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
1103377
label
Flathead Reservation, Montana
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1103377
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Flathead Reservation, Montana
citationUrl
collections
Bradley H. Patterson Files (Ford Administration)
Bradley Patterson's Native American Programs Files
subjects
Montana
Salish Indians
Indians of North America
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1103377
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-09-01
month
9
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1970-04-01
month
4
year
1970
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
cc6ac614d8ad9ee5
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 2, folder "Flathead Reservation, Montana" of
the Bradley H. Patterson 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 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 2 of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
680
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, MAY 22, 1972
Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972
ary 1, 1972, to June 30, 1973. In the latter half of 1973,
the Federal Government will continue to accept ap-
Statement by the President Upon Signing the
plications for black lung benefits but beneficiaries en-
Bill Into Law. May 20, 1972
rolled during this period will be transferred to the State
programs on January 1, 1974.
Today I have signed H.R. 9212, the Black Lung Bene-
I urge that all mining States review their workmen's
fits Att of 1972.
compensation programs to make certain that adequate
This legislation extends for 18 months the Federal re-
laws exist for the black lung disease by that time.
sponsibility for operating a transitional program enacted
in 1969 to provide cash benefits for coal miners disabled
by black lung disease.
Under the original law, lifetime monthly benefits have
Yakima Indian Reservation
been awarded to more than 260,000 miners, widows, and
dependents at a Federal cost of more than $600 million.
Statement by the President Upon Signing Executive
The Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 will mean that
Order. May 20, 1972
tens of thousands of additional miners and their de-
pendents will be eligible for lifetime benefits from the Fed-
It is with particular pleasure that I sign this Executive
eral Government, because of its extension of filing time
order which places 21,000 acres of land in the State of
and because it provides for generous liberalization of
Washington under the trust jurisdiction of the Secretary
eligibility requirements.
of the Interior for the Yakima Indian Tribe.
I am heartened that this legislation provides benefits
This action rights a wrong going back 65 years.
for orphans of black lung victims, who are excluded in
The United States Government lost the treaty map in
the present law through legislative oversight. Other de-
its own files and by the time it was found actions had been
pendents are covered but not orphans. Under the new
taken which had mistakenly displaced the Indians from
law, some 2,000 orphans of black lung victims-and all
this land.
such orphans in the future-will receive the benefits to
The Indian Claims Commission has ruled that the
which they should be fully entitled.
Yakima Tribe has a rightful claim, but rather than accept
Nevertheless, I sign this legislation with mixed emo-
cash compensation, the Tribe with the permission of the
tions, not over whether miners, widows, and their de-
Commission, sought to have the land itself restored.
pendents need this assistance-they do-but because of
In a comprehensive opinion, Attorney General Mitchell
the precedent it tends to establish.
reviewed the unintentional but mistaken actions of 1907
This legislation departs from the U.S. tradition that
and ruled that the Executive order of that time did not
compensation for work-related accidents and diseases
constitute a "taking" of the land by the Government in
should be provided by State workmen's compensation
the legal sense and that it can be restored by Executive
laws, financed by the owners of the industries containing
action now.
the hazards. Responsibility for black lung compensation
FORD
Ordinarily, of course, Indian land claims are being,
clearly should lie with the owners and operators of the
and should be, settled by cash award, but this case has
mines.
exceptional circumstances which the Attorney General
In this case, however, the States have not yet improved
has described.
GERALD
their owner-financed laws to meet the challenge posed by
I am equally pleased to note that the Yakima Tribe
black lung-and there are too many victims of this dread
itself has pledged by tribal resolution to "maintain exist-
disease for me not to have acted.
ing recreation facilities for public use" and to "recognize
Therefore, I have moved to pick up the responsibility
the dedication of that portion included in the Mt. Adams
that others have neglected-so that disabled miners and
wilderness use."
their families will not be deserted by our society in their
hour of critical and justified personal need.
NOTE: For the text of the Executive order, see the following item.
The health and safety of coal miners has been a pri-
mary concern of this Administration. One of my earliest
egislative recommendations was for more effective Fed-
eral laws in the area of coal mine health and safety, cul-
Yakima Indian Reservation
minating in the enactment of the Federal Coal Mine
Health and Safety Act of 1969. Since that law was en-
Executive Order 11670. May20, 1972
tered, major progress has been made In improving work-
ing conditions in our Nation's coal mines and in the
PROVIDING FOR THE RETURN OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE
protection offered to those who work in them.
