Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
1074013
label
Indians (2)
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1074013
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Indians (2)
citationUrl
collections
John G. Carlson Files
Subject Files
subjects
Indians of North America
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1074013
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1975-01-31
month
1
year
1975
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-01-01
month
1
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
179d741f99ed7211
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 4, folder "Indians (2)" of the John G. Carlson
Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Copyright Notice
The copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of
photocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald R. Ford donated to the United
States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.
Works prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public
domain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to
remain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid
copyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.
Digitized from Box 4 of the John G. Carlson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 8, 1974
Dear Chief Fools Crow and Matthew King:
On behalf of the President, I want to thank you for your letter of
November 19 to him, and for the specific questions you enclosed in
the Bill of Particulars which Vine DeLoria delivered to Brad Patterson.
We promised to have a detailed response to the specific questions, and
the enclosure to this letter, prepared principally by the Department of
Justice, constitutes that response. As you asked, the response avoids
rhetoric and "soothing words" in its answers and confines itself to facts
of history and law, with citations of statutes and Court decisions. By
way of preface, however, I would like to add a personal word.
The Sioux people have been raising questions about the implementation
of the Government's treaties with the Sioux since the 1920's. At that
time, the special place in the judicial branch which the Congress authorized
to review and decide those questions and claims was the U.S. Court of
Claims. Between the 1920's and 1946, the Sioux filed eleven claims cases
before the Court of Claims.
The eleven cases were resolved in favor of the United States Government,
with the Court of Claims finding that either the United States had fulfilled
its Treaty obligations, or that the Government had paid the Sioux more
than the damages which they had sustained.
In 1946, a new avenue for claims was opened up to Indian people by the
creation of the Indian Claims Commission. As the answer to question four
here indicates, the Western Sioux today have seven pending dockets before
the Indian Claims Commission; there has not yet been a final decision in
any of these seven.
Your letter therefore comes at a time when some of the very issues of
concern to you are in fact being adjudicated by the special body which the
Congress has established for this purpose. I am aware that the process
of reviewing these seven claims has been lengthy, but at each stage of the
review, certain appeals have been filed by the attorneys for the Sioux -
as is of course their right. The result, however, is a prolonged adjudi-
-2-
cation process. But it is still going on and final decisions will eventually
ome. If the Sioux win, the compensation awards by the United States
the Sioux will amount to many millions of dollars.
the enclosed response indicates, if you have any complaints about
these suits are proceeding you should contact the attorneys who
have long been retained by the Oglala Sioux people to represent them in
se lawsuits.
You are also aware, of course, that your communication to the President
not the official position of the Oglala Sioux. That can come only from
elected Tribal Council and Tribal Officers of the Oglala Sioux. We
respect your right to differ with the Tribal Council and to send us your
news; in fact the five White House representatives who spent two days
with you and your colleagues last May came especially to receive those
views and to hear you and your associates who spoke to them. But, as in
any democratic society where there is contention and differing opinions,
ne proper court of last resort is the ballot box. Fortunately, the Oglala
Shoux people are about to have the opportunity to express their views and
10 give their governing mandate to candidates of their choice shortly in
HD election at the Pine Ridge Reservation. The United States Government
otally neutral with respect to the outcome of that election, and we look
ward to working closely with whatever Tribal Council and Officers
eive the mandate of the Oglala Sioux electorate.
anwhile, I believe that the enclosed answers are as specific, complete
at 1 detailed as possible. This is what you requested and this is what we
have endeavored to do. What these answers say, in sum, is that the
1868 Treaty is still a valid legal document, with its obligations still in
for ce except insofar as any of them have been changed by the Congress,
by the parties, satisfied by litigation or expired - and that has happened in
SC veral specified instances. I note that you plan to study our response and
reply to us once more. If your understandings on any of these questions
are different from ours, we will welcome that further word from you.
T think these exchanges are more useful than further large meetings at this
time, since they may help to define with greater precision what it is about
the 1868 Treaty and its implementation that is troubling you and your colleagues.
losing, I express the hope that both you as Indian people as well as
those of us working in the area of Indian affairs in the Federal Government,
will look ahead and not just backwards. I have no desire or inclination to
FORD of LIBRARY SERVICE
-3-
defend the past two centuries of treatment of Indian peoples. In many
instances, they were centuries marked by shameful conduct toward
Indians by the Federal Government. The President has broken with that
past and in his Message of July 8, 1970 set an agenda for the future which
is in a fundamentally new direction. I hope you and your associates will
join with us and with the principal nationwide Indian organization in working
for the achievement of that agenda.
It is not enough to curse history to undo or repair historic wrongs. What
is essential is realistic and sustained action using the intelligence and
energy of all those persons and groups in and out of government who under-
stand the legitimacy of Indian grievances and the compelling need to act
on them.
Sincerely yours,
Sarment
Leonard Garment
Assistant to the President
Chief Frank Fools Crow
Mr. Matthew King, Chairman
Oglala Sioux Treaty Council
Oglala, South Dakota
attachment
Question No. 1
Does the United States of America regard the Treaty
of April 29, 1868, 15 Stat. 635, ratified February 16, 1869,
and proclaimed by the President of said nation on February
24, 1869, as a valid legal document binding the Lakota Nation
and the United States in a legal relationship?
Answer No. 1
Insofar as the 1868 Treaty has not been changed by the
parties, changed by legislation, satisfied by litigation, or
expired it is binding on the parties to the same extent that
other treaties are binding and is a valid legal document. The
extent of its modifications and of its binding effect on the
parties is developed more fully below.
Question No. (a)
If the United States does not regard this treaty as a
valid and legally binding document at what point did the
United States disclaim or declare invalid such treaty?
Answer No. 1 (a)
To our knowledge, the United States has never disclaimed
or declared invalid the 1868 Treaty as a whole. As noted,
portions have been modified, revoked, superceded, or satis-
fied.
- 2 -
Question No. 1 (b)
If the United States does not regard this treaty as a
valid and legally binding document, what document does the
United States regard as legally binding upon either party
or both parties?
Answer No. 1 (b)
The extent to which provisions of the 1868 Treaty have
since been modified and the extent to which they have not
been modified, and thereby remain as active treaty commit-
ments, are shown below.
Question No. (c)
If the United States does not regard this treaty as
valid and legally binding upon it, what is the basis for the
claim by the United States that it has any jurisdiction over
the people of the Lakota Nation, at all?
Answer No. 1 (c)
As noted in Answer No. 1, above, the United States does
regard the 1868 Treaty as valid and as binding as other
treaties to the extent its provisions have not been changed
or satisfied.
Even in the absence of jurisdictions conferred by treaty,
it is well established that the United States has general
jurisdiction over Indian tribes. See Stephens V. Cherokee
Nation, 174 U.S. 445, 478 (1899) ; Lone Wolf V. Hitchcock, 187
U.S. 553, 565-566 (1903) ; Choate V. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665
(1912); Shoshone Tribe V. United States, 299 U.S. 476 (1937);
Sioux Tribe V. United States, 97 Ct. C1. 613 (1942). In
Federal Indian Law, G.P.O. 1958, page 21 (and the cases cited
- 3 -
in support thereof), it is said:
At the outset we wish to emphasize the
fact that the exercise of these plenary
constitutional powers, which emanate from
the people, cannot be limited by treaties
so as to prevent later repeal, modification,
or adjustment of the treaty provisions by
Congress in the exercise of its constitu-
tional powers, insofar as they are operative
as law within the United States and its
possessions. The plenary power of Congress
over the Indian tribes, as long as they
continue to exist as such, and their tribal
property, cannot have been rendered in-
effectual by any Indian treaty.
Plainly the law gives Congress jurisdiction over the
Sioux tribes, the same as is provided over all other Indian
tribes in the United States.
Question No. 2
What is the current status of the 1868 Treaty?
Answer No. 2
The obligations assumed under the 1868 Treaty remain
obligatory upon the parties to the same extent that other
treaty obligations are obligatory insofar as they have not
been satisfied or changed.
Question No. 2 (a)
What articles of this treaty does the United States
regard as binding upon it?
Question No. 2 (b)
What articles of this treaty does the United States
believe that it has fulfilled?
- 4 -
Answer Nos. 2 (a), 2(b)
Standing alone the questions are rather broad. Many of
them, however, are answered below as part of the specific
answers to later questions. Additional answers can be made
if additional specific questions are posed.
Question No. 2 (c)
What articles of this treaty does the United States
admit having not yet fulfilled?
Answer No. 2 (c)
None, in the sense that the United States has failed either
to perform or satisfy the obligations assumed. See generally
Sioux Tribe V. United States, 95 Ct. C1. 72, 81 (1941):
Plaintiffs' suit therefore is based
primarily on the alleged violations of
the treaty of 1868, or failure to ful-
fill its obligations.
***
The Court concluded:
We hold that the obligations of the
treaty of 1868 have been complied with
both in fact and in effect.
Also see with respect to general annuities, Sioux Tribe V.
United States, 85 Ct. C1. 181, 195 (1937), cert. den. 302
U.S. 717:
*** This amended petition presents the
claim of the Sioux Tribe of Indians for
damages sustained by the alleged failure
- 5 -
of the United States to fulfill its obliga-
tions with reference to annuities promised
to be paid to the Sioux Indians in the form
of property or money by the treaty of April
29, 1868.
The Court concluded:
Under our construction of the
language used in the treaty, it is clear
that plaintiff cannot recover.
For additional details of the United States' performance
of its 1868 Treaty obligations, see answers below.
Question No. 3
With respect to Article I of said treaty, we regard the
dispatch of federal marshals to the Pine Ridge Indian Reserva-
tion last winter as a violation of said article in that such
behavior violates the provision and promise of Article I that
the United States "desires peace, and they now pledge their
honor to maintain it." How does the United States justify its
invasion of the lands of the Oglala Band of the Lakota Nation
by federal marshals last winter?
Answer No. 3
We are unable to see how dispatching the Federal marshals
to the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation violates the United States'
1868 pledge to try to maintain peace. This would appear to us
to be a performance of the pledge rather than a violation
thereof. One of the purposes of sending United States marshals
to the reservation was to preserve the peace as promised in
Article I of the treaty.
- 6 -
With respect to the conduct of those marshals and the
other Federal law enforcement officers last year, a distin-
guished Indian author and critic has written:
The federal government proved to be in-
credibly patient with the AIM militants. It
was apparent that several federal laws had
been broken, and the conservative Indians
demanded that the government use force to
remove the armed occupants of Wounded Knee.
The administration felt, however, that the
saving of lives was more important than
enforcing the law in a rigid manner. To
prevent bloodshed, it conducted prolonged
negotiations with the embattled Indian
protesters, thereby winning the gratitude
and confidence of the great majority of
Indians whose strongest concern was to
prevent any loss of life. * * *
It is clear, however, that a new stage in
Indian affairs has arrived which can only be
solved by fundamental changes in the status
and policies of tribal governments. Such
basic changes cannot be settled either by the
Indians or the federal administration. Under
the U.S. Constitution, only the Congress can
legislate new policy in the field of Indian
affairs; so future solutions will have to wait
on the cumbersome process of legislation,
preceded by the hard work of intelligent and
informed persuasion of a majority of the
Congress. [Footnote: From "The New Activism"
in DIALOGUE, 1973, Vol. 6, # 2, edited by USIA,
pages 11-12.]
- 7 -
Question No. 4
With respect to Article II of said treaty, we regard
the building of dams on the Missouri River as a violation
of the treaty which continues until the present in that the
United States has unilaterally and unconstitutionally deprived
the Lakota people of their rights to use all of said Missouri
River, the totality of said river laying within the boundaries
of the Lakota Nation. What position does the United States
take with respect to this violation?
Answer No. 4
The descendant tribes of the ancestral Sioux groups who
entered into the 1868 Treaty are presently suing the United
States under the provisions of the Indian Claims Commission
Act of August 13, 1946, 60 Stat. 1049, 25 U.S.C. sec. 70.
Their case alleging claims based on the 1868 Treaty is docketed
as No. 74, before the Indian Claims Commission. Docket No. 74-B
embraces their claims based on the Act of February 28, 1877,
and Docket Nos. 115-119 request accountings by the United States
for failing to perform treaty obligations. These suits may
embrace, at least in part, the complaint set forth in Question
No. 4, above. However, to make sure that the complaints
contemplated under Question No. 4 are intended to be included
in the Indian Claims Commission Bitigation, we recommend that
Messrs. Foolscrow and King contact the Sioux attorneys handling
the litigation. They are:
Marvin J. Sonosky, Esquire
2030 M Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20036
Arthur Lazarus, Jr., Esquire
600 New Hampshire Avenue, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20037
William Howard Payne, Esquire
1086 National Press Building
Washington, D. C. 20004
FORD of GENATO LIBRARY
- 8 -
These Sioux attorneys should also be contacted for confirma-
tion of, or exceptions to, the other answers set forth in
this memorandum which relate to the claims, or possible
claims, presented under the Indian Claims Commission Act.
Question No. 5
With respect to Article III of said treaty, we regard
the acts of the United States consequent to the Treaty of
1868 as violations of this article in that we are unaware of
any effort by the United States to determine the amount of
arable land suitable for the people of the Lakota Nation.
Does the United States maintain that it has fulfilled this
article of the treaty? If so, when? And how?
Answer No. 5
Article 3 of the 1868 Treaty provided:
If it should appear from actual survey or
other satisfactory examination of said tract
of land that it contains less than one hundred
and sixty acres of tillable land for each person
who, at the time, may be authorized to reside
on it under the provisions of this treaty, and
a very considerable number of such persons
shall be disposed to commence cultivating the
soil as farmers, the United States agrees to
set apart, for the use of said Indians, as
herein provided, such additional quantity of
arable land, adjoining to said reservation,
or as near to the same as it can be obtained,
as may be required to provide the necessary
amount.
It appears that not "a very considerable number" of Sioux
were "disposed to commence cultivating the soil as farmers"
in the years following the 1868 Treaty. In fact, very few
were. See Sioux Tribe V. United States, 86 Ct. C1. 299 (1938),
cert. den. 306 U.S. 642, and Sioux Tribe V. United States,
- 9 -
89 Ct. C1. 31 (1939), discussed below. Accordingly, in the
absence of a specific showing to the contrary, the United
States maintains that it has fulfilled Article 3 of the treaty.
