Reports, Vol. 85, No. 3 (Mar., 1970) : 233-239. 

Hill, Charles A. and Mozart I. Spector. "Natality and Mortality of 
American Indians Compared with U.S. Whites and Nonwhites." 
HSMHA Health Reports, Vol. 86, No. 3 (Mar., 1971) : 229-246. 
(Health Services and Mental Health Admin., Dept. of HEW). 

Hoopa Valley Business Council. Medical Clinic Proposal : Hoopa Val- 
ley Indian Reservation. Hoopa, Calif., Hoopa Valley Tribes, 1973. 

Hoyt, Elizabeth E., "Younk Indians: Some Problems and Issues of 
M&nt^lHygiQWQ.'''' Mental Hygiene (1962) : 41-47. 

"Indian Medicine Men Hinder M.D.'s" U.S. Medicine (June 15, 1976). 

Kane, Robert L. and Rosalie A. Federal Health Care {with Reserva- 
tions). New York, Springer Publishing Co., Inc. 

Kemberling, Sidney. "The Indian Health Service : Commentary qji a 
Commentaiy." Pediatrics, Vol. 51 (June, 1973) : 1066-1067. 

Levy, Jerrold. "Navajo Suicide." Human Organization, Vol. 24, No. 4 
(Winter, 1965) : 308-318. 

Mackey, John and Evelyn Blanchard. Ethnic Differences Infkoencing 
the Delivery of Rehabilitation Services: The American Indian. 
Washington, D.C., National Rehabilitation Assoc, 1971. 

Marsden, Gillian. National Health Insurance and Community Health 
Centers : An Analysis of Implications for the Seattle Indian Health 
Board. Seattle, School of Public Health and Community Medicine, 
Univ. of Washington, June, 1975. 

Michigan, Office of the Governor, State Heialtli Planning Advisory 
Council and the Office of Health and Medical Affairs. Meeting the 
Health Needs of Migrants and Amey^ican Indians. Lansing, June, 
1975. 

Moorman, Lewds J. "Health of the Navajo-Hoiyi Indians." Joinmal of 
the AM A. Vol. 139, No. 6 (Feb. 5, 1949) : 370-376. 

Mortimer, Edward. "Indian Health : An Unmet Problem." Pediatrics, 
Vol. 51 (June, 1973) : 1065-1066. 

Navajo Health Authority, Division of Planning, Evaluation, and De- 
velopmentt-. Health Reso^irces Directory, Navajo Nation. Window 
Rock, Ariz., Aujr. 15, 1973. 



Nutting, Paul A., Charles R. Strotz, Gregory I. Schorr, and Law- 
rence E. Berg. "Reduction of Gastroenteritis Morbidity in High- 
Risk Infants." Pediatrics, Vol. 55, No. 3 (Mar., 1975). 

Getting, Eugene R, and Norman G. Dinges. Evaluation Summary 
Model D'oi-'mitory Project. (Indian Health Service Contract No. 
HSM 74-70-112). Rocky Mountain Behavioral Science Institute, 
Inc., July 1,1973. 

Ogden, Michael, Mozait I. Spector, and Charles A. Hill. "Suicides and 
Homicides Among Indians." Public Health Reports, Vol. 85 (1970) : 

75-80. 

Parran, Dr. Thomas, et al. Alaska's Health: A Survey Report to the 
United States Department of the Interior. Pittsburgh, Univ. of 
Pittsburgh Graduate School of Public Health, 1954. 

Rabeau, E. S. and Charles J. Erickson. "Health Care Problems of the 
American Indians." ISA Transactions, Vol. 13, No. 4 (1974) : 319- 
325. 

Rabin, David, et al. Health Problems and Disease of the U.S. and 
Noi'th American Populations. New York, MSS Informaition Corp., 
1972. 

Reese, Kennet^h M. "Obstacles to the Psychological Development of 
American Indian Children." Family Laio Quarterly, Vol. 9 (Winter, 
1975) : 573-593. 

Rubenstein, A., J. Boyle, C. L. Odoroff, and S. J. Kunitz. "Effect of 
Impiy)ved Sanitary Facilities on Infant Diarrhea in a Hopi Village." 
Public Health Reports, Vol. 84, No. 12 (Dec, 1969) : 1093-1097. 

Seattle Indian Health Board. Annual Report. 197^. Seattle, 1974. 
27 pp. 

Shore, James H., John F. Bopp, Thelma R. Walker, and James W. 
Dawes. Suicide Prevention Center on an. Indian Resem'ation. Port- 
land, Oreg., Portland Area Indian Health Service, 1969. 

Shorr, Gregory T. and Paul A. Nutting. An Evaluation of the Con- 
tinuity of Amhulatory Care. Tucson, Indian Health Service, Sept. 
1974. 

Smith, David A. "American Indian Health Care— Goal for All?" 
Pennsylvania Medicine, Vol. 79, No. 1 (Jan.. 1975) : 35. 

Steinfeld, Jesse R. "Government Versus Health; 1974." Annals of 
Internal Medicine, Vol. 81, No. 4 (Oct., 1974) : 541-544. 

Stei-n, Ester W. and Allen E. Steam. Effects of Smallpox on the Des- 
tiny of the Amerindian. Deer Park, N.Y., Brown Book Co., 1970. 



Townsley, H. C. and George S. Goldstein. The View of the Etiology of 
Depression in the American Indian. Albuquerque, U.S. Public 
Health Service. 

Tuberculosis Vaccines Clinical Trials Committee. "BDG and vole 
bacillus vaccines in the prevention of tuberculosis in adolescence and 
early adult life." Bulletin of World Health Organizations, Vol. 46 
(1972) : 371-385. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Indian Health 
Trends and Services. Washington, 1970 ed. 100 pp. 

-. Evaluatimi of the DHEW Health Manpower Training Pro- 



grams Relative to Indians. Washington, Feb., 1972. 300 pp. 

The Health Manpoicer Report: An Evaluative Study of De- 



partment of Health, Education., and Welfare Services to Ethnic 
Minorities. Prepared by Urban xA.ssoc., Inc., Washington, July, 
1973. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Division of In- 
dian Health. Mental Health Activities in the Indian Health Pro- 
gram. Washington, 1967. 

U.S. Department of Health Education, and Welfare, Indian Health 
Service. F ouiulations That Provide Support in Human Serviced: A 
Selected List for Indian Communities. Prepared by Phoenix Area 
IHS Mental Health Board and Office of Research and Development, 
IHS, Tucson. Washington, Apr., 1973. 



. Health Resources Supplement for Research, Development, 

Health Services: A Source Book for American Indiaiis, Alaska Na- 
tives, Indian Health Se^nuce Staff. Washington, Nov. 1, 1970. 93 pp. 

Illness Among Indians 1965-1969. (DHEW Publication No. 



HSM 72-507) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1971. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health 
Service, Dental Services Branch. Dental Program Efficiency Cri- 
teria and Stan/lards for the Indian Health Service. Washington, 
Nov. 1, 1974. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health 
Service, Human Resources Development Branch. New Careers in 
tlie Indian Health Program. (DHEW Publication No. HSM 73- 
12.001 ) , Washington, 1972. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health 
Sei-vice, National American Indian Safety Council. Final Projiect 
Report ^''Evaluation of Factors Contributing to Excessive Accident 
Rates Among American Indians.'''' (Contract HSA 74-74^132). 
Washington, Aug. 31, 1975. 



84 

U.S. Department of Health, Educaition, and Welfare, Indian Health 
Service, National Community Health Representatives Educational 
Conference. Seven States Indian Health Association EducatioTial 
Conference Planning Committee. (IHS Contract No. 241-76-0422). 
Washington, 1976. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health 
Sei-vice, Office of Research and Development. Process and Outcome 
Measurer of Tribal Health Woi^kers in Direct Patient Care. Tucson, 
Oct., 1974. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health 
Service, Sensory Disabilities Program. Otitis Media Report: Fiscal 
Year 1975. Washington, Apr., 1976. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, National Insti- 
tute of Mental Health. Suicide Anriong the American Indians: Tioo 
Workshops. (Public Health Service Publication No. 1903) Wash- 
ington, June, 1969. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Safety 
Progress Reports, 1973. Washington, 1973. 

U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Space Tech- 
nology in Remote Health Care. Report on STARPAHC (Space 
Technology Applied to Rural Papago Advanced Health Care). 
Houston, Aug., 1974. 

Walker, Frances. "Bridging a Gap for Better Patient Care." Military 
Medicine (Jan., 1974) : 26. 

HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE, U.S. 
DEPARTMENT OF 

Indian Health Ser\t:ce 

Barnett, Harry, Jack Fields, George Milles, Joseph Silverstein, and 
Arthur Berstein. "Medical Conditions in Alaska." Journal of AM A, 
Vol. 135 (Oct. 25, 1947) : 500-510. 

Hosteller, C. L. and J. D. Felsen. "Multiple Variable Motivators In- 
volved in the Recruitment of Phvsicians for the Indian Health 
Service." PuUic Health Reports, Vol. 90 ( July-Aug., 1975) : 319- 
324. 

Norton Sound Health Corporation. Village Health Services. Nome, 
Alaska, May, 1976. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Evaluation of 
the DHEW Health Manpovier Training Programs Relative to In- 
dians. Washington, Feb., 1972. 300 pp. 



350 pp. 



Health Services for American Indians. Washington, 1957. 



85 

. To the First Ameiicans, the Jfth Annual Report on the Indian 

Health Program of the U.S. Public Health Service, (rev. ed.) 
Washington, 1975. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health 
Service. Aberdeen Area Indian Health Service Un-Met Needs. 
Aberdeen, S. Dak., Apr., 1976. 

• . Almka Area Native Health Service Operating Plan Fiscal 



. Alaska, Native Medical Center and Anchorage Service Unit 

Operating Plan Fical Year 197J^. Anchorage, 1973. 

Annual Report Fiscal Year 1971., Nursing Services Branch. 



Washington, 1971. 

Bai^oic Service Unit Operating Plan Fiscal Year 197^. An- 



chorage, 1974. 



. Bethel Service Unit Operating Plan Fiscal Year 197 Ji.. An- 
chorage, 1973. 

. Community Health Representative, A Changing Philosophy of 

Indian Involvement. Washington, Feb., 1970. 

. An Evaluation of Local Indian Health Board Involvement in 

the Management of Indian Health Service Delivery System., A 
Final Report of the Phase II Evaluation Project of the National 
Indian Health Board. Washington, Aug. 7, 1975. 

-. Kotzehue Service Unit Operating Pla/n Fiscal Year 1975. An- 



. Mt. Edgecumhe Service Unit Operating Plan Fiscal Year 

1975. Anchorage, 1974. 



. Self-Determitiafion HIS Contracts Public Law 93-638, 

1975. Washington, 1975. 

Service Netivorks and Patterns of Utilization : Mental Health 



Programs of the Indian Health Service. Prepared by C. L. Att- 
neave and M. Beiser. (IHS Contract No. IHS HSM 110-73-342). 
Washineton, 1973. 



. Service Unit Pro-files, Fiscal Years 1975-1976. Blackfeet, 

Crow, Flathead, Fort Belknap, Fort Peck, Northern Cheyenne, 
Rocky Boy^s, arid Wind River Service Units. Billings, Mont., 1974. 

Tanana Service Unit Operating Plan Fiscal Year 1975. An- 



chorage, 1974. 

. Task Force Report on the Sanitation Facilities Construction 

Program' Indian Health Service. Washington, Aug., 1975. 



86 

. Office of Special Concerns. A Study of the Indian Health Serv- 
ice and Indian THhal Involvement in Health. Washington, Aug., 
1974. 

Whiting, Beatrice Blyth. Paiute Sorcei-nj. New York, Viking Fund 
Publication in Anthropology, No. 15, 1950. 

Wilson, Marcia J. and Thomas Luebben. A Study of the Legality and 
Rationality of Reservation/ Off -Reservation. Eligibility Require- 
ment for IHS for Contract Care. A paper presented to the National 
Indian Youth Council, 1976. 

Wilson, Martha E. Federal Health Care for Alaska Natives. Paper 
presented to the Alaska Native Health Board, July 19, 1972. 

Wilson, Martha E. and Charles Brady. Health Care in Alaska via 
Satellite. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1975. 

Woods, David. " Yellowknife Symposium, Part I : Changing Plealth 
Patterns in the Circumpolar Eegions.'' Canadian Medical Associa- 
tion Journal, Vol. Ill (Sept. 7, 1974) ; 457-459. 

National Institute ox Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 

Eobinson, Shirley. "Self-Help Programs for Indians and Native 
Alaskans." Alcohol Health and Research World (Summer, 1974) : 
11-16. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Insti- 
tute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Native American Alcohol - 
. ism Program, Otdput Reports for the Period Ending June 30., 
1976^ Report III-B Performance C ompamson. Washington, 1975. 

. Evaluative Data, on NIAAA Alcoholism Treatment Programs 

for Fiscal Tear 1975. Washington, Oct., 1975. 

Office of Education (OE) 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Indian 
Education. The Indian Education Act of 1972. Report of Progress 
for the Seconfid. Year of the Program. (DHEW Publication No. OE 
75-02401) Washington, Apr. 14, 1975. 

Office of Native American Programs (ONAP) 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Native 
American Programs. Fiscal Year 1976 Research and Evaluation 
Plan. Washington, 1975. 



— I — . Organizational Structure, Major Functions, Position Descrip- 
tions, and Accountahility Procedures for the Office of Native Amer- 
ican Programs. AVashington, 1975. 



87 

. Report on the In-Dej>th Evaluations of Fifth Quarter Grant- 
ees. 5 Vols. Prepared by Centaur Management Consultants, Inc. 
(Contract No. 105-76-6100, ONAP) Washington, 1976. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Native 
American Programs, Office of Human Development. Office of Na- 
tive Ameri<;an Programs Implementation Plan for Title VIII^ Com- 
munity Services Act Public Law 93-644' Washington, May 12, 1975. 

HOUSING 

California, Department of Housing and Community Development. 
Housing Study of Happy Camp Karok Tribe. Prepared by Jack K. 
Sanderson and Gilbert Fernandez. Sacramento, May, 1976. 

Housing Assistance Council, Inc. H.U.D. Information 1974 ci^nd 1975. 
Washington, Mar. 1974. 

Indian Housing Roles: Bureau of Indian Affairs., Indian 



Health Service. Washington, July 1, 197 

Navajo Tribe, Navajo Housing Authority, Mutual Help Participants'' 
Selection Guideline. Window Eock, Ariz., Nov., 1973. 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Census of Housing : 1970. Vol. 1 : Housing 
Characteristics for States, Cities and Counties. Washington, T^.S. 
Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 

U.S. Department of Housing and TTrban Development. Community 
Development: A Manual on Trihal Housing Enterprises and Re- 
sources. Prepared bv the Nonprofit Housing Center, Inc., for HUD 
and the B.I.A. Wasliingion, 1970. 

. Housing in the Seventies; A Report of the National Housing 

Policy Review. Washington, 1974. 250 pp. 

-. The National Indian Housing Cotiference, Scottsdale., Anz., 



Nov. 14-16,1974 (HUD-EO-81) Washington, 1974. 

U.S. Department of Housing and TTrban Development, Office of the 
General Counsel, Aj^plicahility of the Indian Civil Rights Act and 
the 14th Amendment to the Occupancy Policies of Indian Housing 
Atithorities. Memorandum to Eobert R. Elliot, Deputy General 
Counsel, Feb. 15,1974. 

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Task Force 
on Indian Programs. First Report of the Task Force on Indian 
Programs, (mimeo) Washington, Nov. 6, 1975. 

HUNTING AND FISHING RIGHTS 

American Friends Service Committee. Uncommon Controversy: The 
Fishing Rights of the Muckleshoot, Puyallup, and Nisqually Indi- 
ans. Seattle, Univ. of Washington Press, 1970. 



88 

Holte, H. Scott. '•'-United States v. Washington: A Unique Kettle of 
Fish." Paper submitted to the Indian Legal Problems Seminar. 
(Unpublished.) Seattle, Univ. of Washington Law Library, 1974. 

Hyde, Frederick W., Jr. Treaty Hunting and Fishing Rights of the 
Klamath Indians. Paper submitted to the Indian Legal Problems 
Seminar. (Unpublished.) Seattle, Univ. of Washington Law Li- 
brary, June 5, 1975. 

Muskrat, Joe. "Assimilate — or Starve." Civil Rights Digest (Oct., 
1972) : 27-34. 

INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT 

U.S. Laws, Statutes. Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968. Approved 
Apr. 11, 1968, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (Public Law 90-284, 25 U.S.C. 
§1301, 82 Stat. 77). 

Ward, David C. The Scope of the Equal Protection Requirement of 
the Indian Civil Rights Act. Paper submitted to the Indian Legal 
Problems Seminar. Seattle, Univ. of Washington Law Library, 
June, 1974. 

INDIAN ORGANIZATIONS 

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). American Indian 
Declaration of Sovereignty. Paper presented at the Thirty-first An- 
nual Convention. Washington, D.C., NCAI, 1974. 

Indian Declaration of Purpose. Paper presented at a national 



meetmg, June 13-20, 1961, Chicago. 

U.S. Office of the Vice President, National Council on Indian Op- 
portunity. Administrative files, 1968-197 1^. Record Group 220, Nat- 
ural Resources Branch, U.S. National Archives, Washington. 

INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT (IRA) 

Berkey, Curtis. The Indian Reorganization Act of 1931^,. Washington, 
D.C., Institute for the Development of Indian Law, 1976. 

Downes, Randolph. "A Crusade for Indian Reform, 1922-1934." Mis- 
sissippi Valley Historical Review., Vol. 32 (Dec. 1945). 

Hass, Theodore. The Indian Reorganization Act in Historical Per- 
spective, Symposium. 52d Annual Meeting, American Anthropolog- 
ical Assn., Tucson, Ariz., Dec. 30, 1953. 

Oklahoma, Laws, Statutes. OMahoma Act of June %6, 1936. Oklahoma 
Welfare Act with Provisions of Indian Reorganization Act Appli- 
cable in Oklahoma. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Atfairs. The De- 
velopment of C oilier'' s I.R.A. Policy, Indian Service Policies; Gal- 
leys 1-6. Located under 75, 56-A-588, 395, 50660-45-120, Federal 
Archives and Records Service, Fort Worth, Tex. 



89 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. The Organiza- 
zation of the Nooksack Indians under the Indian Reorganization 
Act. Solicitor's Opinion M-36833. Washington. 

-. Pcnoers of Indian Tnhes^ Opinion^ Oct. 25^ 1934. Interior De- 



cisions, Vol. 55, pp. 14-67. Washington. 

INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION ACT 

American Indian Higher Education Consortium. Public Laio 93-638 
Indian Community College Survey., Supplemental Data Smmnary. 
Denver, Colo., 1975. 

Kickingbird, Kirke. "Indian Self-Determination and Education Re- 
form Act of 1973." Education Journal, Vol. 1 (Feb., 1973). (Insti- 
tute for the Development of Indian Law) . 

National Congress of American Indians. N.C.A.I./N.T.C.A. Review 
and Analysis Project; Public Law 93-638, B.I. A. Regidatiojis. Let- 
ter to all tribes. Washington, D.C., 1975. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Hand- 
book for Decision Makers on Title I of the Indian Self-Determina- 
tion and Education Assistance Act. Washington, Feb. 10, 1976. 

U.S. Laws, Statutes. Indian Self-Determination and Education As- 
sistance Act. Approved Jan. 4, 1975, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. (Public 
Law 93-638, 25 U.S.C. § 450, 88 Stat. 2203). 

INDIANS 

General 

Adair, John. "The Navajo and Pueblo Veteran, A Force for Culture 
Change." American Indian, Vol. IX, No. 1, 1947. 

American Baptist Convention, Board of Education. The Moccasin 
Trail. Philadelphia, Boston, Judson Press, 7932. (Microfilmed 1975, 
Library of Congress, No. 54409) . 

American Indian Treaty Council Information Center. Native Ameri- 
can Women. New York, 1975. 

Bahr, Howard M. Native Americans Today. New York, Harper and 
Row, 1972. 

Berkhofer, Robert F. Salvation and the Savage. Lexington, Univ. of 
Kentucky Press, 1965. 

Berthrong, Donald J. The Southern Cheyennes. (Civilization of the 
American Indian Series, No. 66) Norman, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 
1963. 422 pp. 



90 

Brill, Charles, Indian and Free : A Contemporary Picture of Life an 
a Chippeioa Reservation. Minneapolis, Univ. of Minnesota Press, 
1974. 

Cohen, Edgar S. Our Brother'' s Keeper: The Indian in White Amer- 
ica. Washington, D.C., World Publishing Co., 1969. 

Collier, John. From Every Zenith. Denver, Sage Books, 1963. 

Indians of the Americas: The Long Hope. New York, New 



American Library, 1947. 

Collier, Peter. The Theft of a Nation; Apologies to the Cherohees. 
Kamparts, 1970. 

Colson, Elizabeth. The Mdkah Indians : A Study of an Indian Tribe 
in Modern American Society. Westport, Conn., Greenwood Press, 
1974. 

Council of Women for Home Missions and Missionary Education 
Movement. Facing the Future in Indian Missions. New York, 1932. 

Deloria, Vine, Jr. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. 
New York, Avon Books, 1972. 

Denig, Edwin Thompson, Five Indian Tribes of the Upper Missouri: 
Sioux, Arickaras, Assiniboimss, Crees, Crows. John C. Ewers, ed. 
(Civilization of the American Indian Series, No. 59) Norman, 
Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1961. 217 pp. 

Downes, Kandolph Chandler. Council Fires on the Upper Ohio. Pitts- 
burgh, 1940. 

Driver, Harold E. Indians of North America. Chicago, Univ. of 
Chicago Press, 1961. 

Fey, Harold E. and D'Arcy McNickle. Indians and Other Americcms — 
Txco Ways of Life Meet. New York, Harper and Row, 1959. 

Fire, John. Lame Deer., Seeker of Visions. New York, Simon and 
Schuster, 1972. 

Garbarino, Merwyn S. Big Cypress: A Changing Seminole Commu- 
nity. New York, Holt Rinehart and Winston, 1972. 

Giere, Thomas P. Red Man in a Gray Area: The Puyallup Indians. 
Paper submitted for Indian Legal Problems Seminar, Spring, 1971. 
Seattle, Univ. of Washington Law Library. 

Greenman, Emerson Frank. The Indians of Michigan. Lansing Mich. 
Historical Commission, 1961. 



m 

Hanson, Lorie and A. Harkins. Suburban School Children and Ameri- 
can Indians ; A Survey of Impressions. Minneapolis, Training Cen- 
ter for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Harkins, Arthur M. and Richard G. Woods. Attitudes and Character- 
istics of Selected Wisconsin Indians. Minneapolis, Training Center 
for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, July, 1969. 

Henderson, E. B. and J. E. Levy. "Survey of Navajo Community 
Studies, 1936-1974." Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin, No. 
6 (Mar., 1975) : 145 pp. (National Science Foundation) 

Holbert, Victoria L., Arthur M. Harkins, Richard G. Woods and I. 
Karon Sherarts. Indian Americans at Mille Lacs. Minneapolis, 
Training Center for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 
July, 1970. 

Hudson, Charles M. The Catawba Nation. Univ. of Georgia Press, 
1970. 

-. Red^ White., and Black. Symposium on Indians in the Old 



South. Univ. of Georgia Press, 1972. 

Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Indians and the U.S. 
Government. Washington, D.C., 1975. 

Jenkins, Myra Ellen. Pueblo Indians^ If.. New York, Garland Publica- 
tions, 1974. 

Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. "Wounded Knee and All That — ^What the 
Indians AVant." The New York Times, Mar. 18, 1973. 

LaFarge, O. "Disintegration and the American Indians." Annals of 
the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 311, (1957). 

Leighton, A. H. and D, C. The Navajo Door. Cambridge, Mass., Har- 
vard Univ. Press, 1944. 

Lurie, Nancy Oestreich. "The will-o-the-wisp of the Indian unity." 
Indian Historian, Vol. 9 (1976) : 19-24. 

McBridge, Stewart Dill. "New England Indian Caught Between 
Two Cultures." The Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 19, 1974. 

McGraw, James R. "God is Also Red: An Interview with Vine 
Deloria Jr." Christianity and Crisis, Vol. 35 (Sept. 15, 1975) : 198- 
206. 

Malan. Vernon D. The Dakota Indian Community. Brookings, Rural 
Sociology Department, Agricultural Experiment Station, South 
Dakota State College, 1962. 



92 

Marken, Jack Walter. The Indians and Eskimos of North Ameinca. 
Vermillion, S. Dak., Dakota Press, 1973. 

Marx, Herbert, Jr. The American Indian: A Rising Ethnic Force. 
New York, H. W. Wilson Co., 1973. 



bury Press, 1973. 

Milling, Chapman James. Red Carolinians. Columbia, Univ. of South 
Carolina Press, 1969. 

Mooney, James. Myths of the Cherokee. Xashville, C. Elder — Book- 
seller, 1972. 

Parker, Arthur Caswell. Parker on the Iroquois. Syracuse, Syracuse 
Univ. Press, 1968. 

Phillips, George Harwood, Chiefs and ChaUevgers: Indian Resistance 
and Cooperation in SouHieim California. Berkeley, Univ. of Cali- 
fornia Press, 1975. 

Price, John A. Cultural Divergence Related to Urhan Proximity on 
American Indian Reservations. Minneapolis, Training Center for 
Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1971. 

Ritzenthaler, Robert Eugene. "The Oneida Indians of Wisconsin." 
Milwaukee, Milwaukee Public Museum Bulletin.^ Vol. 19, No. 1 
(1950). 

Shepardson, Mary. Navajo Ways in Government : A Study in Politi- 
cal Process. New York, Kraus Reprint Co., 1963. 

Simpson, George E. and J. Milton Yinger. "American Indians and 
American Life." Annals of the Amencan Academy of Political and 
Social Science (May, 1957). 

Sioux Indians. Vols. 1-4. New York, Garland Publications, 1974. 

Smith, G. Hubert. Omaha Indians. New York, Garland Publications, 
1974. 

Snake, Reuben A., Jr. Being Indian Is . . . ^lacy, Nebr., Nebraska 
Indian Press, 1972. 

Speck Frank Gouldsmith. Cherokee Dance and Drama. Berkeley, 
Univ. of California Press, 1951. 

Standing Bear, Luther. My People., The Sioux. Lincoln, Laiiv. of 
Nebraska Press, 1975. 

Stanley, Sam, Bruce MacLachlan and Myron Rosenberg. "The North 
American Indians : 1950 Distribution of Descendants of the Aborig- 



93 

inal Population of Alaska, Canada and the United States." (map) 
Chicago, Department of Anthropology-, Univ. of Chicago, Dec, 
1960. 

Starkey, Marion Lena, llie Clierokee Nation. New York, Russell and 
Russell, 1972. 

Steiner, Stanley-. The New Indians. New York, Harper and Row, 1967. 

Strickland, Rennard. "Friends and Enemies of the American Indian : 
An Essay Reiaew on Native American Law and Public Policy." 
American Indian Law Review., Vol. 3, No. 2 (1975) : 313-331. 

S wanton. John Reexl. The Indians of the ^outheasteim United States. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1946. Grosse Pointe, ]\Iich., 
Scholarly Press, 1969. 

Trenholm, Virginia Cole. The Shoshonis, Sentinels of the Rockies. (1st 
ed.) Nomian, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1964. 

Tureen, Thomas N. "Remembering Eastern Indians." Inequality in 
Education, No. 10 (Dec., 1971) . 

LT.S. Commission on Civil Rights. The Navajo Nation: An American 
Colony. Washington, Sept., 1975, 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. FaTrwus 
Indians: A Collection of Short Biographies. Washington, 1974. 

. Indians of Arizona. (506-389) Washington, 1973. 



. Indians, Eskimos and Aleuts of Alaska. (0-315-121) Wash- 
ington, 1968. 

. Indians of California. (0-287-163) Washington, 1968. 

-. Indians of Montana/ Wyoming. (0-287-698) Washington, 



-. Indians of New Mexico. (0-315-122) Washington, 1968. 
Indians of North Carolina. (0-472-350) Washington, U.S. 



Govt. Print. Off., 1972. 

-. Indians of Oklahoma. (0-496-170) Washington, U.S. Govt. 



Print. Off., 1973. 



. Indians of the Central Plains. (0-291-540) Washington, U.S. 

Govt. Print. Off., 1968. 

. Indians of the Dakotas. (0-289-766) Washington, U.S. Govt. 

Print. Off., 1968. 



94 

. Indians of the Great Lakes Area. (0-311-555) Washington, 

U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1968. 

. Indians of the Gulf States. (0-311-554) Washington, U.S. 

Govt. Print. Off., 1968. 



. Indians of the Lower Plateau. (0-506-609) Washington, U.S. 

Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 

Indians of the Northwest. (0-496-560) Washington, U.S. 



Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 

Indians of North Carolina. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 



Off., 1915. (Library of Congress microfihii No. 53,192) 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Phoenix 
Area Office. Information Profiles of Indian Reservations in Arizona., 
Nevada., and Utah. Phoenix, 1976. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Delegation of the United States. In- 
dians of the United States. 2 Vols. Paper presented by Delegation, 
First Inter- American Conference on Indian Life, Patzcuaro, Mex- 
ico, Apr., 1940. 

Walker, Robert Sparks. Torchlights to the CheroJcees. New York, 
Macmillan Co., 1931. 

Washington, Office of the Governor. Are You Listening., Neighbor? 
Report of the Indian Affairs Task Force. Olympia, Wash., 1971. 

Wisconsin, Department of Health and Social Services, Bureau of 
Health Statistics. Indians in Wisconsin — Births^ Deaths and Popu- 
lation 1968-1972. Prepared by Ellen M. Noor, Madison, Dec, 1974. 

History 

Acuma, Rodolfo F. Sonoran Strongman Ignaclo Pesquiera and His 
Times. Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1974. 

Axtell, J. Through a Glass Darhly: Colonial Attitudes Toioard Native 
Americans. Bronxville, N.Y., Sarah Lavt^rence College, Faculty 
Papers, 1973. 

Beatty, Charles. The Journal of a Two Months Tour. London, 1768. St. 
Clair Shores, Mich., Scholarly Press, 1972. 

Beatty, Donald R. History of the Legal Status of the Anierican In- 
dian loith Particidar Reference to California. San Francisco, Rand 
E. Research Assoc, 1974. 

Benson, Henry Clark. Life Among the Choctaw Indians and Sketches 
of the Southxuest. Cincimiati, L. Swormstedt and A. Poe, 1860. New 
York, Johnson Reprint Corp., 1970. 



95 

Beverid^e, Albert Jeromiali. TJie Life of John Marshall., Vols. 1-4. 
New York, Houghton Mifliin Co., 1916. 

Blunt, Joseph. A Historical Sketch of the Formation of the Confeder- 
acy Particularly with Reference to the Provincial Limits and the 
Jw^sdiction of the General Government over Indian Tribes and the 
Public Territory. New York, George and Charles Carville, 1826. 

Brennen, Jere L. The Forgotten American— American Indians Re- 
membered. New York, Council on Social Work Education, 1972. 

Campbell, Kobert, Cherohee Indians. Savannah, Ga., 1829. 

Cherokee Historical Assn. Unto These Hills. Cherokee, N.C., 1969. 

Colden, Cadwallader. The History of the Five Indian Nations of 
Canada. London. T. Osborne, 1747. Toronto, Coles Pub. Co., 1972. 
New York, Allerton Book Co.', 1922. New York, AMS Press, 1973. 

Cook, Sherburne Friend. Colonial Ex'peditions to the Interior of Cali- 
fornia Central Y alley. Berkeley, Univ. of California Press, 1960. 

The Conflict between the California Indian and White Civil- 



ization. Berkeley, Univ. of California Press, 1976. 

Curtis, Edward S. Portraits from North American IndwM Life. New- 
York, Outerbridge and Lazard, 1972. 

Dale, Edward Everett. Cherohee Cavaliers. Norman, Univ. of Okla- 
homa Press, 1939. 

Debo, Angle. And Still the Waters Run; The Betrayal of the Five 
Civilized Tribes. Princeton, N.J., Princeton Univ. Press, 1973. 

Eastman, Charles A. "The North American Indian." Frdversal Races 
Conference., London, 1911, No. 1 : 367-376. 

Eastman, Charles Alexander. From the Deepwoods to Civilization. 
Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1925. 

Eaton, Rachel Caroline. John Ross aiul the Cherokee Indians. Mena- 
sha, Wis., George Banta Publishing Co., 1914. 

Ells, Myron. History of Indian Missions on the Pacific Coast. Phila- 
delphia, New York, American Sunday School Union, 1882. (Li- 
brary of Congi-ess Microfilm # 37942 ) . 

Ellison, William Henry. The Federal Indian Policy in California^ 
18IfG-1860. San Francisco, E. and E. Research Assoc. 1974. ' 

Filler, Louis, TIlc Removal of the Cherokee Nation. Boston. Heath, 
1962. 



96 

Fleischmann, Glen. Cherokee Removal^ 1838. New York, Watts, 1971. 

Foreman, Grant. Indian Removal; The Emigration of the Five Civi- 
lized Trihes of Indians. Normian, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1953. 

Friends, Society of. Associated Executive Committee on Indian Af- 
fairs. A Brief Account of Friends' Missionary Work Among the 
Indians, 1869-1901. Philadelphia, 1901. 

Fritz, Henry. The Movement for Indian Assimilation: 1860-1890. 
Philadelphia, Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 1963. 

Harman, George Dewey, Sixty Years of Indian Affairs., Political., 
Economic and Diplomatic, 1789-1850. Chapel Hill, Univ. of North 
Carolina Press, 1941. 

Heizer, Robert Fleming. The Destruction of California Indians. 
Santa Barbara, Calif., Peregrine Smith, 1974. 

Hoopes. Alban W. Indian Affairs and Their Administration., with 
Special Reference to the Far West, 18Jid-1860. London, H. Milford, 
Oxford Univ. Press, 1932. 

Hyde, George E. A Sioux Chronicle. (1st ed.) Norman, Univ. of Okla- 
homa Press, 1956. 

International Congress of Americanists, 29th, New York, 1949. The 
Civilizations of Ancient America. New York, Cooper Square Pub- 
lishers, 1967. 

Jackson, Helen Maria (Fiske) Hurst. A Century of Dishonor. Bos- 
ton, Roberts Brothers, 1888. Reprinted St. Clair Shores, Mich., 
Scholarly Press, 1972. 

Jackson, K. A Study of Changes of Authority Relations hetioeen 
American Indians and Government. Doctoral thesis, Univ. of Ore- 
gon, Sept., 1971. 

Kenner, Charles L. A History of Neio Mexican Plains Indian Rela- 
tions. Norman, Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1969. 

Kilpatrick, Jack Frederick. Sequoyah of Earth and Intellect. Austin, 
Tex. Encino Press, 1965. 

Landon, Fred. Letters of Reverend James Evans, Methodist Mission- 
ary. Toronto, 1932. 

Lumpkin, "Wilson, The Removal of the Cherokee Indian from Georgia, 
1827-mi. New York, A. M. Kelley, 1971. 

McCoy, Isaac. History of Baptist Indian Missions. New York, John- 
son Reprint Corp., 1970. 



97 

McLaiiglilin, James. My Friend^ the Indian. New York, Houghton 
Mifflin Co., 1926. 

McNickle, D'Arcy. They Game, Here First: The Epic of the Ameri- 
can Indmn. New York, Harper and Row, 1975. 

Mesplie, Father. "Report of Chaplain Mesplie of Fort Boise." Army 
and Navy Journal (Apr. 6, 1878) . 

^liles, Nelson A. "The Indian Question." The North American Re- 
view, Vol. 128, No. 268 (Mar. 1879) : 304-314. 

]Moody, Marshall, "A History of the Board of Indian Conimissioners 
and Its Relationship to the Administration of Indian Affairs 
1869-1900." M.A. thesis, Washington, D.C., American University, 
1951. 

Morgan, Lewis H. "The Indian Question." The Nation, No. 700 (Nov. 
28, 1878) : 332-333. 

New York (colony) . An Abridgement of the Indian Affairs Contained 
in Four Folio Volumes. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ. Press, 
1915. 

Prescott, William Hickling. History of the Conquest of Mexico, Vols. 
1-4. New York, AMS Press, 1968. 

Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Policy. Indianapolis, Indiana 
Historical Society, 1971. 

. Americanizing the American Indian. 1973. 



. Documents of United States Indian Policy. Lincoln, Univ. 

of Nebiuska Press, 1975. 

Quimbv, George Irving. Indian Life in the Upper Great Lakes. 11,000 
B.dto A.D. 1800. Chicago, Univ. of Chicago Press, 1960. 

Rahill, Peter James. The Catholic Indian Missions amd Granfs 
Peace Policy. Washington, D.C., Catholic Univ. of America Press. 
1953-1954. 

Richardson, J. Messages of the Presidents, Vols. I-X. Washing-ton, 
D.C. 1903. 

Riggs. A. L. "What Shall We Do with the Indians." The Natimi, (Oct. 
31, 1967): 356. 

Sass, Herbert R. "The Future of the Indian Question." The North 
Ainei'iean Revieiu CLII (Jan., 1891) : 1-10. 

Satz, Ronald M. American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era. Lin- 
coln, Univ. of Nebraska Press, 1974. 



98 

Schoolcraft, Henry Howe. Historical and Statistical Information Re- 
specting the History, Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes 
of the United States. Vols. 1-5. Pliiladelpliia, Lippincott, Grambo, 
1851-1856. New York, reprinted by Paladin Press, 1969. 

Scliwarge, Edmund. History of the Moravian Blissions Among South- 
ern Indian Tribes of the United States. Bethlehem, Pa., Times 
Publishing Co., 1923. 

Shea, John Dawson Gilmary. History of the Catholic Missions Among 
the Indian Tribes of the United States, 1529-1854. New York. Arno 
Press, 1969. 

Spicer, Edward Holland. Cycles of Conquest. Tucson, Univ. of Ari- 
zona Press, 1962. 

Taylor, Graham D. ^^Anthropologists, Reformers and the Indian Neio 
DeaV Prologue, Vol. 7 (Fall, 1975) : 151-162. 

Thwaites, Reuben J. The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents; 
Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries In New France, 
lGlO-1791. Cleveland, Burrows Bros., 1896-1901. 

Tremiei-t, Eobert A. Alternative to Extinction: Federal Indian Policy 
and the Beginnings of the Reservation System, 1811.6-1851. Phila- 
delphia, Temple Univ. Press, 1975. 

Tyler, Lyman S. A Histonj of Indian Policy. Prepared for U.S. De- 
partment of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Washington, 
U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 

.Indian Affairs: A Study of the Changes in Policy of the 

United States Toward Indians. Institute of American Indian Stud- 
ies, Brigham Young Univ., 1964. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Annual Report of the Board of In- 
dian Commissioners {1869-1933). Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 
Off. 

U.S. Department of War. Annual Report of the Secretary of War 
{1789-18W). Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 

U.S. Department of War, Office of Indian Affairs. Annual Report of 
Indian Affairs {1821^-181^9). Washington, D.C., U.S. (ao-A. Print. 
Off. 

. Reports of the Commissioners of Indian Affairs 1835-1870, 36 

Vols. New York, AMS Press, 1970. 

Utley, Robert Marshall. Frontier Regulars; the United States Army 
and the Indian. New York, Macmillan Co., 1974. 

Vaughan, Alden T. New England Frontier: Puritans and Indians. 
Boston, Little, Brown, 1965. 



99 

Viola. Hermfin J. Thomas L. McKenney. Chicago, Sage Books, 197i. 

Walter. F. A. '"The Indian Question." The North American Review, 
No. 116 (Apr. 1873) : 334-335. 

Washburn, Wilcomb E. The American Indian and the United States. 
New York, Eandom House, 1973. 

. The Indian and the White Man. Garden City, N.Y., Anchor 



Books, 1964. 
.Bed Man's Land/ White Man^s Law. New York, Scribner. 



1971. 



Welsh. ''The Meaning of the Dakota Outbreak." Scrihner's Magazine, 
No. 4 (Apr., 1891) : 429-452. 

White, Eugene E. Service on the Indian Reservations. Little Eock, 
Ark., Democrat Co., 1893. 

Wilkins, Thurman. Cherokee Tragedy. New York, Macniillan Co., 
1970. 

Wissler, Clark. Red Man Reservations. New York, Collier Books, 1971. 

Young, Maiy Elizabeth. Redskins, Ru-fjieshirts and Rednecks. Nor- 
man. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, 1961. 

Outside of the United States 

Canadian Association in Support of the Native Peoples. "Aboriginal 
Rights." Bulletin, Vol. 17 (Dec, 1976). Issue devoted to aboriginal 

rights. 

Indigena and American Friends of Brazil. Supysava, a Documentary 
Report on the Conditions of Indian Peoples in Brazil. Berkeley, In- 
digena, Inc. and the American Friends of Brazil, 1974. 

INIarroquin, Alejandro. Balance del Indigenismo. Mexico City, Inter- 
American Indian Institute, 1972. 

Stavenhagen, Rodolgo. Agraidan Prohlems and Peasant Movements 
in Latin America. Garden City, N.Y., Anchor Books, 1970. 

U. S. Department of the Interior, Office of Indian Affairs. Final Act 
of the First I nter- American Conference on Indian Life, held at 
Patzcuaro, State of Michoacan, Mexico. April 14-24, 1940. Wash- 
ington, 1940. 

INTERIOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Annual Report of the Secretary of 
the Interior. 1849 to date. Washington, U.S.. Govt. Print. Off. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Survey and Review. Audit 
Operations Review of Welfare, Guidance and Relocation Activities. 
Washington, Apr., 1970. 



100 

JOHNSON-O'MALLEY ACT 

Arizona, Department of Education, Division of Indian Education. 
State of Arizona 1975-1976 Arizona Johnson-0''Malley State Edu- 
cational Plan. Phoenix, 1975. 

"J.O.M. Rip-Oif in Oklahoma." Educational Journal^ Vol. 2 (Aug., 
1973). (Institute for the Development of Indian Law, Washington 
D.C.) 

Michigan, State Board of Education. Annual Report for tlie State 
of Michigan J ohnson-0^ M alley Funds 1972-1973. Lansing, 1973. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian 
Education Resources Center. Assistance to Indians Enrolled in 
Puhlic Schools; Johnson-0''Malley Regulations : A Progress Report. 
(Research and Evaluation Report Series Xo. 15-A.) Albuquerque, 
July, 1974. 

-. Johnson-0''Malley Annual Report Fiscal Year 1972. Albu- 



querque, May, 1975. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Audit and Investigation. 
Audit of Bureau of Indian Affairs Johnson-0''Malley Contract No. 
EOOC lJi200819 with State of Alaska Department of Education for 
Education of Native Children Juneau., Alaska Period July 1972 
through June 30^ 1973. Sacramento, May, 1974. 

Audit of Bureau of Indian Affairs Johnson-CMalley Con- 



tract with the United Tribes of Norih Dakota Development Cor- 
poration for the Education of Indian Children in North Dakota 
Puhlic Schools Period July i, 1971 through June 30, 1973. Denver, 
Aug., 1974. 

Evaluation of Contract Proposal for Contract No. 11^2005- 



004005 Awarded hy the Bureau of Indian Affairs to the State of 
Idaho Department of Education for Johnson-O^Malley Education 
Program for Fiscal Year 197^. Sacramento, Feb., 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of Survey and Review. Audit 
of Bureau of Indian Affairs Contracts with Gallup-McKinley 
County Schools and Albuquerque Puhlic Schools for the Educa- 
tion of Navajo Students Residing in Federal Dormitories Period 
JuVy i, 1969 through June 30., 1971 loith a Partial Audit of Fiscal 
Year 1972. Denver, 1972. 

Audit of Bureau of Indian Affairs Contracts with t/ie State 



of Neto Mexico for the Education of Indian Children in New Mex- 
ico Puhlic Schools for the Period July 1. 1969 through June 30., 1971 
loith a partial Audit of Fiscal Year 1972. Lat:ewood, Colo., Jan., 
1973. 



101 

. Audit of Bureau of Iiidian Affairs JoliQison-O^MaUcy Con- 
tracts loith the United Sioux Tribes of South Dakota Development 
Corporation for the Education of Indian Children in South Dakota 
Public Schools dunng the Period July i, 1971 through June 30^ 1973. 
Denver, July 1974. 

Audit of Johmon-O'Malley Contract No. J 50C 11^9.02328 be- 



tween the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Calif oi-nia Tribal Chair- 
men's Association., Inc. for the Period Apnl 17., 1973 through 
June 30^ 1973 and the Association's Fiscal Year 197 J^ Proposal to the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs. Sacramento, July, 1973. 

Audit of Johnson-CPMalley Contracts betioeen the Bureau of 



Indian A fairs and the Arizona State Department of Education., 
Phoenix., Arizona^ Period July i, 1969 through June 30., 1971. Sac- 
ramento, 1972. 

-. Audit of Johnson- CM alley Financicd Assistance to the 



Gallup-McKhdey County School District, Gallup., Neio Mexico., 
Period July i, 1969 through Apnil 30, 257^.' Lakewood, Colo., June, 
1972. 



. Audit of Johnson-CMalley Financial Assistance to the Inde- 
pendent School District No. 22, Kirkland, New Mexico, Period 
July 1, 1969 through April 30, 1972. Lakewood, Colo., June, 1972. 

-. Report on Preaward Audit of Contract Proposal to the Bu- 



reau of Indian Affairs by the State of Arizoiui Department of Public 
Instruction for the Education of Indian Children Residing in Fed- 
eral Dormitones Fiscal Year 1973. Sacramento, Apr., 1973. 

U.S. Laws, Statutes. Act of Apr. 16, 193^. (Jolmson-O'Malley Act), 
73d Cong., 2d Sess. (25 U.S.C. § 452, 48 Stat. 596). 

JURISDICTION 

Adams, Roger. Application of the Assimilative Crimes Act on Indian 
Reservations. Paper presented at the United States Attorneys' Con- 
ference, Phoenix, Ariz., Jan. 27-29, 1975. 

Adams, Roger. Problems with the Major Crimes Act Presented by 
''United States v. Cleveland'' and ''United States v. Chicago." Paper 
presented at United States Attorneys' Conference, Phoenix, Ariz., 
Jan. 27-29, 1975. 

Coulter, Tim. Indian Jurisdiction. Washington, Institute for the De- 
velopment of Indian Law, 1974. 

Fawcett, J. E. S. The Law of Nations. New York, Basic Books, 1968. 

France, Floyd, Litigation Involving hulian Tribal and State Juris- 
diction. Paper presented at the United States Attorneys' Confer- 
ence, Phoenix, Ariz., Jan. 27-29, 1975. 



102 

. Recent Developments in Indian Civil Litigation. Paper pre- 
sented at the United States Attorneys' Conference, Phoenix, Ariz., 
Jan. 27-29, 1975. 

Keller, Robert H., Jr., "On Teaching Indian History : Legal Jurisdic- 
tion in Chippewa Treaties."' EthnoMstory^ Vol. 19 (Sunnner, 1972) : 

209-217. 

National .bnerican Indian Court Judges Assn. Justice and the Ameri- 
can hulian. Vol. 1 : The Impact of Public Law 280 upon the Admin- 
istration of Justice on Indian Reservations; Vol. 2: The Indian 
Judiciary and the Concept of Separation of Powers; Vol. 3: The 
Effect of Having No Extradition Procedures for Indian Reserva- 
tions: Vol. 4: Examination of the Basis of Tribal Law and Order 
Authority; Vol. 5: Federal Prosecution of Crimes Committee on 
Indian Reservations. Washington, D.C., 1974. 

Neal, Albert ]M., Jr. Legal Issues in Indian Jurisdiction. Paper pre- 
sented to the Committee on the Office of tlie Attorney General, Na- 
tional Assn. of Attorneys General, Raleigh, N.C., Dec. 1974. 

Nielsen, George O. The Doctrine of Usurpation of Jurisdiction: Self- 
Detennination hy Bootstrap. Paper submitted to Indian Legal 
Problems Seminar, Seattle, Univ. of Washinoton Law Library, 
1973. 

Pauley, Roger. S. Vs Treatment of Federal Jurisdiction over Offenses 
in Indian Country. Paper presented at the United States Attorneys' 
Conference, Phoenix, Ariz., Jan. 27-29, 1975. 

U.S. Department of the Treasury. Taxation of Indian Businesses. Let- 
ter from John S. Nolan, Acting Assistant Secretary to Harrison 
Loesch. Assistant Secretary, Public Land Management, Depart- 
ment of the Interior. July 14, 1970. 

U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service. Law En- 
forcement Prohlems on Federal Indian Reservations. Prepared by 
Richard Jones. Washington, Sept. 24, 1975. 

Waugh, Jack. "A Matter of Jurisdiction : Leased Indian Land in Le- 
gal Dispute." Tacoma News Tribune, Nov. 12, 1972. 

Public Law 83-280 

Poland. Gerald. Retrocession: The Effect upon State Se^^vices in Re- 
lation to Indian Tribes., Reservations and Indian People. Paper 
submitted to Indian Legal Problems Seminar, Seattle, Univ. of 
Washington Law Library, 1973. 

France, Floyd. Litigation involving Indian Tribal and State Juris- 
diction. PajDer presented at the tJnited States Attorneys' Confer- 
ence. Phoenix. Ariz., Jan. 27-29, 1975. 



103 

Great Lakes Inter-Tribal Council. Wisconsin Retrocession Study ^ Pre- 
liminary Report. Prepared by Jay O. Fletcher and E. H. Thoenig. 
Madison, Wis,, Feb., 1975, 

National American Indian Court Judges Association. Justice and the 
American Indian. Vol. 1 : The Impact of Public Law 280 upon the 
Administration of Criminal Justice on Indian Reservations. Wash- 
ington, D.C., 1974. 

Nebraska, Legislative Council, Interim Study Committee on Judici- 
ary. Report on Indian Retrocession., Legislative Resolution No. 50. 
Committee Report No. 226, Vol. III. Lincoln, Jan., 1976. 

U.S. Congress. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affaii-s. 
Background Report on Public Law 280. Committee I'rint, (94th 
Cong., 1st Sess, ) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 197d.. 

U.S. Laws, Statutes. An Act to Confer Jui-isdiction. Approved Aug. 
15, 1953, 83d Cong,, 1st Sess, (Public Law 83-280, 18 U. S,C, § 1162. 
67 Stat. 588). 

LAND 

Atkinson, Brooks, "Proposed Dam that Would Violate Treaty with 
Senecas Poses Moral Question." llie New York Times., Apr, 12, 1961. 

Bledsoe, Samuel. Indian Land Laws. Kansas City, Mo., Vernon Law 
Book Co., 1913. 

Chaudhuri, Joyotpaul. Native American Title and Public Policy: The 
Vanishing Point of American Jurisprudence. Paper presented at 
the International Studies Assn. meeting, Toronto, Feb., 1976. 

Friends, Philadelphia Yearly ISIeeting of. The Kinzua Dam Contro- 
versy., A Practical Solution — Without Shame. Philadelphia, 1961. 



LaConrse, Philip. Land Use and Control: An Examination of Who 
Has the Authority to Zone Washington Indian Resei^atlons. Paper 
submitted to the Indian Legal Problems Seminar, Seattle, Univ. of 
Washington Law Libraiy, May, 1971. 

National Indian Youth Council. Seneca Project Report., March 17- 
Ma.y 5, 196 Jf.. (unpublished) Prepared by Karen Rickard, Shirley 
Witt and John Winchester. 1964. 

Navajo Nation. Anatomy of the Navajo Indian Reservation : How It 
Grew. Prepared by J. Lee Correll and Alfred Dehiya. Window 
Rock, Ariz., 1972. 

Royce, Charles, comp. Indian Land Cessions in the United States, 
Reprint. New York, Arno Press, 1971. 



104 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Annual 
Report of Indian Lands. Prepared by Lila Jean Addie, Division 
of Trust Services. Washington, June 30, 1074. 

. Application of Satellite Remote Sensing Data to Land Selec- 
tion and Management Activities of Doyon^ Ltd. of Interior Alaska. 
Final Report. (BIA Contract No. E00C14201079.) Prepared by 
William Stringer, Lewis Shapiro and James Anderson. Washing- 
ton, May, 1975. 

. Indian Land Tenure., Economic Status and Population 

Trends — Part X of the Supplementary Report of the Land Plan- 
ning Committee to the Natural Resources Board. Washington, U.S. 
Govt. Print Off., 1935. 

■ . Indians and the Land. Contributions by the Delegation of the 

United States, First Inter-American Conference on Indian Life. 
Patzcuaro, JSIexico, Apr. 1940. Wasliington, 1940. 

Report 071 Purchase of Indian Land and Acres of Indian Land 



im. Trust 1931^-1975. Prepared by Theodore W. Taylor for the Office 
of Trust Responsibilities. Washington, May, 1976. 

U.S. Library of Congress, Environmental Policy Division. National 
Land Use Policy Legislation, 93d Congress. Washington, U.S. Govt. 
Print. Off., 1973. 

U.S. Public Land Law Review Commission. One Third of the NatiorCs 
Land. Washington, June, 1970. 

Wilkinson, Cragun and Barker, Law Offices. B.I. A. Land Management 
Activities in South Dakota Criticized. General Memorandum No. 
75^9. Washington, Aug. 22, 1975. 

Claims 

Allis, Samuel. "This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land.-' 
Neio Englander, Vol. 23 (Jan., 1977) : 18-23. 

LeBlond, David T. Compensable Rights in Orighml Indian Title. 
Paper submitted to the Indian Legal Problems Seminar. Seattle, 
Univ. of Washington Law Library, June, 1971. 

Native American Rights Fund. Indian Claims Commission Decisions. 
35 Vols. Boulder, 1973. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. Designation 
of Beneficial Owners of the XL Ranch., Modoc County., California. 
Memorandum to the Secretary of the Interior. January 3, 1975. 

U.S. Indian Claims Commission. Annual Report. Washington, 1975. 



105 

Leasing 

Hughart, David. "Informational Asymmetry, Bidding Strategies, and 
the ]\Iarketing of Offshore Petrolemn Leases." Journal of Political 
Economy, Vol. 83 (Oct., 1975) : 969-986. 

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. Coal Leasing Resolution ^51-75. Fort 
Yates, N. Dak. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Annual 
Report of Indian Land and Income froin Surface and Subsurface 
Leases as of June 30, 1974- Prepared by the Division of Trust Serv- 
ices. Washington, 1974. 

. Final Environmental Statement Crow Ceded Area Coal Lense, 



Tracts II and III, Westmoreland Resources. Billings, Mont., 1976. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. A 
Scientific and Policy Review of tlie Federal Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Prototype Oil Shale Leasing Program of the 
Department of the Interior. Prepared by Katherine Fletcher and 
Malcolm Baldwin, The Institute of Ecology. Washington, Oct. 29, 
1973. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. Drg.ft 
Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Federal Coal Leasing 
Program. 2 Vols. (DES 74-53) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 
1974. 

A Scientific and Policy Revieio of the Draft Environmental 



Impact Statement for tJie Proposed Federal Coal Leasing Program 
of the Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior. 
Prepared by Katherine Fletcher, The Institute of Ecology. Wash- 
ington, 1974. 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Competition. Report to 
the Federal Trade Commission on Mineral Leasing on Indian Lands. 
(draft) Washington, Oct., 1975. 

ISIENOMINEE RESTORATION 

Native American Rights Fund. The Menominee Restoration Act: 
Legal Analysis. Prepared by Charles Wilkinson, Yvonne Knight 
and Joseph Preloznik. (National Indian Law Library, Boulders No. 
001971) Boulder, 1973. 

Shames, Deborah, ed. Freedom ivith Reservation: The Menoininee 
Struggle to Save Their Land and People. Madison, Wis., National 
Committee to Save the Menominee People and Forests, 1972. 

Wisconsin. Department of Health and Social Services, Bureau of 
Health Statistics. Menominee County— Births, DeatJis and Popula- 
tion 1968-1972. Madison, Oct., 1974. 



106 

MICRONESIA 

Cliowdhuri, Ramendra. International Mandates and T'imsteeship Sys- 
tems. The Hague, 1955. 

Conference on the History of the Territories of the U.S. The American 
Territorial System. Athens, Ohio Univ. Press, 1973. 

Fifth Congress of Micronesia. Report of the Eastern District Subcom- 
mittee to the Joint Committee on Future Status. 1973. 

Fifth Congress of Micronesia. Report on the United Nations Trustee- 
ship Council., Fortieth Session, 1973. 1974. 

Fifth Congress of Micronesia. Report of the Westei'n Distnct Sub- 
committee to the Joint Committee on Future Status. 1973. 

Heine, Carl. Micronesia at the Crossroads. Australian National Univ. 
■ Press, 1974. 

Kahn, Ely. A Reporter in Micronesia. New York, Norton & Co., 1966. 

McHenry, Donald, Micronesia: Ti'ust Betrayed. New York, Carnegie 



Mink, Patsy. "A Call for Self-Government : 'Idyllic' Islands and the 
Interests of a Superpower." The Los Angeles Times, May 3, 1976. 

Pearse, Richard and Keith Bezanson. Education and Modernization 
in Micronesia: A Case St'ody in Development and Development 
Planning. Stanford Univ., 1971. 

Rich, Spencer. "Marianas Acquisition is Voted." The Washington 
Post, Feb. 25, 1976. 

United Nations Trusteeship Council. Report of the United Nations 
Visiting Mission to the Trust Temtory of the Pacific Islands. New 
York, 1970. 217 pp. 

United Nations Trusteeship Council. Report of the United Nations 
Visiting Mission to the Trv,st Territory of the Pacific Islands. New 
York, 1973. 130 pp. 

U.S. Office of Micronesian Status Negotiations. The Future Political 
Status of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands. 7 Vols. Wash- 
ington. 

MINERAL RESOURCES 

Adelman, M. A. The World Petroleum Market. Baltimore, The 
Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1972. 

Callaway, D. G., J. E. Levy and E. B. Henderson. "The Effect of 
Power Production and Strip Mining on Local Navajo Populations." 
Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin, No. 22 (June, 1976) : 114 pp. 



107 

Cox, J. C. and A. W. Wrigiit. "The Determinants of Investment in 
Petroleum Eeserves and Their Implications for Public Policy." 
American Economic Review, Vol. 66 (Mar., 1076) : 153-167. 

Environmental Policy Center. Facts About Coal in the United States. 
Prepared by John L. McCormick. Washington, D.C., Feb., 1975. 
36 pp. 

Ford Foundation, Energy Policy Project. Exf>loring Energy Choices: 
A Preliminary Report. Washington, D.C., 197-1. 

Environmental Studies Board. Rehahilitation Potential of Western 
Coal Lands. Cambridge, Mass. Ballinger Pub, Co., 1974. 

Gordon, Suzanne. Black Mesa: The Angel of Death. New York, John 
Day Co., 1973. 

"Indian Coal Fight Tests U.S. Policies." The Washington Post., 
June 11, 1973. 

Kentfield, Calvin, "New Showdown in the West." The New York 



Kolstad, Charles. The 1975 Energy Production System in the States 
of the Rochy Mountain Region. (LA-6621:) Los Alamos, N. j\Iex., 
Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory of the Univ. of California, Dec, 
1976. 

Leland, Hayne E. Optimal Risk Sharing and the Leasing of Natural 
Resources ., with Application to Oil and Gas Leasing on the 00 S. 
(Working Paper No. 38, Eesearch Program in Finance, Graduate 
School of Business Administration, Univ. of California) Berkeley, 
Dec, 1975. 

Lipton, Charles J. Fiscal Aspects of Negotiating Third World Min- 
eral Development Agreements. Paper presented at the lOitli x\nnual 
]\Ieeting for the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical and 
Petroleum Engineers, Feb. 18, 1975. 

National Coal Association. Bituminous Coal Facts. Washington, D.C., 
1972. 

National Congress of American Indians. Proceedings., Indian Energy 
Conference., August £S, £9, 1974. Billings, Montana (unj)ublished). 
Washington, D.C. 1974. 

Robbins, Lynn. "The Impact of Power Developments on the Navajo 
Nation." Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin, No. 7 (Apr., 
1975) :22 pp. 

Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foundation. Institute on Indian Land 
Develoj)ment — Oil, Gas, Coal and Other Minerals. A Conference at 
the Brannif Place Hotel, Tucson, Ariz., Apr. 1-2, 1976. 



108 

Smith, David N. and Louis T. Wells, Jr. Negotiating Third 'World 
Mineral Agreements : Promises as Prologue. Cambridge, Mass., Bal- 
linger Publishing Co., 1975. 

Stacks, John F. Stripping. San Francisco, Sierra Club, 1972. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Final Environmental Statement. 
Proposed Development of Coal Resources in the Eastern Powder 
River Goal Basin of Wyoming. 6 Vols. Washington, Oct. 18, 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Scientific and Policy Review of the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Federal 
Coal Leasing Program of the Bureau of Land Management. Pre- 
pared by Katherine Fletcher, The Institute of Ecology. Washing- 
ton, D.C., 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Alffairs. Projected 
Coal Development Crow Indian Reservations., Draft Programmatic 
Environmental Statement. (DES75-2) Washington, 1975. 

. Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Cherokee 

Indian Reservation, Jackson and Swain Counties., North Carolina. 
Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bureau of Mines. (Administrative 
Report BIA-6) Washincrton, 1975. 



. Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Colville In- 
dian Reservation., Washington. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bu- 
reau of JMines (Administrative Report BIA-5) Washington, 1975. 



. Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Crow Indian 

Reservation , Montana. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bureau of 
Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-7) Washington, 1975. 

Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Fond du Lac, 



Grand Portage. Leech Lake., Mille Lacs, Nett Lake., and White Earth 
Indian Reservations., Minnesota. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bu- 
reau of JMines for the B.I.A. (Administrative Report BIA-1) Wash- 
ington, 1975. 

Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Gila Bend,, 



Papago., and San Xavier Indian Reservations^ Arizona. Prepared 
by U.S.G.S. and the Bureau of Mines. (Administrative Report 
BIA-9) Washington, 1975. 

Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Northern 



Cheyenne Indian Reservation^^ Montana. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and 
the Bureau of Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-3) Washington, 
1975. 

Status of Mitieral Resource Information for the Red Lake In- 



dian Reservation, Minnesota. Prepared by U.S^G.S. and the Bureau 
of Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-2) Washington, 1975. 



109 



— — . Status of Mineral Resource I^iformation for tJie /Spokane In- 
dian Reservation, Washington. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bu- 
reau of Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-10) Washington, 1975. 



. Status of Mineral Resource Information for the Unitah and 

Ouray Reservations, Utah. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bureau of 
Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-i) Washington, 1975. 

-. Status of Mineral Resource Information for tJie Wind River 



Indian Reservation, Wyoming. Prepared by U.S.G.S. and the Bu- 
reau of Mines. (Administrative Report BIA-8) Washington, 1975. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Mines. Minerals Year- 
book 1972. Vol. I : Metals, Minerals and Fuels ; Vol. II : Area Re- 
ports : Domestic. Washington, 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. El Paso Coal 
Gasification Project, New Mexico Draft Environmental Statement. 
(DES 74-77) Washington, July 16, 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Adminis- 
trative Report: A Cursory Review of Potential Mineral Occurrences 
on Indian Lands. Washington, Nov. 18, 1974. 

Anomolous Concentrations of Several Metals in Iron-Forma- 



tion of the Blue Lead Mountain Area, Pennington County, South 
Dakota. Prepared by W. H. Raymond, R. U. King and J. J. Norton. 
(Geological Survey Circular 707) Washington, 1975. 

. Classification of Lands on Colville Indian Reservation. Wash- 



ington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 

. Comments on the Findings and Recommendations of the 



OA & I Audit Report of June 9, 1975, entitled, "Review of Royalty 
Accounting System for Onshore Oil and Gas Leases, Geological Sur- 
vey." Washington, June 12, 1975. 



. Federal a/nd Indian Lands Coal, Phosphate, Potash, Sodium, 

and Other Mineral Production Royalty Income and Related Statis- 
tics, Fiscal Year 1975. Washington, Mar., 1976. 



. Federal and. Indian Lands Oil and Gas Production, Royalty 

Income and Related Statistics, Calendar Year 1971^.. Washington, 
June, 1975. 

Geology of Epigenetic Uranium Deposits in Sandstone in the 



United States. Prepared by Warren I. Finch. (Geological Survey 
Professional Paper 538) Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1967. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Energy, Minerals 
and Industry. First Year Work Plan for a Technology Assessment 
of Western Energy Resource Development, Socioeconomic Environ- 



no 

ment Studies Services. (EPA-600/5-75-001) Washington, :Mar., 
1976. 

U.S. Federal Energy Administration. Initial Report on Oil and Gas 
Resources^ Reserves and Productive Capacities. Washington, U.S. 
Govt. Print. Off., June, 1975. 

Project Independence: A Summary^ Washington, U.S. Govt. 



Print. Off., Nov., 1974. 

Project Independence Report. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. 



Off., Nov., 1974. 

-. The Natural Gas Shortage : A Preliminary Report Washing- 



ton, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., Aug., 1975. 

U.S. Federal Trade Commission, Bureau of Competition, Bureau of 
Economics. Report to the Federal Trade Corrvmission on Federal 
Energy Land Policy: Eficiency^ Revenue., and Competition. Oct., 
1975. 

Ziontz, Alvin J. Indian Self-Determinaton: New Patterns for Min- 
eral Development. (Paper 13.) Rocky Mountain Mineral Law Foun- 
dation, 1976. 

NATURAL RESOURCES 

Americans for Indian Opportunity. Real Choices in Indian Resource 
Development. Report presented at Reston Conference, Reston, Va.. 
Sept, 16-18, 1974. Washington, 1974. 



. Real Choices in Indian Resource Development: Alternatives 

to Leasing. Report presented at Billings Conference, Jan. 30-Feb. 1, 
1975. Washington, 1975. 



. A Question of Power: Indian Control of Indian Resource 

Development. Report presented at Racine Conference, Racine, Wis., 
Sept. 21-23, 1975. Washington, 1975. 

-. A Violation of Trust? Federal Management of Indian Forest 



Lands. A.I.O. Red Paper prepared by Rich Nafziger. Washington, 
Mar. 3, 1976. 

California. Senate. Subcommittee on Indian Affairs. Senate Fact 
Finding Committee on Natural Resources. Sacramento, Senate of 
the State of Calif., Jan., 1961. 

Gaffney, Mason, ed. Extrative Resources and Taxation. Madison, 
Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1967. 

Josephy, Alvin M., Jr. "Indians and Environmentalists." The New 
York Times, Nov. 27, 1975. 



Ill 

U.S. Natural Resources Board. A Report on National Planning and 
Puhlic Works in Relation to National Resources Including Land 
Use and Water Resources with Findings and Recommendations. 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1934. 

Univ. of California, Division of Agricultural Sciences. "The Benefits 
and Costs to Landowners f rom" Geothermal Lease and Develop- 
ment." Cooperative Extension Bulletin No. 1876 (1976). 

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, U.S. (O.E.O.) 

Indian Opportumties: A Summary of Indian Participation in O.E.O. 
Programs. Compiled bv Univ. Consortium: Arizona State-Utah- 
South Dakota. 1968. 

LT.S. Office of Economic Opportunity. Self -Determination: A Pro- 
gram of Accomplishments. Arizona Affiliated Tribes, IMay, 1971. 

U.S. Office of Economic Opportunity, Community Action Program. 
Green Poioer: Consumer Action for the Poor. Washington, Aug., 
1969. 

OKLAHO^Ii^ 

Harlow, Victor Emmanuel, Oklahoma History. Norman, Okla., Har- 
low Publishing Corp., 1967. 

Oklahoma Laws, Statutes. Constitution of Oklalioma. Articles 10, 25. 

U.S. Laws, Statutes. Oklahonm Organic Act. Approved May 2, 1890 
(43 U.S.C. § 1091, 26 Stat. 81). 

PREFERENCE, INDIAN 

Funkp, Karl. "Education Assistance and Employment Preference: 
Who is an Indian?'- Vol. IV. No. 1. American Indian Law Revieio 
(1975). 

U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Indian Health 
Service. Distribution of Ftdl-Time Employment as of December 31^ 
1973. Revised Feb. 13, 1974. Prepared by Financial Management 
Branch. (Mimeo) Washington, 1974. 



. Distrihution of Fidl-Time Em^ployinent as of December 31^ 

197Ji. Prepared bv JFinancial Management Branch. Washington, 
Feb. 6, 1975. 



. Distribution of Full-Time Employment as of December 31., 

1975. Prepared bv Financial Management Branch. Washington, 
Feb. 24, 1976. 

Report on Employment and Indian Preference in the Indian 



Health Service. Prepared bv the National Indian Health Board. 
(HIS Basic Ordering Agreement No. HSA 80-74-588, Task Order 
No. 4.) Denver, Dec. 15. 1974. 



112 

U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Indian Pref- 
erence — A Preference to Conduct Self-Govemment. Prepared by 
F. Browning Pipestem for the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 
(Mimeo) Washington, 1968. 

-. Itidian Preference Policy. Memorandum to Area Directors, 



Central Office Directors. July 11, 1975. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Office of the Solicitor. Definition of 
'■'' Indian''"' for Preference Eligihility. Memorandum to Commissioner 
of Indian Affairs, Apr. 10, 1975. 

RECOGNITION 

Chamberlain, Tony. '"Vanishing Americans." Boston Globe., Oct. 5, 
1975. p. 14. 

Barber, Carroll. Trilingualism in Pascua: The Social Functions of 
Language in an Arizona Yaqui Village. M.A. thesis, Univ. of Ari- 
zona, Tuscon, 1952. 

Downs, Ernest C. A Recognizable Tunica Indian Comrrmnity ; Docu- 
mentation of the Tunica-Biloxi-Ofo'Avoyel Gormrmnity near 
Marhsville., Louisiana. Institute for the Development of Indian 
Law, Washington, D.C., 1976. 

Dumanoski, Dianne. ''Battling to Regain a Lost Past." The Boston 
Phoenix^ Aug. 26, 1975. 

Maine. Treaty with the Penobscot Tribe of Indians., August 17., 1820. 
(970.3, p. 41) Bangor, Bangor Public Library. 

Massachusetts. Report to the Governor and Council Concerning the 
Indians of the Commonwealth. Under the Act of April 6. 1859. 
Boston, William White, Printer to the State. 1861. 

Massachusetts. Treaty with the Penobscot Tribe of Indian.^. June 29, 
1818. Bangor, Bangor Public Library. 

Native American Rights Fund. Federal Recognition and the Passama- 
quoddy Decision. Prepared by Thomas Tureen. Washington, D.C., 
1976. 

Small Tribes of Western Washington (STO^VAV). Position Paper 
on the Federal Recognition Issue. Sumner, Wash., 1975. 



. Petition of the Steilacoom Tribe of Indians to the Secretary^ of 

the Interior for Formal Federal Recognition as an Indian Tribe. 
Sumner, Wash., 1975. 

-. Petition of the Cowlitz Trihe of Indians to the Secretary of 



the Interior for Federal Recognition as a Recognized Indian Tribe. 
Sumner, Wash., Sept. 22, 1975. 



113 

Spicer, Edward H, Pascua: A Taqui Village in Arizona. Chicago. 
Univ. of Chicago Press, 1940. 

-. "Potam : A Yaqui Village in Sonora.'' American Anthropolog- 



ical Assn.^ Vol. 56 (1954). Memoir #77. 

Tamarin, Alfred H. We Have Not Vanished: Eastern Indians of the 
United States. Chicago, Follett Pub. Co., 1974. 

Tiger, Ellen D. Federal Recognition of Northwest Treaty Tribes: An 
Arbitrary Policy. Paper submitted to Indian Legal Problems Semi- 
nar, Univ. of Washington Law Library, Spring, 1972. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Noith Carolina Advisory Commit- 
tee. Economic and Political Problems of Indians in Robeson County. 
Washington, July, 1974. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bur-eau of Indian Affairs, Portland 
Area Office. Federal Recognition of Indian Tribes. Memorandum 
to CoiTLinissioner of Indian Affairs. Portland, Oreg., 1973. 

U.S. Laws, Statutes. An Act to provide for the conveyance of certain 
land of the United States to the Pascua Yaqui Assn. Approved 
Oct. 8, 1964, 88th Cong., 2d Sess. (Private Law 88-350) . 

Washington, Governor's Indian Advisorj- Council, Non-Reservation 
Council. Position Paper and Recommendation Regarding Federal 
Recognition. Olympia, July 12, 1976. 

Willard, William. The Coinmunity Development Worker in an Ari- 
zona Yaqui Project. M.A. thesis, L^niv. of Arizona, Tucson, 1970. 

SOVEREIGNTY 

Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Indian Sovereignty. 
Washington, D.C. 1975. 

Vattel, M. de. The Law of Nations; or Principles of the Law of Na- 
ture., Applied to the Conduct and Ajfairs of Nations and Sovereigns. 
Philadelphia, T. and J. W. Johnson & Co., 1863. 

STATE-INDIAN RELATIONS 

Arizona, Commission on Indian Affairs. Survey of the San Carlos 
Reservation. Phoenix. 

California, State Advisory Commission on Indian Affairs. Final Re- 
port to the Governor and the Legislature. Sacramento, 1969. 

California, Department of Housing and Community Development. A 

Report With Recommendations on State Governmental Organiza- 
tion and Legislative Histoid of California Indians. Sacramento, 
June, 1974. 



114 

Maine, Department of Indian Affairs. State of Maine: A Gominla- 
tion of Laws Pertaining to Indians. Augusta, Jan., 1974. 

Minnesota, Indian Affairs Commission. Report to the Eonordble Har- 
old LeVander., Governor of Minnesota^ and the Members of the Min- 
nesota Legislature. Lansing, 1969. 

Oregon. Legislative Assembly. Senate Bill 386, Establishes ll-Memher 
Commission on Indian Services. Salem, 1975. 

South Dakota, Department of Commerce and Consumer Affairs. 
Where We'' re At. . . . Statistical Report on the Status of Minori- 
ties and Women in South Dakota. Prepared by ]Mary Ellen Mc- 
Eldowney. Pierre, 1973. 

South Dakota. Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 7. For Detailed 
Study of Indian-State Kelations. Pierre, 1973. 

South Dakota, Office of the Governor. Executive Order 73-8, Creat- 
ing a Task Force on Indian-State Relations. Pierre, June 11, 1973. 

South Dakota, Task Force on Indian-State Relations. Report. 
Pierre, June 30, 1974. 

Southwestern Indian Development, Inc. A Proposal to PJioenix City 
Government, the Phoenix City Council, Mayor John Driggs, Phoe- 
nix City Manager and All Concerned Residents of the City of 
Phoenix Regarding the Proposed 1972-1973 Federal Revenue Shar- 
ing Budget Recommendations and the Unmet Needs and Growing 
Discontent within the Phoenix Indian Communitv. Phoenix, Ariz., 
1972. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Maine Advisory Committee. Fed- 
eral and State Services and the Maine Indian. Washington, Dec, 
1974. 

U.S. Statutes, Laws. An Act to Establish the Territorial Government 
of Washington. Approved Mar. 2, 1853 (10 Stat. 172) . 

Washington, Governor's Indian Affairs Task Force. The People 
Speah: Will You Listen? Olympia, 1973. 

TAXATION 

Fidell, Eugene R. Taxes, Development and American Indians, Bach- 
ground Policy and Alternatives. Paper submitted to Seminar on 
Tax Reform, Cambridge. ^lass., Harvard Univ. Law Librarv, Apr. 
15, 1968. 

Native American Rights Fund. Indian Taxation, Tribal Sovereignty 
and Economic Development. Prepared by Daniel Israel and Thomas 
Smithson. (National Indian Law Library), Boulder, Colo., 1972. 



115 

U.S. Bureau of the Census. A Report on Indians Tcxxecl and Indians 
Not Taxed in the United States at the Eleventh Census, 1890. Pub- 
lished 1894. Eeprint, New York, AMS Press, 1970. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Arizona 
State Indian Seminar. Subcommittee Report on Taxation and Serv- 
ices to Arizona Reservation Indians. Phoenix, 19T3. 

Wliite, Jay Vincent. Taxing Those lliey Found Here. Washington, 
D.C., Institute for the Development of Indian Law, 1972. 

TER]SnNATION 

Bunting, David and W. T. Trulove. Sonne Experiences with Guaran- 
teed Incomes and Lump Sum Payments : The Case of the Klamath 
Indians. Paper presented to the American Assn. for the Advance- 
ment of Science, Dec. 20, 1970. 

Embry, Carlos. America's Concentration Camps: the Facts about 
Our Indian Reservations Today. New York, D. McKay, 1956. 

Fey, Harold. "Lidian Rights and American Justice." The Christian 
Centuiyj. Reprints Chicago, Christian Century Foundation, 1955. 

-. "Our National Indian Policy." The Christian Century., Yol. 



72 (Mar. 30, 1955). 

Management Specialists. Klamath Indian Tribe; Tentative Manage- 
ment Plan, Vol 1, 1957. (mimeo) Eugene, Univ. of Oregon Special 
Collections. 

Mobley, Keith. The Klamath Indians : Federal Trusteeship 186 1^-195 J^. 
Department of Economics, Univ. of Oregon Project: The liquida- 
tion of a Southern Oregon Indian Reservation, 1971. 

Oregon, Department of Education. Termination and the Klamath 
Indian Education Program, 1955-61. Compiled by Hiroto Zakoji. 
Salem, 1961. 

Ray, Verne. The Klamath Indians and. Their Forest Resources. In- 
dian Claims Commission Plaintiffs Exhibits R-1, Docket No. 100- 
B-2, Washington, D.C., 1973. 

Sayers, Jerome and John Volkman. A Statistical Profle of tJw Can- 
federated Tnbes of Siletz Indians. Portland, Oreg., Center for 
Urban Education, Jan., 1976. 

Stanford Research Institute. Preliminary Planning for Termination 
of Federal Control over the Klamath ^Tnhe. (Project No. 1-1440) 
Apr., 1956. 

Stern, Theodore, The Klamath Tnbe. Seattle, Univ. of Washington 
Press, 1965. 



116 

Tnilove, W. T. and David Bunting. The Economics of Paternalism: 
Federal Policy and the KlamatJi Indians. Paper presented at the 
46th Annual Convention Western Economics Assn., Simon Fraser 
Univ., Biirnabv, B.C., Canada, Aug. 30, 1971. 



U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Proi 
WitJidrawal of Federal Responsibilities over the Property and Af- 
fairs of the Indians of ^Vestern Oregon. Prepared by E. Morgan 
Prj^se, Director, Portland Area Ofnce. Dec, 1953. (National 
Archives of the U.S.. Senate, Kecord Group 46) 

-. Withdratoal of Federal Supervision Grande Ronde and Siletz 



Jui'i.sdietion, State of Oregon. Eeport by E. Morgan Pryse, Port- 
land Area Office. Portland, Jan. 11, 1952. 

U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Indian Affairs, Commis- 
sioner. Withdraioal Prograrwrning. Memorandum to all Bureau offi- 
cials. Aug. 5, 1952. 

General Position of the Bureau loith Respect to Withdrawal. 



jNIemorandum to all Area Directors, Oct. 10, 1952. 

. Report on Expediting Transfer of Bureau of Indian Affairs 

Education Responsibilities. Memorandum to all Area Directors, 
Feb. 19, 1953. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. Status of 
Neic York Indians. Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Af- 
fairs (D-65-1130.9), May 12, 1965. 

Watkins, Arthur. "Termination of Federal Supervision of Indians." 
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences., 
Vol. 311, 1957. 

TEEATIES 

All Indian Pueblo Council. The Right to Remain Indian; the Failure 
of the Federal Government to Protect Indian Land and Water 
Rights. 

Crandall, Samuel Benjamin. Treaties, Their Making and Enforce- 
ment. New York, Columbia Univ. Press, Macmillan Co., agents, 
1904. 

Fay, George. Treaties and Land Cessions Betioeen the Bands of the 
SioKx and the United States of America. (Colorado State College 
Occasional Publications in Anthropology. Ethnology Series, No. 1.) 
Greeley, Colorado State College Press, 1972. 

Institute for the Development of Indian Law. Treaties and Agree- 
ments. Vols. : Southwest, Five Civilized Tribes, Eastern Oklahoma, 
Great Lakes Region, Chippewa Indians, Northern Plains, and 
Pacific Northwest. The American Indian Treaties Series. Vol. 1-A, 
Chronological List of Treaties and Agreements made by Indian 
Tribes in the United States, Washington, D.C., 1973. 



117 

Kappler, C. and J. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. 4 Vols. Wash- 
ington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off. 

McNair, Arnold Duncan. The Law of Treaties. Oxford, England, Ox- 
ford Univ. Press, 1961. 

Snow, Alplieus Henry. The Question of Aho7igines in the Law and 
Practice of Nations. New York, G. P. Putnam's Sons, 1921. 

Stevens, Isaac I. The Treaty Between the United States and the 
D'waniish., SuqvMmish^ and Other Allied and Subordinate Tribes of 
Indians in Washington Territoinj. 1855. Seattle, Shorey Publica- 
tion?, 1971. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Office 
of Trust Responsibilities. The Role of Trustee — How Shall the 
Govei^vtnent Serve? Prepared by Martin E. Seneca, Jr. Washing- 
ton, 1974. 

Vatell, Emmerich de. The Law of Nations. Philadelphia, T. and J. 
W. Johnson & Co., 1857. 

Walker, F. A. "The Indian Question." The North American Review., 
Vol. 116 (Apr., 1973) : 329-888. 

"Wliarton, Francis. A Digest of the International Law of the United 
States. Vols. 1-3. Washington, D.C., U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1886. 

TRIBAL GOVERNMENT 

Geneil\l 

Eastern Band of Cherokecs, Cherokee Tribal Government. Cherokee 
Progress and Challenge. Cherokee, N.C., 1971. 

Fay, George E. Charters, C onMiUitions and By-Laws of Indian Tribes 
of North Arnerica. (Colorado State Occasional Publications in An- 
throix>logy. Ethnology Series, No. 1.) Greeley, Colorado State Col- 
lege Press, 1967. 

Grant, James B. Indian Justice Planning Project, 1971 (Arizona, 
Colorado, New Mexico, Utah). Santa Fe, N. Mex., National Indian 
Justice Planning Association, 1971. 

Hargrett, Lester. A Bibliography of the Constitutions and Laws of 
the Amencan Indians. Cambridge, Mass., Harvard Univ. Press, 
1947. 

Israel. Daniel H, The Reemergence of Trihal Nationalism. Boulder, 
Colo. Native American Rights Fund, 1976. 

Kent, Calvin A. and Johnson, Jeriy W. Flow of Funds on the Ya^ihton 
Sioux Indian Reservation. Mimieapolis, Ninth District Federal Re- 
serve Bank, June, 1976. 



118 

National American Indian Court Judges Assn. Justice and the Ameri- 
can Indian^ Vol. 4 : Examination of the Basis of Tribal Law and 
Order Authority. Washington, D.C., 1974. 85 pp. 

Noon, John A. The Law ami Government of the Grand River Iro<2uois. 
1949. Reprinted. New York, Jolmson Reprint Corp., 1970. 

Parker, Alan. Indian Tribes as Governments. American Indian Law- 
yer Training Program, Washington, D.C. New York, John Hay 
Whitney Foundation, 1975. 

Rosenthal, Betty. Indian Leadership in Neio England, 1973. Lexing- 
ton, jMass., Intercultural Studies Group, 1973. 

Tribal Courts 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Office of the Solicitor. A Model 
Code for Tribal Courts. Report, Apr., 1975 (FF ) . 112 pp. 

National American Indian Court Judges Assn. Justice and the Ameri- 
can Indian., Vol. 2 : The Indian Judiciary and the Concept of Sepa- 
ration of Powers. Washington, D.C, 1974. 

TRUST RELATIONSHIP 

Snow, Henry. The Question of Aborigine in the Law mrd Practice of 
Nations. (Study for the Department of State) Washington, D.C, 
1921. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. Staff Memorandum: Constitutional 
Status of American Indians. Office of Information and Publications, 
Washington, 1973. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch of 
Investments. Report Regarding Indian Trust Funds. Albuquerque, 
1975. 

URBAN AND RURAL INDIANS 

"American Indian Relocation : Problems of Dcpendencv and jManago- 
ment in the City." Phylon (Winter, 1965) : 362-371. 

Chadwick, Bruce A., Howard M. Bahr and Joseph M. Stauss. Indian- 
White Relationships in the Metropolis: The Seattle Case. Depart- 
ment of Sociology, Washington State Univ., 1975. 

Craig, Gregory W., Arthur M. Harkins and Richard G. Woods. Indian 
HoiLsing in Minneapolis and Saint Paid. Minneapolis, Training 
Center for Community Programs, Univ. of JSIinnesofca, 1969. 

Drilling, Laveme, Arthur M. Harkins and Richard G. Woods. The 
Indian Relief Recipient in Minneapolis: An Exploratory Study. 
Minneapolis, Training Center for Communitv Programs, Univ. of 
IMinnesota, 1969. 



119 

Frantz, Charles. The Vr'han Migration and Adjustment of American 
Indians Since lOJiO. Haverford, Pa., Department of Sociology, 
Ilaverford College, 1951. 

Ilarkins, Arthur :M. and Eichard G. Woods. The Social Programs and 
Political Styles of Minneapolis Indian: An Interim Report. Min- 
]ieapolis, Training Center for Community Programs, Univ. of 
Minnesota, 1969. 

Gaillard, Frve. "Cities Contradict Lumbers' Values." Race Relations 
Reporter, Vol. 2 (June 21, 1971) : 6-9. 

Gibbons, Richard, et al. Iiulian Americans in South Side Minneapolis. 
Additional Field Notes from the Urban Slum. Minneapolis, Train- 
ing Center for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Goodner, James. Indian Americans in Dallas: Migrations., Missions 
and Styles of Adaptation. Minneapolis, Training Center for Com- 
munity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1969. 

Harkins, A. and R. Woods. Attitudes of Minneapolis Agency Person- 
nel Toward Urhan Indians. Minneapolis, Training Center for Com- 
munity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1968. 

, Indian Americans in Duluth: A Summary and Analysis of 

Recent Research. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community 
Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Harkins, Arthur M., I. Karon Sherarts and Richard G. Woods. The 

Teachers of Minneapolis Junior High School Indian Children: A 
Second '•'■Prohlem SchooV Minneapolis, Training Center for Com- 
munity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Ilarkins, Arthur M., Mary L. Zemyan and Richard G. Woods. Indian 
Americans in Omaha and Lincoln. Minneapolis, Training Center 
for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Hippler, Arthur E. From Village to Town: An Intermediate Step in 
the Accidturation of Alaska Eskimos. Minneapolis, Training Cen- 
ter for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Hodge, William. The Albuquerque Navajos. Tucson, Univ. of Ari- 
zona Press, 1969. 

Madigan, LaV. The American Indian Relocation Program. Report 
for Assn. on American Indian Affairs, Inc. Dec, 1956. 

Nagata, Shuichi. Modern Transformations of Meonhopi Peuhlo. Ur- 
bana, Univ. of Illinois Press, 1970. 

National Indian Training and Research Center. Urhan Indian Study; 
A Phoenix Urhan Study of Indian People-s Opinions and Attitudes, 
Demography and Population Density. Tempe, Ariz., 1971. 



120 

Neils, Elaine M. Reservation to City: Irulian Migration and Federal 
Relocation. Chicago, D<,'partment of Geography, Univ. of Chicaso. 
1971. 

Neog, Prafulla. The Cldcago Imlians: The Effects of Urhan Migra- 
tion. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Programs, Univ. 
of Minnesota, 1970. 

Price, John A. American Indians in Los Angeles: A Study of Adap- 
tations to a City. (Papers of the 1966 U.C.L.A. Ethnographic Field 
School) Los Angeles, 1966. 

Skobroten and Wolens. Indians of the Urban Slums: Field Notes 
from Minneapolis. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community 
Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Smucker, Barbara Claassen. Wigivam in the City. (1st ed.) New York, 
Button, 1966. 

Snyder, Peter. Social Assimilation arul Adjustment of Navajo Mi- 
grants to Denver, Colorado. (Navajo Urban relocation Research 
Project No. 13) Boulder, Institute of Behavioral Sciences, Univ. 



Suttles, Gerald. The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Terri- 
tory in the Inner City. Chicago, IJniv. of Chicago Press, 1968. 

U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Rural Poverty ami Regional Progress in 
an Urban Society^ Fourth Report of the Task Force on Ecnomic 
Growth and Opportunity^ Washington, D.C., 1969. 

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, Minnesota Advisory Committee. 
Bridging the Gap: The Twin Cities Native American Community^ 
Washington, 1975. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. Rural 
Indian Americans in Poverty. Prepared by Helen Johnson, Wash- 
ington, 1969. 

U.S. Departmet of Health, Education, and Welfare, Administration 
on Aging. Economic and Social Problems of the Elderly Urban In- 
dian in Phoenix, AHzona. Prepared bv Hirsh Kaplan and Benjamin 
J.^ Taylor. (RHEW, SRS Research Grant Xo. 93-P-750-11/9-04) 
Wasliington, 1972. 



, Research Results Concerning the Economic and Social Prob- 
lems of the Elderly Urban Indian in Phoenix, Arizona. Prepared 
by R. D. Eck and R. D. St. Louis. (RHEW, SRS Research Grant 
No. AA-4-70-063-03) Washington, 1972. 

U.S. Department of Interior, Office of Survey and Review. Review 
of Welfare^ Guidance and Relocation Activities, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs. Washington, 1970. 



121 

U.S. Vice President, National Council on Indian Opportunity 
(NCIO). Pnhlic Forum hefore the Committee on Urban Indians in 
Dallas^ Texas of the National Council on Indian Opportunity. 
Washington, 1969. 



. Public Forum before the Committee on Urban Indians in Los 

Angeles^ California of the National Council on Indian Opportunity. 
Washington, 1968. 



. Public Forum before the Committee on Urban India,ns in Min- 

neapolis-St. Paul., Minnesota of the National Council on Indian 
Opportunity. Washington, 1969. 

. Public Forum before the Committee on Urban Indians in 

Phoenix., Arizmm. of the National Council on Indian Opportunity. 
Washington, 1969. ' 

Public Forum before the Committee on Urban Indians in San 



Francisco., California of the National Council on Indian Oppor- 
tunity. Washington, 1969. 

Waddell, Jack O. American Indian Urbanization. Lafayette, Ind., In- 
stitute for the Study of Social Change, Purdue Univ., 1973. 

Waddell, Jack O. and Michael Watson. The American Indian in 
Urban Society. Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1971. 

Weppner, Robert, The Economic Absorption of Navajo Indian Mi- 
grants to Denver., Colorado. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 
Univ. of Colorado, 1968. 

White, Robert A. Summary Progress Report: The Development of 
Collective Decision Making Capacity in an American Indian Com- 
munity. St. Louis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, St. 
Louis Univ., 1970. 

Woods, Richard G. and Arthur M. Harkins. An Examination of the 
1968-1969 Urban Indian Hearings Held by the National Council on 
Indian Opportunity. Part I : Education ; Part II : Interracial As- 
pects; Part III: Indian Self-Definitions; Part IV: The Indian 
Center. IMinneapolis, Training Center for Community Programs, 
Univ. of Minnesota, 1971. 

. Indian Americans in Chicago. Minneapolis, Training Center 

for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1968. 

. Indian Employment in Mimiesota. IMinneapolis, Training Cen- 
ter for Community Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1968. 

-. A Review of Recent Research on Minneapolis Indians : 1968- 



1969. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Programs, 
Univ. of Minnesota, 1969. 



122 

Woods, Richard G. and Arthur M. Harkins. Rural and City Indians 
in Minnesota Prisons. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community 
Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

Zemyan, Mary and Arthur Harkins. Educational and Related Charac- 
teristics of Urhan Indians in the United States : A Selective Sum- 
mary of 1960 Census Data. Minneapolis, Training Center for Com- 
munity Programs, Univ. of Minnesota, 1970. 

WATER RESOURCES 

"The American Indian and the Land— 1974." Part 2: The Indian 
Water Wars. Education Journal^ Voh 2, No. 7 (1975) (Institute for 
the Development of Indian Law. Washington, D.C.) 

Anderson, Alison. "An Expendable People : Power and Water in the 
American Southwest." Ecologist^ Vol. 5 (Aug.-Sept. 1975) : 237- 
240. 

Federal Energy Administration. Project Independence. Water Re- 
sources Council. ^Yater Requirements^ Availabilities^ Constraints 
and Recommended Federal Actions. Nov., 1974. 

Kiechel, Walter, Jr. Summary of Landmark Cases on Indian Water 
Rights. Paper presented at the United States Attorneys' Confer- 
ence, Jan. 28-29, 1975. Phoenix, Ariz. 

Kelso, Maurice M. Water Supplies and Economic Growth in an Arid 
Environment. Tucson, Univ. of Arizona Press, 1973. 

Mann, D., G. Weatherford and P. Nichols. "Legal-Political History 
of Water Resource Development in the Upper Colorado River 
Basin," No. 4, Lake Powell Research Project Bulletin, National 
Science Foimdation, Sept., 1974. 53 pp. 

Mann, Dean E. The Politics of Water in Arizona. Tucson, Univ. of 



National Water Commission. New Directions in U.S. Water Policy: 
Summary^ Conclusions and Recommendations. Wasliington, U.S. 
Govt. Print. Off., 1973. 

U.S. Armv, Corps of Engineers. Cheyenne River, S. Dakota, and 
Wyoming. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1932. 

. Cho/enne River: Flood Control, Power Development, Irri- 

■ 1932. 



. White River and Tributaries, South Dakota and Nebraska. 

June, 1973. 50 pp. 

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation. San Juan- 
Chama and Navajo Indian Projects. Letter. Washington, U.S. Govt. 
Print. Off., 1960. 



123 



. Supplemental Report^ Congos Division: San Luis Valley 

Project Report No. 5-101-1. Rio Grande Basin, Colo. Branch of 
Project Planning. Washington, 1947. 

. Supplemental Report on Rio Grande and Weminuche Pass 

Divisions. San Luis Valley Project, Colo. Division of Planning, 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1955. 

Water and Land Resource AccojnplishTnents^ 1973 Summary 



Report. Washington, Sept. 11, 1974. 

Veeder, William H. Federal Encroachment on Indian Water Rights 
and the Impairment of Reservation Development. 91st Cong., 1st 
Sess., Joint Committee Print; Toward Economic Development for 
Native American Communities, Vol. 2, Part II: Development Pro- 
grams and Plans. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1969. 

Viessman, Warren. San Juan-Ohama and Navajo Indian Projects: 
Related Impacts in the San Juan River Basin. June 12, 1975. 64 pp. 

Wardlaw, Rebecca E. "The Irrigable Acres Doctrine." Natural Re- 
sources Journal., Vol. 15 (Apr., 1975) : 375-384. 



SPECIAL MATERIALS 

BIBLIOGRAPHIES 

.'An Account of Conferences Held, and Treaties Made, "between Major- 
Goieral Sir William Johnson, Dart., and the Chief Sachems and 
Wairriors of the Mohawks, Oneidas, Onondagas, etc. Lancaster, Pa., 
Lancaster Press Inc., 1930. 

BreAvton, Berry, Comp. The Education of AmeHcan Indians, A Sur- 
vey of the Literature. (Committee print, 91st Cong., 1st Sess., 1969.) 
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1969. 

I Columbia Univ. Index Digest of State Constitutions. (2d ed.), New 
York, 1959. 

. Expert Testimony hefore the Indian Claims Commission. Index to 
the Expert Testimony hefore tJie Indian Claims Commission. New 
York, Clearwater Pub., Co., 1973. 

Fenton, William Nelson. American Indian and White Relations to 
1830, Needs and Opportunities for Study. Williamsburg, Va., Univ. 
of North Carolina Press, 1957. 

Funke, Karl A. and Kirke Kickingbird. "The Role of Native Ameri- 
cans in American Legal History." Paper presented to the American 
Assn. of Law Libraries, Institute on American Legal History, Har- 
vard Law School, June 26, 1976. Law Lihrary Journal, Vol. 69, 
No. 4 (Nov., 1976) : 474-493. 

Gookin, Daniel. Historical Collection of the hidians in Neio England.. 
New York, Amo Press, 1972. 

Harkins, Arthur. A Bibliography of Urban Indiana in the United 
States. Minneapolis, Training Center for Community Programs,. 
Univ. of Minnesota, July, 1971. 

Hodge, William H. A Bibliography of Contemporary North Ameri- 
can Indians: Selected and Partially Annotated with Study Guides.. 
New York, Interland Publishing, 1975. 320 pp. 

Honkala, Rudolf A. Surface Mining and Mined Land Reclamation,. 
A Selected Bibliography. Washington, D.C. The Old West Re- 
gional Commission, Oct., 1974. 

Indian Treaties Printed by Benjamin FranMin: 1736-1762. Philadel- 
phia, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1938. 

(125) 



126 

Index to Literature on the Ainerican Indian. San Francisco, Indian 
Historian Press, 1970. 

Locklear, Jane Maynor and Drenna J. Oxendine. "The Lumbee In- 
dians : A Bibliography." The Indian Historian (Winter, 1974) : 
32-54. 

Medicine, Beatrice. "The Role of Women in Native American Socie- 
ties: A Bibliography." The Indian Historian^ Vol. 8, No. 3 (Sum- 
mer, 1975) : 50-53. 

Miirdock, George Peter. Ethnographic Bibliography of North 
America. New Haven, Conn., Human Relations Area Files Press, 
1975. 

Native American Rights Fund ; National Indian Law Library Cata- 
logue. (Cumulative ed.) Boulder, Colo., 1976. 

Sabatini, Joseph D. A Selective Bibliography of Material in the Uni- 
versity of Neio Mexico Law Library'' s Special Collection in Ameri- 
can Indian Law. (rev. ed.) Albuquerque, American Indian Law 
Center, School of Law, Univ. of New Mexico, Apr., 1972. 21 pp. 

Smithsonian Institution; List of Publications of the Bureau of Eth- 
nology with Index to Authors and Titles. (Bureau of American 
Ethnology, Bulletin 200.) Washington, D.C., 1970. 

Smithsonian Institution, Center for the Study of Man. Current North 
American Indian Periodicals. Leaflet 75-7. Washington, D.C. 26 pp. 

"Sources of American Indian Law." George Grossman, panel mod- 
erator. Law Library Journal., Vol. 67, No. 4 (Nov., 1974) : 494. 

South, Charles E. Hearings in the records of the U.S. Senate amd 
Joint Committees of the Congress. Washington, D.C., National 



Swanton, John Reed. Source Material for the Social and Ceremonial 
Life of the Choctaw Indians. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 
1931. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Health Services 
and Mental Health Admin. Selected Bibliography {Indians and 
Health). No. 71-24, May 25, 1971. 6 pp. 

U.S. Departmnt of Health, Education and Welfare, Indian Health 
Service. Index to General Counsel Opinions. May 1975. Wash- 
ington, D.C. 34 pp. 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Clear- 
inghouse for Alcohol Information. Siibject Area Bibliography on 
Compendium of Ongoing Alcoholism Research. Part B: American 
Indians, Eskimos. Washington, June 1974. 



127 

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, National Library 
of Medicine. Indian Health in the U.S. and Canada.^ January 1964- 
August 1968. Bethesda, Md. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. Digest of Decisions: Cases Relating 
to the Public Lands. Vols. 1-61. Washington, D.C. 

U.S. Library of Congress, National Referral Center. A Directory of 

Infomiation Resources in the U.S.: Social Sciences. Washington, 
Library of Congress, 1973. 

U.S. National Archives. List of Documents Concerning the Negotia- 
tion of Ratified Indian Treaties, 1801-1869. Millwood, N.Y., Kraus 
Reprint Co., 1975. 

U.S. National Historical Publications Committee. A Guide to Ar- 
chives and Manuscripts in the United States. New Haven, Conn., 
Yale Univ. Press, 1961. 

Webb, Vincent J. Indian Justice : A Research Bibliography. ]Monti- 
cello, 111., Council of Planning Libraries, Exchange Bibliography 
1134,1976.67 pp. 

Yale Univ. Department of Anthropology. Ethnographic Bibliogra- 
phy, Vol. 1. New Haven, Conn,, Yale Univ. Press. ^ 

Bibliographic Services 

Classified Abstract Archive of Alcohol Literature. Box 566, Rutgers 
Univ. Center of Alcohol Studies, New Brunswick, N.J. 

National Clearinghouse for ISIental Health Information (National 
Institute for Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health, Educa- 
tion, and Welfare). 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852. 

National Criminal Justice Reference Service (National Institute of 
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, Law Enforcement Assist- 
ance Administration, U.S. Department of Justice) Washington 
D.C. 