YAKIMA INDIAN RESERVATION
The 1969 act established the temporary black lung
enefits program. The legislation I have signed today will
In 1855, the United States entered into a treaty with
the Yakima Tribe of Indians, The treaty created a reser-
stend Federal responsibility for this program from Janu-
vation, generally described by natural landmarks, for
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, MAY 22, 1972
881
the exclusive use and benefit of the Tribe. Over the years,
SECTION 1. A portion of the castern boundary of the
there have been continuing disputes regarding the true
Gifford Pinchot National Forest is modified as follows:
location of the reservation boundary.
Beginning at the point on the main ridge of the Cascade
In 1897, President Cleveland created by proclamation
Mountains, where the Yakima Indian Reservation bound-
the Mount Rainier Forest Reserve in an area near the
ary as located by the 1926 Pecore survey from Goat Butte
western boundary of the Yakima Reservation. In 1908,
intersects said main ridge; thence southwesterly along the
President Theodore Roosevelt extended the boundary of
main ridge of the Cascade Mountains to the summit or
that Forest to include a tract of some 21,000 acres, then
the pinnacle of Mount Adams, as shown on the diagram
mistakenly thought to be public land. The tract is in-
of the Rainier National Forest attached to the Presiden-
cluded within a larger area now called the Gifford Pin-
tial proclamation of October 23, 1911, 37 Stat. 1718;
chot National Forest. In 1942, a portion of the tract was
thence southerly along a divide between the watersheds
designated the Mount Adams Wild Area, and this por-
of the Klickitat and White Salmon Rivers as shown on
tion has been administered since 1964 for the public bene-
the 1932 Calvin Reconnaissance Survey Map (Petition-
fit under the Wilderness Act.
cr's Exhibit No. 4, Docket No. 47, Indian Claims Com-
In 1966, the Indian Claims Commis
that
this
mission) to its intersection with the north line of Section
tract had originally been intended for Sinclusion in the
34, Township 7 North, Range 11 East, Willamette
Yakima Reservation. However, the Commission does not
Meridian.
have authority to return specific property to a claimant; it
SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is directed to as-
may only grant money damages. Accordingly, the Tribe
sume jurisdiction over the tract of land heretofore ad-
sought Executive action for return of its land.
The Attorney General has at my request reviewed the
ministered as a portion of the Gifford Pinchot National
specific history and background of this particular case,
Forest and excluded from the Forest by Section 1 of this
including the principles which govern the taking of land
order, and to administer it for the use and benefit of the
by the United States and the question of whether this
Yakima Tribe of Indians as a portion of the reservation
particular land was so taken. In a recent opinion, the
created by the Treaty of 1855, 12 Stat. 951.
Attorney General has advised me that, in these excep-
SEC. 3. Any prior order or proclamation relating to the
tional and unique circumstances, the land was not taken
tract of land affected by this order, to the extent incon-
by the United States within the meaning of the Fifth
sistent with this order, is hereby superseded.
Amendment and that possession of this particular tract
can be restored to the Tribe by Execu
RICHARD NIXON
Now, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested
The White House
in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United
May 20, 1972
States, particularly 16 U.S.C. 473, it is ordered as
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:10 a.m.,
follows:
May 22, 1972]
THE PRESIDENT'S TRIP TO AUSTRIA, THE
SOVIET UNION, IRAN, AND POLAND
The President's Remarks at the Departure Ceremony at Andrews
Air Force Base. May 20, 1972
Mr. Vice President, Members of the Cabinet, Members of the Congress,
and ladies and gentlemen:
We really do appreciate your coming to the airport today on this
rainy day to wish us Godspeed on this trip. In just a few minutes we
will be boarding the plane, the "Spirit of '76" on a trip that will take
us first to Austria, then to the Soviet Union, then to Iran, and finally
to Poland before returning here on the first of June.