Question No. 6
With respect to Article V of the treaty, we maintain that
the United States has failed to enforce the provisions of this
article to the benefit of the Lakota people and that far from
keeping the agent's office open to investigate cases of depre-
dation on person and property the agent and his successor the
superintendent have aided and abetted such depredations and
that their actions led directly to the confrontation at Wounded
Knee. If the United States feels that it has performed its
duties under this article in good faith, can it list its efforts
to perform its duties and their results?
Answer No. 6
Article 5 of the 1868 treaty provides as follows:
The United States agrees that the agent
for said Indians shall in the future make
his home at the agency-building; that he
shall reside among them, and keep an office
open at all times for the purpose of prompt
and diligent inquiry into such matters of
complaint by and against the Indians as may
be presented for investigation under the
provisions of their treaty stipulations,
as also for the faithful discharge of other
duties enjoined on him by law. In all cases
of depredation on person or property he
shall cause the evidence to be taken in
writing and forwarded, together with his
findings, to the Commissioner of Indian
Affairs, whose decision, subject to the
revision of the Secretary of the Interior,
shall be binding on the parties to this
treaty.
FORD LIBRARY
- 10 -
Since the signing of the treaty and the establishment
of the original agency, the Sioux people have continuously
had a resident agent. With the subsequent establishment of
separate agencies for the Sioux groups, each has had its own
agent (superintendent). Most recently, a separate agency has
been established for each of the successor groups on the
Lower Brule and Crow Creek nation reservations.
The Pine Ridge agency alone--for the Oglala Sioux--is
staffed by some 400 employees, far more than anticipated by
the treaty.
All these agencies are administering programs for the
benefit of the Sioux people considerably in excess of what is
called for under the treaty. The grand total made available
through the BIA during 1973 to carry out programs for the
benefit of those Sioux people whose ancestors signed the 1868
Treaty, and to maintain the agencies, was approximately $28
million. This is an increase of some $17 million over the
amount extended during 1967, only five years earlier. Federal
agencies other than the Indian Bureau are programming funds
equal to, if not surpassing, those expended by the Bureau.
We can contend, therefore, that the Government has complied
with its responsibility that its agent faithfully discharged
the duties enjoined on him by law.
The respective agencies are open to all Sioux people.
Many complaints have been received and are acted upon daily.
With respect to "depredation claims" either by or against
Indians, our records do not disclose that any such claims have
been filed under the Treaty of 1868. Should you be aware of
any such cases and would advise us of specifics, we will review
them and furnish you with a report.
If, by "depredations," Chief Foolscrow means the allega-
tions which he and his associates have raised concerning recent
civil rights violations, the actions of the United States have
been diligent and full. Some fifty complaints were brought to
the Government's attention. The Civil Rights Division of the
Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation
investigated all of them. They interviewed over 170 witnesses.
- 11 -
None of these investigations has yet turned up anything
substantial enough to give the United States a prosecutable
case. If by "depredations," Chief Foolscrow means allegations
about funds being misused by the Oglala Tribal Council or by
the Bureau of Indian Affairs at Pine Ridge, the United States
again responded promptly last Spring, and contracted for an
outside firm (Touche, Ross) to do a complete audit in both
places. The results of the audit reveal that although there
has been some sloppy bookkeeping for years by both government
and Indian offices, there was no basis for criminal charges
in either place.
Question No. 7
With respect to Article VI of the treaty, we maintain
that the procedures described in this article were the ONLY
means open to either the Lakota people or the United States to
allot the lands of the Lakotas. We maintain that the United
States, in fraudulently allotting the lands of the Lakotas has
violated this article of the treaty. Does the United States
claim that it has either fulfilled or followed the procedures
described in this article in making allotments of the lands
of the Lakotas? If so, how?
Answer No. 7
The first two paragraphs of Article 6 of the 1868 Treaty
provided:
If any individual belonging to said tribes
of Indians, or legally incorporated with them,
being the head of a family, shall desire to
commence farming, he shall have the privilege
to select, in the presence and with the assist-
ance of the agent then in charge, a tract of
land within said reservation, not exceeding
three hundred and twenty acres in extent, which
tract, when so selected, certified, and recorded
in the 'land book' as herein directed, shall
cease to be held in common, but the same may be
occupied and held in the exclusive possession
R.
GERALD
FORD
of the person selecting it, and of his family,
LIBRARY
so long as he or they may continue to cultivate
it.
- 12 -
Any person over eighteen years of age, not
being the head of a family, may in like manner
select and cause to be certified to him or her,
for purposes of cultivation, a quantity of land
not exceeding eighty acres in extent, and there-
upon be entitled to the exclusive possession of
the same as above directed.
Since the record shows that but a relatively few Sioux were
inclined to farm following the 1868 Treaty, it appears that
the benefits of this sixth article were utilized by the Sioux
only to a. minor degree. In Sioux Tribe V. United States, 86
Ct. C1. 299, 302-303 (1938), cert. den. 306 U.S. 642, this
account of the post-1868 conditions is set forth:
In the years immediately following the treaty
of 1868 there was little change in the mode of
life of the Sioux Indians. Only a few of them
complied with the provisions of the treaty and
settled at the various agencies along the Missouri
River. The great bulk continued to roam as before
over their vast reservation.
The Court also noted in the same case that (p. 305)
The facts [as of 1886] do not show the
nature or extent of farming operations by
each of the families shown in the Commis-
sioner's report as being engaged in agri-
culture, but a division of the total number
of acres reported as being cultivated at the
various agencies on the reservation by the
number of families reported as 'engaged in
agriculture' at such agencies, shows that
the families at the Cheyenne River Agency
cultivated 2.16 acres: at Crow Creek and
Lower Brule, 4.71 acres: at Pine Ridge,
2.11 acres: at Rosebud, 3.74 acres; at
Standing Rock, 2.95 acres; at Fort Peck,
1.39 acres; and at the Santee and Flandreau
Agency, 20.30 acres, or an average at all
the agencies of 3.58 acres.
- 13 -
See, to the same effect, Sioux Tribe V. United States, 89
Ct. C1. 31 (1939). From the above, it would appear that
there was but a small demand for allotments under Article 6
and that a violation of the provision by the United States
was improbable.
Moreover, with the enactment of the Act of February 28,
1877, 19 Stat. 254, and the Act of March 21, 1889, 25 Stat.
888, these allotment provisions no longer applied to the Black
Hills tract and other substantial portions of the Great Sioux
Reservation. With respect to these latter lands and any others
that were subsequently excluded from the reservations, the
United States was free to allot the same to non-Indians to the
extent that the law provided.
On the above record, we submit that the United States
fulfilled the obligations of Article 6. Moreover, since the
obligations endured for no more than a reasonable time after
the 1868 Treaty (Cf. Sioux Tribe V. United States, 86 Ct. C1.
299, 306-307 (1938), cert. den. 306 U.S. 642), the obligations
under the article expired many years ago.
Question No. 8
With respect to Article VII of the treaty, we maintain
that this article provides for a special and ongoing educa-
tional program for the Lakota people. We maintain that the
United States has not fulfilled the provisions of this article
and remains liable to the Lakota people in the field of
education. Does the United States maintain that it has ful-
filled this article of the treaty? If so, how?
- 14 -
Answer No. 3
Article 7 of the 1868 Treaty provides as follows:
In order to insure the civilization of
the Indians entering into this treaty, the
necessity of education is admitted, especially
of such of them as are or may be settled on
said agricultural reservations, and they
therefore pledge themselves to compel their
children, male and female, between the ages
of six and sixteen years, to attend school;
and it is hereby made the duty of the agent
for said Indians to see that this stipulation
is strictly complied with; and the United
States agrees that for every thirty children
between said ages who can be induced or
compelled to attend school, a house shall
be provided and a teacher competent to teach
the elementary branches of an English
education shall be furnished, who will reside
among said Indians, and faithfully discharge
his or her duties as a teacher. The pro-
visions of this article to continue for not
less than twenty years.
The Sioux have already sued the United States upon this article
of the 1868 Treaty. The decision is reported, Sioux Tribe V.
United States, 84 Ct. C1. 16 (1936), with the Supreme Court
denying certiorari at 302 U.S. 740 (1937). The Sioux claim
was described by the Court of Claims as follows (p. 25):
- 15 -
This Indian case now before the court
is predicated upon an alleged failure of the
Government to comply with a treaty obligation
and an act of Congress respecting the educa-
tion of the children of the Sioux Tribe of
Indians between the ages of six and sixteen
years.
The Court went on to explain that the obligation involved
was Article 7 of the 1868 Treaty, as quoted above, and that
the act involved was that of March 2, 1889, 25 Stat. 888,
with section 17 reading as follows:
That it is hereby enacted that the seventh
article of the said treaty of April twenty-
ninth, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight,
securing to said Indians the benefits of educa-
tion, subject to such modifications as Congress
shall deem most effective to secure to said
Indians equivalent benefits of such education,
shall continue in force for twenty years from
and after the time this act shall take effect;
The Court pointed out (84 Ct. C1. at 26):
The record establishes that for a long
period of time the Government did not strictly
observe the provisions of the seventh article
of the treaty of 1868 or Section 16 [should be
17] of the act of 1889 with respect to furnish-
ing the educational facilities provided therein.
***
The Court, however, thereafter explained that there were
good reasons why the United States did not strictly observe
the provisions as written. On pages 27-28 it noted:
The plaintiffs say that the Government is at
fault if a sufficient number of Indian children
could not be compelled or induced to attend
available Indian schools, because the seventh
article of the treaty of 1868 'made it the duty
- 16 -
of the agent for said Indians to see that
this stipulation is strictly complied with.'
Again it is contended that the Government's
failure to adopt the mandatory principles of
compulsory education places it in a position
where no benefit may accrue to a wrongdoer.
The Court then held (p. 28):
The contention is, we think, without merit.
The Indian parents pledged themselves to compel
attendance. The parents, not an Indian agent,
possessed the authority to enforce obedience.
True, the agent could induce attendance, but
for him to seek to compel, as some of them did,
was but to invite the demonstration of serious
hostility, which actually occurred. Aside from
this, however, the duty mentioned was to see to
it that, when the status quo mentioned in the
treaty obtained, the treaty provisions with
respect to schoolhouses and teachers would be
strictly adhered to. The burden of proof rests
upon the plaintiffs to sustain their case.
The Court went on to state that (p. 35):
The Government was under no treaty obliga-
tions to furnish schoolhouses and teachers if
pupils could not be compelled or induced to
attend school. Assuredly the treaty provisions
were not intended to obligate the Government to
do a useless thing, and from this record it is
impossible to find that, in the early history of
the treaty relationships obtaining, anything like
5,785 Indian children of the designated ages were
annually available for schooling.
On page 36 it had this to say:
What the record does establish is the fact
that in 1868 and for many years thereafter the
unsettled and chaotic condition of the Sioux
Tribe of Indians was such that strict compliance
GENETA R. FORD LIBRARY
with the treaty of 1868 was an impossibility.
- 17 -
And the Court denied liability concluding that (p. 41):
we believe the Government furnished in
the early history of the treaty school facil-
ities in excess of the demand for them from
the Indians themselves.
In view of the above holding, we answer Question No. 8 in
the affirmative: Yes, the United States has fulfilled its
obligation under Article 7 of the 1868 Treaty. Moreover, since
the Article 7 provision (as extended by the 1889 Act) expired
at the end of 40 years, it is no longer an active provision of
the 1868 Treaty having expired over 60 years ago.
Nonetheless, the Bureau of Indian Affairs of course con-
tinues to provide educational services to the Sioux people. On
the Oglala Reservation, for instance, the Fiscal Year 1974 educa-
tional services budget totals $4,878,000 and involves educational
services to 2,907 Oglala children and 155 adults, from pre-school
to college scholarships, and adult training. As far as we know,
no Oglala child is today denied schooling because of any lack of
schoolhouses or teachers, and 200 young Oglala men and women are
receiving post-secondary scholarship assistance,
Question No. 9
With respect to Article VIII of this treaty, we demand an
accounting of the fulfillment by the United States of the pro-
visions of this treaty.
Answer No. 9
Article 8 of the 1868 Treaty provided:
When the head of a family or lodge shall
have selected lands and received his certificate
as above directed, and the agent shall be satis-
fied that he intends in good faith to commence
cultivating the soil for a living, he shall be
entitled to receive seeds and agricultural imple-
ments for the first year, not exceeding in value
SERVICE FORD LIBRARA
one hundred dollars, and for each succeeding year
he shall continue to farm, for a period of three
years more, he shall be entitled to receive seeds
and implements as aforesaid, not exceeding in value
twenty-five dollars.
The Sioux have heretofore sued the United States on its
failure to perform these Article 8 provisions. Sioux Tribe V.
- 18 -
United States, 89 Ct. C1. 31 (1939). The Court there
described the claim as follows (p. 31) :
Plaintiff tribe seeks to recover $782,545.54
for the alleged failure of the United States
to fulfill its alleged obligation under Art. 8
of a treaty entered into in 1868 to furnish
seeds and agricultural implements to 4,549
heads of families alleged to have been right-
fully entitled to such articles of the value
of $175 each. From the amount of $796,075
thus obtained plaintiff deducts $13,529.46
actually expended by the defendant for seeds
and agricultural implements, and the balance
of $782,545.54 is sought to be recovered in
this suit.
The Court went on to show that there was very little demand
by. the Sioux for seeds and agricultural implements at that
time (pp. 33-37) and concluded (p. 38):
Art. 8 of the treaty was not a continuing
obligation of the Government, and we think a
period of ten years over which the Secretary
of the Interior held the appropriation, total-
ing $94,000 made by Congress, for the purpose
of purchasing selected lands and in good faith
commenced farming for a living was a reasonable
period of time.
In view of the above, our answer to Question No. 9 is
that the United States has already accounted to the Sioux for
Article 8 obligations.
Question No. 10
With respect to Article X of this treaty, we demand an
accounting of the fulfillment by the United States of the
provisions of this treaty.
STATE FORD LIBRARK
- 19 -
Answer No. 1)
Article 10 of the 1868 Treaty provided:
And it is hereby expressly stipulated
that each Indian over the age of four years,
who shall have removed to and settled per-
manently upon said reservation and complied
with the stipulations of this treaty, shall
be entitled to receive from the United States,
for the period of four years after he shall
have settled upon said reservation, one pound
of meat and one pound of flour per day, provided
the Indians cannot furnish their own subsistence
at an earlier date. And it is further stipulated
that the United States will furnish and deliver
to each lodge of Indians or family of persons
legally incorporated with them, who shall remove
to the reservation herein described and commence
farming, one good American cow, and one good
well-broken pair of American oxen within sixty
days after such lodge or family shall have so
settled upon said reservation.