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (National Insti- 
tute of Mental Health, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and 
Welfare). 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Md. 20852. 

National Library of Medicine (U.S. Deprtment of Health, Education, 
and Welfare). National Interactive Retrieval Service. 8600 Rock- 
ville Pike, Bethesda, Md. 20014. 



FEDERAL COURT CASES ON AMERICAN INDIAN ISSUES 

[The list below represents some of the cases examined by the 
Commission staff.] 

1809-1955 

Buster X. Wright, 135 F. 947 (8th Cir. 1905) . 
Buttz V. Northern Pacific R.R., 119 U.S. 55 (1886) . 
Cherokee Nations. Georgia,2>0\].^. (5 Pet.) 1 (1831). 
Draper v. United States, 164 U.S. 240 (1896) . 
Ex Parte Crow Doq, 109 U.S. 556 (1883) . 
Ex Parte Tilden, 218 F. 920 (D. Idaho 1914) . 
Felix V. Patrick, 145 U.S. 317 ( 1892 ) . 
Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87 ( 1810) . 
Gon-shay-ee, Petitioner, 130 U.S. 343 ( 1889) . 
nallowellx. United States,'2'll'[].'^.?>l1 (1911). 
Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe, 231 F. 2d 89 (8th Cir. 1956). 
Johnson v. Mcintosh, 8 Wheat, 543 ( 1823) . 

The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737 ( 1866) . ♦ 

Lane v. Pueblo of Santa Rosa, 249 U.S. 110 ( 1919) . 
Leahy v. Trcamirer of Oklahoma, 297 U.S. 420 (1936) . 
Lone Wolfy. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903). 
Makah Indian Tribe v. Schoettler, 192 F. 2d 224 (9th Cir. 1951). 
Miller \. United States, 159 F. 2d 997 (9th Cir. 1947) . 
Minnesotax. Hitchcock, 160 U.S. 373 (1902). 
Morris v. Hitchcock, 104 U.S. 384 (1904) . 
Neiu Yorkx. 5^ c/^er, 241 U.S. 556 (1916). 
The Neio York Indians, 5 Wall. 761 (1866) . 
Perrinx. United States,'^Z^\].^ An (1914). 
Seminole Nation v. White, 224 F. 2d 173 (10th Cir. 1955) . 
Seufert Bros. Co. v. United States, 249 U.S. 194 (1919). 
Spaidding x. Chandler, 160 U.S. 394 ( 1896) . 
SpHggs v. McKay, 228 F. 2d 31 (D.C. Cir. 1955) . 
Tee-Hut-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272 (1955). 
Toosigah v. United States, 137 F. 2d 713, (10th Cir. 1943). 
Toosi'gah v. United States, 186 F. 2d 93 (10th Cir. 1950) . 
TuJee X. Washington, 315 U.S. 681 (1942) . 

United States v. Alcea Band of TiUamocks, 329 U.S. 40 (1946). 
United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278 (1909) . 
United States x. CUnburg, 224 F. 2d 177 ( 10th Cir. 1955) . 
United States v. Jackson, 280 U.S. 183 ( 1930) . 
United States v. McCowan, 302 U.S. 535 (1938) . 
United States x. Rickert, 188 U.S. 432 ( 1903) . 
United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913) . 
United States v. Sutton, 215 U.S. 291 (1909) . 

(129) 



130 

United States v. 10.96 Acres of Land in Juneau, 75 F. Siii^p. 841 

(D.Alas. 1948). 
United States \. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905). 
United States v. Wnght',^?> F. 2d 301 (4th Cir. 1931) . 
Utah & Northern R.R. v. Fischer, 116 U.S. 28 ( 1885) . 
Ward V. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 ( 1896) . 
Whitney v. Rolertson, 124 U.S .190 (1888) . 
Williams v. United States, 327 U.S. 711 (1946) . 
Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908) . 
WovcesteryMeorgia,^l\].^. (6 Pet.) 515 (1832). 

1956 

Arenas v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 606 (S.D. Cal. 1956) . 

Chitto V. United States, 138 F. Supp. 253 (Ct. CI. 1956). 

Choctaw & Chickasaw Nations v. Seay, 235 F. 2d 30 (10th Cir. 1956). 

Demniert v. Demmert, 139 F. Supp. 325 (D. Alas. 1956). 

Forest Lumher Co. v. United States, 141 F. Supp. 953 (Ct. CI. 1956). 

Furman v. United States, 140 F. Supp. 781 (Ct. CI. 1956) , cert, denied, 

352U.S. 847 (1956). 
GiJa River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, 140 

F. Supp. 776 (Ct.CL 1956). 
Guith V. United States, 230 F. 2d 481 (9th Cir. 1956) . 
Hatahley v. United States, 351 U.S. 173 ( 1956) . 
Iron Crow v. Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Rcffervation, 231 

F. 2d (8th Cir. 1956). 
Klamath Tnhe v. Maison, 139 F. Supp. 634 (D. Ore. 1956). 
Mole Lake Band v. United States, 139 F. Supp. 938 (Ct. CI. 1956). 
New Mexico & Arizona Land Co. v. Elkins, 137 F. Supp. 767 (D.N.^NI. 

1956). 
Oglala Sioux Tribe of the Pine Ridge Reservation v. Barta, 146 F. 

Supp. 917 (D.S.D. 1956). 
Sioux Tribe v. United States, 146 F. Supp. 229 (Ct. CI. 1956). 
Squire v. Capoeman, 351 U.S. 1 (1956). 
United States v. Ahtanmn Irrigation District, 236 F. 2d 321 (9th Cir. 

1956). 
United States v. Pierce, 235 F. 2d 885 (9th Cir. 1956) . 
United States v. Preston, 232 F. 2d 77 (9th Cir. 1956) . 
United States v. Washington, 233 F. 2d 811 (9th Cir. 1956). 
United States v. West, 232 F. 2d 694 (9th Cir. 1956) . 
Yuchi Tnbe v. United States, 145 F. Supp. 206 (Ct. CI. 1956). 

1957 

Alonzo V. United States, 249 F. 2d 189 (10th Cir. 1957). 

Azure v. United States, 248 F. 2d 335 (8th Cir. 1957) . 

Barnett v. Riggs National Bank, 154 F. Supp. 75 (D.D.C. 1957). 

Chicasha Cotton Oil Co. v. Maysville, 249 F. 2d 542 (10th Cir. 1957). 

Haile V. Saunooke, 148 F. Supp. 602 (S.D.N.C. 1957) . 

Haile v. Saunooke, 246 F. 2d 293 (9th Cir. 1957) . 

Kirhwood v. Arenas, 243 F. 2d 863 (9th Cir. 1957). 



131 

Martinez v. ^oidlieyn Ute Trite, 249 F. 2d 015 (lOtli Cir. 1957). 
McCord V. Nichanorlm, 151 F. Supp. 132 (D. Alas. 1957). 
Putnam v. United States, 248 F. 2d 292 (8th Cir. 1957). 
St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. v. Francis, 249 F. 2d 546 (lOthCir. 1957). 
State ex rel. Highioay Community of New Mexico v. United States, 

148 F. Supp. 508 (D.N.M. 1957). 
Uintah & Wind River Bands of Ute Indians v. United States, 152 F. 

Supp. 953 (Ct. CI. 1957). 
United States v. 5,677.94. Acres of Land of the Croio Reservation, 152 

F. Supp. 861 (D. Mont. 1957). 
United States v. Fraser, 156 F. Supp. 144 (D. Mont. 1957). 
United States v. Lamb, 150 F. Supp. 310 (N.D. Cal. 1957). 
United States v. LaPlant, 156 F. Supp. 660 (D. Mont. 1957). 
United States v. Seaton, 248 F. 2d 154 (D.C. Cir. 1957). 
United States v. 21 MO Acres of Land, Cattaraugus County, 161 F. 

Supp. 376 (WD.N.Y. 1957). 
Upper Chehalis T rile v. United States. 155 F. Supp. 226 (Ct. CI. 

1957). 
UnUed States v. Davis, 148 F. Supp. 478 (D.X.D. 1957). 

1958 

Andrea.s v. Llenderson, 160 F. Supp. 252 (S.I). Cal. 1958) . 

Barta v. Oghda Sioux Trihe of Pine Ridge Reservation, 259 F. 2d 553 

(8th Cir. 1958). 
Da-vis V. Jones. 254 F. 2d 696 (10th Cir. 1958) . 
Forman v. United States, 256 F. 2d 766 (8th Cir. 1958) . 
Fraser \. United States, 261 F. 2d 282 (9th Cir. 1958) . 
midehrand v. United States, 261 F. 2d 354 (9th Cir. 1958) . 
Tdood V. United States. 256 F. 2d 522 (9t.h Cir. 1958) . 
Inre Carmen. 165 F. Supp. 942 (N.D. Cal. 1958). 
IvanKoe Irrigation District v. McCrachen. 357 U.S. 466 (1958). 
Prairie Band of Pottawatomie v. United States. 165 F. Supp. 139 (Ct. 

CI. 1958). 
Seneca Nation v. Brucher. 162 F. Supp. 580 (D.D.C. 1958) . 
ShepardY. United States, 162 F. Supp. 313 (D.D.C. 1958). 
Tuscarora Indian Nation v. Federal Power Convrrh'n.. 265 F. 2d 338 

(D.C. Cir. 1958) ; rev\l on other grounds. 362 TT.S. 99 (1960) . 
Tuscarora Nation v. Power Authority of New York, 161 F. Supp. 702 

(S.D.N. Y. 1958). 
Tuscarora Nation v. Power Authority of Neto YorJc. 164 F. Supp. 107 

( W.D.N. Y. 1958), modified, 257 F. 2d 885 (2d Cir. 1958), cert. fi?e- 

mec?. 358 U.S. 841 (1958). 
United States v. Booth, 161 F. Supp. 269 (D. Alas. 1958) . 
United, States; v. 5,677.94 Acres of Land of the Crow Reservation, 162 

F. Supp. 108 (D. Mont. 1958). 
United States v. Frishee, 165 F. Supp. 883 (D. Mont. 1958) . 
United States v. Kiowa, Comanche and Apaclie Trihes. 163 F. Supp. 

603 (Ct.CL 1958). 
United States v. 2,005.32 Acres of Land, Carson County, 160 F. Supp. 

193 (D.S.D. 1958). 
Wilhurton, Oklahoma v. Sioafford, 253 F. 2d 479 (10th Cir. 1958). 



132 

1959 

Dav'is V. Jones, 254 F. 2d 696 (10th Cir. 1959) . 

Foster \. United States, 183 F. Siipp. 524 (D.KM. 1959). 

Haijes V. Seaton, 270 F. 2d 319 (D.C. Cir. 1959) . 

Healing v. Jones, 174 F. Supp. 211 (D. Ariz. 1959) . 

MaysviUe, Oklahoma v. Magnolia Petroleum, Co., 272 F. 2d 806 (10th 

Cir. 1959). 
Miami Trile of Ohlahoma v. TJnlted States, 175 F. Supp. 926 (Ct. CI. 

1959). 
Native Ameivcan Church of North America v. Navajo Tribal Council, 

272 F. 2d 131 ( 10th Cir. 1959 ) . 
Nicodemus v. Washington Water Power Co., 264 F. 2d 614 (9th Cir. 

1959). 
Organized Village of JCake v. Egan, 174 F. Supp. 500 (D. Alas. 1959). 
Shokomhh Indian frihe v. France, 269 F. 2d 555 (9th Cir. 1959). 
SpHngs v. Seaton, Til F. 2d 583 (10th Cir. 1959) . 
Tlingit & Haida Indians of Alaska v. United States, 177 F. Supp. 452 

(Ct. CI. 1959). 
United States v. Camw, 169 F. Supp. 568 (E.D. Wash. 1959) . 
United States v. Davis, 148 F. Supp. 478 (D.N.D. 1959). 
United States v. Davis. 429 F. 2d 552 (8th Cir. 1959^ . 
United States v. Red Wolfe. 172 F. Supp. 168 (D. Mont. 1959). 
United States v. Seminole Nation. 173 F. Supp. 784 (Ct. CI. 1959). 
Williams V. Lee, 358 U.S. 217 (1959) . 

1960 

Anderson v. Gladden, 188 F. Supp. 666 (D. Ore. 1960) . 

Confederated Trlhes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation w Maison, 186 

F. Supp. 519 (D. Ore. 1960) . 
Croio Trlhe v. United States, 284 F. 2d 361 (Ct. CI. 1960) . 
Federal Power Commin. v. Tuscarora Indian Nation, 362 U.S. 99 

(1960). 
Fitzgerald v. Ardmore. Oklahoma, 281 F. 2d 717 (10th Cir. 1960). 
Gonmles v. Seaton. 183 F. Supp. 708 (D.D.C. 1960) . 
Haley v. Seaton. 281 F. 2d 620 (D.C. Cir. 1960) . 
Kansas City, Kansas v. United States, 192 F. Supp. 179 (D. Kan. 

1960). 
Martinez v. Southern Ute Tribe. 273 F. 2d 731 (10th Cir. 1960). 
McMoran v. Tuscarora Nation, 362 U.S. 608 (1960) . 
Metlakaila Indian Community v. Egan, 363 U.S. 555 (1960) . 
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 281 Y. 2d 202 (Ct. CI. 

1960). 
Navajo Tribe v. NLRB, 288 F. 2d 162 (D.C. Cir. 1960). 
United States v. Ballard, 184 F. Supp. 1 (D.N.M. I960) . 
United States ex rel. Pueblo of San Ildefonso v. Brewer, 184 F. Supp. 

377 (D.X.M. 1960). 
United States v. Gra/nd River Dam Authority, 363 U.S. 229 (1960). 
United States v. Hilderbrand. 190 F. Supp. 283 (D. Kan. 1960). 
United States v. Rider, 282 F. 2d 476 (9th Cir. 1960) . 



13^3 

1961 

Anderson v. Gladden, 293 F. 2d 463 (9th Cir. 1961 ) . 

Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Udall, 192 F. Supp. 626 (D.D.C. 

1961). 
Sakezzle v. Utah Indian Affairs Comm'n., 198 F. Supp. 218 (D. Utah 

1961). 
Spriggs v. United States, 297 F. 2cl 460 (10th Cir. 1961) . 
United States v. Alaska, 197 F. Supp. 834 (D. Alas. 1961) . 
United States v. Cline, 199 F. Supp. 676 (W.D.N.C. 1961). 
White foot V. United States, 293 F. 2d 658 (Ct. CI. 1961) . 
Wise V. United States, 297 F. 2d 822 (10th Cir. 1961) . 
A^avajo Tiihe v. NLRB, 288 F. 2d 162 (D.C. Ch\ 1961) . 

1962 

Armstrong v. United States, 306 F.2d 520 ( 10th Cir. 1962) . 

Asenap v. Huff, 312 F.2d 358 (D.C. Cir. 1962) . 

Bariies v. United States, 205 F. Supp. 97 (D. Mont. 1962) . 

Big Eagle v. United States, 300 F.2d 765 (Ct. CI. 1962) . 

Ora.in v. First National Bank, 206 F. Supp. 783 (D. Ore. 1962) . 

DeMaiiias v. South Dakota, 206 F. Supp. 549 (S.D.S.D. 1962). 

Dlcke V. Cheyenne- Arapaho Tribes, Inc., 304 F.2d 113 (10th Cir. 

1962). 
Foster v. First National Bank, 213 F. Supp. 884 (D. Ore. 1962). 
Healing v. Jones, 210 F. Supp. 125 (D. Ariz. 1962) . 
Metlakatla Indian Community v. Egan, 369 U.S. 45 ( 1962) . 
Oliver V. Udall, 306 F.2d 819 (D.C. Cir. 1962) . 
Organized Village of Kake v. Egan, 369 U.S. 60 ( 1962) . 
Panmee Indian Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 301 F.2d 667 

(Ct.Chl962). 
Pinto V. Tampo Largo, 205 F. Supp. 129 (S.D. Cal. 1962) . 
Running Horse v. Udall, 211 F. Supp. 586 (D.D.C. 1962) . 
Seymour v. Superintendent of Wash. State Penitentiary, 368 U.S. 351 

(1962). 
Tobey V. Udall, 202 F. Supp. 319 (D. Ore. 1962) . 
United States v. Alaska, 201 F. Supp. 796 ) D. ALas. 1962) . 
United States v. Hallam, 304 F.2d 620 (10th Cir. 1962) . 

1963 

Arlzomi v. California, 373 U.S. 546 (1963) . 
Arizona v. California, 376 U.S. 340 (1963) . 
Assiniboine arid Sioux Tribes v. Calvert Exploration Co., 223 F. Supp. 

909 (D.Mont. 1963). 
Crain v. First National Bank, 324 F.2d 532 (9th Cir. 1963) . 
BeMarrias v. South Dakota, 319 F.2d 845 (8th Cir. 1963). 
Glover v. United States, 219 F. Supp. 19 ( D. Mont. 1963 ) . 
Malson v. Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 

314 F.2d 169 ■(9th Cir. 1963) . 
Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United States, 315 F.2d 906 (Ct. CI. 

1963). 



134 

No.sh V. Wiseman. 227 F. Siipp. 552 (TT.D. Okla. 1963) . 

Prairie Band of the Pottawatomie T rile v. PucJcee, 321 F.2d 767 (lOth 

Cir. 1963). 
Reed y. United States National Bank. 213 F. Supp. 919 (D. Ore. 1963) . 
Sakezzie v. Utah Indian Affairs Comm'n. 215 F. Supp. 12 (D. Utah 

1963). 
Sioux Tribe of the Lower Bnde Reservation v. United States, 315 F.2d 

378 (Ct. CI.' 1963). 
Shohomish Indian Tribe v. France. 320 F.2d 205 (9th Cir. 1973). 
Springer v. Townsend, 222 F. Supp. 231 (X.D. Okla. 1963) . 
United States v. Moore HiU and Lumber Co.. 313 F.2d 71 (9th Cir. 

1963). 

1964 

Arizona v. California. 376 U.S. 340 (1964) . 

Bnfher V. PatenclJ. 232 F. Supp. 939 (S.D. Cal. 1964) . 

Barclay v. United States. 233 F.2d 847 (Ct. CI. 1964) . 

Cheyenne River Sioux v. United States. 388 F.2d 906 ( 1964) . 

Commissioner v. Walker. 326 F.2d 261 (9th Cir. 1964) . 

Green v. Wilson. 331 F.2d 769 (9th Cir. 1964) . 

niMerbrand v. Taylor. 327 F.2d 205 ( 10th Cir. 1964) . 

In re McCoy. 233 F. Supp. 409 (E.D.N.C. 1964) . 

Iron V. Knowles. 234 F. Supp. 327 (D. Mont. 1964) . 

Klamath <& Modoo Tribes v. Mai son. 338 F.2d 620 (9th Cir. 1964). 

Lfaf V. Udall. 235 F. Supp. 366 (X.D. Cal. 1964) . 

Pease v. Udall. 332 F.2d 62 (9th Cir. 1964) . 

Sa/' rf' Fox Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States. 340 F.2d 368 (Ct. CI. 

1964). 
Springer V. Towv^evd. 336 F.2d 397 (10th Cir. 1964). 
Udall V. Littell. 338 F.2d 537 ( D.C. Cir. 1964) . 
Urixted States v. Ahtanvm Irngation District. 330 F.2d 897 (9th Cir. 

1964). 

1965 

Bird-ln-the-Grov.nd v. District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial Dis- 
trict. 239 F. Supp. 981 (D. :sront. 1965 j . 

Bledsoe v. United Staffs. 349 F.2d 605 (10th Cir. 1965) . 

Bowman v. Udall 243 F. Supp. 672 (D.D.C. 1965) . 

Collif.oioer v. Garland. 342 F. Supp. 369 (9th Cir. 1965) . 

Daney v. United States. 247 F. Supp. 533 (D. Kan. 1965) . 

Daniels v. United States. 247 F. Supp. 193 (W.D. Okla. 1965). 

Dosdall V. Fraser. 246 F. Supp. 311 (D. Mont. 1965) . 

Ellis V. Paqe. 351 F.2d 250 (10th Cir. 1965) . 

Lltfell V. A^akai. 344 F. Supp. 635 (D.D.C. 1965) . 

Red Lake c5 Pprnhina Bands v. Turtle Mountain Band of Chlppetca 
Indians, 355 F.2d 936 (Ct. CI. 1965) . 

Simmons v. Eagle Seelatsee. 244 F. Supp. 808 (E.D. "Wash. 1965). 

Superior Oil Go. v. Umtpd States. 353 F.2d 34 (9th Cir. 1965) . 

Unfiled States ex rel. Rolling son v. Blackfeet Tribal Court. 244 F. 
Supp. 474 (D. Mont. 1965) . 

United States v. Emmons. 351 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1965) . 

United States v. Preston. 352 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1965) . 



135 

Warren Trading Post v. Arizona State Tax Coninvn., 380 U.S. 685 
(1965). 

Yoder v. Assinihoine atid Sioux Tribes of the Fort Peck Indian Reser- 
vation, 339 F.2d 360 (9th Cir. 1965). 

1966 

Attochknie v. Udall, 2G1 F. Supp. 876 (W.D. Olda. 1066). 

Cheinak v. Fodder, 259 F. Supp. 910 (1966). 

Cherokee v. United States, 355 F.2d 945 (Ct. CI. 1966). 

Chewie v. Lock, 261 F. Supp. 830 ( X.D. Okla. 1066 ) . 

Choctaxc (£• Chickasaw Nations v. Board of County Commissioners, 361 

F.2d932 (10th Cir. 1966). 
Confederated Trihes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation v. Maison, 

262 F. Supp. 871 (D.' Ore. 1966). 
Hinton V. Udall, 364 F.2d 676 (D.C. Cir. 1966). 
Holt V. Commissioner, 364 F.2d 38 (8th Cir. 1966) . 
Hot Oil Service, Inc. v. Hall, 366 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1966) . 
Maryland Gas Co. v. Citizens National. Bank. 361 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 

1966). 
Midwestern Developments, Inc. v. Tulsa. 259 F. Supp. 554 (X.D. Okla. 

1966). 
Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States, 364 F.2d 320 (Ct. CI. 1966) . 
Navajo Trihe of Indians v. United States, 368 F.2d 279 (Ct. CI. 1966). 
Peoria Trihe of Indians of Oklahoma v. United States. 369 F.2da001 

(Ct. CI. 1966). 
Prairie Band of the Pattaiv atomic Trihe of Indians x. Udall. 355 F.2d 

364 (10th Cir. 1966). 
QuinaiJt Trihe of the Quinault Reservation v. GaJlaqher. 368 F.2d 648 

(9th Cir. 1966). 
UdaJl V. Littell, 336 F.2d 668 (D.C. Cir. 1966) . 
United States v. Bruisedhead, 248 F. Supp. 999 (D. Mont. 1966). 
United States v. Daney, 370 F.2d 791 (10th Cir. 1966) . 
United States v. Gomez. 250 F. Supp. 535 (D.X.M. 1966). 
United States v. 9,34^5.53 Acres of Land, Cattaraugus County. 256 F. 

Supp. 603 (W.D.X.Y. 1966). 
United States v. Red Bear, 250 F. Supp. 633 (D.S.D. 1966) . 
United States v. Russell. 261 F. Supp. 196 (E.D. Okla. 1966) . 
Whitehird v. Eagle-Piclier Co., 258 F. Supp. 308 (X.D. Okla. 1966) . 

1967 

Appleton V. Kennedy, 268 F. Supp. 22 (X.D. Okla. 1967). 
Assinihoine and Sioux Trihes v. Nordwick 378 F.2d 426 (9th Cir. 

1967). 
Atewoof taker v. Udall, 277 F. Supp. 464 (TT.D. Okla. 1967) . 
Beardsley v. United States. 387 F.2d 280 (8th Cir. 1967) . 
Citizen Band of Pottawatomie Indians of Oklahoma v. United States, 

391F.2d614(Ct. CI. 1967). 
Couch V. Udall. 265 F. Supp. 848 (W.D. Okla. 1967). 
Disney v. Pritzker, 385 F.2d 572 (7th Cir. 1967) . 
Finch V. United States, 263 F. Supp. 309 (W.D. Okla. 1967). 



136 

Finch V. United States, 387 F.2d 13 (lObh Cir. 1967) . 

Gray v. United States, 394 F.2d 96 (9ith Cir. 1967) . 

Harkins v. United States, 375 F.2d 239 ( 10th Cir. 1967) . 

Heifleman v. Udall, 378 F.2d 190 ( 10th Cir. 1967) . 

Eolcomb V. Confederated Triles of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 

382 F.2d 1013 (9th Cir. 1967). 
Kickapoo Trihe of Kansas v. United States, 372 F.2d 980 (Ct. CI. 

1967). 
Lawrence v. United States, 381 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1967). 
Letois V. General Services Administration, 377 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 

1967). 
McKay v. United States, 274 F. Supp. 1022 (D.N.D. 1967). 
Menominee Trihe v. United States. 388 F.2d 998 (Ct. CI. 1967). 
Rundle V. Udall, 379 F.2d 112 (D.C. Cir. 1967) . 
Sam V. United States, 385 F.2d 213 (10th Cir. 1967) . 
Simons v. Udall, 276 F. Supp. 75 (D. Mont. 1967). 
SnoquaXmi£ TriU v. United States, 372 F.2d 951 (a. CI. 1967) . 
T%Dvn Cities Chippewa Tribal Council v. Minnesota Chippewa Tnhe, 

370 F.2d 529 (9th Cir. 1967). 
United States v. Bennett County, 265 F. Supp. 249 (D.S.D. 1967). 
Walks on Top v. United States, 372 F.2d 422 (9th Cir. 1967). 

1968 

Acunia v. United States, 404 F.2d 140 (9th Cir. 1968) . 

Asenap v. United States, 283 F. Supp. 566 (W.D. Okla. 1968). 

Attocknie v. Udall, 390 F. Supp. 636 (10th Cir. 1968) . 

Beams v. United States, 294 F. Supp. 1218 (E.D. Okk. 1968) . 

Bennett County v. United States, 394 F.2d 8 (8th Cir. 1968) . 

Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma v. Oklahoma, 402 F.2d 739 (lOth Cir. 

1968). 
Choctaio Nation v. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 396 F.2d 578 

(10th Cir. 1968). 
Choctaw Nation v. Shull, 396 F. 2d 583 (10th Cir. 1968). 
Choctaw Nation v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry., 396 F.2d 582 (10th 

Cir. 1968). 
Choctaw Nation v. Udall, 404 F.2d 97 ( 10th Cir. 1968) . 
David V. Littell, 398 F.2d 83 (9th Cir. 1968) . 
Dodge v. Nahai, 298 F. Supp. 17 (D. Ariz. 1968) . 
Fori Berthold Reservation v. United States, 390 F.2d 686 (Ct. CI. 

1968). 
Gourneau v. United States, 390 F.2d 320 (8th Cir. 1968). 
Gray v. Johnson, 395 F.2d 533 (10th Cir. 1968), cert, denied, 392 U.S. 

906 (1968). 
Kirk V. Kirk, 295 F. Supp. 1001 (D. Ore. 1968) . 
Mann v. United States. 399 F.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1968). 
Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968). 
Motah V. United States. 402 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1968) . 
Mull V. United States. 402 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1968) . 
Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States. 390 U.S. 468 (1968). 
Poafpybitty v. Skelly Oil Co.. 390 U.S. 365 (1968). 
PocateUo v. United States, 394 F. 2d 115 (9th Cir. 1968). 
Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 391 U.S. 392 (1968) . 



137 

Rayonier, Inc. v. Poison, 400 F.2d 909 (9tli Cir. 1968) . 

Seifert v. Udall, 280 F.Supp. 443 (D. Mont. 1968) . 

Simons v. Vinson, 394 F. 2d 732 (5th Cir. 1968). 

Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska v. United States, 389 F.2d 778 

a. CI. 1968). 
Tweedy v. Texas Co., 286, F. Siipp. 383 (D. Mont. 1968) . 
Udall V. Taunah, 398 F.2d 795 (10th Cir. 1968). 
United States v. Gila River-Maricopa Indian Community, 391 F.2d 

53 (9th Cir. 1968). 
United States v. Northern Poiute Nation, 393 F.2d 786 (Ct. CI. 1968). 
United States v. Vidles, 282 F. Supp. 829 (D. Mont. 1968) . 
Whitehird v. Eagle-Picher Co., 390 F. 2d 831 (10th Cir. 1968) . 
PoafpyMtty v. Skelly Oil Co., 390 U.S. 365 (1968). 

1969 

Agua CaZiente Band of Mission Indians v. County of Riverside, 306 

F. Supp. 279 (S.D. Cal. 1969) . 
Arizona ex rel. Merrill v. Turtle, 413 F.2d 683 (9th Cir. 1969) . _ 
Bumgamer v. Ute Indian Trihe of Uintah and Ourey Reservation, 417 

F.2d 1305 (10th Cir. 1969). 
Cheyenne River Sioux Tribes v. United States, 338 F.2d 906 (8th Cir. 

1969). 
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Trihes of the Flathead Reserva- 
tion V. United States, 401 F.2d 785 (Ct. CI. 1968), cert, denied, 393 

U.S. 1055 (1969). * 

Dodge v. Nahai, 298 F. Supp. 26 (D. Ariz. 1969) . 
Fontenelle v. Omaha Trihe of Nebraska, 298 F. Supp. 855 (D. Ariz. 

1969). 
nigh Horse v. Tate, 407 F.2d 394 (10th Cir. 1969) . 
Hopkins v. United States, 4:U F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1969) . 
Marsh v. Union Pacific R.R., 304 F. Supp. 478 (D. Ore. 1969). 
Scholder v. United States, 298 F. Supp. 1282 (S.D. Cal. 10G9). 
Settler v. Lameer, 419 F.2d 1311 (9th Cir. 1969) . 
Settler v. Yakima Tribal Court, 419 F.2d 486 (9th Cir. 1969) . 
Shapiros. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 (1969). 
Sohappy v. Smith, 302 F. Supp. 899 (D. Ore. 1969) . 
Spotted Eagle v. Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation, 

301 F. Supp. 85 (D. Mont. 1969). 
United States v. Native Village of Unalakleet, 411 F.2d 1255 (Ct. CI. 

1969). 
United States ex rel. Bumette v. Valandra, 300 F. Supp. 312 (D.S.D. 

1969). 
WilUa.ms v. United States, 406 F.2d 704 (9th Cir. 1969), cert, denied, 

394 U.S. 959, (1969). 

1970 

Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 431 F.2d 1349 (10th 

Cir. 1970). 
Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 619 (1970) . 
Fields V. United States, 423 F.2d 380 (Ct. CI. 1970) . 
Fontenelle v. Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, 430 F.2d 143 (8th Cir. 1970). 
Gila River Pima-M aricopa Indian Community v. United States, 4:'27 

F.2d 1194 (Ct. CI. 1970). 



138 

Great Lakes Inter-tribal Council^ Inc. v. Voigt, 309 F. Siipp. 60 (W.D. 

Wise. 1970). 
Hehah V. United States, 428 F.2d 1334 (a. CI. 1970) . 
Mescalero Apache THhe v. Hickel, 432 F.2d 956 (10th Cir. 1970). 
Littell V. Hickel, 314 F. Supp. 1176 (D. Md. 1970) . 
Pinnow v. Shoshone Tribal Coimcil, 314 F. Supp. 1157 (D. Wyo. 

1970). 
Reyos v. t/m^ec? /S'z^a^Jes, 431 F.2d 1337 ( 10th Cir. 1970) . 
SchoUer v. United States, 428 F.2d 1123 (9th Cir. 1970) . 
Sisseton & Wahpeton Tribes v. United States, 423 F.2d 1386 (Ct. CI. 

1970). 
Tewa Tesuque v. Morton, 498 F.2d 240 ( 10th Cir. 1970) . 
Tooahnippah (Goombi) v. Hickel, 397 U.S. 570 (1970). 
United States v. Alpine Land & Reservoir Co., 431 F.2d 763 (9th Cir. 

1970). 
United States v. Assiniboine Tribes, 428 F.2d 1324 (Ct. CI. 1970). 
United States v. Ohilds, 429 F.2d 603 (9th Cir. 1970) . 
United States v. Davis, 429 F.2d 552 (8th Cir. 1970) . 
United States v. Delaware Tribe, 427 F.2d 1218 (Ct. CI. 1970). 
United States v. Fishing Vessels Pan Alaska, St. John and Junior, 315 

F. Supp. 10005 (D. Alas. 1970) . 
United States v. Hombuckle. 422 F.2d 391 (4th Cir. 1970) . 
United States v. Kinney, 437 F.2d 407 (9th Cir. 1970) . 
United States v. Southern Ute Tribe or Band, 423 F.2d 346 (Ct. CI. 

1970). 
United States v. 10.69 Acres of Land, Yakima County, 425 F.2d 317 

(9th Cir. 1970). 
United States v. Wheeler, 434 F.2d 1195 (9th Cir. 1970) . 
Ute Indian Tribes v. Probst, 428 F.2d 491 (10th Cir. 1970) . 

1971 

Akers v. Morton, 333 F. Supp. 184 (D. Mont. 1971) . 

Annis v. Dewey County Bank, 335 F. Supp. 133 (1971) . 

Big Eagle v. United States, 323 F. Supp. 60 (D.S.D. 1971) . 

Carter v. Carlson, 447 F.2d 358 (D.C. Cir. 1971), rev'd., 409 U.S. 418 

(1973). 
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flaihead Reservation 

V. United States, 437 F.2d 458 {Ct. CI. 1971) . 
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation 

V. Vulles, 437 F.2d 177 (9th Cir. 1971) . 
Davis V. Morton, 335 F. Supp. 1258 (D.N.M. 1971) . 
Fondahn v. Native Village of Tyonek, 450 F.2d 520 (9th Cir. 1971). 
Grmindhog v. Keeler, 442 F.2d 674 (10th Cir. 1971) . 
Guardianship of Pietro v. City of Palm Springs, 328 F. Supp. 716 

(C.D.Cal.l971). 
Henry v. United States, 432 F.2d 114 (9th Cir. 1971) . 
Kennerly v. District Court of the Ninth Judicial District, 400 U.S. 423 

(1971). 
Kills Crow V. United States, 451 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1971) . 
Klamath c& Modoc Tribes v. United States, 436 F.2d 1008 (Ct. CI. 

1971). ' ^ 



139 

Leech Lake Band of Chippewa Indians v. Herhst^ 334 F. Supp. 1001 

(Ct. CI. 1971). 
Lefthand v. Crow Tnbal Council, 329 F. Supp. 728 (D. Mont. 1971). 
Loncassion v. Leekity, 334 F. Supp. 370 (D.N.M. 1971) . 
Luxon V. Rosehud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, 337 F. Supp. 243 

(D.S.D. 1971). 
Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. Village of Walfhill, 334 F. Supp. 823 (D. 

Neb. 1971). 
Otradovec v. First Wisconsin Trust Co., 322 F. Supp. 108 (E.D. Wis. 

1971). 
Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. County of San Diego, 324 F. Supp. 

371 (S.D. Cal.1971). 
Rockbridge v. Lincoln, 449 F.2d (9th Cir. 1971) . 
Slattery v. Arapahoe Tribal Council, 453 F.2d 278 (10th Cir. 1971). 
Solomon v. LaRose, 335 F. Supp. 715 (D. Neb. 1971) . 
Stevens v. Comm\. of Internal Revenue, 452 F.2cl 741 (9th Cir. 1971). 
, United States v. Beg ay, 441 F.2d 1136 (10th Cir. 1971) . 
United States v. Brown, 334 F. Supp. 536 (D. Neb. 1971) . 
,Vnited States v. Burland, 441 F.2d 1199 (9th Cir. 1971) . 
United States v. Consolidated Mines & Smelting Co., 455 F.2d 432 (9th 

Cir. 1971). 
. United States v. DeMarrias, 441 F.2d 1304 (8th Cir. 1971 ) . 
, United States v. Jeioett, 438 F.2d 495 (8th Cir. 1971) . 
JJnited States v. Joe, 452 F.2d 653 (10th Cir. 1971) . 
■.United States v. Babbitt, 334 F. Supp. 665 (D. Mont. 1971) . 
United States v. LeMay, 330 F. Supp. 628 (D. Mont. 1971) . 
L'nited States v. Martine, 442 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1971) . 
.United States v. Southern Ute Tribe or Band, 402 U.S. 159 (1971) . 

1972 

.Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U.S. 128 (1972). 
Aqua Caliente Band of Mission Indians Tribal Council v. City of 

Palm Springs, 347 F. Supp. 42 (CD. Cal. 1972). 
Cherokee Nation v. Oklahoma, 461 F.2d 674 (10th Cir. 1972). 
Neioton, North Dakota v. United States, 454 F.2d 121 (8th Cir. 1972). 
Confederated Salish and Kootenai THhes of Montana v. United States, 

467 F.2d 1315 (Ct. CI. 1972) . 
Dillon V. Antler Land Co., 341 F. Supp. 734 (D. Mont. 1972). 
Gila River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community v. United States, 467 

F.2dl351 (Ct. CI. 1972). 
Hamilton v. Nakai, 453 F.2d 152 (9th Cir. 1972), cer?^. denied, 406 U.S. 

945 (1972). 
Kelly V. Department of Interior, 399 F. Supp. 1095 (N.D. Cal. 1972). 
Luxon V. Rosebud Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, 455 F.2d 698 (8th Cir. 

1972). 
Mason v. United States. 461 F.2d 1364 (Ct. CI. 1972). 
Montana Power Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 459 F.2d 863 (D.C. 

Cir. 1972). 
Northern Cheyenne Tribe v. Uollowbreast, 349 F. Supp. 1302 (D. 

Mont. 1972). 
•Otradovec \. First Wisconsin Tnist Co., 454 F.2d 125 (7th Cir. 1972). 



140 

QuecTian Tribe v. Rose, 350 F. Supp. 106 (S.D. Cal. 1972). 

RoUmon v. Wolff, 349 F. Supp. 514 (D. Neb. 1972). 

RoUnson v. Wolff, 468 F.2d 438 (8th Cir. 1972) . 

Ruiz V. Morton, 462 F.2d 818 (9th Cir. 1972) . 

Salt River Pima-MaHco'pa Indian Community v. Arizona S <& R Co., 

353 F. Supp. 1098 (D. Ariz. 1972). 
Seneca Constitutional Rights Organization v. George, 348 F. Supp. 

51 (W.D.N.Y. 1972). 
Sessions, Inc. v. Morton, 348 F. Supp. 694 (CD. Cal. 1972). 
United States v. BooTie, 347 F. Supp. 1031 (D.N.M 1972). 
United States v. Jim, 409 U.S. 80 (1972) . 
United States v. Kdbinto, 456 F.2d 1087 (9th Cir. 1972) . 
United States v. Keeble, 259 F.2d 757 (8th Cir. 1972) . 
United States v. Lewiston Lime Co., 466 F.2d 1358 (9th Cir. 1972). 
United States v. Neptune, 337 F. Supp. 1028 (D. Conn. 1972). 
United States v. Schwarz, 460 F.2d 1365 (7th Cir. 1972). 
United States, v. Thomas, 469 F.2d 145 (8th Cir. 1972). 
United States ex. rel. Condon v. Erickson, 344 F. Supp. 777 (D.S.D. 

1972). 
Ware v. Richardson, 347 F. Supp. 344 (W.D. Okla. 1972). 

1973 

Aleut Community of St. Paul Island v. United States, 480 F. 2d 831 

(Ct. CI. 1973). 
Baciarelli v. Morton, 481 F. 2d 610 (9th Cir. 1973) 
Brown v. United States, 486 F. 2d 658 (8th Cir. 1973) . 
Daly V. United States, 483 F. 2d 700 (8th Cir. 1973) . 
DeMarnas v. United States, 487 F. 2d 19 (8th Cir. 1973) . 
Department of Game v. Puyallup Trihe, 414 U.S. 44 (1973). 
EdwardsenY. Morton, 369 F. Supp. 1359 (D.D.C. 1973) . 
Enterprise Electric Co. v. Blackfeet Trile, 353 F. Supp. 991 (D. Mont. 

1973). 
Fort Mohave Trile v. LaFollette, 478 F. 2d 1016 (9th Cir. 1973) . 
Friends of the Earth v. Armstrong, 360 F. Supp. 165 (D. Utah), cert. 

denied, 414 U.S. 1171 (1974). 
Friends of the Earth v. Armstrong, 485 F. 2d 449 (9th Cir. 1973). 
Kale V. United States, 489 F. 2d 449 (9th Cir. 1973) . 
Laramie v. Nicholson, 478 F. 2d 315 (9th Cir. 1973) . 
Lohnes v. Cloud, 366 F. Supp. 619 (D.N.D. 1973) . 
McClanahan v. Arizona Tax Cormnission, 411 U.S. 164 (1973). 
Mescalero v. Jones, 411 U.S. 145 (1973) . 
Moses V. Kinnear, 490 F. 2d 21 (9th Cir. 1973) . 
Natn. Indian Youth Council v. Bruce, 366 F. Supp. 313 (D. Utah 

1973), ayfW., 485 F. 2d 97 (10th Cir. 1973). 
O'Neal V. Cheyenne River Sioux Trihe, 482 F. 2d 1140 (8th Cir. 1973). 
Perrin v. United States, 232 U.S. 478 (1973) . 
Preston Nutter Corp. v. Morton, 479 F. 2d 696 (10th Cir. 1973) 
Quinault Allottee Assn. v. United States, 485 F. 2d 1391 (Ct. CI. 1973) , 

cert, denied, 416 U.S. 961 (1974). 
Short V. United States, 486 F. 2d 561 (Ct. CI. 1973), cert, denied, 416 

U.S. 961 (1974). 
United States v. Blackfeet Trihe, 364 F. Supp. 192 (D. Mont. 1973). 



141 

■United States v Fort Sill Apache Trihe of Oklahoma, 480 F. 2d 819 

(Ct. CI. 1973)* cert, denied, 416 U.S. 993 (1974) . 
• United States v. Kiowa, Comanche & Apache Tribes, 479 F. 2d 1369 

(Ct. CI. 1973). 
■ United States v. Mazune, 487 F. 2d 14 (10th Cir. 1973) , rev'd., 419 U.S. 

544 (1975). 
United States v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391 (1973) . 
United States v. P oilman, 364 F. Supp. 995 (D. Mont. 1973) . 
United States v. Redstone, 488 F. 2d 300 (8th Cir. 1973) 
White Eagle v. One Feather, 478 F. 2d 1311 (8th Cir. 1973) . 
Yazzie v. Morton, 59 F.R.D. 377 (D. Ariz. 1973) . 

1974 

Akers v. Morton, 499 F. 2d 44 (9th Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 423 U.S. 

831 (1974). 
■Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 490 F. 2d 521 (10th Cir. 1974), cert. 

denied, 417 U.S. 946 (1974). 
.Felicia v. United States, 495 F. 2d 353 (8th Cir. 1974), cert, denied^ 

419 U.S. 849 (1974). 

, Freeman v. Morton, 499 F. 2d 494 (D.C. Cir. 1974) . 

' Gila River Pima-Maricopa liulian Community v. United States, 494 

F. 2d 1386 (Ct. CI. 1974), cer?^. denied, 419 U.S. 1021 (1974). 
.Klmlall V. Callahan, 493 F. 2d 564 (9th Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 419 

U.S. 1019 (1974). 
Littell V. Morton, 369 F. Supp. 411 (D. Md. 1974). 
Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535 ( 1974) . 
. McCurdy v. Steele, 506 F. 2d 653 ( 10th Cir. 1974) . 
Morton v. Riuz, 415 U.S. 199 ( 1974) . 
Norveu v. Sangre de Cr'isto Development Co., 372 F. Supp. 348 

(D.N.M. 1974) . 
Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Otwida, 414 U.S. 661 (1974). 
:Pamn v. United States. 496 F. 2d 27 (9th Cir. 1974) . 
.Poitra V. DeMarrias. 502 F. 2d 23 (8th Cir. 1974) . 
Rosehud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip. 375 F. Supp. 1065 (D.S.D. 1974), 

afd., 521 F. 2d 87 (8th Cir. 1975) . 
Schautz V. White Lightning, 502 F. 2d 67 (8th Cir. 1974). 
Seminole Nation v. United States, 498 F. 2d 1368 (Ct. CI. 1974), cert. 

denied, 420 U.S. 907 (1975). 
Sessions v. Morton, 491 F. 2d 854 (9th Cir. 1974) . 
.Sioux Tribe v. United States, 500 F. 2d 458 (Ct. CI. 1974). 
Teiva Tesuque v. Morton, 498 F. 2d 240 (10th Cir. 1974), cert, denied, 

420 U.S. 962 (1975). 

Turtle Mountain Band of Chippeiva Indians v. United States, 490 

F. 2d 933 (Ct.CL1974). 
United States v. Analla, 490 F. 2d 1201 (10th Cir. 1974). 
United States v. Cleveland, 503 F. 2d 1067 (9th Cir. 1974). 
United States v. Gilbert, 378 F. Supp. 82 (D.S.D. 1974). 
United States v. Kipp. 369 F. Supp. 774 (D. Mont. 1974). 
United States v. Mumherg, 378 F. Supp. 1152 (D. Mont. 1974). 
United States v. Northern Paiute Nation, 490 F. 2d 954 (Ct. CI. 1974). 
■ United States v. Washington, 496 F. 2d 620 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. 

denied, 419 U. S. 1032 ( 1974) . 
'Wisconsin PottaAoatomis of Eannahville Indian Community v. Wilsey, 

377 F. Supp. 1153 (D. Fla. 1974) . 



LAW KEVIEW AKTICLES 

Abbott, A., "Indians and the Law," 2 Harv. L. Kev. 167 (1888). 

Abourezk, J., "South Dakota Indian Jurisdiction," 11 S.D.L. Rev. 
101 (1966). 

"Ad Valorem Taxation of Land Affecting the Five Civilized Tribes," 
18 0kla.B.A.J.94(1947). 

Adams, C.^ " 'Citado A. Comparecer' : Language Barriers and Due 
Process — Is Mailed Notice in English Constitutionally Sufficient?" 
61 Calif. L. Rev. 1395 (1973). 

"The American Indian— Tribal Sovereignty and Civil Rights," 51 
Iowa L. Rev. 654 (1966). 

Barker, R., "The Indian Claims Commission — The Conscience of the 
Nation in its Dealings with the Original American," 20 Fed. B.J. 
240 (1960). 

Barney, R., "Some Legal Problems Under the Indian Claims Com- 
mission," 20 Fed. B.J. 240 (1960) . 

Barsh, R. & J. Henderson, "Tribal Administration of Natural Re- 
source Development," 52 N.D.L. Rev. 307 (1975) . 

Barsh, R., "Tribal Courts, the Model Code, and the Police Idea in 
American Indian Policy," 40 L. & Contemporary Problems 25 
(1976). 

Beaglehole, E., "Ownership and Inheritance in an American Indian 
Tribe," 20 Iowa L. Rev. 304 (1935) . 

Benge, W., "Law and Order on Indian Reservations," 20 Fed. B.J. 223 
(1960). 

Bennett, R., "Problem and Prospects in Developing Indian Commu- 
nities," 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 675 (1968) . 

Berger, E., "Indian Mineral Interest— A Potential for Economic Ad- 
vancement," 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 675 (1968) . 

Bodenheimer, B., "The Rights of Children and the Crisis in Litiga- 
tion : Modification of Custody In and Out of State," 46 Colo. L. Rev. 
495 (1975). 

Brown, R., "The Indian Problem and the Law," 39 Yale L.J. 30r 
(1930). 

(143) 



144 

Brown, E., "The Taxation of Indian Property," 15 Minn. L. Rev. 182 
(1931). 

Burnett, D., "An Historical Analysis of the 1968 Indian Civil Rights 
Act," 9 Harv. J. on Legis. 557 (1972). 

Bysiewicz, S. & R. Van de Mark, "The Legal Status of the Dakota 
Woman," 3 Am. Indian L. Rev. 255 (1975) . 

Cain, G., "Indian Land Titles in Minnesota," 2 Minn. L. Rev. 177' 
(1918). 

Chambers, R., "Judicial Enforcement of the Federal Trust Responsi- 
bility to Indians," 27 Stan. L. Rev. 1212 ( 1975 ) . 

Cockerham, W. & M. Forslund, "Attitudes Toward the Police Among 
White and Native American Youth," 3 Am. Indian L. Rev. 419' 
(1975). 

Cohen, F., "The Erosion of Indian Rights, 1950-1953 : A Case Study 
in Bureaucracy," 62 Yale L.J. 348 (1953) . 

Cohen, F., "Indian Rights and the Federal Courts," 24 Minn. L. Rev. 
145 (1940). 

Cohen, F., "Original Indian Title," 32 Minn. L. Rev. 28 (1947) . 

Cohen, F,, "The Spanish Origin of Indian Rights in the Law of the 
United States," 31 Geo. L.J. 1 ( 1942) . 

Cohen, W., "Divorce Filing Fees in Indian Tribal Courts: A First 
Look After Boddie v. Connecticut," L. & the Soc. Ord. 541 (1970)., 

"Constitutional Rights of the American Tribal Indian," 51 Ya. L. Rev. 
121 (1965). 

Coy, P., "Justice for the Indian in Eighteenth Century Mexico," 12 
Am. J. of Legal Hist. 41(1968). 

Crosse, M., "Criminal and Civil Jurisdiction in Indian Country," 4 
Ariz. L. Rev. 557 (1962). 

Cuykendan, C, "State Taxation of the Indians — Federal Preemption 
of Taxation Against the Backdrop of Indian Sovereignty — 
McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Commission," 49 Wash. L. Rev. 
191 (1973). 

Davies, G., "State Taxation on Indian Reservations," Utah L. Re\^ 
132 (1966). 

Davis, L., "Court Reform in the Navajo Nation," 43 J. of the Am. ded. . 
Soc'y53(1959). 



145 

Davis, L., "Criminal Jurisdiction over Indian Country in Arizona," 

1 Ariz. L.Kev. 62 (1959). 

Dolan, B., "State Jurisdiction Over Non-Indian Mineral Activities 
on Indian Keservations," 52 N.D.L. Rev. 265 (1975) . 

Dowling, T., "Criminal Jurisdiction Over Indians and Post-Convic- 
tion Remedies," 22 Mont. L. Rev. 165 (1961) . 

DuMars, C, "Indictment under the 'Major Crimes Act' — An Exercise 
in Unfairness and Unconstitutionality," 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 691 (1968) . 

Dumbauld, E., "An Unusual Constitutional Claim," 1 Am. J. of Legal 
Hist. 229 (1957). 

Eads, S., "Prospecting Permits on Indian Lands: Who Benefits?" 

2 Am. Indian L. Rev. 117 ( 1974) . 

"Extent of Washington Criminal Jurisdiction Over Indians," 33 
Wash. L. Rev. 289 (1958). 

Fannin, P., "Indian Education : A Test for Democracy," 10 Ariz. L. 
Rev. 661 (1968). 

Field, O., "Doctrine of Political Questions in the Federal Courts pt. 
6 : Status of Indian Tribes," 8 Minn. L. Rev. 503 (1924) . 

Fiske, T. and R. Wilson, "Federal Taxation of Indian Income from 
Restricted Indian Lands," 10 Land and Water L. Rev. 63 (1975). 

Foreman, G., "The Indian and the Law," 17 Okla. B.A.J. 82 (1946). 

Fretz, B., "The Bill of Rights and American Indian Tribal Govern- 
ments," 6 Nat'l. Resources J. 581 (1966) . 

Friedman, H., "Interest on Indian Claims : Judicial Protection of the 
FISC," 5 Val. V.L. Rev. 26 (1970) . 

Frye, R., "Analysis of the Act of August 4, 1947 Removing Restric- 
tions from Indian Land," 18 Okla. B.A.J. 1902 (1947). 

Fuller, L., "Alcoholic Beverage Control : Should the Remaining Reser- 
vations Repeal Prohibition Under 18 U.S.C. § 1161 ?" 3 Am. Indian 
L. Rev. 429 (1975). 

Gabourie, F., "Justice and the Urban American Indian," 46 J. of the 
S.B.ofCal.36(1971). 

Getches, D., "Lawyers and Indians," Colo. Law 9 (1972) . 

Gilbert, W. and J. Taylor, "Indian Land Questions," 8 Ariz. L. Rev. 

102(1966). 



146 

Goldberg, C, "Public Law 280 : The Limits of State Jurisdiction over 
Eeservation Indians," 22 U.C.L.A. L. Kev. 535 (1975) . 

Goodman, J. and G. Thompson, "The Hopi-Navajo Land Dispute," 
a Am. Indian L. Eev. 397 ( 1975 ) . 

Goodrich, C, "The Legal Status of the California Indian, " 14 Calif. 
L. Rev. 83 (1926). 

Gramen, M. and D. Somers, "Indian Bill of Rights," 5 Sw. V. L. Rev. 
139 (1973). 

Green, L., "Canada's Indians — ^Federal Policy, International and Con- 
stitutional Law," Paper presented to the Soc'y of Intl Law (1969). 

Haddon, S., "Access and Wharfage Eights and the Territorial Extent 
of Indian Reservation Bordering on Navigable Water — ^Who Owns 
the Bed of Flathead Lake?" 27 Mont. L. Rev. 55 (1965). 

Higgins, F., "International Law Consideration of the American 
Indian Nations by the United States," 3 Ariz. L. Rev. 74 (1961) . 

Hobbs, C, "Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights," 32 Geo. Wash. L. 
Rev. 504 (1964). 

Hobbs, C, "Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights IL," 37 Geo. Wash. 
L. Rev. 1251 (1969). 

Houghton, N., "The Legal Status of Indian Suffrage in the United 
States," 19 Calif. L. Rev. 507 (1931) . 

"The Indian Battle for Self-Determination," 58 Calif. L. Rev. 445 
(1970). 

"Indian Bill of Rights and the Constitutional Status of Tribal Gov- 
ernments," Harv. L. Rev. 1343 (1969) . 

"Indian Fishing Rights," 8 Willamette L. J. 248 (1972) . 

"Indians: Better Dead than Red?" 42 Cal. L. Rev. 101 (1968). 

"Indians, Water and the Arid Western States — A Prelude to the Pel- 
ton Decision," 5 Utah L. Rev. 495 (1956) . 

Johnson, R., "The States versus Indian Off-Reservation Fishing: A 
United States Supreme Court Error," 47 Wash. L. Rev. 207 (1972). 

Kawashima, Y., "Legal Origins of the Indian Reservation in Colonial 
Massachusetts," 13 Am. J. of Legal Hist. 42 (1969). 

Keller, R., "William O. Douglas, the Supreme Court, and the Ameri- 
can Indians," 3 Am. Indian L. Rev. 333 (1975) . 



147 

Kelly, J., "Indians— Extent of the 'Fair and Honorable Dealings' 
Section of the Indian Claims Commission Act," 15 St. Louis L.J. 
491 (1971). 

ICelly, W., "Indian Adjustment and the History of Indian Affairs," 
10 Ariz. L. Eev. 559 (1968). 

Ivepner, G., "Drums Along the Power Ways," 23 Alb. L. Kev. 135 
(1959). 

Kerr, J., "Constitutional Rights, Tribal Justice, and the American 
Indian," 18 J. of Pub. Law 311 (1969). 

Knoepfler, K., "Legal Status of American Indian and His Property," 
7 Iowa L. Bull. 232 (1922). 

Koons, M. & H. "Walker, "Jurisdiction over Indian Country in North 
Dakota," 36 N.D.L. Eev. 51 (1960). 

Krieger, H., "Principles of the Indian Law and the Act of June 18, 
1934," 3 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 279 (1935). 

Lazarus, A., "The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act : A Flawed 
Victory," 40 L. and Contemporary Problems 132 (1976). 

Lazarus, A., "Indian Rights Under the Federal Power Act," 20 Fed. 
B.J.217 (1960). 

^'Legal Status of the Indians," American Bar Association Reports 261 
(1891) ; William B. Hornblower. 

McArthur, C, "Indian Land Law," 30 Okla. BA.J. 2168 (1959). 

McKevitt, T., "The Sovereign and Consent," 12 Land and Nat. Re- 
sources Div. J. 117 (1974) . 

McLoone, J., "Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights," 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 
725 (1968). 

Manley, H., "Indian Reservation Ownership in New York," 32 
N.Y.S.B. Bull. 134 (1960). 

Martone, F., "American Indian Tribal Self -Government in the Fed- 
eral System: Inherent Right or Congressional License?" 51 Notre 
Dame Law. 600 (1976). 

^'Minnesota's Chippewas : Treaties and Trends," 39 Minn. L. Rev. 853 
(1955). 

■"Monetary Remedies Against the State in Federal Question Cases," 68 
Nw.V-L. Rev. 544 (1973). 



148 

Muskrat, J., "The Indians— An Analysis and Proposal," 28 Legal Aid 
. Brietease 187 (1970). 

Nash, D., "Tribal Control of Extradition from Keservations," 10 Nat. 
Eesources J.626 (1970). 

"Need for a Federal Policy in Indian Economic Development," 2 
N.M.L.Kev.7l (1972). 

Nickeson, S., "The Structure of the Bureau of Indian Affairs," 40 L. 
& Contemporary Problems 61 (1976) . 

Nutten, W., "Probate Problems of the American Indian," 7 Real Prob. 
&Tr.J.495(1972). 

Olquin, E. and A. Utton, "The Indian Rural Poor : Providing Legal 
Services in a Cross-Cultural Setting," 15 Kan. L. Rev. 487 (1967). 

Oliver, R., "The Legal Status of American Indian Tribes," 38 Ore. 
L. Rev. 193 (1959). 

Olson, T., "Indian — State Jurisdiction over Real Estate Developments 
on Tribal Lands," 2 N.M.L. Rev. 81 ( 1972) . 

Pease, G., "Constitutional Revision — Indians in the New Mexico Con- 
stitution," 9 Nat. Resources J. 466 (1969) . 

Pederson, A., "Decision of Indian Tribal Court Held Reviewable 
through Federal District Court Habeas Corpus Proceeding," 26 
Mont. L. Rev. 240 (1965). 

Pound, C, "Nationals without a Nation: The New York State Tribal 
Indians," 22 Colum. L. Rev. 97 (1922) . 

Powell, T. "State Inheritance Taxes on Indians : A Critique of Okla- 
homa Tax Commission v. United States," 44 Colum. L. Rev. 836 
(1944). 

"The Power of a State to Impose an Income Tax on Reservation In- 
dians," 6 Willamette L.J. 515 (1970) . 

Price, M., "The Tax Exemption of Native Lands under Section 21 (d) 
of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act," 6 U.C.L.A. Alas. L. 
Rev. (1976). 

Price, M., "Felix Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law," 21 Cath. 
V.L. Rev. 229 (1971). 

Price, M,, "Lawyers on the Reservation: Some Implications for the 
Legal Profession L. & the Soc. Ord. 161 ( 1969 ) . 

Pritchett, L., "Problems of State Jurisdiction over Indian Reserva- 
tions," 13 De Paul L. Rev. 74 (1963) . 



149 

Kanquist, H., "The Effect of Changes in Place and Nature of Use of 
Indian Eights to Water Reserved under the 'Winters Doctrine'," 5 
Nat. Resources Law. 34 (1972). 

"Regulation of Treaty Indian Fishing," 43 Wash. L. Rev. 670 (1968). 

Reiblich, G., "Indian Rights imder the Civil Rights Act of 1968," 10 
Ariz. L. Rev. 617 (1968). 

Reid, J. P., "Conflict and Injustice: A Discussion of Francis Paul 
Prucha's 'American Indian Policy in the Formative Years,' " 39 
N.D.L.Rev. 51 (1963). 

Reid, J., "Law and the Indians on the Arkansas Frontier: 'Stand 
Stripped, but Strongly Nerved,' " 18 Ark. L. Rev. 1 (1964). 

Reynolds, O., "Zoning the Reservation — Village of Euclid Meets Aqua 
Caliente," 2 Atner. Indian L. Rev. 1 (1974). 

Richards, C, "Federal Jurisdiction over Criminal Matters Involving 
Indians," 2 S.D.L. Rev. 48 (1957) . 

" 'Right of Tribal Self-Government' and Jurisdiction over Indian 
Affairs," Utah L. Rev. 291 (1970) . 

Rosenf elt, D., "Indian Schools and Community Control," 25 Stan. L. 

Rev. 489 (1973). 
"Ross, R., '''"Cultural Integrity and American Indian Education^'' 11 

Ariz. L. Rev. 641 (1969). 

Roy, E., "Economic Survey of American Indians in Louisiana," 3 Am. 
Indian J. 11 (1973). 

''''Ruiz V. Morton: Federal Welfare for Non-Reservation Indians," 
Utah L. Rev. (1973). 

Russell, L, "The Indian Before the Law," 18 Yale L. J. 328 (1909). 

Schaaib, W., "Indian Industrial Development and the Courts," 8 Nat. 
Resources J. 303 (1968). 

Schifter, R., "Trends in Federal Indian Administration," 15 S.D.L. 
Rev. 1 (1970). 

Schmeiser, D., "Indians, Eskimos and the Law," 33 Sask. L. Rev. 19 
(1968). 

Schmidhauser, J., "The Struggle for Cultural Survival : The Fishing 
Rights of the Treaty Tribes of the Pacific Northwest," 52 Notre 
Dame Law. 30 (1976). 

Sclar, L., "Participation by Off-Reservation Indians in Programs of 
the B.LA. and I.H.S.," 33 Mont. L. Rev. 187 (1972) . 



150 

Selander, K., "Section Z of the Indian Claims Commission Act," 15 
Geo. Wash. L. Kev. 388 (1947). 

Seymour, F., "Land Titles in the Pueblo Indian Country," 10 A.B.A. J. 
36 (1924). 

Shakman, M., "Federal Jurisdiction : A General View," 33 Md. L. Kev. 

70 (1968). 

Sonosky, M., "Oil, Gas and Other Minerals on Indian Reservations," 
20 Fed. B.J. 230 (1960). 

Sparks, J., "The Indian Stronghold and the Spread of Urban Amer- 
ica," 10 Ariz. L. Rev. 706 (1968) . 

Staats, H., "Some Aspects of the Legal Status of Canadian Indians," 
3 Osgoode Hall L.J. 36 ( 1964) . 

"State Extension of Cigarette Sales Tax to Indians," 11 Idaho L. Rev. 
101 (1974). 

Strong, S., "Federal District Court Has No Jurisdiction over a Lease 
of Tribal Land to a Non-Indian," 27 Mont. L. Rev. 198 (1966). 

Swan, R., "Indian Legal Services Programs : The Key to Red Power ?" 
12 Ariz. L. Rev. 594 (1970). 

"Systematic Discrimination in the Indian Claims Commission: The 
Burden of Proof in Redressing Historical Wrongs," 57 Iowa L. Rev. 
1300 (1972). 



Taylor, B., "Indian Manpower Resources: The Experiences of 
Southwestern Reservations," 10 Ariz. L, Rev. 579 (1968). 



Five 



Taylor, P., "Development of Tripartite Jurisdiction in Indian Coun- 
try," 22 Kan. L. Rev. 351 (1974). 

"Taxation : Immunity : Lessee of Restricted Indian Lands," 3 Okla. L. 
Rev. 468 (1950). 

"Taxation — Indians — Tax on Income Received from Sale of Mineral 
Resources," 24 Geo. L. J. 486 (1936) . 

Thompson, J., "Law Amongst the Aborigins of the Mississippi Val- 
ley," 6 111. L.0. 204 (1924) . 

Tureen, T. & F. O'Toole, "State Power and the Passamaquoddy Tribe: 
'A Gross National Hypocrisy?' " 23 Maine L. Rev. 1 (1971). 

Udall, S., "The State of the Indian Nation— An Introduction," 10 
Ariz. L. Rev. 552 (1968). 



151 

Vance, J., "The Congressional Mandate and the Indian Claims Com- 
mission," 45 N.D.L. Rev. 325 (1968-69) . 

Veeder, W., "Indian Water Rights in the Upper Missouri Riv^er 
Basin,'' 48 N.D.L Rev. 617 (1972). 

Veeder, W., "Winters Doctrine Rights — Keystone of National Pro- 
grams for Western Land and Water Conservation and Utilization," 
26 Mont. L. Rev. 149 (1965) . 

Vollman, T., "Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country : Tribal Sov- 
ereignty and Defendants' Rights in Conflict," 22 Kan. L. Rev. 387 
(1974). 

Wilkinson, G., "Indian Tribal Claims before the Court of Claims," 
55 Geo. L.J. 511 (1966). 

Willacy, A., "Contract Approval : Attorneys and Indians," 15 How. 
L.J. 149(1968). 

Williams, E., "Too Little Land, Too Many Heirs — The Indian Heir- 
ship Land Problem," 46 Wash. L.Rev. 709 ( 1971 ) . 

Wise, J., "Indian Law and Needed Reforms," 12 A.B.A.J. 37 (1926). 

Withington, W., "Kickapoo Titles in Oklahoma," 23 Okla. B.A.J. 1^51 
(1952). 

Withington, W., "Land Titles in Oklahoma under the General Allot- 
ment Act," 31 Okla. B.A.J. 2320 (1960) . 

Wolf., R., "Needed: A System of Income Maintenance for Indians," 
10 Ariz. L.Rev. 597 (1968). 

Yankwich, L., "Law and Order under the Incas," 22 So. Cal. L.Rev. 
133 (1949). 

Young, R., "Interagency ConlElicts of Interest : "The Peril to Indian 
Water Rights," L. & Soc. Ord. 313 ( 1972) . 

Ziontz, A., "In Defense of Tribal Sovereignty : An Analysis of Judicial 
Error in Construction of the Indian Civil Rights Act," 20 S.D.L. 
Rev.l (1975). 



REPORTS ISSUED BY THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING 
OFFICE, COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE U.S. 

Administration of programs for aid to public school education of In- 
dian children being improved, B-161468, 5/28/70. 

Administration of withdrawal activities by the Bureau of Indian Af- 
fairs, Dept. of the Interior, March 1958, 8/58. 

Assessment of Teacher Corps at Northern Arizona University and par- 
ticipating schools on the Navajo and Hopi Reservations, B-164031 
(1),5/13/7L 

Better overall planning needed to improve the standard of living of 
Wliite Mountain Apaches of Arizona, B-1 14868, 8/12/75. 

Bureau of Indian Affairs contracts for automatic data processing, man- 
agement services, and contracts awarded to the Colorado River 
Tribes, B-1 14868, 12/8/73. 

Changes needed in Revenue Sharing Act for Indian Tribes and Alas- 
kan Native Villages, GGD-76-64, 5/27/76. 

Coordination needed in the award of financial aid to Indian students, 

B-1 14868, 9/8/75. 

Effectiveness of the Bureau of Indian Affairs land management activi- 
ties on three reservations in South Dakota, B-114868, 6/4/75. 

Federal assistance to Quechan Indian Tribe for controlled environmen- 
tal agricultural program, B-130515, 5/18/74. 

Federally owned submarginal land within the Bad River Reservation 
in Wisconsin proposed to be held in trust for the Bad River Commu- 
nity, B-147652, B-1 47655, 5/23/72. 

Federally owned submarginal land within the Fort Totten Reservation 
in North Dakota proposed to be held in trust for the Devils Lake 
Sioux Tribe, B-147652, B-147655, 3/24/72. 

Financial and management activities of the Lunmi Indian Business 
Council, Marietta, Washington, B-120214, 6/4/71. 

Follow-up letter to Chairmen, House and Senate Interior and Insular 
Affairs Committees on selected contracts, purchase orders and grants 
awarded to Indian tribes and organizations during fiscal year 1971, 
B-114686, 1/2/75. 

(153) 



154 

Follow-up on certain matters discussed in our report entitled "Im- 
provements Needed in the Assessment and Collection of Penalties — 
Federal Coal Mines Health and Safety Act of 1969," B-170686, 

12/22/72. 

Funding of programs benefiting Indians, fiscal years 1972-1973, B- 

114868, 7/11/73. 

Funds provided to tlie National Tribal Chairman's Association by 
Federal agencies in fiscal years 1972 and 1973, B-114868, 1/18/74. 

Impact of grants to Indian tribes under the Emergency Employment 
Act of 1971, B-163922, 3/14/73. 

Improvements achieved in the management of supplies by the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs, B-114868, 7/31/68. 

Improving federally assisted business development of Indian reserva- 
tions, B-114868, 6/27/75. 

Increased income could be earned on Indian trust moneys administered 
by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, B-114868, 4/28/72. 

Indian natural resources — opportunities for improved management 
and increased productivity, Part I : forest land, rangeland, and crop- 
land, B-114868, 8/18/75. 

Indian natural resources — Part II : coal, oil, and gas, better manage- 
ment can improve development and increase Indian income and em- 
ployment, B-114868, 3/31/76. 

Ineffective HUD monitoring of Indian Housing Authorities activities, 
B-114868, 10/4/74. 

Infonnation in federal programs which benefit American Indians, B- 
114868, 8/28/76. 

Information on federally owned land in Oregon set aside for use by the 
Burns Paiute Indian Colony, B-147652, B-147655, 9/12/72. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land within the Black- 
feet Resen-ation in Montana, B-147652, B-147656, 12/19/72. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land within the Chey- 
enne River Reservation in South Dakota, B-147652, B-147655, 
1/26/73. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land within and adjacent 
to the Crow Creek Reservation in South Dakota, B-147652, B- 
147655, 2/15/73. 

Information on fedei-ally owned submarginal land within or near the 
Fort Belknap Resei-vation in Montana, B-147652, B-147655, 

10/12/72. 



155 

Information on federally owned submarginal land within or adja- 
cent to the Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho, B-147652, B-147655, 

11/3/72. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land within the Fort 
Peck Reservation in Montana, B-147652, B-147655, 2/15/73. 

Information on federally owned sul)marginal land within or near the 
Lac Courte Oreilles Reservation in Wisconsin, B-147652, B-147655, 

2/15/73. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land within the L'Anse 
Reservation in Michigan, B-147652, B-147655, 9/8/72. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land withm the Lower 
Brule Reservation in South Dakota, B-1 14868, 2/13/73. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land in Oklahoma set 
aside for use by the Cherokee Tribe in Oklahoma, B-147652, B- 
147655, 2/2/73. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land witliin the Pine 
Ridge Reservation in South Dakota and Nebraska, B-147652, B- 
147655, 2/7/73. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land within the Rosebud 
Reservation in North Dakota and South Dakota, B-147652, B- 

147655, 2/13/73. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land proposed to be held 
in trust for the Stockbridge Munsee Indian Community in Wiscon- 
sin, B-147652, B-147655, 10/27/71. 

Information on federally owned submarginal land within the Wliite 
Earth Reservation in Minnesota proposed to be held in trust for 
the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, B-147652, B-147655, 10/27/71. 

Land leases entered into by the Navajo and Hopi Indian tribes, B- 

177079, 1/29/74. 

Land leases on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho, B-1 14868, 

5/31/74. 

Land management activities on three Indian reservations in South 
Dakota can be improved, Bureau of Indian Affairs, B-114868, 

6/4/75. 

Letter report on selected activities of Indian Health Services, B- 
164031(2), 7/9/70. 

JNIedical research activities and sterilization of American Indians, B- 
164031(5), 11/4/76. 

Monitoring HUD investigation of the Pueblo of Laguna Housing 
Authority, B-176794, 7/13/73. 



156 

The native enrollment and village eligibility provisions of the Alaska 
Native Claims Settlement Act, B-180940, 12/13/74. 

New Navajo construction activities on the Navajo and Hopi Joint-Use 
Area, B-114868, 3/4/74. 

Non-discrimination provision of the Revenue Sharmg Act should be 
strengthened and better enforced, B-146285, 6/2/76. 

Opportunities for increasing effectiveness of federally assisted busi- 
ness and commercial development efforts on Indian reservations, 
B-114868 6 27/75. 

Opportunity to improve Indian education in schools operated by the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, B-114868, 4/27/72. 

Possible irreguUrities in the use of federal funds in the administra- 
tion of tho Chemawa Indian School in Marion Comity, Oregon, 
B-114868, 11/20/72. 

Possibilities of increased use of federal hospitals by Indian Health 
Service-Portland Area Office, B-164031 (2) , 8/1/70. 

Progress and problems in providing health services to Indians, 
B-164031 (2), 3/11/74. 

Review of Bureau of Indian Affairs contracts for Automatic Data 
Processing Management Services, B-144868, 12/6/73. 

Review of certain matters involving the disniptions at Wounded 
Knee, South Dakota, B-114868, 5/7/73. 

Review of programing, budgeting, accountmg, and reporting ac- 
tivities of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Inte- 
rior, B-114868, 11/19/58. 

Review of proposed legislation for conveyance to certain Indian tribes 
and groups of submarginal land administered by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs, B-147652, B-147655, 6/72. 

Review of the Bureau of Indian Affairs use of band analysis in deter- 
mining the amount of Jolinson-O'Malley ( JOM) funds distributed 
to Indian tribes in Arizona, B-161468, 4/25/75. 

Review of the construction of housing projects built under HUD- 
supported programs on the Blackfeet Reservation, B-114868, 

12/27/74. 

Selected activities of the Indian Health Service, 7/9/70. 

Selected contracts, purchase orders, and grants awarded to Indian 
tribes and organizations during fiscal year 1971, B-114868, 7/7/72. 



157 

Settlement of accounts of accountable officers at the Aberdeen Area 
Office-Indian Health Service, B-164031 (2), 3/29/71. 

Slow progress in eliminating substandard Indian housing, B-114868, 
10/12/71. 

Slow progress of federal and state housing programs in meeting hous- 
ing needs in rural Alaska, B-118718, 9/24/74. 

Spending for Indian programs in fiscal year 1968 and increases 
through fiscal year 1973, B-114868, 5/7/73. 

Study of health facilities construction costs, B-164031 (3), 11/27/72. 

Survey of the Department of Housing and Urban Development's low 
rent public housing progi-am at two Indian housing authorities . . ., 
B-114868, 10/4/74. 

Survey of federal efforts in Alaska to meet the national housing ob- 
jectives, B-118718, 9/24/74. 

Update of information concerning funds provided to the National 
Tribal Chairmen's Association (NTCA) by federal agencies in 
fiscal years 1972 and 1973, and since July 1973, B-114864, 1/18/74. 

Vocational training contracts awarded to Engineering Drafting 
School, Inc., Denver, Colorado, B-169333, 8/18/72. 



APPENDIX C 

FORMAT FOR PROPOSED ANNUAL REPORT 
ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Recommended in Chapter Two 



(159) 



93-440 O - 78 - 12 



PART I— INDIAN TREATIES, AGREEMENTS, AND EXECU- 
TIVE ORDERS 

(This part would be based on Kappler's Laws and Treaties 
Royce's Indian Land Cessions, and the National Archives' 
List of Documents Concerning the Negotiation of Ratified 
Indian Treaties. The organization could place the treaties, 
agreements and executive orders in chronological order with 
the maps and lists of related documents with the pertinent 
treaty.) 

PART II— HISTORY, LEGISLATION, AND CURRENT CON- 
DITIONS ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS 

Note. — The following would be a "form" report filled out by the 
Federal Officer in charge each year. It is based on a "questiomiaire on 
a reservation profile" drafted by the Bureau of Indian Affaii-s a few 
years ago. Some changes have been made. 

A. Nomenclature 

1. Proper name of tribes. — If unorganized, the generally accepted 
name. 

B. Land 

1. Location. — Describe the reservation's geogi'aphic location within 
a State or States and county or counties. Describe the proximity of 
trade centers, identifying the same and giving a general statement 
concerning size, population, and industry. 

2. Climate. — State the length of the growing season, the length of the 
tourist or recreational season, and give average temperature ranges 
and average annual precipitation. 

3. Historical. — Give the initial date of establishment of the reserva- 
tion and groups and/or tribes for whom established, and citations to 
treaties, laws, and executive orders and original and present land area 
of the reservation. 

4. Ownership. — (a) Tribal (trust and fee separately), trust al- 
lotted. Government-owned (totals as of June 30, last fiscal year), (b) 
Characteristics of ownership. Show the pattern of ownership, whether 
it is checkerboarded, scattered or contiguous. Make a brief comment 
on the possible improvement in the characteristics of ownership by 
unitization, syndication, etc. 

5. Present Land Use. — Include the major categories of land use on 
the reservation with an average by percentage of each type, e.g. farm- 
ing, grazing, commercial, etc. The percentage of Indian and non- 
Indian use of Indian land should also be given. The various categories 
of use should include a breakdown between individual Indian trust 
land and tribal lands. 

(161) 



162 

6. Heirship. — Number and percentage breakdown of allotted trust 
tracts belonging to a single owner, 2-10 owners, over 10 owners. Num- 
ber of probate cases completed during the last fiscal year and the num- 
ber pending. Total acreage in heirship status. Describe the heirship 
problem on the reservation. 

7. Potential. — Give brief statement on reservation land potential. 
Describe tribal land acquisition program, if any. Indicate income from 
tribal land purchases made during the last year and the purchase 
price. 

8. Transportation. — Describe the major highways giving access to 
the reservation and the intra-reservation roads. How many miles of 
roads are there on the reservation? How many miles of roads are 
Bureau maintained? What jurisdiction (s) maintain the balance? In- 
dicate commercial airports and railroads nearest to the reservation. 
List by percentage use of transportation, such as truck, car, horse, 
public, etc. Does the present adequacy or inadequacy of the road sys- 
tem hinder or help economic development of the reservation or the 
Indian's work opportunities ? 

C. Population 

1. Resident Total. — (a) Give the total number of Indian residents 
on the reservation, number of families, average number per family, 
average age, and other pertinent data, (b) Provide similar informa- 
tion for Indians residing adjacent to the reservation, i.e., service area 
population, (c) State briefly population trends, (d) Provide total 
number of adults (over 18), subdivided by sex, and the total number 
of minors, (e) Provide the total number of Indians residing on the 
reservation who are members of tribes other than those in residence. 

2. Tribal Membership. — (a) Give total membership of tribe at pres- 
ent time. If an estimate, indcate, (b) Dat« of latest tribal roll. 

D. Tribal Administration and Government 

1. Governing Body. — Give history of the tribal governing body, its 
functions, and membership. 

2. Budget. — Give income and expenditures for the last fiscal year 
differentiating between tribal and other funds. 

3. Member Civic Participation. — Describe the interest and activity 
of tribal members in tribal or social affairs and off-reservation, non- 
Indian affairs. 

E. Disposition of Judgment Awards 

1. Past. — Describe and evaluate the use of any judgment awards in 
the past. 

2. Current. — How does the tribe propose to use funds from the cur- 
rent award? (Attach any resolutions or program outlines.) 

F. Economic Activities and Potentials 

1. Reservation Development. — Indicate both resources development 
and industrial or commercial potential for the reservation. 

2. Labor Force. — (a) List the number of resident Indians employed 
on or near the reservation, (b) List the number of unemployed under 



163 

the heading temporary, seasonal, and permanent. A breakdown by sex 
should be included. Also distinguish between those residing on the 
reservation, and those adjacent to. 

3. EmployTnent Opportunities. — (a) Briefly state the livelihood 
source history of the Indian population, (b) Discuss the livelihood 
sources for non-Indians on the reservation and in adjacent areas. 

4. IncoTTie, from Reservation Resources. — (a) List the total income 
from surface leases of all types, both to the Indians and non-Indians. 
If free use, or less than fair market value, is approved to Indian opera- 
tors, calculate the rental rate on the average income from non-Indian 
use. (b) For grazing permits, use the same as above, (c) For timber, 
give the gross dollar income from stumpage sold ; give estimated value 
of free-use forest products harvested, (d) For minerals include in- 
come from leases, bonuses, royalties, etc. (e) For commercial recrea- 
tion, give the net profit from Indian and tribal recreational enter- 
prises, (f ) Under business enterprises, list the net profit from tribal 
enterprises other than recreation. 

5. Income from Employment for Reservation Residents. — (a) This 
should include a breakdown of those self-employed, and the Indian 
operator's income, less economic rent for land and operating expenses, 
(b) For those self-employed, other than in agricultural operations, 
calculate the disposable income from the business, (c) Other than self- 
employed should include all income from wages for Indians living on 
and working on, or living on and working near the reservation. This 
should include all types of employment (Federal Government, tribal, 
industrial, and private business). A breakdown of major employers 
by skilled, semi-skilled, or unskilled workers should be included, (d) 
Estimate the value of services received from the Federal Government 
that a non-Indian in the surrounding area would have to pay for. 

6. I'lvome from Resources and Employment. — For the purposes of 
comparison, the total income from resources and employment should 
be divided by the number of families on the reservation to indicate the 
average amount per family that can be expected from these sources. 

7. Median Effective Family Buying Income in Surrounding Coun- 
ties. — Include a comparison of on-reservation income per family with 
the income of non-Indians living in counties surrounding the reserva- 
tion. This appears to be the best measure of income that should be ex- 
pected for Indian reservation residents. A national or state income 
level is too general and has less application to the program objectives. 

G. Health 

1. TJ.S. Public Health Service. — ^What facilities are provided by the 
United States Public Health Service ? 

2. Adequacy. — Are these facilities adequate to meet the health needs 
of Indians ? 

3. Use. — Are the facilities fully used by Indians ? 

4. Needs. — What are the major health needs of the Reservation? 

5. Water and Sanitation. — Describe briefly the availability of water 
and sanitary facilities to meet normal needs for both family and com- 
munity. 

6. Comparison. — How do each of tliese services compare with those 
of non-Indian families in the surrounding areas ? 



164 

H. Welfare 

1. General Assistance. — Give the BIA general assistance for the last 
fiscal year by number of cases, persons, and amount, and a breakdown 
of high and low months for such assistance. 

2. Other Financial Assistance. — ^Any Federal, State, or county assist- 
ance to Indians received through county Departments of Public Wel- 
fare. Include types of cases, total cases, and total number of persons 
involved. 

3. Commodity Programs. — The numbers involved and the cost of 
any commodity program. 

4. Summary. — Give total of tribal members receiving assistance and 
indicate categories. 

5. Attitudes. — What is the attitude of State and local officials re- 
garding welfare to Indians ? 

I. Education 

1. Level. — Give the average educational level for the following age 
groups in terms of the highest grade completed. 

Male Female 

18 to 25 yrs. inclusive 

26to45yrs 

46 yrs and over 

2. School Age Population. — Give the numbers of resident tribal 
members in the following age groups. 

Male Female 

1 to 5 yrs. inclusive 

6tol3yr 

14 to 18 yr 

19 to 21 yr 

3. School Facilities. — Give the following data regarding school fa- 
cilities on the reservation (last fiscal year) . 



System 


Number of 
schools 


Capacity 


Grades - 
served 


Indian enrollment 
Elementary Secondary 


Public schools 


BIA schools . 


Mission schools 







4. Special. — (a) Describe briefly participation of Indian parents in 
school affairs, (b) Wliat is the attitude of tribal members toward edu- 
cation? (c) Special problems related to school attendance, dropouts, 
etc. (d) Special services such as counseling, adult education, etc., avail- 



165 

able or needed in local schools and communities, (e) Scholarship aid 
(if any) provided by the tribe. 

5. If available, provide the same for 1, 2, 4 (a) and (c) concerning 
the non-Indian population in surrounding area. 

J. Housing 

1. Existing Conditions. — (a) Briefly state the adequacy of exist- 
ing housing, (b) Give the percent of Indian homes with electricity 
and telephones, (c) Briefly describe the availability of water and sani- 
tary facilities, (d) Provide the same information for non-Indians 
of surrounding areas. 

2. Housing Authority. — Has the tribe established a housing 
authority ? 

3. What are current plans for (a) new homes, and (b) repair of 
homes? 

K. Kelocation 

1. Employment Assistance. — List the number of units and people 
assisted in placement in direct employment through the employment 
assistance programs. 

2. Returnees. — Estimate by percentage those who have returned 
from relocation and the major reason for returning. 

L. Readiness of Indians to Manage Their Own Affairs 

1. Problem Areas. — Evaluate the capacity of the members of this 
particular tribe to manage their own affairs. Discuss any major prob- 
lem areas. 

2. Cultural Isolation. — ^This entails an evaluation of participation 
by Indians on or off the reservation in what may be described as dis- 
tinctly Indian culture (including language use, religious or secular 
ceremonies, social mores relating to an older Indian culture, etc.) The 
proportion of Indians (irregardless of degree of blood) contained in 
the "core" of cultural Indians constitutes a good measure of the de- 
gree of acculturation experiences by the tribe. 

3. Non-Indian Community. — Evaluate the relationship of this tribe 
or reservation to the non-Indian community, i.e., local, county and 
State. This includes not only attitudes but abilities of these govern- 
mental units to carry any economic services necessary for future 
development. 

4. Bureau Appropriations. — Provide breakdown of appropriations, 
by activity, for three fiscal years: (a) Actual expenditures last fiscal 
year; (b) Funds programmed current fiscal year (or expended where 
applicable) ; (c) Funds programmed next fiscal year. 

M. Other Government Programs 

1. List all other Government programs in operation on the reser- 
vation or assisting the reservation population. 

2. Briefly describe each program, the number of participants, etc. 



166 

PART III- 

ALL AGENCIES ^ 

This part would be based on a form annual report for all agencies, 
bureaus, and departments, in the Federal Government responsible 
for any aspect of Indian programs. The reports would contain — as 
indicated in the outline below — specific information on the program 
and expenditures. Should the Program Information Act (H.R. 3860, 
Representative Roth) become law. Section 11 would prohibit all other 
compendiums of program information "in order to make the catalog 
the exclusive source of such program information both for the public 
and for the program officers." In developing a proposed catalog of 
Indian program information, every possible attempt could be made to 
incorporate the findings and recommendations of the Roth Study in 
determining the information to be included and the format as well. 
This could be expected to result in an efficiently organized and ex- 
tremely useful compilation with a minimum of unnecessary duplica- 
tion of effort. If H.R. 3860 is enacted, this part would simply be an ex- 
tract of all Indian programs from the proposed Catalog of Federal 
Assistance Programs. 

A. Identification of organization 

1. Full legal name of program. 

2. List each administrative level between the program and the high- 
est agency or department. 

3. Enabling legislation. 

B. Funding 

1. Actual expenditures for the past fiscal year. 

2. Appropriations for the present fiscal year. 

C. Purposes 

1. Briefly outline the programs. 

2. Are there any plans for expanding or reducing the programs ? 

3. What has been the reaction of the Indians or Tribes ? 

4. Are there any other Government programs closely related to this 
one? 

5. Wliat are the eligibility requirements for participation in the 
program ? 

D. Offices 

1. List headquarters office, contact officer, and telephone number. 

2. List all field offices, contact officers, and telephone numbers. 

E. Personnel 

1. How many employees were there on the last day of the preceding 
fiscal year ? 

2. Of this number how many were full time and how many part 
time? 

1 The idea for this part came from the Roth Study entitled Listing of Operating Federal 
Assistance Programs as Compiled During the Roth Study by the Honorable William V. Roth 
(Congressional Record, June 25, 1968, pp. H5441-5585 ; and House Document 399, 90th 
Congress, 2d session). This catalog has been an extremely useful reference tool and the 
writer has benefited not only from the information contained but the quick reference 
organization and indexing of the report itself. 



167 

3. What were the total man-years expended in the previous fiscal 
year ? 

4. Wliat was the total administrative overhead of supplying, equip- 
ping, and servicing those man-years ? 

F. Publications 

1. List all reports published during the past fiscal year by author, 
title, and pagination. 

2. Provide a brief summary for each publication. 

PAET IV— STATISTICAL COMPILATION ON 
INDIANS AND INDIAN RESOURCES 

A. Population 

1. Total Indian population in the United States (Bureau of the 
Census). 

2. Reservation population (Bureau of Indian Affairs) : 

(a) Living on Reservations. 

(&) Living on trust lands (not on Reservations) . 
( c ) Living near Reservations. 

3. Service population : 

{a) Total "service" population and definition of same (Bureau 
of Indian Affairs) . 

(&) Total "service" population and definition of same (Divi- 
sion of Indian Health, Public Health Service) . 

B. Health 

1. Infant death rate compared to non-Indian. 

2. Life expectancy for Indians as compared to non-Indians. 

3. General statement on the Indian's health today in comparison 
with the non-Indian. 

4. Programs. 

{a) How many hospitals there are (location, number of beds, 
personnel service population, etc.) . 

(b) How many health centers (location, personnel, service pop- 
ulation, etc. ) . 

(c) How many health stations (location, personnel, service pop- 
ulation, etc.). 

{d) How many beds are available in community hospitals built 
through Public Law 85-151 (name of hospital and location). 

C. EmployTnent and unemployment 
Total population : 

1. Between the ages of 18 and 55 able to work ; 

{a) On the reservation, male, female. 
( h ) Near the reservation, male, female. 

2. Working full time. 

{a) On the reservation, male, female. 
( h ) Near the reservation, male, female. 

3. Working part time. 

{a) On the reservation, male, female. 
( & ) Near the reservation, male, female. 



168 

4. Between (the ages of 18 and 55, physically able and wanting to 
work, now unemployed. 

(a) Comparison with non-Indian labor force in area. 

D. Education 

1. Level. — Average educational level for the following age groups 
in terms of the highest grade completed : 







Male 


Female 


18 to 25 yr inclusive — 


26 to 45 yrs - - 






2. School Age Poyvlation- 
the following age groups : 


-Number of resident tribal members in 






IVIale 


Female 


1-5 yr inclusive --.-.-- 


6tol3yr — - 


14 to 18 yr 


19 to 21 yr 




3. School facilities. — On the reservation. 



Enrollment 
System Number Capacity Elementary Secondary 



Public. 
BIA.... 
Mission. 
Other... 



E. Land 

1. Total acreage of tribal land. 

2. Total acreage of tribal fee land. 

3. Total acreage of tribal tnist land. 

4. Total acreage of individual trust land. 

5. Total acreage of individual trust land in heirship status : 

{a) Number of tracts. 

{h) Number with 2-10 owners. 

(c) Number with more than 10 owners. 

6. Total acreage of Federal lands on Indian reservations. 

F. Law and Order 

1. Number of reservations under State law. 

2. Number of reservations having : 

(a) Traditional courts. 

(&) Courts of Indian Offenses. 



169 

PART V— STATE AGENCIES AND PRIVATE ORGANIZA- 
TIONS IN THE FIELD OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

A. State Agencies 

Note. — General statement on each state agency, operation, staff, 
budget, programs, publications, etc. 

B. Private Organizations 

Note. — General statement on each private organization, officers, op- 
eration, budget, publications, programs, etc. 

PART VI— PUBLICATIONS AND REPORTS IN THE FIELD 
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Note. — Those published on a continuing basis by all levels of Gov- 
ernment concerned with the Indian problem, the private organization 
publications, tribal newspapers, etc. The intent would be to annotate 
each publication indicating content and providing thereby a compre- 
hensive list of publications containing current information from all 
over the United States. 



APPENDIX D 
FEDERAL PROGRAMS SERVING INDIANS 

Cited in Chapter Six 



(171) 



173 



o o o woo 

o o in 0) o o 



g o ( 



tii- 






T yj o < 

I r-T 00 O 0) < 

r~ tM o JJ < 



I o ro >,^ tNi ( 

rH i3 a\ CT\ (N 



O O ^ — ft 



u: 



rH 4J ^ 3 



4J (1) 



H Q O ' 

hi 



i^asf^ 



III 
ill 

pL. fl fl 



■d-s- 



llll 



111 

all 



•-ass 
f1: 






g.s 



111 



III 

121 




> H H 0) N (1) ^ 
Taxi's 3'.H §rH ui 



Q^ Q t3 -H fO 

■a dj M d-a o 






174 






H Q O rn >i-H CM 
O t-^ Xi a\ a\ r 



5!§ 

II 



o a; 01 4-1 ■- 
„ f-! H '=^ P 



^8 



lA-<^-b' 






~ "^ i w 8 

M ID O 5 -H 

(1, m a o -M 



.^§L 



III! 



^1 



Hi 



0) in -H 

O P Vj -u 

u 3) nj c 

S 0-S 01 



to ft Q -s Q ., :: . 



3 +j o in 
cms 

1 5 ^ .3 1 



!l 






^illi 



o ra 8 § * 
S S as S 



175 



o o o o 



O O U] o o 



B\ 



fl4 









ON (3 






o o o o 



r|s! 



•T h > 1^ 



a C o 



m ■^ to in *^ 
i-~ 1^ M r^ r^ 



►^ _- en 



Ft 



1 » p 



I (0 ^ c -T 

U) H -H O JJ 

0) (0 tn -3 cj i 

' »•-! o -P CO • I 

M 4-1 3 C W . 



s llaL 
s J" ^ .-1 .3 ^ 3 

§ -s j= s ■§ -^ ^ a 



^as§ 

S o o 3 

U] rd C 







^ .1 a 1 1 1 S 






c:3''-'4Jlljol4JM-l 

a) m c o aid c rH S * ■ H 

cur-i o <D o -p -Hy-H 
rox;in.H'ac>iram'd 



■H O -H 

I i I s § 

fl el's o a 



I 1^1 
■U M (d 



.§S8 



93-440 O - 78 - 13 



176 



II 



H 






5s 



o o o o o 



n (0 •<j- in U3 
1^ M !--• r~ r- 




^'.^§ 



§ r~ 






III 









i^' 



^5 
•U5 



H o I -H o n a -3 ro -HOW 

nlllllllllll 

si 

31- 

•H T] ■'W S 



O O ON O O 
O O CM O O 



CJ ro •<J' I 
1^ r^ r~ I 



to 01 



■||. 



g , 
^ i ,d 

"O O 3 i 0) 0) 



851 



mil k 



"S M-l 'd S S 0) O 



o 4-1 -p ro • 
Cn > -H 0) 



1 5 

o5 §> 



2ms 



(0 CO 



10 D a -H c 



c 8 ° -s r3 

lii O 4J (0 in 



177 



.^3 






°^ g .S ^ 5 



fi5 rH Qj , 

P g cn * 



o m (d 10 3 



II 



1 s al ^ § 



.5 Si 



» ° A) ^3 S § a 

-HOdooiaciiD 

a 5 s s rd "s 5 






tig 



i 1^. 



.^1 






^j o a 

53 y a 






-j-l m 



o 

si 



OJ .0 



!i 



178 






I o o 



^3 



S5 



I, 



(D Vj 

in o, 



5i^' 



lb 



S||| 



S^ 



1^ 
II 



• 8: 



in -a u) 

5ll 



.8-^5! c-g. 

W E rH O Q 9 

a^S^„Sg^-J<n; 



Jl 



:^.'S 



O tn "O 







g< 



.§11 



o o o o 



ro -^ 01 in v£) 



4-) J • D in 



1^ - 



iJ O -4J CJ 

to '■om • 



B&1 



o g n 
J-i en Q) 






8 C +J Q 

cXJ o 



si 



i-SsJS 



■PiS 






g-i^' 



S in 
■a in 



179 



o o o o --- 

o o o o o 

o o o o o 

. » .. . «CJ 

in in '^ o - 

n (i3 o o ro 

"^ i in in V 

tj- in in vo to- 

^r^ M r^ r^ ^ 



o o o o 



!! 



0) y? 8 






J 0) 

^3 Jo -H . 
C (1) O -P 

I 111 




-8) 

5m3 fHcS.qfloouicfiioa 
i-iiHCino-pujocjJcU'tai; ■amm 






^s 



J3 !3 'a S 



\i4-i o nJ nJ -H 



:mM' 



B -r-i 0) 
O S 0) 5 



nm 



^i- 



■H to O 



ss 






s ^. 



^^^■^gs^:ii- 



.1^' 






fi <H Id 



III 



180 




181 



^'h 






2§ 



£ o 5 r- m g>ai c 



O O CTi 4J o o 

r^ o <£■ -H 00 T 



o o o o 



b ' 


u 


-,n 




ss 




^.. 


VL> 
















■a o 


sT! 


B 


J 










d 


Stat 

67-3 

594; 

27, 

66; 



II 



1§ I s 



Q 5 m 8 3 a a^ 






.^a. 



nr-| m 



ae's- 



s 1 § I § 

fflfflE&njinpuNioin 






* 












m 



^? 



fag 



1^ 






■vl (d 



S .-S •;^ '^ g^-^ .H 1^ 1 1 ° 
"II §11 ll ill 

S Sen ■g3rsfx:3n) 
e§SS^^l8l&5§ 



I -B I I 
§.11 a 8 

tn "O 4-> x; 



^sl'dl 



^^Smtilg^'8 



en 



ff.s 



§3 

'^1 



aj OJ g 4J 

s"r| 



182 






CT> o^ 4-1 ( 



PS § 

fO o o 

^^O •• KD 

CT\ rH (U O 

ro Ln 4J in 

ro T in 1J1 



1^3 I 



O Ul 



8& 

si 



CN 4-1 O i 

0) 3 m I ooo 

'^ S ^ "* -a -H 4J 

o -'^ u 'O a 3 
o . • e fiC to 



4J _ ij _ 
r^ rH ai U 



5 J.' 






HI -H OJ 0) 
■r4 > m 4-1 

m " C ■ 



1^5 i1 



^§1 



tji tn 



Sis 



^1 



4J 0) 43 m ui 
2 o !q £ 



0) io tn 
III 



1^ 



^^ 



g H a 






g a, a) tn ■ 

.a 5 g a ^ 



ti§§ 



5^, 



I ^ .3 fi .a -d § I 



.^■s.s5!fBJ 
gl^3§a 



,S85 



St 



10 a I -H tn 

•HO) 2 U -S 

j-i (1) tn 4J 

O B 4-1 



ait 
c i § 

H §" C -U 






, ,1^ 

ij ^ g i ^ 

e c - o <D 

i i^ I a I 
1^ g fi 1 1- 



183 



ml 



in Kay£> oo in 

< jH 0^ u P u 

T3 o d roD 

C CN "^ in '"' in 

CO . (N ^ 

^ B 5 in -o 

P 2 01 CO in •«• 






0^1 



o o o o 



>J,i 



I 

CO 

§ J 



M ° in . '-i 

■H +J 1^ iJ 03 
S <^ M On' 3 



U) 01 



m m c § 



lis 

•;^ .3 .3 , 



lia 



I.. .5 



U1 5 +^ -O 5 «) I 
0) -tJ 6 $ H 



ri 



i 






0) a p g 

ll'l 



m +J ro .H era 

i2 3 a 5 ;;>-.i 5 8 

dJ It) ~rH S C CO 



kh^^h 



I 



5^ 



as 



p -H -P nl fi in -H 



55 
Hi. 



Si! 



01 .H -5 3 0) s 

•H -O > 4J 01 -H 

n) -H 01 fi M 

g a S 8 1 .5 § 

111 



184 



< < < < 



r- r- r- c- 



o o o o 



o o o 

00 O'X) 

<T •• O .H 

r^ a) in o 

in B «5 in 



!■«• 



I! 












•y "i"* i-i _ "^ I 

<^ jH ft tj '(H ' 



£ O 4J in Q 3 OS 
fn 2 t/3 00 Q -0 ^ 



U • o J 

D en -U - 
ininjgS 



4J 01 +1 ' 



CO 73 § 



Ul 01 



I 

01 • 
01 

°.§ 

c > 

.3 I 

li 



11 
ll 



M 01 I c 

O 0) 01 ID 

s I "^ i 

u3 It) g 






^ ^ 01 ';^ 8 3 

8 S +j o -p p 

o ffl gJ "8 jj fi 



lis 
ill 



•i ^ 



l^'iil, 



ii: 



01 n +J 

S5^ 



C 'd ID '3 w 



ill 

tn T) 

ess 



Pi 



a-'s 



3 -H 






lii 



185 



+j " +j . 

CM 02 to 

w in 

(1) > I 00 



1 



- -d ^ O m 6 
•• b ■a O'gS 5 



r~ r- w r- i^ 



aB».n 
■a o rM 



IkiikBU^ |- 



§.s 



1 ^ 



10 (1) & I 
i§1'.H X) -d S •d OQ 3 ii 1 



III 



sag' 

> O 3 



ui in 



5 



5 q ° H I 



I -6 Si 



I § 1 1 ^ 1 

W p H '^ 6 •'^ 



" ^ 8 

III 



q , 5 

s « « I -S i 
■a >*-! o XI MX) 



:.! 