I know as we visit these four countries that I can say to the people
of all of these countries that I bring with me the best wishes, the friend-
ship of all of the people of the United States to the people of these
THE PRESIDENT
10131
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11670
Providing for the Return of Certain Lands to the Yakima Indian
Reservation
In 1855, the United States entered into a treaty with the Yakima
Tribe of Indians. The treaty created a reservation, generally described
by natural landmarks, for the exclusive use and benefit of the Tribe. Over
the years, there have been continuing disputes regarding the true loca-
tion of the reservation boundary.
In 1897, President Cleveland created by proclamation the Mount
Rainier Forest Reserve in an area near the western houndary of the
Yakima Reservation. In 1908, President Theodore Roosevelt extended
the boundary of that Forest to include a tract of some 21,000 acres, then
mistakenly thought to be public land. The tract is included within a
larger area now called the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. In 1942,
a portion of the tract was designated the Mount Adams Wild Area,
and this portion has been administered since 1964 for the public bene-
fit under the Wilderness Act.
In 1966, the Indian Claims Commission found that this tract had
originally been intended for inclusion in the Yakima Reservation. How-
ever, the Commission does not have authority to return specific property
to a claimant; it may only grant money damages. Accordingly, the
Tribe sought Executive action for return of its land.
The Attorney General has at my request reviewed the specific history
and background of this particular case, including the principles which
govern the taking of land by the United States and the question
of whether this particular land was so taken. In a recent opinion,
the Attorney General has advised me that, in these exceptional and
unique circumstances, the land was not taken by the United
States within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment and that possession
of this particular tract can be restored to the Tribe by Executive action.
FORD CIBRARY & GERALD
NOW, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the
Constitution and statutes of the United States, particularly 16 U.S.C.
473, it is ordered as follows:
SECTION 1. A portion of the eastern boundary of the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest is modified as follows:
Beginning at the point on the main ridge of the Cascade Mountains,
where the Yakima Indian Reservation boundary as located by the 1926
Pecore survey from Goat Butte intersects said main ridge; thence
southwesterly along the main ridge of the Cascade Mountains to the
summit or the pinnacle of Mount Adams, as shown on the diagram of
the Rainier National Forest attached to the Presidential proclamation
of October 23, 1911, 37 Stat. 1718; thence southerly along a divide
between the watersheds of the Klickitat and White Salmon Rivers
as shown on the 1932 Calvin Reconnaissance Survey Map (Petitioner's
Exhible No. 4, Docket No. 47, Indian Claims Commission) to its inter-
section with the north line of Section 34, Township 7 North, Range 11
East, Willamette Meridian.
FEDERAL REGISTER VOL 37, NO. 100--TUESDAY, MAY 23, 1972
GERALD R. FORD
0432
THE PRESIDENT
SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is directed to assume jurisdiction
over the tract of land heretofore administered as a portion of the
Gifford Pinchot National Forest and excluded from the Forest by Sec-
tion 1 of this order, and to administer it for the use and benefit of the
Yakima Tribe of Indians as a portion of the reservation created by the
Treaty of 1855, 12 Stat. 951.
SEC. 3. Any prior order or proclamation relating to the tract of land
affected by this order, to the extent inconsistent with this order,
is hereby superseded.
Phidamal Hijm
THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 20, 1972.
[FR Doc.72-7915 Filed 5-22-72; 11:10 am]
NOTE: For the text of a Presidential statement dated May 20, 1972, and issued
in connection with E.O. 11670, above, see Weekly Comp. of Pres. Docs., Vol. 8, No. 21,
issue of May 22, 1972.
1
PUBLIC HEARING
2
OF THE
3
CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES
4
OF THE
5
FLATHEAD RESERVATION, MONTANA
6
7
8
HELD IN
9
ST. IGNATIUS, MONTANA
o
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1975 - 7:00 P.M.
3.
2
3
HEARING CONDUCTED
4
BY
5
MR. EDWARD MEREDITH
B
FIELD SOLICITOR'S OFFICE
7
INTERIOR DEPARTMENT
B
BILLINGS, MONTANA
L
BARD ? :
Reported by Carroll B. Copeland, Official
Court Reporter, State of Montana, residing in
Missoula, Montana.
1
INDEX
2
3
NAME OF WITNESS:
PAGE NO.