In the case of Sioux Tribe V. United States, 86 Ct. C1.
299 (1938), cert. den. 306 U.S. 642, the Sioux Tribe sued on
this provision of the treaty with the Court of Claims describing
their claims in these words (p. 306):
It is the position of the plaintiff that under
the stipulation of Art. 10 of the 1868 Treaty
with the Sioux Tribe of Indians the United States
was obligated to furnish one COW and a pair of
oxen to each and every family in the Sioux Tribe
which removed to the reservation at any time and
which, at any time, thereafter, commenced to
farm. On this basis it is contended that the
Government incurred an obligation under Art. 10
of the treaty of $210 a family, or $955,290.
After deducting the amount of $126,000 expended
by the Government for the purposes mentioned
under Art. 10, plaintiff seeks judgment for
$829,290.
BRARY
- 20 -
The Court then noted the United States' contentions
in this fashion (pp. 306-307)
Defendant contends that the primary purpose
of the Treaty of 1868, and particularly the
stipulation of Art. 10, with reference to
furnishing each family who commenced farming
with one COW and two oxen was an added induce-
ment to the tribe to abandon its nomadic life,
settle upon the reservation, and at least make
a start toward becoming self-sustaining; that
the offer was open for acceptance by such
families of the tribe as were already on the
reservation or those who removed thereto within
a reasonable time and who commenced to farm
within a reasonable time. It is further con-
tended that it was obviously not the intention
of the treaty makers that this offer under Art.
10 was to remain open for acceptance at the whim
of the Indians at any time in the future, but
only within a reasonable time after ratification
of the treaty; that the plain intention of the
treaty was that removal to the reservation and
commencement of farming should be practically
coincident; that the stipulation was so under-
stood and interpreted by the Government, and
that this interpretation is justified and
sustained when other provisions of the treaty
relating to the same subject matter are considered.
Finally it is contended by defendant that the
record fails to show that the amount of $126,000
appropriated in July 1870 and expended by the
Secretary of the Interior between that date and
1880 was not sufficient to supply such families
with the animals agreed to be furnished as had,
in good faith, accepted the offer contained in
Art. 10 and had commenced farming within the
meaning of the treaty.
The Court thereafter agreed with the contentions made by the
United States (pp. 307-311) and dismissed the petition (p. 311).
- 21 -
Here again, we believe it clear that the United States
has already accounted to the Sioux under Article 10 and that
no further accounting should be necessary.
Question No. 11
With respect to Article XI of this treaty, we declare
that we, the Lakota Nation, have fulfilled this provision.
Does the United States maintain that it has fulfilled the
provisions of this article of the treaty? If so, when? and
How?
Answer No. 11
Other than the road and construction provisions of the
sixth clause, the United States did not assume any obligations
in Article 11. The sixth clause reads as follows:
They [the Sioux] withdraw all pretence of
opposition to the construction of the railroad
now being built along the Platte river and
westward to the Pacific ocean, and they will
not in future object to the construction of
railroads, wagon-roads, mail-stations, or
other works of utility or necessity, which
may be ordered or permitted by the laws of
the United States. But should such roads
or other works be constructed on the lands
of their reservation, the Government will
pay the tribe whatever amount of damage may
be assessed by three disinterested commis-
sioners to be appointed by the President for
that purpose, one of said commissioners to
be a chief or headman of the tribe.
Insofar as we know, the substance of this provision
(i.e., to fairly pay for any reservation lands taken for
public purposes) has been obligatory on the United States,
either under the treaty or under the provisions of general
law, from 1868 to the present time, and no doubt many works
have been constructed on the Sioux reservations during this
- 22 -
period. We assume any lands taken in connection therewith
have been in accord with the legal and equitable requirements
obtaining. If Messrs. Foolscrow and King feel any such
takings are questionable, they should identify same and set
forth their reasons. A further answer could be made at that
time.
Question No. 12
With respect to Article XII of this treaty, we maintain
that the ratification by Congress of this treaty foreclosed
the use by the United States of America ANY OTHER POSSIBLE MEANS
of gaining additional land cessions from the Lakota Nation.
Does the United States feel that it has fulfilled the provisions
of this article of the treaty? If so, when? and How?
Answer No. 12
Article 12 of the 1868 Treaty provides:
No treaty for the cession of any portion
or part of the reservation herein described
which may be held in common shall be of any
validity or force as against the said Indians,
unless executed and signed by at least three-
fourths of all the adult male Indians, occupy-
ing or interested in the same; and no cession
by the tribe shall be understood or construed
in such manner as to deprive, without his
consent, any individual member of the tribe
of his rights to any tract of land selected
by him, as provided in article VI of this
treaty.
Insofar as we can presently ascertain, this provision has not
been repealed and accordingly is applicable to transfers made
of the Sioux reservation lands. However, the treaty provision
does not bar the United States from taking such lands without
consent, the same as it takes lands from non-Indian owners
without their consent, i.e., under its powers of eminent domain.
- 23 -
The treaty also does not bar Congress from taking Indian lands
under its plenary powers to manage Indian affairs. The opinion
in Sioux Tribe V. United States, 97 Ct. C1. 613 (1942), goes
to great length in explaining the distinction between these
two exceptions to consensual land transfers. Note particularly
these words from pages 668-669:
There was inherent in the treaty of 1868,
as one of the necessarily implied conditions
thereof, the undeniable right of Congress, if
it deemed the interests of the Indians as well
as those of the Government and the existing
circumstances dictated or required, to legis-
late under the act of 1871 in whatever way it
might choose with reference to the management
and control of the property and affairs of the
Indians, even though such action should be in
conflict with some treaty provision and against
the desire of the Indians.
The Court went on to show the réason for the rule as also its
limitations (pp. 669-689) and concluded that, under the facts
and laws pertaining thereto, the Sioux were not entitled to
further recovery for the 1877 transfers of the Black Hills
and the Sioux hunting rights. See also the cases cited in
Answer No. 1(c), above.
This claim, of course, is one of those which the Sioux
have brought to the Indian Claims Commission, and is one of
the pending dockets before that Commission.
We conclude that the provisions of Article 12 of the 1868
Treaty are still applicable and that except for eminent domain
takings or transfers made under the plenary powers of Congress,
Sioux reservation lands cannot be transferred without the
consent of three-fourths of the adult male Indians.
Question No. 13
With respect to Article XV of this treaty, we maintain
that when the Lakota people accepted the reservation outlined
in this treaty as a permanent home such acceptance thereby
foreclosed any cession of jurisdiction by the United States
over the Lakota Nation. How does the United States interpret
the phraseology "permanent home"?
- 24 -
Answer No. 10
Article 15 of the 1868 Treaty provides as follows:
The Indians herein named agree that when
the agency-house or other buildings shall
be constructed on the reservation named,
they will regard said reservation their
permanent home, and they will make no per-
manent settlement elsewhere; but they shall
have the right, subject to the conditions
and modifications of this treaty, to hunt,
as stipulated in Article 11 hereof.
With respect to the "permanent home" concept, Article 2
should also be considered:
The United States agrees that the follow-
ing
district
*
*
*
shall be, and the same
is, set apart for the absolute and undisturbed
use of the Indians herein named * * * and the
United States now solemnly agrees that no
persons except those herein designated and
authorized so to do * shall ever be
permitted to pass over, settle upon, or
reside in the territory described *
*
*.
Conveyances of land in the United States may be made for a
period of time or may be permanent transfers of the land.
Parties to a permanent transfer may select such words as they
choose to show the permanency. Other choices, besides those
used in Article 2 and 15 above, would include the term "fee
simple, If "heirs and assignees forever," etc. Regardless,
however, of the words used to designate the permanency of the
transfer, one should keep in mind that the permanency as there-
in stated is always subject to the United States' right to
take such lands under its power of eminent domain or under the
plenary powers of Congress (see Answer No. 12, above), as well
as subject to subsequent voluntary transfers made by the owners
thereof.
- 25 -
Question No. 14
With respect to Article XVI, how does the United States
interpret the phrase "unceded Indian territory"?
Answer No. 14
The meaning of this phrase and the rights of the tribe
under it are in litigation in Docket No. 74-B before the Indian
Claims Commission. The matter is complicated and we do not
feel that it would be proper for us to express an opinion on
the meaning of this provision at this time. The tribe is
represented by competent attorneys, and we feel that under the
circumstances we should await the decision of the Commission
before expressing any opinion.
Question No. 15
With respect to Article XVII of this treaty, how does the
United States interpret this article insofar as it only abro-
gates those portions of previous treaties and agreements that
obligate the United States to provide money, clothing, or other
articles of property?
Answer No. 15
Article XVII reads as follows:
It is hereby expressly understood and
agreed by and between the respective parties
to this treaty that the execution of this
treaty and its ratification by the United
States Senate shall have the effect, and
shall be construed as abrogating and annul-
ling all treaties and agreements heretofore
entered into between the respective parties
hereto, so far as such treaties and agree-
ments obligate the United States to furnish
and provide money, clothing, or other articles
FORD UBRARA
of property to such Indians and bands of
Indians as become parties to this treaty,
but no further.
- 26 -
As we read the provision it abrogates United States' obliga-
tions of prior treaties and agreements only insofar as
obligations of money, clothing, and other property are
concerned. Other provisions, to the extent they were not
otherwise changed or satisfied, would continue past the
1868 Treaty.
2
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE FILE
FROM:
SKIP WILLIAMS
500
SUBJECT:
Mr. Rich La Course -- American
Indian Press
I spoke briefly this afternoon with Mr. Rich La Course from the
American Indian Press. He had several questions in connection
with the subpoena received by the White House which was issued
by Judge Nichol.
I told him that I could only answer questions that were a matter of
public record. He asked about the return date of the subpoena and
whether documents were requested in addition to tapes. I told
him that return date of the subpoena had been adjourned from
May 28 because the defense attorneys had indicated that they wished
to file an affidavit executed by John Dean. The judge gave us ten
days to respond after the filing of the Dean affidavit. I also told
him that I knew about no request for documents in addition to tapes
and that the subpoena itself only referred to tapes.
He inquired about the question of executive privilege in connection
with the tapes and I told him that I could not comment on that at this
time and that our official position would be set forth in the court.
He asked if he should communicate any further inquiries he had
on this matter directly to me. I told him that he should deal through
the press office and if they were unable to supply him with the
information he needed that they would contact me for that information.
cc: John Carlson
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
APRIL 13, 1974
Office of the White House Press Secretary
(Key Biscayne, Florida)
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE ESIDENT
I take special pleasure today in signing into law S. 1341, the Indian
Financing Act.
This bill is the second to be enacted of seven measures which I proposed
four years ago when I pledged to follow a new philosophy of self-determination
for Indians. The first, enacted in 1970, returned the Blue Lake lands to the
Taos Pueblo Indians. It continues to be my hope that with the support and
encouragement of the Federal Government, we can create a new era in
which the future of Indian people is determined primarily by Indian acts
and Indian decisions.
The Indian Financing Act contains three mechanisms to foster economic
development for the betterment of the Indian people. One is the consolidation
of three existing revolving loan funds now administered by the Secretary of
the Interior, and the authorization of an additional appropriation of $50
million for the fund. The second establishes a program whereby the
Interior Secretary can guarantee private loans made to Indian organizations
and individuals or, in the alternative, insure such loans in the aggregate.
The third establishes an Indian Business Development Program in the
Department of the Interior which would aid small Indian businesses through
grants of up to $50,000 per business. Further, this bill would authorize
the Secretary of the Interior to cooperate with the Small Business
Administration, ACTION and other Federal agencies and private organizations
in providing management and technical assistance to an Indian enterprise
which qualifies for loan or grant assistance.
The loan guarantee provisions of this bill are especially significant. The
Bureau of Indian Affairs, which has been in the business of making loans to
Indians for decades, can cite solid evidence showing that Indians are
good loan risks. Unfortunately, the business community has not been
fully aware of this fact. The loan guarantee program is the Administration's
way of backing up our conviction with Federal money. I hope that enactment
of this bill will greatly enhance the financial attractiveness of Indian
borrowers in the private sector.
It is also my hope that the enactment of this bill will mark the beginning of a
period in which the Congress will promptly send to my desk the remaining
proposals I made in 1970 to enable American Indians to become more
prosperous and more independent.
I commend the bipartisan work which has made this bill possible and want
to see that effort continue for the rest of our Indian legislative program.
#
#
#
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MAY 3, 1974
Office of the White House Press Secretary
Phoenix, Arizona)
THE WHITE HOUSE
STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT
I am pleased to announce my support of a major enlargement of the
Havasupai Indian Reservation in the Grand Canyon. Ousted from lands
on the canyon rim almost a century ago, the Havasupai Tribe lives isolated
on two small tracts at the bottom of the canyon. The tribe has patiently
appealed for the restoration of a land base on the rim. This addition would
return historic and religious sites, ancient burial grounds, and life-sustaining
springs to the Havasupai. In addition to its historic and religious claims,
the tribe needs this land to relieve overcrowding on the reservation and to
provide a better economic base.
The land which the tribe seeks lies within the national park and forest
systems. When Senators Goldwater and Fannin introduced a bill to enlarge
the reservation early in this Congress, the Departments of Interior and
Agriculture took the position that a year should be devoted to studying the
question. However, after consultation with Secretary Morton, Secretary
Butz, Commissioner Thompson, the Arizona delegation, and receiving
representations of the tribe, I have concluded that the Havasupais have waited
long enough. The House Interior Committee will take up the bill early next
week and Congressman Steiger will offer this plan as an amendment to the
bill at that time.