S.2 



oi'HCC'HOnJui 

•S 5 O 42 -H 

J 

IT) 01 

'H ' 8 

ui in c 

•I '^ •" 

■a t) m 

58! !8 



"I 






186 



IF 



%l 






&3 



i^ 1^ W r- I 



tit 



^ O 3 r- I 



ji'kD g 00 o\ 



W P tS 



8 

ii 



A-S 



^ 5 S ° S 



|"§S§. 



b-i CO n 
ft M-J ■<i t^ 



r~ § 



u-ic<cr.o<wgf?! 
F2cocoi-l4JrHm(N^u-i( 



15" 



- to - 



(T. iH rd r^ 

CU eC T ft 



^1 






■At 

ill; 



'S oi 
lllll 



31 



>toqiB p^^cc- o 



II 



.laS-3, 



2S 



B C M 
IP 



187 



. ^ A' S ^ S -i u 

h •* w p (d o> LO 
^ cx) . -q >{ -u <N 

• tN a (d g jJ Ln 
24Jin S-Hi4jo«T^ 



I 



Q a o 



fl^ jH ol U '> ^ JJ 
U Si .^ ui iS CO 

CO • (N o D -3 o 



VD O O O 

n o o o 

MOO •• O 

c.'ocCfi^' 
CO tM •tj CO yr 
^D I^ [^ S S 









(0 o m -P 

ID <U (0 

•| s f I ° 

3 8 a 8^ o 



8 8t,€ 



!8^| 






s^^1^-^-^^ 



H W N M nj (D -H 

I PI -S^ft^ 



III la S 



I as 

-p jj 3 vj 



< o c 



S 01 -P 



w -a -p --j -H 
-y (u rti-a c o 

S ^ S S 8 -IJ 






g-5 



iiii 



lis 



3 (1) c 



§J3 



188 









55 



8& 






gl 



§;;; 



3 jii 






gs . 



<: o 1 -» 



111 

< 8 -S Q, 



- -p m 

311 






■S-cJ 



H^3 



S ffi O ^ ■§ 5 10 '^ 
• •'c -H m M o '8 
3 o -vl 'b "O o u 



5^.« 



^I.s 



:§i. 






H ft rb S fl <*-l 

olo J3 a a o 



8-S 



•^3 



fill 



■5a)''ywOC!H>P 



§-d 






s .^ c -^ i 5 



c CO +J 3 



Xitip-pajrain 



m 



■ 5 §.3 



gtJ-3-g 



liillll 



XS -H .H en >^ >H 

c ^ &.t^ a 3 3 1^ a 



8 
. Sis 

o !2 S 



gf 



iiiil 

!3 -rH O -Q P 



189 



[^ o o o 
fo o •• r-To 



O O (d O .H 






PI 

as P. < 



o o o 
o o o 
o o ■■ o 






^ in tM 



+J n ro ■ 






b - • w 

a) rH 00 u-i 

TS o in 

C IN 

P 2 01 ^ . 



> O ■>! 









■H a tt) -J 

01 en t3 -H 



^■s 






iii 



S=.^ 



•H 13 O C g 

p 01 43 -r-iU-l ft 



i) o 

C H U 



'UP 



ill 



•^-^oTgl^lfSS 
1i! I 8 ^ 1 -c! 3 ^ 11 

eillliiiij. 



1^ 

ft O gi 



8 3 01 

s^§ 



eg 



fs 



§1 
It 



O la ui 

U) JJ 3 (1) 

§;g.g § 



im 



8! 5!; 

O V 



57 



:^ 



sg; 



. m m r 



U Eh 3 U > . 






i^ , ^-g' 



h^SI 



°ll^f.^ 



rHil(Uoi(n-PB3 






T) 0) D E W C 

s Jig's ss ^.rti 

ro Cr a O -r-i O .-I 



e5.S 



^lll 



^ .5 .3 g 



u o 

III 



alii 



191 



o o 
o o 

.00 



§^-i 



iS -a [^ Si-H in 



^5 



S. ^ t 



4J -p s 

i a I m 



d'U 






3^< 






1&I 



.§8 



5^ 

tn to 



tji It) 






ip 



M iD 0) -H 8 0) j^ 






5c. 



a (1) 0) 

ess 



Its 



8 



III 

m 






93-440 O - 78 - 14 



APPENDIX E 

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE TENTATIVE 
FINAL DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION 



(193) 



COMMENTS ON THE TENTATIVE DRAFT REPORT 
OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COM- 
MISSION 



CONTENTS 

Page 

Acknowledgement 198 

Affiliation of Arizona Indian Centers " 199 

Agriculture, U.S. Department of: 

Office of Equal Opportunity 203 

Food and Nutrition Service 207 

Akwesasne Mohawk Tribal Council 209 

Alaska Federation of Natives 210 

Alaska Native Foundation 212 

American Indian Business Association 213 

Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc 217 

Beane, Syd, Executive Director, Phoenix Indian Center 219 

Benton Paiute Reservation 221 

Berry Creek Tribal Council, Maidu 223 

Binder, Dennis : 227 

Borbridge, Commissioner John 230 

Browning Public Schools, Montana 240 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Nome, Alaska, Agency 274 

CaUfornia, Department of Housing and Community Development 275 

Cammack, Rose - — 279 

Commerce, U.S. Department of. Economic Development Administration. 280 

Connecticut, State Department of Environmental Protection 286 

Creek Nation 287 

Dellwo, Rudolf and Schroeder 300 

Deloney, George C 306 

Evans, Nancy 314 

Friends Committee on National Legislation 319 

Gallup-McKinley County Public Schools 321 

Harvey, Cecil L 322 

Horman, Calvin 325 

Housing Assistance Council, Inc 326 

Hawaii, Gov. George R. Ariyoshi 327 

Health, Education, and Welfare, U.S. Department of. Office of Education __ 328 

Houma Alliance, Inc 330 

Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of, Denver Regional 

Office- - 332 

Indian Claims Commission 334 

Indian Education Conference, Arizona State University 337 

Indian Health Service 381 

Indian Rights Association 383 

Interior, U.S. Department of, Assistant Secretary James A. Joseph 386 

Introduction 197 

Jagnow, Earl 388 

Johnston, Senator J. Bennett 393 

Kidwell, Clara Sue 394 

Kodiak Area Native Association 398 

Laguna Pueblo ^y° 

Lembke, Dale and Bonnie ^Ji 

Livingston, Robert J ^1* 

Louisiana, Gov. Edwin Edwards jl^ 

McAlear, James H 416 

Montana Department of Community Affairs 420 

National Association of Counties 422 



(195) 



196 

Page 

National Congress of American Indians 493 

National Indian Education Association 557 

National Tribal Chairmen's Association 567 

Native American Center 585 

Native American Coalition of Tulsa 586 

Native American Rights Fund 588 

New Mexico Indian Tax Study Commission 686 

New Mexico, Gov. Jerry Apodaca 688 

New Mexico, Health and Social Services Department 690 

Oklahoma City Urban Indian Health Project 693 

Oregon, Commission on Indian Services 695 

Piegan/Blackfeet 698 

Prescott Indian Center 701 

Patterson, Bradley H., Jr., Brookings Institution 704 

Phoenix Indian Center 707 

Pit River Home and Agricultural Cooperative Association 708 

Poco, Lonnie 712 

Pueblo Council, the All-Indian 716 

Ruffing, Lorraine T., and Trosper, Ronald L 776 

Rufal Alaska Community Action Program 779 

Sell, Lue A 781 

Shaan Seet, Inc 782 

Shinnecock Tribe 784 

Shoshone-Bannock Tribes 789 

Sioux Indian Center 795 

Sitnasuak Native Corporation 796 

Squaxin Island Tribe, Chairman Calvin J. Peters 799 

South Bay Indian Services, Inc 800 

South Dakota, Gov. Richard F. Kneip 802 

Stichting N.A.N.A.I 808 

Taylor, Theodore W 809 

Tlingit and Haida Indians of Alaska, Central Council 820 

Ute Indian Tribe 855 

Veeder, William H., Attorney at Law 424 

Washington State Native American Education Advisory Committee 861 

Winslow Indian Center 864 

Wolfe, Arlene, et. al. Flathead Reservation 869 

Yakima Indian Nation, Confederated Tribes and Bands 874 

Ziontz, Pirtle, Morisset, Ernstoff & Chestnut 876 



APPENDIX E 

COMMENTS RECEIVED ON THE TENTATIVE 
FINAL DRAFT REPORT OF THE COMMISSION 

INTRODUCTION 

The letters and comments which appear in this appendix relate 
to a working draft of the final Commission report which was given 
wide public distribution prior to preparation of the final report. As 
work on the development of the final report commenced, it was recog- 
nized that much time and attention had been given to eliciting the 
opinion of the public, both Indian and non-Indian, on the problems 
affecting Indian people, but an additional opportunity was necessary 
for the public to evaluate and criticize the findings and recommenda- 
tions the Commission proposed to make as solutions to these problems. 

In early March of 1977 some 1,200 copies of the p)roposed Tentative 
Final Draft of the Commission Report were mailed to all Indian 
tribes, including federally and non-federally recognized tribes, Indian 
groups and organizations, both rural and urban. Governors and agen- 
cies of various States with an interest in Indian affairs, interested Con- 
gressmen and Senators, and numerous Indian and non-Indian people 
and organizations. A request was made that they review the tentative 
draft and supply comments by April 23, 1977, in order that their com- 
ments could be utilized in the completion of the final report. 

The comments included in this appendix were reviewed by the Com- 
mission as the final draft was developed. Many of the suggestions were 
incorporated into the final report and many of tV>e criticisms resulted 
in substantial revision of both text and recommendations. The chapters 
on Federal administration and economic development were particular- 
ly affected by these comments. Other comments were not incorporated 
into the final report. Some of these comments, particularly those relat- 
ing to problems in Alaska, were seen to be substantive and meritorious. 
However, time and manpower simply did not permit a broadening of 
the report to address the additional issues presented. 

Finally, many of the comments simply represented a general opposi- 
tion to the findings and recommendations of the Commission. Some of 
these comments raise substantial issues that deserve serious considera- 
tion. Most of these issues have been addressed in the final report. Other 
of these comments reflect an emotional attitude that can only be 
described as anti-Indian per se and not worthy of consideration. All 
of these comments are included in this appendix. 

(197) 



ACKNOWLEDGMENT 

The Commission wishes to extend its appreciation to the University 
of Minnesota School of Law for the comments of its student body on 
the tentative final report. Due to the volume of this material, it is not 
possible to include these papers in this appendix. However, they are 
included in the Commission bibliography and may be located aniong 
all of the Commission documents on file at the National Archives. 

(198) 



199 



We recognize that you may not be able to thoroughly read and evaluate all parts 
of this Report within the time allowed for cement. However, in order to 
include your carments in our Final Report, this questionnaire must be conpleted 
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than i^ril 16, 1977. 
Our Final Report must be carpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Connission approval. 

(Arizona Indian Centers, Inc.) 
^^AM E Affiliation of Arizona Indian Centers ADDRES S 2721 N. Central Av e . 

. . #908 

TRIBE/ORGANIZATION Indian organizations Phoenix. Ari-zona 8 5004 

A. PLEASE CIRCLE Om TO INDICATE YOUR IDENTITY AS : 

Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body Individual Indian 



Matiber of Congress (Organiza tional Governing Board} 

State Official Private Citizen 



PLEASE EVALUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKING THE BLANK WHICH MOST NEARLY 
REPRESENTS YOUR OPINION. 



The report as a whole is 

I. History 

II. Legal Concepts 

III. Conditions 

IV. Federal- Indian Relations 

V. Tribal Government 

VI. Federal Administration 

VII. Economic Development 
VIII. Social Services 

IX. Off-Reservation 

X. Terminated Indians 

XI. Non-Recognized Indians 

XII. Special Problem Areas 
XIII. General 



200 



C. HAVING READ THE RECOiyiMENDATIONS AT THE END OF EACH SECTION, PLEfiSE A^EWER 
THE FOUXWING QUESTIONS . 

1) Which recormsndations should be given priority status? Why? 

SEE ATTACHED 



2) Are there reccranendations with which you disagree? Why? 
see attached 



3) Are there recontnendations you would like to have added? 
see attache d 



4) Do you feel the content of the report provides an accurate, useful 
picture of the situation? 



see -attached 



5) Do you have any additional ccrmsnts? 
see attached 



F. SPACE IS PROVIDED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR YOUR SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS. 



201 



N/^E Affiliation of Arizona Indian Centeff CDRESS 2721 N. Central Avenue 

#908 
TRIBE/ORGANIZATICN Indian organizations ph oo n-iv. Ari^.nna 8S004 

RECCMMENDATICNS 
Chapter ( 9 ) Page ( 30) Paragrafii ( 2 ) 

In the section beginning with the words " 



it is suggested that the following addition. 



deletion or change in wording be made, or the following concept expressed 
differently: 



202 



The members of the Board of the Affiliation of Arizona 
Indian Centers (Arizona Indian Centers, Inc.) did not 
have time in the short time permitted them to read the 
entire report but as A.A.I.C. is an organization of 
Urban Indian Centers that give direct service to Urban 
of f -reservation Indians they directed the time they had 
to the section of the report dealing with of f -reservation 
Indians . 

The Board of A.A.I.C. strongly supports the recommendations 
of this section. They offer the following additions to the 
recommendations regarding Urban Indian Centers; Funds 
available for financial support of Urban Centers should be 
based on need not population. 

Also Urban Indian Centers in order to properly serve the 
Indians in Urban off-reservation areas should be eligible 
for certain Economic Development Funds for facilities 
and give Centers the option and ability to develop businesses 
along with our Centers. 



203 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

OFFICE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 



WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250 

I 1977 



mvi 



IN REPLY REFER TO: 7160 
Indian Desk 



Senator James S. Abourezk, Chairman 
American Indian Policy Review 

Commission 
Congress of the United States 
House Office Building, Annex No. 2 
2nd and D Streets, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Tentative Final Report of 
the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Three areas discussed in 
the report are of particular interest to me. These are: the inclusion 
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Indian Desk in a separate 
Indian department or agency, consolidation of all Indian land acquisition 
programs, and the effectiveness of USDA nutrition programs. 

On pages 128-9 of Chapter Six on Federal Administration, the report 
suggests that secondary consideration be given to placing the Department 
of Agriculture's Indian Desk within an independent Indian agency. The 
purpose would be to "consolidate programs from federal departments which 
are a part of a separately established Indian service structure which 
exists because of the unique status of Indian tribes." I do not disagree 
with this objective. However, our Indian Desk does not administer any 
programs for Indians. Rather, it promotes Indian participation in USDA 
programs generally available to all citizens. Such an advocacy function 
within the Department will still be needed even if a separate agency 
administering Indian programs is created. 

Regarding Indian land acquisition programs, I support the Commission's 
recommendation (chapter 7, page 35, number 8) that Congress mandate the 
Executive to study the feasibility of consolidating the Farmers Home 
Administration and Bureau of Indian Affairs tribal land acquisition 
programs. While the Farmers Home Administration has provided most of the 
funding for tribal land acquisition and offers considerable expertise on 
the agricultural utilization of such land, a larger and more flexible 
program is needed. As noted in other recommendations (pages 7-34 and 7- 
35), consideration should be given to increasing appropriations, revising 



204 



loan procedures to facilitate tribal purchase of key tracts of land, 
and broadening the category of eligible lands. 

The section on Nutrition (chapter 8, pages 43-48) clearly describes 
nutritional deficiencies experienced by Indians and the inadequacies of 
the USDA commodity and food stamp programs. Unfortunately, there are 
few specific suggestions for improving these programs other than the 
broad recommendation (page 74) that: "USDA should review and revamp its 
food supply system to insure consistent delivery of nutritious, health- 
giving foods to the Indian people, with particular emphasis on high-risk 
groups ... and to insure the combined, simultaneous use of both food 
stamps and donated foods for those tribes desiring it." 

Also, I question several statements about USDA food programs. First, 
the report asserts on page 8-45 that "USDA foods, by any standard, lack 
adequate nutritional value" and that "USDA's standard commodity distribu- 
tion list represents a nutritious food balance." Besides the apparent 
contradiction, it should be noted that the Family Food Distribution 
Program (commodities) is designed as a supplementary food source. I 
realize that for many Indians, commodities constitute the major part of 
their diet. A redefinition of the commodity program is perhaps in order. 

Second, the report asserts that USDA programs for high risk groups are 
inadequate because of unrealistic eligibility requirements and inappro- 
priate diets (page 8-46). I assume that the reference is to the Special 
Supplemental Feeding Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC) which 
requires that a competent professional authority determine the nutritional 
need of recipients through a medical or nutritional assessment. This does 
not seem unreasonable since the purpose of the program is "to provide 
supplemental nutritious food as an adjunct to good health care during such 
critical times of growth and development in order to prevent the occurrence 
of health problems" (Child Nutrition Act of 1966, section 17). The 
supplemental foods provided include iron-fortified infant formula, milk, 
cheese, eggs, cereal and juices, all of which are nutritionally appropriate 
for program recipients. 

Finally, the report maintains that "for those who cannot surmount these 
obstacles [of the Food Stamp Program], there is no alternative, since USDA 
does not want to operate a commodity program and a stamp program simulta- 
neously in the same community, despite Indian opinion that such flexibility 
is needed in order to meet diversified needs" (pages 8-46 and 8-47). In 
fact, though the Department has strongly encouraged the use of the Food 
Stamp Program, Indian reservations are the only localities where dual 
operation of the Food Stamp and Food Distribution Programs has been allowed. 



205 



I want to commend the American Indian Policy Review Commission and staff 
for the work you have done. I hope that these comments will contribute 
to the effectiveness of the Final Report and the ultimate implementation 
of much needed changes for Indian people. 

Sincerely, 




/ Director 



206 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

OFFICE OF EQUAL OPPORTUNITY 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20250 



WAY 31 1977 



IN REPLY 7160 

REFER TO: INDIAN DESK 



Honorable James S. Abourezk, Chairman 
American Indian Policy Review Comnission 
Congress of the United States 
House Office Building, Annex No. 2 
2nd and D Streets, SW. 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Enclosed are comments of the Food and Nutrition Service 
on pertinent sections of the Tentative Final Report of 
the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Although 
I realize that the Final Report was submitted to Congress 
on May 17, 1977, this information may still be useful. 

Sincerely, 




Director 
Enclosure 



207 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 
FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE 

KLPI.V TO WASHINGTON. DC 20250 

ATTN OF: ,,„., 

MSY U. 197/ 

SUDJECT: Tentative Final Report of American 
Indian Policy Review Commission 

'^O: Stuart Jaraicson, Supervisor 

Indian Desk 



Attached are our comments on the American Indian Policy Review 
Commissinn's findings on nutrition from their Tentative Final 
Report. 

We regret the inadvertant delay in providing these comments. 



/'w'H. A. Scurlock, Dir^>5^or 
Civil Rights Staff 



93-440 O - 78 - 15 



208 



FOOD AND NUTRITION SERVICE COMMENTS ON TENTATIVE FINAL REPORT OF 
THE Al-IERICAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 



We share the concerns of the Commission of making a nutritious diet 
available to Indians. Following are comments on the distribution 
of foods to Indians (Reference pages 8-45 and 8-46 of your report) 
and Food Stamp Program (Reference pages 8-46-through 8-48) . 

Distribution of Foods to Indians 

USDA's commodity list consitutes a nutritious food balance. All 
twenty-two food items are made available to the states. It is the 
State's option to select the foods for distribution to its recipients. 
It may select all or only a portion of the items to distribute. The 
variety of foods is not always accepted by the states, foods accepted 
are not always distributed, and food distributed may not be accepted 
by the families. The nutritional goal of the USDA Food Distribution 
Program is to provide 100 percent of the Recommended Dietary Allowance 
(RDA) to recipients. If foods are used as recommended they provide the 
RDA for protein, calcium, iron, vitamins A and C, thiamin, riboflavin, 
and 65% of calories needed. 

The Special Supplemental Food Program for "Women, Infants and Children 
(WIC) provides funds to supply nutritious food supplements to persons 
in the high risk groups (pregnant women, infants and children up to 5 
years of age who are determined by competent professionals to be at 
"nutritional risk" because of inadequate nutrition or income). We 
consider this a viable method of certification because it provides 
the opportunity to reach more than one problem. It enables persons 
who have nutritional deficiency to get a dietary supplement and 
because it requires certification by a competent professional, other 
health problems can be identified and remedied. 

Food Stamp Progra m 

The Food Stamp Division of the Food and Nutrition Service Sponsored 
a national workshop on "Food Issues Affecting the Indian Population." 
About 60-80 Indian Representatives from various tribes were invited 
to attend. Many of the Tentative Final Report concerns were addressed 
during that workshop. The indefinite continuation of the Food Distri- 
bution Program to all areas v;here the Food Stamp Program is not meeting 
adequate foods needs was one of the major concerns. This action would 
require legislative changes in the Food Stamp Act. 

A bill has been introduced Xi/hich provides for the simultaneous 
operation of the Food Stamp and Food Distribution Programs on Indian 
Reservations. 



209 



TRIBAL Mohawk ladlon Bm—mUoB 

Tribal Oflict 518 358 2960 4, Q_ Akwotam {HogaatbaigX Ntw York 13655 

Education Olllct S\8 358 2980 
Plaaatng Oilict 518 358 4808 



April 29. 1977 




AKWESASNE 

Senator James S. Abourezk, Chairman 
American Indian Policy Review Commission 
Congress of the United States 
House Office Building Annex No. 2 
2d and D Streets, S.VJ. 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

In reviewing the final text of the American Indian Policy 
Review Commission, the St. negis Kohawk Tribal Council wishes 
to comment on the findings. 

First and foremost is the recognition of the treaty 
rights of all Native Americans. Native peoples signed these 
documents in good faith and now the United States Government 
should honor them. 

Any reorganization of the B.I. A. that will improve ser- 
vices to the Indian people should be done, since the primary 
function of the B.I. A. is service for Indian people, their 
needs should be of utmost importance. 

If it is felt that the Bureau has mismanaged tribal trust 
lands then this should be brought out so that all Americans 
might understand the hardships that Native Americans endure 
in their fight to control their own destiny. 

On the subject of sovereignty, all tribes have felt that 
they are nations within a nation, and the St. Regis Mohawks 
are no exception. Congress must act on the issues at hand 
relating to sovereignty of Indian tribes. 



.Ma^ 



I. '^1 f^c^J>^ 



Charles T. Terrance 



Leonard V. Garrow 



210 



ALASKA FEDERATION OF NATIVES, INC, 



ntegrity. Pride in Heritage. Progress 



April 25, 1977 



Ernest L. Stevens, Director 

AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 

House Office Building Annex No. 2 

2nd and D Streets, S.W., Room 3158 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Stevens: 

We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the draft 
final report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. We 
are primarily interested in the areas affecting Alaska and in 
general the policy affecting Alaska Native "tribes". 

We wholeheartedly endorse the reorganization of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs with the transfer of authority and responsibility 
to the local level. We also concur with the organization of an 
independent agency concerned totally with Indian affairs, and which 
would include the various Indian-oriented agencies presently in 
existence under the umbrella of various agencies. A better coordina- 
tion of Indian Programs through the various agencies is needed and 
would only serve to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of 
these respective departments. 

We are pleased the Commission agreed to include in its 
report, a special section concerning Alaska; we concur with the 
Commission's recommendations outlined in this section. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to present our views 
and recommendations. I v;ould, at this time like to take this 
opportunity to express our appreciation for the fine work done by 
the Commission and hope your final recommendations to the Congress 
will be given the proper recognition they deserve. 

is, please do not 




• 550 WEST EIGHTH AVENUE ANCHORAGE, ALASKA 99501 • PHONE (907)274-3611 



211 



mestem union 



^^^ Telegram 



NFB182 WAF205(205 8>(1-02475SA119)PD 04/29/77 2056 

ICS IPMAFUB AHQ 

107 A 03043 NL ANCHORAGE ALASKA 133 04-29 400P ADT 
PHS m ERNIE STEVENS 

AICRICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COHHISSION 
HOUSE OFFICE BLDG ANNEX NO 2 202-225-1284 
eNO AND D STS S V 
WASHOC 20919 

REQARDING NATIVE AMERICAN RIGHTS FUNDS COWENTINQ ON THE ALASKA 
SECTION OF AIPRC REPORT AFN OFFERS FOLLOWING COMMENTS. 

1. THE CONFERENCE REPORT ON ANCSA SPECIFICALLY DIRECTS THE 
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR AND GOVERNOR OF ALASKA TO 

PROTECT THE SISSISTENCE RIGHTS OF ALASKA NATIVES 
CONTRARY TO NARFS ASSERTION THAT SUCH RIGHTS ARE TERMINATED. 

2. ANCSA AS CLEARLY STATED IN AIRPCS ANALYSIS DID NOT TERMINATE 
F.,», (R5..j!*L*SKA NATIVES! THEREFORE FOR PURPOSES OF FEDERAL LAW 



Telegram 



REGARDING AMERICAN INDIANS, ALASKA NATIVES HAVE SIMILAR 
STANDING AND PER06ATIVES. 
3. ANCS CREATED CORPORATIONS AND MULTIPLICITY OF TRIBAL 

GROUPS IN ALASKA REQUIRES PRIOR IT IZINS FOR PURPOSES OF 
PL »3-«38. AFN HAS NO DIFFICULTY WITH AIPRCS RECOMMENDATION 
IN THIS REGARD. 
4« AFN AGREES WITH AIPRCS ANALYSIS OF T AND H CENTRAL COUNCIL 
TRIBAL STATUS. 
lYRON I MALLOTT PRESIDENT AFN 

950 W fTH AVE SUITE 102 
ANCHORAGE ALASKA 99901 PHONE 907-274-3«ll 



212 



foundation 



the alaska native 

5T5 "D" Street ■ Anchorage, Alaska 99501 ■ 274-5638 
May 11, 1977 



Mr. Ernest L. Stevens, Executive Director 
American Indian Policy Review Commission 
House Office Building, Annex No. 2 
2nd Avenue and D Street, S.W., Room 3158 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Stevens: 

I have received your tentative final report which arrived 
only a few days prior to your deadline for comments . It is 
unfortunate that copies were not circulated far in advance 
to receive maximum comments from the 70,000 Alaska Natives. 
I suppose, however, the same comment about more time has been 
your major criticism. 

In reviewing the tentative final report, I find the only * 
area mentioned as a problem area in Alaska is in "Land Claims." 
I must admit, there are substantial problems concerning the 
implementation of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act. 
However, the report fails to mention our problems in the area 
of education, health, social services, justice, and others. 
The implication that our only problem in Alaska is land claims 
may result in legislative and funding backlash towards Alaska 
Natives. Such a situation would be unfortunate as the unmet 
needs in Alaska are substantial. 

Early in your administration we suggested that you and 
your staff utilize the 2 (c) Report of Federal Programs and 
Alaska Natives completed by the Department of the Interior, 
two years ago. There is much valid material available in that 
report which could have been incorporated into your final report 
to the United States Congress. We once again make that suggestion 
and urge you to at least outline the 2 (c) recommendations and 
conclusions in your final report as a very important addendum. 
The Department of the Interior should have piles of copies laying 
around somewhere in their offices. 




c.c. Alaska Congressional Delegation 
Alaska Federation of Natives 



213 




Chicago, m. 60640 



if^^ (312)728-1135 



l/EDinECTOn 



May 6, 1977 

Senator James S. Abourezk, 

Chairman 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 

Congress of the United States 

House Office Building Annex No. 2 

2d and D Streets, SW. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezic: 

We substantially agree with the report Captives Within 
A Free Society : Federal Policy And The American Indian , 
prepared by your commission. The recommendations are 
good and would do much to Improve the status of Indians 
if carried out. The emphasis placed on political self- 
determination and legal Jurisdiction of the tribes is 
proper, since economic and social conditions are dependent 
on these factors to a large degree. Inter-tribal self- 
determination for American Indian urban communities is 
equally important. 

The section on "Economic Development" should include 
urban Indian development, since it is likely that many 
Indians are in the city to stay. Tribal enterprises may 
Involve urban as well as reservation Indians. If not 
included here, then the economic development of urban 
Indians should be discussed in "Off -reservation Indians". 
Some of the issues concerning urban Indian development 
are discussed in the enclosed "American Indian Business 
Association Proposal" (AIBA) . Although urban Indians do 
not have the material resources of the reservations, they 
do have human resources and access to technical assistance, 
also, the capital for business enterprise. Off -reservation 
Indians not only deserve the same social services provided 
for reservations, but also the same economic development 
opportunities. The report should recommend not only 
support for urban Indian centers in providing social services 
but also support for Indian development organizations such 
as the American Indian Business Association. ONAP has 
neglected their responsibility to foster Indian urban 
economic development. Also, HUD, though funding reservation 
housing, has done nothing with Indian contractors to improve 
the poor housing conditions of many urban Indians. 



Dedicated to the creation and development of Indian owned Business. 



214 



Resorvations can develop ll^ht Industry and other labor- 
intensive businesses. This should be discussed In the 
■'Economic Developraent " section. Non-Indian corporations 
and the BIA have reco3nized this potential. Unfortunately, 
the EIA stresses employment as the only .3031 of reserva- 
tion industry, and many of these enterprises are neither 
owned nor managed by Indians. Tribal enterprises are 
often managed by non-Indians due to lack of skills on the 
reservation. The American Indian Business Association 
(AIBA) has found a need for basic management training, 
not only specialized technical assistance as mentioned 
by the comjiussion. The report, rightly, puts a hi^h 
priority on business education. This should exist not 
only on a professional level, but should be disseminated 
as widely as possible, as AIBA is doinr^ through its 
mana.-3;ement training workshops and consulting relationships, 
Furthermore, it is essential to tribal development that 
tribal government positions be paid. Volunteer council 
members presently/ do not have the time or energy to 
effectively plan and develop business enterprises. 

Indians have historically been excluded from, self- 
management experience and need technical assistance and 
m.ana'^ement training, preferably provided by Indians. 
The sections on technical assistance (in Chapter 4) and 
business education needed (in Chapter 7) contain 3000 
recommendations In response to the situation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to make our su-:fcestions 
and comments known. 

Sincerely, 



iv 1 1 1 a r d E . La !'!e r e 
EXECUTI\^ DIPuECTOR 



End: AIBA P^^po&a-l- 
','.^L/rl 



215 



THE AMERICAN INDIAN BUSINESS ASSOCIATIOri 

The Amer'ican Indian Business Association (AIBA) is an 
American Indian organization funded the past two years through 
the Commerce Department in order to create more Indian-owned 
businesses and strengthen existing ones in the region: Illinois, 
Wisconsin and Michigan. There are very few Indian busines£;es 
in proportion to the size of the Indian population. 

Why should Indians enter the business world? First of 
all, it benefits the individuals putting their skills to work 
for their own pr-oflt. Secondly, Indian business benefits the 
American Indian community as a whole. Money spent for goods 
and services can stay within the community. As economists 
understand, a single dollar multiplies its effect as it cir- 
culates from on hand to another within a community. For 
example, let's say a dollar passes between an Indian buyer 
and an Indian seller: the buyer is satisfied with one dollar's 
worth of Indian goods or services and another Indian has the 
dollar to spend. That dollar Is now spent again for a dollar's 
worth of Indian goods or services and another Indian has the 
dollar to spend. Each one has gained goods and services or 
another dollar of purchasing power. Thus the same dollar can 
benefit many Indians as long as it stays within the community. 
Now, the dollar usually benefits Indians once, only until it 
enters the white landlord's or merchant's pocket, and it does 
so immediately after pay day. Without the existence of Indian 
business and the circulation effect, economic progress is 
impoosible for the Indian community. 



216 



The p,ovorr,r.,cut iui;-. £;pent iJiiiiioii;; (;f dc:iar& to h'-.p 
1 ud ;a;.;., ijui With li.lLie effect,. The- mcjriey f.oc.s in o:;' ria.'i'J 
and out r.ht other. lL;n't it better to teach someone how to 
fish thian to' Rive them fish? The Indian comniunity need-, to 
make :r.oney and indian (.;ntei'prise , not juot eniploynent, i.. the 
an^/.-t r.> i'lie budget of the American Zndiari fiasi.'.esLi Ai,.;o'- :■.•.".. l-y 
(A":BA) r-..-prf:;ents much iesS'.than 1% of all the frovernrr.ent TiO'\"y 
spent on Indian procrams in the region, even though it i;. th-i 
mort. efficient way to help Indians. It iv not c-pendirij-;, but 
i nvr;.;l rr on t in Indian deve^iopment . 

AlilA offers n:atiy services to it:.; clients aiid the iv.dih:. 
eo.'umu- 1 L> . :TO;-.p'-ctive business people are helped m dov<:- 
C'pi'ij', a bL.:jL->eso p^lari, getting loans, choosirig a site, se' ■..-.>; 
up re.-ord keepir:/'. systems, and marketing. Existing Indian 
bu:~ifi''.;s'. :. are helped to expand, procure more sales and "rv-^ar 
and iniprov.: thcjr organi zation. AIBA offers managem<-nt training 
v.ork:-hops .-Mid teclmlcal assistance on specific problem:-. "•.•■ 
Ali^A t tai'i' :-,'M>p:-. abreast of current 0[.>portuni ti^'s and rc.-^-i.: .-.ci. 
ThfV'c ar-'- :.uv,' more opportunities than there are Indian €:;ti-e- 
pencur.. to pursue them. AIBA encourages Indians to cr.zcr 'ho 
business world. It acts as a catadyst for Indian eccnomi- 
development in tiie '"egion. 



217 



Association on American Indian Affairs, Inc. 




432 Park Avenue South 
New York, N. Y. 10016 



Alfonso Ortiz. Ph.D., Prtiideni 

Benjamin C. O'Sullivan. Vn« Prtsidint 

Mrs. Henry S. Forbes. Secretly 

E. Tinsley Ray. Trtoimret 

William Byler. Extemtiwt Director 

Arthur Lanrui. Jr.. Richard Schifter. Ctntral C 



April 20, 1977 

The Honorable James Abourezk 

American Indian Policy Revietw commission 

Congress of the United States 

House Office Building Annex Ne. 2 

2d and D Streets, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 205l5 

Dear Senator Aboiirezk: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the "tentative" final 
report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. 

We would like to restrict our comments to two matters only: child 
placement and water rights. 

I. Child placement , (pp. 8-10 -- 8-12), Apparently some of the 
copy has been inadvertently omitted from this section, as two of the 
pages end in mid-sentence. Wfe vtrge that the Commission's final report 
adopt in their entirety the recommendations regarding child placement 
made by Task Force Four on pages 87-88 of their report. 

II. Water rights , (pp. 7-37 ~ 7-it2). This section is disappointing. 
A vague recommendation is made that Congress "investigate" litigation in 
several areas. No mention is made of the concept of congressional settle- 
ment of Indian water rights. 

As tribes increasingly seek to assert their water rights and develop 
their resources they come into conflict witii competing non-Indian interests. 
At present the parties rely almost exclusively on the courts for resolution 
rather than on negotiation. The decision of the court in turn may resiilt 
in serious social unrest, as evidenced by the recent "Boldt" decision 
upholding Indian fishing rights in the Northwest. In many instances a 
negotiated congressional settlement would be in the best interests of all 
parties. We suggest that the AIPRC indicate its support for conflict 
resolution through legislative settlement when a tribe expresses its 
willingness to accept this alternative to litigation. (S.905, the Central 
Arizona IndianTribal Water Rights Settlement Act of 1977, which was 
introduced by Senator Kennedy on March U, 1977 at the tribes' request. 



218 



Honorable James Abourezk April 20, 1977 



may serve as a model of such congressional settlements.) 

In a pre-election statement. President Carter indicated his support 
for the concept of such congressional settlements: "Indians have a historiCj 
legal, and moral right to a fair share of available water resources. 
The ultimate resolution of conflicts concerning these rights, and the 
rights of others in the Southwest, will almost certainly be decided 
by the courts. In disputes concerning water rights, all sides must 
be assured full and competent legal representation. Legislation 
however may be necessary to speed the resolution of these conflicts, 
as an altemativB to protracted litigation." ( Indian Affairs No. 92) 

Vfe hope these comments will be of value to you, and we look forward 
to seeing the final report. 

Sincerely, 

Steven Unger 
Editor 



SU:gm 
Enc. 



219 



Vfe recognize that you may not be able to thoroughly read and evaluate all parts 
of this Report vdthin the tinie allowed for contient. However, in order to 
include your ccnrients in our Final Fteport, this questionnaire must be ccnpleted 
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than April 16, 1977. 
Our Final Report must be ccnpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Ccnmission approval. 

bP\M E St^d Zejune., Exzcattvz V-Uizctoi ADDRES S 4025 No/Uh 2nd StAzzt 

TRIBE/ORGANIZATION PhotYiix Indian CzntoA, IMC. VhotnAX, AZ. &S012 

A. PLEASE CIRCLE ONE TO INDICATE YOUR IDENTriY AS: 



Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body ( Individual Indian ) 

Member of Congress Organizational Governing Board 
State Official Private Citizen 



PLEASE EVT^LUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKING THE BLANK WHICH MOST NEARLY 
REPRESENTS YOUR OPINIOSI. 







Excellent 


The 


report as a whole is 


XX 


I. 


History 

Legal Concepts 

Conditions 

Federal-Indian Relations 




II. 




III. 




IV. 


XX 


V. 


Tribal Government 




VI. 


Federal Administration 


XX 


VII. 


Economic Development 




VIII. 


Social Services 
Off- Reservation 




IX. 


XX 


X. 


Terminated Indians 
Non-Recognized Indians 




XI. 




XII. 


Special Problem Areas 
General 




xiir. 





220 



HAVING RERD THE RBCOMMENDATig^S AT THE END OF EACH SECTION, PLEASE ANSWER 
THE FOLDJWING QUESTIONS . 

1) Which reconmendations should be given priority status? Why? 



Rz.commtndcution 111. A.Cj$ the TzdeAaJL-lndAjxri Tfiuit ReZcutiom, -dzcjUjon, paqu 

4-14 & /5, Rzcomimnddtion 1. - pccgz 131, of, tko. Ttd^AcUL AdmlnA^tAcution 

Se.ctLon, O^i-fie^M-vcution Indian Section fi2.comme.ndcutioni lolxitzd to Unban 

IndAjxn CenteAi. Thzi^ KzcomimndatA.oni, ofiz boiic to thz. doIAvaALj o^ ieAviczi 

to Indian pwplz iindoA thz FedeAol- Indian fizLation^hlp. 
2) Are there recortmendations vd.th which you disagree? Why? 



3) Are there reconmendations you would like to have added? 



Oii-nuQAvatlon Szctlon: {^undi ihouZd be alZocajtzd {^oi thz dzveI.opme.nt oj 
uAban Indian centeA jaalUXleA and legUlatlon znacted Ij neceMaAtj to 
alZoM Indian CenteA^ to dlnzcXtij receive iaah ^ands . 



4) Do you feel the content of the report provides an accurate, useful 
picture of the situation? 



5) Do you have any additional cements? 

I would tike to commend the Commliiilon and ita^ ion thein eHonXi in 



developing till:, exceZient nepont. 



SPACE IS PROVIDED ON THE FOUjOWING PAGES FOR YOUR SPECIFIC RECCMMENDATTONS . 



221 



Benton Pafate Reseviaation 

U ta Utu Gcoafta Pafate TRi'be 

lOe Soatta Main StReet, Roora # 7" 

P. O- Bojt 1525 

Bisbop, CalipoRnia 5>5514 

(Z14) 8Z5-7448 



29 March 1977 



Imerlcan Indian Policy ReTlew Commission 
Congress of the United States 
House Office Building, Annex Ho .2 
2D and D Streets, S.V. 
Washington, D. C. 



Dear Slp(s): 

Benton Palnte Reserratlen's Resolmtlon go, 77-05 

Enclosed herewith please find our above captioned 
resolution regarding the establishment of the 
American Indian Development Authority* 

Ve sincerely hope this will be a help! 

Sincerely, 



xril^^^\ ^'^7>^S2>^ 



Pattl S. Yermuth 
Staff Secretary 



pew 
encl< 



222 



Benton Paiute Reservation 
Resolution No. 77-05 



Subject: To support the American Indian Development Authority 
(AIDA) as recommended tiy the American Indian Policy 
Review Commission. 
Whereas: The U tu Utu Swaitu Paiute Tribal Council recognizes 
the need to establish economic development on the 
Benton Paiute Reservation; and 
Whereas: The economic development of the Benton Paiute 

Reservation will be dependent upon capital development 
grants and management and technical assistance. 
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the U tu Utu Gwaitu Paiute 
Tribe of the Benton Paiute Reservation supports the establishment 
of the American Indian Development Authority. 

CERTIFICATION 
We, the undersigned, as the duly elected Tribal Council members 
of the Benton Paiute Reservation, do hereby certify that the 
foregoing resolution was adopted at a. ^Ai^itA ^ '^l^ O0 t4A4 ^C 

meeting, duly called and convened on 2v9 /Tifh^fJt /^X^ , 

1977, at which a quorum was present, by a vote of \Z 



for, against, and ^ abstaining, and tint this 

resolution has not been rescinded or amended in any way. 



TRIBAL COUNCIL: 





Jseph C. Saulque, Triba^^hairman 



Mike E. Keller, Tribal Vice-Chairman 



\jOJbieAf^ 



Bertha Willis, Member 



Gerald Lewis, Member 
DATE: ZS^ynOAPAf /977 



yiQApp/97? 



ATTEST : 'MTTj / L / Uji/sA//iuitj^ 



223 



We recognize that you may not be able to thoroughly read and 
evaluate all parts of this Report within the time allowed for 
comment. However, in order to include your comments in 
our final report, this questionnaire must be completed and 
returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than 
Aprii 16, 1977. Our Final Report must be completed by 
May 15, 1977 for final Commission approval. 



NAME Bern ice Hedrick ADDRESS Box 82A. Berry Creek. CA 

95916 
TRIBE/ ORGANIZATION Berry Creek Tribal Council - Maidu 



A. PLEASE CIRCLE ONE TO INDICATE YOUR IDENTITY AS: 



'' Tribal Chairma n) Tribal Governing Body Individual Indian 

Member of Congress Organizational Governing Board 

State Official Private Citizen 

B. PLEASE EVALUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKING THE BLANK WHICH 
MOST NEARLY REPRESENTS YOUR OPINION . 

Excellent Good Poor 



The report as a whole is 

I. History 

II. Legal Concepts 
in. Conditions 

IV. Federal-Indian Relations 

V. Tribal Government 

VI. Federal Administration 

VI. Economic Development 

VII. Social Services 




IX. Off- Reservation ^ 



*-//[/ ai-i-L^ -<^'-'^y^ ^,^2.c^ ^4.^^^ ^^-- ^,'^^,>^--c<-^yiJ^^ 



93-440 O - 78 - 16 



224 



X. Terminated Indians ^ < ^. 



XI. Non- Recognized Indians 

XII. Special Problem Areas 



XIII. General „^7„./^jv / . .-^ ,^: ;r-r -L-^^-ri, 

C. HAVING READ THE RECOMMENDATIO N S AT THE END OF EACH SECTION . 
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. 

1) Which recommendations should be given priority status ? Why"? ^£^^^^^^^^^^ ' 
/yV-r^^^y- , ^y^ /':fyci^-v? . /^■i_-/ ,>.Jj: y-.'^.i^^/ ,^^,.- /^>6^^x V 7^ 



2) Are there recommendations with which you disagree? Why? ^^\j^ - 

.■irV< ^,r^-^. ■?rv^v'--^v .^^^yfcfe;, ^ ^.i^^^.-L^r-f' -XAaj^ y.v^f. 

3) Are there recommendations you would like to have added? // >^^ t^ 



.i^cAtH''', .^V ^/.-s t'yii/,^r/fr-»^ d-^ti!^ ,/ / g^ , 



-^3- 



'4) Do you feel the content of the report provides an accurate, useful picture 
of the situation? X^^,^,-^. ,^ ., v^^ ^r/.^^^^ r.y? .,r /^K^ y 



225 



5) Do you have any additional comments? C^Ay^i i j^^ '/'J-^',,^. -^Ir/^/ 

F. SPACE IS PROVIDED ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR YOUR SPECIFIC 
RECOMMENDATIONS. 

CHAPTER (3 ) PAGE (J-^4 PARAGRAPH (^'-tTTi) 

In the section beginning with the words " 



, " it is suggested that the 



following addition, deletion or change in wording may be made, or the following 
concept expressed differently: \J(_ -^^ r-rrYA-^^/ ^u^ :K, ^y x ^/w,<lSL 






226 



^X L/x^/^i^^.;.^'.^^'^ 7.-^-'-^ 



-^ ^-i^-^ ^Tk^ 



^^^c^t _-=/^ r-^7^ ^,;f/d.^^c. a^i^-'t^i^---^-^^ .jU-^i^-'"'-'-^^^ ^'-T^''--''^ 



■-'^/■<.<W- 6^z^-r^' 



•x/'vcy^ (-'i.L- d-cc.L-tui<_ A^iL-Cr<^y<, <-^-«*o^ /<:<!--: -/5>t'<-«-^^V^/ 



T- -- V 









t^f-iU:/, .■^<~^ V^-^ —^/i^ ~^'i>c^^i--r=iy4-' yiiC^yr^ *->y .. ^ /<-^ ^-: c 44' 



•7^: 



^-r/' 
-^-r'/ 



^cJ.^,., J?'-^.'^ 









227 



We recognize that you may not be able to thoroughly read and evaluate all parts 
of this Report within the tijie allowed for ocnment. Hcwever, in order to 
include your catments in our Final Report, this questionnaire must be cciipleted 
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than April 16, 1977. 
Our Final Report must be corpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Catitdssion approval. 



NftME Cf-Pf'-^ <?//« 



Cfi 



TRIBE/ORGANIZATION ^ f.'i ^'^I'-^/rr t'^ t\ L t-T ^■(■''^f 



A. PLEASE CIRCLE ONE TO INDiCAT^ YDUR" JoPnTTY AS : 

Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body Individual Indian 

Member of Congress Organizational Governing Board 
State Official , ^ivate Citizen 



B. PLEASE EVALUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKING THE BLANK WHICH MOST NEARLY 



REPI 
The 


RESENTS YOUR OPDJICN. 

report as a whole is 
History 
Legal Concepts 
Conditions 

Federal-Indian Relations 
Tribal Government 
Federal Administration 
Eoonotdc DevelopiTEnt 


Excellent 


Good 


Poor 


I. 




-T- 




II. 






III. 


^ . 




IV. 


/ 




V. 






VI. 






VII. 




X 




VIII. 


Social Services 
Off-Reservation 


^ 






EC. 


A 












X. 


Terminated Indians 
Non-Recognized Indians 
Special Problem Areas 
General 




XI. 






XII. 


» / 






XIII. 


/ 


A 





228 



C. HAVING HERD THE RECOWdEKDftTIONS AT THE END OF EftCH SEXTTICW, PLEASE ANSWER 
TOE FOLIXWING QUESTIOB . 

1) Which recatinendations should be given priority status? Why? 



f L.l%C .•/-. --i ,.r ntm'i.^'/' . ,, ^U\. r- /-'-t: :t^if^t^ 



i-.r 1 /-'''- ' '/v ■■ 


,-. ruei,l 


■■ I'-ifi^'i^ 


1 




,, 


s . /■ ■ r 


- /. .'V-- 


.■J~/ '-''.'■■ -• 


^]/]ri: 


,-,f. r. . 1 


, / -7 /-'/ 


f: '-'. 


., /. 


■ /' 











2) Are there reccmnendations with which you disagree? Why? 



3) Are there reccranendations you woiiLd like to have added? ■'.' "'t-L I '' ■ c 



n ■ ' ' ■-■■ 




''■ 1 ~ 


''(/ :/■'■: 


1. •.'- :>: '-I' r 


;■ -'. '->- . 


. / < ;'. A 


..• ;-,-A 


/•',, / / 


, ,U ^ y • 




' : /■ , 


/ '■/ 1. ' ■'■ 




n t>^ ■■ r' ■ ; 


/ /■// -t 


.r./ ..■ 


; .■) ■ - 


,/:i 




'■: 1 1 ul<,i ./. . 


,A,v^ 


I ^/t ,ri./i- ,.-.■ 


;. 'I /•■ 



4) Do you feel the content of the report provides an accurate, useful 
picture of the situation? '"''^ - 



5) Do you have any additional ccrroents? -. vf /" ^'V ' in'^ 



F. SPACE IS PROVIDED CN THE FOLLOWING PAGES FOR YOUR SPECIFIC RBCCMMENDATIONS. 



229 



TRIBE/ORGANIZATICN 



Chapter ( ) Page ( ) Paragraph ( ) 




In the section beginning with the 



," it is suggested that the follcwing addition. 



deletion or change in wording be madey or the follcwing concept expiressed 
di f f erently : 

fLlK<. :^'^t i'jh.r u^'rtu /tf^f/i'/X^ -j-uii'.rf^'y'/lLu cfUt/iTlY ^^■'-J'J'r:. j^ ^y/ir^ te 



230 




American Indian Policy Review Commission 
: united states 

2d AM) D Stuuti. SW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20SH 

PHONE: 202-225-1 2(4 



May 4, 1977 



Senator James Abourezk, Chairman 
American Indian Policy Review Commission 
Congress of the United States 
House Office Building Annex No. 2 
2nd and D Streets, S. W. 
Washington, D, C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

I am enclosing for consideration by the American Indian 
Policy Review Commission at its meetings of May 12 and 
13, 1977, a provision which was discussed at previous 
meetings of the Commission, but never stated in specific 
language. I recommend inclusion of the following: 

After the first paragraph on page 12-14 of the Com- 
mission's tentative final report add the following: 

Although their problems, and consequently their needs, 
do not differ markedly from those of their brothers 
in the lower 48, the vast size and severe climate of 
Alaska, coupled with wide dispersion of the Alaska 
Natives and limited transportation facilities, render 
it considerably more difficult and costly to meet the 
needs of the Alaska Natives than to meet the same 
needs of Native Americans elsewhere. Regardless how 
often articulated, the fact that it costs a great deal 
more to do almost everything in Alaska than any other 
place in the Nation, and that dollars don't go nearly 
as far in Alaska, are not really understood by many 
people . 

If it costs $25 thousand to provide a decent modest 
house in South Dakota for an Indian family of four, 
the cost of providing a comparable house in interior 
Alaska for a Native family of the same size might well 
be $80 thousand. The real magnitude of the difference 
between the costs of doing things and providing services 
in Alaska and elsewhere in the United States is seldom 
accomodated, even in programs where it is ostensibly 



231 



Senator Abourezk 
May 4, 1977 
Page 2 



taken into account. And general standards, for example, 
of feasibility that must be met to qualify for the 
benefits of many programs are simply impossible to meet 
in Alaska. 

Until the real magnitude of the difference in costs 
between doing things in Alaska and elsewhere is recognized 
and accomodated by those in Congress and the executive 
branch responsible for the design and funding of programs 
for Native people, the Natives of Alaska, when not com- 
pletely foreclosed, are not going to receive benefits 
from such programs comparable to those received by other 
Native Americans. 



After the first paragraph on page 12-14, strike the first 
two words "But they" and substitute therefore the words "The 
Alaska Natives. " 



Sincerely yours. 




Borbridge, 
Commissioner 




232 




American Indian Policy Review Commission 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 

House Office Buildmq Annex I4o. 2 

Zo/WDDSnerra. SW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C 205IS 

PHONE: 202^Z2S-I2<4 



May 4, 1977 



Senator James Abourezk, Chairman 
American Indian Policy Review Commission 
Congress of the United States 
House Office Building Annex No. 2 
2nd and D Streets, S. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

The enclosure contains my comments regarding the Native 
American Rights Fund (NARF) critique of the American 
Indian Policy Review Commission report on Alaska. The 
critique was the subject of a telephone conversation on 
May 2, 1977, at which time the gist of the enclosed 
document was conveyed . 

I appreciate the opportunity provided to comment on the 
issues raised by the Native American Rights Fund in re- 
gard to the Alaska section of the Final Report. 



Sincerely yours. 



John Borbridge, Jr, 
Commissioner ^** 



Attachment 



233 



American Indian Policy Review Commission 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 



The following constitute my comments relative to the statements 
regarding Alaska contained in the document prepared by the Native 
American Rights Fund (NARF) . 

I 

Alaska Natives 

Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 

NARF takes the position that the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
(ANCSA) adversely affected the sovereign powers residing in the 
Alaska Native Communities. 

The Commission has concluded that historically the relationship 
between the Alaska Native Tribes and the United States is the same 
as that between the Indian Tribes of the lower 48 and the United 
States; that historically the Alaska Native Tribes possessed the same 
powers of sovereignty as are possessed by the Indian Tribes of the 
lower 48; and that the Settlement Act did not essentially alter the 



234 



status of the traditional Alaska Native Tribes or their relationship to 
the United States or diminish their powers. Most of the comments 
made by NARF in opposition to this conclusion are ultimately irrelevant 
and betray a profound lack of understanding of the Alaska Native 
history and circumstances. 

Although the Settlement Act provided for the creation of new entities 
to accomplish its purposes , it largely left the traditional native enti- 
ties alone , neither adding to nor detracting from whatever rights , 
powers , privileges and immunities they possessed before its 
enactment. While it is true that the act expressed a policy against 
creating any new racially defined "enclaves" or institutions or trustee- 
ships, it did not, except in a handful of cases, undertake to change 
any existing institutions or relationships . Except in the case of 
those few native groups for whom reservations had been created, as 
far as the traditional native tribes are concerned, the Settlement Act 
changed nothing. 

The Commission recognized, because the traditional Alaska Native 
Tribes, by and large, were not involved with reservations, that 
they had no occasion to exercise some of the powers of sovereignty 
exercised by other Indian Tribes over defined territories (Indian 



235 



reservations). Alaska Natives insist, however, that other powers 
traditionally exercised by tribes that were not powers exclusively 
associated with or derived from land ownership, were among "residual" 
tribal sovereignty powers appertaining to their status . It is nonsense 
to suggest that the basic relationship existing between the Tlingit 
and Haida Tribes, for example, and the United States was altered 
because the Settlement Act, for example, provided for state taxation of 
native lands . The simple fact is , with few exceptions , that the tradi- 
tional Alaska Native Tribes had no land tax exemptions to be affected 
by the Settlement Act. And, what the revocation of the applicability 
of the Indian Allotment Act has to do with the status of the traditional 
Alaska Native Tribes and their relationship to the United States , is 
beyond me. 

Indian Self Determination Act 

NARF takes the position that the Indian Self Determination Act is 
better administered by small native entities rather than large ones. 

The Commission has tentatively concluded as a matter of policy that 
for the purposes of receiving benefits under the Indian Self-Deter- 
mination Act larger entities should generally be given preference over 
smaller ones and tribal type entities should generally be given prefer- 
ence over other types of entities . 



236 



NARF's objections to these policy determinations are not representa- 
tive largely of the Native feeling in Alaska. NARF reflects the role 
usually assumed in Alaska by "outside" bureaucrats who decide that 
they know what is best — thus obviating the necessity of eliciting 
comment directly from the people. As it is a matter of policy, it is 
for the Commission, guided by responsible representatives of the 
Alaska Natives, and not for others who are unaffected by applicable 
policy, to decide such a basic question. While the appeal for village 
autonomy, such as suggested by NARF, has a nice democratic ring, 
the plain facts are that the larger the entity, the better it is able to 
cope with a swollen bureaucracy and to insure benefits are received 
where needed as opposed to placing authority in small, unsophisticated 
entities scattered through Alaska which are subjected to being divided 
and conquered by the bureaucracy . The irony derived from the 
current administration of the Indian Self Determination Act is that the 
B.I. A. has used that legislation to erode tribal governing status in 
Alaska - a result neither desired nor contemplated by the Act. 

Tlingit and Haida Central Council 

NARF contends that Congress has not recognized the Central Council 
as the general and supreme governing body of the Tlingit and Haida 
Tribes . 



237 



This contention, on the whole, simply ignores the legislative history of 
the relevant acts of Congress regarding the Tlingit and Haida Central 
Council, particularly those of August 19, 1965 and July 13, 1970. 
While it is true that the Act of August 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 543), which 
provided for the organization of the Central Council under rules of 
election approved by the Secretary of the Interior, stipulates that 
this body "shall be the official Central Council of the Tlingit and 
Haida Indians for purposes of this Act," it is not true that the 
authority of the Council was intended by either the Congress or the 
Department of the Interior to be limited to matters related to the 
Tlingit and Haida claims against the United States. 

Nor is it true that the status of the Central Council as the general 
governing body of the Tlingit and Haida Tribes rests solely on the 
1965 Act, although, in light of its legislative history, that act would 
suffice to establish it as such. 

Two subsequent acts of Congress, together with their legislative 
histories, establish the status of the Central Council beyond any 
legitimate doubt. These are the Act of July 13, 1970 (84 Stat. 431), 
providing for the disposition of the Tlingit and Haida judgment funds , 
and the Act of December 18, 1971 (85 Stat. 688), providing for over- 
all settlement of the Alaska Native Land Claims. 



238 



Three times in the last six years Congress has been called upon to 
address issues involving the organization for purposes of self- 
government of the Tlingit and Haida Indians of Southeast Alaska. 

In 1965, it was advised by the Department of the Interior of the need 
to provide for the organization and recognition of a tribal governing 
body, truly representative of these Indians, with which the Department 
could deal, not just in connection with matters relating to their claims 
against the Government, but generally. 

Congress responded by passing the 1965 Act, which it had been in- 
formed by the Department would accomplish this purpose. The reports 
of the Interior Committees which underlie that act show beyond cavil 
that this is what Congress understood and intended to be its effect. 

Thereafter, the Central Council was organized in accordance with the 
requirements of the 1965 Act under rules of election and a constitution 
which expressly established it as the general governing body of the 
Tlingit and Haida Indians. 

These documents and the operations of the Central Council since its 
organization have subsequently been laid before and considered by 



239 



Congress in connection with the enactment of the Tlingit and Haida 
judgment fund distribution act of 1970, and the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act of 1971. 

In their reports accompanying the bills that became the 1970 act, 
the Interior Committees of both houses of Congress unequivocally 
stated their understandings that the Central Council organized under 
the 1965 act is "the governing body of the Tlingit and Haida Indians . " 

And, in the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, Congress 
assigned the implementive and organizational responsibilities for the 
Natives of Southeast Alaska exclusively to the Central Council. 

In the light of these acts of Congress , and of their legislative * 

histories , I submit that no conclusion is sustainable other than that 
the Central Council is the general governing body of the Tlingit and 
Haida Indians of Southeast Alaska. 

in Borbridc 
Commissioner 



93-440 O - 78 - 



240 



SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 

Stowninq, ^Montana 5g417 



April 21, 1977 



Americcui Indicui Policy Review Conimission 
House Office Building Annex #2 
2nd and D. Streets, S.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Sirs: 

Please find enclosed a copy of an A.I.P.R.C. Workshop report. The report is 
the product of a two day workshop as hosted by the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy 
Board. Contained within are A.I.P.R.C. "Tentative Final Report" chapter 
presentations and recommendations as generated by workshop participants. 

The workshop participants hereby respectfully submit their recommendations 
and input for this historic study. 



Sincerely yours. 



Tom Thompson 

A.I.P.R.C. Workshop Recorder 



T. Pablo 
E. Barlow 
R. Blakeslee 




241 

AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 

MINUTES &. RECOMMENDATIONS 

FROM AN A. I. P. R. C. WORKSHOP 

AS SPONSORED BY 

THE MONTANA INTER-TRIBAL POLICY BOARD 

MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY 

BOZEMAN, MONTANA 

APRIL 14-15, 1977 



242 



Table of Contents 



r. Introduction pp. 1-3 

II. A.I.P.R.C. "Tentative Final Report" 

Chapter presentations/recommendations pp. 3-16 

III. Conclusion pp. 16 



APPENDIX A - M0NTA:M INTER-TRIBAL POLICY BOARD MEMORANDUM 

APPENDIX 3 - A.I.P.R.C. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 

APPENDIX C - AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COflMISSION 
P.L. 93-580 

APPENDIX D. - LETTERS 



243 



INTRODUCTION 

On April 14-15, 1977, the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board sponsored a 
workshop relative to the American Indian Policy Review Conunission. The primary 
objective of the workshop was to generate comments for submission to the A.I.R.P.C. 
per its April 23, 1977 deadline. The seven Montana Indian reservations and the 
landless were to report on and make recommendations regarding two (2) of the 
chapters contained in the A.I.P.R.C. "Tentative Final Report." (For further 
information, see Appendix A.) 
Thursday, April 14, 1977 

Mr. Tom Pablo, Chairman, M.I.T.P.B., called the meeting to order and introduced 
the workshop participants (see Appendix B) . It was noted that several tribes were 
not in attendance and that those tribal council representatives present were not 
prepared to follow the original format of the workshop. After a brief discussion, 
Mr. Pablo introduced Earl Barlow, A.I.P.R.C. Task Force #5 member. 

Mr. Barlow gave an overview of the history and purpose of the /American Indian 
Policy Review Commission, P.L. 93-580, and stated that the Commission report would 
probably be a key factor for several years in shaping governmental policies and 
programs relative to Alaskan Natives and American Indians. (For further information, 
see Appendix C. ) 

Mr. Barlow then turned the meeting over to Mr. Dwight Billedeaux, workshop 
moderator. Mr. Billedeaux in turn introduced Tom Thompson, workshop recorder. Mr. 
Billedeaux reaffirmed the fact that several tribal representatives were not in 
attendance and that in general, the workshop participants were not prepared to follow 
the original format of the workshop. Mr. Billedeaux then asked for suggestions. 
After a brie discussion, it was the consensus of the participants that the intent 
of the workshop was extremely vital and of much importance to all Indian people. 
The participants agreed to divide the A.I.P.R.C. "Tentative Final Report" chapters 
and to report and make recommendations on the following day (April 15, 1977.) 



I 



244 



The following represents the revised list of presenters: 

Chapter 1 - "History of United States — Indian Relations" - Dwight Dilledeaux 

Chapter 2 - "Legal Concepts in Indian Law" - Rona Blakeslee 

Chapter 3 - "Contemporary Conditions of Indians" - Unassigned (Participants felt 
that the report/recommendations would be obvious.) 

Chapter 4 - "Indian Trust Relations" - Ray Dupuis 

Chapter 5 - "Tribal Government" - Roland Kennerly 

Chapter 6 - "Federal Administration" - Tom Whitford/Ivan Raining Bird 

Chapter 7 - "Economic Development" - Vicky Desonia 

Chapter 8 - "Social Services" - Ron Sullivan 

Chapter 9 - "Off-Reservation Indians" - Pat Morris 

Chapter 10 - "Terminated Tribes" - Karen Fenton 

Chapter 11 - "Unrecognized Indians" - Karen Fenton 

Chapter 12 - "Special Circumstances — Alaska — Oklahoma — California" - Unassigned 
(Participatns felt any recommendations would be inappropriate in 
that Indian/Alaska Natives from the three states affected should be 
the respondents.) 

Chapter 13 - "Miscellaneous" - Earl Barlow 

Chapter 14 - "Dissent by Congressman Lloyd Meeds" - Earl Barlow 

Mr. Billedeaux urged the participants who were not responsible for chapter 
presentations to independently read one or more so that all participants could 
participate in the second day of the workshop. Mr. Billedeaux urged all presenters 
to prepare notes and to submit the same to Mr. Thompson. The workshop/M. I.T.P.B. 
meeting was recessed at 12:00 Noon on April 14, 1977, until 9:00 a.m. April 15, 1977. 

NOTE : (Mr. Henry Old Coyote gave a brief presentation to the participamts 
and informed them that he, along with two other Montana Indians, A. Parker and 
E. Ducheneaux, were recently appointed to the U. S. Senate Select Committee on 
Indian Affairs. Five (5) Senators are currently working/investigating matters 
pertaining to American Indians. Mr. Old Coyote stated that three Indian staffers 
were chosen from Montana since it (Montana) was the "hot spot" in matters such 



245 



as jurisdiction, sovereignity, etc.) 

Friday, April 15, 1977 

Mr. Tom Pablo, Chairman, M.I.T.P.B., called the meeting to order and promptly 

asked the workshop moderator, Mr. Billedeaux, to preside. Mr. Billedeaux then aiiked 

each presenter to prepare for hisAier presentations. The following represents the 

"essence" of each presentations. I^ should he noted that the recommendations 

accompanying each presentation do not reflect the thinking and/or priorities 

of all members of the M. I.T.P.B. , nor do they reflect the priorities of all of 

Montana' s Indian people , but rather are the thoughts and priorities of the 

workshop participants either individually or collectively . 

Chapter 1 - "History of United States — Indian Relations" - Dwight Billedeaux 

Comment : 

"The first chapter is broken into throe parts: The Formative Years, 
The Strategy of Assimilation, and the Right to Choose. It is entitled 
" Captive Within A Free Society , Fede ral Policy and The^ Ameri can Indian . " 
It prepares or sets the stage for the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission's study. It presents the historical facts by defining the 
issues, giving examples and causes and effects. It is the basis that 
will set the discussion, recommendations and resolutions for this meeting. 

The first section sets Indian policy through 1871 and discusses the 
following: Colonial period as it parallels that same Indian period. 
Treaty making. War of Independence and the punishment of the Indian 
tribes that allied with the British. The Conquest Theory, Secretary 
of Way, Henry Knox's declaration that tribes were to be treated as 
foreign nations. Also discussed was President Thomas Jefferson's 
treatment of the Indians (neglect, take, steal, bribe, and ignore) 
so called "civilization" of Indians. His gradual process of civiliza- 
tion failed. The Indian Removal Act - 1830, Intercourse Act - 1802, 
Cherokee Nation v Georgiz - 1831, Worchester v Georgia - 1832 — all 
landmark decisions ignored by Jefferson. Removal treaties, effect of 
the railroad on Indians, Mexican Session 1848, and gold discovery 1949, 
further open Indians to exploitation. Department of Interior formed 
X849, withholding of annuities, were also afforded much discussion. 

The second part discusses policy development from 1871 to 1920. It 
discusses the beginning of Indian education. Ex Parte, Crow Dog decision 
1885, Congress passed the Major Crimes Act, Great Land Conspiracy, 
General Allotment Act or the Dawes Act, Burke Act issues "certificates 
of Competency." 

The third part is "A Policy of the Future" which we are attempting to 
analyze. 



246 



In general, the chapter provided an excellent overview of U. S. policies 
relating to American Indians." 

Recommendations : 

Mr. Billedeaux stated that since the first cliapter is purely informational, 
that recommendations would be inappropriate. 

"Legal Concepts in Indian Law" - Rena Blakeslee 

Comment : 

"As stated in the opening paragraph of this chapter: This Commission's 
charter from Congress, reflecting two hundred years of legislative and 
executive action, aptly describes the relationship between the United 
States and American Indian tribes as "unique" and "special'.' Such words 
have repeatedly been emphasized by the United States Supreme Court in 
opinions stretching across almost one and one-half centuries. The 
unequivocal message from all three brances of our federal government is 
that Indian law and policy is a field unto itself. 

It is almost always a mistake to seek answers to Indian legal issues 
by making analogies to seemingly similar fields. General notions of 
civil rights law and public land law, for example, simply fail to resolve 
many questions relating to American Indian tribes and individuals. This 
extraordinary body of law and policy holds its own answers which are often 
wholly unexpected to those unfamiliar with it. 

There were no summaries or recommendation in this chapter. Chapter 2 
did, however, cover tribal sovereignty, trust relationships. Congress' 
broad constitutional authority over Indian affairs, and the question: 
'Who is an Indian?' Indian tribes are governments. Because of their 
sovereignty, they inherently possess all powers held by a government. 
No tribes exercise the full range of their powers but there is a definite 
thrust of tribal policy for a greater use of those powers. 

The United States has a special and unique duty toward American Indians. 
This duty has always been recognized by the courts and has been charac- 
terized as a trust responsibility. Tlie United States has the obligation 
to provide services and other appropriate action necessary to protect 
tribal self-government. The Bureau of Indian Affairs, the primary agent 
of Congress, is to provide administration of trust responsibility, and 
it has been proven that the B.I. A. has used the trust doctrine as a 
means to develop a heavy-handed control over the day-to-day affairs 
of Indian individuals and tribes." 

Recommendations : 

"I made no recommendations on the Plenary Power of Congress on tribal 
governments but I have made a few on the others: 

1. All tribes should be accorded full jurisdiction over land, people, 
etc., including non- Indians; 

2. State and Federal courts should be compelled to recognize tribal 



247 



law and judgments of tribal courts; 

3. Political science texts should state, recognize, and teach tribal 
governments ; 

4. Protection should be vested in the tribal courts to enforce tribal 
laws ; 

5. A separate Department of Indian Affairs should be created and the 
Indians should be able to assist in the planning; 

6. B.I. A. funds should go directly to the tribes; 

7. There is a need for immediate attention being given to Indian claims 
against the government; 

8. A policy is needed to ensure trust protection and enhancement; 

9. Financial aid and legal remedies must be available/provided against 
Federal violations of trust protection; 

10. If Federal and state governments appropriate funds to determine 
jurisdiction matters, the same amount of money should be set 
aside for tribal governments to use; 



11. There is a need for tribe 
"who is an Indian. " A un 



to determine a reliable definition of 
il definition would be preferred." 



- "Contemporary Conditions of Indians" - Unassigned 

As indicated earlier, the participants felt this chapter should be 
unassigned since comments and recommendations would be obvious to 
most Indian people. 

- "Indian Trust Relationships" - Ray Dupuis 
Comment: 



"Federal-Indian trust relationship has had a history of being ambiguous. 
Actually, the trust responsibility by the Federal Government to tlie 
Indian has always been present. It is the interpretation of the respon- 
sibilities whore weaknesses are found. And those interpretations have 
resulted in varied and inconsistent policies. 

Throughout the history of the trust relationship between the Federal 
Government and . the Indian, there has been a conflict of interest within 
the Department of Justice and the Department of Interior when legal 
services were required to protect, enhance, or enforce the Indians 
rights. The conflict of interest arose when other Federal Government 
agencies, i.e. Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau 
of Fish and Wildlife, and the Corps of Engineers, became involved in 
making policy decisions which resulted as a direct conflict between the 
responsibilities to the general public and the responsibilities to the 
Indian people. Generally, it was the Indian who suffered. 

The Indians" inherent right to sovereignty must be protected, enforced 



248 



and enhanced to eliminate any further deletion of the Indians' .sovereign 
right to self-government." 

Recommendation : 

1. "There has been an eroding of the trust responsibility re] at :ion.';hip 
which exists between the Federal Government and the Indian )icople. 
This erosion has occurred through varied and inconsistent policies. 

(Which have been a direct result of interpretations of where the 
trust responsibility begins or ends.) Halting the erosion is a 
mandate and positive policy must be adopted to insure protecti^jn, 
enforcement and enhancement of the trust responsibility towards the 
Indians by the Federal Government; 

2. There is a need for legal representation for Indians. This would 
help eliminate the conflict of interest issues (State and Federal) ; 

3. The Congress should establish an Office of Trust Rights Protection 
whose duties could include but not be limited to: 



Inventorying Indian trust property; 
Assist in management of that property; 
Advise Indian/tribes in legal matters; 

all litigation and administrative 



Represent Indians/tribes 
proceedings; 



Establish field off) 
Indians/ tribes ; 



levels for 



3y access by the 



4. The Congress should initiate a study to determine how Public Law 2£ 
has affected the reservations within states who are considered 280 
states; 

5. There is a need for a study on Federal-Indian trust responsibility 
relationships to determine if direct tribal representation is 
desirable at the Congressional level; 

6. There is a need for a closer working relationship between tribes 
and the Office of Management and Budget; 

7. Finally, there is a definite need for follow-up by a committee to 
monitor the status of A.I.P.R.C. recommendations and to determine 
if any have influenced or have been adopted by the Congress." 



"Tribal Government" 
Comment: 



Roland Kennerly 



"As stated in the chapter overview: 'Tribal government today is at a 
crossroads of history. Simply put, the question is whether tribes are 
going to be permanent, on-going political institutions exercising the 
basic powers of local government or whether they are to be transient 



249 



bodies reloqatod to more "service dolivory vehicles" for Federal 
assistance programs; more "I'ederal instrumentalities" for tlio control 
of the social behavior of their own tribal membership pending their 
ultimate assimilation into the dominant society which surrounds them. 
This is the fundamental question for the future of Indian tribes and 
the fundamental question which the Congress must resolve in the fnrmula- 
tion of the future course of I'ederal- Indian policy.' 

In addition, Indian people are concerned about the role of the Bureau 
of Indian Affairs in regard to the implementation of the U. S. trust 
responsibility to Indian people. Moreover, Indian people have registered 
numerous allegations and have charged the B.I. A. with: 

1. Directly interfering in tribal elections. 

2. Usurping one of the most basic powers of self-government — the 
right to determine membership, by conditioning BIA funding on BIA- 
determined membership qualifications. 

3. Playing off one tribe against another in competition for funding. 

4. Conditioning BIA funding or delivery of services on the level of 
of cooperation between tribal members and agency or area office 
employees. 

5. Failing to respond to tribal requests for legal assistance. 

6. Failing to respond to tribal requests for financial assistance. 

7. Failing to respond to tribal requests for technical assistance. 

8. Failing to assist tribes in asserting their sovereign powers. 

9. Entering into leases or contracts on behalf of the tribe without 
tr iba 1 approva 1 . 

10. Specifically acting to diminish tribal exercise of powers of self- 
government. 

11. Terminating tribal employees from area office employment without 
notification to tribe. 

12. Allocating judgment funds without approval of tribal council. 

13. Displaying nepotism and favoritism in agency office hiring practices. 

14. Withholding information on tribal trust resources from tribe. 

15. Advising tribal members to sell their land to qualify for state 
welfare. 

16. Failing to act upon tribal requests for Secretarial approval of 
contracts. 

17. Failing to act upon tribal request for Secretarial approval of 



250 



tribal const itutionf;, constitul ional amfiKlmonts, orditiancos, 
resolutions, charters. 

18. Mismanaging tribal trust assets and resources. 

19. Obstruct! nc) tribal negotiations with Fc'dr-ral anoncir-!;. 

20. Discouraging tribes from contracting Federal programs which would 
obviate Bureau services. 

21. Distributing Federal program monies in an arbitrary manner, relying 
upon the broad discretionary power of the Secretary." 

Recommendation : 

Mr. Kennerly indicated that he agreed with the report in general and 
found it to be both concise and valid. He also indicated concurrence with 
all findings and recommendations as listed in the chapter. In addition, 
Mr. Kennerly was adamant about the need for protection, preservation 
and enlargement of the Indian land base. 

Chapter 6 - "Federal Administration" - Tom Whitford and Ivan Raining Bird 

C omment : (Ivan Raining Bird) 

"I generally agree with the statements and recommendations in the chapter. 
I do, however, feel that the following should be deleted from page 12, 
3rd paragraph: 'and administrativ<^ regulations, which require tribal 
governments to come under state jurisdiction' 

I feel that the content of this chapter provides an accurate, useful 
picture of the situation. In closing my comments I will read a prepared 
statement from our tribal council: 

'We, from Rocky Boys Reservation are opposed to the recommendations made 
by Senator Meeds. The Chippewa Cree have pending treaty claims. We 
should request to extend the lifetime of the Indian Claims Commission 
until such time that all Indians are satisfied. 

Today the Montana Tribes are confronted with Joint Resolution 35. This 
again is one goal that Senator Meeds is pushing for (state jurisdiction) . 
There are many good things that the Policy Review Commission have recom- 
mended. We believe as a group we should support these in every way 
possible. • " 

Recommendations : 



Mr. Raining Bird indicated that he endorsed all of the recommendations 
in Chapter 6, but offered on additional recommendation: 

"The Congress should have all monies meant for Indians go directly to 
the tribes and not be channeled through states." 



251 



haptcr 7 - "Economic Development" - Vicky Desonia 

Comment : 

"Conflict of Federal trust responsibility in economic development is 
a major detriment as evidenced by BTA manaciemont of Indian foro:;(:;, 
lease lands, governmental discouragement of land acquisition and (.on- 
solidation, and insonsistencies in state and federal taxation. Long 
range tribal planning is impeded by the funding systems on which tribes 
depend which are basically short-term. Exploitation of Indian natural 
resources by non-Indian interests does not result in economic dcvi.-lopmcnt . 
The goals of self-determination and a high standard of living can only 
be realized if Indian people maintain control of their land and resources. 
Government should encourage Indian-controlled programs. 

I am going to ask Mr. Lucas, from our office, to submit a separate comment 
and list of recommendations." 

Recommendations : 



Ms. Desonia agreed with the context of the recommendations in the 
chapter but offered the following additions: 

1. "Congress should encourage individual as well as tribal economic 
development with continuation of the Indian Finance Act with 
reappropriation of funds and full implementation of the loan 
programs ; 

2. Indian heirship problems need to be resolved in order for effective 
administration and economic development. Congressional support 
and funding for investment capital for economic development is a 
real need." 

Note : « 

Mr. Barney Old Coyote stated that he felt the economic development 
chapter was not "harsh" or "direct" enough in terms of its statement 
and subsequent recommendations. He felt that the chapter was too 
"grant oriented" and not more appropriately "capitalistic" in view 
of an approximate Indian land base of 295 million acres and billions 
of dollars in resources. He closed by stating that Federal policies 
promoted "big business" in terms of the investment of "Indian money." 

hapter 8 - "Social Services" - Ron Sullivan 

Comment : 

"Indian welfare recipients face a bureaucratic logjam. They must contend 
with a poorly defined three tiered system of programs on the Federal, 
state and local levels. The confusion arising from these ovor]api>ing 
and at times conflicting programs has led to inefficiency and abuse 
in the delivery of Indian welfare and social services. 

Social services programs that relate to Indian people are both under- 
funded and understaffed. Whose responsibility is it? State? or 



252 



Federal? in terms of the provision of Indian social services? This 
needs to be determined. This year, as an example, the Montana State 
Legislature has turned down all bills relative to Indian educational 
and social services." 

Recommendati ons: 

Mr. Sullivan stated that the recommendations as outlined in the chapter 
were good, but in closing, he offered the following additions: 

1. State legislatures should recognize tribes as "local government:;" 
thus making them eligible for the direct receipt of I'ederal funds. 

2. Congress should endeavor to clarify Federal/state responsibilities 

in relation to the responsibility in providing education/social 
services to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. 

Note : 

At this time Mr. Tom Thompson stated that there was an obvious dichotomy 
of purpose in terms of tribal sovereignty/Indian self-determination vs. 
educational and social programs that in general are "compensatory" in 
nature. He further stated that as long as tribes are not semi or totally 
independent financially, and as long as the Federal and state governments 
controlled the funds and programs, that these would always be "strings 
attached." Mr. Thompson recommended that the Federal Government be asked 
to formally recognize its basic legal obligation to provide Indian 
educational and social services. 

Chapter 9 - "Off Reservation Indians" - Pat Morris 

Comment : 

I. Introduction 



..."Indians who remain in cities and those who migrate to and from 
the cities have special needs and their fulfilment is based on 
certain Indian rights which must be recognized" 

Major policy issue 

How far does trust responsibility extend: 

Historical Overview 

Government has not recognized their responsibility for the creation 
of off reservation Indians through assimilation programs. 

Government view is that to move off the reservation is 
to break trust status and move toward assimilation 

examples : (a) Dawes Act/General Allotment Act of 1877 

(b) Off Reservation Boarding Schools 

(c) Relocation Programs 

Result is the movement of Indians from tribal lands into cities. 



253 



Conclusion 



"Federal government after creating Urban migration has failed 
to provide adequate services and address the special needs of 
Indian people, particularily in the areas of housing, health 
and omploymont:. 



Wh\ 



Historically the executive Branch has tried trust relationship to land 
Yet, no court, act of congress or constitutional provision states 
trust responsibility "stops at the reservation gate" 



Government View : 

Indian trust is equated with land 

assumption that if Indian leaves the reservation he is 

consciously forsaking his heritage and tribe. 

Indian View 

Indian trust includes land and individual people of tribe 

Indian leaves reservation because of government proding and 
lack of housing, employment and education programs on the 
reservation . 

Indian does not forsake his/her heritage. The overwhelminci 
majority of off reservation Indians continue to be tribal 
members 

Failure of reservation to support all tribal members is a 
function of government planning. 

Vet 

...the Federal Government refused and largely still refuses 
to recognize any overall trust responsibility to provide 
services to off reservation Indians" 



Recommendations : 
"Indian Response 
Recommend: 



Federally funded urban Indian Centers which are the focus of 
Indian managed urban human services related to housing, health 
and employment. 

1. emergency situations 

2. personal and financial counseling 

3. referral and non- reservation orientation 

4. insure flow of public monies 



254 



I low the Urban Indian CcnLcrs woijl(] b e organ i/.ocl 

1. Redirect Federal, State and local programs to Indian 
Centers for administration. 

Only programs for wtiich tribfjr; would not eligible 
would bo involved. i.e. Urban i^rogram funds 

2. At no time would the Indian Center "take over the 
relationship between the tribal government and the 
tribal member 

3. Tribal government would be a viable alternative. Tribes 
could assist and monitor funds for urban Indians." 

At the end of Chapter 9 is a list of recommendations concerning Urban 
off-reservation Indians (9-19) to which Mr. Morris indicated a general 
concurrence. 

Mr. Morris closed by calling attention to page 9-9, paragraph 1, second 
sentence: "...that the exclusion of non-reservation Indians..." lie 
further stated that "non-reservation" had a distinct difference in 
connotation from "off-reservation" and that "non" should be changed to 
"off". 

Chapter 10 - "Terminated Tribes" - Karen Fenton 

Commen t: 

"Termination refers to an entire era of Federal-Indian relations, it was 
an era when the U. S. extended its assimilation philosophy to diminish 
and in some instances end Federal responsibility to, and protection of, 
Indian tribes. Some of the indicated explanations for that particular 
era are: 

(1) notion that the way to cure poverty among Indians was to integrate 
them into the dominant society; 

(2) Indian and Congressional disgust at BIA oiscrations; 

(3) preceived inadequacy of law and order on or near reservations, - 

(4) desire of non-Indians to obtain valuable tribal lands; 

(5) Federal Governments desire to shift its economic expenditures 
"burden" to tlie states. 

In a technical sense, termination refers to those 13 legislative acts 
which autliorized procedures for cessation of the Federal-Indian relation- 
ships of particular tribes. Not all tribes slated for termination were ir 
fact terminated. There is a current question as to the legality of some 
of the terminations of the California Rancherias. This question has been 
raised because of the failure of the Federal Government to follow 
statutorily mandated procedures. Non-compliance raises many legal 
issues including the potential liability of the U. S. for unlawful 
termination. Many view that court action against the U. S. would bo 
favorable. 



255 



The termination era was an out-qrowth oT a century of assimilation 
policies. 

Recommendations : 

Ms. Fenton closed by stating thnt sh^^ was in concurrence with the 
chapter recommendations. 

hapter 11 - "Unrecognized Indians" - Karen Fenton 



Ms. Fenton began by quoting from the chapter introduction: 

"The Executive Branch of the United States fails to administer Indian 
programs to a number of Indian tribes. With the singular exception of 
specific termination acts, there is no legal basis for the Executive 
Branch's exclusion of tribes from its general services to Indians, and there 
is no legitimate foundation for administrative discretion in identifying 
the Indian services population. Through a number of historical circum- 
stances or coincidences, tribes were simply ignored or forgotten. 
Because these tribes have been forgotten, their rights to land and self- 
determination have been overlooked as well as their rights to federal 
Indian programs. Today, many of these tribes have land title problems, 
jurisdictional questions, poor health, few educational opportunities, 
and economic difficulties; yet the Bureau of Indian Affairs offers them 
no assistance in these areas. Many state and county governments are 
perplexed by the nebulous political status those tribes hold." 

Recommendations : 

Ms. Fenton stated that in general she disagreed with the recommendations 
of the chapter unless recommendations such as the following were contingent 
upon increased Congressional appropriations commensurate with non- « 
recognized tribal membership: 

1. The Federal Government should extend its Indian programs to all 
Indian tribes. 

2. To dispel administrative hesitations and to clarify the intention of 
Congress, Congress should adopt in a concurrent resolution a statement 
of policy affirming its intention to recognize all Indian tribes as 
eligible for the benefits and protections of general Indian legisla- 
tion and Indian policy; and directing the Executive Branch to serve 
all Indian tribes. 

"Special Circumstances — Alaska-Oklahoma-California" - Unassigned 

As indicated earlier, the workshop participants felt that this chapter 
could be addressed best by American Indian/Alaska Native people who 
reside in the aforementioned states. 



93-440 O - 78 



256 



Chapter 13 - "Miscellaneous'^ - Ear] Rarlow 

Comment : 

"There is throughout most levels of American sociohy a substantial 
lack of knowledge concerning the legal, social, and political stain.'; 
of Indian people and tribes and their history on this continent." 

Recommendations : 

Mr. Barlow indicated a general concurrence with the recommendations 
of this chapter including the initial recommendation as listed on 
page 13-1: 

"Congress by appropriate legislation should provide funds for the 
development of educational programs concerning Indian people." 

In closing, Mr. Barlow offered the following additional recommendations: 

1. Appropriate federal officials working in cooperation with rep- 
resentatives of tribal governments should study tribal governments 
and formulate a process by which such governments will bo periodically 
reviewed by Indian people and recommended changes voted upon by 
eligible tribal electors. 

2. The B.I. A. should be studied and restructured if necessary in order 
to make it more responsive to the needs of Indian people. A greater 
proportion of funds and services should be channeled dircr:tly to 
the people. Overhead or administrative costs of the B.I. A. are too 
high and must be reduced. Also, the high ratio of B.I. A. and I. U.S. 
employees to Indians must be reduced. 

3. Indian preference for employment in the B.I. A. and I.H.S should be 
continued and funds provided for training and recruitment of Indians 
to fill vacated positions. 

4. An adequate land base is essential to the survival of Indians residing 
on Indian Reservations. Population pressure and a dwindlina land 
base are two factors which have forced Indian people to miorate to 
urban areas. A program to maintain tlie current land base and expand 
the base in the future should be assigned a high priority. 

5. The heirship policy which governs the inheiritance of Indian allotments 
is unrealistic and should be changed. In many instances there are 

so many heirs that none benefits from the land. A funding proaram 
should be set up whereby the land can be purchased for the benefit 
of the tribe. 

6. The value of tribal natural resources has be estimated at nearly one 
hundred billion dollars and yet the material poverty of Indians is 
the worst in the nation. Most economic development plans benefit 
non-Indians more than Indians. Economic plans which will benefit 
Indians and which are consistent with tribal desires should bo de- 
veloped and implemented. 



257 



Chapter 14 - "Dissent by Cotigrcssman, I,]oy<l Meeds" - ICarl Barlow 

Common t; 

"Congressman Meeds states that since he had "serious and substantial 
disagreemont with the Commi srjion ' s findiiiQ?^ and rorjommi^ndat ions" hf 
retained throunh the Conmi.s.siDii, Frederick .) . Martonc of the Ari:joria 
bar to work wil'i him in evaluating the Commission's report. He i.harqos 
the Commission was non-objective and the Majority Report is the product 
of one sided advocacy in favor of American Indian Tribes. He state;, 
"Congress will either have to authori i:o another commir-ision to nscii i ,iiii 
the views of non-Indians, the states, and the United States or ijcrrorin 
that function on its own." 

He admits that because of tlic Commissinn's schedule that ho had "noithi'r 
the time nor the resources to adequate! " e-valuatc, critique, and 
recreate the report . " 

However, he challenges "unwarranted findings and conclusiojis" in the 
report. Those include tribal sovereigntv, iurisdiction , trust respon- 
sibility, social welfare programs, sovereign immunity, assertion of state 
claims, regulatory power of tribes over off-reservation members, and 
definitional problems associated with the words "Indian" and "Tribe." 

Legislative Recommendations: (By Meed s) 

1. Congress enact legislation directly prohibiting Indian courts from 
exercising criminal jurisdiction over any person, whether Inrlian or 
non-Indian, who is not a member of the Indian tribe which operates 
the court in qui;Stion. 

2. Congress enact legislation prohibiting Indian courts from exercising 
civil jurisdiction over any person, whether Indian or non-Indian, who 
is not a member of the tribe which operates tlie court in cju.^stioti, • 
unless the non-Indian defendent expressly and voluntarily submits 

to the jurisdiction of the tribal court after the claim arises upon 
which the suit is brought. 

3. Congress enact legislation providing that states shall have the same 
power to levy taxes, the legal incidence of which falls upon non- 
Indian activities or property, on Indian reservations as they have 
off Indian reservations. 

4. Congress expressly prescribe taxation of non-members or tiroperty of 
non-members by Indian tribes. 



Public l,aw 93-580 clearly, concisely, and explicitly sets forth the 
congressional findings of tlie Federal Government's historical and 
special legal relationship with American Indian people and declares 
that two comprehensive review of Indian affairs be conducted. The law 
specifically mandates that five of the eleven Commissioners be Indians 
and each investigating task force shall have a majority of whom shall b 
of Indian descent. 



258 



The A.I.P.R.C. w.js oroatod ;imd oroiiriizr-d as sf.cci Ficfl by I'.r,. <)!-'.:«) 
and the majority t^iyort fully reflects the intent of the law. 

Generally, at the outset, Federally recognized Indians residing on 
reservations were critical of the Commistiion because in their iurUiemont 
too much representation was given to urban nnd non- federal 1 y re(;o<|nixed 
Indians. 

Congressman Meed's findings and conclusion arc inad.jquately documented 
and exhibit a strong anti-Indian bias. His dissent is not object;.! ve" . 

Re comme nda tions : 

1. Congressman Meed's Minority Report and especially his legi:jl nt ive 
recommendation should be totally rejected. 

2. The use of A.I.P.R.C. resources to retain Freiierick J. Martone 
should be investigated by Congress and determine if this action was 
■in keeping with the law. 

3. His contention that "American Indian Tribes lost their sovnignty 
through discovery, conquest, cession, treaties, statutes and 
history" is indefensible and flies in the face of the ideals to 
which this nation subscribes. His contention should be vigorously 
challenged and buried forever. 

4. He cites as fact "that American Indian tribes were conquered and 
subordinated to the will of the people of the United States". 
The supposition of "might makes right" and " l;wo wrongs make a 
right" is inimical to concepts held sacred by American citizens and 
must be rejected. 

Conclusion . 

At the completion of all chapter presentations and recommendations, 
the participants were asked to inform their Tribal Councils of the 
workshop proceedings. The participants were then informed that the 
workshop data would be compiled and mailed as soon as possible. The 
workshop meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. Friday, April 15, 1977. 



259 

APPENDIX A 

MONTANA INTER- TRIBAL POLICY BOARD 

MEMORANDUM: A. I. P. R. C. 

APRIL 6, 1977 



260 



^A"^/ v} '^/.i) '^/} 



Monic-nr: !;'^;-^' ■''■,■ ■ i "-i'"' 

c/o Bureau of Indian Affairs 
316 North 26th Street 
omas E. Pablo Billings, MT 59101 



April 6, 1977 



MEMORANDUM 
TO: 



All Tribal Chairmen 
All MITPD Delegates 
All Interested Individuals or Organizations 



FROM: THomas E. Pablo, Chairman 

jil Beaumont, Sr. Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board 

lecretary-Treasuter 

SUBJECT: Emergency Board Meeting April 14-15, 1977 



As Chairman of the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board, 
I am calling an EMERGEWCY MEETING April 14-15, 1977, 
which will be held at the Presidents Conference Room, 
Montana Hall, on the Campus of Montana State University, 
Bozeman, Montana, starting promptly at 9:00 A.M. each day. 

If you need further directions, please call Mr. Robert 
Peregoy, Director, Native American Studies at 994-3881. 

The purpose of this meeting is to review and make 
recommendations on the tentative report from the 
American Policy Review Commission. 



Because of Mr. Earl Barlow's involvement with the 
Commission, he will be the Coordinator of this meeting. 
Two members from the Commission will also attend to 
provide the Tribes with assistance. 

There are 13 Chapters and a Dissent by Congressmen 
Lloyd Meeds in the tentative final report of the 
American Indian Policy Review Commission. The Tribes 
have until April 23, 1977, to make their comments 
known to the Commission. 



261 



MITPD MEMOIIANDUM 
April 6, 1977 
Page 2 



To facilitate a review of the report on April 14-15, each Tribe 
is requested to be prepared to make a presentation on 2 chaptci 
of the rcjjort. Each Tribe should be prepared to make 
recommendations on their assigned chapters. 

BLACKFEET 



Chapter 1 History of United States - Indian Relations 
Chapter 2 Legal Conceipts in Indian Law 



Chapter 3 Contemporary Conditions of Indians 
Chapter 4 Federal - Indians Trust Relations 



Chapter 5 
Chapter 6 



Tribal Government 
Federal Administration 



FORT BELKNAP 



Chapter 7 
Chapter 8 



Economic Development 
Social Services 



Chapter 9 
Chapter 10 



Of f -Reservation 
Terminated Tribes 



NORTHERN CHEYENNE 



Chapter 11 
Chapter 12 



Unrecognized Indians 
Special Circustances 



Alaska-Oklahoma -California 



Chapter 13 



Miscellaneous 

Dissent by Congressmen Lloyd Meeds 



If the Landless have received copies of this report, we are asking 
you to consider any of the cliapters that are pertinant to you and 
that you be able to make a presentation. 



262 



MITPB MEMORANDUM 
April 6, 1977 
Page 2 



Summaries of the completed workshops and recommendations made 
by the Idaho Inter-Tribal Policy Board, along with evaluation 
forms to be used at this meeting will be submitted in the next 
couple of days. 

We would like to extend an invitation to all interest and 
involved individuals or organizations to attend this meeting. 



Agenda attached. 



p/s The National Association of Counties-Indian Task Force will 
be meeting in Helena, Montana, April 26-27, 1977, at the 
Colonial Inn in the Executive Room. 

April 26th they will be making a presentation on the tentative 
final report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. 

April 27th they will probably draft recommendations adverse to 
the Commission's findings. 

Looks like a MOD effort. If you can, please plan on attending. 



263 



MONTANA INTER-TRIDAL POLICY DOAIU) 



AGENDA 
April 14-15, 1977 

Presidents Conference Room 

Montana Hall 

Montana State University 

Bozeman, Montana 

APRIL 14, 1977 ORDER OF BUSINESS 

9:00 A.M. Call to order by Thomas E. Pablo, Chairman - MITPB 

Ceremony Prayer 

Roll C?.ll 

Introduction of Tribal Chairmen and any delegation present 

9:30 A.M. Overall Review of the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission by Mr. Earl Barlow. 

10:00 A.M. Presentation of reviews and recommendation by the 
individual tribes. 

12:00 P.M. LUNCH 

1:30 P.M. Continuation of recommendations. 

5:00 P.M. Recess 



APRIL 15, 1977 
9:00 A.M. Call to order by Thomas E. Pablo, Chairman - MITPB 
Cerenony Prayer 
Roll Call 

Introduction of Tribal Chairmen and any delegation present 
9:30 A.N. Compiling and writing of recommendations. 
12:00 P.M. LUNCH 
1:30 P.M. Closed Executive Board meeting. 
2:30 P.M. Adjournment 



264 

APPENDIX B 
A. I. P. R. C. WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 



265 



WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS 



Ray Dupuis 

Tom I'ablo 



3. Sonny Morigeau 



Ivan Raining Bird 

Vicky Desonia 

Joe W. Show 

Roland Kennerly 

Earl Barlow 

Barney Old Coyote 

Urban Bear Don't Walk 

Ron Sullivan 

Tom Whit ford 

Rena Blakoslee 

Karen Fenton 

Dwight Billedeaux 

Henry Old Coyote 

Aurice Show 

Dennis Bear Don't Walk 

Tom Thompson 

C. Patrices Morris 

Robert Van Geutcn 

Carmen Taylor 

Mauford King 

Walter Heming 

Edna Hicth 



Confederated Salish S. KoDlrnai 
Council Member 

Confederated Salish s Kootenai 
Council Member 

Rocky Boys Council Member 

Coord, of Indian Affairs Office 

Blackfeet Tribal Council Member 

Blackfeet 

A.I.P.R.C. Task Force #5 

N.T.C.A. 

M.I.T.P.B. 

Montana Indian Legislative Office 

B.I. A. 

M.I.T.P.B. 

Confederated Salish S Kootenai Tribes 

Browning Public Schools 

U.S. Senate Select Staff 

Blackfeet 

Crow 

Chairman, N.A.C.I.E. 

NAS, M.S.U. 

NAS, M.S.U. 

Student, M.S.U. 

Student, M.S.U. 

Student, M.S.U. 

Student, M.S.U. 



Dixon, MT 

Box Elder, MT 
Helena, MT 
Browning, MT 
Billings, MT 
Browning , MT 
Washington, DC 
Billings, MT 
Helena, MT 
Billings, MT 
Billings, MT 
Dixon, MT 
Browning, MT 
Washington , DC 
Browning, MT 
Billings, MT 
Browning, MT 
Bozeman , MT 
Bozeman , MT 
Bozeman , MT 



Bozeman , MT 
Bozeman , MT 



266 

APPENDIX C 

AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 

P. L. 93-580 



267 



American Iiidi;in Policy Review Comiussion 

Tlirout;hout the liistory of Icdcral-Iiulian relations there has never 
been a coiMprclicnsi vc .ipiu-oacJi by the Conj'.ress ajid the Ixecutive thai 
dealt effectively witli Indiaji iirohlcms and, at tlie s;uiie time, efficiently 
fulfilled Inuiaii jieeds. 

As a result, Indiaji policy has been shajx;d by a frai'.;:K"nted, piece- 
meal approach which served to inhibit, rather ttiaii prorotc Indian 
devclopi^cnt and has directly led to the deep despair and frustration 
vented in the occui^ation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the siege 
of V.'ounded }Cncc. 

Forty seven years have gone by since the last comprehensive study 
of Indian Affairs vas conducted. It has come doun to us as the Mcrir.n 
Report t%tiicli was conducted by the Institute for Covcmren t l vcsearch_ in 
1928^ The N'eriain I^cport helped foster a cliiiatc of Congressional aware- 
ness of tribal concerns which in turn led to widespread reforms of the 
1930's, including the 1934 Indian Reorgajiization Act. In tlie inter- 
vening years the original intent of these reform policies has been com- 
promised and distorted through administrative ignorance and neglect. 
Now, finally, the urgency of the problems and the confusion as to Indian 
goals and methods of attaining them have led to the creation of the 
American Indian Policy Review Commission. Consisting of three Senators, 
three representatives , five Indian mem bers, and supported by a dis- 
tinguished task force of 27 specialists, it will have the power, quali- 
fications, and Indian participation to explore all of the major problem 
areas. The Commission will be able to submit recomm.endations from which 
the Congress may legislate meaningful approaclies to fulfill the present 
and future needs of Indian people and chart tlie course of Ancrican Indian 
history for the next century. /f^ '^'^ f!^ ^ ,? \ / : ?? 






268 



PuMic !.;.« 93.;no 

CONCKKSSIONAI. KINDINCS 
Tl.e Conpr-vs jfirr rarrful t-aI.-w of tl..- Fr.l.-ral r^.vrrnm.nl's hUlnrlr.,! j„,l >|„-, ,at lrp.l r.lalion^.ip w.ll, .\n,. n. .u, 
Indian pro|.l.', fiinl, tl,;.t- 

(a) llir |...li.A Mn|.l,'M..„t,NM iIm- ,rljl,...L-lM|, li.T- sl.ifl.'.l jimI rU^ivj.ii w,U, , li.inu'.M^ a.lrMin,Mr.,l„ ,„ I |,a..>rM^ 

y«ar>, witliout a|.|Mrri,t rnhoiul <I.m^-i. jii.I v.illunil a .■.mMMmt ;;,mI n jHm.m- In.li.in -.If =uffi. i.nrv, 

(b) iIht.- Iijv l..-.-n no -.n.r.il .uTiii.rrh.i.-u.- r.-M. vs ,.f ,„,„l,„ l „f l„,l,.in jILiir- l.y iIh- I „,l.-.l -l.il.- nor .1 

,-oll.T.-.il in>..|iu.ilM.ri .if ll,.- rii.iru i.r..M.Mi- jn.l i-ii... ,in,.K..I i.i ll„- ,„iuiu,\ ..| IikIi.im .illjir- .- ■ tl,,- I'l.'Il 

M.-ti.i... l;.|...rl .,.n.lu. l,-,l I.N ll..- I, .-1,1., I.- f,.r C.^.r,,,,,,,,! K.-.'jr, I, ; u„.l 

DIXll.AKATKlN iH' mtl'i i>l-: 

Con^r.s- .l,-.h,r.s ll,at il ,> lim,l> jnil .-M„llal lo ron.liK I a r.,m|.rr-l„n-iv.- r.u.w ,>f llir lii-Liri, al an.l l.-,al .l.v.l,,],- 
menls un.l.-rKi.,;: ll„- ln,l,ans' u„,.|i..' r>bl,..„>l,i|, «,ll. tl,.' Ki-.l.:ral Covrn,,,.-,,! ,., ..r.l. r lo iLlr-rm,.,.. ih.- .,al„r,- and 
scopf of n.-cc>«3r\ rcvisiotis in the formulation of policirs and proj.Tan!3 for tlir I,('ni-|,t of lixliat,.-.. 