4
5
MR. FRED HOULE
7
B
MR. BILL MORIGEAU
13
7
MR. VICTOR STINGER
14
B
MR. JOE CULLOOYAH
15
9
MR. OCTAVE ADAM FINLEY
15
o
MR. BRITTON V. SALOIS
16
1
MRS. JUANITA ROSE BAILEY
17
2
MR. RAYMOND CLIFFORD ELMO
17
3
MR. R. LOUIS DUPUIS
19
4
THURMAN TROSPER
22
5
MR. NORBERT DUPUIS
24
G
MR. JOSEPH McDONALD
25
7
MRS. VIRGINIA M. BRAZILL
26
8
MR. TOM McDONALD
27
9
MR. DOUGLAS ALLARD
28
o
MR. PATRICK PIERRE
31
1
MR. ALVIN SLOAN
32
2
MR. FRED HOULE
33
3
MRS. JOANN KUNTZ
35
4
MR. LINDY McCLURE
35
5
MRS. LUCILLE TROSPER OTTER
36
1.
1
INDEX TO WITNESSES (Continued)
2
3
MR. BILL MORIGEAU
38
4
MR. LOUIS DUPUIS
39
5
MR. VICTOR STINGER
39
6
MR. PATRICK PIERRE
40
7
BRITTON V. SALOIS
47
B
RAYMOND CLIFFORD ELMO
48
9
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
o
1
2
3
4
5
SERALD R 17817 FORD
11.
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 22, 1975
MR. MEREDITH: Ladies and gentlemen, my name
is Edward Meredith. I am with the Field Solicitor's
Office, Interior Department, Billings, Montana. In
accordance with the provisions of P.L. 93-134, known
as the Use or Distribution of Indian Judgment Funds Act
of 1973, and implementing regulations, it is my
responsibility to conduct this hearing. Most of you
undoubtedly filled out an attendance card as you entered
the room or as it was handed to you. If you have not
done so, I now ask that you complete one.
The information of these cards will be of assistance
to me in conducting this hearing. If those of you who
have not filled out cards will please raise your hand,
we will distribute them to you.
Is there anyone else who has not received a form
to fill out?
At this time I would like to thank the members of
the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes and the
Tribal Officials and the people responsible for making
2
this hall available to us today to hold this hearing.
3
It is a beautiful hall and amply suited for the purposes
of this hearing.
5
A notice has been posted at various places on the
3.
1
Reservation on October 28, 1975, and published in the
2
Polson-Ronan Advertiser of Wednesday, October 29, 1975;
3
Flathead Courier on October 30, 1975; the Ronan Pioneer
on October 30, 1975; and the Char-Koosta Newspaper of
5
the Salish, Pend 'd Orielles and Kootenai Tribes of the
6
Flathead Reservation, Vol. 5, No. 12, dated November 1,
7
1975, advising the public of the hearing to be held on
B
Saturday, November 22, 1975, at 7:00 P.M., at the Tribal
9
Community Center, St. Ignatius, Montana.
0
The purpose of the hearing is to record the views
1
of every person affected by the proposed planning of the
2
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes for the use of
3
judgment funds awarded under Document No. 50233,
4
Paragraphs No. 8 and 9, totaling approximately
5
$550.000.00.
6
The notices advised that oral and written comments
7
would be received at this public hearing and that a copy
8
of the transcript of the public hearing and the program
9
proposal would be submitted to Congress for final
0
approval.
1
Replies which have been received as a result of the
2
foregoing notices will become part of the transcript of
3
this hearing.
4
When you entered the room or after you arrived, you
5
were provided with a copy of the proposed plan for use
4.
L
or distribution of the monies here in question. If you
2
don't have a copy of that proposed plan, one is available
3
on the front table.
It is suggested that you read this statement as
5
soon as possible. It should answer most of your questions.
6
When you are called upon for your statement, please
7
come forward to the microphone, state your name, and if
B
you are speaking on behalf of someone else, please so
9
state.
0
All written statements will become a part of the
official record whether they are filed with the hearing
2
officer, read at this hearing or orally summarized.
3
In the interest of conserving time, you are
requested to file lengthy statements for the record and
5
summarize them orally at this hearing. Please keep in
mind that it is the official transcript containing all
7
written statements, as well as oral presentations, that
8
will be used for review by the Secretary of the Interior
9
and later by Congressional Committees in their
0
consideration of this use or distribution plan.