Therefore, I am recommending first that sufficient acreage to meet the
tribe's economic and cultural needs, up to 251, 000 acres of national park
and forest lands, be held in trust for the Havasupai Tribe; second, that the
tribe and the National Park Service conduct a joint study of the area held
in trust and develop a Master Plan for its management, and, third, that the
Secretary of the Interior be given a right of access over the lands deleted
from the Grand Canyon National Park and held in trust for the Havasupai, in
order that he may continue to administer the matchless resources of that
park. This plan, which would be due a year after enactment of the legislation,
would preserve the area's scenic and environmental values, with special
provisions for environmentally sensitive uses. During the interim, the
National Park and Forest Services would administer the area so as to
protect the status quo: that is, no development would be permitted, and us e
could not exceed present levels. What I am proposing, in short, is instant
trust status for the land which the Havasupais have claimed and one year
later a determination by both the tribe and the Secretary of the Interior as
to how the values which originally led to the inclusion of the area in national
parks and forests can be maintained under Indian ownership.
I note that the acreage to be placed in trust for the tribe does not include a
corridor along the Colorado River. This corridor is under scrutiny by the
Department of the Interior for possible wilderness designation, and today's
recommendation would not affect the outcome of that decision-making process.
With the environmental protections built into the recommendation I am making
today, I believe that transfer of park and forest lands into trust for the
Havasupais would protect the integrity of the area. We must remember that the
conservation record of the American Indian, stretching over the thousands of year:
he has inhabited this continent, is virtually unblemished.
#
#
#
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 19, 1974
MEMORANDUM TO:
LEONARD GARMENT
FROM:
BRADLEY H. PATTERSON
Brok
Jr
SUBJECT:
AIM Coming to Washington
As you know, the 7-day-long convention of the American Indian
Movement in South Dakota from the 9th to 16th went off without
incident, in part due to some careful planning by local and
national BLA, HEW and Justice officials.
Then a caravan went to Aberdeen, Regional Headquarters of BLA.
They are meeting there now with local HEW (Indian Health) and
BIA officers but, using some threats of violence there, have
absolutely insisted that Commissioner Thompson meet with them.
Thompson has agreed to do so; to meet with a group of ten here
in Washington next Monday or Tuesday, under a policy he has
of meeting with Indian leadership for peaceful discussions.
Washington, unlike Mobridge, South Dakota, will give AIM a national
if not a world PR stage and although their spirit of confrontation is
reportedly lower now, it would be lacking in perspicacity if we
did not anticipate such possibilities as:
a) Many more than ten showing up;
b) Demands to meet with White House, State, UN and Senate
Foreign Relations officials on what they term "international" treaty
issues;
c) Refusal of the 150 adherents in Aberdeen to leave there
peacefully until they see "the results of" the Washington talks, not
just the fact of the meeting itself (a technique used on us a year ago).
Meetings are planned to discuss tactics; will keep you informed; this
is simply an alert for what will hopefully be not much more than a
minor headache.
CC:
General Haig
Deputy Attorney General Silberman
General Scowcroft
Ken Cole
Frank Zarb
Gerald Warren
John Carlson
Norman Ross
INT,
OF THE
United States Department of the Interior
INDIANS
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Memorandum for the President
From:
Kent Frizzell, Acting Secretary
Subject:
Major Indian Accomplishments in the Last Year
1. Washington fishing rights case. In June, the Ninth
Circuit Court of Appeals decided the major fishing rights lit-
igation in Washington State in favor of the United States and
approximately two dozen Indian tribes. The case was commenced
by the United States in 1970 to protect off-reservation treaty
fishing rights of the tribes in Western Washington. The court
held that past state regulation of Indian treaty fishing was an
infringement of treaty rights. Similar cases have been won or
are pending in Oregon, Minnesota and Michigan.
2. Reservation Boundary Disputes. In the past fourteen
months, the Interior Department has determined that the Chemehuevi
and Fort Mohave Tribes hold title to 6,000 acres of valuable riparian
land along the Colorado River in California. In May of this year,
the United States filed suit to quiet title of the Omaha Tribe to
several thousand acres of farm land along the Missouri River in Iowa,
and has secured tribal possession of this land pending final outcome
of the case.
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WEENTENNAY
1776-1976
2.
3. Adjudication of Indian Water Rights. Usually Indian
reserved water rights under the "Winters" Doctrine are prior in
time to almost all non-Indian uses of water in the western states.
But enforcement of these rights in the past has generally been lax.
The United States has expedited the filing of cases to confirm
Indian reserved water rights - in the last year, new cases have
been brought which the United States is asserting or defending on
behalf of the Papago Tribe in Arizona, the Pyramid Lake Tribe in
Nevada, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe in New Mexico, the Southern Ute
and Ute Mountain Tribes in Colorado and the Crow and Northern Cheyenne
Tribes in Montana. These cases frequently involve thousands of
parties on important streams in the western United States.
4. The Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance
Act. In a 1970 Message to Congress, President Nixon announced his
historic policy of "self-determination" for Indian tribes, and proposed
legislation to remove "the suffocating pattern of paternalism" by
which federal agencies administer virtually all services on reservations.
On January 4, 1975, the President signed into law this proposed legis-
lation as modified and enacted by Congress. The Act is clearly one
of the most significant pieces of Indian legislation over the last
40 years. It will allow tribes to contract directly with the Bureau
of Indian Affairs and Indian Health Service for tribal administration
of most federal programs serving the tribes. The successful implementation
3.
of this legislation will make a historic breakthrough in the
relationship between the Federal Government and Indian people.
The Interior Department is developing a thorough set of regulations
designed to be fully responsive to the needs of the Indian com-
munity to become effective on January 4 in accordance with the
statutory requirements of this act.
5. Indian Financing Act. In 1974 Congress passed another
of President Nixon's 1970 proposals - The Indian Financing Act.
The law authorizes, over a three-year period, $60 million for
grants, $50 million for direct loans, and another $60 million for
the subsidization and guarantee of loans to the Indian community.
It is anticipated that the authority will provide at least $200
million in economic stimulation over the next few years throughout
the Indian community. The Interior Department has developed reg-
ulations and is now implementing this historic economic development
measure for Indians.
6. Restoration of Trust Responsibility to Menominee Tribe.
Another key aspect of President Nixon's 1970 Message was reversal
of the discredited termination policy, by which Congress in the
1950's withdrew federal services and trust status from many tribes.
In December, 1973, with administration support, Congress repealed
termination of the Menominee Tribe in Wisconsin. The Interior
Department has during the past year worked out a plan to resassume
trust ownership of tribal lands and assets and provide full federal
services to the tribe and its members.
4.
7. Education. During the past year, the Interior Department
has adopted new regulations under the Johnson-O'Malley Act of 1934
which:
a. greatly strengthen the role of Indian parents
in controlling how federal funds will be used
in public school districts with Indian children;
and
b. restrict the use of such federal funds to Indian
pupils and programs directly benefiting Indian
students rather than providing for all basic
educational expenses of the public schools.
Kent Kent Frizzell
UPI125
Indians
CINDIAN COMMISSION)
WASHINGTON (UPI) -- THE HOUSE TODAY APPROVED BY VOICE VOTE AND
SENT TO THE SENATE A MEASURE TO AUTHORIZE $1.4 MILLION TO CONTINUE
THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION TO JULY 1, 1975.
THE HOUSE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, WHICH DRAFTED THE MEASURE, NOTED
THAT THE COMMISSION, BY CONGRESSIONAL MANDATE, WILL EXPIRE IN 1977
BUT CONTINUED FUNDING, ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, IS NEEDED UNTIL THAT TIME.
THE COMMISSION HANDLES INDIAN TRIBAL CLAIMS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENT, BASED ON WHAT THE COMMITTEE CALLED "LEGAL CLAIMS AND
GENALD FORD LIBRAHA
MORAL CLAIMS BASED ON UNCONSCIONABLE DEALINGS."
THE PANEL NOTED THAT SINCE ITS INCEPTION IN 1946 THE COMMISSION
HAS DISPOSED OF 413 CLAIMS, 235 OF WHICH RESULTED IN AWARDS TOTALING
$486.5 MILLION. THE COMMISSION STILL HAS 198 CLAIMS PENDING AND AFTER
ITS EXPIRATION SUCH CLAIMS WOULD BE TRANSFERRED TO THE U.S. COURT OF
CLAIMS.
UPI 06-17 04:40 PED
September 18, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
COMMISSIONER MORRIS THOMPSON
SUBJECT:
Response To Kootenai Nation Letter
Of September 11, 1974
Confirming our conversation of last night, you will be in touch
with Mr. Briscoe and prepare and sign a response to the
Kootenai Nation letter (the original incoming, which I received
only yesterday, is attached). It will be a response which recites
the positive things which are happening (e.g. g. re S. 634, the
Church land exchange, etc.) which deals with as many of their
questions as is possible, and which designates an appropriate
BIA official as a contact point for the Kootenais to talk with.
It will also be in telegraphic form to reach Bonner's Ferry
before Friday night.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
CCI Frank Zarb
John Carlson
Dennis Ickes
GETAL FORD LIBRARY
September 19, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JACK HUSHEN
FROM:
JOHN G. CARLSON
SUBJECT:
KOOTENAI INDIANS TO DECLARE WAR ON U.S.
The Kootenai Indians of Idaho have sent a letter to the President
listing several problems and concerns, and stating that if, after
five days, (midnight Thursday) no positive action is initiated
on behalf of the Kootenai Indians by the government of the United
States, they will deem it necessary and proper to initiate action
in the form of a declaration of war on the United States of
America.
Has the White House received the letter from the Kootenai Indians,
and what is the President's response?
GUIDANCE: We did receive the letter from the Kootenai Indians
on Tuesday afternoon, and the letter was forwarded
to Morris Thompson, the Commissioner of Indians Affairs
at the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of Interior.
He is to respond on behalf of the President.
Why was the letter referred to Interior for response, and not
handled directly here at the White House?
GUIDANCE: Mr. Thompson is an expert on Indian Affairs and
since the Kootenai Indians are a Federally recognized
tribe, they come within the BIA's jurisdiction.
It's my understanding that tonight at midnight is the deadline
for response. Will you meet that deadline?
GUIDANCE: I understand that the deadline has been extended
until Friday midnight. (Deadline extended because
we did not receive the letter until Tuesday.)
Will you provide us with copies of Mr. Thompson's reply?
GUIDANCE: We will try and get copies of his reply for you,
if you like.
Kootenai
September 24, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MORRIS THOMPSON
STAN POTTINGER
JOHN CARLSON
SUBJECT:
Telegram from
Dennis Banks
Even though some of the statements here are
easily rebutted and though the press will probably
be given this telegram, I do not plan to have a
response prepared unless I hear a contrary
recommendation from one of you.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
FORD a GERALD LIBRARY
diff Thite House
1
Flleshington
2
3
4
WHA023(1412) (2-023249E263) PD 09/20/74 1412
1974 SEP 20 PM 2 22
5
ICS IPMBNGZ CSP
6
7
6122227711 TDBN ST PAUL MN 220 09-20 0212P EDT
8
PMS PRESIDENT GERALD FORD
10
1974 SEP 23 Pil 4 25
MAIL ROOM
WHITE HOUSE
9
WHITE HOUSE DC
11
WE DENOUNCE YOUR PARDON OF RICHARD NIXON. IT SERVES ONLY TO
12
13
SUPPORT OUR CONTENTION THAT THERE IS A DOUBLE STANDARD OF JUSTICE
14
IN THIS COUNTRY. WHILE PARDONING CRIMINALS LIKE RICHARD NIXON,
15
16
YOU ARE LEAVING A LIFE LONG SENTENCE OF TERMINATION HANGING
17 OVER THE LIVES OF INDIAN PEOPLE.
18
19 WE WILL NOT STAND BY WHILE THE REAL VICTIMS OF THIS GOVERNMENT
20 SIT IN JAIL; YET THOSE WHO HAVE PERPETRATED THE MOST SERIOUS
21
22 CRIMES AGAINST THIS COUNTRY ARE PARDONED. IF YOUR CONCERN IS
23. FOR THE (GREATEST GOOD OF ALL THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES),
24
25
WHERE IS YOUR COMPASSION FOR THE PAIN INFLICTED ON INDIAN PEOPLE?
26
THE INDIAN MURDERS IN FARMINGTON, NEW MEXICO, GO UNNOTICED BY
6
7
YOUR GOVERNMENT WHICH PROFESSES TO SEEK JUSTICE. WE EXPECT JUSTICE
8
FOR THE INDIANS IN FARMINGTON.
9
10
WE DEMAND THE RELEASE OF SARAH BAD HEART BULL, WHO WAS ARRESTED
11
FOR PROTESTING THE RELEASE OF HER SONS MURDERER. WE INSIST ON
12
13
THE RELEASE OF THE CUSTER DEFENDANTS WHO HAVE BEEN DENIED BAIL
14
PENDING APPEAL WHILE THE WATERGATE CRIMINALS ARE RELEASED ON
15
16
THEIR OWN RECOGNIZANCE.
17
WE DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL MISCONDUCT IN
18
19
THE WOUNDED KNEE TRIALS.
20
WE SUPPORT THE KOOTENAI IN THEIR STRUGGLE AGAINST THE UNITED
21
22
STATES AND THEIR DETERMINATION TO GAIN A JUST SETTLEMENT FROM
23
YOUR GOVERNMENT.
24
25
WHERE IS YOUR JUSTICE AND MERCY FOR INDIAN PEOPLE?
26
AMERICAN INDIAN MOVEMENT CENTRAL COMMITTEE DENNIS J BANKS
4
5
6
7
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
FORD i LIBRARY GERALD
8 NNNN
9
10
n
12
13
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
1951 CONSTITUTION AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20245
K00-00/5/3500/01/7161/23N
9/19/74
X
Ron Esquerra
343-5116
AMELIA CUTSACK TRICE
CHAIRWOMAN
KOOTENAI TRIBE OF IDAHO
P.O. BOX 1002
BONNERS FERRY, IDAHO 83805
THIS IS IN FURTHER RESPONSE TO YOUR LETTER OF SEPTEMBER 11, 1974,
FORWARDING RESOLUTION NO. 74.