Resnitrd by Ihr denote and Hniisr of Hriircs'niatnvs of the i'mfd Sintps of Ainrrira 111 Consrets oiscmfc/crf. Tlut- 

(a) In ordrr to carry out ll,r |,ur|.os,-s .l.;-.ril,.-d in the (ir.aniUe hrroof and ai l',irth.-r set oul l,iTr,n, thiTC is her.-by 
created the Amrriiaii Indian Policy Idvii-w Commission, hereinafter ri'fi-ired to as the "Commission". 

(b) The Coinm,-Mon shall I.e composed of eleven meml.ers. as follows: 

(1) Ihrer Meml.iiv of the S.nate appoint.-.l l.y ih.- President pro tempore of the Senate, two from the majority 
party ami on,- from the minority parly : 

(2) three \hmliers of the llo,ise of Kepr^-entalives appointe.l l,y the Speaker of the House of I\epresenlativ.-.s. 
two from the majorily party and one from thi- mic.ontv partv; and 

(3) five Indian memher- x< provide.l in sul.s.etion (e) of this section. 

(c) At it.s or-ani/ation m.elini;, the meml..-r> of the Commission appointed pursuant to s.-el„.n (l,)(l) ami (l.)(2) of 
this section shall el.-el from amonu iheir memi.erv a Chairman and a \ iee Chairman Imme.lial. K llierealter. such m.ni. 
bers shall sei.el. I,y majority \ote, Tne Indi.ni nienihers of the Commission from ll„- Indian eoinnnimlv. as IoIIow.h; 

(1) three memhei^; shall he .-elected from Indian Inhes that arc reco-ni/.ed hy the Federal i;overnmenl; 

(2) one ni.'niher shall be -elected to repre-,nt urhan Indians; and 

(3) one member -hall be -elected -ho is a member of an Indian f.Toup not reeo::ni7.c,l by ihe Federal Cowniment 
None of the Indian iiiemhen. shall be employees of the Feileral Government concurrently with their term of service on 
the Gimnii-sion nor -hall there be more than one member from any one Indian tribe. 

(d) Vacancies in the membership of (he Commission shall not affect the power of the remaining memberji lo execute 
tlie functions of the Commission and shall he filled in tin- same manner as in the ca-x- of the ori^pnal appointment. 



269 



(c) Six niriiilii'i> (if till (:.Mtinii~»< 
n, may riiii.liirl In .itiii..>: I'mmlnl. 



(0 M<ml.rr. i.r ll..' (:<..vrr>.. «.!.,. ..rr lo. iiilM-r. of (lir Coitiini.Mon >l<..ll M,>r v> 


.tli..ut »,n , ,..n,.. M.,i 


dial e.-.m.-.l f..r ll.. ir -.r%i,.> ;., M, n.l.rr. of (:....;;r.ss. I.iil ll,._v ,mn \,v r. inil.iir-,- 


1 f..r lrn^.'l, s,il.«,.|.,. 


nriTssirx .'x|..m..> ....i.rr..! I.n tl....< ... ll..- |..'rr..rman. .- ,<{ tUiii.-^ v.Mr.l |„ ll„ ( ,, 


<IM>I>M.,I. 


(k) ll..- I..,l.:..i ,.,..i,l„r- ,.1 ll,. „lv.|.... ..Lull r.-.-.lv.- .■..Il,|,.„„.l..... f..r .n,! 


.I.i> -11.1, ii.,'..il..'r- .. 


ui'liiiJ |i<'rl..r. 11.11...' .ll ilulh- t.M.'.i 11. III.' (:..iii.iil'.>j<iii lit u .l..il\ r..l.' 1..1I 1.. . s...- 


1 ll.. .I.nly .'.|.iK..I.'i,i 


UllllUjI .'.Hll|i.'ll^jll.il. lll.ll in.iv In* |.,ll.l l.i .'lll|.lt.v C.'S ..1 ll.c ( llllf.l Mill.'.* >»'.iut.' t' 

mmliur,.-.! f..r Iruv.l .-ximii-.s. inilii.l..iL' |.<r .li.n. in liou ..f suIiM'U'Iii .-. 

Sec. 2. ll .I1..II III- III.' ililU ..f 111.' (:..i„.ni-,..n 10 Milk.- .1 ,,.ni,.r.'l,.',i-iv,' nnr- 


"'.llmi'llof' 


<n<J llu' .MOji.' .if Midi iliity -li:iil in. III. 1.'. I.iit ^iioJI nut U l.ii.il.'.i l.>- 




<^(l) 11 -tii.K :mi.| .iii.iK-i~ ..r th.' r:....-litulli.ll. tr.'.Ui.'^. >t,il.il.'... in.li.i.il imI.t 


.r.'l.l.....^, .01.1 I'v.'.., 


dcUriniM.' ill.' .nini.ul. .- .>l ll..' imii.|u.' r.-ljti..ii.-.|ii|. Ii.lis.'cn tl.r I'.'.l.r.il (i.n 
biKJ an.! olIi.T r.'>oi,rci'S tli.-% p.i^-.-vs; 


n.ni,.,,, .1,1.1 Imlian „ 


•^2) 5 rr>_h-w .,i ll.c ,,„li,.„'., ,,r.Kli,'.',. .n.l siri,, lur,' „f llir F.'il.-r.nl ..j.-un. 
resource ami |iri»i.lini; s.'nic.'s 1.. Iii.l.jii.-: I'nni,ic,l. Hut vurli r.'vi.-w -lull 


.li.ir...',l w.lli |ir..l.','l 
ii.'lii.).' .-. .ii..n.,^..'nl.-i. 


Bureau of In.lian .Affairs iitiliziii;; cvprrLs from llic |.ul.lic an.) |. rival.' ^.■.:tor: 
•^3) an (•y.iiiiMi.iiion of tl.r jl.ilul,':, an.l yror.'.liir.'S. for u'rantin:: Fi.lcr.il r..'c 


, ^^^^ ^^^ , ^,^^__^_^.^ 


Indian coininuniii.'> jn.l in.li\i.iii:.ls: 

»'(4) llic ell. . tinn and i iiiiu.il.ili.in of ilala necessary lo undcr-land ill.- cxt 


Ill of Indian ni^eds w 


cxisi or will r^i^l in llic n.'jr luUir.'; 




nalioiiiJ l.-i.l of Cm.rnnicnl lo (irovidi- Indians with iiiaxinium |.arlici|.alion 
devvloi.ni.nt; 


I.I fully rc|,refcnl In. 
ill iiolicy formation a 


(f.) a .•..n-iil.'r:ili..n of all.riLilivc m.-llin.N lo Mr.-ni-lh.-n trii.al ■■nv.'f.ni.'iil 


lliat ll..' trili.'S nii^ 


.I..-ir nicnili..,. ami. at .1,.' ...n„. .„,.... ,uaranU'e';i7f;::da„~al n.lils ..i ,n. 
*17) llic r.r..m,„.-,i,!alion o.f .-.^h mn.lifi.'ation of »iMi,i, laws. |,ro, .',iiir.'<. 


iM.lual lii.liai.siand 
r.':-„l:illnn.<. i„ilir„--, a 


.s will, i„ ll.c j.i.|.,mM,t of III. -oini;;;-;!;^: bcs. serve .0 carT^ouHiiTHi. > 


and .lcclara:ion of |. 



POWERS OF THE CO.MMISSIO.N 
Sec. 3. (a) Tlie Comml.^sion or. on aiilliorizalion of the Commission. .11. v r.iM.millP c of l«ri or more minilii:rs is 
authorized, for llic |iiir|io.<rs of cirrNin;; out the provisions of lliis r.solulion. lo so^.in^l .TiJ_al such placs an.l tiiM.-.- 
during the s.-ssiuns, recesses, an.l a.ljourncd |.iTiods of Coiigre.ss. lo r.'.iiiir i' l.\ miI.|..ik i or oiIi.tki'^.- llie alli-ndaiir.- of, 
such witnesses and llie production of such books, papers, and docuin.Ml-. lo auiiiini-.U'r such o.iliis and affirnialion>. lo 
lake such Icstiniony, to procure such prinlinj and bindinR, and lo make such cxpenililiircf. as it deems advisahlc. The 
Commission may make such rules respecting its organization and procedures as it deems necessarv, except that no rrcon 
mendation shall be re[iorled from the Coninii.ssion unless a majority of the Coniniis'iion absent, lipon the aiithonzation 
of the Coniiiii^sion snhpenas niav he i.'isu.-d o\er the siLTialurc of the Chairman of the Commission or of any m.niliir 
designated by him or the Coniini>sion. an.l may he serviil liy such pen-oii or p.rsons .is may be desiiinaU.I by s.jcli Lh.il 
man or member. The Chainnan of the Commission ur any member thereof mav administer oaths or afllrniallons lo 
witnesses. 

(h) The provisions of .seelions I9J through 19-i, inclusive, of title 2. l.'nil.-d Slates Co.le. shall apply in lb.' cas.- 
of any failtir.- of any witii.-^s lo comply hIiIi any siibpeiia whni suninioii.'<l under ibis MCtion. 

branch of Ibc Cov.rnni.nl any inlorm.ilion il .l.-.-ms iiee.-.ssary lo earr*' out its fiiiirlioiis uiuler this resolution an.l .ach 
such department, a!;i'ncy, or instrumentality is aulhurized and direcleil lo furnish siieh information lo the Coninii.~~ioii 
•nd lo conduct such studies and surveys as may b« rci|uesled by the Chairman or the Vice Chairman when a.rtiii}; as 
Chaimiaii. 

(d) If the Commission requires of any witness or of any Government a^iiiey ihe prodiielion of any materials 
which have theretofore been submitted to .1 (Government a<:eney on a conndeiilial IlisLh, and the eoiiridenlialily of iIiom- 
materials is protected by statute, the nuilcriai so produced shall be held in conrideiice by the Comniissitm. 



270 



INVESTICATI.NC TASK KOKCES < 

Sec. 4. (a) A.< iooii li |ir.icli< jblr afirr llir iirtMiiiotion o( llii- Coiiimiv^ioii. llii- ruiiirm^ion slull. for thr |»ir|M 
pf Lillirrir ii: (.1. |~ .mil diImt ii iliiriii.iluM i ii.ii— .ir > Id c«m oul il.i rvi|)tuinl)lliliis |Miniijnl lo urtum 1! of \\\\* r.'M)l 

i"nl> of »lioiii Uiull la- of lil.lun ilociil. S 

ikJiiii; ln»l> nn.w; 



■ |>|.oiMl itu.-li Mlin.: (ii-k l..r... 1,, lu- ,i>rM|MM<'.l of Oir 


rr |.rr>o.„. o 


lffull»,.i..lo.l.n,-. ll„.„l,.l lo- 




ci) ln.>tr..-, «\»\xK^ .U..I hV,l.'r,.|.|iMlu... 


rcl.Uon.,|„,,. 


(2) t,iU^o».rn„u„t; 




(;i) Krdiril u<lrinui>lr.ilioii am! Klriiclurc o 


fln.liaoafr.i 


(4) Ft'tlrrul, >\»W. loul tnlial jiinMlictloli; 




C'.) '"•,l'--"l '■''"'■■■llLViL 





(6) InJiaiihrallii; 

(7) ri'scrvation dt;vclo[iniciit; 

(0) utlian, fural nonrtscnation, terminated, and iioiifederally rccogniicd Indians; and 
(9) Indian law revijjon, conjoiidation, and codification, 
(b) (i) Such task forced slmll have sucii powcra and auUiorilics, in earning out their rc-ponnibilitieA, a.<) sli.tll hi' 
conferred uponlhcin by the Commission, except tliat they sliaJl have no power to i^sue subpcnas or to admiiustf.T uaths 
or affirmations: froiided, That they may call upon the Commijiion or any committee thereof, in the Commiaoion's 
diacretion, to assist thum in aecurin^' any testimony, materiala, documents, or other information necessary for their 
investigation and study. 

(ii) The Commi.-'sion shall require each taak force to provid e writte n querte rly reports to the Commiasion on 
the progr esa of the task force and, in tlie discretion of the Commission, an .oral p n-r-ntJlio ii of siich re^io^t. In ordi-r to 
inture the correlation of data in the final report ond recommendations of the Commiesion, the Direfln r of tjie C onimr- - 
«ion shall c oordinn tc jhc indeufndtnt rfforU rj lUt ta.sk force poiijis. 
f (c) The (!onimis.*ion may fix the c om))cn6ati on of the m embe rs of such ta?k forces at a ral e not to f-xcc -d^lhr 

(daily equivalent iif the iiigheat rate of annual compensation that may be paid to employees of the United Slatis ieiutc 
generally. v/A S . 

(d) The Commission shall, pursuant to section 6, insure that the tnak forces a re proviHrd with adi-qu.it.- 'Uff 
to that authoriicd under section 6 (a), lo cnrry out the projects asjiuiicd to them. 

(e) Fnch ljik__ force appointed by the Commission fhsM, within one year from tile dati- of the appointment of iti 
the Commission ita final report of invcsHtntion and study toci-ther with reeomniendatioi'.' thrrcon. 



^emben, submi t 



REl'ORT OF THE COMMISSION 



Sec. 5. (a) Ugonthe report of the ln.sk for ces m ade pursuant to section 4 hereof, the Commission shall review 
tnd compile sucli reporta, tojelher with its independent Gndin;'3, into a final report. Within ii.x months afler the reports 
of the investigating task forcei, the Commission shali submK its final report, together \vith recommpndati£ns thereon, to 
the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of RcpreaealWives. The Commission fihall cease to cxUt six 
months after submission of said final report but .not later than June 30, 1977. All records and papers of the Commiision 
•hall thereupon be delivered to the Administrator of the General Services Administration for deposit in the Archives of 
the United States. 

(b) Any re.conuntndation of the Commission involving the enactniinj of legi slation shall be referred by the 
Prtaident of the Senate or the Speaker of the House of flepresentatives to the nnprupnale standinj^ committee of llie 
Senate and House of Kepresenlatives. respectively, and such committees ahall make a report tlicrcon to tlic respective 
houac within two years of such referral. 

COMMISSION STAFF 

Sec. 6. (a) The Commission may by record vote of a majority of the Commission members, appoint a Director 
of the Commission, a Ceneral Counsel, one professional staff member, and three ckncal.asfiatunt.s. The Commission 
•hall prescribe the duties and responsibilities of such staff members and fix llieir compensation ul per annum gro^s rates 
not in excess of the per annum rates of compensation prcscnbcd for employees of standinff cummiitecs of the Senate. 

(b) In carrying out any of iU functions under this resolution, the Commission is aulhorized to utilize the 
•ervicea, information, lacilities, and personnel of the Executive depurtmenta and ak't-ncies of ifie Government, and to 
procure the temporary or intermittent servicea of expert* or consultanU or organiiaiiona thereof by contract at ratea 
of compensation not in excesa of the daily equivalent of tlie higheat per annum rate of compenaation that may be paid 
to cmployeea of the Senate generally. 

See. 7. There ia hereby authorited to be appropriated • aum not to exceed $2,500,000 to carry out the pro- 
viuona of thia resolution. • • 

Cr.rrrPrJrrJ.e./^- r^-t^- r. .^,..r.^r. .,,.P.W c....-^.... 



271 



APPENDIX D 



LETTERS 



93-440 O - 78 - 19 



272 




American Indian Policy Review Commission 

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES 
2a«M>OSTiicns. sw. 



DATE: April 20, 1977 

TO: Montana Indian Tribal Councils 

FROM: Earl J. Barlow (y-?\j<P 

RE: American Indian Policy Review Commission's Tentative Final Report 



I have enclosed a copy of the report of persons who participated in a 
workshop sponsored by the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy Board. The purpose 
of the workshop was to give tribal representatives an opportunity to review 
the Tentative Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission 
and formulate comments and recommendations for the Final Report. 

Since the report had to be sent to the Commission postmarked no later than 
April 23, 1977, it was impossible to wait for feedback from tribal representa- 
tives and individuals. Therefore, if you desire to make comments, I suggest 
you communicate directly with the Commission prior to April 23, 1977. 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 
House Office Building Annex No. 2 
2nd and D Streets, S.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20515 

Telephone: (202) 225-1284 



273 



jSxoojnincj iJ-^uljLia <::^akooL± 

SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 9 

jUioiunLnq, £:yV[onta.na !j<)^t7 



April 21, 1977 



American Iridian Policy Review Coiranission 
House Office Building Annex #2 
2nd and D. Streets, S.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20515 



Dea 



Sirs: 



Please find enclosed a copy of an A.I.P.R.C. Workshop report. The report is 
the product of a two day workshop as hosted by the Montana Inter-Tribal Policy 
Board. Contained within are A.I.P.R.C. "Tentative Final Report" chapter 
presentations and recommendations as generated by workshop participants. 

The workshop participants hereby respectfully submit their recommendations 
and input for this historic study. 

Sincerely yours, 

Tom Tliompson (j 
A.I.P.R.C. Workshop Recorder 



T. Pablo 
E. Barlow 
R. Blakeslee 










274 



UNITED STATES 
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS 

Nome Agency 

P.O. Box 1108 

Nome, Alaska 99762 



Anrll 8, 1977 



Honorable James S. Abourezk, Chairman 
American Indian Policy Review Commission 
Congress of the United States 
House Office Building Annex No. 2 
2nd and D Streets, SW. 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

I have just completed my review of the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission's tentative Final Report and would like to make the follow- 
ing comments as pertains to Chapter 12, Special Circumstances - Alaska: 

1. Under Findings Number 5 and 6 and Recommendations Number 2, I find 
that the situation in Northwestern Alaska is exactly opposite to the 
Tlingit-Haida attitude that the Regional entity is the tribe. My 
recommendation is that any reference to recognizing the Tlingit and 
Haida Indians as a single tribal entity should be omitted or the 
villages within the Bering Straits and NANA Regions should be added as 
recognized tribal governing bodies. Congress should not enact legis- 
lation prescribing the order of preference in which applications for 
benefits under federal laws will be received. Tais should be the first 
decision made by the Indian groups in fulfilling their desire to attain 
a full measure of self-determination. 

2. I have read the entire report and someone did a great deal of work. 
I fully agree with all other Alaskan recommendations , particularly 
those that expedite conveyance of lands to Indian entities and reserva- 
tion of essential easements. 



Sincerely yours, 






Gary T. Longley, 
Superintendent 



cc: 

John Borbridge, Jr., Sealaska 



EDMUND C. BflOWN J 



275 



DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 

921 Tenth Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 
(916) 445-4775 



April 18, 1977 



The Honorable Sidney Yates 
Chairman, Interior Subcommittee 
House Appropriations Committee 
United States House of Representatives 
Washington, D. C. 

Dear Congressman Yates: 

This Department, through its Indian Assistance Program, currently provides 
technical assistance and a range of services to Indians living on or near 
trust lands. These activities of the Department are designed to assist 
tribes to meet their housing and community development needs and to use to 
the greatest possible benefit the state and federal funds available for that 
purpose. Over the last two years, the Indian community has expressed to us 
their concern about the funding provided by the BIA to its Sacramento Area 
Office and we have accordingly been carrying out research into the nature 
and level of this funding. We have found that there is in fact serious 
underfunding which in our view requires remedial action by Congress and 
the BIA. 

An examination of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) Budget data since 1969 
reveals that California Indians have not been receiving a fair share of BIA 
allocations based either on the service population or on the needs and that 
action is required to rectify the present inequitable fundfng levels. Table I 
shows that BIA allocations to the Sacramento Area Office of the BIA (encompass- 
ing the State of California) since Fiscal Year 1969 have ranged between 0.8% 
and 1.9% of the national total despite the fact that the BIA recognizes a 
population of 36,255 Indians on or near reservations in California, which is 
6.7% of the total estimated BIA service population. 

House Concurrent Resolution No. 108 of 1953 which declared federal intent to 
terminate responsibility for Indian services in California initially served 
as justification for the low funding levels accorded the Sacramento Area. 
However, the federal government has long since repudiated the policy of 
termination and withdrawal of services. Congress formally enacted such a 
policy of self-determination and continuing assistance with the passage of 
the Indian Self-Determi nation Act of 1975 which states, in part: 

"Congress declares its commitment to the maintenance of the federal 
government's unique and continuing relationship with, and responsi- 
bility to, the Indian and to the establishment of a meaningful 
Indian self-determination policy which will permit an orderly tran- 
sition from federal domination of programs providing services to 
Indians to effective and meaningful participation by the Indian 
people in the planning, conduct, and administration of these pro- 
grams and services." 



276 



Honorable Sidney Yates 
April 18, 1977 
Page Two 



Despite repudiation of the termination policy and although there have been 
some increases in BIA allocations to the Sacramento area over the last 
decade, California Indians living on or near reservations will receive only 
$346.16 per capita in fiscal year 1978, compared to a national average 
(including California) of $1,199.32. 

According to Mr. Conger, Chief Statistician in the BIA's Washington office, 
funding for areas is based on a number of criteria which vary from program 
to program. There is apparently no existing formula for allocation on the 
basis of population although he informed us that service area population is 
a major consideration in determining allocations. Obviously, certain funds, 
such as those for forest protection and utilization, go only to Areas where 
forests exist. But in comparing Area allocations to Area service popula- 
tions (see Table II) it is difficult to conclude that the BIA has adopted 
fair and rational formulae. It is possible that consistent criteria are 
applied in determining funding. If indeed they exist, they certainly merit review. If 
none are used, as seems to be the case, then the BIA should be required by 
Congress to develop a system of allocation which provides to California 
Indians the funds they need and deserve. 

The BIA, in defending its present system of allocation, may point to three 
factors crucial to its justification of funding levels. 

First, it may argue that the Sacramento Area's on-reservation population 
(6,240 as of 1973*) is not sufficient to warrant substantial changes in 
future allocations. But according to William Finale, the Director of the 
Sacramento Area Office, very few of the BIA's California programs serve 
exclusively the 6,240 reservation Indians. Table III lists those programs 
and amounts expended on such programs which serve the 36,255 Indians both on 
and off reservations and rancherias. The figure of 36,255 includes all rural 
Indians living within counties containing trust land. 

Table III-A shows the total amount expended on such programs as a percentage 
of the total Sacramento Area allocation in Fiscal Year 1977 and 1978. As you 
will note, approximately 60% of the total allocation is being expended to 
serve the service population of on and near trust land Indians. 

Table IV shows that even for those programs that serve on and near reserva- 
tion Indians, California Indians are severely underfunded. With 6.7% of 
the total estimated BIA service population, the Sacramento Area will receive 
in Fiscal Year 1977 only 3. IX of Aid to Tribal Government funds and 0.1% of 
Social Services funds. California received only 0.002% of funds allocated 
for school operations because the BIA. operates no schools here. As a result, 
the State must assume a commensurately greater part of the cost of Indian 
education. 



Source: "Estimates of Resident Indian Population and Labor Force 
Status", BIA, 1973. 



277 



Honorable Sidney Yates 
April 18. 1977 
Page Three 



While the BIA may contend, when making its allocations, that the on reserva- 
tion figure is appropriate, as funding criterion, we note that the Department 
of the Interior in submitting to the Congress its Fiscal Year 1977 budget 
justification relied on the figure of 36,255 (6.7% of the national total) to 
support its budget request. In that justification, the Department referred 
to the 1973 estimated BIA service population of 543,000 Indians on and near 
reservations "including all rural California Indians in counties including 
trust lands." 

Secondly, the BIA maintains that it computes current budgets by using past 
budgets as data bases. Rather than significantly re-evaluating allocations 
each year, the BIA relies on past allocations to determine current ones. 
Area offices which are underfunded in one Fiscal Year are likely to be 
underfunded in subsequent years. The result has been that while Sacramento 
Area's share of the total budget has increased somewhat from 1969, it has 
not increased sufficiently to reach an equitable level. 

We have been informed by the BIA that its Fiscal Year 1977 budget provided 
for the first time an experimental "equity adjustment" for underfunded 
Agencies. All Agencies received a standard 1.6% allocation increase, but 
those Agencies selected to participate in the "equity adjustment" received 
an additional 6.4%, making a total 8.0% increase. The Southern California 
Agency in the Sacramento Area was selected to participate in this program, 
but the Hoopa and Central California Agencies were omitted. Even for the 
Southern California Agency, 6.4% was hardly enough to alter radically 
the present unbalance. Nevertheless we were informed by Mr. Conger that the 
"equity adjustments" were "ill-received" and may not be continued. 

It appears to us that the BIA already has the power to readjust its budget 
increases to provide more equitable funding for California. According to 
Mr. Finale, the Office of Management and Budget sets a target percentage 
increase for the Department of Interior, which in turn adjusts the figure 
upward or downward for the entities within its jurisdiction. Once its target 
has been set by the Department, the BIA can, within statutory constraints, 
allow different rates of increase to its Areas and their constituent 
Agencies to offset inequities between them. 

Thirdly, the BIA may contend, in justification of present funding levels, that 
the relatively small land base of California Indians and the wide distribu- 
tion of Indians in the "near-reservation" category entitles the Sacramento 
Area to less program activity than is provided to Areas with more trust land 
and sizable numbers of Indians living in close proximity to such lands. 

To an extent this contention is a valid one. We have already referred to 
allocations for forest protection and utilization in this regard. However, 
the argument does not hold for the range of educational, community development, 
and related funds provided by the BIA since the need for those funds is not 
related to the possession of trust land but rather to the population to be 
served. Indeed, because the treaties to which the California Indians and 
Federal commissioners agreed in the mid-nineteenth century were never 



278 



[(onorable Sidney Yates 
April 18, 1977 
Page Four 



ratified, trust lands in California are extremely small, and in most cases 
insufficient, both in area and quality, to support large on-reservation 
populations. It is grossly unfair to base fundinp on the size of trust lands 
since non-ratification prevented establishment of large and more viable 
reservations. 

The BIA in determining funding levels should take properly into account the 
reality of history which created the unique dispersion of California Indians 
throughout non-trust lands. We note in this regard that, according to 
Mr. Finale, the BIA continues to fund Oklahoma Indians living on now extinct 
reservations in that State as if the abolished reservations were still 
trust land. 

In conclusion, we strongly believe that California Indian communities are not 
now receiving their proper share of the funds allocated by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs. California is underfunded not only in terms of total allo- 
cations but also in terms of those programs for which a service population of 
36,255 is clearly established. At the very minimum, California Indians she 'd 
receive funding for such programs on a basis commensurate with their recoci.'zed 
service population. The needs of California Indians are great and those 
needs for services demand attention. 

We urge the Subcommittee to seriously examine current BIA funding practices 
as they relate to California Indians. We hope that you will see fit to take 
some action with respect to this year's budget to assure adequate funding 
for California Indians and that you will move to see that BIA allocation 
policies are more equitable in the future. 

Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions or 
need assistance with regard to resolution of this problem, please get in touch. 

Sincerely, 



Attachments 

cc: Members of the Subcommittee 



Arnold C. Sternberg 
Director / 



279 

March 18, 1977 



It aecms to me that Amarlcana have a tendency to want to aolve worl4 
problem* but pay little a^^tention to pr obi erne exlatlng in their own 
back yarda I 



We have a Federal Law on the booka which haa integrated our achool 
ayatem -- but why oh why -- ia the aegregatioa ayatem permitted to 
atart in the Hayward Area? I cannot underatand why the citiseae and 
the legialaturea are permitting the Chippewa I ndi ana to aet up a aegregated 
akhool ayatem with our tax dollar a? 



It appeara to me that we are going backwarda and permitting prejudicea 
to exi at inatead of going forwarda by integrating and leaaenlng prejudicea t 
It aeema immoral to perpetuate auch aeparati am with our tax dolkara. We 
muat not make the aame miatakea aa our forefather a who really believed 
the creation of reaervationa aol ved problema/ Thi a only created a feeling 
of aeparati veneaa I ! How long muat future generationa beat their cheatain 
"MIA CULPA" faahion and live with the guilt feelinga?? Let ua all 
integrate - work for a living and auppotrt our government alike through 
the tax dollar earned not begged 1 1 1 



Sincerely 



Roae Cammack 

Rt 4 - Hayward, Wiacoaain 



280 




UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
Economic Development Administration 

Washington, DC. 20230 



April 22, 1977 



Mr. Ernest L. Stevens 

Director 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 

House Office Building Annex No. 2 

2nd and D Streets, S.W., Room 3158 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Ernie: 



We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments on the 
tentative final report of the Commission. In this regard, we 
enclose statements containing our comments on two chapters — 
Numbers 6 and 7 — which, we feel, are of special interest to us. 

We look forward to having the final report when it is published. 

Sincejpaly, 



■JER 
Specif ilssistant 
forAidiin Affairs 




281 



AIPRC PROPOSED FINAL REPORT 



Chapter 6 - Federal Administration 



The AIPRC has been charged with an important mission in Chapter 6 to assist 
Indian people in participating in the services and programs of the Federal 
Government to the fullest extent possible. The EDA Indian Desk shares this 
concern and offers the following summary comments to help make a good report 
better: 

Clearly, this chapter on Federal Administration reflects the dedicated 
efforts of many hands. Perhaps some consideration should be given to 
editing for brevity, style, tone, and balance to bring out the most important 
findings and recommendations, particularly when much of the material is also 
discussed in other AIPRC reports. 

Some thought should be given to reassessing the organization of this Chapter 
consisting of seven parts covering 137 pages. Seventy-nine percent of 
Chapter 6 discusses essentially four Federal agencies (BIA/DOI; IHS/DHEW, 
and ONAP/DHEW) included in Part V on Federal Delivery Systems and 72 percent 
of this part discusses only BIA. There are many other Federal agencies 
offering vital programs to Indians in categorical and block grants, procure- 
ment and contracting, and so forth that may well be included consistent 
with the intent of this chapter. 

While the findings of this chapter disclose some revealing issues regarding 
Federal policy, program management, organization, budgeting, and standards, 
we note that there appears to be no consistently applied methodology in 
looking at each Federal agency and program. This is important as Federal 
administrative requirements often vary with the type of program. 

Part V, item 6, discusses Federal technical assistance to Indians. While we 
agree that this is an important program area, in which EDA also participates, 
we question why technical assistance is singled out as a specific program area 
for review, particularly when a small percentage of the Federal dollar is 
expended in this area. We feel this area should be part of the discussion 
on BIA in Chapter 6 since BIA is the principal provider of technical assistance. 

Part V, item 7, discusses access to Federal program information and the 
difficulty tribes have experienced to obtain this information. We agree that 
access to information on Federal domestic assistance programs is important 
for all Indian tribes, but note that much of this problem is alleviated as 
EDA-funded tribal planners gather Federal program information and perform 
Federal, State, and local government coordination activities as required as 
part of their responsibilities for the tribes they serve. 



282 



Part VI, B, Indian Contracting Preference, discusses the use of Federal 
contracting and procurement and to enhance Indian economic development and 
promote Indian enterprises. We do not agree that limited success in the 
field of Indian management and economic development is due to the failure of 
Federal agencies to implement PL 93-638, at least as it applies to EDA. 
We agree that Indian preference in contracting merits consideration, but 
wish to note that successful tribal enterprises, providing employment and 
income to the tribe, are found only where sound management and business 
practices are also employed and freely supported by the tribe. Accordingly, 
contracting may be an alternative to enhance Indian economic developement 
and promote Indian enterprises but has no foundation as a reason for the 
limited progress among American Indians as Part VI, B, implies. 



283 



AIPRC PROPOSED FINAL REPORT 



Chapter 7 - Economic Development 



Since the greater part of the chapter Is devoted to protection and development 
of natural resources. It would seem more appropriate that the title of the 
chapter reflect that emphasis. There are a few, short glimpses of economic 
development In senses of that term, but a great deal more analysis should be 
presented to carry a chapter on that subject. It might have been appropriate 
to devote an additional chapter to that subject. 

The general organization of the chapter, we found, was haphazard, with the 
presentation taking twists and turns that cause the reader to loose the Impact 
of what Is being said. Part I, for example. Is purported to be a Summary of 
Major Findings. It Is neither a summary nor does It present only major 
findings. It contains 67 separate, unorganized statements, all of which are 
scattered throughout the text. 

Much of the discussion and many of the findings are not backed up by concrete 
facts and analysis. For example, the recommendations on manpower development 
start with nine "Congress should enact legislation." These recommendations 
do not identify present laws that could be amended; do not set priorities; do 
not suggest funding levels; and do not provide a time table for implementation. 

While the study presents what are perceived to be needed and desired changes 
In the tools available for economic development of Indian areas, it fails to a 
large extent to even recognize that there are built-in barriers to such 
development. We feel it must be recognized and accounted for that tribal 
policies of 100 percent Indian ownership will restrict available capital 
resources and management expertise. This is not to say that Indian ownership 
is bad. It is not. But the study should recognize this point. Further, the 
lack of continuity in tribal development policies brought about by frequent 
changes in tribal administration is another barrier that must be recognized. 

Planning and Development Strategies : 

Certainly a study examining the need for, and recommending ways to accomplish, 
economic development, must list planning very close to the top. The chapter 
makes only passing reference to this need. Similarly omitted is the need for 
long-range development strategies for local Indian communities to make them 
better places in which to live. 



284 



Commercial Development 

One of the very pressing needs, generally, in Indian country is that for 
commercial development , yet the study makes only a passing reference to 
the lack of goods and services on reservations with no recommendation on 
improving this situation. In this same category, but converse in nature, is 
the marketing of Indian products and resources off reservation. The study 
should recognize that many tribes do not have the knowledge and skills to 
exploit markets for maximum economic and social impact and that programs 
should be designed to meet these needs. 

Indian Control 

Indians should seek self reliance and self government. At the same time, 
however, they must accept and assume broad ranging responsibilities. We 
agree that a Federal mandate should be designed to relieve Indians from Federal 
dependency, but the study fails to recommend in concrete terms the parameters 
of such a mandate. Indians should formulate and control their own economic 
development; they should exercise full control over their own resources. 
However, the study again, either by design or omission, falls to consider in 
any depth the full ramifications of these points. No mention is made of 
Indians using their own funds in economic development ; no mention is made of 
the possible efficacy of Indians becoming tax payers — taxes, for example, 
that tribal members pay into tribal coffers. In another vein, the study 
points out that Federal economic development programs foster private 
enterprises that are foreign to traditional Indian ways. Perhaps some 
Federal programs do just this; however, since some tribes prefer this type of 
development, the Indians, themselves, should make the determinations and 
the programs should be designed to react to such determinations. 

Water 

The section on water resources is disappointingly scanty. It deals principally 
with the Winters Doctrine, which established water rights granted by both 
treaties and executive orders. With both water and land being the most 
crucial issues in Indian country today, a great deal more coverage should be 
provided in both these areas as to the impact they have on the full range of 
economic development. 

Land 

The study quite properly points out the very serious problem of fractionated 
land ownership. This is a major drawback to future development of Indian 
lands and it would seem that a more thorough analysis of the problem and 
suggested solutions would have been presented. Additionally, the study gives 
the impression to the uninitiated reader that now that the land in Indian 



285 



ovmership has been reduced from 166 million acres to 52 million acres, the 
present land is submarginal. This statement should be balanced by a showing 
of economic development potential of these lands. 

Energy Resources 

This subject is especially important today in light of increasing energy needs. 
It has, however, been given broad-brush treatment in Jthe study, where specifics 
should be examined. Of course, Indian interests must be protected but at the 
same time, economic needs of tribes must be met. Consequently, the study 
should examine closely and recommend broadly Federal policy in the development 
of tribal energy resources. 

Timber Resources 

That timber resources appear not to have been managed in the most desirable 
fashion is clearly spelled out in the study. What is not spelled out so 
clearly, however, is how to better manage and at the same time preserve the 
trust of caring for another's property without being continually liable for 
failure to act in the best interest of the property owners. The study falls 
short in making concrete recommendations in this respect. 

Information Bank 

A clear need in economic development appears to us to be that of data on 
population, labor force, employment, unemployment, and income. At present 
there are no truly satisfactory sources for this information and the study 
does not recognize this need. 

Summary 

While there are shortcomings in the study as noted above, overall it appears 
that the study does make many good points. If there can be any one general 
criticism, it would be that the study lacks balance. Broad statements are 
made without adequate supporting evidence. Some Federal programs are bad — 
ergo, all are indicted. Some tribes and individual Indians perceive their 
needs to be along given lines, hence, all tribes and all Indians have the 
same needs. These needs are not the same for all and they cannot be 
generalized. This factor, alone, calls for the analysis of, and provision 
for, a multiplicity of routes to follow in attaining the full potential for 
the economic development of Indian lands and people. 




286 



STATE OF CONNECTICUT 
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Statc Omcz Building Haktfou>, CoHntcnarr 06115 

INDIAN AFFAIRS COUNCIL - ROOM 248 



April 21, 19r7 



Senator James S. Abourezk, Chairman 
American Indian Policy Review Commission 
Congress of the United States 
House Office Building Annex No. 2 
2nd and D Streets, SW 
Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

I vjish to offer the following corrections to statements made in the 
tentative final report of the American Indian Policy Review Comnission. 
On pages >-5, a statement appears that the Mohegan tribe has no "official 
recognized relationship" with the state in vrtiich they reside, viz., 
Connecticut. This is not correct; the Mohegan tribe is one of the five 
indigenous Connecticut tribes recognized under sections 47-59b and 47-65 
of the Connecticut General Statutes.- Although they do not have a reservation 
today. State law provides for and they have a representative on the 
Connecticut Indian Affairs Council. 

Concerning the information chart on pages 11-13 ff • The Schaghticoke 
reservation is located in the town of Kent, Litchfield County, vrtiile the 
Eastern' Pequot reservation is located in the town of North Stonington, New 
London Gounty. 

If you have any questions about ray comments please do not hesitate to 
contact me. 



Sincerely, 



endan S. /Keleher 
Indian Affairs Coordinator 
(203) 566-7026 



287 










i^ril 2S, 1977 



Ernest L. Stevens, Director 

Aaerican Indian Policy Review Coimnission 

Congress of the United States 

Hoiise Office Building Annex N. 2 

2d and D. Streets, S.W. 

Washington. D. C. 20S15 

Dear Ernie: 

Enclosed herewith are the comments and recommendations of the Creek Nation 
to the Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Our 
staff has attempted to consume the entirety of the proposed final report, 
analyze its content and to compile comments and reconniendations which we 
feel are significant to Indian people as a whole. 

It has been a great pleasure to have participated in the review of the proposed 
final report. If your office should have any questions regarding the attached, 
please do not hesitate to contact our office. 



Sincerely, 

Claude A. Cox 
Principal Chief 



'^,a MtiM, ^:jj '^i^iW^gm^ - j&^ 7S ./ S&i^ss - 0t C 3Uhm - Om^ OUJLm. 7***T - HI rst^oo 



93-440 O - 78 - 20 



288 



FINAL AIPRC REPORT 



The Formative Years: Policy Development through 1871 



There are several different approaches that can be taken to the study of 
Native American history. Curiously, this one has chosen to leave out 
the inadequate description that is needed through the Colonial period 
from 1607 to 1776 or indeed until 1783. A more detailed discussion of 
the environment from which the United States and the Indian nations 
began co-existence is needed to demonstrate the historical relationships 
involved. The historical section leaves out a discussion of the concept 
of Colonialism that is very necessary for a study of the United States 
and Indian relations. The settlement of North America did not happen 
in vacuum. It happened as a result of the Colonial policy of Great 
Britian, France, Spain and Holland and it was a policy followed there- 
after of unlimited immigration which allowed these colonial states to 
support themselves. This is a poor issue in the study of Indian history. 



The tribal governments have to be viewed in the context of the span that 
has existed in the process of federation which occurred throughout 
the Atlantic Seaboard and occurred again and again inside the interior 
of the continent. It is something that has to be viewed as a phenomenon. 
In fact, various philosophical arguments concerning the Indian contribu- 
tions, both to the world's conception of a federal system of government, 
and to the world's conception of democracy and limited government. We 
must remember that the culture was pointed to as example of government 
by consent, and is an example of limited government in claims which justi- 
fied originally a serious democracy. We've got to remember that models 
from Tribal Governments were used in putting together many of the American 
state documents; otherwise, as far as details go and as far as the text 
of the Historical Chapter, it is very well done and deserves high praise. 



There are a couple of small things that I think are important. On page 
1-7 the report discusses, at the very bottom of the page the very last 
line, the proposals for organizing "Indian Territory". These continue 
to surface from time to time. The tribal nations remain separate and 
unequal. I think that it is important to know at this point that the 
reconstruction treaty wherein the United States received concessions 
from the Five Civilized Tribes under the theory of their conquerment 
although all tribes had split during the war and that no tribe remained 
united. The United States imposed a general council of the Indian 
Territory and provisions for that council were written into the Treaty 
of the Five Civilized Tribes in 1867. Furthermore, tribes which were 
removed from areas in other parts of the midwest and were relocated 
in Oklahoma, many of them had it written into their treaty as a result 
of coming to live in Oklahoma. That they would be allowed such repre- 
sentation were also often written into great detail. Congress appropriated 



289 



funds for this from time to time and the council met on a regular 
basis. TTie council has never been repealed and is a very important 
historical institution. 



Another concept which remains to be discussed in the earlier sections 
of the report. Section 1 5 2, is the treatment of the Indian Governments 
as Nations in several other important senses. The first of these is that 
when the Five Civilized Tribes were placed in the Indian Territory under 
their removal treaties they were placed in such a situation that they 
indeed existed as border states between what was considered Federal 
Territory and what was considered the Territory of the Government of 
Mexico. This clearly indicates that the United States felt the Tribe 
had some attributes of sovereignty to be placed on the Spanish frontier. 
Of course, one of the Tribal Towns of the Creek Nation migrated from 
the United States into what was Mexican Territory and later became a 
reservation of its own in Texas. 



The other important factor concerning the treatment of the Tribes as 
nations is the United States did not intervene in the civil wars of the 
Five Civilized Tribes. Until the erection of the Territory, and State 
of Oklahoma, the United States in no way ever intervened in a civil 
war of any of the Five Civilized Tribes, notably in the Creek Nation. 
It is important to know that in the Civil War itself, both United 
States and Confederate States were very anxious for the loyalty of the 
Indian Nations and they treated them as Nations. The region where they 
were, geographically, was of some great political power. This is why 
the tribes were torn assionder, they were given promises from the United 
States and the Confederate States. This can be evidenced by the 
Confederate Treaties involved, and also by historical research of the 
time; at the end of the war the United States promises were not kept 
but rather very harsh reconstruction was forced upon the tribes. The 
offer of the confederate treaties also included offers of representation 
in the Confederate legislature. 



Also in the historical perspective, we must not forget trade patterns. 
These are also very definitive in the study of the United States-Indian 
relations and its history. The tribes traded with each other and they 
traded across long distances they migrated. Many tribes were migratory 
in one long movement and still other tribes were migratory in a sense 
that they wandered in no particular direction, but they treated each 
other always as a Nation able to co-exist upon the land or able to 
determine the limits of the lack of such co-existing. They always 
treated each other as Nations. 



It is only this question of historical perspective that I want to insert 
at this time and I believe that on the whole. Chapter I, II and III are 
excellently conceived, developed and written and other than a few 
philosophical holes in them, I believe that they are an excellent 
presentation for the American Indian. Chapter IV, we believe, the 
priority should be given a statement and policy describing the trust 
responsibility and we favored the middle ground taken by the position 
which is a partial description of a very general concept of trust 



290 



responsibility. In support of the trust responsibility and statement 
of policy we would also like to give our support to the recommendations 
for a Indian Trust Rights Impact Statement. The section which favors 
legal representation for the Indians is well developed in good detail 
and seems to protect the rights of the tribes and the right of the 
individuals and protect the tribes for the first time against the 
inherent conflicts of interests involved in most federal departments 
and their administration. 



In Chapter V of Tribal Government we support the recommendation that the 
support and development of Tribal Government should be a long-term 
objective of Federal Indian Policy. It's been reversed, rather, which 
has been the policy of the federal government to this point. We support 
the recommendation that Congress take no legislative action in relation 
to tribal jurisdiction over non- Indians. But in future questions 
relating to tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians, where jurisdiction is 
being retroceded. Congress should neither limit that jurisdiction to 
solely over Indians and it should commensurate with such plans of concurrent 
jurisdiction as it could be worked out between the tribe and the state. 



Chapter V is very well developed, and as a whole, looks like one of the 
most comprehensive chapters and one of the easiest to comment on. I 
can whole heartedly support every recommendation under the chapter on 
Tribal Government with one single exception. Because of the discussion 
in Chapter 12 concerning the special circumstances of Oklahoma I believe 
that it is necessary that at some point in here, perhaps that in a 
separate recommendation, reference should be made to these same principles 
of retrocession being applied to the Indian Tribes of Oklahoma at their 
options; I believe that enough narrative should be inserted into the 
text of the report in Chapter V to report on the possibilities of 
litigation and legislation regarding the Oklahoma Tribes so that 
legislation is not forced upon those tribes who do not want it so that 
the long road of litigation is not forced upon those tribes to whom it 
would not help. Retrocession in Oklahoma is necessary and is a proper 
topic of Chapter V. 



I heartily support the recommendations in Chapter VI on Federal 
Administration. They are detailed and comprehensive in nature and 
deal with a great many subjects, only one of which I wish to expand 
upon. I do support part of the recommendation saying that Congress should 
mandate the Bureau of Indian Affairs through the independent Indian 
agency to make available to all Indian Tribes copies of all operations 
and procedures manuals used by the Indian agency in its administration 
of Indian Affairs. However, the second half of the recommendation does 
not go far enough. Whereas, it states that Congress further mandates 
the Bureau of Indian Affairs for the independent Indian agencies to make 
available to all Indian tribes a copy of Title 25 of the United States 
Code, it should read, to locate in all agencies or sub-agencies a 
complete and up-to-date copy of the United States Code annotated and 
a complete copy of the Code of Federal Regulations, and two appropriate 
copies of Public Laws of the United States and of the Federal Registers. 



291 



Regarding Chapter VI we most importantly, support the recommendations 
to create an independent agency for Indian Affairs and that it be composed 
of the appropriate function within the Federal Government starting with 
the cores of Bureau of Indian Affairs, Indian Health Service and 
Department of Interior and Justice legal staffs and moving on to other 
appropriate programs and functions. 



Moving to Chapter VII we can also give our whole hearted support for this 
section of this report, overall, it is developed well and many of the 
concepts are well outlined except for a few minor things which we would 
like to refer to below. There is one additional concept which we'd like 
to recommend inclusion. This would be the finding that the Federal 
Government has funded comprehensive planning for the Indian Tribes, yet 
the Tribes find themselves faced with a system which is not geared to 
implementing the comprehensive plan it is geared toward federal grants- 
manship. The subsequent recommendation which Congress devise the 
appropriate review process for congressional consideration of comprehensive 
plan implementation. 



Basically I agree with the report; however, in some areas it does not 
go far enough. These will be dealt with in Section II of this report. 
The area that seems to be lacking from the report is long term 
consistancy in the Economic Development of Indian Country. Perhaps some 
type of trust council, elected from Indian Country, by Indians for 
long term (20 years) with Indian policy and effect review and comment 
authority over all legislation, executive policies, and judicial activities. 

Another area which was omitted is any provision for the modification ^ 
of all legislative activity which has its real effect ramifications 
which deter the economic development of Indian country. 

Comments on various sections of the report are as follows: 

Page 7-1 - 7th. paragraph - This statement is not necessarily so. 

Page 7-8 - 4th paragraph - This statement is a good point. 

Page 7-10- 2nd paragraph - Item 7 - Good point. 

Page 7-13- Item 4 - Interest rate should be tied to some varying scale 

or escalator such as the prime interest rate. 
Page 7-13- Item 5 - All trust monies invested by various agencies 

should have 100% protection. 
Page 7-13- 2nd paragraph - concerning bond issues excellent point and 

good tool for funding hardware projects. 
Page 7-18- 3rd paragraph - The entire paragraph boils down to 

Comprehensive Planning. 
Page 7-36 Last paragraph - Added to the entire section should be an 
evaluation of the following possibilities 
for tribal government use: 

1. Revised inheritance laws 

2. Tribal power of eminent domain 

3. Land use development plans 

4. Zoning and development regulations 

5. Tribal condemnation of land 

6. Extraterritorial jurisdiction for 
development controls. 



292 



Page 7-42- Pollution of surface and underground water has an effect 

on water use in Indian Country and should be investigated. 
Page 7-57- An addition to this section should be consideration of 

timber by-products and the use of non-millable or scrub 

timber. 
Page 7-67- This section should include an investigation of the effects 

of 200 mile fishing boundaries. 
Page 7-85- Holding funds in tribal trust is not in efficient 

utilization of money. Using trust money as leverage for 

capital investment is a better utilization of trust money. 
Page 7-90- Item 5 - All trust monies invested by Federal agencies should 

carry a 100% insurance factor. 



Editorial changes are as follows: 

Page 7-7 - 1st sentence last paragraph - apparantly a word is left out 
of the first sentence. 

Page 7-9 - Element line - word misspelled. 

Page 7-39 - Second paragraph, fifth line, word misspelled. 

Page 7-55 - Sixth line- a better phrase for "forward linkages" is 

"vertical integration". 
Page 7-64- Last sentence is incomplete. 
Page 7-77 - Sixteenth line - word misspelled. 



One minor point would be the second recommendation regarding the 
availability of investment capitol in Chapter VII. One of the directions 
that Congress is suggested to give to the BIA is to consider applying 
the average daily balance concept just using a consumer credit operation 
to provide an interest rate for rapidly changing balances in some Indian 
Trust Funds as opposed to non-payment of interest. We would like to 
note that we oppose the non-payment interest. Any methods of computing 
interest is preferrable. One method as utilized by banking institutions 
as in our region is the transaction is only dated on the 5th day or on 
10, 15, 20,25th or 30th. The interest is thus computed on those days, 
so there is not doubt as to the balance at any given moment. 

Chapter VIII concerning the Social Services, it is one of the most 
important chapters of the entire report. 

Social Services are the essence of the government as Western Society 
has come to understand it. Making proper provisions for the general 
welfare of our people is a necessary part of the role of the Indian 
Tribe. As a service delivery mechanism an Indian Tribe can truly serve 
the best interest of government both for its own people and for the 
role of federal trusteeship. Subjected to proper audit requirements 
and proper programming administrative requirements, Indian tribes are 
unequivocally the best mechanism for delivery of services to their 
tribal population and to their reservations. In many ways this area 
is going to be important to the future of Indian Tribes all across the 
country. 



293 



In accordance with the findings of the AIPRC, there also exist within 
the Creek Nation a number of agencies authorized to provide welfare 
services to the Indian population. As is also the trend on the national 
level, many Indian people do not receive the full benefit of the various 
programs. There seems to be a reluctance on the part of many Indians 
within the Creek Nation to apply for welfare services provided by the 
Department of Institutions, Social and Rehabilitative Services; the 
State agency charged with the delivery of such services in Oklahoma. 
In addition, there has been no recognizable effort on the part of this 
agency to work through tribal entities to identify and serve the Indian 
people in need of assistance. 



It is agreed, as we stated in the AIPRC Report, that mechanism must be 
developed by which the Indian people will share in the assistance to which 
all people are entitled. These mechanism must be developed and implemented 
with input and assistance for tribal governments with sanctions against 
those agencies refusing to cooperate in the attempts to increase needed 
services to Indians. 

The other recommendations made in the AIPRC Report are acceptable. 

The child placement situation within the Creek Nation is such that 
concurrance with the following recommendations is made; 

a) That the removal of Creek children from their homes, culture and 
society be halted. 

b) Federal funds be made available to tribal governments for the 
development of Indian foster care home and institutions. 

c) Statistical information concerning the present system be gathered. 

d) Congress must address the problems and issues of Indian child 
placement. 



As with other social service areas, it is imperative that tribal 
governments provide input into the development of a new system, and 
also be considered as the primary services provider with the acquisition 
of adequate funds and expertise. 



In our health area, even though many of the statistics and conditions 
outlined in AIPRC Report primarily described the health situation 
on reservations, the health problems facing the Indian people within 
the Creek Nation are equally severe. 



The recommendations made in the AIPRC Report that referenced reservations 
must be revised to include catchment areas served by tribal governments 
similar in status to the Creek Nation. Since the Creek Nation is presently 
implementing an ambulance, mobile clinic, and emergency and inpatient 
facility system for the pupulation of the Creek Nation, it is important 
for future development that Oklahoma Indian Nations be specifically 
included. 



294 



TTie special trust relationship between Indian tribes and the Federal 
Government has created a responsibility for the Federal Government 
to educate Indian people, but due to the fact that the Constitution 
of the United States delegates the responsibility of education to the 
states, a void has been created by the lack of recognition by states 
of Indian tribes and their educational needs. A conflict has been 
created when the States will not recognize Indian tribes and their 
educational needs. 

1) It is necessary that agencies be established at the federal level 
to carry out the responsibilities of providing technical assistance 
to Indian tribes. For example an agency to accredit educational 
systems of Indian tribes. 

2) Federal Funding for development of tribal education system. 



The Creek Nation can whole heartedly support the recommendations in 
Chapter IX on Off- Reservation Indians. 

The delivery of services to Off-Reservation Indians is consistant with 
the federal obligation to all Indians. Urban Indian services are 
necessary for the future of the Indian people and in no way does the 
Creek Nation want to argue against Urban Indian funds and Urban Indian 
centers, however, we would appreciate one small qualifier being inserted 
within the recommendation. The Congress should take notice, legislative 
notice, of the unique situation of urban areas existing with the reservation 
boundaries, and in its notice Congress should uphold the policy that such 
urban areas are within the jurisdiction of the tribes and therefore 
the primary vehicle with services delivery is the tribe. The Creek Nation 
supports the recommendations of Chapter X to restore full federal 
recognition to all terminated tribes. In principle, the Creek Nation 
recognizes the necessity of giving proper federal recognition to many 
heretofore unrecognized tribes, we believe that the policy of recogni- 
tion is too lax and will cause fraud and the resulting decrease of 
services to heretofore recognized tribes. In the unrecognized tribes 
area there is a very serious question as to how the historical accidents 
of separated bands of tribes shall be treated. We believe that the problem 
of separated bands should have priority over completely unrecognized tribes, 
however, we also believe that heretofore unrecognized bands should be 
dealt with in coordination with the tribe involved. If you will use 
the report itself as reference and use the chart of available information 
on non-federally recognized Indian tribes at the end of Chapter XI, you 
will notice that in Alabama it has listed the Creek Nation East of the 
Mississippi, in Florida it has listed the Appalachicola Tribe which 
claims treaties rights without reference to the fact that the Appalachicola 
Tribe was the Tribal Town of the Creek Nation. In Florida, it also 
listed as the lower Creek Tribe of East of the Mississippi. In Georgia 
there is listed two groups who claim to be the Creek Nation East of the 
Mississippi. So here we can plainly see that there are six organizations 
claiming to be the Creek Nation East of the Mississippi, or some component 
thereof. These are separated bands, they are products of bloody, and 
bitter removal and these people that are Indians deserve to have their 
rights protected. But only in a manner upholding finest traditions of 
the federal relationships and not in some hap-hazard manner that's going 



295 



to recognize some illegitimate so called tribal government. 



In Chapter XII, it would be inappropriate to comment on the special 
circumstances in Alaska and California, so my attention will be 
concentrated on the special circumstemces in Oklahoma. On page 12-39 where 
it talks of the jurisdiction of government of all persons and property 
of the Choctaw Nation and that no part of the land granted them shall 
ever be embraced in any territory or state and it says that similar 
provisions may be found in the removal treaties of each of the tribes. 
It must also be noted that these guarantees have never been litigated 
and that the meaning of the terms at the time were a part of the consi- 
deration for a contract between the Tribe and the United States and 
this consideration has never been dealt with by a court of law. 



On page 12-40 where it discusses the 1867, not 1866, treaties concluded 
by each tribe in the civil war, the five tribes did not fight the 
confederacy during the Civil War. In fact, the Seminole in no way ever 
sided with the confederacy in the Civil War, the Creeks and Cherokees 
and to a lesser degree the Choctaws and the Chickasaws were all split 
in different factions, did different things, and because of the turmoil 
in Indian Territory at the time it is impossible to tell who was siding 
with whom. The 1867 Treaty also contained a promise by the Tribe that 
the United States Congress would be able to exercise the general 
jurisdiction over the tribe for the benefit of the tribe and that tribe 
would be able to maintain their form of self-government and their right 
of self-government. 



In the following section of the removal of Midwestern Tribes, it is 
important to note that a general council of the Indian Territory was estab- 
lished in the reconstruction treaties of the five tribes and was written 
into several if not most, in fact if not all, of the treaties of the 
Western plains tribes and the midwestem and southern plains tribes 
that were moved into Oklahoma. The staff of the commission should 
survey these treaties and find out how many of them included general 
council of the Indian Territory and should also give history of the 
appropriations which Congress gave to fiond this and should cite exsimples 
from Senate reports and House reports with or without federal appropria- 
tions, however, this council continued to function for some time. 



The discussion beginning on page 12-48 and concluding on page 12-50 dis- 
cussing the dismantling of the Five Civilized Tribes and the effective 
state jurisdiction is wholly inadequate. In error the section has done 
an inconclusive legal analysis on the extent of the state jurisdiction. 
Therefore, attached for the consideration of the commission is the 
memorandum written under the contract to the Creek Nation and the 
judicial and legislative decision of importance are also attached along 
with it. 

On page 12-59 the commission uses the definition of Part C, Section 1151 
of Title 18 United States Code as being applicable to Eastern Oklahoma. 
The commission should re-examine this, on the other hand, the Title 18, 



296 



Section 1151, Parts A, B, and C are all applicable to Eastern Oklahoma 
in different senses and to narrow the construction of this nature is 
not going to help the tribes in Eastern Oklahoma. The recommendation 
supporting the reservation status for the Eastern Oklahoma Tribes 
should affect the legal status of the tribe in addition to making the 
tribes eligible for certain federal domestic systems programs. 



The section on Trust Lands from page 12-67 through page 12-69 does 
not even discuss the situation of the Five Civilized Tribes. All 
the statistics given are applicable only to Western Oklahoma, although 
there is some application to Eastern Oklahoma. 

The section on Indians on page 12-70 through page 12-71 is hardly a 
good discussion on water rights at all, in fact it uses the discussion 
of the Choctaws, Cherokees, Chickasaws' suit against the State of 
Oklahoma as an example of water rights, while the suit in fact dealt 
with only title to lands and did not mention water in any way or 
in any form. 



Over all, however, the Creek Nation can support Chapter 12, in its 
recommendations concerning the tribes of Oklahoma in general and the 
Five Civilized Tribes, and the Creek Nation in particular. We hope 
that this provides an atmosphere of independent retrocession on the 
part of each tribe so that no tribe feels bound to any other. 



It is very important to point out that this would not infringe on the 
treaty of any of the tribes involved. Any tribes which would rather 
not follow the process of retrocession but instead would rather precede 
with litigation in a court of law would be entitled to do so, and would 
be able to procede in that manner without it infringing upon its own 
rights. 



In Chapter 1 3, the Creek Nation support the recommendations given 
concerning the National awareness toward the Indian issues, alternative 
elective bodies representing National Indian interests, consolidation 
revision of codification of Federal Indian Law in creation of Native 
American Studies Division in the Library of Congress. 



297 



We recxignize that you may not be able to thoroughly read and evaluate all parts 
of this Report within the time allowed for ooiment. However, in order to 
include your catments in our Final Report, this questionnaire must be conpleted 
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than April 16, 1977. 
Our Final Report must be corpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Conmission approval, 

NAME Claude A. Cox, Principal Chief ADDRESS P.O.Box 1114 

TRIBE/ORGANIZATION Creek Nation Okmulgee, OK 74447 

A. PLEASE CIRCU: ONE TO INDICATE TOUR IDENTriY AS : 

( Tribal Chairman ) Tribal Governing Body Individual Indian 

Member of Congress Organizational Governing Board 
State Official Private Citizen 



PLEASE EVALUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKING THE BLANK WHICH MOOT NEARLY 
REPRESENTS YOUR OPINION. 



The report as a whole is 

I. History 

II. Legal Concepts 

III. Conditions 

IV. Federal- Indian Relations 

V. Tribal Government 

VI. Federal Administration 

VII. Economic Development 

VIII. Social Services 

IX. Off-Reservation 

X. Terminated Indians 

XI. Non-Recognized Indians 

XII. Special Prctolem Areas 
XIII. General 



298 



C. HAVING READ THE REXXMIEMDftTIOMS AT THE HO OF EACH SEXTIOM, Pl£ftSE AtgtCR 
THE FOUXWIMG QUEgTIONS . 

1) Which recxranendations should be given priority statxis? Why? 

See attached comments and recommendations 



2) Are there recarmendations with vrtiich you disagree? Why? 
See attached comments and recommendations 



3) Are there reoonmendations you vgould like to have added? 
See attached comments and recommendations 



4) Do you feel the content of the report provides an accurate, useful 
picture of the situation? 



See attached comments and recommendations 



5) Do you have any additional catments? 



See attached comments and recommendations 



F. SPACE IS PROVIDED CN THE PQLIOWING PACES FOR YOUR SPECIFIC RBCCMlENnATIONS. 



299 



TRIBE/ORGANIZATICN 



REXXM1ENDATICNS 
Qiapter ( ) Page ( ) Paragraph ( ) 

In the section beginning with the words " 



," it is suggested that the following addition. 



deleticn or change in wording be made, or the following concept expressed 

differently : 

See attached comments and recommendations 



300 



LAW OFFICES 

DELLWO, RUDOLF & SCHROEDER, P.S. 

ROBERT D. DELLWO 
KERMIT M. RUDOLF 
RICHARD J. SCHROEDER 
TERRY W. MARTIN 
TERRY T. GRANT 



May 4, 1977 



Senator James Abourezk, Chairman 
Select Committee on Indian Affairs 
Direksen Office Building, Room 1105 
Washington, DC 20515 

Re: Report of Indian Policy Review Commission 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

As you may recall, we represent several Tribes (Spokane and Kalispel 
Tribes of Washington and the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho) and have your 
letter of April 8, 1977 asking for our comments on the reports of the 
Indian Policy Review Commission. Of primary importance at this time is 
the volume entitled "Tentative Final Report" which includes the 
"Dissenting Views" of Congressman Meeds. 

I have attended several regional meetings where this tentative final 
report was discussed and to say that the Indian delegates were dismayed 
by Congressman Meeds' "Dissenting Views" is an understatement. The 
general reaction of everyone present at each of these meetings was 
his "Views," coming as they do at the end of the report, practically 
nullify the entire report. Unanswered, it would seem that his "Views" 
as expressed brings to naught the entire process of the Review Commission 
and the Task Forces. 

Every Tribal Attorney I know has been asked to frame some kind of reply 
but each has shrunk from this task because, as a practical matter, it 
would be of doubtful expediency for any tribal lawyer to file an 
"answering brief." The consensus of everyone is that that task almost 
from necessity must fall on you, the Chairman. To be persuasive and of 
any real effect in neutralizing the content and thrust of Congressman 
Meeds' "Views" a counter draft from you as Chairman should appear. 

Congressman Meeds, on page iv of his "Views," acknowledges that he 
retained attorney Frederick J. Martone of the Arizona bar to assist him 
in his critique. What resulted was a legal brief by the Martone law 
firm, a kind of brief we as practicing lawyers would expect to receive 
from opposing counsel in a tribal tax or water rights case. It is 
highly partisan and adversary and cries out for a reply. Might we 
suggest that you retain the assistance of legal counsel to in effect 
prepare a reply brief which you, as Chairman, could adapt in your 
reply or "Answering Views." 



301 



Senator James Abourezk May 4, 1977 

Congressman Meeds begins by stating that it had been hoped that "Congress 
would have before it an objective statement, etc." He then describes 
the "majority" report as being "one-sided advocacy in favor of American 
Indian Tribes." 

Assuming Congressman Meeds is correct in his description summarized 
above, one would think that he would have made a special effort himself 
to hew in the direction of "objectivity" and would not have filed what 
everyone versed in Indian law will recognize as an extremely biased, 
one-sided dissenting reply. He has made the very mistake he accuses the 
Task Forces of. 

Tribes are taken by surprise over Congressman Meeds' expectations of 
the Task Forces as being somehow "neutral and objective." He should know 
better than anyone else that there was not the slightest pretense of 
staffing the Task Forces with neutral people. Everyone was an Indian 
leader or well-known advocate of Indian causes. They were, in truth, 
expected to be Indian and Tribal advocates. 

The hearings I attended were impartially and well conducted. To have 
expected true neutrality, however, would have been expecting the 
impossible. If the Commission expected such, it should have so appointed 
the Task Force representatives, balancing them as arbitrators, one 
against the other. This was not done because neutrality was not intended 
or expected. Rather, what was expected was the gathering of facts and 
arguments to express and document the Tribal and Indian views. It was 
the job of the Commission itself to take this material and forge a 
realistic final document properly placed in the spectrum of reality. 

Congressman Meeds' legal brief, called "Dissenting Views," poses a 
serious problem for the various Tribes and participants in the Review 
Commission. It is a copious 100-page brief in which are interspersed 
his editorialized conclusions and comments. Without those comments, 
it is a brief almost identical to briefs from State taxing agencies and 
others involved in litigation against Indian Tribes. For example, I am 
just finishing our Reply Brief in the Spokane Tribe's Chamokane water 
rights case against the State of Washington. I have before me the 
briefs of the State of Washington. They cite many of the cases cited 
by Congressman Meeds. In comparison to the Meeds brief, they would be 
considered moderate. They do not leap to the same extreme conclusions 
from the cited cases. Their stated positions are comparatively profes- 
sional and detached. 

To cope with the Meeds' brief, replete as it is with unsupported con- 
clusionary statements, would require someone such as yourself, backed 
by a professional attorney's brief answering Congressman Meeds' basic 
points one by one. 

How does one deal with Congressman Meeds' conclusion wherein he states 
with conviction that the Report "is neither legally nor historically 
accurate . . . and springs from initial erroneous conclusions re 
sovereignty, jurisdiction and trust responsibility?" 



302 



Senator James Abourezk May 4, 1977 

Yet, in analyzing his brief, we find his own conclusions questionable. 
We find a one-sided lawyer's handpicking of cases and dicta to fit a 
preconceived pattern of legal thought. 

Let us take one example: 

We find on page 2 his statement regarding Indian Sovereignty that "They 
are not sovereign." He then follows this thread to his conclusion 
that the Tribes have only such sovereign governmental powers as Congress 
allows them to have and "A tribe's power is limited to governing the 
internal affairs of its members ..." And he says on page 5: "... 
the extent American Indian Tribes are permitted to exist as political 
units at all ... is by virtue of the laws of the United States and 
not any inherent right to government, either of themselves or of others." 

This "put down" to tribal governmental powers permeates the whole 
treatise. 

Congressman Meeds' "Views" make only oblique, disparaging references to 
that classic statement of Indian sovereignty powers found on page 122 
of Felix Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law: 

Perhaps the most basic principle of all Indian law supported 
by a host of decisions hereinafter analyzed, is the principle 
that those powers which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe 
are not, in general, delegated powers granted by express acts 
of Congress, but rather inherent powers of a limited sovereignty 
which has never been extinguished. Each Indian tribe begins its 
relationship with the Federal Government as a sovereign power, 
recognized as such in treaty and legislation. The powers of 
sovereignty have been limited from time to time by special 
treaties and laws designed to take from the Indian tribes control 
of matters which, in the judgment of Congress, these tribes could 
no longer be safely permitted to handle. The statutes of Congress , 
then, must be examined to determine the limitations of tribal 
sovereignty rather than to determine its sources or its posTtive 
contentT what is not expressly limited remains within the domain 
of tribal sovereignty. 

The acts of Congress which appear to limit the powers of an 
Indian Tribe are not to be unduly extended by doubtful inference. 

Cohen then went on to say on page 123: 

The whole course of judicial decision on the nature of Indian 
tribal powers is marked by adherence to three fundamental 
principles: (1) An Indian tribe possesses, in the first instance, 
all the powers of any sovereign state. (2) Conquest renders the 
tribe subject to the legislative power of the United States and, 
in substance, terminates the external powers of sovereignty of the 
tribe , e.g. its power to enter into treaties with foreign nations. 



303 



Senator James Abourezk May 4, 1977 

but does not by itself affect the internal sovereignty of the 
tribe, i.e., its powers of local self-government. (3) These 
powers are subject to qualification by treaties and by express 
legislation of Congress, but, save as thus expressly qualified, 
full powers of internal sovereignty are vested in the Indian 
Tribes and in their duly constituted organs of government. 

What Cohen stated to be the law in 1940 is the law today. Since then 
almost every court case dealing with tribal governing powers has quoted 
and affirmed these classic definitions. 

They are ignored in the "Dissenting Views." 

The writer has before him some of the well-circulated diatribes against 
Tribal rights and sovereignty. Some of them, as you know, originated 
out of MOD (Montanans Opposed to Discrimination) based in Poison, Montana. 
But have you seen ARE WE GIVING AMERICA BACK TO THE INDIANS that has no 
named author but is circulated by an anti-Indian organization described 
as the Interstate Congress for Equal Rights and Responsibilities? These 
diatribes and attacks remind one of the anti-Semitic literature so 
prevalent a decade ago or of the Birch Society attacks on liberals. 
Stated in plausible language from an alleged patriotic rostrum, they are 
indeed scurrilous attacks against Tribes and Indians. 

We find in that literature sentences that read very much like some of 
Congressman Meeds' "Dissenting Views." Let's read a few: 

Page 8: "... the Court examined the legal impact of European settle- 
ment and concluded that discovery gave title to the continent to the 
European nation which made the discovery ..." (Note: This view was 
repudiated in the famous Worcester v. Georgia case.) 

Page 15: ". . .Reservation Indians would have all the benefits of 
citizenship and none of its burdens." 

Page 16: ". . . non-Indians would have all the burdens of citizenship 
but none of the benefits. This is a strange scheme to behold." 

Page 18: "American Indian tribal governments have only those powers 
granted them by Congress." (Note: Most of the governmental powers of 
tribes are held to be implied and inherent. Except for the skeletal 
grants of power for IRA tribes, Federal statutes are practically silent 
on any grants of governmental powers.) 

Page 18: "To the extent tribal Indians exercise powers of self-government 
in these United States, they do so because Congress permits it." 

Page 20: "... tribes may govern their own internal relations by 
the grace of Congress." 



93-440 O - 78 - 21 



304 



Senator James Abourezk May 4, 1977 

Page 25: ". . . When these relationships culminated in peace treaties, 
it is simplistic, to say the least, to assert that the Indians reserved 
anything to themselves ..." 

Page 25: "... I also reject the broad assertion that tribal Indians 
have reserved to themselves inherent rights to self-government and 
property rights ..." (Note: This comment flies in the face of 
settled law that they did reserve basic governmental powers and many 
property rights, i.e. Winters water rights.) 

Page 52: "... there is no reason why Indians, any more than anyone 
else, should receive favored tax treatment from the Federal Government.' 
(Note: What happed to the legal principles affirmed in the famed 
Cappoeman, Nicodemus and Stevens tax cases?) 

Page 54: "... It may be seriously doubted whether Indian tribes 
enjoy the power to tax." (Note: See Felix Cohen's statement, page 
142, of his famous Handbook wherein he says: "One of the powers 
essential to the maintenance of any government is the power to levy 
taxes. That this power is an inherent attribute of tribal sovereignty 
which continues unless withdrawn or limited by treaty or by Act of 
Congress is a proposition which has never been successfully disputed." 
Each of the tribes the writer represents has taxing ordinances.) 

Page 84: "... an Indian reservation created by executive order of 
the President conveys no right of use or occupancy . . . beyond the 
pleasure of Congress and the President." (What a horrible distortion 
of the law!) 

Page 92: "... an Indian tribe is above the law ..." and as to 
contracts with tribes . . ."the agreement is enforcible only by the 
tribe . . ." (This is a gross exageration. ) 

And finally page 102: "Doing justice by Indians does not require 
doing injustices to non-Indians . . ." 

The foregoing are trigger phrases addressed to a growing anti-Indian 
bias. They should not be in the concluding chapter of the report of 
the Policy Review Commission. We hope that you as Chairman can make 
arrangements for a dignified, suitable reply. 

Respectfully yours, 



ROBERT D. DELLWO 

Attorney for the Spokane, Kalispel 
and Coeur d'Alene Indian Tribes 



RDD : f b 



Spokane Tribal Council 
Kalispel Business Committee 
Coeur d'Alene Tribal Council 



305 



Senator James Abourezk May 4, 1977 

cc: Area Office of Indian Affairs 

Superintendent, Spokane Indian Agency 
Superintendent, Northern Idaho Agency 
Mel Tonasket, President, National Congress of American Indians 



306 



GEORGE C. DELONEV! 
meOBIPNI 3329 NORTH OAKLEY AVH. 

=— = CHICAGO. lUiNQis ^JJ 



Vte recognize that you may not be able to thorou^y read and evaluate elll parts 
of this Report within the time allowed for ocnment. lioMever, in order to 
incluSe your ocmments in our Final Report, this questionnaire itust be ocrapleted 
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than April 16, 1977. 
Our Final Report must be catpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Ocnmission ^jproval. 



NAM E George G. Deloneyr 3329 N. Oakley ave ADDRESS Ghtcago. ai. 

60618 

TRIBE/ORGANIZATION caijppewa; Alliance of American Indian Craftamen.Inc 



PLEASE CIRCr£ ONE TO PDICATE YOUR IDEMTITY AS ; 
Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body 



State Official Private Citizen 

"X Mjr identity; Allotted member of Bad River Reservation. 0danah.iWlscon8in 

B. PLEfiSE EVALUATE THE SECTIONS BY CHECKIN3 THE BLANK WHICH MOST MmS 
REPRESEWTS YOUR OPINICN . 

Excellent Good Poor 

The report as a vrtiole is - Kf fM t> U ^o </ 

I. History /^ 

II. Legal Concepts ^^ 



III. Conditions u^ ,^ 

IV. Federal-Indian Relations « Bo/wt '^' ^ y tf a. # >-.» "Jt^J -ar u fAitf^ '^ ^ 

V. Tribal Government Oa/ A//e 7TtJ ffiStr ^/f/Jo ^ - 'Tri'^l (Z>uiml i I /\,'o-f»»'L 
VLfii^ Federal Administration- tfv r/Sirv/ftiJ * - '/ i»lz*/<^b /n r ^* >" _SJlftil±* 
VII. Ecoronic Developinent ^/t iiMt '^ t^ tt-J- 

VIII. Social Services ^^ 

IX. Of f -Reservation - /nin^poli t^ /m//a /^£ /\n t-J cetn^k h /i Jtr*-/ Jimt J-f' 

X. Terminated Indians SDfttf Q OOt /tUASMf^ifCuits^ 

XI. Non-Reoognized Indians ff/f^ytva /•«»/ 41 ^/tt/DCt- - 

XII. Special Problan Areas A/rt.t'of- e ./itd.tC ~ iU^J- rtt^- J o^ «^*^y 



XIII. General 



GEORGE C. DELONEY 
B329 NORTH DAKLEY AVE. 
CUICAGQ. ILUNQIS i606ia 



307 



GEORGE C. DEOmEa 
S329 NORTH OAKLEY WE 
CHICAGO. ILUKQIS fiOSia 

NM C a«opg« O. Dalon^y 



APR 1 9 1977 



5329 H. Oakley «ve. 

ADDRESS Chicago . 111.60618 



TRIBE/a«3ftNlZATlCN Chippewa; Alllaiw of Anerlcan Indian Oraftwnen.Inc 



Chapter ( ) Page ( ) Paragraph ( ) 



In the secticn beginnixig with the words "_ 



," it is suggested that the following addition, 

deletion or cliemge in wording be made, or the following concept expressed 
dif f er«itly : Have received several overall tentative cognizable 

volmnea re Policy of Task Foreea Investigations. 

Preaently I have reported the Metropolitan (IJrban) 

Indiana situation in this area. 



1 hav^ tippiaTM bfetorft T wo T aak- t orce I t upit r y. 

O hfe ha r a in cnieago, mo tt ie r t ime In superior, wis. 
Also baan m eoncae t wi t h umls B r uea wi t h I ndian 
cemplftln t B. T ha t had need lamediate at t ention. 



So I apologized for not comnltting myself. 



GEORGE C. DELONEY 
Ba aO NORI I I OAKLEy AV E . 
CtUCAGOLllimUS 150618 



308 



JS29n. 0aA/e^ ave 
^Atca^c SI/. 606J8 



Mr.Ernest L. Stevens. /tA. 3^2'54(9'0372 

Amer- Indian Policy Review Commission 
2nd and D Sts. SW. 
Washington, D.G. 20515 

Sen. Jim. S. Abourezk. 
Con^. Sidney Yates. 
Mr. Louis R. Bruce. 
Mr. Kirke KickingBird. 

Gentlemen and Members of the Commission: 

Thats one "ELL" of a bible that the commission submitted for individual 
real positive American Indian to scant through in such short time for 
his comments. 

If this report wanders-off from real expected subject that the Urban 
and reservation Indians would reveal or should tentatively report. 

Try to comprfehend the anguish, that the War and the BIA commission have 

render to the reservation Indians. 

Especially to the reservation that had been allotted to individuals. 

Since the Wheeler-Howard Act, was crammed upon the "ALLOTTEES" without 
their exception. They realized the reservation live was doomed. 

I am a Allottee from the Bad River Reservation located in Ashland County 
Wisconsin. Which I still possess but pky Taxes on my U.S. grant 

After the Tribal Council was effecting the individualism of the allot- 
tees. I applied for certificate of competency for removal of restrict- 
ion, which I received. 

When the Wheeler-Howard was being substituted for the BIA operation. 
The Indian Agency officials had connived or manipulated that "non- 
allotted" Indians to vote for the none voting allotted Indians for 
"Self -Government. 

With this structure or elements of Indian Treaty Rights on allotted 
reservation. It began a conflict between the Allottees and the non- 
allottees for existence. 

Presently the only inhabit Indian should benefit for our Treaty Rights 
would be the "Inheritance or direct Devisee Indian" from allotments. 

If the said allotment had not been confiscated to Tribal property. 



309 

Amer- Indian Policy Review Jomm. 



The urban atmosphere for the American Indians in the Chicago area. 
Have met with overwhelm cognate set-back or defeat. 

When or if some Indians are unlawful they are severely penalized, while 
their comrades are cited or restricted for being in accomplishment. 

iieveral Indians have been murdered in this area by non-indians. 
Suilty persons that admit the motivation would have the case continue 
out of existence. 

If another Indian commit the same crime, he or she is placed on five 
(5) years probation to be serve on their home reservation. 

Periodical some Indian is raped or found naked dead. Or otherwise 
murdered. The City officials will not extent their efforts to invest- 
igate for the culprits. U'hen the victims are American Indians. 

The Urban Indians have no protection for being victimized in this area. 

The State of Illinois Children and Family Services are the only legal 
structure that allows protection for Indian Children. 

I have appeared before Task-Force in relation to the American Indian 
Policy Committee here in Chicago. 

I related my circumstances of how the Children and Family Services had 

Kid-napped our grandchildren. 

Maybe they had conspired warrant to barge into our home for one (1) of 

the oldest grandchild. 

Who was unfortunate to be bom out-of wedlock. • 

This whole plot was generated by the supposed parents of deceased 
married son who may have genesis with our un-married daughter. 

When our grand-daughter was apprehended in this invasion the officials 
also had taken into custody her youngest sister who had no relationship 
in this conspiracy. 
This infraction was construed Janruary 19tcen 1970. 

Since that date I have spent 10 to 15 thousands of dollars engaging 
attorneys for the recovery of our grand-daughters. 

Last August 17teen 1976, we were fortunate enough to be consider the 

return of our oldest grand-daughter. 

Who is now in our stable custody in our home. 



310 

Amer- Indian Policy Review Goram. 



^shortly after the Children apprehension. The caseworkers for the Ghild-fs 
ren and Family Services separated the two sisters to different Adopt- 
ion Centers. 

This action was instigated by the Children and Family caseworkers, 
while our case was still pending in Children Juvenile Court. 

In absent of parental or Juvenile Court supervision rights, while the 
Court was still analyzing our case history, with court continuances. 

This Adoption Center had conspired with the Children and Family Service 
to allow our youngest grand-daughter to be adopted with-out our rights. 

l-Jhen we were notified of this adoption, we engaged another attorney 
through the recoramandation of Bertram E.Hirsch. attorney with the Assoc- 
iation on American Indian Affairs of New York City. 

This local attorney had applied to the State Supreme Court for review 
of our Indian Child adoption. Which they denied our Indian Civil Rights, 

Hesitatingly we cannot appeal our court situation as we cannot fare the 
expense for Indian children protection. Or to gain other protection. 



311 



Amer-Indian Policy Review Goran. 

The metropolitan (Urban) Indians have highly skill craf tsmenship. 
That is regarded by their employers and unions to be out-standing. 

Societies are no unbias concern, if the Indian is willing to prove 
that he's capable of his mastership of his Tradition. 

We have excellent Indian construction workers in all major crafts. 
Welders, Riggers, Carpenters, Steel or Iron Workers, High window- 
washers, Truck-Drivers of all sorts. Deep-sea Divers, Cement Finish- 
ers, Boiler-Makers, Heat-Treaters , Ship-wrighters, Watch-Makers , 
Vfood-cravers , Furniture-repairers, Pier and Wharf Builders, Auto 
Mechanics, Crane-operators, Interior Decorators, Me at -Bute hers. 
Mason- Tuck Pointers, Pipe-Fitters, Taxi Drivers, Bus Drivers, Bar- 
Tenders, Cooks, Painters, Roofers, Gardeners, Tree-Trimmers, Type- 
Writer repairers, Factory-Workers, Black-Smiths, Cabinet -Makers, 
Boat-Builders, Carpet and Rug Layers, Millwrights, Stair-Builders, 
Caiilkers and Pile Drivers, Display Erectors, and Electricians. 

All of these mentioned craftsmen, are Union members of Chicago. 
Also we have retired Indians from reservation who have earned a 
pensions for their union stabilities. 
Which means they may return to their reservation with this income. 

While I am mentioned the Union Indian craftsmen, we also have many 
professional Indians in this area. 

Accountants, Office-Typists j Office-Controllers, Short-Hand Writers, 
Social -Workers, X-Ray Technicians, Nvirses, Receptionists, Artists, 
Executives, Teachers, School Directors, or Principals, Librarians, 
and University Standards. 

Those Indians that compose in these different categories, are the 
inspired Indians that were raised on some Indian reservation. 

Most of them had hard knocks before they became familiar with the 
metropolitan diversion. 

They had to earn and prove to realize themself that they had the 
stability to exist from their native tradition. 

Still the maiority, have the impulsiveness for their home reservation, 

which they visit frequently. 

As they are all Tribal members, and still claim their Tribal rights. 



312 



Amcr-Indian Policy Review Comm. 

There are several American Indian Organizations here in the Chicago 
vicinity. And few more others in the neighboring locations. (Cities). 

The principal inaudible faction that the relationship exist between 

these Tribal societies. 

Which spirit them that they are connoting the same ideals they have. 

This maybe the adversity that metropolitan Indians have relinquished 
for the lack of full co-operation. 

It a vmderstanding fact that every other Indian native has different 
view on their tribal tradition or custom. 

Some will not contribute their craftmenship for employer, unless the 
company or contractor engages another native of his same race. 
Other successfiil craftmen (Indians) will admonish to the company per- 
sonal or non-indian crews that they have number one (1) citizen to 
content with. Wish often proves that everybody can be familiar. 

The female anxiety appears that when they are employed without any- 
other of their same lineage (Indian). 
That they complain that the non-indians are criticizing them. So 



The newly Indian trainees that have no experiences in special safety 
precaution such special work dress gears, (clothes and safety belts). 
Complain that they have no credit or expense to obtain this equipment. 
Or how they will manage to afford to join the Unions. 
So they too get discourage. 

Basically most reservation Indians that arrives in the metropolitan 

area want to become involve in the indian atmosphere. 

Be employ in government offices, and Indian organizations. 

While I am only whitling down the character of some of our inexperi- 
ences young Indian Leaders of to-morrow. 

I must phase that we have had successful Indian policemen, fire-men, 

and independent Businessmen from Indian reservation. 

Some still own their apartment buildings, here in Chicago. 

So without any drawbacks or discouragements most of these American 
Indians could become a prominent independent number one citizen. 

But they need plenty of encouragement and assistances. 



313 



Amer- Indian Policy Review CJotnm. 

CJurrently I will expedite my measurements of infiltration with off 
the reservation activities. 

I first committed myself with paid tuition to attend a Milwaukee , Wis . , 

Vocational School. (1927). 

Which I had to familiarized with other race elements. 

As a scholar I commented that what these students could master. 

I could excel better. 

When high-way road building began in the 1930 's, I became a highway 
road cement-finisher. Which I first worked as a Union member on permit. 
This highway work was sparingly or seasonally. 

Next I became familiar with the stevedore labor in the Milwaukee Ports. 
Which this Union utilize stable members for wharehouse activities. 

From that experience with loading trucks and semi- trailers. 

1 final declare that I could operate any truck-vehicle in the city or 

on the highways. 

I applied and received Union truck-operator's certificate for Driver. 

This certificate allow the holder to operate city taxi cabs also. 

During world-war two, the government was building ship-yards, and 

building some kind of war-ships in the Milwaukee area. 

So I join the Pile-driver Union to become a ship-wright builder. 

Finnally the general contractor, Raymond Concrete Pile Company of 

New York City with whom I wasemployed. 

Had me transferred to Chicago where they had several building contracts 

in the construction operation. 
So I had to transfer my Union affiliation as I was in charge of operat- 
ion. Plus I had to move the family without any future plans. 

With that move from reservation to be responsible of building action 
in becoming Foreman and sub-superintendent. 

Was a great venture for unde^eLope Indian without no education or 
experience of building high-rises, churchs, and Bank buildings. 

If I had more knowledge or modem building experiences I could still 

be engage in a swivel chair. 

As it is now I am in the semi-retired classification. 

Have to accept pension and social security for having the guts to leave 

the Indian reservation. 

And raise six boys and foxur daughters in the metropolis. 






314 



Nancy Evans 

Window Rock, Arizona 

May 5, 1977 



Response to: 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 

Final Report 

SOCIAL SERVICES & FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE- 
FOR INDIANS 



Social Services and Financial Assistance programs for Indians present 
unique case. Administrative authority to deliver these services vary di- 
versely for those Indians living on reservation under the authority of the 
federal government to those Indians living in other setting outside the 
authority of the federal government. 

A number of specific recommendations can be made based on the tradi- 
tional federal-tribal relationship and for those Indians in other settings 
where varying degree of authority are shared by tribes, states and the 
federal government. 



Financial Assistance Programs 

1, Social Security Act Financial Assistance Programs ; Financial Assis- 
tance programs under the Social Security Act as the Aid to the Aged, Aid 
to the Disabled, Aid to the Blind and Aid to Dependent Children were ad- 
ministered totally by the State until 1973 when parts were placed under 
a federal agency. These assistance became available to Indians mainly 
in the 1950' s after many disputes with states as to whether Indians are 
eligible. 

Even today eligibility criteria are often not to the benefit of 
Indians where questions of resources and income prevent many people from 
receiving regular financial assistances; and the amount of assistance 
often are lower for Indians residing on the reservation. 

2. Snyder Act Financial Assistance Program ; BIA under the authority of 
the Snyder Act made available to Indians on reservation financial assis- 
tance called General Assistance. Although the eligibility criteria are 
simple: (1) that one must be an enrolled Indians; <2) that the Indian 
must reside on the reservation and (3) that one must be in need; the 
interpretation of eligibility varied from one area to another and 
practices varied from one caseworker to another. 

Up to 1973, the 66 lAM was the only BIA Manual which provided the 
guide for providing this assistance to Indian people. With the Morton 
vs. Ruiz determination and decision BIA was requested to published its 
regulation in the Federal Register. The proposed regulations were 



315 



published in November 1975. Comments which were received were reviewed 
and incorporated into the final regulations in the spring of 1976. A 
number of critical issues remain unanswered although attempts were made 
to clarify these during the writing of the regulations, 

a. Definition of "on or near:" the Tribal governmental units are 
asked to define this jointly with the BIA officials, 

b. Standards of Assistance (amount of grant) still follow the 
respective established state standards so that non-uniformity of 
assistance continues. 

c. Clarification of what is meant by "availability of assistance" 
versus "actually provided." 

After the final Regulations were drafted the Tribes were asked to 
recommend an "on and near" definition for determining eligibility for 
assistances for their own tribal members. BIA is now in the process of 
updating its manual to reflect the published regulations. 



Recommendations for Financial Assistance 

1. There must be a national uniform standards of assistances applied 
in all states so that these can be reflected in individual services and 
assistance, 

2. There must be clear indication that financial assistance is made 
available to prevent disintegration 'of family units and not to employ 
standards which provide assistance only to broken and dependent families 
or individuals. 

3. Because the level of poverty in Indian land is severe, continued BIA 
General Assistance funding is needed until such time that a federal pro- 
gram nation wide is established that will meet the needs of the unenq>loyed 
and underemployed which the BIA program presently addresses on Indian 
Reservation. 

4. Because BIA General Assistance is not uniformly available to all 
Tribes and Reservation, the need for BIA General Assistance for Indians 
residing on reservation in the PL-280 States be evaluated. If inadequate 
financial assistance programs or severe poverty are found, BIA should 
consider making BIA General Assistance available to the Indians in these 
areas. 



Social Service Programs 
Issues related to social services for Indians are extremely important 



316 



for two reasons: (1) many social services involve legal and jurisdic- 
tional matters requiring Tribal government to establish Tribal legisla- 
tion standards and conduct of services, and (2) since social services 
deals with human values and human value system as child-rearing 
practices and family problem solving, it is essential that Indians and 
Tribal organization maintain close surveillance over social services 
for their tribal members. 

I, Social Security Act Social Service Pro;<rams : Since 1963 the 
Social Security Act has provided funds to States (and states only) to 
administer certain social services for people. This worked well as 
long as the States directly provided services and as long as Indians 
traditional practices and values were not jeopardized. Conflicts 
arose when question of who has jurisdiction to make decision for 
Indian families and Indian children were challenged. This challenge 
is carried into who should administer social service programs for 
Indians. With the Indians determined to maintain jurisdiction over 
its tribal members these conflicts mushroomed and remain unresolved 
today. 

In the interest of Tribes the ideal situation is where a Tribe 
can receive all funds available for social services: where the Tribe 
can establish the codes and standards for services; and where the 
Tribe can administer and provide the services to its tribal members. 
This ideal situation is not possible under the current funding 
mechanism because Indian Tribes must first fight with the State to 
get any social services funds under the Social Security Act. States 
are reluctant to contract with Tribes because of uncertainty in 
enforcing eligibility and other federal funding requirements. The 
Tribes continue to be reluctant to deter any matter of jurisdiction 
to States for fear of eroding Tribal government authority. 

There is widespread support that all federal funds should be 
available directly to Tribes, rather than designating States as 
pass-through channel. Inter-Tribal Council of Arizona in October 
1975 summarized the crux of the issue with the following statement: 
"There have evolved over the years fundamental and essential prin- 
ciples that are adhered to in Federal-Tribal relationships. The 
State and its subdivision coordinate and cooperate within the frame- 
work of laws and regulations formulated over a considerable period 
of time. Given the special character of the Tribes and the reserva- 
tions as defined by the Tribes and the Federal Government, it cannot 
be expected that the tribal structures can suddenly developed a re- 
lationship with the State structure without some special adjustments 
on the part of the State and the Tribes. In order that the tribes 
can relate to the State, they will want to maintain the necessary 
and desirable relationships they have with the Federal structure." 



317 



The difficulties evolving around the jurisdiction and legal pro- 
blems cannot be resolved through negotiation between two parties where 
three are actually involved, 

2, Snyder Act Social Service Programs ; Again BIA administers social 
services as provided under the Snyder Act, Again, BIA has continuously 
looked to States for guides resulting in lack of uniformity in programs 
or practices. 

Up to 1973, 66 1AM provided the only guide for BIA programs. With 
the Morton-Ruiz decision the Regulations were published and are finalized. 
A number of issues require review and monitoring: 

1. Clarification of "availability of services" versus "services actually 
provided." Because various BIA office continue to maintain "availability 
on paper" as synonymous with "actually provided" there is lack of 
uniformity in services provision. 

2. That other social services as are provided by the Social Security 
Act funds not jeopardize BIA funding for social services. Because the 
Social Security Act funding is limited and there is caution against 
"supplanting of programs, "these issues should be reviewed in terms of 
needs in Indian settings. Joint funding must be explored as answers to 
gaps in funding needs. The level of funding through BIA to fill gaps 
should be maintained until service needs in Indian lands are reduced 

to the level of Social Service needs nationwide. 



Recommendation for Social Service Programs 

1. That all Social Security Act Funding mechanism provide for Tribes 
to receive funds directly from the Federal Government, so that Tribes 
can administer and provide social services for their own tribal members, 

2. Because the amount of social service needs for Indian is great and 
that the kinds (definition) of services needs are undefined that the 
level of funding through the BIA be equivalent to the amount needed to 
fill the gaps in funding as available through the Social Security Act 
funding, 

3. That BIA review needs for social services by Tribes residing in 
the PL-280 States, Because many times availability of services to 
Indians are on papers only, actual provision of services must be 
determined and funding through the BIA channel be explored for those 
tribes not currently receiving funds for service needs under the 
Snyder Act. 



318 



4. That contracts with Tribal Governnent units to administer and pro- 
vide social atrvlces be a prinw objectives for all social service fund- 
ing source. 

5. That coordinated funding from themany sources be promoted for the 
development of comprehensive programs without the label of "supplanting 
programs.'* This will require that Tribes be permitted to develop the 
kinds of services needed by utllliing all funds available through the 
Social Security Act, the Older American Act, the Indian Health Services 
Programs and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

6. That provision be made so Tribes can develop legislation and 
standards of services which reflect Tribal uniqueness and needs. 



OVERALL RECOtlMENDATIONS 

Congress ; In support of Tribe's rights and wish to develop their ovm 
social services programs. Congress should amend all federal legislation 
which prevent Tribes from receiving federal funds directly. Many 
federally funded human service programs require that funds flow through 
"single state agencies" and because of jurisdictional conflicts between 
Tribes and States, this in most cases prevent Tribes from receiving the 
funds or service. 

Federal Administering Agencies : Since politics between Federal Regional 
Offices and States prevent realistic implementation of any federal funding 
requirement that a strong Central Office be maintained so that if Federal 
Funding Requirements are to be implemented at all that this office will 
not only spell out guidelines but also compliance procedures. The results 
of non-compliance should clearly define whether (1) penalities will be 
Imposed or (2) that technical assistance are provided together with (3) 
incentives for good behaviors. Up to now all regulations, guidelines 
have been on paper: even findings of non-compliances have been on papers 
...no withholding of federal funds as penalities have resulted enough 
to impact compliance with federal requirements. 

Tribal Governmental Units ; That a National Tribal Governmental Organiza- 
tion be established so that this can (1) monitor funding sources; (2) 
call to surface need for national legislation to protect Tribe's develop- 
ment of social services and (3) provide technical assistance to Tribal 
Governmental Units in the areas of Indian uniqueness. 



319 



FCNIA 

FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION 



22 April 1977 



24B Swiond StrMt, N.E. 
fion. D.C. 20002 
(202) 547-4948 



SKUitor Jam** S. Abouraik, Chairman 
Amarlcan Indian Policy Review Conmlselon 
Congraaa of tha United Statea 
Houaa Office Building Annex No. 2 
Second and D Straeta, S.W. 
Waahlngton. DiC. 20515 

Dear Senator Abouraik: 

We wlah to thank you for the opportunity to coiment on the "tentative" 
Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review ConmisBlon. Although 
«e have not had the time to read through the entire draft, we have read 
thoae parte of which we have some knowledge. We also have read other 
aectione of which we know extremely little to see if they presented 
flndinga and recomnendatlons in a comprehensible manner. We believe 
they do, even though there still remain some rough spots which, we are 
aura, will be corrected by final editing and proofreading. 

In the first chapter, "Captives Within a Free Society," a few problems 
remain in condensing and combining the three authors papers. Some 
points are unnecessarily, to us, repeated. There needs to be a consis- 
tency in the use of "Dawes Act" or "General Allotment Act. After men- 
tioning both the first time, rely on one term. All in all, it is truly 
remarkable that three authors' styles and information have been so ably 
combined to flow as they do. 

On page 1-52, line 5, the word "manned" is used. There seems elsewhere 
to be an attempt to use non-sexist language, and we suggest substituting 
here the word "staffed." The attempt to use both pronouns, he/she, Is 
abaent from some pagea and the generic pronoun, "he," is sometimes used. 
If time permits, one could change these spots by using they. 

In Chapter 8, "Social Services," pagea 8-43 to 8-48 and 8-74 pertain to 
nutritional needs in Indian country. We suggest, time permitting, that 
the recent Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs report. 
"Recommendationa for Improved Food Programs on Indian Reservations, 
April 1977 , be mentioned in the body of the findings or as an annotation. 
Furthar, we sense strongly that the principles embodied in the Nolan 
(H.R. 5466) and Young (S. 1119) bills should be part of the recommenda- 
tiona on page 8-74. We understand that Indian people did have large 
input into drafting these Identical bills. Most important are the 
racoamiKidations that tribal administration be an option of the tribes, 
that technical assistance and funds be made available to the tribes to 
davalop expertise in administration as well as to develop transportation 
■nd distribution systems, and that food stamps and/or commodities be an 
option of the tribes. (continued) 



83-440 O - 78 - 22 



320 



Senator James Abourezk 
22 April 1977 
Page 2 

Should not some mention be made of the relationship of a proposed 
Federally funded national health care system (via insurance) and the 
existing health system for Indian peoples? 

The two final comments we offer are on matters beyond our experience 
or time for analysis. First, we simply wonder if the status of Native 
Hawaiians can be addressed somewhere in the final report. 

Secondly, we urge that consideration be taken now, in Chapter 2, "Legal 
Concepts in Indian Law," of the April 4, 1977, Supreme Court decision. 
Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, Governor of South Dakota, et. al. We 
feel that some legislative recommendations are needed immediately to 
resolve this matter of allotment lands in a manner more satisfactory 
than the majority decision on this case. We know that we are joined 
In this concern by many in Indian country. 

With strong appreciation of the work, politics, and love which went into 
the Commission's work, we remain 

Sincerely yours , 



0^(^-" 



Don Reeves 
DR/skm 



321 



GALLUP-McKIHLEY COUNTY PUBLIC SCHOOLS 
GALLUP, NEW MEXICO 87301 



JACK SWICE(iOOD. Sup^.M 
OFFICt OF THE SUPERI 




April 6, 1977 ''•°- BOX i3i« 

T,l.. (505) 72J-389I 



The Honorable James Abourezk 

Chairman, American Indian Policy Review Commission 

Congress of the United States 

House Office Building Annex No. 2 

2d and D Streets, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk, 

Thank you very much for your interest in the Gallup -McKinley 
County School District as evidenced by your solicitation of comments 
on the "tentative" Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission. 

I would first state that Congressman Meed's dissenting opinions 
take a great deal of courage. Even though his views are probably 
unpopular in this particular report, I personally think his opinions 
are cogent and shoiild be heeded by those who purport to help the 
Indian. 

One area of the report that demands emphasis concerns educational 
building needs. On the one hand the federal government has taken the 
position that state and local governments should make a special effort 
to educate the Indian, but on the other hand has provided a pittance 
for construction of educational facilities. 

Another point I would like to mention is the use of P.L. 871+ 
funds as they apply to reservation areas. The federal government 
states that the LEA is entitled to this additional funding to meet 
the unique educational needs of a given area. However, the federal 
government then turns around and allows a state like New Mexico to 
take 95/? credit for these funds in their "eqiialization" finance 
formula. 

Again, thanks for your interest and best wishes for the success 
of your commission. 