S. 634 TRANSFERRING TWO TRACTS OF LAND TOTALING 12.5 ACRES IN TRUST
FOR THE KOOTENAI TRIBE HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE SENATE ON MAY 13,
1974. THE BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS TESTIFIED IN SUPPORT OF THE BILL
ON JANUARY 25, 1974, IN THE SENATE AND ON APRIL 8, 1974, IN THE
HOUSE. THE BILL WAS FAVORABLY REPORTED BY THE HOUSE INTERIOR
COMMITTEE ON SEPTEMBER 17, 1974, AND IS EXPECTED TO PASS THE HOUSE
BY UNANIMOUS CONSENT BY OCTOBER 1, 1974. APPROVAL BY THE PRESIDENT
SHOULD FOLLOW APPROXIMATELY ONE WEEK LATER. I WOULD URGE THAT
NOTHING BE DONE TO JEOPARDIZE PASSAGE OF THIS BILL. IN ADDITION ON
SEPTEMBER 19, 1974, THE PORTLAND AREA OFFICE HAS ACCEPTED TITLE FOR
THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT AND PLACED IN TRUST ON BEHALF OF THE
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
1
3
KOOTENAI TRIBE THE TRANSFER OF 5.67 ACRES OF LAND FROM THE CATHOLIC
CHURCH.
UPON REVIEW OF OTHER ISSUES CITED IN YOUR RESOLUTION, AND DOCUMENTS
DELIVERED TO REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PORTLAND AREA OFFICE, IT IS READILY
EVIDENT THAT THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE ISSUES RAISED REQUIRE IN-DEPTH
ANALYSIS AND COORDINATIVE INVOLVEMENT AMONGST CONGRESS, OTHER FEDERAL
AGENCIES, AND STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT BODIES. ACCORDINGLY I HAVE
INSTRUCTED THE PORTLAND AREA DIRECTOR, FRANCIS BRISCOS TO MEET WITH
YOU IN BONNERS FERRY ON WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 1974, FOR PURPOSES
OF WORKING WITH YOUR TRIBAL COUNCIL AND ITS REPRESENTATIVES IN
DEVELOPING A CONSTRUCTIVE PLAN FOR EFFECTIVE PRESENTATION AND
RESOLVEMENT OF YOUR ISSUES BEFORE THE VARIOUS APPROPRIATE OFFICIALS
POSSESSING DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITIES. THE AREA DIRECTOR REPRESENTS
ME PERSONALLY AND WILL BE IN A POSITION TO COORDINATE AND WORK WITH
THE REQUIRED VARIOUS LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT.
IT IS OUR POSITION THAT THE PRECEDING REPRESENTS THE INITIATION OF
POSITIVE ACTION ON BEHALF OF THE KOOTENAI NATION BY THE FEDERAL
GEFALD FORD CIBRARY
2
3
GOVERNMENT WITH INTENT TOWARD WORKING WITH THE TRIBE FOR CONSTRUCTIVE
RESOLVEMENT OF THE ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RAISED IN YOUR SEPTEMBER 11,
1974, LETTER.
(Sgd) Morris Thompson
3
3
5:30
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 17
John -
I am up to snuff on the details
here, which I can give you as needed.
I am recommending that Morrie
Thompson respond on behalf of the
Exec. Branch with a telegram f llowed by
a letter. We can say that the bill they
are interested in is passed the Senate and
on the House consent calendar; that the
other, smaller, land-transfer they are
intere ted in is being worked out, etc.
Thompson may want to send someone
from his DC staff out there, or invite
some of that group of 5 to come here; I'l'
let him call this shotl
The danger would be if the AIM
people move in on this "opportunity".
The 5-day deadlinehas been extended
until midnight Friday.
It seems to me we ought to be able
to put together a "positive response"
enough to keep the situation cool, but
can't avoid saying that there is always
the possibility of hotheads on both
sides, and everyone up in that part of
the world carries arms in his auto
INHINI aU VALIET
from
THE KOOTENAI NATION OF INDIANS OF IDAHO
TO
THE CONGRESS AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE
vid BP 3:20 pm
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
4/17/74
SIRS:
AS PASSED IN THE ENCLOSED RESOLUTION, THE KOOTENAI NATION
BRINGS TO YOUR ATTENTION, THE INEQUITIES SUFFERED TO THIS DAY
AND DEEMING IT NO LONGER POSSIBLE TO SURVIVE UNDER THESE CON-
DITIONS, TO NO LONGER ALLOW THE DEMORALIZATION AND DECRADA-
TION OF OUR PEOPLE; WE THEREFORE IMPLORE YOU TO SEND YOUR
EMISARIES, TO SPEAK IN COUNCIL WITH OUR LEADERS, TO RESOLVE,
PEACEFULLY, OUR DIFFERANCES.
FOR THIS WE ARE ALLOTING A LAPSE OF TIME OF FIVE (5) DAYS.
AT THE END OF THAT TIME, IF, ON YOUR PART, A FAILURE OF COM-
PLIANCE IS EVIDENT. WF, AS IS OUR DETERMINED INTENT, SEE NO
ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DECLARE A CONDITION OR NAR AS EXISTING
BETWEEN THE KOOTENAI NATION AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
SIGNED: 11 September , 1974
Moses Joseph
Moses Joseph, Tribal Chief
Amelin Contrack
Amelia Cutsack Trice, Chairwoman
Mathins David
Mathias David, Vice-Chairman
Eileen Elsen Lowley, Samily
Secretary
Mary Mary David, Tribal Council David Member
GERALD LIBRARY ? FORD
Kootenai Resolution 74
RESOLUTION
THE KOOTENAI NATION OF INDIANS, KNOWN NOW AS THE KOOTENAI TRIBE OF IDAHO,
SITTING IN QUORUM AT BONNERS FERRY, IDAHO, ON SEPTEMBER 4, AT 7:00 D.M., 1974
DOES HEREBY PASS THIS RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, THE KOOTENAI NATION OF INDIANS HAVE RESIDED WITHIN THEIR ABORIGINAL
AREA SINCE TIME EMEMORIAL, AND:
WHEREAS, THESE ABORIGINAL LANDS, AS RECIGNIZED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DID ENCOMPASS AN AREA IN WHAT IS NOW EASTERN IDAHO,
WESTERN MONTANA, AND INTO CANADA, TO AN EQUIVALENT OF ONE MILLION, THREE
HUNDRED AND SIXTY EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY ACRES OF LAND, AND;
WHEREAS, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES DID ABSORB THESE LANDS AT A
MEETING HELD IN HELLGATE, MONTANA, INVOICE AS THE HELLGATE. TREATY, IN THE YEAR
OF OUR LORD, 1855, WITHOUT THE REPRESENTATION, CONSENT, OR KNOWLEDGE, OF THE
KOOTENAI NATION OF IDAHO, DUE TO THE FAILURE, BY THEN, GOVERNOR ISAAC STEVENS,
OF THE THEN TERRITORY OF WASHINGTON, WHETHER INTENTIONAL, OR NOT, AS HIS
DIRECTIVE BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN
AFFAIRS, WAS TO CONTACT ALL TRIBES AND BANDS LIVING IN THE AREA TO IBH AFFECTED
BY THIS TREATY, AND THIS TREATY DID NOT INCLUDE THE ABORIGINAL LANDS OF THE
IDAHO KOOTENAIS, AND;
WHEREAS, BETWEEN 1855, AND 1894, AND AS A RESULT OF THE HELLGATE TREATY, THE
KOOTENAI NATION WAS IN EFFECT WITHOUT ANY RICHTS, PRIVILEDGES, OR LAND TO
CALL THEIR OWN, ACCORDING TO THE HISTORY AND IN EFFECT BECAME NOTHING, AND:
WHEREAS, AS A RESULT OF THESE MISDEEDS BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES,
NO TREATY OR OTHER DOCUMENT WAS EVER ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE KOOTENAI NATION
AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AND:
WHEREAS, WITHOUT THE KNOWLEDGE AND CONSENT OF THE KOOTENAI NATION, THE GOVERN -
MENT OF THE UNITED STATES DID "ASSUME" TRUSTEESHIP OVER THIS NATION AND ITS
PEOPLE, AND;
FORD 977839 LIBRARY
-2-
THEREAS, THE KOOTENAI NATION, AS A RECOGNIZED SOVEREIGN NATION WITHIN A
MATTON, DOES OPERATE UNDER A CONSTITUTION AND BY-LAUS ADOPTED BY THE
KOOTENAI NATION AT BONNERS FERRY, IDAHO ON APRIL 10, 1947 AND APPROVED BY
ACTING COMMISSIONER or INDIAN AFFAIRS, WILLIAM ZINIERMAN IN CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS ON JUNE 16, 1947, AND;
IN THE YEAR 1894, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, AFTER A
THE LAPSE After 40 YEARS, SINCE THE ABSOPBTION OF THE KOOTENAI NATION'S
LANDS AND APPARENTLY REALIZING, IN A SMALL DEGREE, THE HUMILITY OF THESE
MISDEEDS AND COLONIALISM, DID, "OUT OF THE GOODNESS OF THEIR HEARTS" MAKE
INDIVIDUAL ALLOTMENTS, TO WHAT TAS LEFT 07 TE HOOTENAI NATIONS OWN LANDS
OF APPROXI (ATELY 30 ACRES PER FAMILY, WHICH, PER SAE, IS ONLY ONE HALF
OF AN ALLOTMENT UNDER THE HOMESTEAD ACT IN REGARD TO THE NON-INDIAN COM-
MUNITY, AND
WIRREAS, THESE ALLOTMENTS HAVE BECOME SO FRACTIONATED ON AN INTERNATIONAL
BASIS THAT IT HAS BECOME A REALTORS NIGHTUARE. TO WIT: EXAMPLES:
21150 / 262,440,000 1 / 1800 1 / 6300 30 / 648,000 3 / 3249 AND;
WHEREAS, THROUGH THE ENTHURING YEARS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
"TRUSTEESHIP", WAS LAX WHEREIN THE AMOUNT OF ALLOTTED LANDS HAS DEPLETED
FROM AN ORIGINAL &7,000 ACRES TO A PRESENT 1,400 ACRES. AND;
WHEREAS, IN THE YEAR 1927, SOME 4,000 ACRES OF THE INDIVIDUAL INDIAN ALLOT-
MENTS BORDERING THE KOOTENAI RIVER WERE SOLD, AGAINST THE WILL OF THE
KOOTENAI NATION WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT, BY SUPERINTENDENT 0F THE COEUR D'-
ALINE AGENCY, BYRON A SHARP AND THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT, MR. LIPPS
OR TIPPS, FOR PAYMENT IN DIKING THE RIVER BANKS TO FACILITATE THE AGRICULTURAL
DEVELOPMENT OF THE RICH BOTTOM LANDS IN NON-INDIAN OWNERSHIP, AND;
WHEREAS, THESE ALLOTMENTS WERE ULTIMATELY AND NATURALLY SOLD TO THE NON-INDIAN
COMMUNITY, AND;
WHEREAS, WITHOUT A TREATY, VALID BILL OF SALE, OR DOCUMENT OF TITLE TRANSFER
FROM THE KOOTENAI NATION TO THE government OF THE UNITEDD STATES, THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AND ITS CITIZENRY ARE, IN REALITY, AND HAVE
ALWAYS BEEN, TRESPASSERS ON THE LANDS OF THE KOOTENAI NATION WITHOUT JUST CAUSE,
PERMISSION, OR COMPENSATION THEREOF, AND:
GERALD FORD LIBRARK
-3-
WIEREAS, THROUGH THE INDIAN CLAIM COMMISSION, DOCKET NO. 152 OF 1962,
A SO CALLED SETTLEMENT AS MADE TO THE KOOTENAI NATION IN THE AMOUNT OF
THIRTY-SIX CENTS ($ .3) PER ACRE, AND
WHEREAS, THE KOOTENAI NATION FEELS THAT, IN LIEU OF THE MILLIONS OF
DOLLARS IN RESOURCES TAKEN FROM THE LAND, A SETTLEMENT, MORE EQUITABLE TO
THE REAL VALUE OF THE LAND SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE AT THAT TIME, AND
WHEREAS, THE KOOTENAI UATION FEELS THAT A TREATY AND A LAND BASE SHOULD
HAVE BEEN NEGOTIATED AND ESTABLISHED AT THAT TIME TO FORMALIZE RELINOUISH-
MENT OF THE ABSORBED LAND OF THE KOOTENAI NATION, AND:
WHEREAS, THE KOOTENAI IATION HAS NEVER FELINQUISHED THEIR HUNTING, FIGHING,
OR TRAPPING RIGHTS, EITHER BY EXPRESSED DESIRE, OR CONSENT, WRITTEN OR
VERBALLY, AND;
WHEREAS, THE AREA SOLICITOR'S OPINION, BEING NEGATIVE, IN REGARDS TO
THE KOOTENAI NATION'S FIGHT TO FISH, HUNT, AND TRAP ON THEIR ABORIGINAL
GROUNDS, DELETES THEIR LIFE STYLE AND AVAILABILITY OF NATURAL NATIVE
FOODS, AND;
WHEREAS, SOME OF OUR HOOTENAI INDIAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN ARRESTED, TRIED
AND CONVICTED IN THE LOCAL INFERIOR COURTS FOR EXERCISING THEIR ABORIGINAL
RIGHTS IN THIS REGARD, AND;
WHEREAS, THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES MAINTAINS THAT THE
KOOTENAI NATION HAS NO WATER RIGHTS, MINERAL RIGHTS, OR IN EFFECT, ENTIRELY
NO RIGHTS WHATSOEVER OTHER THAN THOSE IMPOSED UPON THEM BY THE GOVERNMENT,
AND;
WHEREAS, IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT A SIGNIFICANT REDUCTION OF REGENERATE
BIRTHS WERE RECORDED FOR A COMPLETE GENERATION, CONTRARY TO ALL THE LAWS
OF NATURE, AND ALL OTHER POPULATIONS WITHIN THE CIVILIZED WORLD, AND THAT
THROUGH GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF THE TRUSTEESHIP OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
NO INVESTIGATION HAS MADE AS TO THE REASONS WHY, AND;
WHEREAS, THROUGH GROSS NEGLICENCE OF THE TRUSTEESHIP RESPONSIBILITY BY
THE GOVERNMENT OF TRE-UNITED STATES TOWARD THE KOOTENAI NATION, OUR PEOPLE
WERE FORCED INTO COALITION AND LEGAL OVERPOWERMENT BY THE STATE OF IDAHO,
AND;
GERALD
WHEREAS, THROUGH GROSS NEGLECT BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES, THE
PREVIOUS SUPERINTENDENT HAD VISITED OUR PEOPLE ONLY TVICE, DURING HIS
EIGHT YEAR TENURE OF OFFICE, FOR A TOTAL OF 30 NINUTES, AND:
WHEREAS, THROUGH GROSS NEGLECT BY THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TOWARD THE
KOOTENAI NATION, OUR PEOPLE HAVE NO BASE FOR SELF-SECURITY, NO HOPE, NO
CIVIC PRIDE, AND NO TOOLS OR RESOURCES TO IMPLEMENT THE IDEALS OF SELF-
DETERMINATION AS PRESCRIBED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES AS THE
ULTIMATE CURE OF THE ILLS OF THE INDIAN COMMUNITY, AND:
WHEREAS, IT BEING NOW CLEAR THROUGH THE EXPANSE OF THE PAST 120 YEARS,
VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE HAS COME TO LIGHT, WHERE ANYONE IN THE GOVERNMENT
CARED MUCH, FOR OR ABOUT OUR PEOPLE, OR WHERE THE ROLE OF THE TRUSTEESHIP
ASSUMED BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL TO THE
PEOPLE OF THE KOOTENAI NATION TO ANY DEGREE OF SUCCESS, BUT ONLY PROMOTED
DEGRADATION, AND.