Sincerely yours 



Lncerely yours, 

Dr. Jack Swicegood 
Superintendent 



322 



Nb raooyilas that you my not be able to thocoughly read and evaluate all parts 
of this ni|JU,L within the tine allcwed far ocHaent. BcjmNet, in order to 
include your ociiinents in cur Final Report, this questionnaire aust be cscnplstad 
and returned in the enclosed envelope poetnartod no later than April 16, 1977. 
Our Final Repart oust be ooqplebed by May 15, 1977 for £inal OaandSBion acfxoval. 

tw e ^^- ^ . L (^ [\AR\J tS.(/( . mssss^pf^ nJ^ST 

A. PIgftSE CIRCLE CUE TO DlDICa!EE TOUR ILiaHTlY flS ; 

Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body Individual Indian 

McBtxr of Congress Qrganizaticnal Governing Board 



State Official I Private Citizen 



PlaSE EVMXJgaE THE S351CTIONS EBf CHECKING THE HLftNK WHICH MOST NEftRia 
BEPRESBirS TOUR CPINCCN. 



The 


r^xjrt as a whole is 
History 
Legal Conoepts 
Conditions 

Itederal-Indian Relations 
Tribal Goverment 
Federal Administraticn 
Economic DevelOEinent 
Social Services 
Off-Reservation 
Teminated lidians 
Non-Reoognized Indians 
fecial Problan Areas 
General 


Excellent 


Good 


•Boat 


I. 


l^ 




II. 






HI. 






IV. 






V. 






VI. 




K 




VII. 


l>^ 




VIII. 


(^ 






IX. 


<^ 




X. 


^^ 




XI. 




i^ 




XII. 








XUI. 







323 



C. BK/JHS RBM? TSE raoatBClBIKKS M* THE BP Of BCH SBCWCM, PUSfiSE ANBIgR 
1) Mhich reocmienclations should be given prloority status? Mh/? 9- 



2) Are there reocmnegidaticifB with which you disagree? Why? ■ 

t^£J ^^vH ./X^<tK^^ 



■^ 



3) Are there recjomnendations you would liJoe to have added? 

4) Do y>u feel the content of the repbart provides an accurate, useful 
picture of the situation? y IS, <j My qiur.cd 

■ •^>:V^^^7^ 

5) DO you have aiy additional oa«ent«? fft /^^ .^ „^ft^^ 

L-**"^^*-* -.»^^iAl-*^ ^^^^w."^ >Ofc><^^^V ^4^^tAA^^ 

BOtCB, IS PIBWDBDOWTg fCUOmiB BMES POR TOOR 



324 



TRIBE/ORGftNIZKnCN 



Chapter ( ) Page { ) Paragraph { ) 



In the sectior beginning with the wards 



it is suggested that the foUowing addition. 



deletion car diange in wording be made, or the following oonoept expressed 
differently: 

'a^ VVn.-vv-TyiPw^'^ ^ JJ4yt.^*^ ^^y^\^^<A^l dJ^ar>/ » 









^■A^^/^ ,^^y :^:;^. ^^>.c> /}./!. 'T/J^JT^ ^l^ '^" 




325 




I an wilting this letter to lapLors jveur help to pratoot ny 
olTil tights cs • resort and campground omer on Lao Court 0'IM.llea 
'^\ «*iioh is located en the Chippetca Indian Besarratlon — at least as far 
as they are oonoemed. nils particular band of Chippewa Indians is 
attenpting to enforce a 25-page Codes and Rsgulatlons goTeming all 
property owiers on the reseiration, including non-Indians. Yet m 
do not hare any voice or voting lights in thed.r tilbal gorenuiait. 

Hy property (15 aores of land) ms po-iohased fioa the Indians 
in the 1920* s with a clear UUe and dead signed by the Presldnt of 
the United States. Does this not insure us of our dvil lights to 
abide by the laws of the SUte of Hlabonsln and the United SUt^s of 
Alieiloa rather than a 25-paga book of Indian rales and regulatlonsT 

PLBiLSe ranember that we are oiUtens of these United SUtea 
as well as the Indians on the reaerratlons. Alni I feel that the 
puiposa(s) of Indian HsserratLons is obsolete and these Indian people 
should be allowed to fend for themselves the same as the other races 
living in the United States. 

I hope, therefore, that you will consider the RIGHTS of JtU. 
AMERICANS Wian voting upon any future legisLatlon or refom. 



Sbtoerd.y yours, 

Calvin Ho man 
TRAIL'S OTD IGS)Rr 



326 



HAG 



Housing Aflslfltance Council Inc. • 1828 L Street N.W • Suite 606 • Washington, D.C. 20036 • (208) 872-8640 



March 31, 1977 



The Honorcible James Abourezk 
United States Senate 
1105 Dirksen Senate Office 
Building 
Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 



The Housing Assistance Council recently received a copy 
of the tentative final report of the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission. 

We have reviewed the report and found that the housing section 
was not included. In June, 1976, Robert Leatherman, after a 
substantial effort, submitted a report for the Commission titled 
"The Indian Housing Efforts in the United States." Our staff 
assisted with providing information and also contacted a number 
of Indian tribes. 

The failure of the Commission to include the housing report 
seems to be an unfortunate omission which could be misinterpreted 
or a lack of interest in housing matters by Indians , we know that 
this is not the case. 

We know that you, in the past, have shared our concern about 
the terrible housing problems faced by Indians. We urge, therefore, 
that you reconsider the exclusion of the housing section from the 
final report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission and 
to do what you can to see that it is included. 



Sincerely yours, 

Roland Chico 
Indian Housing 
Coordinator 



HC/lh 



327 




GEORGE R. ARIYOSHI 



EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS 



April 11, 1977 



The Honorable James S . Abourezk 

Chairman 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 

Congress of the United States 

House Office Bldg. Annex No. 2 

2D and D Streets , SW 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

Thank you for sending me the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission's "tentative" Final Report. 

The report is indeed a comprehensive and far-ranging one . It conflins 
a wealth of information and many excellent recommendations . There is 
very little that we can add to the report . 

As you know , the Indian population of Hawaii is quite small . In the 
spring of 1976, a 5-percent sample census of our state found 1,893 American 
Indians living outside of military barracks and institutions . They thus 
amounted to only . 2 percent of the total . 

Notwithstanding this small Indian population , we are deeply interested 
in the work of the Commission , and wish you all success in your work . 

With warm personal regards , I remain , 

Yours very truly , 

^rge W- Ariyoshi / 



328 




DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE 
OFFICE OF EDUCATION 
WASHINGTON. DC 20202 



APR 1 2 1977 



Honorable James S, Abourezk 
Chairman, American Indian Policy 

Review Commission 
House Office Building, Annex No. 2 
2nd and D Streets, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

This is in response to your request for me to comment on the Education 
section of the tentative Final Report of the American Indian Policy 
Review Commission. 

I recommend the following clarifications and corrections: 

Pages 8-79 In paragraph 3, "The primary agencies controlling Indian 
education are: (1) The Office of Education under H.E.W. 
which administers. . o", add the following, "the Indian 
Education Act of 1972, Title IV, Public Law 92-318," and 
"the Indian set-aside in the Education for all Handicapped 
Children Act (P.L. 94-1A2). 

Pages 8-95 In line 3, change "between" to "among." 

Pages 8-104 In paragraph 2, the figures of 140,000 and 100,000 are 
questionable unless the sources are indicated. 

From the Indian Education Act, Public Law 92-318, the 
Office of Education provides supplemental funding for 302,000 
Indian students in public schools in Part A above. In 
addition other Indian students are assisted through other 
legislative authorities such as Title I (P.L. 89-10), 
Handicapped legislation (P.L. 94-142) and Part B of the 
Indian Education Act. 

Pages 8-104 In paragraph 3, line 4, the term "JOM" should be deleted 
as this Johnson O'Malley program is administered by the 
BIA-Interior rather than USOE-HEW. 



329 



Page 2 - Honorable James S. Abourezk 



To this reviewer, the findings on pages 8-76 to 8-78 do not appear to be 
related to the recommendations on 8-120 to 8-130. The recommendations do 
not appear clear as to meaning and format. 

On page 8-105, in enumerating USOE's specific involvement in Indian education, 
no mention is made of: (1) Public Law 94-142 (1975) which has set-aside 
funds for Indian handicapped students, and (2) Public Law 9A-A82 (1976) 
which has a set-aside fund for Indian adults from the Vocational Act of 1963, 
as amended. 



Thank you for this opportunity to comment. 



Sincerely yours, 

S. Gabe Paxton, Jr., D.Ed. / ^ 
Acting Deputy Commissioner 
Office of Indian Education 



330 



The Houma Alliance, Inc 



RT. 6, BOX 88 B 
HOUMA, LOUISIANA 70360 

April 19, 1977 



Senator James S. Abourezk, Chairman 
American Indian Policy Review Commission 
Congress of The United States 
House Office Building Annex No. 2 
2nd and D Streets S.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

We, the Native Americans, welcome any help we can get from the 
American Indian Policy Review Commission. We believe that you are 
heading in the right directions in adopting a national policy for 
all Indian people regardless of their status with the U. S. Govern- 
ment. At this point we had all but lost hope that anything would 
be done in behalf of Indians in this country. We firmly believe 
it comes at the right time in history when our President is con- 
cerned about human rights in other countries . 

You speak of a workable solution within the frame work of government. 
If you look closely at your information you will see that Native 
Americans pay taxes, served in the Armed Forces, and died in defense 
of America. Yet we've lived seperated from the white way of American 
life. We believe there is a lot of work to be done in the fields 
of education, economic development, and health care for Indians. We 
as Americans have been denied all these things. We also believe 
that you will not find in any other minority group the true patriotism 
shown by the Native Americans. 

Hunting and fishing rights for Native Americans is a way of life; 
we firmly believe that this is our natural birth right. We believe 
this to be a priority item to be re-evaluated. 

In one way or another our land has been disposed of. We no longer 
own any amount of land in Louisiana. Through tax manipulation the 
whites have found ways to acquire Indian lands. On March 2, 1849 
Congress saw fit to award to Louisiana lands belonging to the 
Houma tribe. The Houma tribe in Louisiana has been left landless. 
In the wake of white settlement the Houma tribe was cheated out of 
these lands. 

We would like now to quote Chief Joseph of the Nez Percys Tribe on 
how Indian land were acquired. 



331 



Page 2 - Senator Abourezk 

'Suppose a white man should come to me and say "Joseph, I like your 
horses, and I want to buy them." I say to him, "No, my horses suit 
me, I will not sell them." Then he goes to my neighbor, and say to 
him: "Joseph has some good horses. I want to buy them, but he 
refuses to sell." My neighbor answers, "Pay me the money, and I 
will sell you Jos^h's horses." The white man returns to me and 
says, "Joseph, I have bought your horses, and you must let me have 
them." If we sold our lands to the government, this is the way they 
were bought . ' 

We believe that Congress at this time should be able to solve the 
problems which it faces with Indian tribes and nations. It is 
hopeful that this issue will not be left alone to be resolve by 
another generation. 

Sincerely, ^_^ 

Howard J. Dion 

Chairman 

The Houma Alliance, Inc. 



332 



'I" 



\ DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

► o REGIONAL OFFICE 

? EXECUTIVE TOWER - 1405 CURTIS STREET 

DENVER, COLORADO 80202 



May 4, 1977 '~ "^"^ 

80F 



Honorable James S. Abourezk 
Chairman, American Indian 

Policy Review Commission 
United States Senate 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for the copy of the Commission's "Tentative Final 
Report" and for the opportunity to comment on its contents. 

The report obviously involved a tremendous effort on the part 
of the Commission to develop a definitive essay on the status 
of Indian policies in this country. It contains excellent 
material, particularly those chapters on trust land and tribal 
government. We were, however, disappointed that housing 
received scant attention. Only three pages out of the total 
report mentioned housing to any degree, and then only in very 
general terms. 

The unfortunate part of this omission is that housing is one 
of the basic needs of Indian people and therefore deserves 
greater attention. Housing incorporates or transcends many 
of the subjects addressed in greater detail in the report. 
Housing construction provides opportunities for employment, 
economic development and Indian entrepreneurship. Tribal 
sovereignty is an important part of the Indian housing effort. 
The status of trust land, on which most Indian housing is 
constructed, poses unique and unusual problems that must be 
resolved. A great many subjects in the report are touched in 
some way or other by the various housing programs, particu- 
larly those administered by the Department of Housing and 
Urban Development. 

While the Department has made giant strides in meeting the 
housing needs of Indian families, there is general agreement 



333 



that a great deal of work remains to be done. Therefore, that 
the Commission saw fit to offer only a solitary recommendation 
on this subject, with which we agree, (see page 8-73), offers 
little assistance to the Indian housing effort. In view of the 
comprehensive housing report provided to the Commission, a more 
extensive review of Indian housing should have been included in 
the report. 



Sincerely, 




334 



INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION 

RIDDELI. BUILDING. 6TH FLjCXSR 

1730 K Street nw. 
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 



April 20, 1977 



Honorable James Abourezk, 

United States Senate 

Chairman, American Indian Policy 

Review Commission 
Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

I thought the report of Task Force No. 9 contained a key to 
the vexing question of Treaty Indians vs. Non-treaty Indians, etc. 
and attached is a copy of my letter to "Chuck" expressing my 
personal sentiments about it. 

With kindest regards and best wishes, I remain. 
Sincerely, 



-0,.tl{'tiujy ^JU^.A^ 



Brantley Blue 
Commissioner 



335 



INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION 

RIDDEL.L BUILDING. 6TH FIjOOR 

1730 K STREET NW. 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 



April 20, 1977 



Mr. Charles Trimble 

Executive Director 

National Congress of American 

Indians 
1430 K Street, N. W. , Suite 700 
Washington, D. C. 20005 

Dear Chuck: 

It has been awhile since we talked. In the meantime, I have 
personally agonized over the existing cleavages between Reservation, 
Non-Reservation, Treaty and Non-Treaty Indian groups. It has been 
especially troubling to me for years now, since the "Lumbees" have been 
cast in the role as being the symbolic group that exemplifies all of 
these cleavages. There is no way that the cleavages will cause me to 
have animosity toward the reservation, treaty, groups. There is no way 
for me to fail to support the inclusion of non-reservation, non-treaty 
groups in Federal concern. However, it saddens me deeply to see such 
intense efforts being made to oppose and exclude non-reservation and 
non-treaty groups from all Federal programs. 

Chuck, I think I gleaned an answer to this impasse upon reading 
the task force report submitted by the legal task force of the American 
Indian Policy Review Commission. In effect, it said, "non-reservation, 
non-treaty Indians (Lumbees specifically being pointed out) should share 
in Federal programs, but not at the expense of Reservation . . . treaty 
Indians". The task force made clear and I agree , that the sharing of 
the one group should in no way diminish the funds of the other group. 
Isn't this a concept and a philosophy that all Indian groups could and 
should unanimously rally around and support? I honestly believe so, 1 
fervently hope so! 

This principle could unite Indians. How desperately that is needed. 
How much your leadership could unite all Indians during this critical 
period. 

Chuck, I know that you will give these thoughts earnest and prayer- 
ful consideration as I have done. Our People . . . all of them . . . 
are the benef iciiries! Thank you for letting me share some of my thirk- 
Ing with you. 



93-440 O - 78 - 23 



336 

with kindest regards and best wishes, I remain, 
Very truly yours , 



Brantley Blue 
Connnlssioner 



P. S. Chuck, Indians are being challenged today, from all sides; there 
has been nothing like this in many years. It is a time for togetherness 
in order for the Indians to stand just a fair chance of receiving just, 
fair and honest treatment at the hands of a just America. Permanent and 
vital decisions are about to be made by Congress. How crucial! 



Copy to: 

Peter S. Taylor, Chairman, 

Legal Task Force No. 9, AIPRC; 
Hon. James Abourezk, 

United States Senate, 

Chairman, American Indian Policy 
Review Commission; 
Hon. Lloyd Meeds, United States 

House of Representatives, 

Chairman, American Indian Policy 

Review Commission; 
Adolph Dial, Commissioner, American Indian 

Policy Review Commission; 
Louis R. Bruce, Commissioner, 

American Indian (Urban/Nonf ederally Recognized) 
Ernie Stevens, Executive Director, 

American Indian Policy Review Commission; 
Mel Tonasket, President, 

National Congress of American Indians; 
Wendell Chino, President, National 

Tribal Chairmen's Association. 



337 



REACTION TO THE SUMMARY OF EDUCATION 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 

AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 



Compiled at the: 

18th Annual Indian Education Conference 

Center for Indian Education 

Arizona State University 

Tempe, Arizona 



Submitted by; 

DrJ John W. Tippeconnic, Director 
Center for Indian Education 



338 



The 18th Annual Indian Education Conference, sponsored by the Center 
for Indian Education, Arizona State University, was held in Tempe, 
Arizona on April 13-15, 1977. Approximately 500 individuals were in 
attendance. The major purpose of the conference was to provide groups 
(i.e., tribes, Indian organizations) and individuals an opportunity 
to react to the educational findings and recommendations of the American 
Indian Policy Review Commission (AIPRC) . 

The rationale for the conference was based on the fact that the 
educational findings and recommendations of AIPRC have been disseminated 
to a select few. Thus, the conference program was developed 
(Appendix A) , whereby every individual and group in attendance would 
be informed of the educational findings, discuss them, then react. 

REACTION DESIGN 



Presentations ; 



Workshops ; 



1. AIPRC History, Functions, and Activities 

2. Educational Findings and Recommendations 

3. Expected Influence of the Report 



To further discuss and react to the findings and 
recommendations. Topics included: 

1. The Delivery System — BIA 

2. Higher Education 

3. United States Office of Education 

4. State Role in Indian Education 

5. Tribal Control 



1. Workshops 

2. Groups (Tribes, 

3. Individuals 



Organizations) 



Submitted to AIPRC for inclusion in the final report 



339 



PROCEDURES 



Mr. Ernest Stevens, past Director, AIPRC, Mr. Ray Goetting, AIPRC 
Consultant, and Mr. Charles Peone, AIPRC Consultant, orally 
presented the educational findings. In addition, the educational 
suimnary was made available to all conference participants. 



A list of ten (10) General Findings was developed for conference 
participants to react to in workshop sessions. (Appendix B) . In 
addition, specific findings in higher education, BIA, tribal control, 
state role in Indian Education, and the U.S. Office of Education 
were developed. (Appendix C). Open-ended responses were also 
solicited. An Individual Reaction Form was provided to record 
reaction. (Appendix D) . 



Individuals and groups were also encouraged to react outside the 
workshop format. (Appendix E) . 



340 



FREQUENCY RESPONSE TO THE GENERAL FINDINGS OF AIPRC 



GENERAL FINDINGS OF AIIERICAN IHDIAI^ POLICY PJIVIEW COMTIISSIOH 

1. Shift all Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative 
agency . 

2. Shift control of Federal funds for Indian education from state and local 
governments to tribal governments. 

3. Establish training programs for Indian teachers, administrators, counselors 
and tribal advisors on education. 

4. The consolidated Indian agency would be required to design, in conjunction 
with Indian people, education programs it establishes to respond to the 
needs of Indian people. 

5. This agency and programs would require more efficient administration and an 
accurate funding mechanism to assure that target monies reached the tribes. 

6. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in 
assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance with 
their desires. 

7. Amendments to P.L. 874 and 815 such that: (1) the dollars directed to aid 
schools educating Indian students be funneled through a tribal monitoring 
system, than to the school, (2) a set-asido provision is made to cover costs 
of tribal administration. 

8. Amendments to P.L. 638 such that (1) a duly elected Board of Regents may 

be recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal cpinion to contract for 
and administer post-secondary schools with a multi-tribal population; 
(2) in case of multi-tribal elementary and secondary schools, a duly elected 
Board of Ri;gents inUluding at least one representative from each tribe, be 
recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to contract for 
and administer those schools. 

9. Amendments to P.L. 638 and JOII such that: (1) any dollars contracted for 
the education of Indian children through P.L. 638 and JOM would pass through 
trlLal conitoring system (?) in utilizing this contract or monitoring 
pcwering with P.L. 638 or JOrl a tribe may decide the extent to which it wishes 
to control the educational system affectin,'? its children. This decision runs 
the gamut from total tribal ovjnership and control to utilization of the 
tribal governitent only as a monitoring system, (3) if the tribes' option 

to set up an organizational unit to monitor funds, a set-aside provision 
should be made available to cover costs of tribal administration. 

10. Amendments to all Indian education legislation such that: (1) the state or 
local government not in compliance with agreements and contracts for Indian 
education can be sued by the tribe in U.S. District Court or in a state court 
of general jurisdiction, (2) the court may grant the plaintiff a temporary 
restraining order, preliminary or permenent injunction or other order 
including suspension, termination or repayment of funds or placing any further 
payments in escrow pending the outcome of the litigation. 



341 





STRONGLY 








AGREE 


AG?IEE 


MnRCTDKn 


1. 


23 


22 . 


23 


2. 


30 


19 


11 


3. 


51 


24 


2 


4. 


35 


34 


12 


5. 


47 


30 


9 


6. 


19 


30 


11 



7. 19 31 



8. 11 



29 14 



17 



STRONGLY 
PTSAfiRFiR 



1 

3 4 



21 2 14 



342 



—FINDINGS— 



343 



OPEN REACTION TO THE TEN GENERAL FINDINGS 



1. Shift all Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative 
agency . 

REACTION ; 

1. The transfer of programs to a new agency should be accomplished if 
Indian people and their tribal governing bodies approve and design 
transfer process. 

2. (a) Agree to one agency since there would be consistency in the program. 

Would like to see an educational movement with more emphasis placed 
on the education of children. 

(b) What guarantee is made, if a new agency is established, that the agency 
will see more input from parents in their concepts of goals and direction 
of education. 

3. It needs to be defined who will be eligible for services and how the 
agency will be implemented. If properly managed. It would be a good idea. 

4. Shift some Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative 
agency . 

5. Shift all Federal education programs and funds to one administrative 
agency . 

6. Shift all Federal education programs and funds allocations from OE and BIA 
to one administrative agency. 



2. Shift control of Federal funds for Indian education from state and local 
governments to tribal governments. 



Tribal governments may desire to participate in the shift of control on an 
optional-ability basis. Some tribes may not have the skilled manpower to 
assume total control and therefore the transition will be affected by this. 

Urban Indians may have to group themselves into PAC-type groups; and since an 
accurate count is not available, reservation tribes may have to assist in 
the Identification and even the servicing of those whom they recognize as 
tribal members. 



344 



2. What about Indians who are not under tribal government? 

a. How will this recommendation affect those Indians living in the 
urban area educational system? 

b. How would urban Indians apply for education funding? 

c. Is the recommendation only for tribal governments/organizations? 



3. Establish training programs for Indian teachers, administrators, counselors 
and tribal advisors on education. 



1. Establish long-range training programs for Indian education personnel 
In areas of: (1) teaching, (2) school administration, counseling, 

(3) tribal advising. Also training programs should be developed in areas of: 
tribal accounting, economics, financing, management and other technical 
areas needed for tribal control. 

2. Personnel involved in the education and training of Indian children should 
be specially trained. Patricularly in viewing their personal concepts of 
Indian children, learning of the people to whom they are to serve, their 
customs, traditions and religion. Be more aware and respectful of their 
way of life. 

3. Establish training programs for Indian tribes, administrators, counselors 
and tribal advisors. Programs that lead toward a degree or certification. 



I*. The consolidated Indian agency would be required to design. In conjunction 
with Indian people, education programs It establishes to respond to the 
needs of Indian people. 



1. The Indian people in conjunction with a consolidated Indian agency will 
design education programs to respond to the needs of the people. 

2. Agree; but need to Involve many educational designs would greatly depend on 
the tribal structure and needs. 

a. Some felt the sentence should state, "and consult" rather than the 
wording "in conjunction." 



345 



This agency and programs would require more efficient administration and an 
accurate funding mechanism to assure that target monies reached the tribes. 



1. The Indian people, the agency, and the programs will require more 
efficient administration and accurate funding mechanisms to assure that 
target monies reach the tribes and the students. 

2. They must have other targets as well. 

3. This agency and programs would require more efficient administrative 
distributiion and an accurate funding mechanism to assume that target 
monies reached the tribe. 



Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in 
assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance with 
their desires. 



1. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in 
assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance with 
the desires of tribal governments. In off -reservation areas with no 
tribal Jurisdiction, federal funds must be administered by an Indian 
parent committee with full policy and program control. 

2. Meaning is unclear — if emphasis is on aid, will agree. 

3. Question is not clear, no explanation given. 

4. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in 
assuming the responsibility for control of education In accordance with 
needs. 



Amendments to P.L. 874 and 815 such that: (1) the dollars directed to aid 
schools educating Indian students be funneled through a tribal monitoring 
system, than to the school, (2) a set-aside provision is made to cover 
costs of tribal administration. 



Amend by addition the following: "We recommend that both laws be fully funded 
to meet the urgent needs. 



346 



2. The laws do not pertain just to Indians (set-asides?) 



Amendments to P.L. 638 such that (1) a duly elected Board of Regents may 
be recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to contract 
for and administer post-secondary schools with a multi-tribal population; 
(2) in case of multi-tribal elementary and secondary schools, a duly 
elected Board of Regents including at least one representative from each 
tribe, be recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to 
contract for and administer those schools. 



Amend by addition of: "There must be assurance that all tribes involved 
are duly ratified and involved in all transactions." 



9. Amendments to P.L. 638 and JOM such that: (1) any dollars contracted for 
the education of Indian children through P.L. 638 and JOM would pass 
through tribal monitoring system (2) in utilizing this contract or 
monitoring powering with P.L. 638 or JOM a tribe may decide the extent 
to which it wishes to control the educational system affecting its 
children. This decision runs the gamut from total tribal ownership 
and control to utilization of the tribal government only as a monitoring 
system, (3) if the tribes' option to set up an organizational unit to 
monitor funds, a set-aside provision should be made available to cover 
costs of tribal administration. 

REACTION : 

1. That's the way it is now — Why is an amendment necessary? 



Amendments to all Indian education legislation such that: (1) the state 
or local government not in compliance with agreements and contracts for 
Indian education can b e sued by the tribe in U.S. District Court or in a 
state court of general jurisdiction, (2) the court may grant the plaintiff 
a temporary restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or other 
order including suspension, termination or repayment of funds or placing 
any further payments in escrow pending the outcome of the litigation. 



1. It's already that way — why the amendment^ 



347 



REACTION TO FIVE SPECIFIC AREAS 



348 



I. The Delivery System — BIA 



1. Congress will initiate legislation for the funding and administration under 
a consolidated Indian agency for programs: 

A. To study and establish standards for Indian education and develop an 
accreditation system for Indian schools. 

B. To train non-Indians who teach and work with Indian children as an 
interim measure until there are enough Indian educators. 

C. To educate and prepare the tribes to organize and operate their own 
educational systems. 

D. To subsidize a long-range effort to train and certify Indian educators 
for Indian schools. 

E. To certify Indian programs for curriculum development and library 
development . 

F. To provide for a professional clearinghouse to keep education 
Information, i.e., teacher availability, new curricula, and special 
Information flowing from school to school and tribe to tribe. 

G. To give professional Indian educators the opportunity to give regular 
input on new educationalmethods and resources to the tribes, the tribes 
in tucn can utilize these suggestions if they choose. 

11. Congress shall provide, under the umbrella of the consolidated Indian agency 
appropriate legislation for the administration and funding of improved off- 
reservation boarding schools. 

12. Funding would be used to define the goals and objectives for each O.R.B.S. Create 
and academic emphais that fits the particular goals of each school. 

1. A vocational/technical school 

2. A school for the gifted with emphasis on academic training. 

3. A school for special learning difficulties (Basic skills emphasized) 

13. Juvenile corrections should be the responsibility of the tribe (s) and not 
the O.R.B.S. 

14. Hire sufficient diagnostic staff, a program and development specialist, and 
curriculum development that is responsive to student needs both psychologically 
and academically for each O.R.B.S. 

15. Choose teaching and guidance personnel on the basis of ability to do the Job 
rather than rank in civil service. 

16. Give parents and community the opportunity to contribute ideas and participate 
in school procedure. 

17. Give the school advisory boards real decision power. 



349 



8. Set up funding structures to separate O.R.B.S. from other BIA funded schools. 

9. Standardize accounting procedures and fiscal reports of all O.R.B.S. 

0. Remove post-secondary schools run by the BIA from O.R.B.S. states so they 
have the option to control: Staff, budget, programs, enrollment, and 
student body. 

1. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for all 
BIA schools (Haskell, SIPI, lAIA) 



Participants strongly agreed with all the findings with the following comments: 

a. Number 14. The question arose, "Would It be practical to hire all of 
the mentioned personnel, and would they be all Indians?" 

b. Number 17. What training would the advisory board receive to prepare 
them to exercise wise authoratlve power. 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS : 

1. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents 
for all BIA schools. Including post-secondary schools. 

2. Funding structures and accountability procedures should be standardized 
for fast and efficient accounting and for educational research purposes. 
Schools should follow the same elective process for advisory boards, and 
board of regents. Schools should work together on meaningful research, 
for example, student dropouts, new curriculum, and follow up studies 

on students who attend Institutions of higher learning. 

3. Many times people In the educational field lose sight of their original 
objectives and begin to conceptualize, "What can I get out of the 
system for self-gain?" Too many times the person tends to look for 
personal gains rather than to view what Is the best way to reach the 
Indian youth. 



350 



II. Higher Education 



11. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for 
all BIA schools (Haskell, lAIA, SIPI). 

12. Congress, through specific legislation will provide funding for scholarships 
in three academic areas: 

1. Vocational 

2. Liberal arts 

3. Graduate level. 

13. Graduate level scholarship should take into account extra expenses such as 

books, lab fees and the greater possibility graduate students will be narrled. 

14. Scholarship funding is directed through both Indian organizations and tribes 
which would distribute the money to eligible Indian students. 

15. Each student who meets the requirements of Section 411 (A) (1) of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 shall be entitled to a grant in an amount 
computed under subsection (a) of subsection (1) . 

16. Congress must enact legislation which would, under the consolidated 
Indian agency, carry out a program for funding and administration of Indian 
post-secondary schools. 

17. Legislation such to include funds for more Indian owned and operated colleges 
such that higher education is available to all Indians who desire it. 

18. Legislation such to include funds to establish a number of institutions of 
higher learning for interpreting and sustaining the culture, languages and 
traditions of Indian people. 

19. Legislation such to Include funds provided by the Federal government to any 
Institution of higher learning that is educating Indian students (similar to JOM) . 

20. Accreditation for Indian post-secondary institutions should be provided by an 
Indian designed and organized board. 



351 • 

STRONGLY AGREE AGREE UNDECIDED DISAGREE STRONGLY DISAGREE 
U 11 7 2 1 



3 3 3 1 

11 9 1 



10 11 1 4.0 

12 8 5 1 



-440 O - 78 - 24 



352 



HIGHER EDUCATION/ADDITIONAL REACTION 

As a student enrolled under Fine Arts at Arizona State University, I 
strongly agree to granting money to students who wish to enter a 
profession not usually funded by tribal or government scholarships. 



III. UNITED STATES OFFICE OF EDUCATION 
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS : 

1. Concern for the education of children in urban areas. 

2. Explicit definitions in funding controls. 



353 



Tribal Control 



11. Tribal control at minimum could entail utilizing the tribal government 
as a monitoring system for federal funds targeted for Indian education. 
Dollars targeted specifically for Indian children, for example, JOM, would 
not only pass through the tribe but the tribe could also direct how those 
dollars were to be spent. 

12. Where a local school system rejects trlbally determined educational priorities 
for JOM and other target funds, those funds should be available to the tribe 
for use in a program of its own. 

13. In recognition that one year's funding may be an insufficient base to 
establish an Independent program, there should be provision to allow 
for carryover of previous year's funding. 

lA. To facilitate the move toward Indian control of Indian education, trained 
specialists will be needed. Programs for Indian people to direct Indian 
control should be established. 

15. Monies should be provided for programs to educate and prepare tribes to 
organize and operate their own education (to the extent they wish) . 

16. Monies should be provided to subsidize a long-range effort to train and 
certify Indian educators for Indian schools. 

17. Monies should be provided to establish training programs for teachers of 
Indian students. 

18. Monies should be provided to subsidize programs for curriculum development and 
library development for Indian schools. 

19. Monies should be provided to study and establish an accreditation system 
for Indian schools. 

20. Monies should be provided to study and establish standards for Indian schools. 



354 



STRONGLY 
AGREE 


AGREE 

7 


UNDECIDED 
3 


DISAGREE 



STRONGLY 
DISAGREE 


L. 9 


1 



12. 6 



15. 


8 


9 


16. 


9 


9 


17. 


10 


7 


18. 


10 


9 


19. 
20. 


6 
6 


12 
13 









2 1 

1 









355 



TRIBAL CONTROL 



ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: 



1. Money should be provided for basic school operations. 

2. Accounting systems should be set up for the tribes to account for 
the monies they receive. 

3. Congress pass a law that the Federal government pass In legislation 
that Congress will continue to fund programs for Indian tribes if 
they contract under P.L. 93-638. 



356 
REACTION BY GROUPS AND INDIVIDUALS 



357 



Ms. Ida L. Jose, Chairperson 
Papago Education Conmlttee 

Ms. Jose represented the Papago Education Committee and the following 
comments represent the opinion of her committee after their participation 
In Workshop #5, Tribal Control. 

The Issue of Tribal Control Is of main concern on the Papago Reservation. 
The problem Is as follows: 

The Papago Education Committee Is authorized by a Tribal Resolution to 
be responsible and accountable for Tribal Education contracts. There 
are two (2) main reasons why this Is Impossible to do; 

1. The Bureau of Indian Affairs (Procurement Branch) has their own 
"unwritten" rules that cannot be abided by anyone, which also conflict 
with tribal contract statements. 

2. The state does not recognize Tribal Sovereignty. 
Our recommendations are: 

1. That PL 93-638 be amended to Insure Tribal Control of all contracted 
programs . 

2. That tribes be given full authority and responsibility to determine 
their own direction and policy, without Interference of the state and 
Federal bureaucracies. 

3. That Congress assure the Tribes of adequate funding for their 
determined needs. 

THE PAPAGO EDUCATION COMMITTEE 

Ida L. Jose, Chairperson 

Manuel Osequeda 

Tony Chlco 

Wlllard Juan 

Archie Hendrick, Sr. 

Sr. Katerl Cooper 



358 



Ms. Lena Begay 

Central Curriculum Coordinator 

Navajo Economic Opportunity Childhood Development Program 

Ft. Defiance, Arizona 

The main questions which should be asked regarding the establishment of 
the AIPRC are: 

Who appoints the Commission? 

Why can't we be involved right from the first Instead of at the conclusion? 

What impact will our recommendations have on the Commission's Report to 

Congress? 

The general findings were very vague, and they need to be clarified. 

Pertaining to General Finding //I, Shift all Federal education programs from 
OE and BIA to one administrative agency; what one administrative agency 
are these programs to be shifted under? Who will be involved in the 
shifting of these programs and who will have the control? 

Pertaining to Finding #2, Shift control of Federal funds for Indian education 
from state and local governments to tribal governments; is this to be 
done with approval of tribal people or Individual groups? 

As to Finding //3, Establish training programs for Indian teachers, 
administrators, counselors and tribal advisors on education; who would 
establish these training programs and where will the monies come from? 
We must have assurances that the training programs are not funded for 
one or two years and then discontinued. What we need instead of what 
we have gotten in the past are long-range training programs to insure 
that the benefits of the programs will be given the Indian peoples. 

On Finding #4, The consolidated Indian agency would be required to design, in 
conjunction with Indian people, education programs it establishes to respond 
to the needs of Indian people; what is meant by "consolidated" Indian 
agency? Is this in reference to the superagency in General Finding #1? 

As to Finding #5, This agency and programs would require more efficient 
administration and an accurate funding mechanism to assure that target 
monies reach the tribes; this funding mechanism needs to be controlled 
according to the needs of the tribes or the individual groups of people 
who are requesting the funds. 

Findings 6-10 are already in existence it appears but what we need is 
a reaffirmation of these findings. Finding //lO, such a law is already in 
existence but we need to work with the law now and we need to have it 
enforced. 

Of definite concern is the need to define "Indian." 

We are making our recommendations, but we need the support of the American 
Indian Policy Review Commission and of all the Indian people. 



359 



Mr. Virgil Free, Higher Education Director 
Johnson O'Malley 
Winnebago, Nebraska 

The area which the Task Force of the Commission did not seem to get into 
was funding accountability. We must be kept informed of the amount of 
money that is going out and we need to be kept informed of where it is 
going. We must abide by regulations and guidelines but OE and BIA do no 
accounting to us. We must demand that OE and BIA report nationally to the 
tribes at the national and the regional levels. We ask AIPRC to demand 
that accounting also be done at the area and agency levels. 



Mr. Albert Sinquah, Director 
Education, Hopi Tribe 
Oraibi, Arizona 

My main concern is that there is no existing organization or group of 
people responsible for seeing to it that the government is meeting the 
requirements and guidelines of the programs. There needs to be an office 
or a Concerns Bureau that we can contact for interpretation of the existing 
laws. The interpretation of the policies vary at the local, area, regional, 
and national levels. It is difficult to know or see what we are doing 
because of this. The AIPRC should recommend the establishing of an 
organization strictly for the interpretation of the laws. 



360 



Ms. Cynthia Cardona Workshop it3, "Itoited States Office of Education." 
Osbom School District 
Phoenix, Arizona 

My main concerns center around the amount of confusion, misunderstanding, and 
learning process involved with the various programs. 

It seems that information is not received with sufficient time to study the 
literature. Procedures are someimes somewhat intimidating. In many Instances 
one is unclear as to how to utilize funding in the proper "legal" way. 

The Public Laws and Acts are unclear to the majority of the participants 
here at this session and to the participants vrithin the different programs. 

How is this and other legislation to affect the urban Indian? There is 
too much confusion in this area as it appears the urban Indian is not being 
recognized. 

We need to see statistics concerning the operations of the programs. How is 
the money appropriated and how is it being utilized? How much of that money 
actually trickles down to students? 



361 



Ms. Carol Kirk 

Arizona State University Student 

The following comments w ere made by Ms. Kirk after her participation in 
Workshop /M, "State Role In Indian Education." 

Concerning General Finding //I, Shift all Federal education programs from 
OE and BIA to one administrative agency, the members of the workshop 
may have been indecisive or negative because of two main concerns. 

1. There was not enough information as to how OE and BIA were to be 
unified. Perhaps the intention of the members was to either 
agree or disagree and then make comments as to how either decision 
would be implemented. 

2. As pertaining to nearly all the items the participants tended to 
disagree with the printed statements as the participants all 
recognized tribal authority but did not specifically recognize 
urban Indian groups. 

The main concern with Items 7-10 was that these or at least some of 
these General Findings were identified by participants to already be 
existing policy. Negative or indecisive comments were made because it 
was noted that the policies were already in effect. 

My concern: Was the purpose of the questionnaire a reaffirmation or a 

negation of general policies facing tribal sovereignty or was it intended 

to address for specific changes in existing policy? The confusion 

arose because it was unclear as whether we were disagreeing with the conditions 

of the existing policy or recommending something new. 



362 



SUMMARY 

The reaction presented above represents that of Individuals and groups 
compiled In the procedure described. It does not necessarily represent 
a consensus of the conference. No effort was made to Interpret any of 
the data or change any of the comments. It Is raw data compiled within 
limitations of a three-day conference. 

However, the reaction does represent a sincere effort on the part of 
those responding to be heard. We trust that the Input will be valuable 
to the American Indian Policy Review Commission and that It will be a 
part of the final report submitted to Congress. 



363 

APPENDIX A 
18th ANNUAL INDIAN EDUCATION CONFERENCE PROGRAM 



364 



18th AlJilUAL I.iOIAiJ EDUCATIOi'J CODFEREiiCE 
APRIL 13,14, & 15, 1977 

MEMORIAL UinOil GUILDIIIG 

Arizona State University 

Tempe, Arizona 



THEflE : 

"AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COmiSSION"-- 
SUI^IARY OF EDUCATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 



SPONSOR- 

CENTER FOR INDIAN EDUCATIOIl 

ARIZONA STATE UfilVERSITY 

TEMPE, ARIZONA 



DIRECTORS 

OR. JOH;^ U. TIPPECONNIC, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR INDIAN EOUCATIOi! 
MR. GEORGE A. GILL, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF EDUCATION 



365 



PROGRAI! 



Wednesday Afternoon Session, April 13, 1977 



12 :00 NOON 

1:00 - 5:00 p.m. Workshop #1 

1:00 - 2:00 p.m. Workshop #2 

1:00 - 2:00 p.m. Workshop #3 

2:00 - 3:15 p.m. Workshop #4 

2:00 - 3:15 p.m. Workshop #5 



3:15 - 3:30 p.m. 


BREAK 


3:30 - 5:00 p.m. 


Workshop #6 
(Repeat) 


3:30 - 5:00 p.m. 


Workshop #7 
(Repeat) 



Registration, Memorial Union Building 

Arizona Room (Continuous throughout Conference] 

HIEA Project Media, National Indian Education 
Association; Minneapolis, i'linnesota 
Ms. Rebecca Murray, Moderator 
Cochise Room East, Memorial Union 

Reapportionment & Census - State of Arizona 
Legislature; Phoenix, Arizona 
Representative Benjamin Hanley, Moderator 
Cochise Room West, Memorial Union 

Bilingual Education, Division of Bilingual 

Education, State Department of Education; 

Phoenix, Arizona 

Ms. Gay Lawrence, lioderator 

Arizona Room, Memorial Union 

ilative American Materials Development Center 
Albuquerque, Nev; ilexico 
Mr. Cam Pfeiffer, r-ioderator 
Arizona Room, Memorial Union 

Indian Education Training, Inc. 
Albuquerque, Uevi i Mexico 
Mr. Fred Garcia, Moderator 
Ms. Laura Tillman, Moderator 
Cochise Room West, Memorial Union 



ilative American Materials Development Center 
Albuquerque, flew Mexico 
Mr. Cam Pfeiffer, Moderator 
Arizona Room, Memorial Union 

Indian Education Training, Inc. 
Albuquerque, flew Mexico 
Mr. Fred Garcia, Moderator 
f>1s. Laura Tillman, Moderator 
Cochise Room West, Memorial Union 



366 



Thursday Morning Session. April 14, TJ77 

7:30 a.m. Registration, Hemorial Union Building 

8:30 - 10:00 a.m. Presiding: jr. John W. Tippeccnnic, Director 

Center for Indian Education 
Arizona State University 
Tempe, Arizona 

Uelcome: Dr. Morrison F. liarren. Director 
I.D. Payne Laboratory 
Arizona State University 
Tempe, Arizona 

Keynote 
Address: Mr. Ernest L. Stevens, Director 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 
Washington, D.C. 
"Introduction To The AIPRC" 

Conference Procedures: Mr. George A. Gill 

Assistant Professor of 

Education 
Arizona State University 
Tempe, Arizona 

AliNOUiJCEtlENTS 

10:00 - 10:15 a.m. BREAK - Reconvene in General Session for Education 

Summary and Findings 

10:15 - 11:30 a.,... Mr. Raymond C. Goetting, AIPRC Hember and Consultant 

Laguna, rievv >iexico 

"Findings and Recoimendations - Education" 
American Indian Policy Reviov/ Commission 

Mr. Charles Peone, AIPRC llember and Consultant 

University of Arizona 

Tucson, Arizona 

"Findings and Recommendations - Education" 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 

11:30 - 1:00 p.m. LUNCH BREAK - Reconvene in workshop of choice at 

1:00 p.m. 



367 

Thursdaiy Afternoon Session. April 14. 1977 

1:00 - 3:00 p.m. WORKSHOP SESS I Of JS 

l/orkshop #1 "The Delivery System - BIA" 

Mr. Garrison Tahmahkera, Moderator 
l\r. Ray Goetting, Resource Person 
Cochise Room East 

Administering Educational Programs, Funding and Policy, 
Educational Facilities, Curriculum, Student and School 
Statistics. 

Workshop #2 "iiigher Education" 

Mr. Ron Houston, Moderator 

fir. Ray Goetting, Resource Person 

Cochise Room West 

Administering Educational Programs, Funding and Policy, 
Educational Facilities, Curriculum, Student and School 
Statistics. 

Workshop if3 ""United States Office of Education" 
Mr. Guy Archambeau, ftoderator 
Hr, Charles Peone, Resource Person 
Coconino Room 

Administering Educational Programs, Funding and Policy, 
Educational Facilities, Curriculum, Student and School 
Statistics. 

Workshop #4 "State Role In Indian Education" 
Dr. Larry Stout, tloderator 
fir. Ernest Stevens, Resource Person 
Arizona Room 

Administering Educational Programs, Funding and Policy, 
Educational Facilities, Curriculum, Student and School 
Statistics. 

Workshop #5 "Tribal Control" 

Mr. Jack Gregory, Moderator 

Mr. Ernest Stevens, Resource Person 

Pinal Room 

Administering Educational Programs, Funding and Policy, 
Educational Facilities, Curriculum, .-tudent and School 
Statistics. 

3:00 - 3:15 p.m. BREAK 

3:15 - 5:00 p.m. Workshops #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 reconvene in sane rooms for 
finalization of reaction reports to findings. 

5:00 p.m. RECESS - Reconvene in Arizona Room for final General 
Session, Friday, 8:30 a.m., April 15, 1977. 



-440 O - 78 - 25 



368 



Friday Homing Session, April 15. 1977 

8:30 a.m. General Session 

Arizona Room 



Presentation of conference v/orkshop reaction position papers 
and reconmondations to be submitted to American Indian Policy 
Review Commission, Washington, D.C. 

Presiding: Mr. Emerson Horace, Director 
Bilingual Education 
Sacaton Public Schools 
Sacaton, Arizona 

Mr. Guy Archambeau 
Tuba City Public Schools 
Tuba City, Arizona 

10:00 - 10:15 a.m. uREAK 

10:15 a.m. Reconvene in Arizona Room for continuation of 

presentations. 

12:00 Noon ADJOURNMENT 



369 



APPENDIX B 
GENERAL FINDINGS OF AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 



370 



ASU, CtlJTER FOR INpi/JI EDUCATION 
GETIERAL FINDINGS OF AIIERICAN IiIDIM POLICY REVIirVf C0>C1ISSI0M 

1. Shift all Federal education programs from OE and BIA to one administrative 
agency . 

2. Shift control of Federal funds for Indian education from state and local 
governments to tribal governments. 

3. Establish training programs for Indian teachers, administrators, counselors 
and tribal advisors on education. 

A. The consolidated Indian agency would be required to design, in conjunction 
with Indian people, education programs it establishes to respond to the 
needs of Indian people. 

5. This agency and programs would require more efficient administration and an 
accurate funding mechanism to assure that target monies reached the tribes. 

6. Congress will enact legislation that would aid tribal governments in 
assuming the responsibility for control of education in accordance vdth 
their desires. 



Its to P.L. 874 and 815 such that: (1) the dollars directed to aid 
schools educating Indian students be funneled through a tribal monitoring 
system, than to the school, (2) a set-aside provision is made to cover costs 
of tribal administration. 

Amendments to P.L. 638 such that (1) a duly elected Board of Regents may 

be recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to contract for 

and administer post-secondary schools with a multi-tribal population; 

(2) in case of multi-tribal elementary and secondary schools, a duly elected 

Board of Regents indluding at least one representative from each tribe, be 

recognized as a unit representing tribes and tribal opinion to contract for 

and administer those schools. 

Amendments to P.L. 638 and JOII such that: (1) any dollars contracted for 
the education of Indian children through P.L. 638 and JOtl would pass through 
tribal monitoring system (2) in utilizing this contract or monitoring 
pcwering with P.L. 638 or JOM a tribe may decide the extent to which it wishes 
to control the educational system affecting its children. This decision runs 
the gamut from total tribal ownership and control to utilization of the 
tribal governitent only as a monitoring system, (3) if the tribes' option 
to set up an organizational unit to monitor funds, a set-aside provision 
should be made available to cover costs of tribal administration. 

Amendments to all Indian education legislation such that: (1) the state or 
local government not in compliance with agreements and contracts for Indian 
education can be sued by the tribe in U.S. District Court or in a state court 
of general jurisdiction, (2) the court may grant the plaintiff a temporary 
restraining order, preliminary or permenent injunction or other order 
including suspension, termination or repayment of funds or placing any further 
payments in escrow pending the outcome of the litigation. 



371 

APPENDIX C 
LIST OF ADDED TOPIC AREA FINDINGS 



372 



1. Congress will Initiate legislation for the funding and administration under 
• consolidated Indian agency for programs: 

A. To study and establish standards for Indian education and develop an 
accre<!itatlon system for Indian schools. 

B. To train non-Indians who teach and work with Indian children as an 
interim measure until there are enough Indian educators. 

C. To educate and prepare the tribes to organize and operate their own 
educational systems. 

D. To subsidize a long-range effort to train and certify Indian educators 
for Indian schools. 

E. To certify Indian programs for curriculum development and library 
development . 

r. To provide for a professional clearinghouse to keep education 

information, i.e., teacher availability, new curricula, and special 
information flowing from school to school and tribe to tribe. 

G. To give professional Indian educators the opportunity to give regular 
input on new educationalmethods and resources to the tribes, the tribes 
in turn can utilize these suggestions If they choose. 

11. Congress shall provide, under the umbrella of the consolidated Indian agency 
appropriate legislation for the administration and funding of Improved off- 
reservation boarding schools. 

12. Funding would be used to define the goals and objectives for each O.R.B.S. Create 
and academic emphals that fits the particular goals of each school. 

1. A vocational/technical school 

2. A school for the gifted with emphasis on academic training. 

3. A school for special learning difficulties (Basic skills emphasized) 

13. Juvenile corrections should be the responsibility of the tribe (s) and not 
the O.R.B.S. 

lA. Hire sufficient diagnostic staff, a program and development specialist, and 

curriculum development that Is responsive to student needs both psychologically 
and academically for each O.R.B.S. 

15. Choose teaching and guidance personnel on the basis of ability to do the job 
rather than rank in civil service. 

16. Give parents and community the opportunity to contribute ideas and participate 
In school procedure. 

17. Give the school advisory boards real decision power. 



373 



Tribal Control 

(See first 10 General Findings) 

11. Tribal control at minimum could entail utilizing the tribal government 
as a monitoring system for federal funds targeted for Indian education. 
Dollars targeted specifically for Indian children, for example, JOM, would 
not only pass through the tribe but the tribe could also direct how those 
dollars were to be spent. 

12. Where a local school system rejects tribally determined educational priorities 
for JOM and other target funds, those funds should be available to the tribe 
for use in a program of its own. 

13. In recognition that one year's funding may be an insufficient base to 
establish an independent program, there should be provision to allow 
for carryover of previous year's funding. 

14. To facilitate the move toward Indian control of Indian education, trained 
specialists will be needed. Programs for Indian people to direct Indian 
control should be established. 

15. Monies should be provided for programs to educate and prepare tribes to 
organize and operate their own education (to the extent they wish). 

16. Monies should be provided to subsidize a long-range effort to train and 
certify Indian educators for Indian schools. 

17. Monies should be provided to establish training programs for teachers of 
Indian students. 

18. Monies should be provided to subsidize programs for curriculum development and 
library development for Indian schools. 

19. Monies should be provided to study and establish an accreditation system 
for Indian schools. 

20. >bnies should be provided to study and establish standards for Indian schools. 



374 



Higher Education 
(See first 10 ) 

11. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for 
all BIA schools (Haskell, LAIA, SIPI). 

12. Congress, through specific legislation will provide funding for scholarships 
in three academic areas: 

1. Vocational 

2. Liberal arts 

3. Graduate level. 

13. Graduate level scholarship should take into account extra expenses such as 
books, lab fees and the greater possibility graduate students will be married. 

14. Scholarship funding is directed through both Indian organizations and tribes 
which would distribute the money to eligible Indian students. 

15. Each student who meets the requirements of Section 411 (A) (1) of the 
Higher Education Act of 1965 shall be entitled to a grant in an amount 
computed under subsection (a) of subsection (1) . 

.16. Congress must enact legislation which would, under the consolidated 

Indian agency, carry out a program for funding and administration of Indian 
post-secondary schools. 

17. Legislation such to include funds for more Indian owned and operated colleges 
such that higher education is available to all Indians who desire it. 

18. Legislation such to include funds to establish a number of institutions of 
higher learning for interpreting and sustaining the culture, languages and 
traditions of Indian people. 

19. Legislation such to Include funds provided by the Federal government to any 
Institution of higher learning that is educating Indian students (similar to JOH) . 

20. Accreditation for Indian post-secondary Institutions should be provided by an 
Indian designed and organized board. 



375 



18. S«e up funding structures to separste O.R.B.S. froa other BIA funded schools. 

19. Standardize accounting procedures and fiscal reports of all O.R.B.S. 

20. Remove post-secondary schools run by the BIA from O.R.B.S. states so they 
have the option to control: Staff, budget, programs, enrollment, and 
student body. 

21. Organize an elective process for advisory boards and boards of regents for all 
BIA schools (Haskell. SIPI, lAIA) 



376 

U.S.O.E. 

(See first 10 General Findings) 



377 

STATES ROLE 

(See first 10 General Findings) 



378 

APPENDIX D 
nroiVIDUAL REACTION FOBM 



379 



INDIVIDUAL REACTION FORTIS 



TOPIC 



OCCUPATION 



ORGAfllZATIOU 



Recommendation: 

1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 

n 

12 
13 
14 
15 
1C 
17 
18 
19 
20 



SA 




U 


SA 




U 


SA 




u 


SA 




U 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 


SA 




u 



( Comments : 



380 

APPENDIX E 
PROCEDURES TO BE OBSERVED DURING THE REACTION PRESENTATIONS 



381 




DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION, AND WELFARE 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

HEALTH SERVICES ADMINISTRATION 

BOCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20852 



INDIAN HE/ 



The Honorable James Abourezk 
Chairman, American Indian Policy 

Review Commission 
United States Senate 
Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for extending to me the opportunity to comment 
on the Tentative Final Report of the American Indian 
Policy Review Commission. My comments are addressed to 
several broad areas within which fall In the recommendations 
associated with the health section of Chapter 8, 
Social Services. 

The scope and direction of the Federal Indian health 
program are molded in large measure by laws (Including 
appropriations acts), regulations, policies and other 
guides made available by the Legislative and Executive 
Branches relative to Indian health problems, and to 
professional, support, and community self-determination 
activities in the health field. The role of the Indian 
Health Service is to administer the program consistent 
with these guides. The majority of the recommendations 
in the health section relate directly to actions by the 
Congress and/or the Administration, and, therefore, are 
beyond the commentary purview of this organization. Those 
that recommend Executive Orders, Congressional consideration 
of budgetary parameters. Congressional establishment of 
organizational entitles, and those pertaining to other 
Departments are illustrative examples. Even though these 
types of recommendations are beyond our commentary purview, 
Senator Abourezk, please be assured that the IHS will 
always do its best to carry out its legislative, policy 
and other mandates. In so doing, we shall, working in 
partnership with the Indian communities and their leadership, 
endeavor to be Imaginative in administering the health 
program In ways calculated to obtain maximum value from 
all resources with which IHS is entrusted in order to 
combat the massive health problems confronting American 
Indians and Alaska Natives. 



382 



Some recommendations pertain to recent public laws. I 
am happy to report that we have, in fact, made every 
effort to Involve Indian people and Indian organizations 
In working toward successful Implementation of Public 
Law 94-437. Recently, In testimony, I Indicated that, 
up to that date, IHS had some 110 meetings with Indians In 
about 50 locations throughout the Nation regarding PL 94-437 
activities. Including regulations. Intensive communications 
will continue regarding regulations and their Implementation, 
A similar format has been followed In connection with 
Public Law 93-638. It Is my personal conviction that these 
close, cooperative efforts are Indispensable to any and 
all aspects of program management, as well as being 
consistent with the fundamentals of self-determination 
as outlined In the mandates contained In PL 93-638 and In 
PL 94-437. 

One recommendation specifically pertains to alcoholism 
projects. As indicated above, IHS will continue to do its 
best to assure that its work is carried out to the best 
of our ability, appropriate to the needs and desires of 
the Indians, and within the framework of our authorities 
and resources, present and future. 

Again, I thank you for the opportunity to read the 
Tentative Final Report , and for your Invitation to comment 
thereupon. 

Sincerely yours, 

X- ■•"' ,- 
v_^ : / 

Emery^^. Johnson, M. D. 
Assistant Surgeon General 
Director, Indian Health Service 



383 

INDIAN RIGHTS ASSOCIATION 
EVALUATION OF THE TENTATIVE FINAL REPORT 

of the 
AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION 



NAME: Bette Crouse Mele, President 

Elaine P. Lariviere, Administrator 

ORGANIZATION: Indian Rights Association, founded 1882, non- 
profit organization 

ADDRESS: 1505 Race Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102 



PRIORITY RECOMMENDATIONS 

We support the following recommendations because we believe the 
survival of American Indian communities depends on such correc- 
tive measures. 

1. TRIBAL GOVERNMENT 

Chapter 5 , Paragraph 1 , Page 5-29 

In the section beginning with the words "That the long term 

objective of Federal-Indian policy should be the development.. 

2. TRIBAL GOVERNMENT 
Chapter 5, #2, Page 5-52 

In the section beginning with the words "That Section 16 of 
the Indian Reorganization Act..." 

3. TRIBAL GOVERNMENT 
Chapter 5, #3, Page 5-53 

In the section beginning with the words "That Section 2 of . 
Title 25, U.S. Code, should be amended..." 

4. FEDERAL - INDIAN TRUST RELATIONS 
Chapter 4, III A, #1-4, Pages 4-14, 4-15 

In the section beginning with the words "In order to clarify 
and improve the administration of the Federal trust. . . " 

5. FEDERAL - INDIAN TRUST RELATIONS 
Chapter 4, III B, #1-4, Pages 4-15, 4-16 

In the section beginning with the words "Indian Trust Rights 
Impact Statement. Before any agency takes action..." 

6. FEDERAL - INDIAN TRUST RELATIONS 
Chapter 4, III D, #1-6 

In the section beginning with the words "Legal Representation 
for Indians. In order to diminish the conflict of interest... 



93-440 O - 78 - 26 



384 



7. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION 
Chapter 6, Page 131, Entire Page 

In the section beginning with the words "The Commission rec- 
ommends that: 1. The President submit to Congress..." 

8. FEDERAL ADMINISTRATION 

Chapter 6, Page 137, Last Paragraph 

In the section beginning with the words "The Commission 
recommends that: Congress establish permanent standing or 
special select committees for Indian affairs..." 

9. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

Chapter 7, Paragraph 1 , Page 7-34 

In the section beginning with the words "Congress should appro- 
priate sufficient funds..." 

10. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

Chapter 7, Pages 7-35, 7-36, #1-5 

In the section beginning with the words "To provide solutions 

for the debilitating problems..." 

11. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 

Chapter 7, Paragraph 4, Page 7-41 

In the section beginning with the words "The Secretary of the 

Interior should allow the tribes to develop..." 



RECOMMENDATIONS WITH WHICH THE INDIAN RIGHTS 
ASSOCIATION DISAGREES 



1. WATER RIGHTS 

The issue of water rights is an urgent issue. The recommenda- 
tions of the American Indian Policy Review Commission are in- 
adequate. More input is needed from water experts, and more 
emphasis must be placed on the importance of water to the 
viability of Indian reservations. 

2. WATER RIGHTS 

Hydrology reports and water resource inventories should be 
scrutinized for partiality. We believe that all are prejudiced 
and do not consider Winters Doctrine rights, present water 
flow, and future needs of Indian communities - with perhaps 
the exception of the Morrison-Merrill report done for the 
Navajo and suppressed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 

3. SEPARATE DISSENTING VIEWS OF CONGRESSMAN LLOYD MEEDS 

We disagree with the following recommendations because they 
remove from Indians the power to control territory under their 
legal title, to administer justice, to levy taxes essential to 
self-sufficiency, and to use resources that are legally theirs. 



385 



Page kz, #6 

In the section beginning with the words "I recommend that 

Congress enact legislation directly prohibiting. . . " 

Page 57, #5 

In the section beginning with the words "I recommend that 
Congress enact legislation providing that states shall have 
the same power to levy taxes..." 

Page 88, Paragraph 2 

In the section beginning with the words "I would resolve all 
doubts by recommending to the Congress the enactment of a 
statute of limitations..." 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS 
by Bette Crouse Mele 

The Indian Rights Association, founded in 1882, and having 
advocated the Dawes Act in order to assist the Indian people in 
sxiTviving a disastrous period of colonization and its attendant 
greed for land and destruction of Indian peoples, acknowledges the 
destructive impact of the Dawes Act and the allotment of Indian 
lands on Indian survival. The plan did not work out and has led 
to serious problems of jurisdiction and exploitation. Having 
gotten what they wanted back in 1887, the non- Indian came to be- 
lieve that Indigins are an expendable resource and that what is 
Indian is rightfully theirs. That mentality prevails today in the 
fonn of backlash organizations all fired up to press politicians 
for what they consider rightfully theirs. The cximate today is 
the climate that prevailed in the 1880's when Congress acted under 
pressure of popular public opinion instead of fulfilling its 
trust responsibility to the Indian people by protecting them from 
encroachments on their lands and fulfilling treaty obligations. 
The time is long overdue to advocate Indian Federal Policy instead 
of Federal Indian Policy. We see the purpose of the Commission to 
present the Indian position in the effort to correct the present 
inequities that Indians suffer as a result of long neglect of their 
legal status. 

DO YOU FEEL THE CONTENT OF THE REPORT PROVipES AN ACCURATE AND USE- 
FIjL PICTURE~ nF THE SITUATION 

Yes, it provides an accvirate and useful pictvire, considering the 
time and financial limitations under which the Commission worked. 



386 




United States Department of the Interior 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 
WASHINGTON, DC. 20240 



MAY 4 - 197? 

Honorable James Abourezk 
Chairman, American Indian Policy 

Review Commission 
United States Senate 
Washington, D. C. 20510 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for furnishing this Department, and particularly the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs, with copies of the draft of the final 
report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. We are 
also grateful for your invitation to provide input involving our 
reaction to the draft for consideration by your Commission in 
arriving at the completed product. 

In response to your request, we have given the report wide 
distribution among the Bureau's field staff, and they are 
currently studying it with the request to forward to us their 
thoughts and reactions. 

After due deliberation, however, it has been respectfully 
determined by this Department to decline to provide official 
comment on the report at this time. This position is consistent 
with that which has been recently presented in testimony before 
several committees of the Congress. It stems in part from our 
desire to in no way inhibit the Policy Review Commission in 
reporting its findings as it sees them. It also admittedly 
reflects our desire for additional time to fully measure the 
contents of the report and not prematurely react to it while we 
are still in the transition process and do not as yet fully have 
this Administration's Indian leadership on board. This is 
particularly true in respect to the vacancy of the proposed 
Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs. Further, we would like 
at this time to avoid taking an official position which might in 
any way preempt tribes across the country from arriving at their 
independent judgments concerning the report. 

In closing, we are grateful for your consideration in sharing 
the draft with us and shall be appreciative of your understanding 



387 



of our position in this matter. We look forward to working further 
with you in responding to the finalized report. 

Sincerely, 



James A. Joseph 
Under Secretary 



388 









K 



,.^<*t<^- 






389 






^'<. 






<<-,;. I 



-^)vo t?^ '^o-'iiyp^j <^t<.Lcs^ .•t_t^cw_i^ .^iLvwc i,-,^ 

//-ILt^ ^'i-lC. LL'^L-^ A'^U^- ^^lX.4-J: <.^<^~U^ ^d-CLf u^ .^ 

C'>-/1*. i^ ^ L-C -:» '^'- ''-A.- -X.<-itL ^^^d cL/. C L C- i (■ L,,> 



390 

C^l^l^-^^^Cift.*^ V^C^C^^V r»-'tc'C{f^ /u^-ttM-^-CC 



391 



Meeds Attacks 
Move for More 
Indian Powers 



By W. DALE NELSON 

WASHINGTON - (AP) - Over a 
vigorous dissent by Washington Rep. 
Lloyd Meeds, a congressional com- 
mission will recommend this week 
that Indian tribes eventually be given 
increased legal powers over both In- 
dians and non-Indians. 

"Indian tribes are governments," 
says the report by the two-year-old 
American Indian Policy Review Com- 
mission. "The federal policy must ac- 
cept the position that the supervisory 
authority it asseiis must be limited 
and flexible." 

In his 100-page dissent, Meeds, vice 
chairman of the commission, calls the 
900-page repoit "one-sided advocacy" 
seeking to "convert a romantic politi- 
cal notion into a legal doctrine." He 
adds; 

"Doing justice by Indians does not 
require doing injustices to non-Indi- 
ans. 

"American Indian tribes are not a 
third set of governments in the 
American federal system. They are 
not sovereigns. 

"If Congress should ever think it 
wise to give Indian peoples experi- 
ence in government by letting them 
practice on non-members, I predict 
we will swiftly be set straight by the 
vast majority of our constituents." 

Before his election to Congress in 
1964, Meeds served as deputy prose- 
cutor and prosecutor in Snohomish 
County which includes Indian reserva- 
tion land. 

The commission, created by Con- 
gress in 1975. is made up of five 
Indians and six members of Con- 
gress. 

Its report, due Tuesday, says tribal 
powers "spring from the tribe's own 
inherent sovereignty and can be di- 
minished only by express federal, 
not state, action." It says Indian 
sovereignty is "of the highest legal 
standing." 

Meeds argues that this "doctrine 
of inherent tribal sovereignty" has 

Back Page, Column 1 



392 



Meeds Attacks Proposal 
For More Indian Powers 



From Page A-1 

been rejected repeatedly by the Su- 
preme Court. 

At a meeting Friday, Sen. Jajnes 
Abourezk, D-S.D., chairman of the 
commission, argued Meeds was dis- 
senting to things which the report 
does not say. Abourezk said no one 
denies that the sovereignty of the 
tribes is limited by the power of 
Congress. 

The commission recommends that 
federal policy be aimed at "aiding 
the tribes in achievement of fully 
functioning governments exercising 
primary governmental authority with- 
in • the boundaries of the respective 
reservations. 

"This authority would include the 
power to adjudicate civil and crimi- 
nal matters, to regulate land use, to 
regulate natural resources such as 
fish and game and water rights, to 
issue business licenses, to impose tax- 
es, and to do any and all of those 
things which all local governments 
within the United States are presently 
doing." 

The commission recommends 
against "a broad legislative solution" 
to Indian jurisdictional disputes at 
this time but adds that "tlie growth 
and development of tribal government 
into fully functioning governments 
necessarily encompasses the exercise 
of some tribal jurisdiction over non- 
Indian people and property within 
reservation boundaries." 

"I disagree, as I think the vast 
majority of the American people 



would disagree," Meeds said in his 
dissent. 

"I recommend that Congress enact 
legislation directly prohibiting Indian 
courts from exercising criminal juris- 
diction over any person, whether 
Indian or non-Indian, who is not a 
member of the Indian tribe, which 
operates the court in question." 

The Washington congressman made 
a similar recommendation with re- 
gard to civil courts, except when a 
non-Indian defendant "expressly and 
voluntarily submits to the jurisdiction 
of the tribal court." 

The report says the Bureau of Indi- 
an Affairs suffers "a notable absence 
of managerial and organizational ca- 
pacity" and the Department of Jus- 
tice has conflicts of interest which 
"preclude adequate legal representa- 
tion of Indian trust interests." It rec- 
ommends a cabinet-level department 
or independent agency incorporating 
all government programs affecting In- 
dians. > 

It proposes that control of Indian 
education be shifted from state and 
local government to tribal govern- 
ments. 

In a proposed section to be voted 
upon tomorrow, it would also call for 
exemption of Indians on their reser- 
vations from state gasoline taxes and 
exemption of leased Indian lands 
from state mineral taxes. 

The same proposed section would 
provide that "all federal programs 
designed to benefit Indian people or 
tribes be given liberal interpretation 
in finding the intent of Congress to 
exempt them from federal taxation." 



393 



QICnHeb ^lalesi ^erxale 

WASHINGTON. DC. 20310 

June 1, 1977 



The Honorable James Abourezk 

Chairman 

Select Committee on Indian Affairs 

1105 Dirksen Senate Office Building 

Washington, D. C. 

Dear Jim: 

It was recently called to my attention that the American 
Indian Policy Review Coimiission has recommended to Congress that all 
native American tribes who have yet to be federally recognized 
receive such recognition. 

I would like to take this opportunity to express my support for 
the Tunica-Biloxi Tribe of Marksville, Louisiana, and the Houma 
Tribe of Dulac and Galliano in their bids for recognition. I hope 
you will take my support into consideration and that both tribes 
will be successful in achieving recognition. 



With kindest regards, 



Sincerely 



J ./Be 
u/ite 




J. /Bennfew: Johnston 
u/ited States Senator 



JBJ:Hbb 



394 



UNIVERSiry OF CAUFORNIA, BERKELEY 



' DAvn • nvDn • um anccu • 




BMOLET, CALIFORNIA M7S0 

April 22, 1977 



Senator James S. Abourezk 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 

Congress of the United States 

House Office Building Annex No. 2 

2d and D Streets, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review the Tentative final report 
of the American Indian Policy Review Commission. I found the report 
very Informative, It compiles a significant amt it of factual material 
that sheds light on the historical background of the relationship of 
American Indian tribes to the United States government and the con- 
temporary status of those tribes. 

There are several specific points in the report that I would like 
to comment on. One concerns the status of the Indian Civil Rights Act 
of 1968. Many Indian people and also non= Indian lawyers that I have 
talked to consider that the Indian Civil Rights Act of 1968 is an in- 
fringement on the concept c: tribal sovereignty. The report suggests 
that limitations be placed on the exercise of feaeral court jurisdiction 
in cases brought under the Civil Rights Act, and if the Act is to con- 
tinue In force, those limitations must certainly be adhered to in order 
to protect the integrity of Indian court systems. I would emphasize 
the point made in connection with the discussion of , Ltibal courts — 
that they are in a state of evolution and ire becoming increasingly 
sophisticated in areas of administration of justice where they may have 
been less prepared in the past. Indian people must also be recognized 
as being able to exercise sound and intelligent judgment as other 
Americans are given credit for that capacity. There are no inherent 
cultural limitations on the exercise of full judicial powers to assure 
justice In an Indian community. I would urge that as part of a long 
range policy, (Congress look to the repeal of the Indian Civil Rights Act 
of 1968. 

In Che area of education, I have personal concerns about the 
recommendations of the Commission in Section 8 of the report. As a 
teacher in a University setting, specifically Ir, the Native .American 
Studies program at the University of California at Berkeley, I am aware 



395 



of many of the strengths and also of the limitations of higher education 
in relation to Indian people. The recommendation of the Commission In 
the area of higher education — that funds be allocated for the develop- 
ment of more Indian controlled colleges on or near reservations — seems 
to me an unproductive use of funds unless the nature of those colleges 
is very clearly defined. I say this not becausq I feel that Indians 
should not have access to college level education but because the feasi- 
bility of establishing a network of Indian institutions of higher edu- 
cation is very low. Even in a long range plan, Indian people would 
probably not find It possible to obtain the staff necessary to operate 
such colleges. The teaching of culture and language courses can certainly 
be done by community people who do not have the typical credentials 
demanded by a non-Indian institution. But the skills that Indian people 
usually demand from a college education are those at a professional 
level that will allow those people to interact effectively with agencies 
of the federal government and with non-Indian professionals. Since 
Indian people with professional level college training and skills are so 
few in number, it would be virtually impossible to attract a large 
enough number of them from professional employment into teaching in order 
to staff high quality professionally oriented programs at Indian colleges. 
Even if those Indian colleges are certified by an Indian controlled 
accreditation agency, as is suggested, that accreditation would not 
necessarily be accepted by general accrediting agencies, and the degrees 
from those colleges would not allow their holders to interact effectively 
with the non-Indian world. If there is any way to make college education 
more accessible to INdians, it is in the area of financial aids, i.e., 
more scholarships and more effectively administered scholarship programs 
in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. I must point out that I am distinguish- 
ing college education from purely vocational or purely culture-oriented 
education. I think that Indian controlled colleges can exist where they 
offer training at the vocational level for career opportunities and where 
courses in language and culture are offered at the personal improvement 
level. I do not think that Indian controlled colleges can truly pro- 
gress to the level of offering four year professional degrees that will 
equip their graduates to deal effectively with non-Indian communities so 
as to obtain the greatest benefits for Indian communities. 

Another point raised in the report is that Indians are often forced 
to seek services through federal domestic assistance programs that are 
administered through state agencies — thus subjecting Indians to rules 
and restrictions imposed by states. I have been a member for the past 
two years of a government advisory committee, the National Community 
Education Advisory Council, which advises the U.S. Office of Education on 
the implementation of the Community Schools Act (a special amendment to 
the Elementary and Secondary School Act) that was passed in 197A. The 
Act provides funding for programs above and beyond the regular school pro- 
gram. Those programs are intended to meet specific community based needs 
or desires. The Act designates Local or State Educational Agencies (as 
defined in E.S.E.A.) as eligible applicants. Since Indian tribes and the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs do not fall under this definition, Indian controlled 
schools are excluded from the provisions of this act. The sum of money 



396 



available for the Community Schools Act Is snail ($3.5 million In fiscal 
year 1977) and the number of applicants possible Is very large. Some 
people (notably Congressman Meeds, with whom I have corresponded about 
this matter) , feel that adding Indian tribes and the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs as potential grantees would simply be adding more people to an 
already too large pool of potential applicants. Another argument that has 
been raised is that Indians who attend public schools can be served through 
their local schools (although local public school districts are not always 
sympathetic to local Indian people) . If Indian people in communities that 
are predominantly Indian make requests through local public school districts 
they face the situation of being bound by state regulations or procedures 
that might affect the success of their request. Given the inadequate bud- 
get of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to meet all of the basic educational 
needs of Indian people, it would seem that Indian people ought to be 
eligible for whatever supplemental funding they can generate. The Com- 
missioner of Education and the Commissioner of Indian Affairs have agreed 
in principle that it would be desirable to include Indian tribes and 
the Bureau in the language in the Community Schools Act that defines 
eligible applicants. The Bureau could certainly provide some of the 
matching funds that the community Schools Act requires of its grantees, 
and Dr. William Demmert, director of Education for the Bureau, told me in 
a personal conversation that the Bureau was making some commitment to 
community education by including facilities for community meetings and 
activities in its plans for new school buildings. I would point out that 
the matter of the Community Schools Act is an example of the way in which 
Indians are overlooked in the process of drawing up legislation in the 
Congress. I would suggest a policy to Congress — that it consider whether 
Indians can be included in the language defining recipients of benefits 
of all social service and educational legislation. This policy would 
certainly seem to be consistent with the intent of the Indian Self- 
Determination and Education Improvement Act. 

Finally, I feel compelled to comment upon Congressman Meeds' dissent- 
ing view to the Commission's report. He accuses the report of taking an 
advocacy position in regard to Indians because it operates from the 
premise that Indian tribes are sovereign entitles. He denies the legiti- 
macy of the report because it works from this basic premise. He denies 
the validity of that premise by simply interpreting much of the same 
evidence presented in the report from his own viewpoint, rather than 
offering significant new evidence to contradict the findings of the Com- 
mission. He is proceeding only from his own assumption concerning sover- 
eignty. In the past American Indians were subjected to policy that was 
based upon the assumption that Indians were not distinct entitles from 
the United States. The fact was overlooked that Indian tribes were not 
signatories to the U.S. Constitution. If Congressman Meeds denies the 
right of Indian tribes to assume jurisdiction over non-Indians on reser- 
vations because that would constitute lack of consent of those governed, 
he must also recognize that Indian tribes have been subjected to a long 
historical process of exactly that kind of treatment. This point is not 
necessarily to asset the specific right of Indian tribal jurisdiction over 



397 



non-Indians but to point out one of the seeming contradictions in Con- 
gressman Meeds' position. I feel that the Commission's report does an 
excellent job of pointout out the historical factors influencing past 
Indian policy. If the influence on policy now can be the informed 
opinions of Indian people, then Indian tribes can begin to assert that 
sovereignty that inheres to them as the original inhabitants of this 
country. 



Clara Sue Kidwell 
Associate Professor 



BOX 172 

KODIAK.ALASKA 99615 
PHONE (907)486-5726 



398 

KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASS OCIATIO N 

April 15, 1977 



The Honorable James S. Abourezk re: aiPRC's tentative Final Report 

Chairman 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 

Congress of the United States 

House Office Building Annex No. 2 

2D & D Streets, SW 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk and Committee Members : 

The following is a tentative report to be presented at the Kodiak 
Area Native Association Annual Membership Meeting, April 27, 1977. 
A final report shall follow after the Annual Meeting. 

This document represents the list of recommendations developed by the 
Review Committee of The Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) Board of 
Directors, who met on April 5-7, 1977. The Committee felt that the 
peculiar concerns and problems of Alaskan Natives , resulting from their 
separate history and the recent enactment of the Alaska Native Claims 
Settlement Act should be made known to the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission, prior to the submission of its report to the United States 
Congress. 

It is the position of the Committee that the Findings and Recommendations 
contained in Chapter 12 of the Commission's report governing the special 
circumstances of Alaskan Natives is on balance, a well considered and 
appropriate statement. Additionally, the findings and recommendations 
contained in the main body of the report are likewise accepted and sup- 
ported. Accordingly the Board of Directors of KANA endorses the Commi- 
ssion's findings and recommendations, subject to such further 
qualifications and additions as hereafter set forth. 

1. Because of the uncertainty regarding the construction of the Land 
Claims Legislation, it is now difficult to determine to what extent 
Alaska Natives have the same status and relational problems as do 
outside tribes. Certainly a number of those problems are the same 
or similar. But there is no question that the problems of Native 
status in Alaska and the relationship of Alaska Natives with the gov- 
ernment and private persons will be shaped by the amendment, or lack 
of amendment, to the Land Claims legislation, as well as its inter- 
pretation. 

2. In the Kodiak area private individuals, including Native Alaskans 
themselves, do not clearly distinguish between the regional profit 
making corporation, (Koniag, Inc.), the non-profit association 

(KANA) , individual village corporations established by the Act, 
and municipal governments associated with particular rural areas. 



399 



3. It is the Native People of the Kodiak area and not the government 
who can and should decide who comprise the various tribes associa- 
ted with the area, irrespective of any determinations to the 
contrary by the Secretary of the Interior in conjunction with the 
administration of the Land Claims Act. 

4. The Land Claims Legislation recognized groupings of Alaskan Natives 
by geographic area, but does not necessarily overlap with the tra- 
ditional ethnic groupings of Alaska Native people. 

5. Federal and state laws should generally apply equally to American 
Indian people, irrespective of whether individuals reside in reser- 
vations or in the general community, and irrespective of whether the 
government deems certain tribes to have "adequately" developed govern- 
mental structures. 

6. Both the lack of a clear definition of "tribe" and related words in 
the Indian Self Determination and Educational Assistance Act, and 
similar acts, and the failure to develop clear administrative stand- 
ards for interpreting the acts have impeded their legislative intent 
and the distribuation of benefits that Congress envisioned in passing 
the laws . 

7. These definitional problems pertain to the question: "With what 
entity should the federal government deal in transmitting benefits 
and responsibilities under the legisilation?" We recommend now that 
KANA as a larger umbrella organization of the Kodiak tribes, as a 
repository of sovereign tribal power, (and because it has thus far 
developed administrative expertise), be the primary recipient of 
federal funds designed to be used for service and grant oriented 
programs. Federal grants, such as money to construct community 
halls or health clinics, because they are tied to a specific pur- 
pose will often be channeled to village tribal entities by KANA 
when village concerns and individuality can be more clearly expres- 
sed through basic tribal structures. Decisions as to when to involve 
specific tribal entities in the control of a particular grant can be 
made effectively by the KANA board because it is composed of a repre- 
sentative from each of the tribal entities in the area, and each 
board member is directly accountable to his or her specific tribe. 

8. Municipal governments and Corporations (both regional and village) 
that have been set up under the land claims settlement act are inap- 
propriate groups to be labeled "tribe" because of their potential 
for non-Native control. If it is not recognized that village cor- 
porations are not the same as sovereign tribal entities, there is a 
substantial possibility that at the end of the 20 year period of 
"inalienability" of land claims stock, many persons will view Alaskan 
Natives as terminated as a separate sovereign people through assimi- 
lation into the corporate mainstream of American business affairs. 

9. It is essential to recognize now that the Land Claims legislation may 
have as a purpose the termination of Native people as sovereign per- 



93-440 O - 78 - 27 



400 



sons in a larger society. Accordingly, we recognize ourselves as 
being sovereign and the federal government must also recognize our 
sovereignty. 

10. The status of Alaska Natives is in reality tied to the interpretation 
given the Land Claims Act, and to whether it is viewed as a device to 
effect termination of Alaska Natives as tribal members. 

11. There are a substantial number of Native Alaskans who do not view the 
Land Claims Settlement as terminating their aboriginal rights to the 
land because the process by which the Land Claims Act was approved did 
not involve the representative approval of Alaska's Native People 
with full knowledge of the terms and potential effects of the act. No 
matter what legislation is passed by Congress, the Alaskan Native 
people remain in control of their land and their lives and thus their 
sovereignty. To the extent that they accept the land, money, and 
programs of the federal government, they accept them as a sovereign 
equal in stature to the federal government. 

12. Findings and Recommendations of the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission Report pertaining to the need for land claims supplemental 
legislation were affirmed in full as follows: 

Findings: 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14 through pages 12-29 through 12-30. 

Recommendations: 3-7, 9, & 12 on pages 12-31 through 12-34. 

13. The federal government's "definition" of h Native blood to qualify 
for federal social and welfare programs and to become enrolled under 
the Land Claims Act, exemplifies its usurpation of Alaskan Natives' 
sovereign right to determine their own status. 

14. It is essential that provision be made for the government to reimburse 
Native Alaskans when litigation is necessary to protect their rights; 
otherwise a large portion of the settlement monies will continue to 
end up with lawyers and other professionals, rather than with the in- 
tended beneficiaries. 

15. Whether or not attorney's fees are made recoverable by statute 
through amendment to the Land Claims legislation, it is generally in 
the interest of Alaska Natives to resolve a large number of the issues 
presented by the AIPRC findings and these recommendations through 
federal legislation, rather than through litigation. 

16. Land Claims legislation purported to substitute established rights to 
approximately 40 million acres of land for unliquidated aboriginal 
title. But even viewing the legislation most favorable towards the 
federal government, it was an exchange of equal value. Thus it should 
not and can not result in the diminution of social services which are 
traditionally the federal government's responsibility, and which re- 
main desperately needed by Alaskan Natives. They must remain elegible 



401 



to receive the benefits of existing and future legislation to promote 
Indian development and welfare. 

L7. Even though Kodiak Area Natives are not directly impacted by the D-2 
issue, we feel it is critical to take a pro-subsistence stand. It 
is vital to the subsistence life style of Alaskan Natives who retain 
it, that large areas of land be undisturbed if subsistence hunting, 
trapping, collecting and fishing are to remain viable. The federal 
government and the state government must recognize this in developing 
legislation and administrative regulations pertaining to the land not 
conveyed directly to Alaskan Natives, or to the corporations under 
the act. 

L8. Federal legislation impacting Native subsistence uses such as the 

Marine Mammal Protection Act needs to be studied to develop a unifonn 
policy to protect Native subsistence uses as a first priority. Con- 
gress should consider legislation to guarantee that states do not have 
authority to infringe on Native hunting, fishing, and other subsis- 
tence uses. 

L9. Various alternatives should now be considered with regard to the 
eventual taxation of lands conveyed under the act. There is no 
reason why all the lands - some of which will end up in individual 
ownership - must have the same tax incidents. Similarly, various 
alternatives must be considered as to when taxation should begin; 
20 years after passage of the Act, 20 or more years after actual con- 
veyance and permanent exempt status are all possibilities. In any 
case, extension of the current exemption must be considered immedia- 
tely to assure informed and orderly planning. The commission's rec- 
ommendations that land which is not leased can regain such exempt 
status if it is no longer productive of income, must be considered 
seriously. 

20. Identical concerns are presented by the prospective alienability of 
stock under the Land Claims Act. It is our position that here too, 
some extension of time past the 1991 deadline is necessary due to 
the delay in the conveyance of land to the village and regional cor- 
porations. Immediate attention should be devoted to the study, of 
these problems rather than delaying their consideration until not 
later than 1989 (see recommendation 11, page 12-34) . 

Thank you for the opportunity to submit these recommendations on the 
Final Report. 

Sincerely, 

KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION 
Henry F. Eaton, President 



^rv^ujd^.^^XcM^^ 



Frank R, Peterson 
FRP:lb Executive Director 

cc: Board of Directors 



402 



KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION 



BOX 172 

KODIAK.ALASKA 99615 
PHONE: (907) 486-5726 



May 2, 1977 



The Honorable James S. Abourezk 

Chairman 

American Indian Policy Review Commission 

Congress of the United States 

House Office Building Annex No. 2 

2d S. D Streets, SW 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 



On behalf of the members, directors and staff of the Kodiak Area Native 
Association, I wish to submit herewith KANA's Convention Resolution No. 
77 C-7 and the final review comments to the Tentative Final Report of 
the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Please be apprised that 
these comments were developed by review of the Tentative Final Report 
in its entirety by the board of directors, a review committee of the 
board and the Convention Resolutions Committee prior to consideration 
by the membership in convention on April 27, 1977. 



You are hereby respectfully requested to add the attached resolution. 
Number 77 C-7, with the twenty enumerated comments to the Final Report 
of the American Indian Policy Review Commission prior to its submission 
to the U. S. Congress. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to participate in the development 
and refinement of an historic document by the Commissioners, task force 
groups and staff of the AIPRC. 

Sincerely, 



KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION 
;on. President 




•"rank R. Peterson 
Executive Director 



FRP:lb 

cc: Senator Ted Stevens 

Senator Mike Gravel 

Congressman Don Young 

Commissioner John Borbridge, Jr. 

Byron Mallott, President, AFN 

Board of Directors 

Tundra Times 

Matt Jamin 
Enc: As Stated 



403 



KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASS OCIATION 

BOX 172 

KODIAK, ALASKA 99615 

PHONE: (907) 486-5726 



RESOLUTION NO. 7 7 C-7 
Response to the American Indian Policy Review Conunission Report 



WHEREAS, the Kodiak Area Native Association has been asked by the 

American Indian Policy Review Commission to review the Com- 
mission's Tentative Report to Congress; and 

WHEREAS, the Kodiak Area Native Association Board of Directors has 
met for three days to consider the Commission's report and 
has developed its own findings and recommendations to sup- 
plement those of the Commission; and 



the Board has generally accepted 
Commission; and 



the recommendations of the 



WHEREAS, the Board has presented its own recommendations to the KANA 
membership on April 26 & April 27 for final review at the 
annual membership meeting and presented its tentative views 
to the commission on April 15; and 

WHEREAS, the membership has agreed that the following recommendations 
are accepted as the findings and recommendations to the 
American Indian Policy Review Commission; 

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT the attached findings and recom- 
mendations are adopted as the response of the Kodiak Area 
Native Association to the Report of the American Indian 
Policy Commission. 



Dated this 



day of y!^,/ 




April 27, 1977 Convention Resolution: Do Pass 



404 

KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION 



BOX 172 

KODIAK.ALASKA 99615 
PHONE: (907)486-5726 

FINAL COMMENTS & RECOMMENDATIONS 

ON THE 

AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION'S TENTATIVE FINAL REPORT 

FROM THE 

KODIAK AREA NATIVE ASSOCIATION 

April 27, 1977 

The following is the final review comments considered and adopted by 
the Kodiak Area Native Association Annual Membership Meeting, April 
27, 1977. 

This document represents the list of recommendations developed by the 
Review Committee of the Kodiak Area Native Association (KANA) Board 
of Directors, who met on April 5-7, 1977 and the membership in conven- 
tion April 26 & 27, 1977. The Committee felt that the peculiar concerns 
and problems of Alaskan Natives, resulting from their separate history 
and the recent enactment of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act 
should be made known to the American Indian Policy Review Commission, 
prior to the submission of its report to the United States Congress. 

It is the position of the Kodiak Area Native Association that the Find- 
ings and Recommendations contained in Chapter 12 of the Commission's 
report governing the special circumstances of Alaskan Natives is on 
balance, a well considered and appropriate statement. Additionally, 
the findings and recommendations contained in the main body of the 
report are likewise accepted and supported. Accordingly the KANA en- 
dorses the Commission's findings and recommendations with the following 
additional comments and recommendations : 

1. Because of the uncertainty regarding the construction of the Land 
Claims Legislation, it is now difficult to determine to what extent 
Alaska Natives have the same status and relational problems as do 
outside tribes. Certainly a number of those problems are the same 
or similar. But there is no question that the problems of Native 
status in Alaska and the relationship of Alaska Natives with the 
government and private persons will be shaped by the amendment, or 
lack of amendment, to the Land Claims legislation, as well as its 
interpretation. 

2. In the Kodiak area private individuals, including Native Alaskans 
themselves, do not clearly distinguish between the regional profit 
making corporation, (Koniag, Inc.), the non-profit association 

(KANA) , individual village corporations established by the Act, 
and municipal governments associated with particular rural areas. 



405 



3. It is the Native People of the Kodiak area and not the government 
who can and should decide who comprise the various tribes associa- 
ted with the area, irrespective of any determinations to the 
contrary by the Secretary of the Interior in conjunction with the 
administration of the Land Claims Act. 

4. The Land Claims Legislation recognized groupings of Alaskan natives 
by geographic area, but does not necessarily overlap with the tra- 
ditional ethnic groupings of Alaska Native people. 

5. Federal and state laws should generally apply equally to American 
Indian people, irrespective of whether individuals reside in reser- 
vations or in the general community, and irrespective of whether 
the government deems certain tribes to have "adequately" developed 
governmental structures. 

6. Both the lack of a clear definition of "tribe" and related words in 
the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, and 
similar acts, and the failure to develop clear administrative stand- 
ards for interpreting the acts have impeded their legislative intent 
and the distribution of benefits that Congress envisioned in passing 
the laws. 

7. These definitional problems pertain to the question: "With what 
entity should the federal government deal in transmitting benefits 
and responsibilities under the legislation?" We recommend now that 
KANA as a larger umbrella organization of the Kodiak tribes, as a 
repository of sovereign tribal power, (and because it has thus far 
developed administrative expertise) , be the primary recipient of 
federal funds designed to be used for service and grant oriented 
programs. Federal grants, such as money to construct community 
halls or health clinics, because they are tied to a specific pur- 
pose will often be channeled to village tribal entities by KANA 
when village concerns and individuality can be more clearly expres- 
sed through basic tribal structures. Decisions as to when to involve 
specific tribal entities in the control of a particular grant can be 
made effectively by the KANA board because it is composed of a repre- 
sentative from each of the tribal entities in the area, and each 
board member is directly accountable to his or her specific tribe. 

8. Municipal governments and Corporations (both regional and village) 
that have been set up under the land claims settlement act are inap- 
propriate groups to be Icibeled "tribe" because of their potential 
for non-Native control. If it is not recognized that village cor- 
porations are not the same as sovereign tribal entities, there is 

a substantial possibility that at the end of the 20 year period of 
"inalienability" of land claims stock, many persons will view Alas- 
kan Natives as terminated as a separate sovereign people through 
assimilation into the corporate mainstream of American business 
affairs. 



406 



9. It is essential to recognize now that the Land Claims legislation 
may have as a purpose the termination of Native people as sovereign 
persons in a larj^er society. Accordingly, we recognize ourselves 
as being sovereign and the federal government must also recognize 
our sovereignty. 

10. The status of Alaska Natives is in reality tied to the interpretation 
given the Land Claims Act, and to whether it is viewed as a device 

to effect termination of Alaska Natives as tribal members. 

11. There are a substantial number of Native Alaskans who do not view 
the Land Claims Settlement as terminating their aboriginal rights 
to the land because the process by which the Land Claims Act was 
approved did not involve the representative approval of Alaska's 
Native People with full knowledge of the terms and potential effects 
of the act. No matter what legislation is passed by Congress, the 
Alaskan Native people remain in control of their land and their lives 
and thus their sovereignty. To the extent that they accept the land, 
money, and programs of the federal government, they accept them as 

a sovereign equal in stature to the federal government. 

12. Findings and Recommendations of the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission Report pertaining to the need for land claims supplemental 
legislation were affirmed in full as follows: 

Findings: 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13 & 14 through pages 12-29 through 12-30. 

Recommendations: 3-7, 9 & 12 on pages 12-31 through 12-34. 

13. The federal government's "definition" of h Native blood to qualify 
for federal social and welfare programs and to become enrolled under 
the Land Claims Act, exemplifies its usurpation of Alaskan Natives' 
sovereign right to determine their own status. 

14. It is essential that provision be made for the government to reimburse 
Native Alaskans when litigation is necessary to protect their rights; 
otherwise a large portion of the settlement monies will continue to 
end up with lawyers and other professionals, rather than with the in- 
tended beneficiaries. 

15. Whether or not attorney's fees are made recoverable by statute through 
amendment to the Land Claims legislation, it is generally in the 
interest of Alaska Natives to resolve a large number of the issues 
presented by the AIPRC findings and these recommendations through 
federal legislation, rather than through litigation. 

16. Land Claims legislation purported to substitute established rights 

to approximately 40 million acres of land for unliquidated aboriginal 
title. But even viewing the legislation most favorably towards the 
federal government, it was an exchange of equal value. Thus it 
should not and can not result in the diminution of social services 



40; 



which are traditionally the federal government's responsibility, 
and which remain desperately needed by Alaskan Natives. They 
must remain eligible to receive the benefits and future legisla- 
tion to promote Indian development and welfare. 

Even though Kodiak Area Natives are not substantially impacted by 
the D-2 issue, we feel it is critical to take a pro-subsistence 
stand. It is vital to the subsistence life style of Alaskan 
Natives who retain it, that large areas of land be undisturbed if 
subsistence hunting, trapping, collecting and fishing are to re- 
main viable. The federal government and the state government must 
recognize this in developing legislation and administrative regu- 
lations pertaining to the land not conveyed directly to Alaskan 
Natives, or to the corporations under the act. 

Federal legislation impacting Native subsistence uses such as the 
Marine Mammal Protection Act needs to be studied to develop a uni- 
form policy to protect Native subsistence uses as a first priority. 
Congress should consider legislation to guarantee that states do 
not have authority to infringe on Native hunting, fishing, and 
other subsistence uses. 

Various alternatives should now be considered with regard to the 
eventual taxation of lands conveyed under the act. There is no 
reason why all the lands - some of which will end up in individual 
ownership - must have the same tax incidents. Similarly, various 
alternatives must be considered as to when taxation should begin; 
20 years after passage of the Act, 20 or more years after actual 
conveyance and permanent exempt status are all possibilities. In 
any case, extension of the current exemption must be considered 
immediately to assure informed and orderly planning. The commis- 
sion's recommendations that land which is not leased can regain 
such exempt status if it is no longer productive of income, must 
be considered seriously. 

Identical concerns are presented by the prospective alienability of 
stock under the Land Claims Act. It is our position that here too, 
some extension of time past the 1991 deadline is necessary due to 
the delay in the conveyance of land to the village and regional 
corporations. Immediate attention should be devoted to the study, 
of these problems rather than delaying their consideration until 
not later than 1989 (see recommendation 11, page 12-34). 



408 



RESOLUTION NO. 21-77 



WHEREAS, The Pueblo of Laguna has had a short briefing of the "Tentative 
Final Report" of the American Indian Policy Review Commission and, 

WHEREAS, The All Indian Pueblo Council has made a special report to the 
Commission citing long standing positions of our Pueblo interests and 
making specific Recommendations, and 

WHEREAS, The American Indian Policy Review Commission was charged with the 
responsibility of soliciting Indian Opinion throughout the Course of its 
life. 

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED, that the Pueblo of Laguna is in complete accord 
with the Commission Recommendations on the following major elements. 

1. That The Federal Government recognize its legal obligation as Trustee 
for American Indian Tribes as long as any tribe determines the need 
exists and that no unilateral action of the U.S. Congress would 
terminate a Tribe. 

2. That Tribal Self-Governments be recognized by Congress through legis- 
lation to be sovereign governmental entities with rights and powers 
concommitant to those currently enjoyed by states and the Federal Gov- 
ernment in all phases of American life, ie, socially, economically, 
and politically. 

3. That Tribal Sovereignty be recognized to the mutual benefit of the 
Tribe, the State and Federal Government that equality of opportunity 
may be as available to American Indians as to the Non-Indian. 

4. That the Federal Government recognize this special relation to Americar 
Indian Tribes, and that a single Agency Prime Agent be designated as 
Trustee recognizing that the Trust Responsibility is a Federal service 
wide obligation. 

5. That the Prime Agent be provided a separate legal staff , apart from 
the Interior Solicitors Office, which can represent the Prime Agent 
and Indian Tribes without intergovernmental Conflicts of Interest. 
Furthermore, that Congress appropriate funds for the hiring of private 
attorneys by Tribes. 

6. That additional delegated authority be provided the Agency Superinten- 
dents to allow the decision making process to be accomplished at the 
level where Tribal Government decisions are made. 

7. That additional Agencies be provided to minimize the uncooperative 
competition created among tribes of multi-Tribal Agencies when program 
projects and funding priority problems must be jointly determined. 



409 



8. That a zero based budget be utilized to avoid perpetuation of un- 
balanced priorities by using percentage adjustments in the Band 
Analysis. 

9. That Banded and unbanded line items be eliminated to permit freedom 
of expression by Tribal Governments as to its own priorities of 
work as well as Capital Improvements. 

10. That Tribal long Range Plans be utilized in developing annual fund 
requirements. 

11. That Personnel Management and Indian Preference be revised to establish 
a fair and equitable Indian Career Service recognizing Indian Cultural 
qualifications on a par with Non-Indian qualifications and equal pay 
for equal work, and under Self-Determination allow flexibility and 
provisions to permit selection of properly qualified employees, esp- 
ecially when Tribes are the primary hiring authorities. 

12. That Reservation Protection, enhancement and Development be a portion 
of the Trust Responsibility Contractable to the Tribes with only plan 
review and approval reserved to the Trustee, v/here capabilities of 
the local Tribe is judged qualified according to mutually agreeable 
criteria. 

13. That Educational Opportunities be provided to the American Indians 
equal to the Non-Indians including vo-4:ech. Crafts, Academic degrees 
including professional degrees through scholarship as an entitlement 
rather than as a supplemental provision to all other aids. 

14. That Health Care Standards available to Non-Indians be provided Indians 
through P.L. 93-638 and P.L. 94-437 being applied strictly according 

to the intent of Congress, ie. to allow greater Tribal participation 
in the programming and developing services equal to meet the needs 
(638), and to meet the normal standards through adequate appropriation 
prior to the use of special accelerated funds provided under (94-437). 

15. That Congressional Review treat significant major subjects of Indian 
Affairs separately instead of as a single omnibus action of Congress, 

so Reports, Bills hearings and Tribal review can be specific, deliberate 
with the capability of acting responsibly to support legislation 
considered appropriate and oppose legislation considered inappropriate 
and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT: 

1. That the recommendations regarding establishment of a separate Depart- 
ment for Indian Affairs be held in abeyance until a complete report 

of the Activities considered appropriate to consolidate therein and t 
the Organizational effect tDn Tribal Governments and the Trust Respon- 
sibility be made a separate subject for Tribal Review and recommendations. 

2. That Internal Organizational changes of the present BIA Organization 

of Central Office, Area Offices, and Agencies be a process of evaluation 
of need and periodic appraisal as to the proper and necessary role to 
adequately serve Indian Tribes. 



410 



Done at a duly held meeting of the Council of tlje Pueblo of Laguna on 
April 26, 1977. 



Governor 







CERTIFICATION 

I hereby certify that at a duly called meeting of the Council of the 
Pueblo of Laguna held on ^^^ d ay of /?P/f// , 1977 at which a quorum 
was present, the foregoing was adopted, ^.z? v oting for and /!? 
opposed. / "^ 



ATTEST: 



3ecreta 



« L£^ 



Governor C/ 




'.^a:U£>^L^ 



411 



March 23, 1977 



Sen. James Abourezk: 



This letter is in reference to your membership on the Merican Indian Policy 
Review Comm., from which you are submitting a 100 point recommendation list to 
Congress on May 13th. These recommendations include that Indian reservations 
be considered a type of soverign nation and have the right to tax non-indians 
& also to try non-indians in tribal coarts. 

We own and farm 3^0 acres located one mile inside the boundaries of the" so 
called" Leech Lake reservation in northern Minnesota. Our lands have federal 
homestead deed titles, and have never been owned by Indians, We have no intention 
whatsoever of ever paying taxes to Indians or of being governed by their laws. 
We are Americans and these federal homestead deeds were granted to us as Americans— 
no where does it say the land is part of a reservation and subject to indian law, 
or being part of a soverign nation as you would have it. 

Our fathers and brothers have fought for America to protect all of our rights 
under the constitution which includes ownership of land, are you now going to 
spit in their faces and tell us all their fighting and dying was in vain; that 
you are now going to surrender our rights and privileges as Americnas, our land, 
and everything else we value, and let the Indians decide what we will do and not 
do. 

If you are going to set different laws for us, then the federal government is 
guilty of issuing false or misrepresented deeds of which we purchased in good 
faith of their soundness, and that of living and being treated like any other 
American. These deeds state in no way whatsoever that this land would be part 
of a soverign nation, and be subject to taxes set by indian law and that we, as 
landowners, would have to be tryed in tribal courts. (In fact, they state the 
land is ours forever ) 

If you proceed with subjecting us to indian dictatorship, then the federal 
government is obligated to buy the land that it granted homestead deeds too, 
that it now says is a reservation. It would have to purchase the land at the 
going rate, which in our ares is I'WO. per acre plus buildings and improvements. 
We do not wish to move, when our fathers and grandfathers have farmed this land 
before us, when this land is legally ours; but if you take away our right to decide 
our own destiny and replace it with indian rule, then we will have no choice but 
to require the federal government to purchase the many, many thousands of acres . 
of land at the rate today' s land is selling for. !four only alternative is to make 
federal homesteaded land exempt from being part of a reservation and part of your 
recommendations. 

An immediate reply is requested as to your decision on our federa]. homesteaded 
deeds. 

Sincerely, ^ 

Dale & Bonnie Lembke 

Route One 

Cass Lake, Mn. 56633 



412 



We reocjgnize that you nay not be able to thorouc^y read and evaluate all parts 
of this F^xart within the time cillcwed for oomnent. Bowever, in order to 
inclvde your cxmnents in our Final Report, this questionnciire nust be cxxipleted 
and returned in the enclosed envelope postmarked no later than ;^il 16, 1977. 
Our Pinal H^xart nust be cxrpleted by May 15, 1977 for final Comnission approval. 

7^vT A. Lt 1/ f^^STO^ ADDRES S /^^///>yv?^ ^AL . 

TRIBE/ORGANIZATION ^^^^.^^^j^^^^g^/ isS/S mf^CC C^?^/^ 

A. PLEASE CIRCIE ONE TO INDICaiE TOUR IDEMTITy AS ; 

Tribal Chairman Tribal Governing Body individual Indian^ 

Member of Congress Organizational Governing Board 
State Official Private Citizen 

B. PLEASE EVALUATE THE SECTIOMS BY GHECKING THE HLftNK WHICH MOST NEARLY 
REPRESENTS YOUR OPINICN. 



The report as a v*iole is 

I. History 

II. Legal Concepts 

III. Conditions 

IV. Federal- Indian Relations 

V. Tribal Govemnent 

VI. Federal Administration 

VII. Eooncmic Development 
VIII. Social Services 

rx. Off-Reservation 

X. Teraiinated Indians 

XI. Non-Reoognized Indians 



XII. Special Problem Areas t-^ 
XIII. General i^ 



413 



C. aVVPC HERD THE RBOOMEMPftTICMS AT THE EMD CF EftCH SECTICM, PI£ASE WBtCR 
THE FOLDCWING QUEglTCMS . 

1) Which recxxmiendaticjns should be given priority status? Why? 



2) Are there reocrinendaticjns vd.th which you disagree? Wl^y? Vc J « 

/ OoA/'r r&e^ THAT ^DucAVoA/ ca A^y or Ti^^n 

3) Are there reccnmendations you would lite to have added? 



4) Do you feel tte content of the report provides an accurate, use&il 
picture of the situation? 



U^^fT/j/L fPfir^/J^. T y/1/ T-MiT Aif/S7^3Py O^ 

5) Do you have any additional cements? J CA^^aT' S£Ce/veyl£' ff^ 

fA inokxTy Repo/sx toity TH£ ^rAT£WfT?rns op sa c ^ 

F. SPACE IS PROVIDED CM THE FOLLOWING PAtSS FOR YOUR SPECIFIC REXXWEMDftTICMS. 



414 



NAM E S ^U^r ////^^Srf^ ACORESS / ^fi /^£^A»0 ^A^C /jcg f^^^ 

■naBE/OBGfiNIZflTICN A/fi ^f^^^^ C/^S/^ £' ^^*" " 

RBCCmEMDftnCNS 
Qi^xter ( ) Page ( ) Paragraph ( ) 

In ^ secao^b'grji^y^fe the wordT" Se>*^^'^£^f6^ 

," it is suggested that the follc««diig 



change in vrordlng be made, nr tJta fttUgvring mnr e rt i n r pr rii- ni 

UP m ^y m/^^s- , r?/^/Let{y ^smn^/sM/A/^s- 77/e 



/^rf^ .><^^^ 



_,_, 




415 

EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT 



Edwin Eowarc 

Governor 



April 19, 1977 



Honorable James S. Abourezk 

Chairman 

American Indian Policy 

Review Commission 
House Office Building 
Annex No. 2 
Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Thank you for your recent memorandum enclosing a copy of 
the Commission's "tentative" Final Report. I have reviewed 
this report and offer the following comments. 

The sections concerning off-reservation Indians and unrecog- 
nized Indians were found to be the most relevant to Indians 
of Louisiana. 

Concerning of f -reservation Indians (Chapter 9) , I concur 
with the recommendations for urban centers, employment, 
housing, and health. 

I also agree with all of the findings, recommendations, 
and policy needs determined by the Commission relevant 
to nonrecognized tribes (Chapter 11). I do, however, strongly 
support immediate federal recognition of all authentic 
native American tribes, especially the four nonrecognized 
groups in Louisiana: the Houma Alliance, the Houma Tribe 
Incorporated, the Jena Band of Choctaws, and the Tunica- 
Biloxi Tribe. 

Again, I appreciate the opportunity for input in the Com- 
mission's report. 



Sincerely, 



^^S^& 



e 



416 



pctic "Technologic Assistance Corporation 

15B25 SHADY GROVE ROAD, ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20850 Telephone 301 948 7400 



April 25, 1977 



Mr. Peter Taylor 

Indian Policy Review Commission 

Washington, D.C. 



Dear Mr. Taylor: 

Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to respond to the tentative 
reconmendations of the commission. In my opinion the commission has 
done a spendid job. 

In making the recommendations (attached) that the U.S. claim for 
dominion over the Northern Eskimo people be examined in the light of 
historic fact, I realize that I have kicked at a hornet's nest, 
potentially more significant than the claims of the Maine Indians. 

While I have the title of "Scientific and Technical Advisor" to the 
Mayor of the Ilorth Slope Borough I have not had time to coordinate 
these recommended changes with Mayor Mopson and it is offered to the 
Commission from myself as a private citizen. 

The sponsorship, I think, is of secondary importance to the truth of 
the statements. In that the Commissions task is to reveal the true 
nature of U.S. relations with native peoples this recommendation is 
respectfully submitted for your consideration. 

cerely. 



/^ 



ames H. McAlear, Ph.D. 



e 



417 



nctic Technologic Assistance Corporation 

15BS5 SHADY GROVE ROAD. ROCKVILLE. MARYLAND 20B50 Telephone 301 948 7400 



RECOMMENDED CHANGE, Chapter 12.2 Paragraph 3 should read 

The treaty under which the United States claimed dominion over Alaska , . . 
The basis for this change is as follows: 

1. Russia did not occupy all of Alaska, only some coastal areas as far 
north as Fort St. Michael. (See P.J. Anderson, Arctic Bulletin, 1973). 

2. The Alaskan Arctic was a terra incognita to the European powers but 
was occupied and defended by a civilization related to those called 
Mongolian in Asia. These people had no knowledge of claims to their 
land and recognized none other than themselves as soverign over It. 

3. The United States knew that Russia had no more claim to dominion over 
the Arctic than the U.S. recognition of the claim in an earlier treaty. 

4. The United States did not attempt to impose its dominion over the 
Arctic until World War II and its claim was stale in the same sense 
as Mr. MeedS feels Indian claims to treaty rights are stale. 

5. The Inupiat have continuously questioned U.S. claims to dominion and 
withdrawal of all lands. 

6. The assumption of sovereignity over the Arctic is a prerequisite for 
all U.S. acts pertaining to that region. Therefore, the validity of 
acts creating a territory 1912, NPR-4 withdrawal 1923, Statehood 1957 
and the Alaska Native Land Claims in 1971 are challenged herewith. 

RECOMMENDATIONS: 

The exploitation of the Arctic for oil and gas has created extreme 
socio-economic stress amongst the Inupiat. It has fueled an Inflation 
three times that of the lower 48. Energy related migration of outsiders 



418 



will soon innundate the Inupiat making them and impoverished and misunderstood 
minority in their own lands. The native land claims act has not resolved 
these problems. It is proper that they should be resolved by a treaty 
between the U.S. and the Arctic, properly represented by an elected 
government, the North Slope Borough. 

1. This treaty should resolve the ownership of natural resources so 
that the Inupiat receive a fair share by international standards for 
their resources. 

2. The treaty should provide and affirm all of those rights recognized 
and accorded to Indian nations to govern, administer justice, tax, 
restrict residence, regulate hunting and fishing and otherwise 
determine their own affairs according to their custom. 

3. The North Slope Borough when considered as a tribal government 
should be extended to include the Inupiat in the NANA and Bering 
Straits regions. 

4. The treaty should repair the cultural damage already inflicted on 
the Inupiat in exchange for access to natural resources. This should 
include a system of cotimodity and transportation subsidies and the 
elimination or aleviation of all state and federal taxes including 
income taxes. 

5. This tready should not terminate any state and federal services 
already accorded to these people. It should include an inflation 
compensation increment proportioned to the existing rate of inflation 
for all state and federal payments. 



419 



6. The United States should extend its international policy to 
the development of relations with Canada and Greenland to permit 
unimpaired commerce along the Arctic amongst the Inupiat. 



420 



0m 



MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ^^ , , _, 

y Thomas L. Judge 

Capitol Station, Helena, Montana 59601 Governor 



April 21, 1977 



Mr. Ernest L. Stevens, Director 
American Indian Policy Review Conmission 
House Office Building, Annex #2 
Second & D Streets, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Mr. Stevens: 

This office has reviewed the Economic Development chapter of 
the AIPRC Tentative Final Report and would like to submit three 
recommendations concerning sub-section B (Availability of In- 
vestment Capital) for commission consideration. Our three re- 
commendations are as follows: 

1. The President direct (by Executive Order) all 
agencies of the Federal government providing 
financial or technical assistance to Indian 
tribes and Indian organizations to formulate a 
unified policy with the authority to provide 
funding for profit-oriented organizations which 
would enhance the economy of Indian people. 

2. Financial assistance should be provided to 
tribes and Indian organizations to establish 
and develop educational facilities to train 
potential Indian businessmen in areas of market- 
ing, financing, management, purchasing, and ac- 
counting systems. 

3. Fincincial and technical assistance should be 
given to tribes and Indian organizations in 
efforts to establish and develop Indian controlled 
financial institutions to utilize Indian monies 
currently being invested in non-Indian financial 
institutions . 

We strongly believe that if the above recommendations were im- 
plemented, they would improve the economic status, economic in- 
dependence, and the economic achievement rate of the Indian 
people and compliment the overall economy of the nation. 



93-440 477 



Harold A. ErYslie, Director 



421 



Mr. Ernest L. Stevens, Director 
American Indian Policy Review Commission 
Page 2 



We hope the Commission will give our recommendations serious 
consideration in the process of developing national policies 
affecting Indian Economic Development. 




Merle R. Lucas 

Coordinator of Indian Affairs 



/re 



Judy Carlson, Governor's Office 
Office of Commerce, Governor's Office 
Tom Thompson, Director, Federal Programs 
Harold Fryslie, Director, DCA 



422 




york avenue, n.\ 



Helena, Montana 
April 27, 1977 



The Honorable James Abourezk 

Chairman, American Indian Polic;j Review Commission 

Congress of the United States 

House Office Building, Annex #2 

Washington, D. C. 20515 



Subject: NACo Conmients on the 

American Indian Policy Review 
Coimnlsslon Report. 



Dear Mr. Chairman: 



County governments have the capacity and willingness to represent and provide 
services to all citizens within their boundaries. 

Without consultation with county governments the American Indian Policy 
Commission has made findings and recommendations that raise serious questions 
about the relationship of counties and tribal councils. NACo is especially 
concerned about the principle proposed by the Commission for Federal policy that 
states: 

"The ultimate objective of Federal-Indian policy must be directed 
toward aiding the tribes in achievement of fully functioning govern- 
ments exercising primary governmental authority within the boundaries 
of the respective reservations. This authority would include the 
power to adjudicate civil and criminal matters, to regulate land use, 
to regulate natural resources such as fish and game and water rights , 
to issue business licenses, to impose taxes, and to do any and all 
of those things which all local governments within the United States 
are presently doing." 

The Commission report further states that: "The growth and development of tribal 
government Into fully-functioning governments necessarily encompasses the exercise 
of some tribal jurisdiction over non-Indian people and property within reserva- 
tion boundaries." 

Conflict and changes In Federal Indian affairs and policies have resulted in 
a substantial number of non-Indians living or owning land on Indian reservations 



423 



and since there exists in most of the same areas, county governments, the proposed 
Commission policy raises the following questions: 

1. How would a tribal government constitutionally represent all of the 
citizens within its boundaries as now represented by county government 
if only tribal members are allowed a voice or vote in tribal government? 

2. How would the extent of tribal jurisdiction be determined where no 
Federally recognized reservation boundaries now exist? 

3. How would due process of law be effectively and realistically 
guaranteed to all citizens within a tribal court system similar to a 
county-state court system? 

4. How would land use planning and zoning powers be administered on an 
equitable basis to all citizens, Indian and non-Indian alike? 

5. How would regulation of water rights and the distribution thereof be 
fairly administered? 

6. How would national, state and local air, water and other environmental 
quality standards be administered and enforced? 

7. How would all categories of taxes be imposed fairly and equitably upon 
all citizens? Would non-tribal members Be taxed without representation? 
Would tribal members be taxed who are now exempt from state and local 
taxation? 

Although this task, force has not had an adequate opportunity to review both 
majority and dissenting reports, many of the questions and concerns of counties have 
been expressed in the dissenting views of the Commission. Congress must provide 
an equal vehicle for the expression of county views including on-site Congressional 
hearings. 

The potential Impact of the Commission recommendations on county government • 
cannot be overstated. Before Federal Agency or Congressional action is contemplated 
for implementation of any of the Commission's recommendations, county government must 
be given an adequate opportunity to be heard. It is imperative that county govern- 
ments be included as a full partner in any Federal-State-Indian efforts to resolve 
these questions. These efforts would require cooperation, communication and educa- 
tion at the local level. 

This Task Force stands ready to assist in these erforts. 

Sincerely, 



/ajl/J^iL} 



Fred Johnson, Chairman 

NACo Task Force on Indian Affairs 



424 



William H. Veeder 

Attorney at Law 

818 - 18th Street, N.W., Suite 920 

Washington, D. C. 20006 

(202) 466-3890 



LETIER OF TRANSMITTAL 



The Honorable Janes Abourezk, Chairman 27 May 1977 

Select Ccmnittee on Indian Affairs 
United States Senate 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

ATTENTION: Ernest L. Stevens 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

As requested by you, I have carefully reviewed the Tentative Final 
Report of the Arnerican Indian Policy Review Cotmission, hereafter referred 
to as "The Majority Report." Because of the vast array of crucial subject 
natter embraced within "The Majority Report," I have' limited it^ comients 
to those vAiich I perceive to be the itost crucial. These topics under dis- 
cussion relate to the inherent sovereign power of the tribes dating frcm 
time iitmatorial; tribal ownership of the lands from time imneniorial; tribal 
powar under sovereign authority to administer those lands and appurtances; 
and the trust obligation of the United States of America. 

An in-depth review was made of the Separate Dissenting Views of Con- 
gresanan Lloyd Meeds, D-Wash. , Vice Chairman of the American Indian Policy 
Review Ccmnnission, hereafter referred to as "The Dissent. " As will be ob- 
served in my oatments, I find no merit in the law vrfiich was presented and 
relied upon in "The Dissent." Due to the sharp attack on the Winans and 
Winters cases, I have attached, to my ccnnents entitled "'The Majority Re- 
port' Vis-a-Vis 'The Dissent,'" a ireitorandum entitled "An Analysis of Pro- 
posed Secretarial Rules Respecting 'The Use of Water on Indian Reservations' 
and the Recomnended Rejection of them." This paper was prepared for the 
National Congress of American Indians. I believe that the oarments on "The 
Majority Report" and "The Dissent" should be read on the background of that 
"Analysis." Both "The Dissent" and the "Analysis" are reflective of a con- 
certed effort inside and outside of the Federal Government to: 1) denigrate 
the inherent sovereign povrer of the tribes to administer their own properties; 
and 2) attack the concepts of Winans and Winters as enunciated by the Supreme 
court. 



425 



You are to be greatly ocninended for the general excellence of "The 
Majority Report." I sincerely hope that my ccnmsnts will be of assis- 
tance to you. 






Sincerely, 

Veeder 



W^iM*;?^^^ 



426 

MEMORANDUM 

TO 

SENATOR JT^MES ABOUREZK, CHAIRMAN 

SELEXrr OQMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

RELATIVE TO 

"THE MAJORITY REPORT" 

VIS-A-VIS 

"THE DISSENT" 



William H, Veeder 
May 1977 



427 



TABLE OF CDNTENTS 



INTRODUCTION. 1 

A. Conflicts of Interest have been Institutionalized in the Interior 
Department and Lands Division of the Department of Justice 2 

B. Immediate Escecutive Action Can and Mast be Taken 3 

C. Sunnary of "The Majority Report" Conclusions Respecting the 
Inherent Sovereign Authority of American Indian Nations and 

Tribes 7 

D. Rejection ty "The Dissent" of "The Majority Report's" Evaliaation 

of Indian Sovereignty , 7 

Evaluation of "The Dissent's" Position Relative to Indian 
Tribal Sovereignty — It is without Merit 8 

a. There is no merit in the assertion, expressed by "The 
Dissent," "... that American Indian tribes lost their 
sovereignty through discovery. ... " 12 

b. There is no merit to the assertion in "The Dissent" 
"... that Indian tribes lost their sovereignty... 
through... conquest...." 16 

c. There is no merit in the assertion ejqsressed by "The 
Dissent" "... that American Indian tribes lost their 
sovereignty ty... cession...." 18 

d. There is no merit in the assertion in "The Dissent" 
"... that American Indian tribes lost their sover- 
eignty by... statutes,..." . 21 

e. There is no merit in the assertion in "The Dissent" 
"... that American Indian tribes lost their sover- 
eignty by, . , history. " 25 

f . There is no merit separately or in the aggregate, as 
ej^ressed in "The Dissent" "that Arrerican Indian tribes 
lost their sovereignty through (1) discovery; (2) con- 
quest; C3) cession; (4) treaties; (5) statutes; and 

C6) history." 26 



428 



E. "The Majority Report" Correctly Declares that the American 
Indian Tribes, ty their Treaties, Reserve to Themselves, 
Title to their Lands, Rights to the Use of Water, and Other 
Resources, vAiich vere not Conveyed by Treaty, Agreonents 

or Othervd.se 27 

F. The American Indian Nations and Tribes, by their Treaties, 
Retain — In the Exercise of their Inherent Sovereign Powers 
— All of their Ancient Homelands and ^^urtenant Properties 

They did not Grant to the United States by their Treaties 28 

1. The Winters Decision Must Be Read vd.th the Winans Decision 
If the ffegnitixJe of the Errors in "The Dissent" are to be 

Fully Conprehended 37 

2. Reaffintence and Reiteration of Concepts of Winans Dis- 
pels Any Merit v*dch might otherwise ty Attributed to "The 
Dissent" Relative to the Retention by the Tribes of Prop- 
erties Not Granted to the United States 40 

3. Attenpts by "The Dissent" to Denigrate the Sxprone law of 

the Land Must Fail 42 

4. A Non Sequitur in "The Dissent" Doronstrates the Paucity 

of Authority in Sufport of It 44 

5. "This Nation's Trust Responsibility Rejected by 'The 

Dissent'" 48 

G. Congress Cannot Do It All — Plenary Power Has Its Limitations, . . 58 

1. Deficiencies in Executive Action 58 

a. Executive Abridgatent of the Winans-Winters Conc^ts. ... 59 

b. Vitiation of the Congressional Will as Enunciated in 

the "Self -Determination" Act, 25 U.S.C. 450 Et Seq 61 

2. Inmediate Presidential Action Paralleling and Inplemsnting 

"The Majority Report" is an Inperative Necessity 63 



429 



TO 

SENATOR JPmS ABOUREZK, CHAIRMAN 

SELECT OOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS 

RELATIVE TO 

"THE MAJORITY REPORT" */ 

VIS-A-VIS 

"THE DISSENT" ^/ 

William H. Veeder 



INTRDDUCriON 

"The iiDst basic of all Indian rights, the right of self- 
govemnent, is the Indians' last defense against adminis- 
trative oppression.... Self-government is thus the Indians' 
only alternative to rule by a government department." 1/ 

The American Indian Policy Review Coimissicn must be highly cormended for 
the "Tentative Final Report," hereinafter referred to as "The Majority Ri^»rt." 
It was sutinitted for review and ocnroent. 

It is essential here to emphasize that "The Majority Report" is an his- • 
toric event. Its content, background, and docimentation effectively denon- 



*/ "The Tentative Final Report" to the majority of the American Indian Policy 
~ Review Conmission . 

**/ Separate Dissenting Views of Congresatan Lloyd Meeds, D-Wash. , Vice- 
Qiairman of the American Indian Policy Review Ccmmission. 

1/ Handbook of Federal Indian Law , Felix S. Cohen, Ch. 7, "The Scope of 
Tribal Self -Government," pg. 122. 



430 



strata the breadth and intensity of the vrork vMch has been catpleted. It is 

reflective, itoreover, from the hearings held by the Conitiission, that the Aner- 

ican Indians have themselves set forth with specificity their appraisal of 

Indian affairs in the United States as they perceive them in the closing years 

of the IVentieth Century. 

Fran "The rtajority Report," there anerges these imdeniable facts: 

There exists today, a formidable body of Ccxistitutional, 
legislative and decisional law vAiich is highly favorable 
to the American Indian people. That broad area of jur- 
ispnadence should have been utilized for the great better- 
ment of the Indians. It has, however, been distorted and 
suppressed by an intransigent, de^ly entrenched and sup- 
pressive bureaucracy in the Departanent of the Interior. 
Relative to that formidable body of favorable law, these 
salient facts are aEparant frcm "The- Majority Ri^ort." 

A. Conflicts of Interest have been Institutionalized in the 
Interior Department and Lands Division of the Department 
of Justice 

Contained in "The Majority Ri^xDrt" is the fact that conflicts of 
interest in the Office of the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney Gen- 
eral of the United States, acting through the land and Natural Resources 
Division of the Department of Justice, have been institutionalized in a manner 
that shocks the conscience. 

Congress, predicated upon the information contained in "The Majority 
Report" and the vast record i^xsn which reliance can be placed, can force rad- 
ical changes within the Interior Department and Lands Division, vMch agencies 
very largely control the day-to-day administration and the litigation involved 
in Indian affairs. 



431 



There can be gleaned from "The Majority Report," not only the reoartmen- 
dations vfcLch it contains, bat, moreover, the tone and tamper of the adminis- 
tration of Indian affairs vdiich can best be described as grossly inadequate. 
Equally clear, moreover, are these facts: 

1. Corrective action relative to Indian affairs is an 
iitperative necessity vM.ch can and must be taken 
without further legislation. 

2. That corrective action demands that the governing 
bodies of the Alter ican Indian nations and tribes 
be fully inplarented and utilized to eliminate 
the wasteful practices, both as to human rights 
and funds which now transpire as a matter, appar- 
ently, of policy. 

3. Equally clear is the fact that the institution- 
alized conflicts of interest have been, and are 
now resulting in violation of the rights of the 
American Indian, individually, and confiscating 
their property rights, both collectively and in- 
dividually. 

4. Congress should proceed forthwith to develop approp- 
riate legislation for the removal of Indian affairs 
from the Department of the Interior and to estab- 
lish an independent agency for Indian affairs. 

B. Immadiate Executive Action Can and Must be Taken 

Iitmediate Executive action to eliminate present practices in the 
Interior Department and Lands Division of the Department of Justice must be 
taken forthwith. For example, the Bureau of Reclamation, vrorking in close 
conjunction with special interests outside of the Federal Govemmsant and with 
or through the Solicitors Office and Lands Division, has been violating not 
only the Indians' right for representation by counsel of their own choosing. 



93-440 O - 78 



432 



but likewise confiscating the Indian rights for the benefit of non-Indian pur- 
poses and projects. It can be deinonstrated, and an opportunity should be pro- 
vided to demonstrate it, that federal reclamation projects are today being built 
through the presentation of grossly misleading hydraulic data and other tech- 
nical information. Those data have been deliberately prepared to represent, to 
Congress and to the Nation, that tliere are sufficient vater supplies for recla- 
rtation projects, vAien, in truth and fact, the operation of those projects is 
dependent i^xan the violation of Indian Winters rights to the use of water. 
Ttose projects include, but are not limited to, the Central Arizona Federal 
Iteclamation Project, the San Juan-Chama Federal ReclaitHtion Project, and the 
Central Utah Federal Reclamation Project. It is sutmitted that the data re- 
lied upon and the action taken in regard to the misrepresentation of facts by 
officials in the Interior Department are cornptive in character and demand full 
exposure, antecedent to permitting those projects to go forward to coipletion. 
Othervdse, the Indian tribes ijn tiie watersheds, vhere those projects are situ- 
ated, will be sacrificed for the special interests that sponsor those projects, 
vMch special interests are virtually inseparable from the Bureau of Reclamation . 

Additionally, corrective action must be taken to preclude federal lawyers 
in the Solicitors Office and Lands Division frcm acting without authorization 
from the Indian nations and tribes. Frequently, lawyers frcm those agencies, 
without Indian knowledge, acquiescence, consent or approval, advocate legal 
concepts vfcLch are contrary to Indian interests. Very often, the actions taken 
by those lawyers are clearly at variance with the laws, either as expressed by 
Congress or as set forth in the various decisions xjpon which those lawyers rely. 



433 



-5- 



Clearly, the Solicitors Office and the Lands Division are the cutting edge of 
special interests, v*k> greatly enrich themselves by either poor representation 
by federal lawyers or actual emission of effective presentation by thsm. Indeed, 
it can be said, without serious challenge to the contrary, that, as in tl« Vfelton 
and Bel Bay cases reviewed in the attached analysis, the Solicitors Office ard 
Lands Division are aggressive advocates for non-Indian interests against the 
Indian people. 

There resides in the Executive Branch of the Government, at the present time, 
both the power and the absolute obligation to take corrective action in regard to 
the conduct of the Solicitors Office and Lands Division. President Carter, on 
April 6, 1977, signed into law the broad powers conferred upon him by the Congress 
of the United States to reorganize the Executive Branch of the Government. By 
acting now, to protect the Indians against the invasions of their property and 
human rights, as outlined above, he would be iitplementing his pnsgram to protect 
human rights. It is possible now to eliminate the shameful pattern that has 
developed down through the years in v*iich the Solicitors Office and Lands Divis- 
ion have proceeded in disregard of the Constitutional and civil rights of the 
American Indian nations and tribes to have counsel of their own choosing. 

There is attached to this memorandum and made a part of it "An Analysis 
of Proposed Secretarial Rules Respecting the 'Use of Water on Indian Reservations' 
and the Reconmended Rejection of them," vMch was prepared for and distributed 
by the National Congress of American Indians. Contained in that memorandum is a 
clear exeitplif ication of the pressing and iirperative need for corrective action in 
the Solicitors Office of the Interior Department and in lands Division to halt and 
to prevent the suppressive and destructive conduct of those federal lawyers. Be- 
ing irmiersed in conflicts of interests, those lawyers are daily acting to the 



434 



irreparable damage of the American Indian people, all as spelled oiit with 
specificity in the acoonpanying Memorandum alluded to in this paragraph. 

II. "THE MAJORITY PEPORT" VIS-A-VIS "THE DISSENT" 

Very narkedly, this analysis turns upon the basic propositions e3<pounded 
in "The Majority Report" and the attacks upon those concepts which are espoused 
by "The Dissent." That attack i^xan "The Majority Report," as set forth in "The 
Dissent," has delineated the principal areas of conflict in the Indian and non- 
Indian ccnmunities. In that regard, it is observed in passing that "The Dissent" 
has performed a great service. It has squarely presented the question of whether 
the predominant, non-Indian conmunity views itself as a conquering, suppressive 
force intent i^xxi destroying the American Indian nations and tribes. It is res- 
pectfully suggested that the large percentage of non-Indians do not subscribe to 
the vindictive conqueror as outlined in "The Dissent." Rather, they proceed upon 
the basis that all men are truly created equal. By reason of that fact and the 
special circumstances viiich exist in regard to the American Indian nations and 
tribes, the respect for hunan dignity will preserve, protect and nurture the 
powers of inherent self-government that the Indians have exercised since time 
inir'atorial, MDreover, it is likewise respectfully submitted that the average 
non-Indian subscribes — if he has knowledge of it ~ to the concept that this 
Nation owes to the American Indians a trust responsibility, viiich should and 
must be performed within the concepts of the Constitution as it has been construed. 

Due to the magnitude of "The Majority Report" and the principal attacks 
upon it, as set forth in "The Dissent," it has been determined that this contnen- 
tary will be limited to two {2\ major aspects: 



435 



1. The inherent sovereign authority of the American Indians and 
tribes to govern their own affairs extends far beyond the pres- 
ent activities that are being performed by than in the exercise 
of those sovereign powers. 

2. The American Indian tribes, vAiether "treaty" or non-treaty In- 
dians, hold full, equitable title to their reservations and to 
their rights to the use of water and other appurtenances to 
those reservation lands. Under their treaties, those lands and 
appurtenances were reserved by the tribes. Those properties 
were not granted by the tribes to the United States, but rather, 
Vvere retained by the tribes as part of all vJrich they did not 
grant pursuant to their inherent sovereign powers. 

C. Surmary of "The Majority Report" Conclusions Respecting the 
iTiherent Sovereign Authority of American Indian Nations and 
Tribes 

Succinctly stated, the predominant conclusions of "The Majority Report," 

relative to the inherent sovereign powers of the American Indian nations and tribes, 

are as follows: 

1. The Indian nations and tribes have inherent powers which spring 
frcm time imtiemDrial , antedating "discovery," and those powers 
are not conferred vpon the tribes by any grant of authority frcm 
the Federal Govemnent, That power, moreover, extends not only 
to Indians within tribal jurisdiction, their lands and other prop- 
erties referred to in (2.) above, but of necessity, extends to 
non-Indians within that jurisdiction or the power of the tribes 
to administer the lands within the reservation would be totally 
vacuous. 

2. American Indian nations and tribes are not "federal instrumen- 
talities." The Federal Government has, moreover, historically 
recognized the sovereignty of Indian tribes and has historically 
utilized the tribes in carrying out this Nation's policy rela- 
tive to Indian affairs. 

D. Rejection by "The Dissent" of "The Majority Report's" Evaluation of 
Indian Sovereignty 

With sharp vehenence, "The Dissent" rejects, out of hand, the concepts 

adopted by "The Majority Report" relative to sovereign authority of Indian tribes 



436 



and to their powers to govern. Eb^licitly and in unequivocal terms, "The Dissent" 
views the Amarican Indian nations and tribes as conquered people without any auth^ 
ority, absent that ccxiferred i^xan than hy the Congress. Moreover, there is an 
es^sress denial and a caveat as to reprisal should Congress admit tribal jurisdic- 
tion over non-Indians. Similarly, "Ths Dissent" rejects any suggestion that the 
Congress might "confer" jurisdiction upon the tribes over ncn-Indians within the 
jurisdiction of the tribal governing body. 

Evaluation of "The Dissent's" Position Relative to Indian 
Tribal Sovereignty — It is without Merit 

Attention must be directed to the crucial contentions of "The 

Dissent" for the purpose of refuting the basic premise relied ipon in that dissent 

v*iich challenges the concepts of "The Majority Report" relative to Indian tribal 

sovereignty. Reference in that connection is made to this initial and principal 

heading in "The Dissent": "I. TRIBAL SELF-GOVERNMENT V. TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY, 

THE FORMER A LEXM^ DOCTRINE, THE LATTER A POLITICAL SLOGAN." 2/ There is thus 

well-defined in capsule form the rationale of "The Dissent," wherein it is 

ej^licitly stated in clear error that: 

"The doctrine of inherent tribal sovereignty, adopted by the Maj- 
ority Report, ignores the historical reality that American Indian 
tribes lost their sovereignty through [i] discovery, [ii] conquest, 
[iii] cession, [iv] treaties, [v] statutes and history." 

In support of that conclusion, there are cited three sources. 3/ As to the first 

authority that is cited, extended coiment is not required. Manifestly, tlie report 

of the Arbitration Tribunal did not and could not constitute binding authority 



The Dissent, pg. 1, 

The Dissent, pgs. 4-5. Cayi^a Indian Claims (Great Britain v. United 
States), 20 AM. J. Int'l L. 574, 577 (1926) (American and British Claims 
Arbitration Tribunal) and the cases of Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. 543, 
574 (1923); Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1, 17 (1831). 



437 



-9- 

on anyone except those iitmediately involved. Reliance cannot be placed upon 
that reference as authority for which it is cited hy "The Dissent." 

As to Mcintosh and Cherokee Nation , Sx5)reine Court decisions, repeate^l 
references will be made to than and their inapplicability will be etphasized. 
Irrespective of the absence of authority to support the declaration as to Ycm 
the American Indian nations and tribes allegedly "lost" their tribal sover- 
eignty, there follows, in "The Dissent," this statement: 

"... To the extent American Indian tribes are permitted 
to exist as political units at all, it is by virtue of 
the laws of the United States and not any inherent right 
to government, either of themselves or of others." 4/ 

No further authorities are cited in "The Dissent" for the sweeping assertion 

as to the loss of sovereign power by the tribes. 

The issue of Indian sovereignty is far frcm academic. Do Indian tribes 

have authority v*iich exists independent of the National Govemrtent, which 

tribal authority is derivative of the Indian forebearers who exercised those 

powers of government fron time imnanorial? It is a matter of crucial ittpor- 

tance. On the si±)ject to those vto would recognize tribal sovereignty over 

non-Indians, "The Dissent" has this to say, albeit the threatening caveat 

is purportedly limited to Congress: 

"... if Congress should ever think it wise to give 
Indian people e^qserience in government by letting 
than practice on non-Indians, I predict we would be 
swiftly set straight by the vast majority of our con- 
stituents. " 5/ 



4/ Id. 

5/ The Dissent, pg. 11. 



438 



-10- 

Basically — and "The Dissent" says realistically — it is essential for the 
flmsrican Indian nations, tribes and people and those vrtio si^sport them to assess 
the vd.sdcm of adopting "The Majority Report" due to "The Dissent's" iitplicit threat 
of backlash by non-Indians, the dcminating society. "The Dissent" presents the 
United States as a cruel, harsh and suppressive conqueror. I reject that savage 
cotitent out of hand. The very wellsprings of this Nation are human rights, dig- 
nity and the right of property owners, such as the Indians, to be free from con- 
fiscation of their properties. Nevertheless, the rationale, tone and tatper of 
"The Dissent," as stated, are harsh and cruel. It ignores the formidable and 
highly favorable body of law, to vAiich reference has been itade, that supports and 
continues to support, the Indian nations and tribes in their desire for an ex- 
panding exercise of the inherent pov^rs of the tribes. Indian sovereignty is, cind 
has been from time iitttHmorial , imbued in the tribal history and the history of the 
National Government. It must be recalled that the tribes were of vast importance 
during the War of Independence in Uiich the thirteen colonies sought to achieve 
their own sovereignty by throwing off the oppressive power of the King of England. 
It is inportant to bear in mind the fact that the leaders of the revolution 
against King George were brave men, but they were not foolhardy. As stated in 
Vforcester: The Continental Congress, 

"Far from advancing any claim to their [Indian] lands, 
or asserting any dcminion over than. Congress resolved, 
•tliat the securing and preserving the friendship of the 
Indian nations appears to be a subject of utmost moment 
to these colonies.'" 6/ 

As pointed out in Vforcester, "... the colonists had great cause for apprehension. 



Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 372, 572 (1832), 



439 



-11- 

that the Indian nations [during the Revolutionary War] ..." would join Great 
Britain as allies and "add their arms to hers." It was then arphasized, by Jus- 
tice Marshall, v*io lad personal knowledge of the matter, "far frcm advancing a 
claim to — " Indian lands or seeking to exercise jurisdiction over those lands 
or the Indians v*Dse ownership and sovereignty were recognized by the colonists, 
the rebellious colonies vere most cinxious to secure the assistance in their war 
with Great Britain. At this late date, v*ien the dcminant party is now the non- 
Indian, the role of the Indian nations in the Revolutionary Vfer and the fact they 
did not in the majority "add their arms" to Great Britain should, in thanksgiving, 
be remembered. 

It would be well, also to remanber, that the first treaty the anbattled 
colonists entered into with the Indian tribes was vrfiile the Revolutionary Vfer was 
in progress and, indeed, the outcome was very much imbalance. It was the Delaware 
Indian Nation that the colonists sought to negotiate with and did consuitmate a 
treaty, A reading of that treaty will evidence this fact: The colonists, exer- 
cising their newly claimed sovereignty, treated the Delaware Indian Nation as an 
equal, requesting that Nation to join them against the ocniton enemy, George III. 
Thus the first American Indian treaty came about under circumstances where there 
was no bombast, no cruel and harsh suppression of the Delaware Indian Nations such 
as "The Dissent" would now recomnend as a course of policy. Rather, it is his- 
torically true — and vast iitportant to this Nation — that the sovereign Indian 
tribes could have joined with Great Britain and could have precipitated a disas- 
ter to this Nation that did not transpire. That predicate and the consideration 
of it are certainly the legal basis for asserting the trust relationship this 
Nation owes to the Indian nations and tribes. It is suggested in "The Dissent" 



440 



-12- 

that ingratitude is the greatest sin of all and that is the sin cottirdtted by "The 
Dissent," not only against the American Indian tribes, but against the memory of 
those v*io founded this Nation. 

It will be on that backgroiond that the consideration will be given to the 
basis upon vteLch "The Dissent" declares that American Indian nations and tribes 
lost their sovereignty and the predicate vpon which that conclusion is expressed 
in "The Dissent." 

a. There is no merit in the assertion, expressed hy 
"The Dissent,""... that American Indian tribes 
lost their sovereignty through discovery " 7/ 

Reject out of hand that assertion in "The Dissent" that "discovery" 
in some manner destroyed tribal sovereignty. At the outset, it would be well to 
consider this question: What is meant by discovery? History tells us that "dis- 
covery" occurred in 1497 v*ien Cabot sailed south down the Atlantic Coast of the 
North American Continent to the present State of Virginia. That adventurer 
viewed — or said he did — that he had beheld the vast land mass, vAiich was 
later to be determined to be the North American Continent. Having done so — 
looked at it — he claimed it for King Henry the VII of England. History also 
tells us that one hundred years would elapse before a concerted effort woiiLd be 
made by England to enter upon the Ccaitinent with the objective of permanent res- 
idence, 8/ 

In support of this fiction that "discovery" destroyed tribal sovereignty, 
"The Dissent" cites Johnson v. Mcintosh. 9/ Yet, that case does not state anyv^'ere 



7/ The Dissent, pgs. 4-5. 



8/ See 1 Bancroft, History of the United States , pg, 8 et seq .; see Vforcester 
V. Georgia, 31 U.S. 350, 368 (1831) . 

9/ The Dissent, pg. 5, 21 U.S.C. 543, 574 (1823) . 



441 



-13- 

that the Indians lost their tribal sovereignty. What it does say is that araong 
the potentates of Europe, the Nation having discovered a tract of land on the 
North American Continent — due to its magnitude, there vas enough for every- 
one — there vould be no violation of one potentate's "discovery" as against an- 
other potentate's "discovery." Moreover, the potentates, among themselves, 
like the Solicitors Office and Lands Division, did not consult the Indians — 
but, decided that Indian nations and tribes could not sell their lands to any 
potentate but the one who had made discovery. It is difficult to perceive how the 
far off enpires of Europe could or did destroy the sovereignty of the Indian 
tribes without the knowledge of the tribes. That there Vvas an effect i^xan the 
inherent and ininatDrial title that resided in the Indian nations and tribes, which 
occupied the North American Continent, is undeniable. There was not a destruction 
of the inherent power of the tribes to govern themselves, v^iatever the consequences 
ware relative to title. Throughout "The Dissent," there is a failure to compre- 
hend the difference between the powar of self-government and the title to land. 
"The Dissent" flounders badly in its attempt to denigrate tribal sovereignty. 
That issue will be subsequently reviewed, but at this point, it suffices to state 
that sovereignty means the power to govern. It likewise means the pcMer to own 
property. But rest assured that sovereignty does not ananate from the ownership 
of land, nor is there any authority vAiich would si5)port the mistaken concept that, 
in seme manner, sovereignty emerges from the land occupied by the tribes. 

Father than denying tribal sovereignty, the Mcintosh decision repeatedly and 
throughout makes reference to the continued existence of the tribal governments and 
that existence was recognized by the great powers of Europe. Later, and down to 



442 



-14- 

date, tribal sovereignty has been and is recognized by the United States of fliter- 
ica. Bear in mind the United States entered into 400 treaties vd.th the tribes and 
many of those treaties are, in force and effect, a part of the Si^ireme Law of 
the Land. 

Reliance is likewise placed in "The Dissent" upon Cherokee Nation to si^jport 
the concepts that the fiction of "discovery" destroyed tritel sovereignty, as 
urged by "The Dissent." Again, a reading of Cherokee Nation makes short shrift of 
the contentions contained in "The Dissent." 10/ Involved there was the question of 
v*ether the Cherokee Nation came within the purview of the provisions of the Con- 
stitution v*iich confers original jurisdiction i^xDn the Sipreme Court involving 
"... ccaitroversies between a state... and foreign States.,,." 11/ Tto the Cherokee 
Nation, the Sijprene Cburt said, "no." It stated the Cherokee Nation did not cote 
within the category of "foreign States," as contemplated in the quoted excerpt 
fran the Constitution. It is instructive, hovi^ver, to read the first pages of , 
Cherokee Nation better to understand both the meaning of the term sovereignty as 
used in "The Majority Report" and the iitplications flowing fron that term as there 
used. Similarly, it must be acknowledged by vtoever wnDte "The Dissent" that Wbr- 
cester v. Georgia was decided the year iitmediately following the Cherokee Nation . 
In Worcester , the full extent, nature and character of Indian tribal sovereignty are 
reviewed in detail, 12/ It is also worthy of note that Wbrcester was rendered 
eight C8) years si±isequent to Mcintosh and most assuredly there was no attaipt in 
Vforcester to reverse Mcintosh. Yet, as stated, Worcester defines, delineates and 



10/ Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 1 (1831). 

11/ constitution of the United States, 1787, Article III, Section 2. 

12/ See Worcester v, Georgia, 31 U.S, 515, 558, 560-561 (1832) . 



443 



-15- 

declares the vitality and existence of Indian inherent tribal sovereignty in terms, 
which are today, viable and applied by decisions rendered most recently by the 
Highest Court. 13/ Let those vAio prepared "The Dissent" and thDse whD SLpport it 
bear in mind that Indian tribal sovereignty was recognized — albeit modified — 
in Johnson v. Mcintosh . That is the concept of "The Majority Report." Cherokee 
Nation , is likewise relied upon in declaring that "discovery" destroyed Indian 
tribal sovereignty. That is error. Reliance vpon those cases, indeed, reliance 
upon the concept that "discovery" in some nanner destroyed Indian tribal sover- 
eignty is gravely in error for these reasons of decisional precedent: One year 
after Cherokee Nation ; nine years after Johnson v. Mcintosh, the Svpreme Court 
rendered the decision of Vtorcester v. Georgia . In these terms, e>^licitly and un- 
equivocally, the Highest Court deci.ded as folloivs: 

"The very term 'Nation, ' so generally applied to them [Indian 
Nations], means 'a people distinct from others.' The Consti- 
tution by declaring treaties already nade, as well as those to 
be made, to be the Supreme Law of the Land has adopted and 
sanctioned the prior treaties with Indian Nations, and conse- 
quently admits their rank among those powers vAx) are capable of 
making treaties." 14/ 

It is impossible to perceive, with reason, how "The Dissent," confronted with 

the 1832 decision in Vibrcester , could sensibly advance the idea that "discovery," 

which had occurred 345 years antecedent to Vforcester , could have, in seme manner, 

destroyed Indian sovereignty. I, moreover, reject the concepts found in "The 

Dissent" that the American and British Claims Arbitration Tribunal, a most limited 

arrangement, could reverse Worcester and in some unexplicable manner effect the 



13/ See M::Clanahan v. Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, particularly on pgs. 168 et seq . 
C1973) . 

14/ Worcester V. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515, 558, 560-561 (1832). 



444 



-16- 

Indian sovereignty involving nations and tribes which vere in no way involved in 
that "arbitration." What the citation, in "The Dissent," does is this: There is 
a dirth, a paucity of legal precedent to support the stateitient contained in "The 
Dissent," that "discovery" caused the Indian nations and tribes to lose their 
sovereignty. 

b. There is no merit to the assertion in "The Dissent" 



"... that Indian tribes lost their sovereignty "... 
through... conquest.... " 15/ 

The fiction of "discovery," as a factor in the alleged destruc- 
tion of Indian tribal sovereignty, based upon Mcintosh and caierokee Nation , comes 
within the category of the grave ndstakes set out in "The Dissent." Equally clear 
is the fact that "conquest" did not destroy Indian tribal sovereignty. It is 
urged that the cases of Mcintosh and Cherokee Nation be thoroughly considered by 
anyone v*io relies upon "The Dissent" as authority. Repeatedly in Mcintosh , the 
fact that the Indian nations were exercising sovereignty was recognized by the 
European ertpires who were invading the North American Continent; it was a factor 
that had great influence upon the United States in its formative years. Reasons 
in Mglntosh are given v*iy Indian tribal sovereignty was a reality. Among those 
reasons, as stated in Mcintosh , is this: The Indian nations and tribes were 
"Fierce and warlike in character...." They were jealous of their freedan as 
nations and being "... Fierce... to govern them... was iitpossible . . , [for] they 
were ready to repel by arms every atteitpt at their independence." 16/ Indeed, 



15/ The Dissent, pgs. 5-6. 

16/ Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. 543, 590 (1823) , 



445 



-17- 

to avoid clashes with the Indian nations and tribes, we are instructed by 
Mcintosh , that France, Spain, Great Britain, and later the United States, at 
the time of Ifclntosh and antecedent to that time, refrained from asserting 

"... claims to their lands, to daninion over their persons " 17/ So it is 

that conquest, at the time of Vforcester , had not destroyed the Indian tribal 
sovereignty. 

How Cherokee Nation could be relied upon to support the concept in "The 
Dissent" that the tribes had lost their sovereignty by "conquest" is dif- 
ficult to perceive. In describing Cherokee Nation , correctly and realistic- 
ally — not chauvinistically — Justice Story, in his famous CCinmentaries on 
the Oonstitution , said this: 

"Upon solCTm argument, it has been held, that such 
a tribe is to be deemed politically a State; that 
is, a distinct, political society, capable of self- 
govemrrent; but is not to be deemed a foreign State , 
in the sense of the Constitution...." 18/ [EUphasis] 

There should be rejected out of hand, the assertions that "conquest" 

destroyed Indian tribal sovereignty, by reason of any ruling in either ffclntosh 

or Cherokee Nation, or indeed, the arbitration reference, the precedential 

nature of which must of necessity be most doubtful. 



17/ Wbrcester v. Georgia, 31 U^S. 350, 571 a8321, 

18/ 2 Story, On the Constitution , Fifth Edition, Section llQl, pg, 44. 



446 



c. There is no nerit in the assertion expressed by 
"The Dissent" "... that Ainerican Indian tribes 
lost their sovereignty by... cession " 19/ ~ 

A most careful consideration has been given to the treaties 
entered into during and siijsequent to the Revolutionary War and down to the time 
that this Nation ceased, in 1871, to enter into treaties, substituting agreatients 
and other arrangements vfcLch are tantamount to treaties. Throughout those treat- 
ies, there vere cessions of property itade by the Indian nations and tribes to the 
United States. Those treaties — seme of them were shaiteful, others unfortunate — 
all involved an exercise of Indian tribal authority. The United States, as a 
party to the treaties, of necessity recognized tribal sovereignty. Tto some, this 
Nation perpetrated a gigantic hoax upon the Indian people hy those treaties. I 
will not attribute such aitorality to the United States of America. I reject that 
concept. It is inpossible to believe that the Chief Executive, in the exercise 
of the powers invested in hisr. by the Constitution and the Senate of the United 
States, would sink to the level of invoking the Supreme law of the land vdiile per- 
petrating a hoax, not only upon the Indian nations and tribes involved, but on the 
citizenry of the United States, who are very serious about their fundamental law — 
the Constitution. 20/ 

Cession neans, as it must msan in the context of "The Dissent," the 
assignment of a right or claim, "a transfer usually evidenced by a treaty 



19/ The Dissent, pgs. 4 and 5. 

20/ In regard to the dignity of American Indian nations and tribes, it is 
reccmmended that those who support "The Dissent," indeed, those vflio 
wrote it, should consider these excerpts from our fundamental law: In 
the Constitution of the United States, TVrticle II, Sec. 1, provision 
is made as follows: "The Executive Power shall be vested in a President 

of the United States of America " Section 2 : "The President shall 

be the Oomrander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States. . . . 



447 



-19- 

of sovereignty over territory of one sovereign state to another, apparently 
willing to accept it." 21/ Throughout this Nation's history, cessions of 
property have been made to it — and it has indeed likewise ceded property. 
Yet, those cessionsall involving sovereignty, some of than being reciprocal 
in nature, did not in any sense iiipair the sovereignty of this Nation or those 
with v*cm it covenanted. Neither did it impair the sovereignty of the 
Indian nations which were the concessioners of lands to viiich they had 
previously asserted a valid claim. That principle has been applied through- 
out this Nation's history and throughout the history of the Supreme Court. 
Reference in that connection is made to Mcintosh . It is enphasized, ix- 
re^jective of the shameful concepts imposed upon Indians by the potentates of 
Europe, that they could not transfer title. It was, nevertheless, recognized, 
by the Supreme Court in the case in question, that they could only be deprived 
of their interest in the lands from time imnatorial by treaty, purchase or, 
indeed, the brutality of conquest. 

Suggested reading, to the authors of "The Dissent," is the first Indian 
treaty entered into between the United States and an Indian nation while the 



20/ Ccontinued) He shall have pov«r, by and with the Advise and Consent 
of the Senate, to nake Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators 
present concur " 

Cognizance must be taken of the fact that cession did not, indeed, could 
not, under the circumstances of the Indian treaties, destroy sovereignty 
because sovereignty was invoked to nake the cessions respecting terri- 
tory. There is not a treaty where the entire sovereign authority, as 
stated by "The Dissent," was "lost." 

21/ Webster's Third International Unabridged Dictionary. 



93-440 O - 78 - 31 



448 



-20- 

colonists were in the bitter struggle for independence during the Pevolutionary 
War. That treaty, in explicit terms, recognized the Delaware Nation and this 
Nation as acting as equal sovereigns. 22/ It is reiterated that; prior to 
the Constitution, and now, this Nation recognizes the inherent sovereign power 
of the Indian nations. 

Subsequent Indian treaties did not obliterate the sovereignty of the 
Indian tribes; rather, they established and recognized the Indians had tte 
sovereign rights to enter into the treaties. It is worthy of note that 
vixen Congress declared — unilaterally — that "No Indian nation or tribe 
within the Territory of the United States shall be acknowledged or recog- 
nized as an independent nation, tribe or power with whom the United States 
nay contract by treaty " there was added this extremely inportant pro- 
viso viMch is effective today: 

"But no obligation of any treaty lawfully made and 
ratified with any such Indian nation or tribe prior 
to March 3, 1871, shall be hereby invalidated or im- 
paired. " 23/ [Emphasis supplied] 

By that proviso, there was continued recognition by the Congress of the United 

States that the tribes had exercised their sovereign powers — inherent from time 

immemorial — to enter into covenants and agreements with this Nation. Those 

covenants and agreements were, and are, part of the Supreme law of the Land. 



22/ Treaty with the Delaware Nation, Act of September 17, 1778, 7 Stat. 
13. 

23/ 25 U.S.C. 71. 



449 



-21- 

Full iitpact of that statute has never been finally determined. But, there 
is a finality to it: There were approximately 400 treaties in existence 
in 1871, v*ien the Congressional Act became law. Their sovereignty continues 
as of this nonent and it is a shocking concept advanced by "The Dissent" to 
say that the sovereignty of the tribes, vAio entered into treaties, could, in 
sane way, be destroyed by the cessions which were usually contained in those 
covenants. 

d. There is no merit in the assertion in "The Dissent" 
"... that American Indian tribes lost their sover- 
eignty ty. . . statutes " 24/ 

There has been reviewed above, the fact that by ej^licit 
terms the Congress of the United States has, in effect, ratified and approved 
innumerable treaties signed by Indian nations and tribes with the National 
Government. In so doing, there has been confirmed by the Congress the 
fact that treaties, as recognized by the Supreme Court, are the Si^ireme Law 
of the Land. A diligent search has failed to reveal, as asserted in "The 
Dissent," that in sotns manner the Congress has enacted "statutes" that re- 
peal the quoted excerpt which declared that treaties in existence in 1871 
would continue valid and effective. Hence, it is erroneous to state that 
Congress had, in some iranner, destroyed the treaties pursuant to which, on 



24/ The Dissent, pgs. 4-5. 



450 



-22- 

thousands of occasions each day, the Executive Branch of the National Qovemitent 
and the Judicial Branch of the National Government continue to function. Thus, 
quite aside form Congress, tribal sovereignty is confirmed by the long-term con- 
duct of the Executive and Judicial Branches of the United States. 

"The Dissent" ignores the fact that the plenary power of the Congress re- 
lates only to legislative fimctions. Any doubt about that subject is found in 
the established authorities in vMch language of this character is used: 

"In the main. . . that instrument [the Constitution] . . -. has 
blocked out vri. th singvilar precision and in bold lines, in 
its three primary Articles, the allotment of power to the 
Executive, the Legislative and the Judicial Departments of 
the Government. It remains also true, as a general rule, 
that the powers that have been conferred by the Constitu- 
tion to one of these Departnents cannot be exercised by 
another." 25/ 

Regarding the division and separation of powers of government, as set forth in 

the Constitution, J\;istice Story stated this: 

"The object of the Constitution was to establish three great 

departnents of government The first to pass the laws, 

the second to, approve and execute them, and the third to ex- 
pound and enforce them." 26/ 

Sinplistically stated, Indian affairs and the day-to-day operation of 

them, of necessity under our Constitution, are conducted by the Executive 

Branch of the Federal Government. Daily, the Federal and other courts have 

before them, for consideration, on-going cases initiated and prosecuted by 

the Indian nations and tribes pursuant to their treaties. Quite obviously. 



25/ Kilboum V. Thoneson, 103 U.S. 168, 191 (1880). 
26/ Martin v. Hunter, 14 U.S. 304, 328 (1816). 



451 



-23- 

both the Executive Branch and the Judiciary recognize the sovereign status 
of tribes upon which Oongress did not confer sovereignty. Equally obvious, 
in doing that, the Executive and Judiciary are reflecting the concepts 
of "The Dissent." Ihey are practically and pragmatically saying, "Yes, the 
Indian tribes have sovereignty and we recognize that sovereignty, albeit the 
Congress did not confer that sovereignty much less destroy it." The state- 
rtent in "The Dissent" that, by statute, the Congress had destroyed sover- 
eignty is an unfortunate, perteps even frivolous, declaration. It must be 
recognized by all that tribes today are exercising their inherent power over 
land, water, tmfcer and minerals. They are likewise administering schools 
and other public institutions. One must, of necessity, recoil fron the 
concept that those functions are ultra vires . It is irresponsible to declare 
tribes have no power independent of the plenary power of Congress. Congress, 
by confirming treaties and otherwise, has explicitly recognized the tribes 
have power of the highest dignity. Congress at no time destroyed sovereignty. 
Congress well knows its daily and historic conduct belies that fact. The 
treaties take cognizance of the fact that the Indians, long prior to discov- 
ery and down to this rromant, have been and are now exercising their sover- 
eignty. 

Congress, rather than enacting statutes to destroy Indian sovereignty, 
has wisely, and on numerous occasions, taken advantage of Indian sovereignty 
and relied i^wn it as a modus operandi to accorplish its policies. Most 
recently, Congress, in good conscience, enacted the "Indian Self -Determina- 
tion Act." In that 1975 Act of Congress, it is declared that: 



452 



'"Uie Congress. . . finds that: 

(2) The Indian people will never surrender their 
desire to control their relationships both 
aitong themselves and with ncn- Indian govern- 
ments, organizations, and persons." 27/ 

The "desire" which Congress recognizes which the Indians will "never sur- 
render" is their inherent authority to manage their own affairs. 

Any doubt of present Congressional authority as to the continued ex- 
istence of Indian tribal authority is obliterated by this quotation from 
the last cited Act: 

"The Congress declares its conmitment to the itainten- 
ance of the Federal Government's unique and continuing 
relationship with and responsibility to the Indian 
people through the establishment of a meaningful Indian 
self-determination policy v*iich will permit an orderly 
transition from Federal domination of programs for and 
services to Indians to effective and meaningful par- 
ticipation by the Indian people in the planning, con- 
duct and administration of those programs and services." 28/ 

Thus it is, as recently as 1975, the Congress has expressed, in unequiv- 
ocal terms, that it does recognize that the Indian people have the authority 
and are now exercising the sovereign powers of self-government. It is ex- 
tremely important also to note that the Self -Determination Act can 
result in, to use the words of Franklin Roosevelt, destroying the 
autocratic power of the Department of the Interior as it relates to Indian 
nations and tribes. It must be recognized that bureaucratic suppression of 
Indian nations' and tribes' sovereignty does not obliterate that sovereignty. 



27/ 25 U.S.C. 450(2), Pub. L. 96-638, Section 2, January 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 
2203. 

28/ 25 U.S.C. 450(a), Pub. L. 96-638, Section 3, January 4, 1975, 88 Stat. 
2203. 



453 



-25- 



Daily, an intransigent bureaucxacy, going far beyond its vested auth- 
ority, is iirposing its bureaixxatic will i^on the Indian people. Often, the In- 
dians are powerless in the face of the entrenched, and often vicious, bureaix:- 
rats, vvho will at all costs maintain their pcMer of sippression. That bureauc- 
racy can be pierced only by the President himself. 

e. There is no merit in the assertion in "The 
Dissent" "... that American Indian tribes 
lost their sovereignty by. . . history. " 

History, we are told, is: 

"3: A branch of knowledge that records and ej^lains 
past events and steps in the sequence of human ac- 
tivities." 29/ 

A most careful review of Mcintosh , Cherokee Nation and the other references, 
relied upon by "The Dissent," fails to disclose in anyvey that history could 
be responsible for the alleged, erroneous statement that the Indians had lost 
their sovereignty. What the statement does mean, is this: To achieve a 
predicate for a fallacious argunent, a conposite and a coalescence of words, 
including history, were broijght together with the objective of arriving 
at a conclusion that cannot be sustained. "The Dissent," therefore, must 
be recognized as an embodiitent of political hope that can engender an attack 
upon the Indian people vrfiich will suppress their Indian sovereignty. In- 
dian tribes and people, and those who support them, are fully cognizant that 



29/ Vfebster's Third New International Unabridged Dictionary . 



454 



-26- 

"The Dissent" is being utilized for just the purpose, to which reference has 
been made, to inflame and engender attacks vpon Indian people, who have had 
the temerity to assert that non-Indians have no right to invade their reser- 
vations and to take from th^i their lands, their vater, their timber and 
other invaluable resources. 

f . There is no merit separately or in the aggre- 
gate, as expressed in "The Dissent" "that Amer- 
ican Indian tribes lost their sovereignty through 
(1) discovery; (2) conquest; (3) cession; 
(4) treaties; (5) statutes; and (6) history." 

Finally, let it be reaffirmed and reiterated that the quoted 
statements that the sovereignty of the American Indians has been lost through 
each of the explicit words, set forth above, are gravely in error. It is equally 
clear that a coalescence of each of the terms, discovery through history, failed 
to bring about the loss of sovereignty to the American Indians. 

rtost explicitly, the authorities relied i5X)n and the subsequent cases 
cited reject, out of hand, the concept that there is no Indian tribal sover- 
eignty residing in the tribes. It is manifest that the conclusions in "The 
Dissent" are, as stated above, intended to be utilized politically in attacks 
i5»n the American Indian nations and tribes. It partakes of a predicate that 
can be utilized in attacks upon the Indian, but let this thought be advanced 
here: The Indian tribes, and those vdio support than, in their desire to ex- 
ercise self-government, have faith in the American people, have faith in the 
institutions of America and the formidable body of law supporting Indian 
people, vAiich, in the long-run, will prove effective against the special in- 



455 



terests vAio have so frequently endeavored, down through the long history 
of Indian affairs, to destroy the Indian tribes. 

E. "The Majority Report" Correctly Declares that the American 
Indian Tribes, by their Treaties, Reserve to Ihanselves , 
Title to their I^nds, Rights to the Use of Water, and Other 
Resources vAiich were not Conveyed by Treaty, Agreenents or 
Otherwise 

Throughout "The Majority Report," repeated references are made 
to the concepts, expressed hy the Si;55reme Court, in the cases of United 
States V. Winans 30/ and in the Winters decision. 31/ In both those de- 
cisions, and decisions vfcLch were to follow them, the power, the authority 
and the effectiveness of Indian nations and tribes, reserving to them- 
selves all that they did not convey to the states, are esqilicitly declared 
and explicitly upheld. 

It is stated and reiterated in "The Majority Report," that through 
the exercise of their inherent power of self-govemrtent , the tribes have 
retained to themselves that vMch they did not grant; and the tribes have 
the power to administer and control the properties which they retained pur- 
suant to their treaties. 

In precisely the same manner as the existence of Indian tribal sover- 
eignty has been challenged in "The Dissent," there is further attack, in 
"The Dissent," upon the rights and interests v#iich the Indian nations and 
tribes have reserved for themselves. 



30/ 198 U.S. 371 (1905). 
31/ 207 U.S. 564 (1908). 



456 



F. The Aiterican Indian Nations and Tribes, by their Treaties , 
Retain — In the Exercise of their Inherent Sovereign Powers 
— All of their Ancient Homelands and ^^purtenant Properties 
They did not Grant to the United States by their Treaties 

There has been reviewed in detail by "The Majority Report," the 

inherent sovereign powers of the ArtErican Indian nations and tribes. There 

tes been reviewed, moreover, in detail, that "The Dissent" is without merit. 

Regarding the most crucial sentence in that "Dissent" : "... American Indian 

tribes lost their sovereignty..." by discovery and other means, it continues 

to assail "The Majority Report." This inquiry is presented under the 

subheading, "II. WhD Did the Reserving?" Continuing in error, "The Dissent" 

has this to say: 

"In support of its argument that Indian tribes by treaty 
have retained to themselves inherent power of self-gov- 
emitent, [The Majority Report] relies i^jon United States 
v. Winans , 198 U.S. 371, 25 S. Ct. 662 (1905). 

That quoted statement is gravely in error. "The Majority Report" relies 
upon an abundance of authority — in addition to the Winans case — v*iich 
autharities were rendered by the Supreme Court and other courts antecedent 
to and subsequent to Winans . Continuing in error, this additional statement 
frcm "The Dissent" must be given particular attention by reason of its fun- 
damental error: 

"It is true that there is dictum in that case [ Winans] 
to the effect that the treaty in that case 'vas not a 
grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of right 
from them, a reservation of those not granted. " 32/ 

Because of the crucial aspect of Winans and the misrepresenation that the last 



32/ The Dissent, pg. 23 et seq . 



457 



quoted excerpt from it was dictim, it is essential to consider the basic issues 
here to be considered and to be supported by full and correct documentation: 

1. Winans proves and is authority for the proposition beyond 
successful challenge, that the sovereign power of tribes 
over their properties, held and occupied by than frcm tine 
inmeiTorial were reserved to the extent that they were not 
specifically granted by their treaties; 

2. Winans proves, beyond question, that the Indian nations and 
tribes, v^ien they exercise their sovereign powers to enter 
into treaties, vrere proceeding at the highest dignity of 
sovereignty when they executed the treaties, when they ceded 
the lands described in the treaties, and when they retained 
all that they did not grant by their treaties. 

A review, in depth, of Winans is thus fully warranted. In explicit terms, 
vMch "The Dissent" cannot countenance, the Supreme Court of the United 
States correctly held — not dictum — that the Yakima Indian Nation reserved 
properties vrfiich it did not convey. It retained title to those properties. 
More iirportantly, frcm the standpoint of those who si^jport the Indian people, 
the (jongress of the United States recognized full title in regard to those 
reserved pn^serties viiich were not granted by the Tribe. 33/ On that back- 
ground, reference is made to this erroneous conclusion in "The Dissent": 

"So, as I have rejected the broad assertion of inher- 
ent tribal sovereignty, I also reject the broad asser- 
tion that tribal Indians have reserved to themselves 
inherent rights of self-government and property." 

Properly to evaluate the specific and general errors contained under the 

heading, in "The Dissent," "II. Who Did the Reserving?" it is manifest that a 



33/ See Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States 348 U.S. 272, 279, 280 (1955), 



458 



-30- 

full review of the Winans case must be made. It is important to observe, 
however, that there are nonsequitiirs in "The Dissent." Seemingly, it has 
been written on the misconception that the tribes "reserved" self-govern- 
ment. That self-government was not reserved. It was, as stated above, 
passed on from generation unto generation of the forebearers of the Aoner- 
ican Indians of today. Although that tribal sovereignty is si:ppressed 
in many ways, it has never been destroyed. It is the objective of "The 
Majority Report" to guarantee that the sovereign rights of these indepen- 
dent people will continue. 

Relative to the facts and background of the Winans decision, the most 
crucial feature of that decision is the posture of the United States of 
America in negotiating and consumnating the treaty, thus recognizing, by 
the treaty itself, that not only did the Yakama Indian Nation have the 
power to enter into that arranganent of such great dignity, but it also 
was the owner of the land and the appurtances to the land retained by the 
Yakama Indian Nation. It was on the 9th day of June, 1855, that the 
Yakama Treaty was entered into. The words that vrere used in the Treaty 
partake of sovereignty. There, it is declared that the parties entered 
into: 

"Articles of agreement and convention made and concluded 
at the treaty-ground, Camp Stevens, Walla-Walla Valley. . . 
by and between Issac I. Stevens, governor and superinten- 
dent of Indian affairs for the Territory of Washington, 
on the part of the United States, and the undersigned 
head chiefs, chiefs, head-^tien, and delegates of the Yaka- 
mas, Palouse, et al... confederated tribes and bands of 
Indians, occupying lands hereafter bounded and described 
and lying in Washington Territory, vt)o for the purpose 



459 



of this treaty are to be considered as one nation , under 
the name of 'Yakama' , with Kanaia)aai as its head chief on be- 
half of and acting for said tribes and bands, and being 
fiiLly authorized thereto by them." 3V [Biphasis supplied] 

Following that initial recital — v*u.ch takes cognizance of the sovereignty 

of the assembled tribes — the Treaty provisions continue: "It is declared 

as follows: 

Article 1. The aforesaid confederated tribes and bands 
of Indians hereby cede, relinquish, and convey to the 
United States all their right, title, and interest in and 
to the lands and country occupied and claimed by them, 
and bounded and described as follows,..." 

Following that declaration, there is set forth in the Treaty a descrip- 
tion of a vast area of land in the central portion of the present State 
of Washington. It is essential to ke^ in the foreground, however, that 
the United States, as a sovereign, accepted a conveyance from the "Yakama" 
Nation as a sovereign. Throughout the covenant, the sovereignty of the 
Yakima Indian Nation was repeated fully, ej^licitly and, 1^ the very terms 
of the arrangement, the United States was proceeding on the basis that it 
was invoking its sovereignty paralleling the sovereignty of the Indian 
Nation there involved. It is then provided in the Treaty between the sov- 
ereigns as follows: 

"Article 2. There is, however, reserved, from the 
lands above ceded for the use and occupation of the 
aforesaid confederated tribes and bands of Indians, 
the tract of land included within the following boun- 
dciries, towit. ..." 



34/ Indian Treaties 1778-1883, Kappler's, Third Print (1975). 



460 



There is, following that pronouncement in the Treaty, a description of ap- 
proxirtately one and a half million acres of land retained by the Yakiina 
Indian Nation at the tiite, and today title to that acreage resides in the 
YakiiiB Indian Nation. Moreover, the Yakima Indian Nation, today, is exer- 
cising its sovereignty over those properties. What exists today was oon- 
teirplated in 1855, for it is explicitly provided in the Treaty that the 
lands that were retained — not granted — by the Yakima Indian Nation 
were, and are, for the "... exclusive use and benefit..." for the tribes 

"... at an Indian reservation " "And the said confederated tribes and 

bands agree to remove to, and settle i^xDn, the same, within one year after 
the ratification of this treaty...." 35/ Following the specific language, 
relative to the lands of the reservation which were retained, not granted 
by the Treaty, this crucial proviso, in the Treaty, was set forth in the 
Winans case with specificity: 

"The exclusive right of taking fish in all the streams 
vtere running through or bordering said reservation, is 
further secured to said confederated tribes and bands of 
Indians, as also the right of taking fish at all usual 
and accustatied places . . . . " [Biphasis supplied] 

The erphasized portion of the quotation, relative to the "usual and accus- 

tored places of fishing," is of extreme inportance - by reason of the fact that 

those extensive fisheries were retained by the Tribe off of the reservation. 

There, this cones into issue: Does the sovereign power of the Yakima Indian 

Nation extend beyond the confines of the reservation? An affirmative answer, 

35/ Id., pg. 669. 



461 



-33- 

relative to the subject, is set forth by the Suprene Court. Because of the 
irrportance of the language of the Court in refuting "The Dissent," that 
language will be quoted and reviewed in some detail. 

Challenges to the Yakima Treaty rights of fishery were the sternest. 
Winans , or their predecessors, claiited title to the lands on v*iich were 
located scire of the "places" where the Yakima had, frcxn time iimemorial , 
usually and custonarily fished. Those patents were fran the United States 
of America, issued by the Secretary of the Interior. They were, moreover, 
issued by that official without reference to the Treaty provisos respecting 
the off -reservation fishing so ejqalicitly set forth in the Treaty. It is 
most significant that Winans and the others, who challenged the Treaty pro- 
visos, held licenses fran the State of Washington respecting the shore- 
lands of the Columbia River, upon which the patented lands fronted. That 
is significant because the State of Washington, a party to the proceedings 
in Winans , asserted ownership to the bed of the stream upon the concept that, 
vpon admission into the Union, on an equal footing with all other states, 
it had succeeded to the exclusive ownership of the bed of the Columbia River 
which was navigable. Thus, ve have twD powerful sovereigns, the Nation and 
the state, testing the propriety of the Yakima Indian Nation exercising its 
inherent sovereign power to leave the reservation and to exercise its pro- 
prietary interests in the Columbia River, which was miles away frcm the 
reservation. Mding to the stemess of the test of the Yakima's sover- 
eignty and its proprietary rights in the Columbia River, the State of 



462 



-34- 

Washington had issued to Winans and the others licenses for the purpose of 
installing and naintaining devices — known as fishwheels — for the taking 
of saliton. 

When the Highest Court iqsheld the Treaty rights of fishery off of the 
Yakirta Indian Reservation — establishing beyond question the dignity of 
the Treaty, and overriding both the patents issued by the National Govern- 
ment and licenses issued by the State of Washington, vfcLch claimed title 
to the bed of the stream — it said this: 

"The right to resort to the fishing places in contro- 
versy was a part of larger rights possessed by the 
Indians, upon the exercise of vMch there was not a 
shadow of inpediment, and \diich were not much less 
necessary to the existence of the Indians than the 
atmosphere they breathed." 36/ 

The Court continued, relative to the modification of the title and interest 
of the Yakima Indian Nation stemming frcm the Treaty and the rights of fish- 
ing that were reserved in that Treaty. It said this: 

"New conditions caite into existence [the advent] 
of the whitonan] to vfeLch those rights had to be 
accommodated. Only a limitation of them [the rights 
of fishery under the Treaty] , hov«ver, was necessary 
and intended, not a taking away." 

It was then that the Court declared this cnx:ial language — the main and prin- 
cipal thrust of the Winans decision and not " dictum , " as "The Dissent" would 
have us believe: 



36/ United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381 a905) . 



463 



"In other words, the treaty was not a grant of rights 
to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them — a 
reservation of those rights not granted. " 37/ [Elrphasis] 

It is worthy of note that the Court, having declared the nature of the Treaty 

as it pertained to the conveyance and the retention of title by the Yakima 

Indian Tribe, said this: "And the form of the instnment [the Treaty] and 

its language was adopted to that purpose." Further, the Court described the 

nature of the entire proceedings between the sovereign United States and the 

sovereign Yakima Nation in these terms: 

"Reseirvations were not of particular parcels of land, 
and oould not be ej^ressed in deeds as dealings be- 
tween private individuals . The reservations were in 
large areas of territory and the negotiations were 
with the tribe." [Qtphasis supplied] 

Ei<plicitly, recognizing that the Indian Nation was representing its citizenry, 
the Court added this statement: "They reserved rights, however, to every in- 
dividual Indian, as though named herein." It was, noreover, of extrene impor- 
tance that the Court described the nature of the rights of fishery in terms 
of real property law known as conveyancing. It said this: "They iitposed a 
servitude upon every piece of land as though described herein." Thus, there 
was a servitude iitposed, not only upon the lands patented by the Secretary 
of the Interior, but vpon the claims of the State to the bed of the Columbia 
River. In describing the nature and dignity of the "servitude" imposed upon 
the lands of the United States and its grantees and upon the interests of the 
State of Washington and its grantees, ths Highest Court made this very iitpor- 
tant statement: 



37/ Id., 198 U.S. 371, 381-382 (1905), 



93-440 O - 78 - 30 



464 



"And the right [reserved in tlie Treaty by the Indians 
for thatselves] was intended to be continuing against 
the United States and its grantees as well as against 
the State and its grantees." 

There has been reviewed the main thrust of the Winans decision. In that 

Doctrine, the Supreme Court recognized and reaffirmed: 

1. The inherent sovereignty of the Indian people and the breadth 
of its application. 

2. Ihe Indian sovereignty cast the Indian people in the role of 
grantor and the United States, grantee, lander the Yakima Treaty 
in the Winans case. 

3. The Indians reserved, as sovereigns exercising inherent power, 
all the properties that they did not grant, including their 
reservation and off-reservation fisheries. 

4. The three great branches of the Government of the United States 
were directly and immediately involved, all of them recognizing 
the inherent power of the Yakima Indian Nation and, indeed, all 
other Indian nations similarly situated as being sovereigns. 

a. The Executive Branch of the Government negotiated and 
consumtated the Treaty with the Yakima Indian Nation; 

b. the Congress of the United States approved the Treaty; 

c. the Judiciary vpheld the Treaty; 

d. the Secretary of the Interior and the State of Wash- 
ington were declared to be bound by that Treaty; and 

e. the grantors and the grantees of the Secretary of the 
Interior and of the State of Washington were bound by 
the servitude imposed by the Yakima Nation upon prop- 
erties outside of the reservation. 

5. "The Dissent" is in grave error in seeking to attack the con- 
cepts of Winters and Winans , all of which have been reviewed 

above. 



465 



-37- 

It is reocnmsnded that "The Dissent" reconsider its statement that it was the 
United States and not the Yakima Nation that reserved the Yakima Indian Reser- 
vation and the off -reservation fishing rights. It is further urged that 
additional cxmsideration be given to the various cases vrfiere identically the 
same concepts as contained in Winans have been reiterated and reaffirmed, 
further demonstrating the error in "The Dissent." 

1. The Winters Decision Must Be Read with the Winans Decision 
If the Magnitude of the Errors in "The Dissent" are to be 
Fully Carprehended 

There has been reviewed, in sane detail, the authority of the Yakima 
Indian Nation to reserve, not grant, its reservation and appurtenant off -reserva- 
tion fishing rights. Three years later, the Supreme Court was to render the 
Winters decision. 38/ There, the nature, extent and cteracter of the Treaty of 
1855 with the Blackfoot Indians in Montana were considered. President Pierce, on 
April 25, 1856, signed and sealed that Treaty. This Presidential act affirmed 
"Articles of Agreeinent and Convention made and concluded between the United 
States and the Blackfoot and other tribes, at council on the Upper Missouri 
River..." vMch had been negotiated between the leaders of the Indians and 
those of the United States. 39/ That Treaty, it will be observed, retained for 
the Blackfoot Tribes, did not grant to the United States, a vast area in the 
Upper Missouri Basin. It is essential to oiphasize that the 1855 Treaty of the 
Blackfoot was a covenant vrfiich gave rise to what is known as the Winters Doctrine . 
Following that Treaty, a covenant was entered into on May 1, 1888. The Court 



38/ Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908). 

39/ Treaty with the Blackfoot Indians, October 17, 1855, 11 Stat. 657 
et seq . (Effective April 25, 1856) . 



466 



of Pippeals for the Ninth Circuit traced the unbroken chain of title of the 
Blackfoot Nation down to the date last mentioned. It is inportant in re- 
ferring to the Winters opinion in the Court of ;^)peals for the Ninth Circuit, 
vAiich opinion was subsequently affirmed by the Sijpreme Court, to note this 
inportant assertion: 

"By the terms and provisions of this treaty, the Ft. Belk- 
nap Indians [part of the group of Indians v*io signed the 
1855 Treaty] reserved to themselves the 'uninterrupted 
privileges of hunting, fishing, and gathering fruit, graz- 
ing anitiHls, curing meat, and dressing robes.'" 40/ 
[Enphasis supplied] 

It is equally inportant to note that the area set aside for the tribes, not 
granted by them, embraced the Milk River, vAiich had its source in Montana 
but entered Canada and returned back into the United States. It is equally 
important that down through the years the National Government recognized 
the 1855 Treaty, albeit at times, the National Government acted to limit the 
area that was embraced within the Treaty. Negotiations, in that connection, 
were entered into between the United States and the Ft. Belknap Indians, who 
agreed to make changes in the area vdiich they were occupying. 

On the subject raised by "The Dissent," as to "who did the reserving," 
this quotation frcxn the Court of ;^peals for the Ninth Circuit — later af- 
firmed by the Si^ireme Court — is most important: 

" [W] hen the Indians made the treaty granting rights to 
the United States, they reserved the rights to use the 
waters of Milk River at least to the extent reasonably 
necessary to irrigate their lands. The right so reserved 
continues to exist against the United States and its gran- 
tees, as well as against the state [Montana] and its gran- 
tees." [Eitphasis supplied] 



40/ Winters v. United States, 143 Fed. 740, 741 (C.A. 9, 1906), 



467 



-39- 



In the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the very essence 
of the Winans concepts was reviewed in depth and those concepts were taken to 
the Supreme Court for review. They were affirmed. In affirming the decision, 
the Supreme Court drew heavily upon the lower court's rationale that (a) the 
Indians were the owners of the rights to the use of water, which they retained 
under the agreement of May 1, 1888; (b) the Indians were the grantors under 
that agreement, retaining all of their right, title and interests in the res- 
ervation which they did not convey to the United States; and (c) those rights 
vested in the Indians there involved and retained by them were property in- 
terests \*iich were vital for their existence and which interests — rights to 
the use of water — were inrrune from interference from the State of Montana 
or the laws enacted by it pertaining to those rights to the use of water. It 
is worthy of note, to use the language of the Supreme Court, that Winters con- 
tended to that Court: 

"... the means of irrigation were deliberately given up 
by the Indians and deliberately accepted by the Govern- 
ment." 

Having enphasized that the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation was arid, the Court 

analyzed, in some detail, the requirements to nake the area "livable." 41/ 

It enphasized that the objective of the United States and the Indians entering 

into the agreeinent was to have a place that was habitable for the Indians. The 

Supreme Court, on that background, made this crucial statement: 

"The Indians had conniand of the lands and the waters — 
COTrmand of all their beneficial use..." for all purposes. 42/ 



41/ 207 U.S. 564, 576 (1908). 
42/ 207 U.S. 654, 576 (1908). 



468 



-40- 

Ir^aeed, the Si^jreme Court recounted the beneficial uses for which the Indians had 
retained, did not grant, their rights. Those Indian rights could be applied 
to "beneficial use, vAether the lands were kept for hunting, 'and grazing 
roving herds of stock, ' or turned to agriciiLture and the arts of civiliza- 
tiOTi." 43/ 

As the Siflsreine Court had initially stated in its opinion in Winters , the 
issue was vrfiether the May 1, 1888, agreement with the Indians and the United 
States was vitiated vrfien Montana was admitted into the Union in 1889. The Svp- 
rame Court rejected that concept in ttese words: "... it would be extreme to 
believe..." after the 1888 agreement was executed that "... Congress destroyed 
the reservation and took from the Indians the consideration of their grant , 
leaving than a barren waste — took from them the means of continuing their old 
habits, yet did not leave them the power to change to new ones." 44/ There 
follows a review vfeLch coalesces the concepts of Winans and Winters . 

2. Reaff inrence and Reiteration of Concepts of Winans 
Dispel Any Merit vtoLch might otherwise be Attributed 
to "The Dissent" Relative to the Retention by the 
Tribes of Properties Not Granted to the United States 

Relative to the conclusions and the gravity of the error com- 
mitted by "The Dissent," reference is made to a case involving the precise issues 
raised by "The Dissent." That decision removes all merit from the position taken 
by "The Dissent." It reaffirms that when the Indians executed their treaties, re- 
serving lands and appurtances to themselves, it was in the full exercise of their 



43/ 207 U.S. 564, 577 (1908). 
44/ 207 U.S. 564, 577 (1908), 



469 



inherent sovereign powers. 45/ In that case and in precise terms, the issues 
decided were these: 

1. It was the Yakiina Indian Nation — under the Treaty upheld in Winans - 
that reserved rights to the use of water for the Yakima Indian Nation; 

2. it was not the United States of America that retained the rights to 
the use of water, rather it was a grantee under the Treaty; 

3. the State of Washington had no jurisdiction in regard to the rights 
to the use of water reserved by the Yakiina Indian Nation; 

4. the Secretary of the Interior did not grant away the Yakima Indian 
rights to the use of water, although he attettpted to do that. 

In declaring that it was the Yakima Indians v*io reserved the rights to 

the use of water involved in the flhtanum case and relying heavily upon Winans 

and Winters , the Court of i^peals for the Ninth Circuit said this, citing 

Winters and quoting from Winans : 

"That the [Yakima] Treaty of 1855 reserved rights in and 
to the waters of this stream for the Indians, is plain 
from the decision iji Winters v. United States , 207 U.S. 
564." 46/ 

Continuing in its reliance upon Winters and Winans , the Court, in Ahtanum , said 

this: 

"When the Indians agreed to change their nomadic habits 
and to beccme a pastoral and civilized people, using the 
snaller reservation area, it must be borne in mind, as 
the Supreme Court said of this very [Yakima] treaty, that 
'the treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but 
a grant of rights frcm them — a reservation of those not 
granted.' United States v. Winans , 198 U.S. 371, 381." 47/ 



45/ United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation District, et al., 236 F.2d. 321, 
CCA. 9, 1956), cert , den . 256 U.S. 993 (1956); 330 F.2d. 897 (1965); 
338 F.2d. 307 (1965); cert , den . 381 U.S. 924 (1965). 

46/ 236 F.2d. 321, 325. 

47/ 236 F. 2d. 321 U.S. 325-326 (C.A. 9, 1956). 



470 



There, the Court continued in langrjage that clearly icSentifies as error the 

concepts of "Ihe Dissent," relative to the status of Indian nations and tribes 

vAien they signed treaties: 

"Before the treaty the Indians had the right to the use 
not only of Ahtanum Creek but of all other streains in a 
vast area. Ihe Indians did not surrender any part of their 
right to the use of Ahtanim Creek regardless of whether the 
Creek became the boundary or whether it flowed entirely 
within the reservation." 48/ [Ehphasis supplied] 

Explicitly and implicitly, the Ahtanum decision, like Winans and Winters , 
stated that the Indians were the grantors and the United States, grantee. The 
Indians, in both Winters and Ahtanum, reserved to themselves, in the exercise 
of the inherent sovereign power, the invaluable rights, the title to which was 
invested in them frcm time iirmemDrial. It necessarily follows that the inves- 
titure of title to those immemorial rights was not granted to them by the United 
States. Rather, those rights had been part and parcel of the Yakima Indian 
Nation antecedent to the "discovery" of the ^k^rth Amsrican^Cgrvfeinent. On the 
subject, the Supreme Court recently made this conitient: 

"It must always be remotibered that the various Indian tribes 
were once independent and sovereign nations, and that their 
claim to sovereignty long antedates that of our Government." 49/ 

That sovereignty continues to this ncment — albeit events have modified it. 

3. Attenpts by "The Dissent" to Denigrate the Supreme Law 
of the Land Must Fail 

There have been reviewed, in explicit detail, the dignity and the 

Iter its of the inherent sovereign power of the Yakiita Indian Nation to reserve. 



48/ 236 F.2d. 321, 326. 

49/ McClanahan v. Arizona State Tax Ocstmissicn, 411 U.S. 164, 172 (1973), 



471 



by its Treaty of June 9, 1855, its reservation and properties off of the 
vation. The pov^r in that Treaty stenming fron Indian sovereignty mast be con- 
prehended. When that is acccnplished, the vacuity of "The Dissent" becoires mani- 
fest. Reference in that regard is made to our Nation's organic law — the Con- 
stitution — v*iich vas so fully invoked when the sovereign United States and the 
sovereign Ya]cima Nation negotiated and concluded a treaty of peace. It most be 
recognized that initially the powers of the President of the United States were 
invoked and those powers are explicit in the Constitution, vMch declares: 

"Section. 1. The executive Power shall be vested in the 
President of the United States." 50/ 

Nature of the executive power is spelled out with specificity: 

"Section. 2. The President shall be Ccmtander-in-Chief 
of the Army and Navy of the United States.,.." 51/ 

It was pursuant to that proviso that the Chief Executive of the United States, as 

Carroander-in-Chief , waged war against the sovereign nation known as the "Yakamas." 

It was, noreover, this power that brought about the Treaty, for it confers authority 

on the President and declares that "He shall have Power, by and with the Advice 

and Consent of the Senate to irake treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators 

present concur " 

It is most unfortunate that "The Dissent" finds it obligatory, apparently, 

to assail the powers vested in the President ty the Constitution, to the end that 

there can be assailed the dignity of the Indian inherent tribal sovereignty. 

That "The Dissent" fails in its attack, both upon the dignity of this Nation 



50/ Article II, Section. 1, Constitution of the United States, 1787. 
51/ Article II, Section. 2, Constitution. 



472 



-44- 

under its Ctonstitution and the Dignity of the "Yakama" Indian Nation, with wham 

the covenant of peace was entered into by the Treaty in question, detracts very 

greatly from any weight that might be ascribed to "The Dissent." That concliasion, 

necessarily, stans fran the Constitution itself, v*iich provides as follows: 

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States 
which shall be itade in Pursuance thereof; and all Trea- 
ties nade or vrtiich shall be made, under the authority 
of the United States, shall be the Supreme. Law of the 
Land. ..." 

Lest anyone vould overlook that provision in our basic and fundamental law, the 

Constitution continues in these words: 

"And the JuSges in every State shall be bound thereby. 
Anything in the Ccnstitution or Laws of any State to 
the Contrary notwithstanding . " 52/ 

4. A Nonsequitur in "The Dissent" Demonstrates the 
Paucity of Authority in Support of It 

In the unsuccessful attack upon the inherent sovereign power of the 
tribes to retain to themselves — not grant to the United States — their reser- 
vations and appurtances, "The Dissent" seeks to bolster its conclusions by ref- 
erence to the Akin decision. 53/ The substance of the Akin decision is this: 
By v*iat is referred to as the McCarren Act, 54/ the United States is said to 
have waived its sovereign iimnunity from suit in state courts in regard to general 
adjudications involving federal rights to the use of water. That determination — 
it is believed in error — was first declared in the Eagle River decision. 55/ 
In Eagle, this statement is made: 



52/ Article VI, Clause 2, Constitution of the United States, 1787, 

53/ Colorado River Water Conservation District, et al. v. United States, 
74-940, 74-949, Akin, et al. v. United States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). 

54/ 43 U.S.C. 666. 

55/ U.S. V, District Court in and for the County of Eagle, 401 U.S. 520, 
522-523 (1971). 



473 



"As we said in Arizona v. California , 373 U.S. 546, the 
Federal Govemitent had the authority both before and after 
a State is admitted into the Union 'to reserve waters for 
the use and benefit of federally reserved lands.' Id. at 
597. The federally reserved lands included any federal 
enclave. In Arizona v. California , vte were primarily con- 
cerned with Indian reservations. Id. at 598-601." 

Adhering to its earlier statement in Eagle, the Suprane Court declared that the 

Act was applicable to the Southern Ute Tribe and subjected its rights to the use 

of \aater to the jurisdiction of the state court. 

Predicated upon the McCarren Act and its waiver of federal immunity fran 

suit, "The Dissent" says this: 

"Accordingly, since the McCarren Amendment provided the 
consent necessary to sue the United States, and since the 
Indian water rights were among federal water rights subject 
to the McCarren Amendment, it follov^d that Indian water 
rights could be litigated and determined in an action 
against the United States." 56/ 

Errors pervade that last quoted staterent. Indian property rights — in- 
cluding rights to the use of water — are not "federal rights." They are not, 
moreover, "public rights" as that term is generally used. Rather, they are pri- 
vate rights to the use of water, the invasion of v*iich requires the payment of . 
just cortpensation. 57/ 



56/ "The Majority Report," pg. 24. 

57/ "Redbook," pg. 67. Federal Eininent Danain, Department of Justice Sec. 15. 
What cx3nstitutes 'private property' under the Fifth Amendment, page 56. 

N. Prcjperty of Indian wards. - As guardian of the Indian wards, the United 
States has the power of management and cxxitrol over lands occupied by the 
tribes or Indian allottees. Such lands prior to some division or allotment 
in severalty, are held by the tribe in ccmtiDn. VJhile strict legal title 
is often in the United States, under the treaties, statutes, or executive 
orders creating their reservations, the Indian tribes usually have a full 
beneficial interest, described as a 'right of perpetual use and occi:pancy. ' 
Since this right is not to be narrowly construed, the tribal interest has 
been treated for all practical purposes as equivalent to ownership of the 
land itself. Thus when there is taJang of the vdiole tribal interest within 



474 



-46- 

It is essential to sharply differentiate Indian rights from federal rights. 
The failure to recognize the difference is one of the most serious deficiencies 
in "The Dissent." Continuing in reliance upon the McCarren Act and the Akin 
decision, waiving the National Government's immmity frcm state court jurisdic- 
tion involving general adjijdications of rights to the use of water, "The Dissait" 
says this: 

"In short, the Court [in Akin ] was saying that there was 
no Indian reserved rights but, rather, only federal rights 
reserved for Indians." 

That statement is in error. Reliance upon the A)dn decision for that erron- 
eous proposition is a continuing error. Hence, when this statement is added, 
it likewise adds error to that already made in "The Dissent": 

"I make these renarks [that Indian rights are federal rights] 
because, in my view, it is v*iolly erroneous to adopt, as this 
Cartmission has, the position that trital Indians have reserved 
to themselves all rights not specifically extinguished by 
treaty." 58/ 

In regard to that last quoted stateitent, it is essential to atphasize that there 
is great confusion in "The Dissent." Throughout that "Dissent," reseated ref- 
erences are made to the inherent sovereignty of the tribes and the ownership 
of property. That is, of course, incorrect. Tribal ownership of land and tribal 



57/ (continued) the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, the Government must in- 
clude as part of just cotpensation to the tribe the value of the natural 
resources on the land such as timber or minerals. Certain profits a pren- 
dre, such as the right to take fish or gather herbs, occasionally granted 
to Indian tribes, are also regarded as property rights. Pages 76 & 77. 

See page 66 — E. Interests in real property * * *. 

See United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Company, 339 U.S. 725 (1950). 

58/ The Dissent, pg. 25. 



475 



-47- 

sovereignty are not even remotely synonotous. In the exercise of tribal sover- 
eignty, Indian tribes execute treaties. By thDse treaties, all of the lands not 
granted are reserved by the tribes to themselves. Sovereignty does not flow to 
the tribes from ownership of land. Rather, the capacity of a tribe to own land 
flows frcm sovereignty. The Winans and Winters decisions, reviewed above, are 
precise and explicit authorities in support of the proposition that tribal own- 
ership and tribal sovereignty are separate and distinct. In other words, the 
power to own a title is and must be separated fran the title itself. Based upon 
the erroneous concepts that, in sane itenner, the tribes reserved their title and 
their properties by a treaty, "The Dissent" concludes as follows: 

"So, as I have rejected the broad assertions of inherent 
tribal sovereignty, I also reject the broad assertion 
that tribal Indians have reserved to themselves inherent 
rights to self-govemirent and property rights." 59/ 

In evaluating the lack of legal merit in "The Dissent," it is essential to 
say this: Because the law, as it prevails in regard to (a) the inherent author- 
ity of Indian tribes to exercise sovereign powers, including but not limited to 
the negotiation and execution of treaties; and (b) in the exercise of the in- 
herent powers, the Indian tribes were legally oatpetent, among other things, 
to retain cill the lands they did not grant in full compliance with those treat- 
ies, it necessarily follows that "The Dissent," v*iile presenting an agressive 
anti-Indian sentiment, nevertheless does not offer substance vpon which that 
aggressive anti-Indian sentiment can be successfully advocated, either legally 
or morally. 



59/ The Dissent, pg. 25. 



476 



5. "This Nation's Trust Responsibilities Rejected by 
'The Dissent'" 6"o7 

Throughout "The Dissent," there has been an attack upon the Nation's 
relationship with the Indian nations, tribes and people. The assault, in effect, 
vpon that relationship is sumnarized in that part of "The Dissent" called "Fed- 
eral Indian Trust Relations and Social Vfelfare Programs." It is sufficient to 
say tliat the social welfare prograirs are not the only aspects of the trust res- 
ponsibility to v^ich reference is made under the heading in question. Rather, 
it enbraces all phases and aspects of that relationship. 

In responding to "The Dissent's" attack upon the trust obligation of the 
United States to the Indian people, it is essential to refer to sane basic his- 
toric facts. Anyone vdxa has considered the subject will agree that there has 
been and is now an ambivalence in regard to Indian affairs since the Europeans 
first encountered the Indians. "Love thy neighbor" — the Christian concept — 
was attendant at the first encounter of the Europeans in the "New Vtorld" with 
the Indian people. Another aspect of v*iat the Europeans brought without mercy 
to the American Indians, tribes and people has been treachery, murder, confis- 
cation and frequently genocide. Incredibly, the basic conflict between the 
European society that fostered the United States of America remains today. 
There is a strong mDrality vAiich is constantly in conflict with bigotry and 
greed vMch vie, one with the other, in the treatment of the Indian people. 
It must, of course, be recognized that the savagery of the Europeans far ex- 
ceeded that of the "savages" vAio were allegedly occupying the land. The skills 
in treachery and armed warfare of the Europeans did, of course, overcame sub- 
stantial Indian resistance. But, the fact remains that,v*ile one coitrasting 



60/ The Dissent, pg. 71 et seq . 



477 



-49- 

gro\jp destroyed Indians, a powerful segment of the European society, at all tines, 

desired fairly to deal vrith the Indians and to preserve and protect them against 

the leadership that, through bigotry and greed, demanded Indian annihilation. 

In "The Dissent," this statement is nade: 

"It is clear that in most instances, the United States as 
the victorious party, dictated the terms of the treaty and 
reserved various parcels of land." 61/ 

Again, "The Dissent" has overstated the historic facts v*iich relate to the ear- 
liest nrments of this Nation's history of Indian affairs, antecedent to the 
Revolutionary War. It is essential to consider that history, because from it 
emerges the basis upon which this Nation's trust obligation is predicated. 
Moreover, it directly relates to the fiction of "discovery" and other fictions 
v^ich the Europeans have applied to the Indians. 

In the light of the circumstances which prevailed, the fiction that 
"discovery" had seized title to their lands wDuld have been brushed aside by 
the Indian nations had they been aware of them. Due to their warlike character- 
istics and independent nature, many tribes withstood the European invaders from 
discovery to the Revolutionary War. Because they were "powerful and brave," 
they were "dreaded as formidable enonies..." by the British. 62/ Tt> preserve 
the peace it was essential to placate those powerful triles and Britain never 
asserted "... claims to their lands," or asserted "dominiai over their per- 
sons...." 63/ Because of the fighting powers of the Indians, it "did not enter 



61/ The Dissent, pg. 25. 

62/ Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 350, 371 (6 Pet, 515, 546) (1832) . 

63/ Id. 



478 



-50- 

the mind of any man" that the Crown charters issued by the King to land occupied 
by Indian tribes envisioned that the colonists would govern those original owners 
of the land. 64/ Fran the standpoint of the Indians, they readily accepted from 
the Crown the price paid to them to maintain the peace "... so long as their 
actual independence was untouched and their right of self-government acknow- 
ledged " 65/ 

Adaitant refusal to accede to English dcminance, in practical effect, won 
for the Indian nations concessions fron the Crown. 66/ In the contemplation of 
the English law, the Indian nations " were admitted to be the rightful occu- 
pants of the soil, with a legal as well as just claim to retain possession of 
it, and to use it according to their own discretion...." 67/ 

There was no outside interference with the Indian national affairs, "fur- 
ther than to keep out foreign powers v*o might seduce them into foreign alli- 
ances.. . ." 68/ 

Internal self-govemnent was g\iaranteed to than and the treaties Britain 
entered into were acknowledged as solemn obligations it was obliged to keep. 
That was "tte settled state of things when the war of our revolution was can- 
menced." 69/ 



64/ Ibid. , at 369 (at 545) (1832) . 

65/ Ibid. , at 371 (at 547) (1832). 

66/ F. Thompson on Real Property, 1967 Replacement, Sec. 2713, pgs. 1095- 
1096. 

67/ Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. 543, 574 (8 Wheat. 543, 574) (1823) . 

68/ 1 Kent's Ccmrrentaries, 13th Bi. , pg. 384. 

69/ Vforcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 350, 372 (6 Pet. 515, 549) (1832) . 



479 



-51- 



Throughout the var for independence, the colonists experienced great appre- 
hension that the Indian nations vould, as allies of Great Britain, "add their 
arms to hers." 70/ As a consequence, the Congress "Far fran advancing a claim" 
to Indian lands or asserting dcminion over the Indians, resolved to foster and 
preserve Indian friendship. 

At the successful conclusion of the Revolutionary War, the fragile Union 
of sovereign states continued to desire most assiduously to maintain peace with 
the powerful and warlike Indian tribes whose dominions bordered upon them, in- 
deed, were interspersed among them. In furtherance of that policy, the National 
Govemnent entered into treaties both with the Indian tribes that had allied 
thenselves with Great Britain throughout the war of the revolution, and those 
who were loyal to the colonists. 71/ Mutuality among nations was the postulate 
of those treaties though they did reflect the pretenses of the British that 
"protection" was being extended to the tribes by the United States. By thDse 
covenants of the highest dignity among nations, captives taken by both the In- 
dian nations and the states were exchanged and peace with everlasting friend- 
ship vras agreed upon. Reference is warranted to the fact that throughout the 
entire period v*ien bloody wars were fought to conquer and suppress the Indian 
tribes, the United States always adhered to the policy that Indians v*o were 
captured were not apprehended in treasonable conduct but rather as being sub- 
ject to the ordinary articles of war. 



70/ M. 