WHEREAS, SINGLE DOMINANCE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES. WITHOUT
THEIR CONSENT THROUGH ANY FORM OF DOCUMENTS WHATSOEVER ENTERED INTO
WITH THE UNITED STATES, HAVE BEEN ASSESSED TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION, AND
WHEREAS, ABLE YOUNG MEN OF THE KOOTENAI NATION DID, AND HAVE ANSWERED
THE CALL OF WAR ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES, WHICH WAS WHOLLY TAKEN
FOR GRANTED, AND DID CAUSE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF SUFFERING OUR PEOPLE
OF THE KOOENAI NATION, AND
WHEREAS, THROUGH PERMITTED ENCROACHMENT BY WHITE PEOPLE, FROM THE WHITE
COMMUNITY AREAS, PESIDING WITHIN OUR TRIBAL LANDS, SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS
OF OUR TRADITIONAL AND RELIGIOUSLY REGARDED GROUNDS, SUCH AS BURIAL AND
WHERE CEREMONIAL RITES ARE PERFORMED, WERE UPROOTED, DESECRATED AND
DESTROYED, AND:
WHEREAS, SINCE 1776, THE NON-INDIAN COMMUNITY HAS ENJOYED THE CONSTITUTIONAL
RIGHTS OF LIFE, LEBERTY AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS, AND THAT THEY HAD
PRIOR KNOWLEDGE, AND FULL UNDERSTANDINGS OF FACTS, THAT THE KOOTENAI
NATION DID ENJOY SIMILARILY ESTABLISHED RICHTS SINCE TIME IMMEMORIAL,
THROUGHOUT INNUMERABLE GENERATIONS, UNTIL THE TIME OF OVERPOWERING
DOMINATION BY WHITE SOCIETY IN GENERAL, IT IS CLEAR NOW, THAT OUR PEOPLE
SINCE 1855, HAVE SUFFERED CONTINUOUSLY THROUGHOUT TO THIS DATE AND TIME
THESE ABOVE AFOREMENTIONED RIGHTS, WHICH ARE SO CONSIDERED IMPORTANT AND
INALIENABLE BY ALL RACIAL COMMUNITIES THROUGHOUT THESE UNITED STATES, UNDER
THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES.
FORD d LIBRARY SERATE
-5-
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, THAT KOOTENAI NATION, IN FIRM
REALIZATION AND BECAUSE OF ITS UNIQUE PAST HISTORY, EMPHASIZED IN
THIS RESOLUTION, THE MANY INEQUITIES SUFFERED, THE USURPTION OF
THE POWERS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AS THE
CONQUERING NATION. THE LACK OF RECOGNITION OF THE KOOTENAI NATIONS
RIGHTS AS A SOVEREIGN NATION WITHIN A NATION, THE EXTREME LAXITY
ON THE PART OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA IN TAKING NOTICE OF, OR
DISOLVING THE 120 YEAR PLIGHT OF OUR PEOPLE, THE PATIENCE, TRUST,
AND PEACE, SHOWN BY THE KOOTENAI NATION, TO THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
UNITED STATES AND ITS PEOPLE FOR THE PAST 200 YEARS. THE DISTINCT
AND PROFOUND LACK OF INTEREST AND TRUSTEESHIP SHOWN BY THE GOVERN-
MENT OF THE UNITED STATES, TOWARD THE KOOTENAI NATION, BEFORE, NOW,
AND FOREVER RESIDING WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA FOR THE PAST CENTURIES, DOES HEREBY, BY THIS RESOLUTION,
AUTHORIZE ITS DULY ELECTED CHEIF, CHAIRMAN, AND TRIBAL COUNCIL, TO
ACT IN-THE BEHALF OF AND IN THE INTEREST OF THE KOOTENAI-NATION, BY
POSTING, TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, A LETTER
OF INTENT, THAT IN THE EVENT, THAT NEGOTIATIONS FOR RESTORATION OF
A PORTION OF THE KOOTENAI NATION'S ABORIGINAL LANDS ARE NOT RETURNED
TO THEM, AND THAT RESTITUTION FOR THE DEPLETION OF ITS NATURAL RE-
SOURCES AND OTHER HIGH CRIMES, TAKEN FROM AND COMMITTED ON, THESE
LANDS, IS NOT EQUITABLE IN A NEGOTIATED RESOLVEMENT BETWEEN THE
KOOTENAI NATION AND THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OR HIS LEGAL EMMISARIES, WITHIN FIVE ((5) DAYS OF THE POSTED TIME,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, THE DULY ELECTED TRIBAL COUNCIL OF THE
KOOTENAI NATION, IF, AFTER THE ALLOTED FIVE (5) DAYS AND NO POSITIVE
ACTION IS INITIATED IN BEHALF OF THE KOOTENAI NATION BY THE GOVERN-
MENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, WILL DEEM IT NECESSARY AND PROPER
TO INITIATE ACTION, AS IT WILL BE THE ASSUPTION OF THE KOOTENAI
NATION THAT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA THEN RELINOU TSHES "ITS POWER OF
DOMAIN OVER THESE LANDS, IN THE FORM OF A DECLARATION OF WAR, WHICH
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
6-
WILL THEN EXIST BETWEEN THE KOOTENAI NATION OF INDIANS, AND THE UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA AND ITS POSSESSIONS.
AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT, AT THE COMMENCEMENT OF HOSTILITIES
AS A SOVEREIGN NATION, THE KOOTENAI TRIBE WILL THEREBY ASSERT THEIR
COMPLETE SOVERNEINTY 3Y; TO WIT:
LEVY TAXES.
REGULATE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE.
PRINT MONIES.
FORM A MILITIA FOR PROTECTION OF ITS
PEOPLE AND THE ENFORCEMENT OF ITS LAWS.
DISSOLVE NON-INDIAN PEOPRIETORSHIP OF
LANDS/PROPERTY.
AND RESUME COMPLETE AUTHORITY OVER THE
ENTISE SCOPE OF THEIR ABORIGINAL HOLDINGS.
SIGNED: 11 September
1974
Moses Joseph
Moses Joseph, Tribal Chief
amilia Tin
Amelia Trice, Chairwoman
Mathias David
Mathias David, Vice-chairman
Eileen Clean Lowley, Smlay Secretary
Mary
Mary Dav Council David member
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
25 70w
INDIANS
Ch. 2A
Ch. 3
AGREEI
§ 70w. Repealed. May 24, 1949, c. 139, § 142, 62 Stat. 109
Historical Note
Indian claims accruing before
Organization and incorporati
Section, Act Aug. 13, 1946, e. 959, I 24, covered by section 1505 of Title 28, Ju-
title.
60 Stat. 1055, related to Indian claims ac- diciary and Judicial Procedure.
Suits pending in Court of Cls
cruing after Aug. 13, 1946, and is now
J
CHAPTER 3.-AGREEMENTS WITH INDIANS
Agreements, effect of statutes
Alaska Indians, status 9
Amendment or repeal of treaties
TREATIES
Constitutionality 1
Construction of treaties 4
Sec.
Depredation claims under treati
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indi
71. Future treaties with Indian tribes.
10
72. Abrogation of treaties.
Effect of statutes
Generally 11-14
Agreements 13
CONTRACTS WITH INDIANS
Existing treaties, effect on
Reservations 14
81. Contracts with Indian tribes or Indians.
Existing treatles, effect of stat
Judicial power as to treaties 1
81a. Counsel for prosecution of claims against the United States;
Law governing 2
cancellation; revival.
Power to make treaties with In
81b. Continuation of contracts with attorneys containing limitation
Presumptions 16
Repeal of treaties 5
of time where suits have been filed.
Reservations, effect of statutes
82. Payments under contracts; aiding in making prohibited con-
Status
Alaska Indians 9
tracts.
Eastern Band of Cherokee
82a. Contracts for payment of money permitted certain tribes; pay-
Title conveyed by treaties 8
ment for legal services.
Withdrawal of treaty benefits
83. Repealed.
84. Assignments of contracts restricted.
Library references
85. Contracts relating to tribal funds or property.
Indians -3.
86. Encumbrances lands allotted to applicants for enrollment in
C.J.S. Indians I 24 et seq.
Five Civilized Tribes; use of interest on tribal funds.
1. Constitutionality
87. Repealed.
Congress has authority to
87a. Purchases from Indians by employees.
dians by statute instead o
Leighton V. U. S., 1894, 29 (
88. False vouchers, accounts, or claims.
firmed 16 S.Ct. 495, 161 U.S.
703. See, also, U. S. V. I
1886, 6 S.Ct. 1109, 118 U.S.
228; Sunderland V. U. S., C
TREATIES
287 F. 468, affirmed 45 S.Ct
226, 69 L.Ed. 259; U. S.
D.C.N.Y.1915, 233 F. 685.
§ 71. Future treaties with Indian tribes
2. Law governing
No Indian nation or tribe within the territory of the United States
An Indian treaty may su
shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation, tribe,
act of Congress or be super:
sequent act thereof. U. S.
or power with whom the United States may contract by treaty; but
Y. Brooks, D.C.Ind.1940, 32 Fa
no obligation of any treaty lawfully made and ratified with any such
Indian nation or tribe prior to March 3, 1871, shall be hereby in-
3. Power to make treaties
validated or impaired. R.S. § 2079.
Until the enactment of th
power of the government to
with Indian tribes residing
Historical Note
has never been questioned.
ty-Three Gallons of Whis
Derivation Act Mar. 3, 1871, c. 120, 1 1, 16 Stat. 566.
1874, Fed.Cas.No.15,138, affl:
76
GERALD
Federally necog triba
amy Ince-small
-it has no tribal land
1
12 bacres parell subject
BIA land - purchased in 1918
India using land but can't give
it 2 Indrans - -takas leg
leg. passed S. - pending in H.
2
5½ ares awned by
Catholic church & Ahry
want 2 donate this
title ins co.
Want
3
Hausing Grant from HND.
but no land
4
Tribal Gn't Dqu
GERALD FORD
BFA said pop. too Grant small
5.
$50,000 in bank -
many have married Canadian
allotted land
6,
2300 acres among 51 people,
AIM people have
15 pg. resolution
tribal letter
tribe sentite P
abougmal
1.3m acres
nat'l forest land
soo sections of the
nall farest
(w)
blockade RT #95
E
MH
know
GERAL
BRARV
they want some land
sbie
me x ,bm
Sicel
5/ Indians
11 Sapl - passed real
dect was a
1871- - Cagrup enacted sent
a law Charlen 25 use 71
no more treaters w/
Indian tribes because
of this Get of Congress
- aguements have 2 be ratified
by Congress
area DIR. - BIA -Pa
Francis Briscor
503-234-3361
D people have visited there
7m a sal
D. mouths
SEALE R..FORD
social
Jin Delanity 509 MA-1/21 354
high will level U negatistar
when S reply
letter resolution
sent last Wed for
Benner's Fensy
BEFORD
small, Indian tribe
northern Idaho
Kootenai
65 members
Tribal Couniel vated
gov't begin treaty negatiations
a uservation
Thurs. Midnight deadline
declare was
BIA - Purtland /Wash
only Cmgres has
anthonity 2 nee, treaties
P.
Congress says Exace. Beanch
ditigate
Vhey want P. 2
Bannes' 7 mg
exclude
FORD GENATE BRARY
BIA sent d people out
kinus indin?
polating
ilibab 6mlt
AID
P
IBRARY
0
DECLARATION of WAR
KNOW YE ALL THAT ON THIS DAY, 20 Saptember
1974, AT 12:01 R.M., A STATE OF WAR NOV
EXISTS BETWEEN THE KOOTENAI NATION OF INDIANS AND
THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
BP
BY OUR COUNCIL'S HAND:
in are Joseph
MOSES JOSEPH, Tribal Chief
Omelin Lince
AMELIA TRICE, Tribal Chairwoman
mathias David
MATHIAS DAVID, Tribal Vice-Chairman
EILEEN Tobal Secretary
Eleen LOWLEY, Sowlep
Mary David
MARY DAVID, Tribal Council Member
AND ALL ENROLLED MEMBERS OF THE KOOTENAI NATION.
FORD LIBRARY
In dians
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 26, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MORRIS THOMPSON
STAN POTTINGER
JOHN CARLSON
KENT FRIZZELL
WALLACE JOHNSON
FRANK ZARB
BEN HOLMAN
SUBJECT:
Declaration of War from
the Kootenais
The attached communication was received in my office at 3:30 p.m.
today.
As some of you know, I had a long and, I would say, generally
friendly talk with Ms. Trice Monday or Tuesday night of this
week and tried very hard to persuade her to take up Commissioner
Thompson's offer of a breakfast meeting with her and her
colleagues in Spokane next Monday morning (he will be there
anyway for another meeting). She seemed quite reluctant - -
trying to get Morrie or me to come to Bonner's Ferry instead.
So far, that is where things stand. Morrie and I both continue
to be opposed to the idea of either his or my running out on the
scene of every such threatened or actual confrontation.
Bud Pattirso
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Indians
November 6, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR FRANK G. ZARB
Subject: Attorney General Saxbe's Meeting with
Wounded Knee Sympathizers
BACKGROUND
At 10:00 am today I received a call from Mr. Mark Lane,
lawyer for AIM leader Dennis Banks in the Wounded Knee
occupation trial. He related the following to me:
Attorney General Saxbe had agreed to meet with
"Jurors and Others,' (a group comprised of
Church leaders, AFL-CIO members, American Civil
Liberties Union representatives and University
Presidents, as well as 9 members of the
original Wounded Knee jury and 3 alternates)
on November 12, 1974 at 2:00 pm.