71/ See, for exanple, Act of October 22, 1784 (1 Stat. 15), 



93-440 O - 78 - 32 



480 



-52- 

In the interlude between peace with Great Britain and the adoption of the 
Constitution, the United States functioned as best it could under the Articles 
of Confederation. Those Articles contained provisions respecting Indian affairs 
vrfu-ch were inoperative — indeed, beyond ccnprehension. Nevertheless, there 
was an invariable aspect as to the conduct of those affairs and the treaties 
v*iich were entered into with the Indians. At all times, those original inhabi- 
tants were recognized as being political communities of "naticaial character" 
and having inherent rights "of self-govemmant . " 72/ 

Hamilton, Jay and ffedison, in their Federalist essays, ejqaressed the im- 
perative need to have Indian affairs conducted pursuant to the Constitution 
within the plenary jurisdiction of the Central Government they were propos- 
ing. 73/ It was readily recognized that the states were imwilling or unable 
to restrain the aggressions of their citizens against the Indians, with the 
attendant frequent and often dreadful wars. 74/ Moreover, the Indian nations 
on the borders vere a threat to the Union as possible allies of European powers. 75/ 

It was in the contenplation of those facts as reflected in part by The 
Federalist that the Constitution of the United States, 1787, provides: "The 
Congress shall have Power ...to regulate Connerce with foreign nations, and among 
the several states, and with the Indian tribes...." 76/ Full power over Indian 



72/ Wbrcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 350, 379 (6 Pet. 515, 560) (1932) . 

73/ The Federalist , Hamilton, Jay, Madison. 

74/ The Federalist , No. 3, Jay, pg. 44. 

75/ The Federalist , No. 25, Hamilton, pg. 163. 

76/ Constitution of the United States, 1787, Article I, Sec. 8, CI. 3. 



481 



affairs is thus the province of Congress. 77/ It is, as stated, elarental that 
the Constitution, the laws, and all treaties, "shall be the si^srane Law of the 

land " 78/ Treaty-making resides with the President, acting "... by and with 

the Consent of the Senate... provided tv«-thirds of the Senators present con- 
cur...." 79/ 

It is important that the Constitution was initially applied to Indian 
affairs by Justices in the formative years, vrfio vere statesmen at the time of 
its adoption. Respecting Indian treaties, those Justices declared, "... the 
words 'treaty' and 'nation'... each have definite and veil-understood meaning. 
We have applied them to Indians and, as we have applied them to other nations 
of the earth; they are applied to all in the same sense." 80/ 

Elemental precepts for the construction to be placed upon the Constitution 
declare that contemporaneous writings are to have ascribed to thsm sxabstantial 
weight. 81/ For that reason, it is inportant to itBintain in focus the fact that 
the most crucial decisions of the Supreme Court were written by Justices whD 
were fully cognizant of the inherent sovereignty of the Indian nations vAiich, 
as McClanahan recently stated, predates that of this Nation. 

It is also inportant in establishing the dignity, nature, and extent of 
Indian sovereignty to consider legislation adopted at a time when Congress it- 
self was groping to ascertain the true measure of its authority in the realm of 



77/ Id. 

78/ Ibid . , Art. VI, CI. 2. 

79/ Ibid . , Art. II, Sec. 2, CI. 2. 

80/ Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 350, 379 (6 Pet. 515, 559-560(1832). 

81/ tfcCulloch V. Maryland, 17 U.S. 159, 211; (14 Wheat. 316, 433) (1819) 



482 



-54- 

Indian relations. In 1789, there vas established the Department of War adminis- 
tered by a Secretary of cabinet status. 82/ A prime responsibility of that Sec- 
retary was Indian affairs. Peace, however, not war with the Indian nations was 
an inperative necessity. Funds vrere provided by Congress to negotiate treaties 
with those nations. 83/ Non- Indian violations of the Indian treaty rights 

creating issues so great tliat President George Washington urged in his Nov- 
enijsr 4, 1792, itessage that legislation be enacted to restrain criittes against 
the Indian people. Without it, said the first President, the "pacific plans" 
vhich had been prcanulgated in the broad field of Indian affairs would be "nug- 
gatory. " 84/ Similar legislation was enacted on March 1, 1793, to protect the 
Indians. It presaged the full application of a federal policy affording — in 
theory at least — the mantle of Constitutional protection for the dependent 
Indian nations. 

In 1802, Congress gave Constitutional sanction and protection to the in- 
herent right of Indians to exercise their powers of self -govemitient . 85/ The 
federal policy \«s trade with the Indian tribes and "to preserve the peace with 
then." 86/ 



82/ Act of August 7, 1789 (1 Stat. 49) . 

83/ Act of Augiist 20, 1789 (1 Stat. 54). 

84/ Federal Encroachment On Indian Water Rights And The Irpairment of Reser- 
vation Development, 91st Cong. , 1st sess. , * * * A Corrpendium of Papers 
* * * Joint Economic Committee * * * Vol. 2, pg. 486, footnote 84. 

85/ Act of March 30, 1802 (2 Stat. 139) . 

86/ Id. 



483 



-55- 

Rapid accession by the United States of vast tracts of former Crown lands 
became a matter of transcendent iirportance . Under the Constitution, the Con- 
gress had exclusive and plenary power over them. 87/ In keeping with that power, 
it had established a government to administer vihat was the Northv;est Territory. 88/ 
Indian nations under treaties with the United States oocipied that vast wilder- 
ness vrfiich subsequently would became the States of Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, Michi- 
gan and Wisconsin. 89/ Though Congress e:q)ressed a vague intent to protect 
those Indian nations and their people, it proceeded on the basis that the ultimate 
title to those former Crown lands resided with the United States. 90/ 

In 1803, the United States acquired fron France the vast area west of the 
Mississippi River, referred to as the Louisiana Purchase. It "... is justly re- 
garded as one of the most iitportant events in ftmerican history," with far reach- 
ing iitport "in the development of the United States Indian policy." 91/ 

For the great Indian nations occi^jying lands between the Atlantic coast 
and the Mississippi River, the louisiana Purchase was the death knell. It 
would be the repository for those Indians. 

Hence, the virtually unlimited lands west of the Mississippi River of- 
fered an area for a forced exodus fron the eastern states v*iere the feared 



87/ Constitution of the United States, 1787, Article IV, Sec. 3, CI. 2. 

88/ 1 Kent's Comrentaries , 13th Ed., pg. 286, s. 259; 1 Story, On The 
Constitution, 5th Ed., 1891, pg. 16, s. 33. 

89/ 1 Kent's Camentaries , 13th Bd. , pg. 286, s. 259. 

90/ Johnson V. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. 543, 576, 584 (8 Wheat. 543, 576, 584) (1823) . 

91/ 1 Annual Report of the American Historical Assn., 1906 Abel, Ch. 1, 
pg. 241. 



484 



-56- 

and often hated Indians could be ranoved. In 1803, the first explicit official 
statement was itade to rid the lands east of the Mississippi of Indians. In 
that year. President Jefferson, in a never-to-be-adqpted amendment to the Con- 
stitution, under prescribed circumstances, proposed the renoval of "... Indians 
within the U.S. on the east side of the Mississippi..." to the newly acquired 
"province of Louisiana" west of the Mississippi. It also provided Indian right 
of occi^jancy in the soil "... and of self-govemment, are confirmed in the 
Indian inhabitants, as they now exist." 92/ 

On the background of the history of Indian affairs, down to and after the 
Louisiana Purchase, it was abundantly clear that the Nation was making ccmtnit- 
ments continuing in character, vAiich corrmitments partook of solotm covenants. 
At all times thereafter, the United States acknowledges desire to have the In- 
dians reduce their land claims by treaties and other cessions. In return for 
those concessions, covenants were spelled out between the Indians and this 
Nation, both in treaties and otherwise. Thus, there was and is a continuing 
covenant that the Indian people, residing on reservations, vrould have the full 
support then and in the future relative to their lives and their subsistence. 
In due time, there evolved v*at was referred to as the trust relationship be- 
tween the National Government and the Indians. Those were the circumstances 
of Indian affairs and relationships when the United States Supreme Court ren- 
dered its opinions in 1831 and 1832 of the Cherokee Nation v. Georgia 93/ 
and Worcester v. Georgia . 



92/ 1 Annual Report of the American Historical Assn., 1906 Abel, Ch. 1, pg. 241. 

93/ Federal Encroachment of Indian Water Rights and the Iiipairment of Reservation 
Developrent in Subcontnittee on Econorny in Government of the Joint Eoonotdc 
Cotmittee, 91st Cong. , 1st Sess. , Ccftm. Towards Efconcmic Development for 
Native American Cwnmunities Conmittee (Print. 1969) pages 460, 490-493; 



485 



-57- 

In ej^licit terms, the Highest Court, vd.th full information as to the cov- 
enants and cxantnitments made to the Indian pecple, enunciated the predicate for 
the trust relationship. In those several decisions that were entered 63wn 
through the years, there was clarified, and substantial advancements were nade 
in the responsibility of the trustee to the Indian people. It developed in ac- 
cordance with ordinary trust law that the National Government must act solely 
and entirely for and on behalf and in furtherance of the Indian interests. 
Moreover, the obligation of the trustee United States is always to perform its 
functions with the highest degree of care, skill and diligence in performing 
its trust oblitation. 

Different facts may vary fron tribe to tribe as to the manner in which 
the trust must be performed by the National Government and the agents. That 
the trust obligation may vary from reservation to reservation in no way 
causes the obligation of the Nation to change in connection with its trust 
obligation. Then it is thus concluded that the United States of America has 
a legal, equitable and moral obligation as trustee which is clear beyond ques- 
tion, irrespective of the commantary contained in "The Dissent." 



93/ (continuedl Reprinted in Hearings on Administrative Practices and Proced- 
xires Relating to Protection of Indian Natural Resources before the Subconm. 
on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Sen. Conm. on the Judiciary, 
93rd Cong., 1st Sess. , Part 1 at 175, 191-192. 

Chambers, Discharge of Federal Trust Responsibility to Enforce Claims of 
Indian Tribes: Case Studies of Bureaucratic Conflicts of Interest Coram, 
in Subconm. on Administrative Practices and Procedures of the Senate Conm. 
of the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 2nd Sess., A Study of Administrative Con- 
flicts of Interest in the Protection of Indian Natural Resources, 11 Cc«rm. 
Print. 1971, Reprinted in the Hearing on Administrative Practices and Pro- 
cedures Relating to the Protection of Indian Natural Resources before the 
Subcom. on Administrative Practices and Procedures of the Senate Conm. on 
the Judiciary, 92nd Cong,, 1st Sess., Part 1 at 235, 238-248 (1971). 



-58- 

It is on the background of the Svpreme Law of the Land that reference 
is now made to the plenary power of Congress and the failure of the Execu- 
tive Branch properly to perform its responsibilities relative to Indian 
affairs. 

G. Congress Cannot Do It All — Plenary Power Has Its Limitations 
1. Deficiencies in Executive Action 

Congress has "plenary power" over Indian affairs. That over- 
worked terms stems from the Constitution vMch, anong other things, provides 
that ths Congress has power to "Regulate Ccniterce with Foreign Nations and among 
the several States and with Indian Tribes." 94/ A distortion of the meaning of 
'■plenary power" has given rise to misconceptions in both "The Nbjority Report" 
and "The Dissent." Vfebster tells us that "plenary" means "conplete, absolute, 
perfect and unqualified." That full power, however, is liitdted to legislative 
action. It is the breakdown in the Executive Branch of the Government that 
has contributed to much of the failure in Indian affairs. Had there been 
proper Executive conduct, the history of Indian affairs would not have been 
so bleak. The institutionalized conflicts of interest within the Office of 
the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General of the United States 
underlie much of the disastrous consequences that exenplify the conduct of 
Indian affairs. 

Legislation, passed by Congress, nay be requisite to totally correct 
the conflicts of interest in the Interior and Justice Departments. Yet, the 
Executive Branch of the Government can, and must, act imtediately to provide 

94/ Constitution of the United States, 1787, Art. I, Sec, 8, CI. 3. 



487 



-59- 

protection for the Indians against those conflicts awaiting v*iatever legisla- 
tion Congress may decide to adopt. 

T^ro glaring exaitples of the methods used to defeat the power of Congress 
will suffice to denxinstrate the obdurate actions of an intransigent bureauc- 
racy within both the Interior and Justice Departments. 

a. Executive Abridgarent of the Winans-Winters Concepts 

■niere has been reviewed, with specificity and detail, the 
fundamental concepts enunciated, recognized and recif firmed by the Supreme 
Court as to both the inherent power of the Indian tribes to reserve and re- 
tain to themselves their iinnemorial rights and to administer those rights 
vAiich they did not convey to the National Government. 95/ 

Irrespective of those basic and all inportant concepts enunciated by the 
Supreme Court in Winters and Winans , the bureaucracy has steadfastly acted to 
denigrate the concepts of those two keystone opinions. As stated above, there 
is attached to this Menorandum "An Analysis of Proposed Secretarial Rules Re- 
specting 'The Use of Water on Indian Reservations' and the Recommended Rejec- 
tion of Them," Main thrust of that analysis pertains to the distortion of 
the Act 25 U.S.C. 381, the Powers decision, 96/ and the Hibner case. 97/ 

In 25 U.S.C. 381, Congress wisely provided that the Secretary of the 
Interior would have power, under the Act, to formulate and enforce rules and 



95/ See, " The Winters Decision Must Be Read with the Winans Decision If the 
MagnitiBe of the Errors in 'The Dissent' are to be Fully Conprehended, " 
pg. 37 of this MemDrandum. ~~~ " 

96/ See attached "Analysis," pg. 18 et seq . 

97/ See attached "Analysis," pg. 21 et seq . 



488 



-60- 



regulations: To make a just and equal distribution of the water "aitong Indians" 
residing on thDse reservations. In the process of misconstruing the ejqslicit 
language of that and related acts, the bureaucracy did these things: 1) It 
purported to act for the Indians. In truth and fact, however, it gave, by 
those rules and regulations vAiich are attached, a carte blanche to non-Indians 
to seize and utilize Indians rights to the use of water without recourse out- 
side of the courts. 2) It violated the Winters rights to the use of water by 
awarding parts of those rights to the use of water to non-Indian purchasers of 
formerly allotted lands; 3) it suppressed, by the proposed rvles and regulations, 
the inherent powers of Indians to exercise self-government and to administer 
those rights residing in the tribes as recognized in both Winters and Winans . 98/ 

Objectives of the rules and regulations, in the final analysis, was in 
furtherance of twD cases vAiich are ongoing. They are the Walton case 99/ axd 
the Bel Bay case. 100/ In both instances, the rules and regulations would 
greatly benefit the non-Indian defendants in those cases to the irreparable 
damage of the Indian tribes. In both cases, although the Indians declare their 
ownership to the rights to the use of water, the Interior and Justice Depart- 
ments assvmne contrary positions without ever having consulted, agreed or in 
any vay informed the Indian tribes that the Justice Department WDuld align it- 
self against them. Those two cases are representative of the methods adhered to 
in the Ejcecutive Branch of the Government vrfiich result in irreparable damage 
to the Indians. The rules and regulations, as promulgated and fostered in 



98/ See, page 37 of this Maxorandum. 

99/ See, attached "Analysis," United States v, Walton, fn. 6, pg. 6. 

100/ See, attached "Analysis," United States v. Bel Bay, fn. 6, pg. 9. 



489 



furtherance of those two cases, are likewise representative of the grave prob- 
lem that Congress is confronted with when it is dealing with the obdurate and 
intransigent bureaucracies in both Interior and Justice. 

Quite obviously, the intentions of Congress, to provide for Indians re- 
siding on their reservations by making a just and equal distribution of water 
among them, was violated by the misapplication of the law. Equally clear is 
the fact ttiat the formidable and favorable aspects of Winans and Winters pro- 
viding protection for the Indian people, all in keeping with the concepts 
expressed by the Supreme Court, were abridged hy the bureaucracy through the 
formulation of the rules and regialations in question. It must never be for- 
gotten that suppression of Indian inherent power and authority provides means 
and methods of perpetuation of an autocratic bureaucracy that has plagued the 
lives of Indians since the advent of the European at the time of "discovery." 

Congress, in the exercise of its broad powers, can legislate away the 
institutionalized conflicts of interest within the Interior and Justice Depart- 
ments, It can do so by the establishment of an independent agency to adminis- 
ter Ijxlian affairs. Yet constant vigilence by the Congress and by the Indian 
people will be required if the new agency is to carry out the will of Congress 
and to preserve and protect the interests of the Indians. 

b. Vitiation of the Congressional Will as Enunciated in 
the "Self-Determination" Act, 25 U.S.C. 450 Et Seq. 

Another exanple of Executive action violating the will of the 
Congress and the interests of the Indian nations, tribes and people is the re- 
cently enacted "Self-Determination" Act. In ej?>licit terms. Congress has under- 



490 



-62- 

taken to free the Indians frcm the autocratic control of the existing bureauc- 
racy. 101/ However, "The Majority Report" aiphasizes that administrative rules 
and regulations, as formulated by the bureaucracy, have rendered much of the 
Act as intended by Congress to be iitpotent. Whereas Congress has explicitly 
directed the furtherance of tribal self-government, the bureaucracy has made 
a contrary determination. There is thus, once again, abrogated the will of 
Congress and the power of the Indians to administer their own affairs. 

These excerpts from "The Majority Report" clearly denonstrate v*iat oc- 
curs to the best of plans which Congress can formulate. The Bureaucracy is 
determined to continue its rule and domination of Indians irrespective of the 
"plenary power" of Congress. With reference to the Act in question, "The 
Majority Report," among other things, has this to say: 
"III. Findings and Reooitinendations : 

Presently,, there is only one program which provides direct 
support to the strengthening of tribal government. This 
program is provided for in Section 104(a) of the Indian 
Self -Determination and Educational Assistance Act, and is 
titled the Self -Determination Grants Program. 

The administrative regulations of the Self -Determination 
Grants Program narrow the scope of Congressional intent 
articulated in the Indian Self-Determination and Educa- 
tional Assistance Act. 

. . . the administrative regulations associated with Self- 
Determination Grants Programs specify 'allowable cost* 
under the program which serves to limit the allowable 
activities undertaken to strengthen tribal governments." 

There is thus manifested the ways and means that the Congressional will 

and efforts are thwarted. As a matter of legislative intent, it appears to be 

an iitperative necessity that the Congress not only declare its intent, but es- 



101/ See above, this Nfemorandum, pg. 23 et seq . 



491 



-63- 



tablish an agency that vd.ll, of necessity, perform the vn.ll of ODngress. Simi- 
larly, the new agency that should be created nust reflect the vdJLl of the Indian 
people, rather than the autocratic departinent to which reference has been made. 

2. Immediate Presidential Action Paralleling and Inplgnenting 
"The Majority Report" is an Inperative Necessity 

As reviewed above, there must be action taken by the Executive 
Branch of the Government with the objective of assisting the Indians if the 
concepts of "The Majority Report" are to be acconplished. In a word. Congress 
can legislate for Indian interests but the Executive Banch can — and does — 
abfuscate, procrastinate and deviate with destructive consequences for the 
Indians, In the venacular. Congress cannot do it all. Much that has been 
done for the American Indian by the Congress is being dissipated by the bur- 
eaixrratic veto of Congressional will. Yet, it is manifest that the refusal 
of the Executive Branch of the Government — vMch tes been historic — to 
support the American Indians has been accotplished at relatively low levels 
of the bureaucracy. 

It is of extreme inportance, in that regard, to note that this Nation's 
fundamental law provides that: "The Executive power shall be vested in a Presi- 
dent of the United States." 102/ Moreover, and most inportantly here, the Con- 
stitution declares that the President "... shall take care that the Laws be 
faithfully executed. ..." 103/ 



102/ Constitution of the United States, 1787, Article II, Section 1. 
103/ Article II, Section 3. 



492 



-64- 

It cannot be urged too strongly that the full Presidential power be in- 
voked to assure that in the period required to iitplement "The Majority Report- 
that "care" is taken to fulfill this Nation's trust obligations to the Indian 
people. 

Bespectfully suhnitted. 



^.^^^*«SS.~N^^8W 



May 1977 



493 

m 

OF 

PROPOSED SECRETARIAL H3IES 

RESPECTING 

"TEE USE OF WATER ON 

INDIAN RESEFWATIOJS" 

AND IHE 

REOOftlENDED REJECTION OF THEM 



National CCaigress 

of \American Indians 



494 



TABLE OF CCNTEOTS 



Introduction - Sunmarization 1 

A. Withdrawal of "Proposed Rules" alone will not Suffice; 
Changes within the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division 

are also Necessary 3 

B. A Vacuum of Executive Authority is Created by the 

"Proposed Rules" 3 

C. "Proposed Rules" Must Be Considered in the Light of the 
Walton and Bel Bay Cases and the History of Indian W&ter 

Codes 3 

Alignment of the Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division 

Against the Western Indian Nations, Tribes and People 4 

Deception is the Hallmark of the "Proposed Rules" 4 

1. "Proposed Rules" have no Application to Non-Indian 

Expanded Water Use upon Former Indian land 4 

2. Understanding of the Walton and Bel Bay Cases essoitial 
to conprehension of the "Proposed Rules" and the con- 
fused Conditions of the Solicitor's Office and Lands 

Division in regard to Indian Winters Rights 6 

3. History of Water Codes 13 

4. Solicitor's Refusal to ^prove Tribal Water Codes 17 

a. Seizure of Indian Winters Rights for Non-Indians 18 

b. Extent of the Winters Rights to the Use of Water the 
Solicitor's Office wDuld force the Tribe to share with 
Non-Indians as a Condition to i^proval of the water 

Codes 21 

c. The "Proposed Rules" are: But a "Demonstration of 

Gross Hypocrisy ***" 23 

d. Who, under the "Proposed Rules," are the Non- Indian 
Persons and Entities Entitled to Share with the 

Tribes their Winters Rights? 26 

e. Deception in "Proposed Rules" Further Reveals: The 
Solicitor's "Proposed Rules" Permits Es^anded Use of 
Water by Non-Indians and that Expanded Use of Water 

is CXitside the Purview of Those "Proposed Rules" 28 



495 



f. Violation by the "Proposed Rules," If Mopted, of 

(a) Tribal Winters Rights to the Use of Water; 

(b) Tribal Priority for Those Rights 28 

(1) Confiscation of Tribal Winters Rights ard 
Priorities 31 

(2) Violation of Tribal Winters Rights by the 
Solicitor's "Expanding" Non-Indian Use after 
Acquisition of Indian Land 34 

(3) Violation of Winters Rights by the Solicitor's 
Attenpted ^^lication of State Law within the 
Vfestem Reservations 35 

(4) Violation of Tribal Winters Rights Espoiosed 

by Lands Division in Bel Bay Case 37 

Espousal of the Seizure of Tribal Winters 

Rights by Lands Division in the Bel Bay 

Case 37 

Si^^pression of Tribal Power of Self -Determination and Self- 
Govemment Constitutes Methods used by the Solicitor and Lands 
Division to Violate Tribal Rights 41 

A. Solicitor's Arbitrary and Capricious Conduct Violates 

Tribal Titles and Powers 41 

B. Restrictions Relative to Irrigation Projects Further 

Evidences Attack Upon Tribal Powers and Tribal Rights 43 

C. i^jpeals Process Further Inpinges en Tribal Rights and 

Tribal Authority 44 

Trust Violations Owing to the Indian Tribes Prevade all 

Aspects of the "Proposed Rules" 46 

A. "No Self-Respecting Law Firm *** would allow itself to 
occupy the position of the Solicitor and Lands Division 
respecting the "Proposed Rules" 46 

B. Violation of the Trust Obligation Requires Rejection of 
Rules" 47 



93-440 O - 78 - 33 



496 



AN 
ANALYSIS 



"THE USE OF VMER ON 

INDIAN RESEPWATICNS" 1/ 

AND THE 

RECOMMENDED REaECTICN OF THEM 2/ 

I. INTRODUCnCM — SUMMARIZATION 
There was published on March 17, 1977, in the Federal Register, pro- 
posed Secretarial rules governing "THE USE OF V2ATER ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS," 
which are referred to throughout this canmentary as the "Proposed Rules." Those 
"Proposed Rules" are not the product of the incimbent Secretary of the Inter- 
ior or his staff. Moreover, the Kmorable leo M. Krulitz, now Solicitco: of 
the Department of the Interior, did not approve the "Proposed Rules." lather, 
as will be reviewed, the "Proposed Rules" were sponsored by former Secretary 



1/ Vol. 42 Fed. Reg., No. 52, page 14885, 14886 et seq . ; Thursday, March 17, 
1977. A copy of these "Proposed Rules" are attached to this memorandum 
and made a part of it by reference. 

2/ This analysis relates directly to the case entitled: COlville Confed- 
erated Tribes v. Walton, et al. , Civil No. 3421 in the United States 
District Court for the Eastern District of Washington, Northern Divis- 
ion, (see page 6, footnote 6). 



497 



of the Interior, Rogers C.B. Morton. The recently departed Solicitor is 
primarily responsible for the "Proposed Rules," as published. That offic- 
ial, working in close conjunction with personnel from the Land and Natural 
Itesources Division, hereafter referred to as the Lands Division, fontiulated 
the concepts and determined the goals which were to be achieved by those 
proposed rules and regulations. As will be reviewed and eitphasized, the 
"Proposed Rules" are disastrous for the Western Indian nations, tribes and 
people. 

An overriding factor relative to these "Proposed Rules" is that they 
are premature . The Solicitor's Office and Lands Division are seeking to 
achieve, by Secretarial fiat, the relief which they now desire to obtain 
in the Walton and Bel Bay cases. Those cases are inextricably interrelated 
to the "Proposed Rules," all as evidenced by the attached Solicitor's letter 
dated September 28, 1976, to the Lands Division. 

The "Proposed Rules" should be rejected because they are: 

Deceptive , professing to protect the Indian Winters rights 
to the use of water; whereas, in truth and fact, they are 

Violative of the Winters Doctrine rights to the use of 
water, the full equitable title to which resides in the 
tribes. Tte "Proposed Rules" result in the seizure of 
Winters rights to the use of water for non-Indians. 
They, moreover, result in a seizure of Indian priorities 
for the benefit of non-Indians by declaring that the 
non-Indian purchaser of formerly allotted lands acquires 
Winters Doctrine rights and is entitled to the same 
priority of the tribes. Those rules are, moreover. 

Suppressive of the inherent power of the Indians to man- 
age their own internal affairs within their reservations. 
Those rules condition Secretarial approval of tritel water 
codes upon the agreement by the tribes that they will re- 
lingxrLsh Winters Doctrine rights and priorities to non- 
Indians. 



498 



A. Withdrawal of "Proposed Rules" alone will not Suffice; Changes with- 
in the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division are also Necessary 

Withdrawal of the "Proposed Rules" should ensue because they are [1] decep- 
tive, failing on their face to disclose their adverse consequences to the In- 
dians; [2] violative of the Indian Winters rights and the priority of those 
rights; and [3] suppressive of Indian authority and the dignity of the American 
Indian nations, tribes and people. Withdrawal of the "Proposed Rules" will 
not alone suffice; there must be changes to correct the conflicts of interest 
giving rise to them in the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division. They are 
racist in content and character. They are the product of the conflict of 
interest in the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division. 

B. A Vacuum of Executive Authority is Created by the "Proposed Rules " 
The "Proposed Rules," declaring ^Jiat neither the tribes nor the Sec- 
retary of the Interior have jurisdiction over non-Indians, creates an 
executive vacuum in regard to non-Indians who have greatly expanded their 
irrigated acreage after Indian lands have been purchased by non-Indians. 
In effect, the objectives of the "Proposed Rules" are to strip fron the 
tribes and Secretary, executive authority over irrigated lands developed 
by non-Indians after the acquisition of those lands by them. That pos- 
ture is legally incorrect and administratively impossible. 

C. "Proposed Rules" Must Be Considered in the Light of the Walton 
and Bel Bay Cases and the History of Indian Water Codes 

To corprehend the "Proposed Rules," which declare that they have no appli- 
cation to expanded irrigation development after non-Indian acquisition, and 
their adverse inpact upon the Indian Winters rights and tribal authority con- 
cept, a separate review is necessary. There is, in tte footnotes and set 
forth throughout the ccitinentary, the history of the Walton and Bel Bay 
cases and the history of the tribal water codes. 



499 



II. ALIGNMENT 

OF THE 

SOLICITOR'S OFFICE 

AND THE 

lANDS DIVISICN 

AGAINST THE 

WESTE3?N INDIAN NATIONS, 

TRIBES AND PEOPLE 

Deception is the Hallirark of the "Proposed Rules " 

1. "Proposed Rules" have no application to non-Indian expanded water 
use upon former Indian Land . 

The "Proposed Rules" are disastrous for the Indian people, all as 
observed above. They have no application to irrigated acreage developed by 
non- Indians after they have acquired formerly allotted lands. Those "Pro- 
posed Rules" are predicated primarily i^xDn Section 7 of the General Allot- 
ment Act. That section is codified as 25 U.S.C. 381 and is set forth below. 3/ 

It will be observed that 25 U.S.C. 381 authorizes the Secretary to issue 
rules and regulations for a just and equal distribution of water "aitong the 
Indians residing" v;5)on reservations requiring "water" for agricrjlture . 



3/ See attached "Proposed Rules," pg. 14885, 14886, Part 260, Sec. 260 et seq. 

"IRRIGATED LAND; REGUIATION OF USE OF WATER 

In cases v*iere the use of water for irrigation is necessary to render 
the lands within any Indian reservation available for agricultural pur- 
poses, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to prescribe such 
rules and regulations as he nay deem necessary to secure a just and 
equal distribution thereof among the Indians residing upon any such 
reservation; and no other appropriation or grant of water by any ripar- 
ian proprietor shall be authorized or permitted to the damage of any 
other riparian proprietor." 



500 



Relative to that sec±ion and the use of water by non-Indians upon ir- 
rigated lands developed by the non-Indians subsequent to acquisition of 
formerly allotted lands, the Solicitor says this in the attached letter 
dated September 28, 1976, and directed to Lands Division: 

"This [25 U.S.C. 381] confers no authority ipon the 
Secretary to deliver any water to non-Indians." 4/ 

Later in that letter, in regard to the "Proposed Rules," the Solicitor 

makes this statement: 

"*** the Departmsnt will approve individual tribal 
water codes regulating the use of water reserved 
under the Winters Doctrine on the tribe's reserva- 
tion so long as the following conditions are met: 

(4) The tribe seeks only to regulate the use of 
reserved water rights, v^iich includes [1] tribally 
owned water rights, [2] rights owned by allottees, 
and [3] the 'first corrpDnent' of the rights des- 
cribed in Hibner ; ***" 5/ 

By the reference to the "first conponent" of Hibner , the Solicitor has made 
the determination: When a non-Indian acquires formerly allotted lands, he 
■•*** v/ill get a Winters priority to the amount of water used vAien the land 
was ***" held by an Indian. That statement, as applied to the "Proposed 
Rules," is a clear violation of the tribes' claimed full equitable title 
to all water rights. Moreover, the "Proposed Rules" exeirpts fron the ap- 
plication of them, the non- Indian e>^loiter, who acquires vindeveloped land, 
and after acquisition, vastly increases the irrigated acreage, seizing 
Indian water without right for that purpose. 



4/ See attached Solicitor's letter, September 28, 1976, pg. 6. This letter 
is frequently referred to in this conmentary. 

5/ Solicitor's letter, pg. 7, para. (4). 



501 



2. Understanding of the Walton and Bel Bay cases essential to com- 
prehension of the "Proposed Rules" and the cx?nfused conditions 
of the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division in regard to Indian 
Winters rights . 

It will be observed that the attached letter from the Solicitor 

pursuant to vdiich the "Proposed Rules" were fonnulated relates to United 

States V. Walton and United States v. Bel Bay . 6/ Those cases are reviewed 

below. However, it is essential briefly to refer to the fact that the case 

(commentary continues on pg. 12) 



6/ United States v. Walton, Civil No. 3421, [sic]. Eastern District of 
Vfeshington; United States v. Bel Bay Conmunity and Water Association, 
Civil No. 303-71-C2 , Western District of Washington. 

The Solicitor's letter is in error. The case cited is Civil No. 3831. 
Civil No. 3421 is the case, Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, et 
al. The twD Walton cases — Colville v. Walton and the United States 
v. Walton — were consolidated for further proceedings by court order, 
dated December 19, 1973. 

Colville Confederated Tribes v. Walton, et al. . Civil No. 3421, in the 
United States District Court in and for the Eastern District of Wash- 
ington, Northern District. 

Sinplistically, that case involved the following factual statement: 

No Nane Creek is a small creek vMch rises in the southwestern portion 
of the Colville Indian Reservation. It flows its full length through 
a deeply insized mountain valley, all within the Reservation and ter- 
minates v*ien it enters a beautiful closed body of water known as Omak 
Lake. 

The lands bordering No Name Creek were allotted to members of the Col- 
ville Confederated Tribes. In the 1920' s, the Indian allottees, owning 
three (3) adjoining allotments, sold them to non-Indians. Probably be- 
cause of its meager flow, the waters were never diverted and used to 
irrigate the lands while they were in Indian ownership. 

Immediately below those three (3) allotments, v*iich passed into the 
hands of non- Indians, there was an allotment occipied by Colville In- 
dian people and their water was diverted from No Name Creek for the 
purposes of irrigation, donestic, and other uses. Moreover, members 
of the Colville Confederated Tribes fished in No Name Creek and other- 
wise used it for recreational purposes. Further, the Colville Confed- 
erated Tribes own lands at the point of v*iere No Name Creek enters 
Otiak Lake and utilized it for tribal purposes. 



502 



6/ (continued) In the closing years of the 1940' s, the Waltons purchased 
~ the three (3) Indian allotments v*iich had gone out of Indian ownership 
a quarter of a century earlier. The previous non-Indian owners of those 
allotments never diverted and used the waters of No Name Creek, antece- 
dent to selling them to the Waltons. 

In 1948, the Waltons made a filing of an application with the State 
of Washington for the purpose of appropriating the waters of No Name 
Creek. That filing was to acquire frctn the State of Washington a 
certificate of water right. 

During the ensuing years, the Waltons e>5)anded their uses of water 
from No Name Creek, both from the surface and ground waters of that 
stream. 

During the surmer months, the Waltons dried up No Name Creek. By 
those acts of the Waltons, the Indian allotees and the Colville Ccn- 
federated Tribes were deprived of the waters of No Name Creek. 

In Septeirber of 1970, the Colville Confederated Tribes filed in the 
Federal Court in Spokane, the case of Colville v. Walton, to vMch ref- 
erence is here made. Twd years later, on September 27, 1972, that Court 
entered a teirporary injunction, both as to time and quantities of the 
water vMch the Waltons could take and divert frcm No Name Creek. 

When the Court enjoined the Waltons, the State of Washington inter- 
vened in Colville v. Walton. The Confederated Tribes then petitioned 
the Solicitor's Office to request the intervention in Colville v. 
Walton by the United States on behalf of the Tribes. On February 2, 
1973, the Solicitor requested the intervention by the Lands Division 
in Colville v. Walton. Contrary to the position of the Tribes, vMch 
were as against Walton claiming ownership of the rights to the use of 
water and the power to administer those rights to the use of water, 
the Solicitor's Office said this to the Lands Division: "Please al- 
lege that the Secretary of the Interior has the exclusive jurisdic- 
tion to control and administer the allocation of water on tribal, 
alloted and formerly allotted lands [the Waltons] of the Colville 
Reservation pursuant to the authority of 25 U.S.C. 381." It is essen- 
tial here to refer to the fact that the rules to vrtuch these cortments 
are directed are predicated ipon, and issued pursx^nt to 25 U.S.C. 
381, the Act last cited. As also reviewed above, the Solicitor has 
now coitpletely reversed the quoted positions. 

Rather than intervening on behalf of the Colville Confederated Tribes, 
tJie Lands Division initiated, on its own volition, an entirely inde- 
pendent case — United States v. Walton. This is the reason for re- 
fusing to intervene in Colville v. Walton as stated in the Lands Di- 
vision's letter dated March 3, 1973, to the U.S. Attorney in Spokane, 
Washington: "By letter dated February 2, 1973 *** Interior requested 



503 



6/ (continued)we intervene in [Colville v. Walton] *** Vfe have decided, 
however, not to intervene because the conplaint filed on behalf of 
the Tribes does not, in our opinion, 

raise the issue vfcLch must be addressed to obtain a judic- 
ial determination in this controversy, i.e. , the authority 
of the Secretary of the Interior to determine allocation of 
water on Indian Lands." 

Earlier in that comntiunication frxDm the Lands Division to the U.S. 
Attorney in Spokane, it had adopted virtually identically the same 
langioage as was quoted above frc«n the February 2, 1973, letter from 
the Solicitor to the Lands Division. In other words, both the Sol- 
icitor's Office and the Lands Division insist that 25 U.S.C. 381 
sought to confer upon the Secretary of the Interior, "the exclusive 
jurisdiction to control and administer the allocation of water on 
tribal, allotted and formerly allotted lands of the Colville Reserva- 
tion. ***" 

There was filed on March 15, 1973, by the Lands Division, United States 
Attorney in Spokane, the conplaint in U.S. v. Walton. The Lands Divis- 
ion prayed that the Waltons be "enjoined f ran diverting water *** in 
any amount [sic] of excess of that authorized by the Secretary of the 
Interior." Incongruously, the Secretary of the Interior, then and now, 
had never authorized Waltons, nor anyone else, to divert from ^kD Name 
Creek, or any other stream for that matter, any quantity of water. 
Quite clearly, the Lands Division was acting contrary to the danands 
of the Colville Confederated Tribes in that the Tribe had insisted 
that: (1) Walton had no right to the use of water in No Name Creek ; 
and (2) that Walton could take water only i:pon the approval of the 
Tribe. It is essential to observe, moreover, as will be fully re- 
viewed, that the Lands Division has repeatedly delayed — and contin- 
ues to delay — the trial of the Waltons' case on the merits. It is 
also inportant to observe that the case of U.S. v. Walton, to which 
reference will iimediately be made, has been consolidated with the 
Colville V. Walton case for the purpose of trial. 

Ifriited States v. Walton, et al. , and the State of Vfashington , in the 
United States District Court for tte Eastern District of Washington, 
Northern Division Civil No. 3831. 

Both the Solicitor's Office and later the Lands Division, in its letter 
of March 6, 1973, asserted in error that 25 U.S.C. 381 — conferred 
"exclusive jurisdiction" upon the Secretary of the Interior to control, 
administer and allocate the water resources on the Colville Indian 
Reservation. 



504 



-9- 



6/ (continued) As reviewed in the mentioned letter of ^ferch 6, 1973, to 
~ the United States Attorney in Spokane, Washington, directing the initi- 
ation of United States v. Walton, et al. , having alluded to the request 
that it intervene in Colville v. Walton, the Lands Division es^lains 
the reason for the rejection for the request: "We have decided not 
to intervene," because the case of Colville v. Walton does not raise 
the issue of "*** the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to 
determine the allocation of water on Indian land." 

Moreover, the Lands Division firmly asserted "exclusive jurisdiction" 
resided in the Secretary of the Interior to control, administer and 
allocate all of the water on the Colville Indian Reservation: "This 
allegation is the same as that itade in the case entitled. United States 
V. Bel Bay Coitmunity, et al.. Civil No. 303-71-C2, U.S.D.C, Western 
District of Washington. 

By reason of the fact that the Lands Division and the Solicitor's Office 
have correlated the cases of United States v. Walton and the case of 
United States v. Bel Bay Community, it is essential that a conprehensive 
analysis be nade of that case. 

As observed above, the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division have denied 
the Secretary has power over non-Indian land. 

United States v. Bel Bay Community *** State of Washington , Civil No. 
303-71-C2 in the United States District Court, Western District of 
Washington, at Seattle. 

On NOvatiber 23, 1971 — subsequent to the initiation of the case of 
Colville V. Walton; the Lands Division initiated the above entitled 
proceedings, vMch hereafter will be referred to as the Bel Bay case. 
As in the Walton cases, these and other issues are presented: 

1. The alleged "exclusive jurisdiction" of the Secretary of the Inter- 
ior, xjnder 25 U.S.C. 381, to administer the rights to the use of 
water on Indian reservations — as reviewed above, the Solicitor's 
Office has not reprised itself; 

2. the issue of whether non-Indians acquire rights to the use of water 
when title to forrrerly allotted lands passed to them; 

3. the natiare and extent of the rights, if any, of non-Indian who ac- 
quire formerly allotted lands; and 

4. the jurisdiction of states over rights to the use of water within 
Indian reservations. 



505 



6/ (cx»ntinued) The salient facts of the Bel Bay case are these: 

Situated on Puget Sound, a substantial portion of the Lunmi Indian Res- 
ervation is surrounded by salt water. Fonterly allotted Lxmtd Indian 
land was purchased by the Bel Bay Conmunity and those lands were sub- 
divided for residential purposes. That community applied to the State 
of Washington for a permit to drill a well and to punp ground water 
for the purposes for which the Bel Bay Comiunity was organized. On 
Deceinber 17, 1970, the State of Washington issued the permit. Anong 
other things, the State asserted that it had jurisdiction over the 
"sxxcplus" waters within the Lummi Indian Reservation; that there were 
surplus waters within that reservation; and the permit to the Bel Bay 
Community extended to that surplus. 

An investigation disclosed that the proposed well would be at a depth 
of 40 feet below the level of the surrounding salt water in Puget Sound. 
The investigation further disclosed that by the punping at Bel Bay to 
the extent that it was requested in the permit would result in a re- 
duction in the ground water table to a point v*>ere there would be salt 
water intrusion into the fresh water table, thereby contaminating the 
fresh water underlying the Lummi Indian Reservation causing the Lurmd 
Tribe irreparable damage. 

In reporting those facts, and others, the Regional Solicitor, Robert 
E. Ratcliffe, in a memorandum dated June 7, 1971, said, among other 
things, that: "The Secretary of the Interior has 'exclusive jurisdic- 
tion to administer all water, surface and ground, within the Indian 
reservation'; that if the state had jurisdiction to administer 'sur- 
plus water' on the Indian reservation, the existence and extent of • 
that surplxis would be a question solely for the United States to de- 
cide; and that the permit issued by the state was an arbitrary and 
a capricious act." 

On September 14, 1971, the Solicitor's Office referred the Bel Bay 
case to the Lands Division. The case was catmenced by the United 
States Attorney in the Federal District Court in Seattle. 

Lunini Indian Tribe, Intervenor in Bel Bay Case 

The Lummi Indian Tribe intervened in the Bel Bay case. In its motion 
dated April 21, 1972, the Lunmi Indian Tribe asserted, among other 
things, that the Lands Division's case, as initiated against the Bel 
Bay Conmunity, and the statements made by the Lands Division's attor- 
neys, revealed that the "interests and position *** differs materially 
and prejudically frcm the interest of the Lummi Indian Tribe." 

It is urged that the case as initiated by the Lands Division involves 
the authority of the State of Washington, the Secretary of the Inter- 
ior and the Lunmi Indian Tribe. The Lumd Tribe then asserts that the 



506 



-11- 



6/ (continued) adjucation of those issues — as asserted by the lands 
Division and the State of Washington "***will permanently irtpair *** 
the Indian rights to the use of water "both as owner of the natxaral 
resources and as a sovereign governmental body to regulate that nat- 
ural resource." (See motion, ;^ril 21, 1972, pages 2-3, lines 20-23; 
1-3.) It is likewise averred in the Lumni motion to intervene that 
contrary to the Tribe's interest, the Lands Division had acknowledged 
that the Bel Bay Community had rights to the use of water within the 
Lunmi Indian Reservation. Moreover, the Lurtmis assert that the only 
objection raised to the claim of water by the non- Indian Bel Bay Ccm- 
munity by the Lands Division vould be to limit the Bel Bay's rights 
to a stated amount." 

The motion avers, moreover, that contrary to the interest of the Luimis, 
the Lands Division has suggested that the State of Washington might 
have jurisdiction over "surplus water," vAiich the Lummis denied. In 
the motion, it is also stated, "Finally, it appears that the Justice 
Department is asserting the primary interest of tte Secretary of the 
Interior in his functions with respect to the allocation of water. The 
Justice Department will not assert as fqrcibly plaintiff/intervenors 
the right, powers and authority of the Limmi Indian Tribe to manage and 
regulate its own resources as a sovereign governing body." (Motion, 
April 21, 1972, pg. 4) 

On May 12, 1972, the Federal Court granted the Lummi motion to inter- 
vene in the Bel Bay case. 



Adversary Status of the Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division 
against the Colville and Lummi Tribes 

Anamolous though it may be, both the Liitmi Indian Tribe and the Col- 
ville Confederated Tribes have been forced to protect themselves 
against the Lands Division and the Solicitor's Office. The interven- 
tion of the Lumni Tribe in the Bel Bay case to protect itself against 
the Lands Division has been reviewed. It is equally iitportant that 
the Colville Confederated Tribes have filed a motion with the court, 
asking the court to align the Lands Division as an adversary to the 
Colville Confederated Tribes in the Walton cases. 

That alignment in the Walton and Bel Bay cases conports fully with 
the positions vdiich it is believed the tribes should take in regard 
to the "Proposed Rules." 



507 



-12- 

of United States v. Vfelton was initiated on the basis that the Secretary, 
linder 25 U.S.C. 381, had "exclusive jurisdiction" over the water resources 
on the Colville Indian Reservation. Lands Division, in its letter of 
March 6, 1973, states the objective of this case is "*** to obtain a jud- 
icial determination in this controversy, i.e. , the authority of the Secre- 
tary of the Interior to determine the allocation of water on Indian Lands." 
In the attached Solicitor's letter, there is a ccrplete reversal of the 
position taken in the case of United States v. Vfalton . The Solicitor's 
Office does not now seek, in the "Proposed Rules," to control the Waltons' 
water use as is oontatplated in United States v. Walton . Reasons for the 
reversal: The Solicitor now states that 25 U.S.C. 381 does not confer 
exclusive jurisdiction on the Secretary to control water resources on the 
Colville Indian Reservation. On page six (6) of the attached Solicitor's 
letter, it is stated: 

25 U.S.C. 381 "*** confers no authority upon the Secretary 
to deliver any water to non-Indians." 

That corplete reversal by the Solicitor and the impact on the Walton and 
Bel Bay cases is reviewed below. Corrective measures within the Department 
of the Interior and the Lands Division to protect the all irtportant tribal 
Winters Doctrine rights and the tribal authority to administer those rights 
is an irrperative necessity. 

Because of the drastic reversal, as set forth above, in the "Proposed 
Rules," frcm the previous positions taken by the Solicitor and Lands Divis- 
ion, it may be of assistance briefly to review the activities of the Indian 



508 



people to formulate their own rules ard regulations vAiich now, pursuant to 
the "Proposed Rules," are subject to harsh limitations irrposed upon the tribes 
by those "Proposed Rules." 

3. History of water codes 

For ten (10) years, the Western Indians have acted to (a) protect, 
preserve, conserve, utilize and exercise their invaluable Winters Doctrine 
rights to the use of water; 7/ (b) to exercise their inherent powers of self- 
govemnent in the administration, allocation, control and management of those 
rights in the generally short, frequently meager supplies of water on their 
arid and semi-arid Western reservations. 



7/ The Winters Doctrine - Lifeline for the Western Indians ; Winters Doctrine 
~ rights to the use of water are the most valuable assets of the Annerican 
Indians, particiiLarly Indian people residing in the arid and semi-arid 
West. To adopt the language of the Suprene Court in the famous 1908 
decision, Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908), in regard to 
Montana's Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, "The lands were arid and with- 
out irrigation were practically valueless" (I.D. 207 U.S. 564, 576, 
1908) . When, in 1963, the Winters Doctrine was reiterated and reaffirmed 
by the Supreme Court, these terms were used: "Most of the land in these 
reservations is and always has been arid. If the water necessary to 
sustain life is to be had, it must corns from the Colorado River or its 
tributaries " Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 598 (1963). 

Inportant here is the rational of the Winters Doctrine as expressed in 
the last cited decision, for it is the Secretary of the Interior whose 
"Proposed Rules," if adapted, would abridge the Winters rights of the 
Indians with the attendant irreparable damage to the Western Indian 
nations, tribes and people. That rationale is sunxrarized in these words 
by the Supreme Court: "It is iirpossible to believe that when the Con- 
gress created the great Colorado River Indian Reservation, and when the 
Executive Department of the Nation created the other reservations, they 
were unaware that most of the lands were of the desert kind — hot, scor- 
ching sands — and that water from the river would be essential to the 
life of the Indian people *** and the crops they raise." (373 U.S. 
546, 598-599, 1963). 



509 



-14- 

During that ten (10) year period, the Western Indians have acted to adopt 
"W&ter Codes" designed to achieve the highest and best use of their water re- 
sources. They have at all tines proceeded upon the concept that full equit- 
able title to the Winters Doctrine rights to the use of water resided in the 
tribes. They have likewise proceeded on the basis that tte governing body of 
the tribes, working in conjunction with appropriate agencies of the Department 
of Interior and the Departirent of Justice, could regulate the use of water, 
both by Indians and by non- Indians, on their respective reservations. 

In the year 1967, the Vfestem tribes and those working with then under- 
took concerted efforts to develop "Water Codes" or ordinances to achieve the 
ends so essential to the conservation and utilization of the water resources. 
Briefly chronicled below are some of those activities relating the tribal 
"Water Codes" and the results of them. 8/ (carmsntary continues on pg. 17) 



7/ (continued) Vital to the Indians is the additional fact that the Winters 
Doctrine reserved rights to the use of water in the streams which arise 
upon, border upon, traverse and underlie their arid and semi-arid — 
again to use the language of the Supreme Court: "*** suffice 'to satis- 
fy the future as well as the present needs of the Indian Reservations . ' " 
373 U.S. 546, 600 (1963). 

8/ A. The Warm Springs "Code" : In 1967, the Warm Springs Indian Tribe in 
the State of Oregon undertook and conpleted a corrprehensive water re- 
sources inventory. That Warm Springs' code defined the water resources, 
declared the amount of water available for a variety of purposes, and 
airong other things, spelled out the water requirements. The Warm Springs' 
code has been successful. I was advised on March 21, 1977, by members 
of the Warm Springs' tribal council that there is a need of updating 
and perhaps implementing the code based upon current conditions. 



B. Yakina's prohibition against purrping ground water and drilling wells 
without permits from the Yakima Tribal Council : In 1967, the Yakima 
Nation deiranded that action be taken to protect itself and its tribal 
members against the violation by non- Indians of their Winters rights to 



510 



8/ (continued) the use of water within the reservation. Powerful non- 
~ Indian agri-business corporations were punping large irrigation wells. 
The effect of that puirping had dried up, or greatly lowered, the ground 
water table causing severe darrage to individual Indians on the reserva- 
tion, which after that date, prohibited the "*** withdrawal of ground 
water in the Yakima Indian Reservation," and the drilling of wells or 
other works for the withdrawal of ground water "unless an application 
to appropriate such waters has been made to the Yakima tritel council 
and a permit for construction or withdrawal has been granted." (Yak- 
ina Indian Nation Resolution 7-5-70, July 10, 1969) Concurrent with 
that resolution, the initial preparation of the Yakima water code was 
undertaken. In 1971, there was transmitted to the Yakima tribal coun- 
cil by the Regional Solicitor in Portland, Oregon, a draft of proposed 
regxxLations "By the Secretary of Water Use On Indian Reservations." 
(See Memo dated April 16, 1971, from Assistant Regional Solicitor to 
the Superintendent of the Yakima Indian Reservation, Bureau of Indian 
Affairs) . Those proposed regulations were without regard to the de- 
sires of the Yakimas to administer their own rights to the use of 
water. Moreover, those rules and regulations were rudimentary in form 
and fell far short of being adequate to neet the tribal needs or those 
of the tribal members. 

Recently, the Yakima tribal council has prepared a draft of a Yakima 
water code. That code is now under active review. It is very much 
at odds with the "Proposed Rules" that vere published by the Secre- 
tary of Interior, particularly in regard to the powers and authority 
of the tribe to administer its own rights to the use of water. 

C. 1973 - ffeeting Held in Spokane, Washington, to Formulate Indian 
Policy Relative to Water Codes ; Under pressure frcm Indian leader- 
ship, in a letter dated October 5, 1973, Roy H. Sanpsel, then Special 
Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, wrote to the Chairman of 
the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. He proposed a iteeting in 
Spokane, Washington, to be held on October 24th and 25th. He stated 
that the meeting would be held with members of the Solicitor's Office 
from Washington and from members of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 
That meeting was duly convened. The chasm viiich exists between the 
Solicitor's Office and the tribes became apparent from the moment that 
the meeting was opened. There, the Affiliated Tribes and their res- 
pective membership demanded protection of their Winters rights and 
their authority to develop water codes. 

A resolution was adopted at that meeting providing, among other 
things, as follows: 



511 



(continued) "Statment of Principles Covering Water Right Regulations": 
The regxiLations of the rights to the use of vater on the Indian reser- 
vations: (1) must proceed on a tribe-by-tribe basis because of the 
variety of circumstances and differences among the tribes; (2) there 
must be recognition that the tribe is the owner of the full equitable 
title to the rights of the use of water, and the interest of the 
United States is limited only to that of trustee for the sole and ex- 
clusive benefit of the Indian tribes; (3) the Secretary of the Inter- 
ior, as the principle agent of the United States tnastee, recognizes 
the Indian sovereign power of self-government by the tribes, including 
the power to regulate the use of water by Indians and non-Indians on 
the reservation. 



D. Colville Water Code : In accordance with the concept of the meet- 
ing of October 24th and 25th, 1973, as convened by the Special Assis- 
tant to the Secretary, there was great activity anong the Indian 
tribes in attenpting to formulate their own water codes. On May 6, 
1974, the most coitprehensive set of rules and regulations relative to 
the control and use of water of any reservation was adopted by the 
Colville Confederated Tribes. Throughout, that code will be referred 
to as the "Colville Water Code." There the governing body of the 
Colville Confederated Tribes claimed full equitable title to the rights 
of the use of water on the Colville Indian Reservation and the right 
to administer those waters on Indian and non-Indian land alike. 

There has been an adaitant refusal of the Solicitor's Office to approve 
that Colville water code. Nevertheless, the Colville Business Coun- 
cil is now, and has been, issuing "water permits" piarsuant to the "Col- ' 
ville Water Code" and otherwise to iirplement their claim to title to 
the rights to the use of water within the Colville Indian Reservation 
and to exercise tribal sovereignty in the administration of those 
rights. (Resolution No. 1974-334, dated May 6, 1974, Colville Business 
Council, "Colville Water Code.") 



E. Lunmi Water Code : The governing body of the LUmmi Indian Tribe, 
adhering to the concepts advanced in the October 24th and 25, 1973, 
meeting, referred to above, adopted its "water code" by the enactment 
of an appropriate ordinance. Mhering to the 1973 concepts, the Isamd. 
Tribe claims full equitable title to all of the rights to the use of 
water on its reservation and the tribe's inherent power to administer 
those rights to the use of water on Indian and non-Indian land. (Or- 
dinance No. L-41, dated October 7, 1974, Lummi Business Council.) 



93-440 O - 78 - 34 



512 



-17- 

4. Solicitor's Refusal to ;^prove Tribal Water Codes 

The Colville Confederated Tribes, upon the adoption of their water 
code, sutmitted it to the Solicitor's Office for approval. Conferences were 
held aitong the Colville representatives and the Solicitor's Office. There 
was an adamant refusal on the part of the Solicitor's Office to approve 
that water code. 

It is now apparent, as will be reviewed, that litigation was in prog- 
ress in which both the Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division were dili- 
gently taking positions diaitetrically opposed to that of the Colville Con- 
federated Tribes, the Luimd Tribe and other tribes. 

In 1974, the Shoshone and Bannock Tribes, occupying the Ft. Hall Indian 
Reservation, State of Idaho, joined the Colville Confederated Tribes, the 
Lummis and others, seeking to have approval of their newly adopted "water 
code." 

Like other Western tribes, the Ft. Hall Tribes have suffered greatly 
fran federal and non- Indian violation of their Winters rights to the use 
of water. Rejection of the Ft. Hall water code by the Ccnmissioner of 
Indian Affairs was directed to them by the Secretary of the Interior, Rogers 
C.B. Morton. 9/ It will be observed that the IVtorton memorandum presages 



9/ On January 15 , 1975, Secretary Morton, by a memorandum dated Janu- 

~ ary 15, 1975, made the following statement and directive to the then 

Commissioner of Indian Affairs: "SUBJECT: Tribal Water Codes 

As you know, the Department is currently considering regulations pro- 
viding for the adoption of tribal codes to allocate the use of water 
on Indian reservations is presently in litigation. I am informed, 
however, that sacm tribes nay be considering the enactrtent of water 
use codes of their own. This could lead to confusion and a series of 
separate legal challenges viiich might lead to undesirable results. 
These may be avoided if our regulations could first be adopted. 



513 



-18- 



the "Proposed Rules" and the objectives sought to be achieved through those 
rules / if adopted. 

a. Seizure of Indian Winters rights for non-Indians 

The Solicitor's "Proposed Rules" contain repeated references to 
"persons and entities entitled to use reserved water rights; ***" Inquiry is 
resented as to who are the persons and entities. The attached Solicitor's 
letter is revealing, for it states: "There are two basic questions" 

1. Do Indian allottees and non-Indian successors in 
interest to Indian allottees hold any portion of 
the Winters Doctrine reserved rights to the use 
of water? 

2. What is the respective extent of the authority of 
the Secretary, the state and the tribes to regu- 
late the use of water on Indian reservations?" 

In answer to question one — Do Indian acquire Winters rights to the use 

of water? — the Solicitor says the following, based upon United States v. 

Powers: 



9/ (continued) I ask, therefore, that you instruct all agency superinten- 
dents and area directors to disapprove any tribal ordinance, resolution, 
code, or other enactment vdiich purports to the use of water on Indian 
reservations and which by the terms of the tribal government document 
is subject to such approval or review in order to become or to remain 
effective, pending ultirrate determination of this matter. 

(sgd) Rogers C.B. MDrton 

That memo from former Secretary MDrton contains the concepts v^ich are 
so violative of Indian rights. It will be observed that the water codes 
are to be for the purpose of governing "reserved" water on Indian reser- 
vations. Until the distorted concepts of the Solicitor and Lands Divis- 
ion are conprehended, all as will be reviewed, the meaning of C.B. Morton's 
memo of January 15, 1975, was cryptic. It is no longer; for it is evident 
that as directed by C.B. Morton, the "Proposed Rules" achieve the desired 
end v#iich he espoused and which were issued on March 17, 1977. 



514 



"Vfe believe that the Indian allottees and their non- 
Indian successors in interest do hold scroe reserved 
rights to the use of water." 10/ 

Thus, it is apparent that there is no intention under these "Proposed Rules" 
to protect "in perpetuity all rights to the use of water reserved for the 
benefit of the Indians." 11/ Father, it is irtmediately apparent that the 
Solicitor is willing to bargain away the Indian rights, and has used equiv- 
ocal terms to achieve that end. 

It is pertinent here to review the Solicitor's letter, which is attached, 
in an effort to understand the opinion so damaging to the Indians that a non- 
Indian purchaser acquires "some" of the Winters Doctrine rights to the use 
of water. That conclusion was in error predicated \:pon a reading of the 
case. United States v. Powers . 12/ It must be conprehended that Lands Divis- 
ion initiated the Powers case in 1934. In that case, Powers, a non-Indian, 
was named a defendant. It is equally important to observe that the Lands 
Division, in the Powers case, denied that the Crow Indians, upon viiose res- 
ervation the case arose, held Winters Doctrine rights to the use of water. 
Rather, the contention was made that the United States of America acting 
throu^ the Secretary owned those rights to the use of water. 

The trial court rejected 13/ the contention of the Lands Division, de- 
claring that the Indians were the owners of the Winters rights and not the 
United States. From an adverse naling by the lower court, an appeal was 
taken to the Court of /^peals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit 



10/ Solicitor's letter, pg. 5. 

11/ See attached "Proposed Rules," pg. 14885, "Purposes" (a) ; 14886, Part 260, 
sec. 260.2(a). 

12/ U.S. V. Po;«rs, 305 U.S. 527 (1939) . 

13/ U.S. V. Powers, 16 Fed. 155 CU.S.D.C. MDntana, 1934). 



515 



-20- 



sustained the position of the trial court that it was the Crow Indians vAxj 
owned the Winters rights and not the United States. The appellate court, 
however, reversed the lower court and directed the dismissal of the case. 
It did so because the trial court attempted to adjudicate rights to the use 
of water, v*ien that trial court lacked jurisdiction due to the want of in- 
dispensable parties vAio had interests in the stream but vto were not before 
the court. 14/ From that ruling of the Coxirt of Appeals of the Ninth Cir- 
cuit, the Lands Division presented the case for review before the Suprane 
Court. That Court made short shrift of the matter. It made this suc- 
cinct ruling: 

"The decree of the Court of Appeals dismissing the bill 
[in the Powers case] must be affirmed." 15/ 

Thus it is that the Solicitor's Office, in the attached letter to the 
Lands Division, declares that the Western Indian tribes lose "some" of their 
Winters rights to the use of water predicated upon a case that was dismissed. 
To achieve the end, the Solicitor ignored the fact that nothing was deter- 
mined and nothing decided in Fewer s . It is extronely iitportant to observe 
that the Solicitor's Office made no mention of the fact that the case was 
dismissed and that no decision was made other than the vant of jurisdiction. 
What does emerge from the erroneous reliance upon the Powers case is an ag- 
gressive advocacy adopted by the Solicitor against the Indian tribes, all 
as reflected in the "Proposed Rules." 



14/ U.S. V. Powers, 94 F.2d. 783 (CA 9, 1939). 
15/ U.S. V. Powers, 305 U.S. 527, 528 (1939). 



516 



-21- 



There has been reviewed the itethods adopted by the Solicitor's Office 
in declaring that the tribes must share their Winters rights to the use of 
water with non-Indians, as a condition to having the tribal code approved. 
It will now be necessary to turn to the second question as to the extent 
of the rights to tie use of water, that the tribes will lose if they ac- 
cept the "Proposed Rules." 

b. Extent of the Winters Rights to the Use of Water the Sol- 
icitor' s Office would force the Tribes to Share with Non- 
Indians as a Condition to Approval of the Water Codes 

Having declared that the tribes must share "some" of their Win- 
ters Doctrine rights with non- Indians, the Solicitor undertook to determine 
how much is "sone." It looked to the 1928 case of United States v. HJtoer , 
decided by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
Idaho. 16/ 

As it failed to tell the crucial facts as to the Powers case vMch was 
dismissed, all as reviewed above, the Solicitor's Office, in citing the 
Hibner case, does not comment \:pon the most pertinent feature of the HJhner 
case. That most pertinent fact is this: The formerly allotted lands there 
involved were outside of any Indian Reservation. 17/ 

Another extremely inportant factor not mentioned by the Solicitor's 
Office in citing HJhaier is the "Agreenent" forced upon the Ft. Hall Indians 
viiich were involved in the Hibner case. Under the agreement between Ft. 
Hall Indian Tribes and the United States, the Ft. Hall Indians "do hereby 
cede, grant, and relinquish to the United States all right, title, and 



16/ 27 F.2d. (U.S.D.C. Ida., E.D., 1928). 
17/ Solicitor's letter, pg. 4. 



517 



-22- 

interest ***" to the lands which were ceded and v>*iich included the allotments 
in the HJbner case. 18/ It is also provided that the Ft. Hall lands, vMch 
were "ceded, granted and relinquished "*** shall remain part of the public 
domain. Those lands vere no longer "reserved lands," they were part of the 
public domain, title to vdiich was in the United States. 19/ One of the nost 
crucial provisions of the "Agreenent" which existed in Hibner , is as 
follows: "Where any Indians have taken lands and made homes on the res- 
ervation and are now occupying and cultivating the same, under the sixth 
section of the Fort Bridger treaty hereinbefore referred to, they shall not 
be removed therefrcm without their consent, and they may receive allotments 
on the land they now occupy; ***" 20/ 

Another unique provision, in regard to Hibner , is this quotation from 
the above mentioned 1898 agreement: 

"The water from streams on that portion of the reser- 
vation now sold which is necessary for irrigating on 
land actually cultivated and in use shall be reserved 4) 

for the Indians now using the same, so long as said 
Indians remain v*iere they now live." 21/ 

As the court in Hibner recognized, it was confronted with an unusual 

set of circumstances. More importantly, however, in regard to forcing the 



18/ Vol. 1, Indian Affairs, Laws and Treaties, Kappler, 2nd ed. , pg 704, 
Act of June 6, 1900, "An Act to ratify an agreenent of the Indians 
of the Ft Hall Indian Reservation in Idaho, and making appropriations 
to carry the same into effect," Article 1. 

19/ Id., Article IV. 

20/ Id., Article III, pg. 706. 

21/ Id., Article VIII, pg. 706. 



518 



-23- 



tribes to share their rights to the use of water, is this fact: The tribes 
had, by the arrangement of 1898, ceded, granted and relinquished all of their 
claims. In the Walton and Bel Bay cases, the tribes occvjpy their reservations 
and in connection with those reservations, are claiming all rights to the 
use of water. It is abundantly nanifest that the Solicitor's attenpt to 
apply Hibner to those facts is grossly in error. Yet, the Solicitor declares, 
on page 5, that the non-Indian purchaser "would get a Winters priority to the 
anount of water used v*ien the land was in trust." Full inport of both the 
Powers and Hibner cases, as they relate to the "Proposed Rules," will be set 
forth. 

c. The "Proposed Rules" are; But a "Dannonstration of Gross 
Hypocrisy ***" 

When there was fully chronicled the attertpts to justi:fy, by the 
Secretary, an effort to give away 75% of the Yakimas' rights to the use of 
water in Ahtanum Creek, the late Judge Pope described that reprehensible 
conduct of the high official as being representative of "The numsroias sanc- 
timonious ej^ressions to be found in the acts of Congress, the statement of 
public officials, and the opinions of courts respecting 'the generous and 
protective spirit viiich the United States properly feels toward its Indian 
wards,' *** and the 'high standards in controlling Indian affairs' *** are 
but demonstrations of a gross national hypocrisy." 22/ 



22/ United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation District et al., 236 F.2d, 321, 
327-328, (CA. 9, 1956), cert , denied 352 U.S. 998 (1956); 330 F. 2d. 
897 (1965); 338 F.2d. 307 (1965); cert, denied 381, 924 (1965). 



519 



-24- 



Those precise statements made in regard to the efforts of the Secretary 
to support the attenpted give away of the Yakima rights to the use of water 
are equally as applicable to the "Proposed Rules" which the Solicitor seeks to 
justify as the fulfillment of the trust obligation. In that regard, ref- 
erence is irade to the fact that on two occasions, the "Proposed Rules" de- 
clare that there "purposes are" to fulfill the Department's trust responsi- 
bility "*** to provide a nethod to preserve and protect in perpetuity all 
rights to the use of water reserved for the benefit of the Indians." 23/ 

Reference is also made to the definition of "reserved rights" which 
the "Proposed Rules" state have this meaning: "*** those rights to the use 
of water recognized as reserved in accordance with the principles enunciated 
in Winters v. United States *** and subsequent cases, vAiich rights have 
either an in memDrial priority or a priority date as of the establishment 
of the reservation." 24/ It has been reviewed above, in regard to the 
Winters Doctrine rights of the Indians that they are sufficient to meet the * 
present and the future water requirements for the Indian reservations. In 
the "Proposed Rules," it is evident that tlie objective of the "Rules" are 
to seize and take from the Indians, rather than to protect and preserve in 
perpetuity the invaluable Winter rights to the use of water. That invasion 
of the Indian Winters rights to the use of water is e^licit when consider- 
ation is given to the full inport of the "Proposed Rules," as drafted. 



23/ See attached "Proposed Rules," pg. 14885 "Indian Reservations' Use of 
of Water." Pg. 14886, Part 260, sec. 260.2, "Purposes" (a) . 

24/ Attached "Proposed Rules," Part 260, sec. 260.1 "Definitions" (b) . 



520 



-25- 



Under ths heading of "Purposes," it is declared that the Secretary of 

the Interior is to delegate his powers under 25 U.S.C. 381 to the Indian 

tribes. It is itost doubtful that the Secretary has that authority. However, 

that is a separate issue to those being now considered. In connection vd.th 

that delegation, it is stated in the "Proposed Rules," that they are: 

"(c) To provide for the delegation to Indian tribes of 
the Secretary's authority to prescribe rules and regiila- 
tions distributing water on Indian- reservations to per- 
sons and entities entitled to use reserved rights; ***" 25/ 

That qxxDted proviso frctn the "Proposed Rules," underscores the Solicitor's 
insistence — albeit in error — that the Indian tribes, pursuant to their 
water codes, share tteir Winters rights with the non-Indians. Reference 
in that connection is itade to the "Proposed Rules," under the heading 
"i^proval of Tribal Water Codes." That approval is conditioned upon the 
tribes' adopting water codes viiich will "*** allocate and regulate the use 
of reserved water rights *** for a beneficial use by any person or entity, 
including non-Indian persons and entities, that may be entitled to exer- 
cise such reserved water rights." 26/ 

To guarantee the tribes will be forced by the Secretarial "Proposed 
Rules" to share their Winters rights with non-Indians, those "Rules" 
declare : 



25/ "Proposed Rules," Part 260, sec. 260.2, "Purposes" (c) . 

26/ "Proposed Rules," Part 260, sec. 260.3(a), under the heading of 
"Approval of Tribal Water Codes." 



521 



-26- 



1. "(b) The Secretary shall approve the code if it sat- 
isfies the following requirements: *** (1) (ii) all 
procedures shall permit any person who claims a right 
to the beneficial use of reserved waters to present 
his claim by application to the tribe with any per- 
tinent evidence in support thereof." 27/ 

In light of that proviso, it is necessary to turn to the Solicitor's let- 
ter and to the proceedings of Lands Division in the Walton and Bel Bay cases 
to asertain and determine the impact of allowing non-Indian persons and en- 
tities, under the "Proposed Rules," to be awarded Winters Doctrine reserved 
rights to the use of water predicated vipon Hibner . 

d. Who, under the "Proposed Rules," are the Non-Indian Persons 
and Entities Entitled to Share with the Tribes Their Winters 
Rights ? 

In support of its untenable position, the Solicitor quotes ex- 
tensively from Hibner . The first quote, 28/ states that a non-Indian pur- 
chaser of Indian land and water "should be awarded *** the same water right 
with equal priority as those of the Indians." That statement may be correct " 
relative to Hibner in regard to isolated Indian lands outside of the reser- 
vation. It is incorrect where it conflicts with title claims within a res- 
ervation as in the Walton and Bel Bay cases. The Solicitor's conclusion 
is predicated upon issues now being litigated in those cases, and for that 
reason, is clearly prenature. 

In the next qixjtation, the Solicitor selects this langxjage from Hibner ; 



27/ "Proposed Rules," Part 260, sec. 260.3(b) (1) (ii) . 
28/ Solicitor's letter, pg. 4. 



522 



"*** the vMteman, as soon as he becomes the owner of Indian 
lands, is subject to those general niles of law governing 
the appropriation of the public waters of the state ***" 29/ 

Quite clearly, predicated upon the Organic Acts of the states and decis- 
ion, the Solicitor is in error. In both the States of Idaho, where the 
Hitner case arose, and Washington, where the Walton and fiel Bay cases are 
on-going, the state law has no application within Indian reservations, 
vAiich are es^licitly exernpt from state law. 

Proceeding i;5X)n the language quoted from Hihner , the Solicitor makes 

this request to the Lands Division: 

"We ask you to take the position that the scope of the re- 
served right which passes to allottees and successors in 
interest pursuant to Powers is that set forth in Hihner , 
except that we ask you to argue that the non- Indians' re- 
served rights should be limited to the water actually used 
by the Indian predecessor." 30/ 

Reference is made back to the earlier portion of these comments in which 
the Solicitor is quoted as having declared, "that the tribes would have the 
authority to regulate *** the 'first coitponent' of the rights described in 
Hihner ." 31/ The "first ccnponent," in other words, as stated by the Sol- 
icitor, is the amount of water that the Indian was using at the time that 
his allotment passed out of Indian ownership. It is reiterated and under- 
scored, however, that Hibner cannot be used in any general way as authority 
for violating the tribal Winters rights to vater. Under no circumstances 



29/ Solicitor's letter, pg. 5. [^fc>te: This quotation, as set up by the 

Solicitor, ends with a period. That is incorrect. And vrtiat is emitted 
is very important if the tone and terrper of Hibner is to be understood. 
HDwever, because Hibner has no application here, further ccnment in re- 
gard to the Solicitor's misquotation will not be itade.] 

30/ Sol. Let., pg. 5. 

31/ See above, pg. 6(d). 



523 



-28- 

should the Indian nations, tribes and people accept the legal concepts ad- 
vanced by the Solicitor's Office in reliance upon Powers and Hi bnp>r for the 
reasons ej^sressed above. It is inperative, noreover, that all interested 
parties cotprehend that the condition for Secretarial approval of Indian 
water codes is an admission of loss of Winters Doctrine rights. That ad- 
mission could and will be utilized against the Indians as declarations 
against their interest if the "Proposed Rules" are not rejected along with 
the Solicitor's concepts. 

e. Deception in "Proposed Rules" Further Reveals: The Solicitor's 
"Proposed Rules" Permits Expanded Use of Water by Non-Indians 
and that Expanded Use of Water is Outside the Purview of Those 
"Proposed Rules " 

Here it is essential to refer to soire of the facts in the Wal- 
ton cases which have been reviewed in detail. Walton purchased Indian lands 
that had never been irrigated. He undertook, however, to acquire a right 
to the use of water frcm the State of Washington. He, likewise, e:>^)anded 
the irrigated acreage on his allotunents frcsn zero to approximately 100 acres. 
In the process, Walton dried up the stream that was there involved, depriv- 
ing the Indian allottees downstream from him with the water that had pre- 
viously been available to them. Quite obviously, the Walton case relates 
specifically to the phase of the "Proposed Rules" v*iich recognize that non- 
Indians may expand their uses of water and that the ejqpanded uses are not 
within the purview of the "Proposed Rules." It is equally clear that the 
"Proposed Rules," now to be considered, are contrary in ever respect to the 
"Colville Water Code" and the "Lummi Water Code," both of which are dis- 
cussed. 



524 



-29- 

In the review which precedes imnediately above, the Solicitor has adop- 
ted the view — without any sound authority — that a non-Indian purchaser 
acquires a Winters Doctrine or a "reserved" right v*ien he purchases lands 
which were formerly allotted. The iteasure of those rights is the extent of 
the water that had been used by the Indian antecedent to the title to the 
allotted lands passing to non- Indians. Thus it is that a non-Indian becomes 
an owner to "reserved" rights, all as stated by the Solicitor in grave error. 

Equally inportant is the fact that the "Proposed Rules" are strictly 
limited to "reserved rights." In that connection, it is again necessary 
to turn to the Solicitor's letter to find the itanner in which the Solicitor's 
Office would interpret the "Proposed Rules," should they be adopted. 

Continuing to rely upon Hibner , the Solicitor says this: 

"A non- Indian purchaser, therefore, would get a Winters 
Doctrine priority to the amount of water used vd:ien the 
land was in trust. The successor in interest can ex- 
pand his use thereafter, but we believe that principles 
of state law (and the later priority date) should cover 
this later use . " 32/ 

By that statement, the Solicitor's letter agrees to the violation of 
Winters rights and to the expanded use by non- Indians of water to irrigate 
lands above and beyond that irrigated when the lands went out of Indian own- 
ership, both grave losses to the Indian tribes. The Solicitor refers to 
the expanded use of water as the "second conponent" of Hibner : 

"While the second conponent of Hibner is derived from 
federal law, and subject to federal jurisdiction, we 
do not believe it has any characteristics of a feder- 
ally reserved water rights." 



32/ Sol. Let., pg. 5, last sentences of first full paragraph. 



525 



-30- 

How that conclusion is reached is iirpossible to discern. There is no sen- 
sible authority for it. Quite obviously, the allotinent outside of the Ft. 
Hall Indian Reservation, and the rights to the use of vater claimed there, 
were not rights to v*iich the tribe was asserting title on its own behalf. 
MDSt assuredly, in Hibner the ei^ianded use was predicated on state law. 

Nevertheless, the Solicitor says this: "*** we do not support tribal 
jurisdiction over this use of water . " Thus it is that the tribal codes vMch 
were formulated with the tremendous e>5)enditure of tinne and money would have 
no application to the non-Indian expanded use which the Solicitor refers to 
as the second conponent of Hibner . 

Predicated i;pon those mistaken concepts of the Solicitor, the "Proposed 
Rules" are a travesty. They are without meaning, and, indeed, it is believed 
they are without utility. There is thus presented the anamoly of the "Pro- 
posed Rules" : 

1. The tribes, to secure Secretarial approval to their water • 
codes, must acknowledge that a non-Indian succeeds to a 

part of the Winters rights to which the tribe claims; 

2. moreover, the tribe, in order to obtain Secretarial approv- 
al of a water code, mast agree to the e>5)ansion of use by 

a non- Indian, which is so destructive to Indian tribes and 
people, and that the codes wDuld have no application to 
those expanded non-Indian users, all as reviewed in some 
detail with exanples by the Solicitor in the attached 
letter to Lands Division. 

Not only does the Solicitor's letter and the "Proposed Rules," as drafted, 

make a travesty of the right of a tribe to administer the water resources 

on the reservation, it actually renders bizarre — even weird — the posi- 



526 



tion that the Lands Divsion has taken in the Walton cases. 33/ 

f . Violation by the "Proposed Rules," If Mopted, of 

(a) Tribal Winters Rights to the Use of Water ; 

(b) Tribal Priority for Those Rights 

(1) Confiscation of Tribal Winters Rights and Priorities 
There has been reviewed with specificity, the concepts 
of the Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division in regard to the Walton 
and Bel Bay cases. It is to be observed, from the attached Solicitor's 
letter, that those cases have proceeded based upon concepts viiich are dia- 
itetrically opposed to those that are stated in the attached Solicitor's 
letter. Irrespective of the saltatory conduct of the Solicitor's Office 
and Lands Division, the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Lummi Tribe 
in the Walton and Bel Bay cases continues to assert ownership to the full 
equitable title to all water resources on their respective reservations. 
They likewise assert the violation of those rights by the defendants in 
those cases ire adopting, in part, the positions espoused by both 
the Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division, 34/ as to ej^)anded uses after 
acquisition of former Indian land. Similarly, in their respective water 
codes, the Colville Confederated Tribes and the Lurtmi Indian Tribe make the 
same assertions as to ownership of their Winters rights as they do in the 
cited cases. 



33/ See above analysis of Lands Division position as set forth in the com- 
plaint filed by the Lands Division in the Walton cases and the assertions 
contained in that coitplaint relative to the power to control the quantity 
of water that Walton would be entitled to receive. Relative to the right 
to control by Secretarial rules and regulations, the quantity of water 
that Walton would be entitled to receive. See footnote, 6, pgs. 6-7. 

34/ See above, pg. 29 et seq . 



527 



-32- 

In the event that the Secretary of the Interior would adopt the "Pro- 
posed Rules," as formulated and interpreted by the Solicitor's Office, there 
are two immediate violations of the tribal rights which would transpire: 

1. The Secretary of the Interior, through those "Pro- 
posed Rules," would in effect seize Indian Winters 
Doctrine rights to the use of water for the bene- 
fit of non-Indians; 

2. grant to the non- Indians, for whcm the Winters Doc- 
trine rights are seized and taken from the tribe, 
priorities equal to that of the tribe. 

As will be enphasized, the seizure of a priority is, in effect, confiscation 
of an invaluable property right 35/ to which the tribes are entitled to hold 
and which they should not be forced to share with non- Indians. 

It is, of course, elemental, that Winters rights to the use of water 
are interests in real property. 36/ It is equally elemental that a priority 
for the Winters Doctrine rights is perhaps the most valuable component of 
those rights. Thus it is that when the Solicitor's Office — albeit in 
error — states, based upon Powers , the non-Indian owner of formerly allot- 
ted lands acquired "seme" reserved rights, those "Proposed Rules" in effect 
seize and take from the tribe "sane of their Winters rights." 37/ Moreover, 



35/ It has been stated authoritively "Property rights in water consist not 

alone in the amount of the appropriation, but also in the priority of the 
appropriation. It often happens that the chief value of an appropriation 
consists in its priority over other appropriations from the same natural 
stream. Hence, to deprive a person of his priority is to deprive him of 
a iTDst valuable property right ***" From the same source, it is declared, 
"A priority right to the use of water, being property, is protected by our 
Constitution so that no person can be deprived of it without 'due process.' 
(Nichols V. Mcintosh, 19 Colorado 22; 34 Pacific 278, 280 (1893). 

36/ 1 Wiel, Water Rights in the Western States, 20, 21, 301 (2rd ed. 1911); 
Ashwander v. T.V.A. , 297 U.S. 288, 330 (1936); Lfriited States v. Chandler 
Dunbar Conpany, 229 U.S. 53, 73 (1913). 

37/ See above, 18 et seq . 



93-440 O - 78 - 35 



528 



-33- 

viien t±e Solicitor's Office, albeit in grave error, states, based ipon Hihner , 
that the "scms" of Winters rights taken from the tribe is measured by "*** the 
water actually used by the Indian predecessor," 38/ the Secretarial confis- 
cation of the Indian Winters rights is consunmated if the "Proposed Rules" 
are perndtted to becone effected. 

Those "Proposed Rules" are equally clear and equally disastrous in error 
in so far as the Western tribes are concerned when the tribes are forced to 
share their invaluable Winters rights with non-Indians. Yet, that is pre- 
cisely the violation of Indian rights proposed by the Solicitor — when again 
in grave error it is stated: "A non-Indian purchaser, therefore, gets a 
Winters Doctrine priority to the amount used \«hen the land was in trust." 39/ 
It is indeed anamolous for the principle agent of the United States trustee 
for the Indians — the Secretary of the Interior — to advocate the confisca- 
tion of Winters rights and the priority for those rights as the "Proposed 
Rules" conterrplate. On the subject of Secretarial confiscation of Indian 
property, the Highest Court said this: 

"The Secretary's power to control and itanage the property 
and affairs of Indians in good faith *** does not extend 
so far as to enable the government 'to give away tribal 
land to others' *** that 'would not be an exercise of guard- 
ianship, but an act of confiscation. ' " 40/ 



38/ Sol. Let., pg. 5. See above, pg. 29. 

39/ See above, pg. 18 et seq. ; see Solicitor's letter, pg. 5. 

40/ Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U.S. 476, 497 (1936). 



529 



(2) Violation of Tribal Winters Rights by the Solicitor's 
"Expanding" Non-Indian Use after Acquisition of Indian 
Land 

Confiscation of tribal Winters rights and priorities pursu- 
ant to the "Proposed Rules" has been reviewed. Even more sinister is the 
espousal by the Solicitor's Office in the formulation of the "Proposed 
Rules" that: 

"The successor in interest [of formerly allotted lands] can 
expand the use thereof, but we believe that principles of 
state law (and a later priority date) should cover this 
later use." 41/ 

There is here reiterated, by reference, the review set forth above relative 

to the mistaken concepts of the Solicitor's Office in applying the principles 

of the Hitoer case. 42/ 

The expanded use — the second coitponent of Hihner — by non- Indians 
strikes at the very heart of the case of Colville v. Walton . That concept, 
as advanced, constitutes one of the most grave injustices that the Solicitor's 
Office, by the "Proposed Rules," could inpose upon the tribes. Yet, as 
stated above, the Solicitor's Office says that it does "not support tribal 
jurisdiction over this use of water." 43/ 

Because the "Proposed Rules" do not relate to those expanded non-Indian 
uses — by far the most serious problem confronting the Indian tribes — the 
tribes, and the Secretary alike, are stripped of jurisdiction over thDse 
rights by the "Proposed Rules." 44/ Upon any reservation in the setd-arid 



41/ See above, pg- 28 et seq . ; attached Solicitor's letter, pg. 5. 

42/ See above, pg. 29 et seq. 

43/ See above, pg. 30 ; see Solicitor's letter, pg. 9. 

44/ Id. 



530 



-35- 



West, the most serious violations stan frcm tlie non-Indian expanded use of 
water after the acquisition of formerly allotted lands. 

Continuing, the Solicitor states, there is no remedy open to the tribes 
over the ejqanded non-Indian use after acquisition of formerly allotted lands, 
thus leaving the tribes with the sole remedy of going to Federal court. 45/ 
In sinple terms, the "Proposed Rules" are not only gravely in error and pro- 
ncn-Indian, they are totally impotent in regard to the greatest need of the 
tribes — the control of non-Indian expanded use after acquisition of Indian 
land within his reservation. 

(3) Violation of Winters Rights by the Solicitor's 
Attgrpted Application of State Law within the 
Western Reservations 

In straining to support the non-Indians against the claimed 
title of the tribes to Winters Doctrine rights and tribal authority to ad- 
minister those rights, the "Proposed Rules," as formulated, are predicated 
\:ipon many misconceptions. Hibner , as the Solicitor recognizes in regard to 
the non-Indian expanded use after purchase, is predicated on state law. 

Proceeding - arguendo - that Hibner might have relevancy — vMch is 
denied — the repeated reference to the state laws in the Solicitor's letter 
must be considered. The Solicitor's letter quotes this excerpt fron Hibner 
and relies upon it: The non-Indian expanded use "*** is subject to those 
general rules of law governing the appropriation of use of the public waters 
of the state ***" 46/ However, both in the State of Idaho \*ere Hibner 

45/ Sol. Let., pg. 10. 
46/ Sol. Let, pg. 5. 



531 



-36- 



arose, and in the State of Washington where the Walton and Bel Bay cases 
are pending, the state law does not apply to Indian rights to the use of 
water. In Idaho, state law is inapplicable to Indian property. 47/ There, 
the people of Idaho agreed that they would disclaim all right, title and 
interest to Indian property within the State. Moreover, the people of Idaho 
recognized that Indian property "*** shall reiiain under the absolute juris- 
diction and control of the Congress of the United States ***" Virtually 
identical language as that set forth frcm the fundamental laws of Idaho 
appears in the Enabling Act and Constitution of the State of Washington. 
In MDntana, v^ich has identical language in its Enabling Act and Constitu- 
tion with that of the State of Washington, it was held that state law 
respecting rights to the use of water had no application within the Flat- 
head Indian Reservation. 48/ Of extreme importance, however, here, in re- 
gard to the immunity of the Winters rights on Indian reservations from 
state law, is the Ahtanum decision. 

In that case, the State of Washington, having intervened, was a party. 
It sought to have the laws of that jurisdiction applied to the Yakima 
Indian Reservation. In rejecting the contention of the state, the Court 
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had this to say: 

"Rights reserved by treaties [the Yakima, 1855 Treaty] such 
as this are not subject to appropriation under state law, 
nor has a state power to dispose of them." 49/ 



47/ See Idaho Admission Bill, Act of July 3, 1890, CJpt. 656, sec. 1; 26 
Stat. 215, Idaho Constitution, Article 21, sec. 19. 

48/ U.S. V. Mclntire, 101 F. 2d. 650, 653 (1939). 

49/ U.S. V. Ahtanum Irrigation District, et al., 236 F.2d. 321, 328 (CA 9, 

1956), cert , denied 352 U.S. 988 (1956); 330 F.2d. 897 (1965); 338 F.2d. 
307, cert, denied 381 U.S. 924 (1965). 



532 



-37- 



It is, iTDreover, of extreme iitportance that those concepts were reiterated 
and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. On the subject, the Supranne Court used 
this language: "Arizona also argues, that in any event, water rights can- 
not be reserved by Executive Order." Relative to that statement, the High- 
est court declared, "We can giA;e but short shrift at this late date to the 
arg\iTent that the reservations either of land or water are invalid because 
they were originally set apart by Executive. " 50/ 

In the light of the iimiunity of the tribal Winters rights from state 
law, the Solicitor's concepts most be rejected. 

(4) Violation of Tribal Winters Rights Espoused by 
Lands Division in Bel Bay Case 

Reviewed above and enphasized is the fact that the Walton 

cases, the Bel Bay case, the attached Solicitor's letter and the attached 

"Proposed Rules" are inextricably interrelated. In a motion for partial 

sunmary judgement filed in the Bel Bay case, the Lands Division espouses 

the concepts and errors advanced by the Solicitor's Office in the attached 

letter. 

Espousal of the Seizure of Tribal Winters 
Rights by lands Division in the Bel Bay Case 

There is broad, general adherence by the Lands Divis- 
ion to the misconceptions and general attack i:pon the tribal Winters rights 
reflected in the attached Solicitor's letter. In the Bel Bay case, the lands 
Division declares specifically that a non-Indian purchaser acquires Winters 
rights to the use of water when he takes title to formerly allotted lands. 



50/ Arizona v. California, 373 U.S. 546, 598 (1963). 



533 



-38- 



In regard to the Bel Bay Cartnunity, and the other defendants in the Bel Bay 

case, the Lands Division, in its irotion for sunmary judgement, says this: 

"*** the defendants Bel Bay Conmunity and Water Association, 
*** and individual defendants naired herein are entitled, as 
a natter of law, to the use of whatever quantity of water was 
being utilized by the previous Indian allottees when the lands 
in question were removed fran trust status, such water rights 
having a priority as of the date of the creation of the Lumru. 
Indian Reservation." 51/ 

In that sentence, the lands Division attacks, not only the tribal Winters 
rights to the vise of water on behalf of non-Indians, but it likewise es- 
pouses the concept that the non-Indian purchaser would be entitled to the 
same priority as that of the LurtTni Indian Tribe. In light of that attack 
upon the Lurtmi rights, it is incredible that Lands Division has the teiit- 
erity to assert in the ccmplaint filed in Bel Bay that it is representing 
the Lurrmi Indian Tribe. It is irtpossible to perceive of a more serious 
violation of Indian Constitutional and civil rights than for Lands Divis- 
ion to "appear" to represent the Lumtni Tirbe and then to attack the Tribe's • 
rights. As reviewed, the Lumtuis intervened in Bel Bay to protect themselves 
frcm Lands Division. 

Further following the lead of the Solicitor, the Lands Division es- 
pouses the saire erroneous concepts that the Solicitor has adopted relative 
to the expanded use of water by a non- Indian subsequent to the acquisition 
of formerly allotted lands. Reference is again made to the motion of the 
Lands Division for partial summary judgenent in the Bel Bay case. There, 
this statement is made: 



51/ Motion for partial summary judgement dated October 14, 1976, by Lands 
Division in the Bel Bay case, pg. 2, of the motion, lines 15-21. 



534 



-39- 



"With respect to the defendants' rights to the use of water 
on these lands following the transfer of Indian to non- 
Indian ownership, the right to the use of water will, as a 
matter of law, be determined on the basis of the date upon 
which waters were actually placed in beneficial use." 52/ 

In the meitorandum of Points and Authorities in s\jpport of Lands Divi- 
sion 's motion for partial summary judgement, the Lands Division reviews in 
detail the concepts v*iich appear in the attached Solicitor's letter. In 
different language, the saire disastrous results are achieved against the 
Lunini Indian Tribe and all the Indians, as will be achieved by the Solici- 
tor's Office if the "Proposed Rules" are adopted. 

Under the heading of "What is the Nature of the Water Rights of the 

Defendants?" the Lands Division pursues the same fallacious misunderstandings 

of the Solicitor's Office, all as reviewed above. It then concludes, in 

error, based on the Hihner case, that the defendants in the Bel Bay case, 

"*** would succeed to a right to the use of vhatever quan- 
tity of water was being utilized by the previous Indian 
allottee when the lands were removed from trust status. 
Such a right would have a priority date as of the date of 
the creation of the reservation." 53/ 

In effect, the memDrandum of Points and Authorities, filed by the Lands Divis- 
ion is identical with the position taken by the Solicitor's Office and that 
stated in the motion. Once again, as reiterated and re-enphasized, attacks 
of that nature by the Lands Division upon the Lutmii Indian Tribe are uncon- 
scionable Continuing with the misconceptions of the Solicitor as to mean- 
ing of the Hibner case and its inapplicability to the Bel Bay case, the Lands 
Division says this: 



52/ Partial summary judganent, dated October 14, 1976, pg. 2, lines 23-27. 

53/ Memorandum in sv^jport of motion for partial summairy judganent, Bel Bay 
case, pg. 22, lines 14-19. 



535 



-40- 



"With respect to the rights to the use of water of these 
lands following the transfer frcm Indian to non-Indian 
ownership, the right to use water would be predicated on 
the application of a given amount of water to beneficial 
use, with a priority as of the date of such use." 54/ 

Nbnifestly, the Lands Division, vMle purporting to represent the Lunmi Ttibe, 
is vigorously ejqxiunding the right of the non-Indians to es^^and their xase 
of vrater, applying vater title to the use v*iich resides in the Tribe, but 
without authority from the Tribe for that water use. The unconscionable nat- 
ure of this conduct must be considered in detail v*ien the "Proposed Rules" 
are being reviewed. Quite obviously, the tone and terrper of the "Proposed 
Rules," although deceptive in nature, are identical in concept with the 
Solicitor and the Lands Division in the attack upon the Winters rights of 
the Indian people. It is of interest that the Lands Division, having no 
authority to support its position in regard to the seizure of Indian rights 
to the use of water for the benefit of non-Indians, comes forth with this 
policy pronouncement, which had to be fabricated for this particular motion ^ 
for partial summary judgement. The Lands Division says this, 

"Such a right is in keeping with federal policy and the 
local rules and customs relating to appropriation by non- 
Indian settlers of waters in the arid West as evidenced 
by the Desert Capitalized lands Act and its predecessor." 

That statement is ridiculous in the light of the Pelton case 55/ and other 
cases on the subject. It is highly inappropriate for the Lands Division to 
announce false policy determinations diametrically opposed to the law as enim- 
ciated by the courts both as to Indian Winters rights or the vastly differ- 
ent rights claimed by the National Government. 



54/ Id., lines 20-24. 

55/ Federal Power Conmission v. Oregon, 349 U.S. 435, 448 (1955) 



536 

-41- 

III. SUPPRESSICN OF TRIBAL PCWER 

OF SELF-DETEPMINATION AND 

SELF-GOVERNMENT 

OONSTITOTES METHODS USED BY 

THE SOLICITOR AND LANDS DIVISION 

TO VIOLATE TRIBAL RIGHTS 

A. Solicitor ' s Arbitrary and Capricious Conduct Violate Tribal Titles 
and Powers 

Reference has previously been made to the Congressional will that the 
Secretary of the Interior may prescribe rxiLes and regulations for the just 
and equal distribution of water "among Indians residing" on reservations 
requiring water for agricultiire. 56/ That Act, 25 U.S.C. 381, in the "Pro- 
posed Rules," is grossly misinterpreted to: 

"require the tribes to accept conditions to the approval of 
their water codes which will force them to (a) share their 
Winters rights with non-Indian purchasers of allotted lands; 
(b) share their priorities with non-Indian purchasers of 
allotted lands; and (c) restrict the tribes fron regulating, 
under their water codes, the expanded use of water by non- 
Indians after the acquisition of formerly allotted lands." 57/ 

Arrogant si^jpression of Western Indian people and the confiscation of 
their water rights is the history of the Solicitor's Office and Lands Divis- 
ion. 58/ 



56/ See above, footnote 3, 25 U.S.C. 381; That Act is the predicate for 
the "Proposed Rules." 

57/ See above, pg. 28, attached "Proposed Rules," pg. 14886, Part 260.3, 
(i) (ii) . 

58/ See Federal Encroachment on Indian Rights, an Impairment of Reservation 
Development, pg. 460, 492 et seq . , in Subccran. on Economy in Government 
of the Joint Econcmic Ccmm. , 91st Cong., 1st Sess., Towards Eooncndc De- 
velopment for Native American Ccmmunities Conm. (1969) . Reprinted in 
Hearings on Administrative Practices and Procedures relating to Protec- 
tion of Indian Natural Resources before the Subcarro. on Administrative 
Practice and Procedures on Senate Conn, on the Judiciary, 92nd Cong. , 
1st Sess., Part 1 at 175, 191-92 (1971). 



537 



-42- 



It is clear frcm the reliance by the Solicitor upon 25 U.S.C. 381 and the 
attatpted delegation of Secretarial power pursuant to it to the tribes, that 
the Solicitor, in error, is in effect denying that the tribes have authority 
to administer their own Winters rights. That is contrary to the law. Mani- 
festly, the tribal authority to nanage their own affairs and their Winters 
rights is inherent. Dong before the non- Indians "discovered" the North 
ftnerican Continent, the tribes had their property, their own laws, and in- 
stitutions. They effectively maintained their jvirisdiction over their do- 
inain by force of arms where necessary. 59/ They could and did, by the exer- 
cise of their sovereign power, wage ver and conclude treaties of peace among 
themselves and later with foreign powers and the National Government. At 
no time has the Congress stripped frcm the tribes their title to and their 
powers to edminister their Winters Doctrine rights to the use of water. 
Hence, the atterrpted utilization of the Secretarial power, under 25 U.S.C. 
381, is an effort by the Solicitor's Office to restrict the tribal sovereign 
power to administer those rights. 

Under those circumstances, it is of inperative necessity that the tribes 
reject the "Proposed Rules," for a different course would indicate by their ac- 
ceptance of the Solicitor's erroneous concept that they do not have their own 
power to administer their rights. It, of course, could be interpreted that 
the only way the Solicitor's Office can effectively represent their prin- 
ciple constituents, the non-Indians, is to limit the tribal authority in 
the manner that 25 U.S.C. 381 has been interpreted by the Solicitor's Office 



59/ Wbrcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S.C. 515; 6 Pet. 515, 557 (1932); McClanahan 
V. Arizona, 411 U.S. 164, 168 (1973). 



538 



-43- 

in the formulation of the "Proposed Rules." The latter, perhaps, is the 
better interpretation and the best basis for catprehending the activities 
of the Solicitor in developing those "Proposed Rules." 

B. Restrictions Relative to Irrigation Projects Further Evidences Attack 
Upon Trital Powers and Tribal Rights 

One of the conditions of approval of Indian water codes as contained 
in the "Proposed Rules," is tribal agreement that "the code does not seek 
to regiiLate rights to the use of water granted or created by federal stat- 
utes to purchasers of land within an irrigation project located within any 
Indian reservation and adtninistered hy the Bureau of Indian Affairs ***" 60/ 
Again, the language used in the "Proposed Rules" is an attack upon the titles 
of the tribes to Winters Doctrine rights to the use of water within irrigation 
projects constructed on their reservations. The langioage utilized con- 
stitutes an agreement by the tribes — to their irreparable damage — that 
title to their Winters rights resides with the project. Equally important 
is the fact that the language used constitutes a harsh anti-Indian legal 
interpretation that the tribes are without power and authority to administer 
the invaluable rights used on those projects. Once again, the Solicitor, 
violating the canons of legal ethics, actively supports non-Indians and 
attempts to force legal concepts upon the Indians to their irreparable damage. 

Under no circumstances shoiiLd the tribes agree that their tribal water 
codes, exeirpt frcm their operation of the irrigation projects vAiich have the 
most valuable lands and the most valuable Winters rights to the use of water 
within their reservations. 



60/ Attached "Proposed Rules," Part 260, sec. 260.3(5). 



539 



C. ;^3peals Process Further Irrpinges on Tribal Rights and Tribal Autharity 

The appeals process, as set forth in the "Proposed Rules," is totally \m- 
nanageable. It forces the tribal codes to contain provisions that appeals vrLLl 
be "vdthin the jurisdiction of the Board of Indian i^jpeals of the Office of 
Hearings and i^jpeals. Office of the Secretary of the Department of the Interior." 
That provision is vtolly unsatisfactory. 61/ Quite obviously, it is the in- 
tention of the Solicitor's Office to obtain and retain control — to the greatest 
extent possible — of all aspects of the operations of the "Proposed Rules." 

By forcing the appeals into the Office of Hearings and Appeals within the 
Department, the chance of a fair hearing would be governed by the extent of 
the Solicitor's participation in the appeals. Undoubtedly, to the fullest ex- 
tent possible, the spurious interpretation of Powers , Hibner and the other 
distortions of the law, \^iich have been reviewed above, would be applied on an 
a£^)eal, if the Solicitor's participation was in any way permitted. Adherence 
to those concepts are manifested with the grave threats to the Indian tribes . 
in both the Walton and Bel Bay cases. It is irtpossible to believe that the 
same course would not be followed in regard to administrative appeals. 

&iite aside frcan the unconscionable conflicts of interest of the Solici- 
tor's Office, the outocme of appeals in regard to the tribes, the process pro- 
posed is highly objectionable. Forcing appeals into the ponderous and slow- 
moving bureaucracy is coipletely unsatisfactory. When conflicts occur over 
rights to use of water during a period of shortage, there is an irrperative 
necessity of expeditious resolution of than if irreparable damage is to be 
avoided. That expeditious disposition of matters is inrpossible in the Office 
of Hearings and ^peals. 



61/ Attached "Proposed Rules," pg. 14887, Part 260, sec. 260.6, "Appeals.' 



540 



Provisions have been trade in the Colville Water Code for imnediate appel- 
late action within the tribal areas with redress to the local federal court if 
desired. That is the only reasonable and sensible proceeding to vMch there 
should be adherence. Expeditious disposition of conflicting claims to water 
during periods of shortage will be the true measure of the value of any tribal 
water code. 

Reference is again made to the history of water codes, all as set forth above. 
There is enphasized that the Colville Tribes and the other tribes diligently en- 
deavored for the last decade to establish water codes suited to their reser- 
vations and needs. One of the immutable criterion was, and is, that control, 
management and administration of water resources must be iraintained on the res- 
ervation. That circumstance ensues because the process of regulation or rotation 
of meager water supplies is a day-to-day, even hourly, decision-naking process. 

Neither the Bureau of Indian Affairs nor the Solicitor's Office have the 
personnel or the funds to administer the water codes as prepared. Moreover, if 
they were to control the water resources on the reservation as the "Proposed 
Rules" conterplate, it is manifest that the great need for local, imnediate de- 
cisions would be defeated. That is the primary reason, strictly from the stand- 
point of administration that the "Proposed Rules" are inadequate. They are rep- 
resentative of vSiy the tribes have universally resisted the intrustion into res- 
ervation management of the cumberscxne bureaucratic concepts which are all per- 
vasive in the "Proposed Rules." Quite obviously, the "Proposed Rules" would 
permit a further building of an already imwieldy bureaucracy and would afford 
an opportimity for further suppression of the tribal powers and the substitu- 
tion of those powers by the bureaucratic attenpts to usurp the inherent author- 
ity of the tribes. 



541 



-46- 

IV. TRUST VIOIATiaiS 

OWING TO THE 

INDIAN TRIBES 

PREVADE MJL ASPECTS OF 

THE "PRDPOSED HJLES" 

A. "No Self-Respecting Law Firm *** would allow itself to occupy the 
position of the Solicitor and Lands Division respecting the "Pro- 
posed Rules " 62/ 

Conflicts of interest within the Solicitor's Office are all pervasive. 
Historically, the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division have espoused non- 
Indian claims to water and non-Indian water projects against the Indian 
nations, tribes and people. When the Secretary's interest conflicts with 
Indian interest, they invariably support the Secretary. Their conduct, in 
advocating the "Proposed Rules" and the anti-Indian rationale adhered to 
in the formulation of the "Proposed Rules," exoiplify the disastrous con- 
sequences of those all encanpassing conflicts of interest. That shameful 
conflict, so destructive to the Indians, gave rise to the Presidential 
stateinent, that "no self-respecting law firm**" would allow itself to be 
in the position of the Solicitor and Lands Division. Officials of the In- 
terior Department have readily admitted their conflicts of interest. 63/ 
That conflict of interest is the overriding feature of the "Proposed Rules." 

Clearly, the Solicitor's Office and clearly the Lands Divisjon, in the 
prosecution of the Walton and Bel Bay cases have aligned themselves against 



62/ Cong. Rec. Senate, July 9, 1970, pg. 10894 et seq. , sec. 8, 10986. 

63/ Hearings before the Subconm. on Indian Affairs, Conin. on Interior and 
Indian Affairs, United States Senate, September 21, 25, 1970. 



542 



-47- 

the Indian tribes. Equally clear, those are studied violations of this 
Nation's trust responsibility to the Indian people. It is an anamoly that 
the unethical conduct would go to the extent that is found in the "Proposed 
Rules." 

B. Violation of the Trust Obligation Requires Rejection of "Proposed Rules" 

In the law of trust, there is an unvarying obligation: "The trustee 
is under a duty to administer the trvist solely in the interest of the bene- 
ficiary." 64/ That review of the trustee's obligation owing to the Indian 
people and the Solicitor's violation of it was re-orphasized by Reid Chambers, 
former Associate Solicitor, Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior. 65/ 
In regard to this Nation's trust obligation owing to the Indian tribes, 
a court had this to say: The United States owes to the Indians "the most 
exacting fiduciary standard." 66/ It is evident that the Solicitor's Office, 
as an agent of the trustee United States, violated its obligation to pre- 
pare the "Proposed Rules" in a manner that meets the highest standards of 



64/ Federal Encroachment on Indian Water Rights and the Iirpairment of Reser- 
vation Development in Subcontn. on Econcmy in Government of the Joint 
Econcmic Coirni. , 91st Cong., 1st Sess. , Ccitim. Towards Economic Development 
for Native American Conmunities Ccnm. (Print. 1969) pgs. 460, 490-493; Re- 
printed in Hearings on Administrative Practices and Procedxires Relating 
to Protection of Indian Natural Resources before the Suboorrm. on Adminis- 
trative Practice and Procedure of the Sen. Ccxtm. on the Judiciary, 93rd 
Cong., 1st Sess., Part 1 at 175, 191-192. 

65/ Chambers, Discharge of Federal Trust Responsibility to Enforce Claims of 
Indian Tribes: Case Studies of Bureaucratic Conflicts of Interest Ccnm. 
in Subcomm. on Administrative Practices and Procedures of the Senate Corm. 
of the Judiciary, 91st Cong., 2nd Sess., A Study of Administrative Con- 
flicts of Interest in the Protection of Indian Natural Resources, 11 Ccnm. 
Print. 1971, Reprinted in the Hearing on Administrative Practices and Pro- 
cedures Relating to the Protection of Indian Natural Resources before the 
Subcon. on Administrative Practices and Procedures of the Senate Corm. on 
the Judiciary, 92nd Cong., 1st Sess., Part 1 at 235, 238-248 (1971). 

66/ Navajo Tribe of Indians v. U.S., 364 F.2d. 320, 322 (Ct. Cls. 1966). 



543 



-48- 

fidelity. They should be prepared with the objective of protecting the 
Indian interest — rather than violating it. Performance by the Solicitor's 
Office of its responsibilities must be with the highest care, skill and 
diligence in the furtherance of the Indian interests. The "Proposed Rules" 
are a frivolous violation of those standards. 

implying the standards of the trustee to the deceptive, violative, and 
suppressive "Proposed Rules," it is apparent that the Solicitor has made a 
travesty of the trust responsibility owing to the Indian people. As a con- 
sequence, those "Proposed Rules" must be rejected out of hand. That con- 
clusion is, of course, equally applicable to Lands Division conduct of the 
Vfeilton and Bel Bay cases. 

There can be no other recanroendation than that the "Proposed Rules" 
be withdrawn. That alone will not suffice. The "Proposed Rules" are but 
manifestations of the arrogant violations of the trust obligations by the 
Solicitor's Office and the Lands Division stertming from their all encom- 
passing conflicts of interest. Corrective measures must inrtiediately be 
taken to preculde the Solicitor's Office and Lands Division frcm forcing 
their concepts i:5XDn Indian nations, tribes and people against the will of 
the Indian people. 



National Congress 

of American Indians 



Mel Tonasket 
President 



93-440 O - 78 - 36 



544 




IN WEPCV REFCI) lOi 

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR 



as 



msEP 



Honorable Peter R. Taft 
Assistant Attorney General 
Land and Natural Resources Division 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D.C. 20530 

Dear Mr. Taft: 

Re: United States v. Walton , Civil No. 3421, 
E.D. Wash.; United States v. Bel Bay 
Community and Water Association , Civil 
No. 303-71C2. W.D. Wash. 

As you know, by letters of September 14, 1971 and February 2, 
1973, we asked your Department to file the above actions. 
In these letters , we asked you to take the position "that 
the Secretary of the Interior has the exclusive jurisdiction 
to control and administer the allocation of waters on tribal, 
eillotted and formerly allotted lands" on the Colville and 
Lummi reservations pursuant to 25 U.S.C. S381. We also asked 
you to assert that the State of Washington has no authority 
to issue water permits to non-Indians on these reservations, 
-and that the state should be enjoined from issuing such 
permits. 

These cases have been pending for several years. The United 
States and the tribes have undertaken numerous studies. 
From these studies and through discovery, the facts involved 
in these cases have been clarified. Also, our views of 
the proper legal theories to be espoused have undergone 
considerable refinement and some alteration. After much 
deliberation, and after meetings vtith you and your staff, 
we sent you a letter on July 2, 1976, proposing a different 
legal position in these cases. You responded to that letter 
with additional proposals on July 19, and we have since that 
date had a number of further discussions. We now propose 
that the legal position to be asserted by the United States 
should be modified as follows. 



545 



There are two basic questions: 

. (1) Do Indian allottees and non-Indian 
successors in interest to Indian allottees 
hold any portion of the Winters Doctrine 
reserved right to the use of water? .. ' . 

(2) What is the respective extent of the 
authority of the Secretary, the state and 
the tribes to regulate the use of waters 
on Indicui reservations.? .-. ■ 

Our analysis of the legal questions follows. 

1 ..'...:'. 

On the first question, our views are unchanged from our 
■July 2 letter and we understand that you agree with them. 
We believe that the Indian allottees and their non-Indian 
successors in interest do hold some reserved rights to the 
use of water. The only Supreme Court decision which speaks 
to this question is United States v. Powers , 305 U.S. 527 
(1939) . In Powers, the United States brought suit to enjoin 
the non-Indian successors in interest to certain Indian 
allottees on the Crow Reservation in Montana "from using 
or diverting any water from two streams on the Reservation." 
The United States contended that Congress had given it 
ownership and control of all reserved waters on the Crow 
Reservation. The Secretary of the Interior had constructed 
certain irrigation projects prior to making allotments of 
reservation lands, and the United States argued that this 
construction plus its ownership and control of the reserved, 
waters "sufficed to dedicate and reserve sufficient water 
for full utilization of these projects." 305 U.S. at 532. 

The Court rejected the government's position, and appeared 
to accept the arguments of the non-Indian water users. It 
said: 

"respondents maintain- that under the 
■Treaty of 1868 waters within the 
reservation were reserved for the 
equal benefit of tribal members 
(Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 



546 



"564) and that when allotments of land 
were duly made for exclusive use and 
thereafter conveyed in fee, the right 
to use some portion of' tribal waters 
essential for cultivation passed to 
the owners. 

"The respondents' claim to the extent 
stated is well founded." (Id at 532)" 

The Court concluded: ..... . . 

"The petitioners have shown no right 
to the injunction asked. We do not 
consider the extent or precise nature 
of respondents' righns in the waters . 
The present proceeding is not properly 
framed to that end." (Id. at 533) 
(emphasis added) . ..•..- 

The interpretation of Powers as holding that allottees and 
their successors in interest succeed to some reserved water 
right finds support in subsequent cases. E.g., Preston v. 
United States , 352 F.2d 352 (9th Cir. 1965); Segundo v. United 
States , 123 F. Supp. 554 (S.D. Cal. 1954). This office has 
been vigorously urged by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 
supported by the Associate Solicitor for Indian Affairs and 
the Colville and Lummi tribes r to adopt a litigating position 
"that Powers does not compel the conclusion that allottees 
and their successors in interest succeed to a reserved water 
right. Their argument is that this question was not directly 
contested or presented before the Court in Pov/ers or in 
subsequent cases like Segundo and Preston , and that the 
holding in Powers was simply that the United States was 
not entitled to the extraordinary relief of an injunction 
on the theories it advanced in that case. Under^ their view, 
the language quoted above in Powers is mere dictum. 
Moreover, they assert that under ordinary principles of 
Indian law, the tribal ovmership of Winters Doctrine water 
rights has never been clearly and expressly transferred by 
Congress, and must therefore remain in the tribe. We have 
carefully considered and reflected on this argument, but 
decided to reject it. 



547 



One district court case. United States v. Hibner , 27 ■F.2d 
909 (D. -Ida. 1928), considers the question — left open by' 
P owers — of the scope of the "allottees ' right and that of "■ 
their successors in interest- ' In Hibner , the court . . - 
extended an earlier case V — which held that the leasing 
of allotteed lands to a non-Indian did constitute the • 
abandonment of the individual water right expressly 
created by the 1898 agreement with the Shoshone-Bannock 
Tri±>e of the Fort Hall Reservation^ — to hold that sale 
of an allotment did not extinguish the allottee's' . • ' 
reserved water right. The Court first stated: - ■ ■_ 

"a purchaser of such land and water 
■ rights acquires, as under other sales, . -. 
the title and rights held by the . - 

Indians, and there should be awarded 
to such purchaser the same character ' . .' 
of water right with equal priority 
as those of the Indians. (Id. at 
. 912) ." ~~ 

The court then held, however, that "the status of the water 
right after it has passed to others by the Indians seems 
to be somewhat different from while such right is retained 
by the Indians." (Id.) The court stated that the non- • " 
Indian is "entitled to a water fight for the actual 
acreage that v/as under irrigation at the time title 
passed from the Indians, and such increased acreage as he 
might v^ith reasonable diligence place under irrigation, 
which v/ould give to him, under the doctrine of relation, 
'the same priority as owned by the Indians." Thereafter, 
the non-Indian can secure a state law right to appropriate 
additional v/aters v/ith a priority date as of the time 
of commencing those later appropriations. The court 
reasoned, plausibly, that when the water right passed out 
of trust status, the purpose of the reservation no longer 
required a reserved water right which expands to satisfy 
future needs. The court gave as its reason that 



7 Skeem v. United States, 263 Fed. 93 (9th Cir. 1921) . 



548 



■ "the principle invoked by the courts for 
the protection of. the Indian as long as he 
retains title to his lands does not prevail 
cind apply to the white man, and the reason 
for so holding is that there was reserved 
xinto the Indians the absolute right to own . 
and use in their own way the v/ater for their 
lands, while the white man, as soon as he 
becomes owner of the Indicins lands, is 

subject to those general rules of law , ' 

governing the appropriation and use of the ' •• 
public waters of the state." 

We ask you to take the position that the scope of the 
reserved right which passes to allottees and successors 
in interest pursuant to Powers is that set forth in 
Hibner except that we ask you to argue that the non-Indian's 
reserved right should be limited to the water actually used 
by the Indian predecessor. We think that — as the court 
noted — the federal purpose for an expandable Winters type 
reserved right ceases when the lands pass out of trust. 
A non-Indian purchaser, therefore, would get a Winters 
Doctrine priority to the amount of water used v/hen the 
land V7as in trust. The successor in interest can expand 
his use thereafter, but we believe that principles of state 
law Cand a later priority date) should cover this later 
use. 

n • ' -■ •■ •■- • • ' ■•■■. 

It remains to discuss the respective authority of the 
Secretary, the state and the tribe to regulate the use of 
water on Indian reservations. 

Section 7 of the General Allotment Act of 1887, 25 U.S.C. S381, 
is the only provision conferring jurisdiction on the Secretary 
to regulate use of reservation water rights. It reads: 

"In cases where the use of water for 
irrigation is necessary to render the 
lands v/ithin any Indian reservation 
available for agricultural purposes, 
the Secretary of the Interior is 
authorized to prescribe rules and 
•regulations as he may deem necessary 



549 



to secure a just and equitable 

distribution thereof among Indians ■ ' " . 

residing upon any such reservations; 
cind no other appropriation or grant 
of water by any riparian proprietor 
shall be authorized or permitted 
■. .' to the damage of any other riparian 
proprietor." 

We stated on July 2 that in our view Section 381 does not confer 
jvirisdiction on the Secretary — exclusive of tribes — to regulate 
all uses of water on Indian reservations. First, the statute 
is limited to "water for irrigation." Secondly, the statute 
authorizes the distribution of this water "among Indians 
residing upon [the] . . . reservation." This confers no 
authority upon the Secretary to deliver any water to 
non-Indians. . Moreover, the Secretary's authority to regulate 
any v;ater use by non-Indians under this statute is very 
doubtful; at most, it v/ould seem he could stop uses of water 
by non-Indians that interfere with Indian uses. 

In your July 19 response, you indicated that a somewhat broader 
view of Section 381 would be supportable. Since it applies 
to allotments, you suggest that it could extend to "patented 
lands," and thus to non-Indians. You also indicated that, 
in your viev;. Section 381 would not prohibit the tribes from 
exercising control over the reserved water rights (from 
our discussions, we have agreed that this means waters 
used on trust lands and the first component of the rights 
described in Hibner) so long as the exercise of this tribal . 
authority was consistent with the trust responsibility of 
the United States with respect to the lands. 

Although we recognize that a more expansive interpretation 
of Section 381 could be argued to a court, we do not choose 
to adopt that construction of the statute. However, we 
have jointly formulated a proposal which v;ill make 
resolution of this issue, and the question of the precise 
extent of tribal jurisdiction, unnecessary. Under Section 
381, the Secretary has authority "to prescribe rules and 
regulations deemed necessary to secure a just and equal 
distribution of v/aters." We propose that this Department 



550 



will adopt regulations under Section 381 delegating 
substantial regulatory authority to the tribes to adopt 
water codes on particular reservations- These regulations 
will state that the Department will approve individual 
I tribal water codes regulating the use of water reserved 
under the Winters Doctrine on the tribe's reservation so 
long as the following conditions are met: 

(1) The tribal code provides acceptable 
due process procedures to protect the 
rights of persons subject to them, ... 
ultimately permitting judicial review of 
determinations in the federal courts; 

C2) The tribe establishes institutions 
that are adequate to administer the water 
code; 

(3) The tribal code provides that it 
does not divest any valid rights vmder 
federal law as may be established by 
courts of competent jurisdiction; 

(4) The tribe seeks only to regulate 
the use of reserved \vater rights, which . . 
includes tribally ov/ned v/ater rights, 
rights owned by allottees , and the 
"first component" of the rights 
described in Hibner ; 

(5) The tribal water codes would not 
regulate the use of water within 
statutory irrigation projects on the 
reservation with water rights created 
by federal statutes. 

It is our intention to proceed forthwith with the drafting 
of such Departmental regulations and to publish them as 
proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register for public . 
comment. As we prepare the precise regulations, the 
general conditions suggested above will, of course, be 
honed in greater detail. We will do this in close 



551 



consultation with Myles Flint of your office. We are 
furnishing you, however, with this outline of the 
regulations at the present time to enable you to meet the 
court deadline of October 8 in Bel Bay case . 

This proposal obviates the necessity^of^adopting a position 
as to the precise scope of Sectior^''39^L' authority and of 
tribal jurisdiction as far as non-lri^ians are concerned. 
By combining the governmental powers of the Secretary 
cuid the tribe, federal-tribal authority is exercised. 
It does not matter, for example, whether the tribe in 
its adoption of tribal water codes is exercising 
delegated authority or inherent tribal power. See 
D nited States v. Mazurie , 419 U.S. 544 (1975). 

It remains to discuss the "second component" of the Hibner 
test. In our July 2 letter, we asked that you take the 
position that states have a limited authority to issue 
permits to non-Indian landowners on an Indian reservation 
who claim a right to use v/ater pursuant to this "second 
component;" that is, an appropriative type right to the 
use of water under state law principles with a priority • 
date after their purchase of their former trust allotment. 
V?e have carefully considered the conclusions in' your 
July 19 letter that such questions are ones of. federal 

(not state) lavr, that administration of such rights 
should. not be subject to state jurisdiction, but that 
federal law may incoirporate state law concepts such as 
the prior appropriation doctrine for purposes of . 
interrelating the rights, of non-Indians under the Hibner 
case to V/inters Doctrine rights. As you reasoned in that . 
letter, state jurisdiction over the use of water derives 
from the Desert Lands Act of 1877, 19 Stat. 377, 43 U.S.C. 
S321, and its predecessors. That Act confers plenary 
control on states over nonnavigable v/aters on the public 

domain . See Cappaert v. United States , U.S. , 

44 L.v;. 4756 (June 7, 1976); FPC v. Orego n, 349 U.S. 435 
448 (1955); Power Co. v. Cement Co ., 295 U.S. 142, 158, 
163-164 (1935) . Reserved lands held in trust for an 
Indian tribe or withdrawn from the public domain for 
other uses are obviously not public lands, and the state 
has no pov/er to regulate the exercise of reserved water 
rights. E.g., United States v. Mclntire , 101 F.2d 650 

(9th Cir. 1939) . 



552 



When lands within the exterior boundaries of an Indian 
reservation pass out of trust status and into, fee, 
they do not become public. lands nor do they become a . 
portion of the public domain in the sense that they 
are subject to sale or other disposition under the 
general land laws. See Union Pacific R.R. Co. v 
Harris , 215 U.S. 386, 388 (1909); Ash Sheep Co. v. . . 
United States , 252 U.S. 159, 166 (1920); Seymour v. 
Superintendent , 368 U.S. 351, 355 (1961) ; Mattz v. 
Arnett , 412 U.S. 481, 497 (1973). Rights to the use 
of water on these lands, even when in fee o\^nership, 
would accordingly, be determined by federal law 
rather than state law. See United States v. Mclntire , 
101 F.2d 650, 653-654 (9th Cir. , 1939); Tweedy v. 
Texas Company , 286 F. Supp. 383, 395 (D. Mont. 1968) 
United States v. Ahtanum Irrigation District , 236 F.2d 
321 (9th Cir.) cert. den. 352 U.S. 988 (1957). Since in 
these cases the State of Washington can only exercise 
jurisdiction over the use of water as derived from the ' 
Desert Lands Act, this does not provide any basis for 
jurisdiction by the State on either reservation. We have 
decided to concur in your analysis and conclusions, and 
therefore ask you to continue to assert that the ' '^ 
regulation of the use of water on tribal lands, trust ""'■ 
allotments and formerly allotted lands is exclusively 
a matter of federal and/or tribal jurisdiction. 

VThile, the second component of the Hibner right is . 
derived from federal law, and subject to federal- 
jurisdiction, we do not believe, _it has any .• ■_j 
characteristics of a federally reserved water right. - 
Accordingly, v/e do not support tribal jurisdiction 
over this use of water. Federal statutory law is 
silent on the administrative regulation of this use 
of water. As you point out in your July 9' letter, 
federal law would apply, and incorporates state law 
doctrines. If a landowner were to exceed his rights 
under this second component, and interfere with reserved 
rights, we believe the proper remedy would be an 
injunctive action in federal court against him (or, 
alternatively, a general quiet title adjudication 
looking tov/ard a decree administered by a 
water-master) . There would, in our view, be no 
proper tribal administrative remedies. 



553 



At this juncture, an illustrative example may be 
helpful. If a reservation v/ere established in 1860, 
and allotted in 1900, and an Indian allottee had 
applied 5 acre feet of water annually to his allotment 
before it passed out of trust in 1940, the non-Indian 
successor of interest would have a Winters type • ' 
reserved water right to use 5 acre fee with an 1860 
priority date (or an immemorial priority in appropriate 
circumstances) . If he then applied a total of 20 acre ■ 
feet after 1940, he would have an additional 15 acre 
feet with a 1940 (or later) priority. This second 
component (v/ith the 1940 or later priority) of the 
Hibner right. would be junior to all reserved rights. 
These reserved rights (including the 5 acre-foot 
right which is the "first component" of Hibner ) would 
be regulated by an approved tribal water code. If the 
landowner exceeded his reserved rights, and the persons 
entitled to reserved rights Cas determined pursuant 
to the tribal code by, for example, the issuance of 
permits) were injured, their remedy or that of the 
United States as trustee would be in federal court. 

This letter in its entirety supplants my letter to you of 
July 2, 1976, which letter is hereby withdrawn- We 
appreciate the mutually frank and cooperative discussions 
we have had with your office concerning these cases within 
the past few months, and hope that this produces a 
mutually agreeable position for both our Departments. 



Sincerely, 

H.) Gregory Austin 
.Solicitor 



554 



DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Sureau of Indian Affairs 

[ 25 CFR Part 260 ] 

INDIAN RESERVATIONS 

Use of V/ater 

Notice is hereby given that it Is pro- 
posed to issue Part 260 of Title- 2S of the 
Code of Federal Regulations. Tliese-reg- 
ulations are proposed pursuant to theau- 
thorlty contained in Section T of the 
Act of February 8. 188T «24 Stat. 390. 25 
TX.S.C. la) . Revised Statute-46i t2»U.S.C. 
2) and Revised Statute- 455 <2S U.S.C. 

The purposes of these regulations ace: 
(a) To fulfitr the Department's trust 
responsibility to provide a method to pre- 
serve and protect in perpetuity all riylit.-? 
to theusfrof water reserved for the bene- 
fit of the Indians: (b) to recoiraizc, pro- 
vide for»; and assist Itt the^xerct;e of the 
scvereigir authority- of Indian tribes 
within- their- reservations to 'govern, the 
oseof all reserved water-rig^hts therefn; 
Cct to provide for" the delegation to 
Indian tribes of the Secretary's authority 
to prescribe rules and regulations dis- 
tributing water on Indian reser\atlon.s to 
persons and entities entitled to use re- 
served water rights; and id) to provide 
for the present. and future uevelopmenc 
of Indian reservations, including Indian 
Pueblos, through the use of their resened 
water rights. 



555 



It 13 tti» poUc7 Of ths Departiaent o! 
the Interior, whenever practicable, to 
BiTord the public an opportunity to par- 
iclpate In the ndemaltlng process. Ac- 
iordiagly Interested persons may submit 
"vritten eommenta. suzgestlons. or objec- 
tions rreartHng tbe proposed reyulations 
'o the Commissioner of Ia<ll»a ASairs, 
department of the Interior. Waaiilng- 
oon. D.C. 20240. by April 18, 1977. 

It Is proDOsed that Psrt 260 of TlUe 
25 or th« Code of Pe<lena regulations 
Kill read a» lonows: 




7. Art of Pebraniy 8. 1387 
(24 St»t. S90k 05 U3.C. Sai). .\rt of Aufrm' 
». l-JM (60 3t»t 839. 2.1 UiiC. 1») K*Tta«l 
Statu t» 463 (35 CT.S.C. 2) onfi BerljoU St»tut» 
485 (25UAC.9). 



250.1 



D^mlkms. 



(a) "Secretary" mpons the Secretary 
of the Interior or hl3 delegated repre- 
sentative. 

<b) "ReseTTed water rights" tnrans 
a-.c»9 rights to the use of w-aters reco?- 
olzed !« reserved In accordance witia the 
principles enunciated In Wfnferj v. 
United Staza, 207 nj3. 564 (15Ca), and 
.■••jboequeot cases, which rlshts h;ive 
■;iti--er an toraemorial priority or a 
,-jrtortty date aa. of tee est«J)llstiicent of 
the reservation. 

(c> "E«ieflcl3l use" means any use of 
water, consumptive or ofiwrwise. ror 
agricultural, domestic, municipal, com- 
merxMal, Izidcstrlal, a^^tbetx. religious, 
or r-^reational purpoKes, or for the 
maintenance of adequate .stream Cows 
for fishery, enviromnental, or other 
fcensflclal purposes on an Indian resar- 
vo.llon, 

<d) "Just and e<rJtable distribution 
of r»3erTwl water rlshts" mean* a 
method of allocating the available water 
amonjt ti3cs» entitled thereto In such a 
manner that aO these similarly situated 
will be given an etjual opportunity to 
make benefldal use of the water, the 
allccatlon t>etn^ tn such a manner as to 
alleviato hardship where possible. 

(e) A "-ifater code" or "code" shall 
ni^an ordinances, niles, and regulations 
adopted by the governing body of on In- 
dian tribe which provide for regulation 
",cd control of the uze of reserved water 
;l5hts a.-nong those entitled thereto In 
r.ccordani:8 with the tribe's consUtutlon, 
bylaws, o." other applicable laws. 

(') "Icriian tribe" or "sribe" cief>n3 
-,\ tribe. bi.;d or identiflaWe group of I;i- 
diins ow-nLig waUir rlghta for which the 
Cnited Stales ha3 a trudt responsiiJll.ty. 

(S) A "Ui'^by-use b-ssis" means that a 
septirate permit shall b? l5.iued for each 
seiiarate use of water which .ihall contain 
ali pertinent Information with reipect to 
that use. However projects s'Kh as Irrlsa- 
tinn projects may file a single ccnioil- 
d.itcd applicatloQ d:;5crlblng the exact 



PROPOSED auiES 

l.%nd to be san.ed. each use planned and 
the amount, period, and nature thereof. 

§ 260J! Purixw.r... 

The purpcsea of these regulations are: 
<a) To fuiflll the Department's trust 
responsibility to provide a method to pre- 
serve and protect in perpetuity all rights 
to the use of water reserved for the bene- 
fit of the Indians; 

( b) To recognize, provide for. and as- 
sist In the exercise of the sovereign au- 
thority of Indian tribes within their res- 
ervations to govern the use of all reserved 
Water rights therein; 

(c) To provide for the delegation to 
Indlaai tribe* of the Secretary's authority 
to prescribe rules and regulatloiui distrib- 
uting water on Indian reservations to 
persons and entitles entitled to use le- 
served water rights; and 

(d) To provide for the present and fu- 
ture development of Indian rese.-vations. 
Including Indian Fuebios. through the 
use of tiielr reserved water rights. 

S 260.3 Approval of IribM waltr co<l.v«. 

(a) Any Indian tribe may adopt, wit'a 
approval of the Secretary, and enforce 
a water code to control, distribute, allo- 
cate and regulate the use of reserved 
water rights on its reservation for a ben- 
eficial use by ariy person or entity, in- 
cluding non-Indian persons and entitles, 
that may be entitled to exercise such re- 
served water rights. Upon adoption, this 
WEter code shall be submitted to the 
Commissioner of Inaian Affairs who shall 
review the code and submit It. with his 
recommendations to the Secretary for 
formal approval or disapproval. 

(b) The Secre^.^ry shall approve the 
code If 11 satisfies the foUowing reqmre- 
ment-i: - ' 

(1) The code aJords procedural due 
process of law to all perrons claiming 
the right to exercbe reserved water 
rights, by providing the follow'_ng; 

(1) A method for establishing the 
amount, nature, period, and place of use 
of reserved waters. That method shall be 
based inx>n the principle of a just and 
equitable dtstrtbutlon of water among 
these entitled to the beneficial use 
thereof and may Include the order of 
tribal priorities on the use of water 
withtn the r^ervatlon. 

(U) AH procedures shaH perm .it any 
p erson who claim s a rlgnt ta tiia 



t o prese.-.r n 



claim by application 
any pertinent evidence in support 
thereof. All iMues wiU be heard by an 
impartial administrative official or body 
duly constituted by tne tribe. A written 
decision on such application v. ill be ren- 
dered within a rca-onabl tkne and rea- 
sons shall be gl'.'en for each decision. 

(lil> Notice of hearings on all appU- 
catlorj shall be given In a reasonable 
manner such as to aftord Interested per- 
sons the opportunity to support or con- 
t^t any claimed rights. 

(Iv) A complete record of r.U applica- 
tions, actions taken thereon, and rny 
permits Issued shrJl te m.iintalr.ed by 
the tribe and shall be open for public in- 
spection on the re!erv:>tlon. 



(2) Tlje code nfforcis agsrleved per- 
sons the opportunity to see'i Judicial re- 
view of Bdminlstrative determinations., 

(3) The tribe nussesses the capacity 
to administer the co^ 

C 4) ihiCo;lai7 7tg»t^d to admlnlstra) 
tlOQ and enforcement of reserved watet 
rights as defined In this Part. 

(5) The code does not seek to regulate 
rights to the use of water granted or 
created by federal statute to purchasers 
of land within on Irrigation project lo- 
cated within any Indian reservation and 
adnilnistered by the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs pursuant to 25 CFR 191-203. The 
code recognizes the continued existence 
ot such rights with the same priorities 
(relative to the reserved water rights 
regulated by the code) that those rights 
would have had absent enactment of the 
code. 

(6) The code Is subject to pertinent 
acts of Congress and to binding Judicial 
decisions concerning reserved v^ater 
rights. 

(7) Ame.ndments to the code require 
approval by the Secretary. 

§260.1 Co-Im «;i1, in.lM.l.i.il x.u.r 

prrnwis. 

(a) At the option of the tribe, tha code 
may adopt an Individual permit system 
auf-'-.orizing the diversion and use of 
water on a use-by-use basis. Where a 
permit .system Is utilized: 

(1) Permits may state the amount 
and periods of use In terms of diversion 
and/or consumptive use, specify by de- 
scription the tract where the use Is to 
.occur, and the natiu-e of the use. 

(2) Permltsmay be Usued for exi.'iting 
and potential uses Includ'jig storage. 

(3) A time period may be set for exer- 
cise of each potential use upon which a 
permit Is Issued, and changes In time. 
place and nature of use may be per- 
.-nltted. * 

(4) A permit may be Is.'sued for each 
potential use established by reservation 
land .and water use Inventories. 

(5) Extensions of time for exercise of 
the rlg'nt acquired In such permit may 
be given upon good cause shown. 

(6) All permits may be subject to such 
reasonable conditions as the tribal gov- 
erning body or Its designated adminis- 
trative ofSclaU or body shall determine 
to be necessary to carry out the purpose 

■ of the code. 

(7) Procedures may be employed for 
enforcement or permits and cancellation 
of a permit In the event of substantial 
violation of Its conditions. 

(8> Temporary use permiu may bo 
E-'anted for limited pericds pending ac- 
tion upon application for rv rcsuljr wa- 
ter permit. 

permit5_5iiaJlJ>e submitted to^HlHIsiicuir- 
InftnaenT^of thc^£i»tuji_grj3di.:in Af- 
f3iCiagency having jun.-.diction over the 
rrycrvativ^n for his approval. S::ch other 
documents or mate^i.^l as r.re pertinent 
l« the permit or necessary to eno.ble him 
properly to revie?,- ih- pcnnit i'.'-i'd also 
be submitted to the svperinter.^lent. Tlie 
superintendent, after review tiiercof. 
shall. v.'Uhln 30 days, apprce the pe.-- 



RECISTER, VOL 1?, NO. 



556 



PROPOSED RULES 



mit, approve the permit on conditiOL. 
that XBOdifications be made thereto, or 
disapprove the permit. If the permit Is 
approved with modifications or disap* 
proved, tha superintendent shall return 
the permit ta the goveniing body of the 
tribe or it» designated administrative 
ofiScial or body together with a statement 
of the modiflcatkais needed for ap- 
proval or the reasons for disapproval. 
When approved by the superintendent, 
the permit granted by the governing 
body of the tribe or its designated ad- 
ministrative o£Bcial or body shall be a 
federal permit and be enforced as if it 
had been issued by iiie Secretary. PaD- 
ure to act on the permit within 30 days 
of receipt by the superintendent shall 
tonstitute approvaL « 

<c) The tribal governing body majjal. 
Its discretio n call upon tlje field offices 
■CStibilshed in" 111 DM 13.5 of the De- 
partment of the- Interior ManuaL for arr 
Indian Affairs Administrative Law Judge 
to assist the tribe in the conduct of any 
admin istratlve hearing it may conduct 
with respect to applications for water 
permits under its w.ater code. The re- 
qxiest- shall be- addressed to the Chief 
Adniinistrative- Law Judge, OEBce of 
Hearings and Appeals, UjS. Department, 
of the Interior, 4015 Wilson Boulevard. 
Arlingtcn. Virginia 22203. Upon receipt 
CI the request, an Indian Affairs Admin- 
istrative Law Judge capable of conduct^ 
tig administrative vrater hearings shalL 
be assigned to bold hearings and issue- 
findings of fact and concloTrons of law to 
assist the- tribe in particular hearings at 
the Ume and place-selected by the tribe. 
Sorti hearings shall be- conducted^ pur- 
suant to 111 DM 13 and 211 DM 13.7 of 
the Department of the Interior Manual, 
(d) The code inay, in addition to the 
rs^TJlrements tn Part 260.3(b); contain 
any other lawful provision. 

S260.S 



(a> If a trli»e' falls to enact an ap> 
proved water code for its reservation and 
the Secretarr fJuds that such a code Is 
necessary tc pitjcu e and protect the 
reserved water righU of the Indians, the 
Secretary shall notify the tribe in writ- 
ing of SQcxi need and offer assistance in 
the preparation of an acceptable water 
code. If such tribe notifies tlie Secretary 
that it electa not to enact a water code 
or if the tribe doea :not respond witliln 
60 days from, the date of the request, the 
Secretary may prepare and publish a 
Trater code for such reservation. The 
water code shaU cover at least the areas 
set forth in Part 260.3(b) above, and 
shall otherwise comply fully wlU> these 
reculatlons. 



'b) In this code, the Secretary may 
act on behalf of the trilje In the Issuance 
of permits and the regulation of the re- 
served water rights of the reservation. 

(c> When said water code has been 
completed, it shall be submitted to the 
Eoveming body of the tribe of the res- 
ervation for its review Sind comment 
thereon and to make revisions thereto, 
following which the water code shall be 
enforced by the Secretary as to the res- 
ervation, covered by Euch code. 

(dl The code mar be amended by the 
Secretary from time-to-time subject to 
rights under existing permits after sub- 
mitting such amendments to the govern- 
ing body of the tribe for its approval. 
Provided, however. That any amend- 
ment shall become eCective if the tribe 
neither approves nor dis;ipproves the 
amendment within 60 days. 

(e) The tribe may replace such a code 
with one adopted by it at any time, or 
it may amend the code, with approval of 
the Secretary. 

5 260.6 App«at». 

Where the provisions of !$ 260.4 and 
260.5 have been utilized, appeals from the 
superintendent's approval of the permit 
or other determinations of the superin- 
tendant or other Department officials 
concerning any person's right to the use 
of water shall be within the jurisdiction 
of the Board of Indian Appeals in the 
OflElce of Hearings and Appeals.^ Office of 
the Seeretarr. Department 'of the Inte- 
rior: A hearing shall be held on the ap- 
peal by tiieBoard at which the tribe-and 
tlie appealing party may appear and 
present- evidence and argument. When 
practic3hlet_thi3 hearing shall -be held 
on or near the resei-vation. A determina- 
tion by the Beard of Indian Appeals shall 
be final and there shall be no f urtlier ad- 
ministrative remedy available. 

ItotedrMareiiT. 1977. 

- - Cecil D. Axwtvs,. 

- - . Secretary of- iTTterierr, 
|FR D«fc77-7i8«-Fi:ed 3-ld-77;8:4o am) 



557 



NATIONAL INDIAN EDUCATION ASSOCIATION 



SUSAN ARKEKETA, 
OlociCnek 
LEONARD BEARKING 

EDWARD BENTON (BANA1| 

ALLAN |. CALDWELL 

CHESTER 1. EAGLEMAN 



Board of Directors 
LUCILLE ECHOHAWK 

Pownef 
LLOYD ELM. SR 

Ononrfago (Inrrdo 
BONNIE HERNANDEZ 

PATRICIA LOCKE 

LANCE LUIAN 



lULlANE A. MONETTE 
GARY PRETTY PAINT 
DR. RICK ST GERMAINE 
HERSCHEL "ACE" SAHMAUNT 
DOROTHY SMALL 




15 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH 

IVY TOWER BUILDING 

MINNEAPOLIS. MN 56403 

PHONE 612 333 5341 

ANDREW P. LAWSON 



25 April 1977 



Senator James Abourezk 

Chairman, American Indian Policy Review Commission 

Congress of the United States 

House Office Building Annex No. 2 

2nd and D Streets, S.W. 

Washington, D. C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

The National Indian Education Association, with the concurrence of 
the Education Committees of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association 
and the National Congress of American Indians, herewith submit to the 
AIPRC a statement of comment and recommendations related to Indian educa- 
tion. 

We respectfully request that you accept and add our comments and 
recommendations as an addendum to the Task Force Five Final Report on 
Indian Education of the American Indian Policy Review Commission and to 
the Final Report under the heading of Social Services. 

Sincerely, 

Patricia Lock«f^ President 

National Indian Education Association 

CC: Georgiana Tiger 

Lawrence Snake 

Ernie Stevens, Executive Director 
Enclosure: Statement 



PLrmjc 



558 



STATEMENT 

National Indian Education Association (NIEA) 
Education Committee: National Congress 

of American Indians (NCAI) 
Education Committee: National Tribal 

Chairmen's Association (NTCA) 

COMMENTS ON PROPOSED LEGISLATION (p. 281-294) 

In previous and separate letters and resolutions from each of the 
above organizations, strong objections were voiced regarding the proposed 
Indian Education Act of 1977 to establish a National Indian Education Com- 
mission and to establish a National Trust Fund for Indian Education. While 
we agree that consolidation and coordination of Indian education programs is 
desirable, we continue to reject the particular proposed plan for an Indian 
Education Act of 1977 as described in Section VII - Proposed Legislation, 
of the Task Force V Report. 

Any such proposed legislation should have the prior approval and en- 
dorsement of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association, the National Congress 
of American Indians and the National Indian Education Association. 

We will propose alternative recommendations to strengthen Indian 
education. 

COMMENTS ON RECOMMENDATION THAT A SINGLE FEDERAL AGENCY SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED 
FOR INDIAN EDUCATION 

We recommend that policies be defined, programs initiated and strengthened 
and reforms made within the Education Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 
DOI. Should the tribes agree that a new independent agency would strengthen 
the Federal -Indian relationship and if, in the future, should such an agency 
be created, then education should be a part of, and not separate from, the 
whole. Tribes should design programs and structure prior to establishment 
of a consolidated Indian Agency. 

At present, the National Indian Education Association and the Education 
Committees of NCAI and NTCA, cannot respond to AIPRC's recommendation that a 
single federal agency be created for Indian education because we have not been 
made aware of the structure, functions and authority of such an agency as it 
pertains to Indian education. It is our concern that such an agency would 
hav'e^to insure protection of the Indian Federal Trust Relationship. 



559 



COMMENTS ON THE NEED FOR CONSISTENCY IN TERMINOLOGY AND USAGE THROUGHOUT 
THE SECTION ON EDUCATION (pps. 8-76 through 8-130) 

Throughout the report there should be a consistent focus toward the 
education of Indians as benefitting members of tribes as controlled and 
determined by tribes. Much of the existing terminology vaguely refers to 
Indian "people", and "Indian" and "community" control.. This is inconsistent 
with AIPRC recommendations relating to the tribal control of education and 
that education is clearly a jurisdictional right of the tribes. We strongly 
recommend that all references to " community ", " local " and " Indian " control 
be deleted and that tribes or tribal control be inserted. 

In the following section, issues or problems will be discussed briefly 
and recommendations made pertinent to the issues. 

ISSUE: Need for National Indian Education Councils (BIA) to Set Policies 
and Priorities 

Indian education policy is not now defined. There is ambiguity and 
vagueness in defining the "special educational needs" of Indian children 
in the context of the various areas of Indian education. The Office of 
Education-BIA does not have an institutionalized system to provide advice 
relating to these educational policy areas. There are many qualified Indian 
educators knowledgeable in specialized fields that can give advice to the 
BIA relating to policy issues and program planning so that Indian education 
could be more responsive to tribal needs. The Education Office within the 
Bureau of Indian Affairs must heed the advice of a formalized body of Indian" 
educators. NIEA, NTCA and NCAI have repeatedly recommended by policy papers 
and resolutions that the BIA Education must establish an All Indian Council 
to set policy and give expert advice on programs. Such a Council should 
also provide appropriate advice to education related functions of BIA Em- 
ployment Assistance Office and continuing education functions of the BIA's 
Division of Law and Order in order to support the training needs of law 
enforcement related services. 



93-440 O - 78 



560 



RECOMMENDATION 

There must be established nine councils on Indian Education within 
the BIA to develop comprehensive policy and program planning in various fields 
of Indian education and specifically in the following areas: 

1. Council on Early Childhood Education 

2. Council on Elementary and Secondary Education 

3. Council on Postsecondary Education (to include vocational, 

career, and adult education) 

4. Council on Education and the Media (to include library programs] 

5. Council on Special Education (to include handicapped, learning 

disabled, and gifted and talented) 

6. Council on School and Plant Facilities/Operation 

7. Council on Research and Development (to include development 

of measurement, instrumentation and accreditation) 

8. Council on Teacher Training (to include the training of 

administrators) 

9. Council on Bilingual and Multilingual Education (to include 

curriculum development) 



Council Representation : There shall be three American Indians on each 
Commission. Representatives shall be recommended by the tribes and selected 
according to depth of knowledge in each field. After three years. Council 
will be composed of a total of nine members. 

Terms of Service : The Council appointees shall serve 2 to 3 terms in 
order that there will be a revolving cycle of new representatives. 

Functions of Councils : The Councils shall establish policy, program 
planning, and evaluation of Indian Education programs. They shall develop a 
priority of goals annually; they shall propose long-range budget estimates 
for Indian Education in the particular fields. 

Each Council shall develop guidelines based on tribal recommendations 
relative to the licensing and certification of educational personnel. 

Each Council shall develop curricular alternatives in the particular 
fields. Such policies shall be reflected in the BIA Manual. 



561 



ISSUE: Need for Five Indian Education Service Centers 

A majority of the tribes are geographically isolated and are poor. 
Tribal Divisions of Education and education committees are thus denied access 
to available educational curricular and research materials nor do they re- 
ceive adequate training and technical assistance. Tribes need these services 
of program planning assistance. They need to have expert advice in the band 
analysis planning procedure related to budgetary priorities, in curricula 
development, proposal writing and evaluation of programs. They need to 
know about exemplary Indian education programs that may be adapted and re- 
plicated. All of this assistance should be more geographically accessible. 



RECOMMENDATION 

There shall be established by the BIA five Indian Education Service 
Centers. The function of the Service Centers shall be to provide: 

1. Data bank collection and retrieval and linkage 

and dissemination functions. 

2. Technical assistance including training programs. 

3. Research and development (Knowledge production and utilization). 
Such Service Centers shall be located in Anchorage, Alaska; San Francisco, 

California; Denver, Colorado; Chicago, Illinois; and Washington, D. C. (to 
coincide with communications systems sites as proposed in Chapter C: Federal 
Administration, page 46). 

The Service Centers shall be placed under the authority of the BIA-DOI 
but such line authority does not preclude future placement and structuring 
within an independent and comprehensive Agency on Indian Affairs. 

Staffing for the five Education Service Centers shall be selected 
according to standards to be developed for the Indian Career Services' Divi- 
sion of Recruitment and Training that would develop avenues for the recruit- 
ment of qualified Indians as mandated by Section 12 of the Indian Reorganiza- 
tion Act. 

The five Service Centers shall be responsible for cooperating with and 
assisting tribal councils and tribal Divisions or Departments of Education 
that have comprehensive and coordinative management of tribal education 
programs. ^ 



562 



The nine National Indian Education Councils shall meet regularly at the 
five Service Centers in order to provide additional technical assistance and 



research information 



ISSUE: Need for an Indian Career Service 

A policy that Indians are to receive "absolute employment preference" 
was first enunciated in 1882. This policy has been reaffirmed in the Indian 
Reorganization Act of 1934, in a 1946 solicitor general's opinion, and in a 
presidential policy statement in 1970. Yet in the BIA, Indians predominantly 
occupy low level positions and non-Indians disproportionately occupy high 
policy making posts. Indians constitute fully 84.6% of BIA employees in the 
four lowest G.S. brackets, but only 16.8% of the employees at G.S. levels 14 
and above. These overall figures are similarly reflected in the BIA educa- 
tional systems. Past attempts at providing inservice education training to 
non-Indians has been discouraging. The present Civil Service system perpe- 
tuates the situation where non-Indians are unsuccessfully teaching our Indian 
children and administering education programs. 



RECOMMENDATION 

The Congress should enact legislation establishing an Indian Career 
Service, independent of the Civil Service, throughout federal Indian programs 
now operated by the various Offices and Agencies including the Office of India 
Education OE-DHEW and the Indian Public Health Service and as authorized by 
Section 12 of the Indian Reorganization Act. 



ISSUE: Inadequate Support for Tri bally Chartered Colleges 

At present, the financing of tribal ly chartered colleges serving members 
of federally recognized tribes is inequitable and insufficient. Only three 
tribally chartered colleges, the Navajo Community College, Rosebud's Sinte 
Gleska and Pine Ridge's Lakota College, are receiving BIA support. There is 
no comprehensive financing plan to provide basic support for the 20 tribes 



563 



now operating colleges: Rosebud Sioux, Pine Ridge Sioux, Sisseton-Wahpeton 
Sioux, Cheyenne River Sioux, Standing Rock Sioux, Santee Sioux, Omaha, 
Winnebago, Turtle Mountain Chippewa, Lummi , Blackfeet, Navajo, Tanana Chiefs, 
Inupiat, Northern Cheyenne, Devil's Lake Sioux, Hualapai-Havasupai, Keweenaw 
Bay Chippewa and Fort Berthold (Hidatsa, Mandan and Arikara). There is a 
lack of fiscal projections for requests for appropriations for next year and 
the next five years for these tribes' postsecondary education college programs. 
The tribal ly chartered colleges also need ongoing technical assistance after 
they are established. 

Flaming Rainbow at Tahlequah, Oklahoma, the college serving the Cherokee, 
is also lacking BIA operational support. It is at present not tribally 
chartered, but its student body is 60% Cherokee. Flaming Rainbow and Inupiat 
are four-year institutions. 

The BIA also has the responsibility to assist in the developmental 
aspects of tribal postsecondary programs. The following tribes are currently 
planning tribally chartered colleges: The Mississippi Band of Choctaw; the 
Crow; the Fort Belknap; the Fort Peck Assiniboine and Sioux; and the White 
Mountain Apache. 



RECOMMENDATION 

Legislation must be enacted to provide funding for the planning and 
development of, and for basic operational support to the tribes for their * 
tribally chartered colleges. Support must be provided for tribes who wish 
to establish four year and graduate institutions. The funding process must 
not circumvent the tribal governments but must be consistent with P.L. 93-638. 



ISSUE: Conflicting Education Decision Makers - Need for Tribal Education Divisioi 

All tribes do not now have full authority in fiscal matters and other 
policy decisions regarding education programs for their tribal members. These 
authorities are frequently assumed by individuals and organizations not re- 
sponsible to the elected tribal governments. The result of this assumption of 
authority has often been fiscal and decision-making circumvention of the tribal 
governments. Another result has been a proliferation of education committees. 



564 



boards and organizations that frequently have overlapping and confusing 
programs and priorities without true attention to tribal priorities. 



RECOMMENDATION 

In order to ensure tribal self-determination and decision-making in 
all aspects of education, it is recommended that support be given to tribes 
that wish to initiate tribal divisions or departments of education. Tribal 
divisions of education would have the purpose of coordinating and consolidating 
all education programs within the jurisdiction of the tribe, including early 
childhood, elementary, secondary, postsecondary scholarship programs and career 
education programs such as the BIA Employment Assistance Program. Such pro- 
grams as Title I, Title IV, Title VII, JOM, tribal colleges, contract schools, 
etc., could then be coordinated by the Tribal Division of Education in order to 
avoid overlap and duplication of programs and to avoid fiscal decision-making 
circumvention of the tribal authority. Parental involvement would continue to 
be stressed but would be within the context of tribal control and authority. 



ISSUE: Need for Preparatory Academies 

Because of inadequate preparation, many Indian students are not suc- 
cessful in college. Attrition rates between the first and second year of 
college are above 50%. In addition, Indian students have difficulty in 
entering graduate programs because of a lack of specialized academic skills. 
There is a critical need for both pre-college and graduate preparatory pro- 
grams that would adequately prepare Indian students for success in areas of 
study that are critical to tribal needs. Indian professionals are scarce 
in the areas of medicine, law, natural resources, etc. 



RECOMMENDATION 

There must be established at least five regional American Indian 
Preparatory Academies of high quality to meet the needs of students preparing 
to enter college and special graduate programs. The Bureau of Indian Affairs 
should give this charge to the appropriate National Indian Education Councils 



565 



to develop a workable plan. The BIA should then request adequate appropriations 
from the Congress to support such Academies. 



ISSUE: Needs for Indian Special Education 

Indian children that are handicapped, learning disabled and gifted and 
talented are the most educationally neglected of all children. These children 
are miseducated and undereducated because the BIA, the Office of Education, 
and state education agencies have failed to provide appropriate programs for 
the Indian child with special education needs. These children have not been 
identified adequately or adequately served. The responsible agencies have 
not requested adequate amounts to serve these children, nor have they planned 
for quality educational services. 



RECOMMENDATION 



The BIA and the Office of Education-DHEW must request sufficient monies 
in order to provide appropriate programs for the Indian handicapped and learning 
disabled. Monies must also be requested and provided for the development of 
appropriate instrumentation to identify Indian gifted and talented children 
and to provide culturally appropriate programs for these children. 



ISSUE: Bilingual and Multilingual Education Needs of Indians 

Indian children speak approximately 252 languages. These children have 
been denied the right to obtain an education equal to the education afforded 
English-speaking children. 

The BIA's and OE's insistence in perpetuating the use of a monolingual 
(English) educational system cannot be sustained. Through the emphasis on 
existing monolingual curricula and the utilization of predominantely English 
teachers, school systems promote a single-minded proficiency in English that 
would replace any "foreign" language. Indians do not receive adequate monies 
from the Bilingual Education Acts of 1968 and 1974. 



566 



RECOMMENDATION 

Title VII - The Bilingual Education Act should be amended to provide 
for the bilingual and bicultural education needs of American Indian children 
who speak 252 different languages. Tribes should be allowed to decide if 
curricula should be in both the tribal language and in the English language. 
Tribes, tribal education divisions and the family should also decide if 
teachers should acquire competencies in the tribal language before attempting 
to teach their children. Curriculum in Indian languages would be a priority 
of the Council on Indian Bilingual and Multilingual education. 




567 



NATIONAL TRIBAL CHAIRMEN'S 
ASSOCIATION 

Suite 207 1701 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20006 

202 - 343-9484 



April 20, 1977 



The Honorable James Abourezk 
Chairman, American Indian 

Policy Review Commission 
2nd & D Streets, S.W. 
Boom 3158 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Senator Abourezk: 

Enclosed for review and consideration by the American 
Indian Policy Review Commission is a Statement to the Board of 
Directors of the National Tribal Chairmen's Association by a 
Special Committee of the Board delegated to review the work. of 
the Commission. We thank the Commission for affording us the 
opportunity of commenting. 

Sincerely yours. 



WY/kb 

cc: NTCA Board of Directors 

Enclosure 



William Youpe( 

Executive Director 



568 



NTCA SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR REVIE^V 

OF TOE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

OF THE AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY 

REVIEW COMMISSION: 

STATEMENT ON TOE COMMISSION'S 

FINAL REPOirr 

APRIL 20, 3977 



On March 23, 1977, the American Indian Policy Review 
Commission submitted its Tentative Final Report to tlie Indian tri'oos 
and people of the United Slates solicitin<; their comments on a 
massive volume of material whicli we must assume Irom its authors' 
intent will bear a profound impact on the Indian experience and the 
tribal future. We find the Report as a whole stronj;ly st.'ites an 
Indian perspective of Indian history and nspirations. NTCA from the 
beginning has questioned many of the promises of the Commission 
including its necessity, its manner of s(?curing representation of 
the Indian community in its proce;;scs, and an avov'(?d oi'ientation 
toward change through the legislative process. We should state at 
the outset of this paper that there is much in the Final Report -.vith 
which we must agree, perhaps a majority of the Report is aligned with 
what we believe to be tribal consensus on familiar issues or at 
least logical extensions of accepted views. 

We cannot and do not, however, offer a blanket endorsement 
of the Report, There is a certain exuberance in its narrative and 
recommendations from which we derive skepticism only because we 
detect at some points a discrepancy betv/een what is possible and 
what is desirable. Some within NTCA will discover a lack of wisdom 
and toughmindedness in Commission statements with which they agree 
in principle. 



569 



This Committee finds it impossible and unwise to attempt 
a full scale critique of the Report. There are simply too many 
issues that will be resolved, even within the Indian community, only 
after long debate and actual experience. We do know that we cannot 
logically respond, as the Commission has requested, by chocking tlic 
appropriate space on a preprinted form to indicate whether the report 
is "Excellent," "Good," "Poor," nor would this contribute significantly 
to the historical weight of tlie Report. 

This Committee thus suggests that NTCA resolve firmly to 
reserve to itself the right to comment specifically and in full a.s 
each recommendation of the Commission is brought before Congress. 
Not only docs this approach accord with tlic realities of the American 
political process but we believe it better allov/s ior evolution and 
development of the issues and principles governing Indian affairs. 

While we have adopted a policy herein of reserving comment 
on specific issues, for the most part, we recognize certain funda- 
mental tenets of Indian law which underlie the whole of our relation- 
ship to the United States and which are basically unalterable and not 
evolving because they are based on historic fact. It is the intent 
of the Committee in this Statement to discuss some of these basic 
concepts not in the context of criticism of the Commission but as an 
expression of our views of the thrust of the law and of the most pro- 
ductive restructuring of the emphasis of Indian affairs. 



670 



I. The Purpose of an Indian Policy 

At a time when there Is growing confusion among many 
groups of American citizens and in state capitals concerning the meaning 
of tribal existence there Is a need for restatement and publication of 
a purpose to the conduct of federal Indian affairs. Without some sense 
of purpose there is no vitality to tlie Commission's analysis of existing 
law or recommendations as to how the policy should best be carried out. 

That purpose, we believe, lies in a basic human right of 
the individual to seek fulfillment of his maximum potential in the 
political, social, and cultural setting of his choice.— The individvial 
derives his identity from his culture and, for the Indian, this 
culture has been and continues to bo defined by the realities of the 
tribe, tribal membership, and the tri'jal homeland and history. Thus, 
as a crucial aspect of their own liuman rights. Indian people who cr.oose 
to live in the tribal context firmly believe in and seek to secure the 
existence of tlieir tribes into perpetuity as self-governing political 
entities. This is a goal lully contemplated in past and present Indiaii 
policy. As recently as 1975, in the Indian Self-Determinat ion Act, Con- 
gress declared "its commitment to the maintenance of the Federal Govorn- 
ment's unique and continuing relationship with and responsibility to the 
Indian people through the establishment of a meaningful Indian self- 
detei'mination policy . . , ," 25 U.S.C.A. 450a(b). The very straight- 
forward congressional declaration apparently was based in large measure 
upon its finding of the fundamental Indian concerns we are raising 
here — that "the Indian people will never surrender their desire to 



1/ Article 1 of the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social 
and Cultural Rights provides that: 

All peoples have the right of self-determination. By 
virtue of that right they freely determine their poli- 
tical status and freely pursue their economic, social 
and cultural development. 



571 



control their relationships both among themselves and with non- 
Indian governments, organizations, and persons." 2^' § 450(a)(2), 
Indian tribes possess the moral right to endure and they shall do 
so as self-determining peoples. 

Beyond the Indian's own purpose, however, we perceive in 
the maintenance of Indian tribes and culture a furtherance of the 
precepts of Americanism. This country has believed that it draws 
strength as a nation from the diversity of its included cultures, 
from its tolerance of divergent societies, and from its commitment 
to the protection of legitimate minority aspirations. Likewise, there 
is national strength in tlie fulfillment of national commitment to 
other nations of the world and to its own citizens. On the conti'ary, 
wo believe tlie United Stales in r.odern times stands for the princi-.. .> 
that purposeful destruction of societies and cultures is immoral and 

9/ 

violative of human rights. — 

The Indian right to survive as Indian and the United States' 
commitment to certain moral principles governing the fabric and 
direction of national life must establish the underlying purpose of 
any federal Indian policy. 

II, The Legal Basis of Tribal Existence and Authority 

While all people possess the inherent moral right to main- 
tain and develop their native cultures and social, political organiza- 
tion, no people in American history has ever presented that issue in 



2/ See e.g. , The international Genocide Convention of Decem.ber 9, 1948, 
would outlaw the purposeful destruction of a national, racial, or 
religious group as such. U.N, Treaties No. 1021, p. 277, 45 Am. J. 
Int'l Law 1951 Supp. 7, 



572 



the federal context and been accorded that right as a matter of 
constitutional, international, and statutory law. Indian tribes 
are unique in the American legal system. It must not be forgotten 
that before the age of European discovery Indian Tribes enjoyed com- 
plete mastery of the continent, governing their land and people as 
fully sovereign, self-determining polities. They were independent 
nations possessed of unlimited powers of self-government controlling 
both their external and internal relations. Many tribes, such as those 
of the Iroquois Confederation, achieved levels of sophistication in poli- 
tical organization still regarded as models of effective government. 

In the post Revolutionary period, the reality of the day 
dictated that the uniqueness of Indian tribes Ije recognized in the 
formation of the new federal system. Thus, the Constitution cxpresR.l.v 
recognizes Indian tribes and identifies them as political entities 
separate from the states and foreign nations -- to be dealt with as 
tribes. Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. The Constitution itself suggests that 
Indian tribes were self-governing in fact. 

The United States treated with Indian tribes on the same 
basis as it did with the powers of Europe. Holden v. Joy . 84 U.S. 
(17 Wall.) 211, 242-43 (1872). Treaty making is in fact an exercise 
of mutual undertakings between co-equal sovereigns and the formulation 
of treaties with Indian tribes a recognition by the United States of 
their sovereign nature and capacicy. The treaties entered into by 
the United States constitute permanent agreements establishing 



573 



permanent relationships. In them the United States agreed to the 
imposition of limitations on its own sovereignty and both parties 
have recognized the mutuality of their agreements through the years. 
It should be noted that in tlio colonial and post Revolutionary War 
era the United States often sought and received the assistance of 
the tribes and, in concluding treaties Of peace, tliat the United 
States stood as much in the need of peace as did the tribes. 

Indian triljes and people paid dearly in lives, land and 
property as tlieir part of the agreements. The United States' fore- 
most payment was the promise that the Indian would have his tribe 
and his remaining land forever. The uncompromised duration of the 
agreement formed tlio basis of triljal consent. Indian tribes, tlie 
courts, and the United States cannot regard tliose treaties as mere 
relics for the arcliivist. The assertion of treaty riglits calls foi" 
the fulfillment of living agreements reached long ago between nations. 
This view is part of American law. 

The relationship of Indian tribes to the United States was 
first considered comprehensively by the Supreme Court in 1832, and the 
analysis of Chief Justice John Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 
(6 Pet.) 515 (1832) has never been repudiated. Worcester remains today 
as the foundation of the existence of Indian tribes and the source of 
their vitality. In Worcester , the Court recognized that prior to the 
European discovery of America Indians constituted a "distinct people, 
divided into separate nations, independent of each other and of the 



574 



rest of the world, having institutions of their own, and governing 
themselves by their own laws." Ld. at 542. Discovery by various 
European powers did not annul the pre-existing rights of these nations, 
including their property and political rights. Jd^. at 543. As a 
matter of international agreement between European sovereigns, the 
recognized principles of war, confjuest, and discovery conferred 
certain rights on the American continent, but only between those 
nations which agreed to them. As to land, the rights of discovery 
gave only an exclusive right to purchase from the possessor. M. at 
543-44. Indian nations retained their sovereign discretion to cede 
or not to cede their rights in land. Id^. at 544. 

Great Britain, from whom the obligations and understandings 
of the United States were derived, conferred no power of conquest 
upon their colonies except the power to make defensive war for just 
cause. Tlie British colonies thus had no power to destroy independent 
nations, and, during their tenure, they did not in fact attempt to 
interfere with Indian self-government. ld_. at 547. Tribes willMigly 
accepted from various European nations necessary supplies and i.ro- 
tection against invasion so long as their actual independence was 
untouched and their right to self-government was acknowledged. Id . 
at 547. 

The United States, following the Revolution and under the 

Constitution, regarded the Indian nations, as had the British, as: 

distinct, independent political communities 
retaining their original natural rights, as 
the undisputed possessors of the soil from 
time immemorial, with the single exception 
of that im.posed by irresistablo power . . . 
The Constitution, by declaring treaties al- 



575 



ready made, as well as those to be made, to 
be the supreme law of the land, has adopted 
and sanctioned the previous treaties with the 
Indian nations, and consequently admits their 
rank among those powers who are capable of 
mJ^lting treaties .... 



The very fact of repeated treaties with _ 
them recognizes [their title to self-govern- 
ment]; and the settled doctrine of the law of 
nations is that a power does not surrender its 
independence -- its right to self-government, 
by associating with a stronger and taking its 
protection. 

Id . at 559, 561. In Worcester , the Court thus held the Cherokees 
to be a nation, a distinct community occupying its own territory 
in which the laws of Georgia had no effect. The inherent right 
of self-government of America's Indian tribes identified and pre- 
served in Worcester has never been surrendered by the tribes or 
extinguished by the United States, 

A. The Power of Consent 

As political entities retaining inherent sovereign powers 
Indian tribes possess the basic power of consent, i.e., tlie power to 
give or to withhold their consent to actions affecting them. The 
consent power, we believe, is reserved to the tribes in much the 
same way as the states reserve aspects of their sovereignty under 
the Constitution. U.S. Const., amend, x. The tribal power of 
consent is recognized in specific provisions such as the consent 
requirement for state assumption of jurisdiction in 25 U.S.C. §§ 
1321(a), 1322(a). There is clear reservation of tribal power of 



93-440 O - 78 - 38 



576 



consent and self-government in the tribal government reorganizations 
under the Indian Reorganization Act, 25 U.S.C. §§ 476 et se^. (1970). 
"The laws of an Indian tribe owe their force to the will_^of the members 
of the tribe," Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, 122 (U.N. Mex. 
ed.), and the constitutions of many tribes expressly provide that powers 
not delegated to the tribe are reserved to the people. The I.R.A. 
itself constitutes congressional recognition of the power of consent 
retained by Indian people in matters of their self-governing authority. 
See 25 U.S.C. § 476. 

The power of consent forms the historical basis for the 
special legal relationship between Indian tribes and the United St?.t°i3. 
It was the essence of the treaty-making process and of the many 
agreements reduced to statutory form after 1871. Indian tribes, 
possessed of vast land, mineral, and water resources in preceding 
centuries consented to the cession of their land and certain authority 
but this was done in a context of contract, not of gift, for mutual 
considerations including the obligations of the United States. 
ivjbss did not consent to surrender their rights of self-government 
and the United States explicitly and implicitly obligated itself 
to secure this right to the tribes with whom it dealt. Thus, it is 
the position of this Committee that the special relationship between 
Indian tribes and the federal government and the legal obligations of 
the latter with regard to that relationship are founded in specific 
agreements and statutory commitments. 



577 



III. Tribal Government 

The relationship between the United States and the Indian 
tribes, founded in treaty and agreement, is essentially political in 
origin and exists between governmental entities. The continued 
existence of the relationship and its manifest mutual obligations 
thus implies the necessity of tribal governments. The Supreme Court 
has recently cited the principle that tribal organization is essential 
to the federal/Indian relationship; 

If the tribal organization of the Shawnee 
is preserved intact, and recognized by the 
political department of t)io government as 
existing, then they are a 'people distinct 
from others,' capable of making treaties, 
separated from the iurisdiction of Kansas, 
and to be governed exclusively by the Govern- 
ment of tlie Union, If under the control of 
Congress, from necessity there can be no 
divided authority. 

McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona , 411 U.S. 164, 169 

(1973), quoting The Kansas Indians . 5 Wall. 737 (1867). Likewise, 

the Court long ago held that Indian tribes 

. . . were and always have been regarded as 
having a semi-independent position w hen they 
preserved their tribal relations ; . . . 

McClanahan v. State Tax Commission of Arizona , supra , quoting United 
States V. Kagama. 118 U.S. at 381-82 (18G6) (emphasis added). 

It is the tribe to which the U.S. obligation is owed; there 
is no general special legal relationship with individual Indians 
except insofar as the individual has "maintained his tribal relations.' 
Moreover the determination of who is to be considered a tribal member 



578 



has been treated almost exclusively as a political function of the 
tribe. Thus the individual Indian's special relationship to the 
United States is by reason of his own legal/political affiliation with 
a tribe which possesses a recognized political relationship with the 
federal government. There is no unique obligation to Indians on the 
basis of racial classification. See Morton .v. Mancari , 417 U.S. 535, 
554, n. 24, and legal preferences accorded members of federally recog- 
nized tribes are not racial discrimination but are political in 
nature. Id . 

The exchanges of consent and commitments between tribal 
and federal governments and the consequent political/legal relation- 
ship which survives to the present day and continues to develop and 
grow is nevertheless grounded in specific historical circumstances 

an'^ ar;rec!nents . There were specific entrustmcnts of land and 
resources, specific promises and reservations made. These are 
to be construed broadly, as the Indians would have understood them 
when they bargained with the United States; but the relationship does 
not arise from an abstract duty to protect the Indian people. It is, 
however, the intent of Indian people to hold the United States to. 
its contracts. 

We conclude from the foregoing that the concept of federal 
recognition is crucial to an understanding of the federal/Indian 
relationship and to its development. It is a realistic adjunct of 
sovereignty for the sovereign to recognize those entities with which 
it has dealt politically in the past and with which it will deal in 
the future. It is our opinion that the federal recognition doctrine 
is still vital to Indian tribes because it secures the essential 



579 



political nature of our relationship to the federal government which 
was first established in the Constitution. We would object to any 
recommendation of the Commission that subverts the sound political/ 
legal basis of the relationship between Indian tribes and the federal 
government and thereby diminishes tribal government. 

IV, The Trust Relationship 

We have purposely used the concept of trust sparingly in 
this Statement because it is of such importance to Indian people that 
it should not be used loosely or arbitrarily. Much of tlie relat ionsiiip 
between Indian tribes and the United States is founded in the 
legal concept of trust. Indian tribal and individual assets 
have been placed and accepted in trust by the United States for tlioii- 
beneficial owners. The trust status of Indian law and property impose 
upon the United States exacting duties of fiduciary care. Those 
duties are broad and we would not attempt liere to define them pre- 
cisely. Nevertheless, we do not believe the trust authorizes general 
domination and control by the federal government over the full range . 
of tribal affairs or the daily lives of Indian people. On these 
principles, we believe we are substantially in accord with tl^e 
Commission. 

V. Specific Issues 

A. Treaties 

The Commission recommends that Congress enact legislation 
directing federal agencies to administer the trust responsibility in 
accord with, inter alia , the following principle: 



580 



The United States shall not abrogate or m any 

way infringe any treaty rights, or non-treaty 
rights which are protected by the trust respon- 
sibility, v.-ithout first seeking to obtain the 
consent of the affected Indian or Indians, Such 
rights shall not bo abrogated or infringed with- 
out such consent except under extraordinary cir- 
cumstances where a compelling national interest 
requires otl1el•^visc . With or without Indian con- 
sent, such rights shall not be abrogated or in- 
fringed in any way except pursuant to a Congress- 
ional act which identifies the specific affected 
Indian rights and which states tnat it is the 
intent of Congress to abrogate or infringe such 
rights. 

We believe this to be one of the most fundamental principles upo:i 
which Indian affairs should be structured in the future and urge 
that it be incorporated into legislation and accorded high priority 
in this Congress. 

B, Tribal Exercise of Jurisdiction 

This committee is fully aware of the passions stirred by 
the issue of tribal jurisdiction. We believe the issue should be 
controlled by the principles of inherent sovereignty, flexibility 
and cooperation. The decision of the Ninth Circuit in Oliphant v. 
Schlie . 544 F.2d 1007 (197C), sets forth a sound analysis of the 
nature of tribal authority. 

In general, problems of conflicting and often chaotic patterns 
of jurisdiction involving tribal, federal, state, and local govern- 
ments must be resolved in accord with the status and needs of indi- 
vidual Indian tribes. The law must recognize and restore the inherent 
jurisdictional authority of all tribes but must, at the same time, 
recognize the varying resources, land base characteristics, population 
sizes, choices concerning the scope of autonomy to be exercised, and 



581 



the cultures of the individual ti'ibes. In particular we support the 
well-planned, well-funded retrocession to the tribes and federal 
government of all P.L. 280 jurisdiction on the basis of local tribal 
option. 

Members of this Coinmittoe are firm believers in the 
basic capacity of tribal ciovornments to administer due process of 
law to members and non-members alike. There is yet much work to 
be done in this regard, however, and federal assistance is required. 
Perhaps the most pressing need is for tribal development or redesign 
of their criminal and civil codes. There is a continuing need to 
upgrade the training of tribal judges. Tribal appellate courts are 
often inadequate or non-existent. There is a pressing need to extend 
full faith and credit to the orders and judgments of tribal courts. 

Furthermore, looking to the future, there is need for 
tribes to make clear to all persons, v/liethcr living on the reserva- 
tion or not, the scope of jurisdiction they intend to exercise. The 
concept in the law of the United States, spelled out in statute or 
ordinance, of implied consent to jurisdiction by reason of entry into 
a designated geographic area does not deny due process of law to 
persons so consenting. 

We suggest, however, with regard to this last point, that 
serious consideration be given to the desirability and feasibility 
of placing U.S. magistrates on Indian reservations to exercise juris- 
diction over tribal non-members. 



582 



C. Conflicts of Interest 

Resolution of the conflict of interest problem porvadinsi 
the entire federal administration of Indian affairs is of utmost 
importance. Indian tribes must have access to competent, inde- 
pendent legal counsel if they are to protect their assets and 
rights against incursions l:)y federal, state, and private interests. 
We will reserve comment on the many specific proposals directed to 
this end by the Commission. We would emphasize, however, that tte 
federal government has assumed its obligations as a unified entity 
and no federal agency is free to disregard trust or other responsi- 
bilities. 

D. An Independent Agency 

One of the primary tenets of the Commission's Report is 
that federal policy should be directed toward creation of an inde- 
pendent agency or department to administer Indian affairs. There is 
much difference of opinion in Indian country concerning this proposal, 
but the Committee believes NTCA should support serious consideration 
of the proposal as a long-term goal. We still have serious misgivings 
concerning the justification for such an undertaking offered by the 
Commission. The proposal suffers on many points from lack of clarity. 
Further, it does not appear that a new agency necessarily would solve 
basic conflicts of interest. 



583 



The Committee believes an independent department presents 
the potential for more effective delivery of funds to Indian people. 
Regionalization and fragmentation of services could be reduced, the 
cost of bureaucracy cut. The goal of any reortjanizat ion should he 

to deliver the federal dollar nearest the problem with the great esu 
possible impact. 

Reorganization, whetlier in the BIA context or in a new 
context, should also reconceptualize the present Area Office. Such 
offices should be transfoj-med into Teclinical Assistance Centers with 
the authority and capacity to deliver the highest quality professional 
services possible — througli contracts with the private sector if 
need be. The channels of political authority should be free to flov,' 
directly between the agencies and the Central Office. Tlic Agency 
Superintendent should be given more flexibility and more authority to 
deliver what individual tribes actually want and need. 

E. Congressional Committee Structure 

« 
The Committee views with alarm the recent trend in Congress 

to merge legislative jurisdiction over Indian affairs into a public 

lands committee in the House and into two committees in the Senate. 

The eventual resolution in the Senate creating a temporary select 

committee was welcome, but Indian affairs demands greater expertise. 



584 



continuity, and security than Congress has now provided. We support 
the Commission recommendations calling for creation of permanent 
standing or select committees in both houses of Congress or a Joint 
Select Committee. 

F. Federal Domestic Assistance Programs 

Indian tribes must be integrated into federal domestic 
assistance delivery systems. The unintended subjection of tribes 
to state jurisdiction interferes directly with the exorcise of 
trilsal sovereignty and is inconsistent with federal policy recog- 
nizing the self-governing status of Indian tribes. Moreover, there 
are far too many instances of state administration of pj'ograms for 
reservation Indians resulting in inefficient, reduced, and somct ip:es 
discriminatory delivery of services. Those tribes which possess the 
capability should be granted the option of electing to receive direct 
federal funding and to assume administrative control of programs. 

CONCLUSION 

We have offered the foregoing views out of a deep sense of 
our commitment to the soundness of the principles upon which Indian 
law and the trust relationship are based. There is also a great need 
at this juncture in Indian history to be about our business with 
diligence, dedication and compassion for our people. 



WENDELL CHINO 

BRUCE MILLER TOWNSEND 



585 




NATIVE AMERICAN CENTER 



1214 N. Hudson 

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73103 

Area Code 405 232-2512 



« 



EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

MILLIE GIAGO 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 



May 2, 1977 



ABEL NOAH 
Vice-chairman 

BETH COKER 
Secralary 

SUE WILSON 
Treasurer 



RUSSELL COKER 

JOE DUHANT 

REV. ROBERT PINEZADDLEBY 

EARL PLUMLEY 

SYLVIA WALCZAK 

REV. DAVE LONG. SR 

SUE WILSON 

LAWANA BROWN 

CORINNE HALFMOON 

JORENE COMBS 

HICKORY STAR. JR 



American Indian Policy Review Commission 
Congress of the United States 
House Office Building Annex No. 2 
2nd and D Streets, S.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dear Sir: 

It is impossible to make conment on these final report. 

We waited for the material to be sent under separate cover as 

instructed. 

We have not received them as of today's date May 2, 1977. 



Sincerely, ,- 

Millie A. Giago 
Executive Director 



MAG/gb 




586 



NATIVE AMERICAN 

COALITION OF TULSA 

P.O.Box 2646 Tulsa 74102 



kCT 



819 S. Denver Tulsa Oklahoma 
Phone (918) 583-3643 



April 20, 1977 ^^C-i> APR y,f> ^^^^ 



TO: American Indian Policy Review Commission 

FROM: Pamela E. Iron, Director 

Indian Health Care Resource Center 

SUBJECT: Observations and Recommendations on "A Guide to the Final 
Report of the American Indian Policy Review Commission" 

I. Chapter 5: Legal Status (page 5) 

(Historical Overview and Jurisdiction) 

Before tribal governments are given the same powers as "local 
governments" by the Executive Branch of government, the tribal 
government should: 

(a) be found to have a fair and democratic constitution which was 
passed by a simple majority (50% plus 1) of that tribe; 

(b) a tribe must accept any person who is on their tribal role as 
a "voting member" of that tribe, and consider membership to 
individuals who are at least one-quarter {k) blood quantum 

of that tribe regardless of location, head-rite status, or any 
limiting factor as a "voting member" of that tribe. 

It should be noted that many American Indians are not allowed 
to vote because of location or some superficial restriction 
and therefore are deneid the right to vote, especially those 
Indian people living off the reservation. Therefore, the 
tribal government cannot be representative of a majority of 
its membership if certain Indian people who are bonafide 
descendants of that tribe are denied the right to vote; 

(c) tribal officials must be elected by those members included in 
section (b) by a simple majority with controls on ballot count- 
ing being equal to any other national election, overseen by the 
Department of Interior; 

(d) other areas which would directly apply to the above recommend- 
ations: 

1. Chapter 6: Federal Administration p 17. Subject: "Tribal 
governments as equal to state governments in the federal 
delivery system of federal domestic assistance programs. 



587 



2. Chapter 7; Economic Development- TaxatlonT the authority 
of a tribe to enact a tax on their tribe, (p, 32), 

II. Chapter 6: Federal Administration Cp. 19) 

The current recommendation of "The Indian Career Service" appointment 
system has some merits, however once the employee is appointed, he 
should not give up any Civil Service Commission laws protecting him 
from political "manuevering" to remove him without due process. 

III. Chapter 8: Social Services - Health (p. 35) 

We stand in complete agreement with the concept and reality of Indian 
centers in urban areas providing health care and social services 
(especially via P.L. 94-437, Title V). 

IV. Chapter 9: Off-Reservation Indians 

We fully support all issues dealing with off-reservation Indians. 
However, the urban Indian center who have a non-profit incorporated 
status and an Indian Board of Directors should be recognized by the 
federal government to contract directly with them for health care 
and social services. This view is supported by P.L. 94-437, Title 
V, in that congress specifically recognized unmet health care needs 
in urban areas containing a large population of Indian people. 

BEFORE granting tribes control over urban programs, "The Select 
Committee on Indian Affairs should conduct a survey of the forty 
major tribes of Oklahoma as to how many programs effecting the 
health, education, and welfare of Indians living in Tulsa and 
Oklahoma City they have initiated and supported before P.L. 94-437 
was passed. The response should be very revealing. 



Rep. James R. Jones 

Rep. Theodore M. Risenhoover 

Sen. Dewey Bartlett * 

Sen. Abourezk 



588 

A GUIDE TO 

THE FINAL REPORT 

OF THE 

AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW 

COMMISSION 



Prepared by: 

Native American Rights Fund 
Boulder, Colorado 

American Indian Law Center 
University of New Mexico 
Albuquerque, New Mexico 



589 

March 31, 1977 

MMDRflNDUM 

To: All Tribes and Indian Organizations 

Fran: Native American Ri^ts Fund and Anerican Indian Law Center 

Ite: Final Report of the American Indian Policy Review Coitinission 

The final report of the American Indian Policy Review Ccmmission was 
issxaed to tribes and Indian organizations on March 23, 1977 for their re- 
view and oonments. Given the relatively short time for responses to the 
Ccmtnission report (all responses are to be submitted to the Conmissicn no 
later than f^ril 23, 1977) , the Native American Ri^ts Fund and the Amer^ 
ican Indian Law Center have prepared a guide to the Connission report to 
assist tribes and Indian organizations in the preparation of their res- 
ponses to the report of the American Indian Policy Iteview Conmission. 

The attached guide is divided into two sections. The first section 
contains a sunmary of recamendations contained in each chapter of the 
majority report, as well as the recamendations contained in the minority 
reporl: - Separate Dissenting Views of Congressman Lloyd ffeeds. Each reQ- 
amendation is presented with a designation as to the recomitEnded action 
to be taken by each party to the Federal- Indian relationship. Ttie second 
section of the guide contains evaliiations of each ch^ter of the Conmis- 
sion report prepared by the staffs of the Native American Rights Fund and 
the Indian Law Center. Ttiese evaluations do not represent either an en- 
dorsement or rejection of Ccrmission recamendations, but rather are in- 
tended to highlight issues vAiich each tribe and Indian organization must 
evaluate fron their own perspective given the variety of circumstances 
imique to each group. In sane instances, the oomnnents addressing certain 
chapters of the Camiission report focus upon the cmissicn of issues or 
recamendations in a given siiDJect area. In these areas, tribes will need 
to evaluate the effect of an issue's amission, and to generate their posi- 
tions relative to that issue, so that Congress may be fully informed of 
the views of each tribe or Indian organization prior to acting vpon Can- 
mission reconmendations . 



590 



Hie Policy Review Oarinission has held six hearings over the past 
five nonths to review the findings and reoomendations contained in the 
final report of the Ocmtnission. As a result, the specific wording and 
siiDstance of each reccrmsndation represents a consensus VDte of Indian 
and non-Indian Comnissioners , and nay vary from the recormendations 
contained in Task Poroe reports. Thus, tribes and Indian organizations 
nust closely scrutinize all recomnendaticns of the final report to de- 
termine the adequacy of each reoomnendation to acconplish its stated 
goal, as well as the extent to v*d.ch the reocnmendations represent the 
Indian position, and the degree of acceptance the recoimendations may 
find among the grov?) evaluating the report. 

Ihe thirty days schediiLed for the receipt of responses to the 
final report mark the last opportimity for tribes and Indian organiza- 
tions to coranent upon the findings and reoonitendations of the American 
Indian Policy Review Coimission. Tribal responses are critical to the 
quality and credibility of the Ooninission report and the future of 
Federal-Indian policy. 



591 



TAFtTf. OF oo^^l!^j^^ls 

Page: 

MemDrandum to All Tribes i 

Siznnnary of Beocnmendatians 1 

Chester 4: Itederal Indian Trust Relations 60 

Chapter 5: Tribal Govemitent. 62 

Chapter 6: Federal Administration 68 

Ch^ter 7: Eooncndc DeveloprEnt 72 

Chapter 8: Social Services 78 

Ch^ter 9: Off -Reservation Indians 82 

Chapter 10: Tentdnated Tribes 85 

Chapter 11: Non-Recognized Indians 87 

Qiapter 12: Special Circumstances 88 

Ch^ter 13: General 93 

Minority Report .94 



-440 O - 78 - 39 



592 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT 
ChapL.=^r - Federal-Indian Trust Relations 



P.'\-.r. •.nic....dtions: 



Action to be taken by 



V. -... i...^ out itt= tr-.i5=;t obligations to American 
ic-.-.- • -:ncluaii-.g Alaska Natives) it shall be the policy 
f'- - "I- ': ■; -"tatr-i- '■•■ j-evy^gnize and act '^xDnsistent with 
fv-,lu- -nr,- principles of law: 

Tb° tiiost responsibility to American Indians is an 
esl^bii^hnd legal ol)ligation which requires the United 
5tAl^^ tij pnjtt=>-L aiid enhance Indian trust resources and 
trilTdi self-governiTent. Tliis includes the duty to provide 
ser"i es for trust protection and enhancement. In carrying 
out li-it tmst responsibility, the United States shall be 
held t;i the highes;. standards of care 'and good faith 
consist •-at with the principles of cainon law trust. Legal 
and equitable remedies shall be available in Federal courts 
for l/i-cdr^. of such standards. 

Althcnrrh the trust responsibility is a legally binding duty 
requi>ed of aJl United States agencies and instrumentalities 
and aVtliOugh Congicss lias the ultimate responsibility for 
insuring tiiat Uie duty is net, there shall be in the Executive 
Braiich csie independent prime agent which is charged with the 
r ■■i-.u^l Lciipcritoibility for faithfully administering the trust. 

The t..ni.<3t responsibility extends through the tribe to the Indian 
meirht-- '*ether on or off the reservation. His or her rights 
pursuant to this tJnited States doligation are not affected by 
servi::es v^iich he/she may receive on the same basis as other 
LiiiteJ Etates citizens or v*iich the tribe may receive on the 
s»nft basis as any other governmental unit. 

.^ic ;>i;iijc;c; Sta':js hold legal title to Indian trust property 
i-nt fiijj "Equitable title rests with the Indian owners. 



593 



AMERICAN .WDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT 



Chapter 4: Federal-Indian Trust Relations 
Recommendations : 



Action to be taken by 



"Indian Trust Rights Iitpact Statement. Before any agency takes 
action which may abrogate or in any way infringe any Indian 
treaty rights, or non- treaty rights v^ich are protected by the 
trust responsibility, it shall prepare and submit to the appro- 
priate coimittees in both houses of Congress an Indian Trust Rights 
Inpact Statemsnt. Such Inpact Statement shall include but not be 
limited to the follcwing information: 

1. Nature ol 'jhe proposed action. 

2. Nature of the Indian rights which may be abrogated or in any way 
infringed by the proposed action. 

3. Whether consent of the affected Indians has been sought and 
ctotained. If such consent has not been obtained, then an explan- 
ation of the extraordinary circumstances where a ccnpelling 
national interest requires the taking of such action without 
Indian consent. 

4. If the proposed action involves taking or otherwise infringing 
Indian trust lands, whether or not lieu lands have been offered 
to the affected Indian or Indians. 

' The United States shall not abrogate or in any way infringe any 
treaty ri^ts, or non-treaty rights which are protected by the 
tnist responsibility, without first seeking to obtain the consent 
of the affected Indian or Indians. Such ric^ts shall not be 
abrogated or infringed without such consent except under extra- 
ordinary circumstances where a ccnpelling national interest reqxiires 
otherwise. With or without Indian consent, such rights shall not 
be abrogated or infringed in any way except pxirsuant to a Congress- 
ional act which identifies the specific affected Indian rights 
and v*iich states that it is the intent of Congress to abrogate 
or infringe such rights. 



594 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT 
Chapter 4: Federal-Indian Trust Relations 



Recommendations : 



Action to be taken by: 



'Legal Representaticn for Indians. In order to diminish the conflict 
of interest prevalent vrtien the Department of Justice and the Depart- 
nent of the Interior provide legal services to Indians, to provide 
for more efficient rendering of legal services to Indians, and to 
otherwise inprove the representation which Indians receive for pro- 
tection and enforcement of their trust rights. Congress shoiiLd enact 
legislation vMch will provide for the following: 

1. There shall be established within a newly-created Departanent of 
Indian Affairs (See Chapter 6) an Office of Trust Rights Protec- 
tion. Its duties shall include, but not be limited to, inventory- 
ing and assisting in the management of Indian trust property, 
advising Indians and Indian tribes in legal matters and represen- 
ting them in all litigation and administrative proceedings invol- 
ving Indian trust rights. In appropriate field offices of the 
Department of Indian Affairs there shall be a legal and profes- 
sional staff under the supervision of the Office of Trust Rights 
Protection . 

2. The Office of Trust Rights Protection shall be authorized to ren- 
der all appropriate legal services which are new rendered by the 
Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior, provided 
that the client-Indian agrees to accept such representation and 
services . 

3. The Office of Trust Ri^ts Protection shall have the prinary res- 
ponsibility of the Federal government for protecting, enforcing, 
and enhancing Indian trust rights but this shall not relieve any 
Federal agency from the duty to recognize and act consistent with 
the Federal trvist responsibility for Indians. 

4. The Office of Trust Rights Protection shall act in the nane of the 
United States as trustee for the Indians in all legal matters and 
prtx;eedings, except those vAiich it refers to the Departnent of 
Justice for litigation. It shall have the discretion to so refer 
those natters v^ich it does not have the staff, resources, or 
expertise to handle. The Office also shall have the discretion 
and authority to engage private counsel to represent Indians, 
tribes or groips in trust matters. In such cases, the United 



595 



AMERICAN 

Chapter 

Recommendations 



NDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL RJ=:PORT 
Federal-Indian Trust Relations 



Action to be taken by 



Government may pay all fees and costs and the wishes of the 
client- Indians shall be coiplied with as much as possible in 
selection of counsel. Where there is a conflict of interest 
between an individual Indian and a tribe involving trust issues, 
the Office shall represent the tribe and it shall have the dis- 
cretion to engage private counsel to represent the individual at 
government expense. 

5. The United States waives sovereign imtiunity for all actions 
involving Indian trust matters brought by the Office of Trust 
Rights Protection or private counsel engaged by it to represent 
Indians. 

6. The Office is authorized to obtain whatever information, services 
and other assistance deemed necessary fran other Federal agencies 
and such agencies shall be obligated to ccnply with such requests. 

"Authorization for Award of Attorney Fees and Other Litigation Costs. 
Federal courts are authorized to award attorney's fees and ej^jenses, 
and all reasonable costs incident to litigation, including but not 

limited to expert witness fees, in cases in which an Indian or Indian 
tribe or groip engages private attorneys and is successful in pro- 
tecting or enforcing treaty, trust or other ri^ts protected by Federal 
statute. Federal courts shall have the discretion to order that all 
such fees and costs be paid by the losing party or by the United 
States Govemirent. 



596 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT 
Chapter 5: Tribal Govemirent - A. Legal Status fienerally 



Recommendations : 

A. 1. Historical Overview and Jurisdiction Generally 

"Ihat the long term objective of Federal- Indian policy should be the 
development of tribal governments into fully operational governments 
exercising the same powers and shouldering the same responsibilities 
as otter local governments. This c±>jective should be pursued in a 
flexible manner vrtiich will respect and acoitmcDdate the unique cultural 
and social attributes of the individual Indian tribes. 

°It is the reorairendation of this Canmission that the Congress under- 
take no legislative action in relation to tribal jurisdiction over 
non- Indians at this tine. 

A. 3. Political Relationship and the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 

"That Section 18 of the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 478) vfaLch 
provides that no part of that Act shall apply to any reservaticsi 
v^ierein a majority of the adult Indians vote against its application 
should be repealed. In its place Congress should enact a savings 
clause to provide that the rights of any tribe which has organized 
under the terms of Section 16 of the Act or formed a corporation under 
Section 17 of the Act will not be adversely affected. To acooitplish 
. this result the Conmission reconmends the follcwing specific legisla- 
tive actions: 

1. Repeal Section 18 of the IRA which reads as follows: 

This Act shall not apply to any reservation vAierein a majority 
of the adult Indians, voting at a special election duly called 
by the Secretary of the Interior, shall vote against its appli- 
cation. It shall be the duty of the Secretary of the Interior 
within one year after June 18, 1934, to call such an election, 
which election shall be held by secret ballot upon thirty days' 
notice . 

2. Insert in place of this Section the following language: 

Any Indian tribe vrfiidi has chosen to organize under Sections 16 
and 17 of the Indian Reorganization Act shall not be affected. 



Action to be taken h 



597 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT 



Chapter 5: Tribal Govemnient 
Recommendations : 



A. Legal Status Generall 



Action to be taken by 



"That Section 16 of the Indian Reorganization Act (25 U.S.C. 476) 
v*iich authorizes tribes to organize under the provisions of that Act 
should be aitended to: (1) to specifically reflect the fact that tribes 
have an inherent right to form their own political organizations in 
the form which they desire, and (2) to provide that notwithstanding 
any provisions in existing tribal constitutions v*ich vest the Secre- 
tary with authority to review and disapprove ordinances enacted by 
the tribal qn^'^mment, the authority of the Secretary over the actions 
of the tribal government shall only extend to those iratters directly 
related to the trust responsibility over the use and disposition of 
trust assets. To accorplish this result the Commission reoomiends 
amendment of Section 16 of the IRA along the following lines: 

The right to choose their natural form of government is the inherent 
right of any Indian tribe. Amendments to tribal constitutions and 
by-laws adcpted pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act shall be 
ratified and approved by the Secretary to protect the trust assets 
and resources of the tribes. 

In addition to all powers vested in any Indian tribe or tribal 
council by existing law, said Indian tribe shall also be recognized 
to have the following rights and pavers: To eitploy legal counsel, 
to prevent the sale, disposition, lease, or encumbrance of tribal 
lands, interest in lands, or other tribal assets without the consent 
of the Secretary; and negotiate with the Federal, state and local 
governments. The Secretary of the Interior shall advise all Indian 
tribes and/or their tribal councils of all apprcpriation estimates 
of Federal projects for the benefit of the tribe prior to the sub- 
mission of such estimates to the Office of Management and Budget 
and the Congress. 

Notwithstanding the provisions of any existing tribal constitution 
or similar document vrtiich vest authority in the Secretary to review 
and approve or disapprove proposed actions of said Indian tribes, or 
Indian tribal governments, the Secretary's authority over Indian 
tribes can only extend or be directly related to the trust respon- 
sibility over the use and disposition of trust assets. 



598 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT 



Chapter 5: Tribal Govemnent - A. 
Recommendations : 



Legal Status Generally 



Action to be taken by 



°That Section 2 of Title 25, U.S. Code, should be anended to provide 
that the authority of the Secretary of the Interior over tribes shall 
only extend to actions relating to protection of tribal trust assets. 
Within these limits, whenever the Secretary finds it necessary to 
disapprove a proposed tribal initiative, he must file a written state- 
ment with the tribe notifying them of the reason for his disapproval 
of their proposed action and afford them an opportunity for a hearing. 

"That Section 81 of Title 25, U.S. Code, should be amended to accorplish 
a result similar to that proposed above, i.e., that vrfienever the SecrS' 
tary shall disapprove any proposed contract dealing with tmst assets, 
he shall provide the affected tribe or person with a written statement 
of his reasons for disapproval and provide them with an opportunity 
for a hearing. To acccnplish these results the Conmission reoamends 
amendatory language along the following lines: 

That 25 U.S.C. 2 be amended to include the follcwing language: "The 
authority of the Secretary of the Interior over Indian tribes shall 
only extend to those actions deemed necessary to protect tribal tirust 
assets and resources. In any action which the Secretary finds it 
necessary to disapprove a proposed tribal government initiative, 
the Secretary shall take such action within 60 days of having been 
officially notified of the proposed tribal action by the Indian 
tribaJ. government and any disapproval of the proposed tribal action 
shall be acccnpanied by an opportimity for a hearing on the part of 
the tribe, and the Secretary's decision shall be based on written 
findings of fact v^ich shall specify the reasons for his disapproval. 

Ttiat 25 U.S.C. 81 be amended in the following manner: The third 
paragraph beginning "second... " shall read: It shall bear the 
approval of the Secretary of the Interior and Oonroissioner of Indian 
Affairs endorsed ijpon it. The Secretary of the Interior and the 
Comnissioner of Indian Affairs shall disapprove any such proposed 
contract only after finding that the proposed ccntract shall endan- 
ger the trust assets or resources of the tribe or individual Indian. 
Such findings shall be suhmitted to the proposed t:ribe and/or Indian 
in written form specifying the exact reason for disapproval. 



599 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL RKPORT 



Chapter 5 : Tribal Govemrnent - A. Leyal Status General : 
Recommendations : 



Action to be taken b^. 



"Additional legislation should be enacted to authorize tribes to over- 
ride Secretarial disapproval of their proposed use of trust assets. 
Such an override must be coupled with a waiver of liability on the 
part of the United States to the limited extent tliat the o^^erride may 
result in loss. The Cormission recoini.ends enactn-ci-.t of legislation 
along the follo.ving lines to ooitplement the preceding reooiriTiendation . 
Whenever the Secretary disapproves a tribal government initiative, a 
oontract or otlier tribal action involving the use or disposition of 
a trust asset, the tribe shall be entitled to override such Secretarial 
disapproval upon the follcwing terms: 

The Secretary shall simply the tribe with a detailed statement of the 
reasons for his disapproval of their proposed use or disposition of 
the trust asset, specifically setting forth the loss he believes may 
result frctn such tribal proposal. 

After due oonsultation between the representatives of the tribe and 
the Secretary or his representative, the tribal council may, by 
formal resolution, elect to override the dis^proval of the Secre- 
tary. Such resolution must contain a specific waiver of liabililty 
on the part of the United States for losses which may result as a 
direct result of the tribal override. 

In the consultation process the Secretary shall be held to the high- 
est standards of care and good faith consistent with the principles 
of oomron law trust in advising the tribes of the potential conse- 
quences of the proposed tribal decision. 

A tribal override of a Secretarial disapproval shall not diminish 
the trtist character of the asset in question. The trust respon- 
sibility of the United States to aid the tribe in the inplementation 
of their decision ani to protect the future well-being of the asset 
shall continue undiminished. 

In any case in vrfiich the Secretary has reasonable cause to believe 
that the decision of the tribal government may not reflect the will 
of the majority of the mearbers of a tribe he shall (may) require a 
referendum of the tribal meitters, the expense of which shall be 
borne by the United States and not the tribe. 
In the event the Secretary determines that a tribal resolution 
should be put to a referendum, he must notify the tribal council 
within 30 days of the passage of their resolution, and he must call 
for such referendum vote not more than 45 days after tendering 
such notification. 



600 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COMMISSION FINAL REPORT 
Chapter 5: Tribal Government - A. Legal Status Generally 
Recommendations ; 



Action to be taken by 



A. 4. 1968 Civil Ri^ts Act/Faith and Credit Afforded Tribal Laws 
"The Contdssion recanmends the following amendments to Title II of the 
1968 Civil Ri^ts Act: 

1. Congress should enact provisions to make it crystal clear that this 
Act was not intended as a general waiver of sovereign iitinunity of 
the tribes. The holding in Loncassion v. Lee3d.ty , 334 F. Supp. 

370 (D., N.M. , 1971) authorizing a money judgment against tribes 
should be specifically rejected by Congress. While the courts 
must have authority to enforce s\±>stantive aspects of the Act (as 
limited by the recormendation above) , Indian tribes , like any other 
government, must have sovereign iiinunity and some protection for 
their officers if they are to be able to govern fairly. Equitable 
actions such as mandamus against tribal officials may be permis- 
sible, but they should be irmiune from money judgments vihen they 
work within their soope of duty. 

2. The jurisdictional provisions of this Act should be reexamined. 
Habeas corpus review is the only jurisdictional provision new in- 
cluded in this Act, yet the courts have assumed jurisdiction over 
a broad range of actions vrtiich do not involve detention. As the 
situation stands, the jurisdictional reach of Federal courts and 
the remedial orders v*iich they feel free to enter is virtually un- 
limited. This is in oomplete contrast to all other Federal civil 
ri^ts legislation. 

3. The part of this Act providing for a right to trial by jury be 
amended to specify that the right guaranteed by this subsection 
shall only be applicable to offenses which if charged in a Federal 
court would be subject to a ri^t to trial by jury. As Section 
202(10) presently reads, the right to trial by jury would theoret- 
ically apply to alrtost every offense a person might be charged 
with, not matter how slight the penalty. 

4. The provisions of the Act limiting the penal authority of a tribe 
to fines of $500 or six months inprisonment, or both, should be 
amended to increase these figures to fines of $1,000 or 1 year 
inprisonment, or both. 



601 



AMERICAN INDIAN POLICY REVIEW COHMISSION FINAT, REPORT 

Chapter 5: Tribal Govemitent - A. Ltjal Status General 1/ 

Recommendations: Actio;, to be taken b'. 



5. 



That Section 1738 of Title 28, U.S. Code, should be amended to 
include Indian