The purpose of the meeting was to request
that DOJ dismiss charges against approximately
100 reservation Indians who were allegedly
involved in the occupation. Since the case
was dismissed against Banks and Means, this
group feels that charges should be dropped
for the 100 Indians mentioned above.
A member of Saxbe's staff, Mr. Salisbury, notified
Mr. Lane that the scheduled meeting was canceled
earlier this week.
Attorney General Saxbe felt he could not meet
with the group until Justice made a determination
regarding DOJ's wish to appeal the dismissal
of the case.
Justice has til November 15, 1974 to file an
appeal on the case.
2
Mr. Lane asked Attorney General Saxbe to
reconsider since approximately 50 people
have arranged their schedules to visit
with him on November 12th.
Today Mr. Lane was told that Saxbe could not
meet with "Jurors and Others" until after
Justice has decided on the appeal.
Lane tried to reach Brad Patterson for assistance but
was told he was reassigned to Mrs. Ford's office. The
White House operator referred him to me. He is angry
at Saxbe's cancellation since plans were made to bring
in the sympathizers once the meeting was agreed to.
Lane requests either White House representation at
their meeting, or "high level" Justice representation.
He has made it clear he does not intend to cancel the
meeting and " if no one will meet with us, we will
meet on the steps of the Department of "Justice by
ourselves."
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
I contacted Doris Meissner of Silberman's staff. Her
information is as follows.
Lane sent a letter to Saxbe on October 8, 1974
requesting the meeting, but Justice did not
respond to the request and no meeting was
agreed to.
Salisbury compounded the problem by talking to
Lane and trying to get him to agree to meet
with Pottinger's staff. This effort confirmed,
in a round about way, that DOJ was willing to
meet with the £ oup.
Justice will n meet with "Jurors and Others"
because
- the group is not coming in as attorneys for
the remaining defendents,
-
any statement made by a Justice Department
official could be construed as evidence and
introduced in court, and
3
- Justice will file an appeal on November 15th
but does not want the information to be
released until then for timing purposes.
Doris assured me that someone will meet with the group
if they show up on the steps of the Department, but
they will not give Lane that information now. The
Solicitor General is willing to meet with lawyers
representing the remaining defendents in the case. All
inquiries regarding this issue should be referred to
Kevin Maroney, in the Criminal Division, (739-2333).
Silberman would like to discuss this matter with you
today and would like our support in not meeting with
the group, or setting up a meeting for them with
another official until after the 15th of November. Any
such meeting would be moot at that point.
Ann S. Ramsay
bcc:
Official File-MD/NRES
Len Garment
Don Crabill
John Hill
MD/NRES: ARamsay djh, x5626, 11/6/74
Indian
November 27, 1974
Dear Mr. Hall:
We are writing in reply to your letter of November 11 regarding the
situation at Moss Lake.
The relevant portion of Article VII of the Treaty with the Six Nations
entered into November 11, 1794 provides as follows:
ARTICLE VII.
Lest the firm peace and friendship now established
should be interrupted by the misconduct of individuals,
the United States and Six Nations agree, that for injuries
done by individuals on either side, no private revenge or
retaliation shall take place: but, instead thereof, complaint
shall be made by the party injured, to the other: By the
Six Nations or any of them, to the President of the United
States, or the Superintendent by him appointed: and by the
Superintendent, or other person appointed by the President,
to the principal chiefs of the Six Nations, or of the nation
to which the offender belongs: and such prudent measures
shall then be pursued as shall be necessary to preserve our
peace and friendship unbroken; until the legislature (or great
councilk of the United States shall make other equitable
provision for the purpose. (Empasis added.)
The Congress of the United States did, as provided by the treaty, make
other provisions in 1948 and 1950 for the resolution of disputes, and
the punishment of criminal acts by the enactment of two laws conferring
jurisdiction on the State of New York.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
-2-
The Act of July 2, 1948 (62 Stat. 1224), 25 U.S. C. Section 232,
granted to the State of New York criminal jurisdiction over offenses
committed by or aginst Indians on Indian reservations within the
State. The Act of September 13, 1950 (64 Stat. 845), 25 U.S. C.
Section 233, conferred civil jurisdiction on the Courts of the State
in civil actions and proceedings between Indians and between one or
more Indians and any other person or persons.
In view of the above, the provisions of the treaty having been superceded
by later Acts of Congress, the President is no longer authorised to
act. Any complaints or alleged acts of wrongdoings are appropriately
under the jurisdiction of the State of New York.
Sincerely,
Norman E. Ross, Jr.
Assistant Director
Domestic Council
Mr. Louis Hall
Secretary, Under the direction of the Galankeh
Council Fire
Eagle Bay, New York 13331
NEROSS/ee
CC: White House Files
GERALE FORD LIBRARY
&
FORM
John:
Jerry Warren had a call from Time (or
Newsweek) on Friday, and I had a call
from Harvey Schwartz in NY, regarding
the attached. Phyllis (Ross) provided
the attached, and tells me that the
request has been sent to Maury Thompson
at Interior for handling. W.H. does
not seem too concerned as this is a
group of "rebel" indians and not a tribe.
Can we coordinate with Jerry so we are
saying the same thing to Schwartz as
we are to Time, please.
November 11, 1974
Indian
To the Honorable Gerald Ford, President of the United States
Sehkon;
A state of extrene crisis threatens the peace and friendship
R
established by the Treaty of 1794 between the United States and
the Six Nations. On several occasions, particularly on four
occasions over the past two weeks, United States citizens have
fired upon the Indian settlement at Moss Lake. This settlement
being part of the Ganienkeh territory claimed by the Mohawk
Nation and the Iroquois Confederacy. Furthermore, the citizens
of Ganienkeh have been threatened by the New York State Police,
who are attempting to assert jurisdiction to the investigation
of two shooting incidents that took place on Monday, October
28, 1974.
The Canandaiqua Treaty between the United States and the Six
Nations provides a procedure for peacefully handling such situations.
Under Article VII the President of the U.S. forwards injury com-
plaints to the Rotiyaner (Chiefs) of the Six Nations, and then
"prudent measurers" are worked out for the settling of any com-
plaints. It is this formula that the citizens and Rotiyaner wish
to follow to bring an ending to the present situation.
The United States has benefited enormously by the generous terms
of this Treaty. Therefore the United States has a particularly
clear obligation to adhere to the terms of the Treaty.
A complaint of the incidents noted above, and of the present
LOTED
crisis at Ganienkeh, has been prepared by the Mohawk Nation for
forwarding by the Grand Council of the Six Nations to the Pres-
ident at the earliest possible time.
In the meantime the Mohawk Nation and the people of Ganienkeh
urgently demand in the interest of peace and friendship, that the
United States take immediate steps to comply with the provisions
of the above Treaty, and to prevent further actions by the State
of New York not in compliance with the Treaty.
Signed LODIS.Hall
SECRETARY
Under the direction of the Ganienkeh
Council Fire
Ganienkeh via:
Eagle Bay, New York 13331
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OF THE
DEPARTMENT COUNTY
COUNTY OF HERKIMER
HERKIMER COUNTY COURT HOUSE
P. O. Box 588
STATE OFNEW 1791 HONDI
HERKIMER, NEW YORK 13350
(315) 866-3660
HENRY D. BLUMBERG
ADDRESS ANSWER TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY. ATTENTION
CARL G. SCALISE
OF THE SIGNER OF THIS LETTER
CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
HENRY A. LARAIA
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
November 14, 1974
The President
Washington, D.C.
Sir:
On October 28, 1974, in separate incidents, two persons were wounded
by gunshot fire while riding in vehicles traversing County Road #1 in the Township
of Webb, Herkimer County, New York. Persons calling themselves Mohawk Indians,
who have been occupying premises formerly known as The Moss Lake Girls Camp, now
owned by the State of New York, since about May of 1974, have indicated to the
public press that they fired the shots which caused the injuries.
Our Office has no investigatory staff and in order to perform my statutory
duties under Section 700 of the County Law of the State of New York (Exhibit A,
attached), I rely upon the New York State Police to perform investigations in rural
areas of the County such as Moss Lake. The New York State Police have been
attempting to investigate these shootings but have been thwarted in their efforts by
the refusal of the persons occupying the former Girls Camp to permit the State Police
access to either the area of the shootings or any persons within the group who may
have witnessed the shootings.
At this point, the refusal to cooperate in the Police investigation is
based on Article VII of the Treaty of 1794 between the Six Nations, of which the
Mohawk Tribe is, sometimes, a part and the United States (Exhibit B). It is my
understanding that the Mohawks are not signatories to this particular treaty but the
persons presently occupying the Moss Lake site apparently feel that it covers them as
one of the Six Nations: A report in the New York Times of Sunday, November 10,
1974 (Exhibit C) indicates that the persons occupying the area have requested your
intervention in accordance with such Treaty.
The undersigned as the duly elected District Attorney of Herkimer County,
charged by Law with the prosecution of crimes and offenses committed within this
The President
Page 2
November 14, 1974
County, joins in asking your intervention should you believe that the Treaty applies.
There has been some indication, entirely in the press so far as I know, that Title 25,
Section 232 of the United States Code (Exhibit D) is the "other equitable provision"
mentioned in Article VII of the Treaty of 1794. I point out, however, that the Moss
Lake site is not an "Indian reservation".
I will appreciate your advising me as soon as conveniently possible of
your attitude towards following the procedures set forth in Article VII of the Treaty
of 1794.
I have the honor to remain,
Most respectfully yours,
Henry D. Blumberg
Henry D. Blumberg
District Attorney - Herkimer County
HDB:msk
Enclosures
Fo
ROOM 206
1346 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W.
AMERICAN INDIAN PRESS ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 293-9150
NEWS SERVICE
Executive Director: Rose Robinson
News Director: Richard LaCourse
OCCUPY - MY181
EAGLE BAY, N.Y. (AIPA) -About 75 members of the Mohawk Nation have set up camp
in a timberland area on the north shore of Moss Lake in the Adirondack Park Forest
Reserve here and intend to stay until large tracts of land are returned to the Mohaw
Nation by the state of New York.
The occupiers, who moved onto the area May 14, have as their objective the
reestablishment of the old Mohawk Nation of Ganienkeh, the Land of the Flint, throug
the recovery of sufficient undisturbed acreage where they could live a natural outd
life by hunting, fishing and growing their own crops. According to Mohawk spokesman
Kakwirakeron, the long range objective is to establish an independent North American
Indian state open to all traditional North American Indians.
The occupiers claim that state possession of the land constitutes "illegal
theft," arising from illegal acts of a Mohawk man who in 1797 claimed to have power
of attorney for the tribe and who surrendered 5,500,000 acres of Mohawk land to the
state in return for the sum of $1,000.
The Mohawk contingent, consisting of Mohawk men and women from both sides of
the U.S. -Canadian border, sent letters announcing their purposes and intentions to
:
President of the United States, the governors of New York and Vermont, and also to
154 foreign representatives at the United Nations in New York City seeking foreign
relations with those nations.
The site the Mohawk occupiers are camped on lies midway among four small rural
towns of Eagle Bay, Inlet, 01d Forge and Big Moose. Plans were in the offing to
present the Mohawk proposals to the neighboring townspeople including schoolteachers
church leaders and members, town and state government representatives, and community
organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, Masonic Lodge, Lions Club and the 111
Immediately facing the occupiers were negotiations concerning an extension of ;
camping permit on the land, which has a normal duration of three days. Also ahead
were negotiations, now quietly opened, with the New York State Department of Enviror
mental Conservation. There was no known immediate presence of federal marshals in
the area, but there were reports of a buildup of N.Y. state troopers in a nearby to:
The treaty upon which the Mohawks are making their case is the 1768 Fort Stanw:
Treaty negotiated in what is now the town of Rome, N.Y. Spokesman Kakwirakeron said
the 1797 surrender of Mohawk lands by Joseph Brant to the state of New York violate:
the tribal constitution of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy at that time, becau
under that constitution "no person or single Nation has the right to sell any land
without the consent of the Grand Council.'
Kakwirakeron said Brant was not authorised by the Mohawk government to enter i
the 1797 agreement, and Brant was not a Mohawk chief. After study in Europe, Brant
returned to the U.S. and began translating Christian texts and hymns for his Christ
denomination. The Mohawk occupiers have labeled Brant "a sellout. !!
The Eagle Bay action, said a spokesman, was an "all-Mohawk effort" which exclu
non-Indians from the camp but which accepted assistance and support from other Ind
- 8 -
According to an Indian spokesman, this group is the
advance party of between 400 and 500 Indians who are expected
to move into the area.
The militant Indians claim that the reservation from
which they came is inadequate and that this 600 acre site,
which they claim is legally theirs because of a 1768 treaty,
will be their new reservation. This "occupation" has been
peaceful so far and the New York authorities have no plans
for confrontation.
TORD LIBRARY
- 7 -
In Washington, D.C., on May 15, seventy members of
Jewish Defense League demonstrated at the Lebanese Embassy,
protesting Arab guerrilla actions against Israeli school
children.
SOCIALIST GROUPS PROTEST JUNTA IN CHILE
New York City
On May 11, approximately 135 persons conducted demonstra-
tions in a downtown area, protesting the ruling Chilean
military junta and demanding freedom for political prisoners
in Chile. Signs identified protestors as representatives of
the Socialist Workers Party Young Socialist Alliance, Workers
World Party, Youth Agains War and Fascism (YAWF), and
Spartacist League (SL) Speakers denounced the military coup
and military trials in Chile and attempted to promote unity
among the various socialist groups.
Buffalo
On May 11 seventy five persons participated in demonstra-
tions at Lafayette Square and later at Chase Manhattan Bank.
Demonstrators, representing YAWF, SL, Vietnam Veterans Against
the War and Young Workers Liberation League, were protesting
the present military junta in Chile and demanding that the
United States cease all aid to the Chilean dictatorship.
INDIANS TAKEOVER NEW YORK STATE LAND
On the morning of May 12, about 25 Indians from the
Caughnawaga Reservation near Montreal, Quebec crossed the
border in small groups at various points of entry into Northern
New York State. On May 14, they joined about 75 Mohawk Indians
from the Onandaga Reservation near Syracuse in occupying an
isolated 600 acre section of the Adirondeck Park Forest Preserve
near Big Moose Lake, Eagle Bay, New York. This property,
formerly a private school, was purchased by the state, but has
not been put to use. The Indians have established a camp and
a perimeter guard and are denying access to the property to
all visitors. Some of the Indians are armed with hunting rifles.
FORD
GERALD
LIBRARY
Note: John Carlson is also
dealing with this situation.
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
November 22, 1974
TO:
Gerald Warren antoniette
FROM: Norman E. Ross, Jr.
Phyllis Pt. - secretary to
The attached correspondence concerns
the Mohawk Nation taking over certain
areas in the Adirondack Park Forest.
We have sent the correspondence to
Bureau of Indian Affairs for their
review and comments.
Is this what the newsman from TIMES
wanted to talk about?
GERALD
lorns Ross 6554
Phylles
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
11/22
Mr. Warren:
Don Cider of Time called at the
suggestion of Dean Fisher.
Mr. Cider is doing a story on the
Indian incident a few weeks ago
at Moss Lake Camp, north of Utica
The dispute is over a treaty signed
in 1794.
Both the Indians and the Officials
in New York State have written to
the President but have not received
a response. Mr. Cider wants to
know what action might be taken.
He is not familiar with the officials
involved but the Indians are:
Kakwirakeron
Mike Myers
Lou Hall
Attorney Coulter
293-4300
He will call early next week if he
doesn't hear from you first.
a.
November 11, 1974
To the Honorable Gerald Ford, President of the United States
Sehkon;
A state of extrene crisis threatens the peace and friendship
established by the Treaty of 1794 between the United States and
the Six Nations. On several occasions, particularly on four
occasions over the past two weeks, United States citizens have
fired upon the Indian settlement at Moss Lake. This settlement
being part of the Ganienkeh territory claimed by the Mohawk
Nation and the Iroquois Confederacy. Furthermore, the citizens
of Ganienkeh have been threatened by the New York State Police,
who are attempting to assert jurisdiction to the investigation
of two shooting incidents that took place on Monday, October
28, 1974.
The Canandaiqua Treaty between the United States and the Six
Nations provides a procedure for peacefully handling such situations.
Under Article VII the President of the U.S. forwards injury com-
plaints to the Rotiyaner (Chiefs) of the Six Nations, and then
"prudent measurers" are worked out for the settling of any com-
plaints. It is this formula that the citizens and Rotiyaner wish
to follow to bring an ending to the present situation.
The United States has benefited enormously by the generous terms
of this Treaty. Therefore the United States has a particularly
clear obligation to adhere to the terms of the Treaty.
A complaint of the incidents noted above, and of the present
TED
crisis at Ganienkeh, has been prepared by the Mohawk Nation for
forwarding by the Grand Council of the Six Nations to the Pres-
ident at the earliest possible time.
In the meantime the Mohawk Nation and the people of Ganienkeh
urgently demand in the interest of peace and friendship, that the
United States take immediate steps to comply with the provisions
of the above Treaty, and to prevent further actions by the State
of New York not in compliance with the Treaty.
Signed Loois.Hall
SECRETARY
Under the direction of the Ganienkeh
Council Fire
Ganienkeh via:
Eagle Bay, New York 13331
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
OF THE
COUNTY
COUNTY OF HERKIMER
HERKIMER COUNTY COURT HOUSE
P. O. Box 588
STATE OF NEW 1791 TOHA
HERKIMER, NEW YORK 13350
(315) 866-3660
HENRY D. BLUMBERG
ADDRESS ANSWER TO THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ATTENTION
CARL G. SCALISE
OF THE SIGNER OF THIS LETTER
CHIEF ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
HENRY A. LARAIA
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
November 14, 1974
The President
Washington, D.C.
Sir:
On October 28, 1974, in separate incidents, two persons were wounded
by gunshot fire while riding in vehicles traversing County Road #1 in the Township
of Webb, Herkimer County, New York. Persons calling themselves Mohawk Indians,
who have been occupying premises formerly known as The Moss Lake Girls Camp, now
owned by the State of New York, since about May of 1974, have indicated to the
public press that they fired the shots which caused the injuries.
Our Office has no investigatory staff and in order to perform my statutory
duties under Section 700 of the County Law of the State of New York (Exhibit A,
attached), I rely upon the New York State Police to perform investigations in rural
areas of the County such as Moss Lake. The New York State Police have been
attempting to investigate these shootings but have been thwarted in their efforts by
the refusal of the persons occupying the former Girls Camp to permit the State Police
access to either the area of the shootings or any persons within the group who may
have witnessed the shootings.
At this point, the refusal to cooperate in the Police investigation is
based on Article VII of the Treaty of 1794 between the Six Nations, of which the
Mohawk Tribe is, sometimes, a part and the United States (Exhibit B). It is my
understanding that the Mohawks are not signatories to this particular treaty but the
persons presently occupying the Moss Lake site apparently feel that it covers them as
one of the Six Nations: A report in the New York Times of Sunday, November 10,
1974 (Exhibit C) indicates that the persons occupying the area have requested your
intervention in accordance with such Treaty.
The undersigned as the duly elected District Attorney of Herkimer County,
charged by Law with the prosecution of crimes and offenses committed within this
The President
Page 2
November 14, 1974
County, joins in asking your intervention should you believe that the Treaty applies.
There has been some indication, entirely in the press so far as I know, that Title 25,
Section 232 of the United States Code (Exhibit D) is the "other equitable provision"
mentioned in Article VII of the Treaty of 1794. I point out, however, that the Moss
Lake site is not an "Indian reservation".
I will appreciate your advising me as soon as conveniently possible of
your attitude towards following the procedures set forth in Article VII of the Treaty
of 1794.
I have the honor to remain,
Most respectfully yours,
Henry D. Blumberg
Henry D. Blumberg
District Attorney - Herkimer County
HDB:msk
Enclosures
File
ROOM 206
1346 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W.
AMERICAN INDIAN PRESS ASSOCIATION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20036
Phone: (202) 293-9150
NEWS SERVICE
Executive Director: Rose Robinson
News Director: Richard LaCourse
OCCUPY - MY181
EAGLE BAY, N.Y. (AIPA) -About 75 members of the Mohawk Nation have set up camp
in a timberland area on the north shore of Moss Lake in the Adirondack Park Forest
Reserve here and intend to stay until large tracts of land are returned to the Mohawk
Nation by the state of New York.
The occupiers, who moved onto the area May 14, have as their objective the
reestablishment of the old Mohawk Nation of Ganienkeh, the Land of the Flint, through
the recovery of sufficient undisturbed acreage where they could live a natural outdoo
life by hunting, fishing and growing their own crops. According to Mohawk spokesman
Kakwirakeron, the long range objective is to establish an independent North American
Indian state open to all traditional North American Indians.
The occupiers claim that state possession of the land constitutes "illegal
theft," arising from illegal acts of a Mohawk man who in 1797 claimed to have power
of attorney for the tribe and who surrendered 5,500,000 acres of Mohawk land to the
state in return for the sum of $1,000.
The Mohawk contingent, consisting of Mohawk men and women from both sides of
the U.S. -Canadian border, sent letters announcing their purposes and intentions to the
President of the United States, the governors of New York and Vermont, and also to
154 foreign representatives at the United Nations in New York City seeking foreign
relations with those nations.
The site the Mohawk occupiers are camped on lies midway among four small rural
towns of Eagle Bay, Inlet, Old Forge and Big Moose. Plans were in the offing to
present the Mohawk proposals to the neighboring townspeople including schoolteachers,
church leaders and members, town and state government representatives, and community
organizations such as the Chamber of Commerce, Masonic Lodge, Lions Club and the like.
Immediately facing the occupiers were negotiations concerning an extension of a
camping permit on the land, which has a normal duration of three days. Also ahead
were negotiations, now quietly opened, with the New York State Department of Environ-
mental Conservation. There was no known immediate presence of federal marshals in
the area, but there were reports of a buildup of N.Y. state troopers in a nearby town,
The treaty upon which the Mohawks are making their case is the 1768 Fort Stanwix
Treaty negotiated in what is now the town of Rome, N.Y. Spokesman Kakwirakeron said
the 1797 surrender of Mohawk lands by Joseph Brant to the state of New York violated
the tribal constitution of the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy at that time, because
under that constitution "no person or single Nation has the right to sell any land
without the consent of the Grand Council."
Kakwirakeron said Brant was not authorised by the Mohawk government to enter into
the 1797 agreement, and Brant was not a Mohawk chief. After study in Europe, Brant
returned to the U.S. and began translating Christian texts and hymns for his Christia
denomination. The Mohawk occupiers have labeled Brant "a sellout.
The Eagle Bay action, said a spokesman, was an "all-Mohawk effort" which exclude
non-Indians from the camp but which accepted assistance and support from other Indian
groups.
- 7 -
In Washington, D.C., on May 15, seventy members of
Jewish Defense League demonstrated at the Lebanese Embassy,
protesting Arab guerrilla actions against Israeli school
children.
SOCIALIST GROUPS PROTEST JUNTA IN CHILE
New York City
On May 11, approximately 135 persons conducted demonstra-
tions in a downtown area, protesting the ruling Chilean
military junta and demanding freedom for political prisoners
in Chile. Signs identified protestors as representatives of
the Socialist Workers Party, Young Socialist Alliance, Workers THE age
World Party, Youth Against War and Fascism (YAWF), and
Spartacist League (SL) Speakers denounced the military coup
and military trials in Chile and attempted to promote unity
among the various socialist groups.
Buffalo
On May 11 seventy five persons participated in demonstra-
tions at Lafayette Square and later at Chase Manhattan Bank.
Demonstrators, representing YAWF, SL, Vietnam Veterans Against
the War and Young Workers Liberation League, were protesting
the present military junta in Chile and demanding that the
United States cease all aid to the Chilean dictatorship.
INDIANS TAKEOVER NEW YORK STATE LAND
On the morning of May 12, about 25 Indians from the
Caughnawaga Reservation near Montreal, Quebec crossed the
border in small groups at various points of entry into Northern
New York State. On May 14, they joined about 75 Mohawk Indians
from the Onandaga Reservation near Syracuse in occupying an
isolated 600 acre section of the Adirondeck Park Forest Preserve
near Big Moose Lake, Eagle Bay, New York. This property,
formerly a private school, was purchased by the state, but has
not been put to use. The Indians have established a camp and
a perimeter guard and are denying access to the property to
all visitors. Some of the Indians are armed with hunting rifles.
- 8 -
According to an Indian spokesman, this group is the
advance party of between 400 and 500 Indians who are expected
to move into the area.
The militant Indians claim that the reservation from
which they came is inadequate and that this 600 acre site,
which they claim is legally theirs because of a 1768 treaty,
will be their new reservation. This "occupation" has been
peaceful so far and the New York authorities have no plans
for confrontation.
GERAD FORD IBRARY
Jadians
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 30, 1975
MEETING WITH NATIONAL TRIBAL CHAIRMEN
Friday, January 31, 1975
2:30 - 2:35 p.m. - (5 minutes)
The Cabinet Room
From: William J. Baroody, Jr.
I.
PURPOSE
To welcome 22 National Tribal Chairmen (or their
representatives) and two other Indian officials.
One represents the National Tribal Chairmen's
Association - the other - the National Congress
of the American Indians.
II.
BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS AND PRESS PLAN
A. Background:
This is to be a "listening session" - giving
Chairmen an opportunity to inform us of their
views on perennial and current problems.
The National Tribal Chairmen represent over
150,000 Indians from 6 western states (Colorado,
Wyoming, Montana, Utah, North Dakota, South
Dakota).
Invited to Washington by ACTION - Region 8 -
Denver - for the second "Council Fires" Confer-
ence, the Tribal Chairmen have the opportunity
to discuss concerns and offer constructive
criticism concerning ACTION programs and make
suggestions for future programs.
The first "Council Fires" Conference was held
in Denver in November 1973 with the now
achieved goal of improving communications and
support for reservations.
-2-
A. Background: (Continued)
Of some delicacy are the facts that:
(1) The Indians are very conscious of their
individual tribal culture and heritage and don't
like being lumped into "The Indian."
(2) It requires time and effort to develop
a trusting relationship and many Indians do not
feel that there is such a relationship between
Washington and reservations.
(3) In general, the Indians realize the need
for the BIA but are often distrustful and con-
founded by it.
B. Participants:
1. Morris Thompson, Commissioner, Bureau of Indian
Affairs
2. Emery Johnson, Director, Indian Health Service
3. George Blue Spruce, Director, Office of Native
American Programs, HEW
4. Ted Bryant, Regional Director, ACTION
5. Stuart Jamieson, Director of Economic Develop-
ment, National Congress of American Indians
6. Wes Halsey, Acting Executive Director, National
Tribal Chairmen's Association
7. Tribal Chairmen (list attached)
C. Press Plan:
White House and Press Photographers.
III.
WHITE HOUSE STAFF
William J. Baroody, Jr.
Theodore C. Marrs
John Hill
John Borling
Ann Ramsay
Mary Featherall
-3-
IV.
FORMAT
2:00 p.m. - Introductory remarks by Bill Baroody
2:30 - 2:35 p.m. - Presidential drop-by
2:35 p.m. - Continue discussion
3:30 p.m. - Closing remarks - Ted Marrs
3:30 p.m. - 4:30 p.m. - Special White House Tour
V.
TALKING POINTS
$
+
My staff is studying the development of an
improved structure for meeting the U.S. trust
responsibilities to the sovereign tribes. I
have committed myself in a recent letter to
the National Tribal Chairmen's Association
to self-determination without termination.
WITHDRAWAL SHEET (PRESIDENTIAL LIBRARIES)
FORM OF
CORRESPONDENTS OR TITLE
DATE
RESTRICTION
DOCUMENT
List
List of attendees at a meeting of National Tribal Chairmen, 7 pages.
1/30/1975
C
(attached to a 1/30/1975 briefing memo for the meeting)
File Location:
John G. Carlson Files, Box 4, "Indians (2)" SMD - 6/1/2015
RESTRICTION CODES
(A) Closed by applicable Executive order governing access to national security information.
(B) Closed by statute or by the agency which originated the document.
(C) Closed in accordance with restrictions contained in the donor's deed of gift.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1429 (1-98)