1
Statements will not be made under oath, and since
2
this is not an adversary proceeding, there will be no
3
cross examination.
4
This hearing will be conducted strictly for the
5
purpose of recording your position or views on the
5.
1
proposed plan. Debates between individuals and officials
2
of the Government or between other individuals will be
3
ruled out of order. Please direct any inquiries to me
4
and I will rule as to whether the question is pertinent
5
to the plan for which this hearing has been called,
B
keeping in mind that the purpose of this hearing is to
7
compile an official record of public opinion with respect
B
to the merits of this plan for the use or distribution
9
of monies awarded to the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
o
Tribes by Indian Claims Commission Docket No. 50233 as
1
called for by the Use or Distribution of Indian Judgment
2
Funds Act of 1973, Public Law 93-134.
3
It is not the duty of the hearing officer to reach
4
any conclusions or make any decision regarding this
5
proposed plan.
After this public hearing, a thorough review will
7
be made of the proposed plan, the record of this public
8
hearing and all other information on the plan by the
9
Secretary of the Interior. He will transmit his
o
recommendations regarding the plan to the Congressional
1
Committees. If the Congressional Committees do not
2
reject the plan within 60 days from the date they receive
3
it, it becomes effective.
4
Now I ask Fred Houle, Secretary of the Confederated
5
Salish and Kootenai Tribes, to explain the use or
6.
1.
distribution plan to you.
MR. HOULE: As Mr. Meredith has stated, the
purpose of this hearing is to record the views of each
person affected by the proposed planning of the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes for the use of
judgment funds awarded under Docket 50233, Paragraphs
8 and 9, U. S. Court of Claims, totaling approximately
$550.000.00.
For the benefit of this hearing, I would like to
set forth a brief history of the judgment award and say
a few words in support of the position of the Tribal
Council.
Pursuant to the Treaty of Hell Gate, the Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes ceded their vast aboriginal
homeland to the United States but retained from the
cession a portion of their lands to be their future home-
land. Article 2 of the Treaty described the boundaries
of the reserved lands and provided:
"All which tract shall be set apart and,
so far as necessary, surveyed and marked
out for the exclusive use and benefit of
said Confederated Tribes as an Indian
Reservation. Nor shall any white man,
excepting those in the employment of the
Indian Department, be permitted to reside
7.
1
upon the said reservation without
2
permission of the Confederated Tribes,
3
and the Superintendent
=
4
In determining the boundaries, officials of the
5
Federal Government in 1887 surveyed what was purported
6
to be the north boundary of the Reservation and in 1893
7
what was purported to be the Southwest boundary.
8
The Tribes have contended ever since the running
9
of the surveys that certain lands reserved by them in
LO
their treaty were situated outside the boundaries by
11
virtue of erroneous surveys conducted by agents of the
2
United States. The United States consistently refused
13
to recognize the contention of the Tribes that the
surveys were in error and consistently claimed that the
15
accuracy of those surveys was one to be determined by
.6
a court.
7
This was good thinking on the part of the government
18
because we had no authority to sue the United States
1.
until a special jurisdictional act was passed on July 30,
20
1946, which accorded us an opportunity to prove the
21
inaccuracy of the surveys.
22
On November 12, 1965, the United States Court of
3
Claims agreed with the Tribes and held that portions of
24
the out-boundaries of the Reservation had been erroneously
25
surveyed and lands reserved by the Tribes by the Treaty
FORD
YOUR
8.
1
of Hell Gate were outside of the surveyed boundaries.
2
A study of the status of the lands excluded
3
revealed that of the approximately 15,000 acres of land
4
excluded by the erroneous surveys, 10,585.86 acres are
5
presently in various national forests and were placed
6
there at no cost to the United States.
7
We tried to have the United States Court of Claims
8
declare that the lands were still Tribal property but
9
the Court determined that the excluded lands were in fact
10
taken by the United States and that we were limited to
11
seeking only monetary compensation.
12
We tried in the Supreme Court to get that decision
13
reversed but the Supreme Court denied our petition for
14
review.
15
We attempted also to have legislation introduced.
16
Inseffects we were suing and in fact Congressman Olson
17
introduced a bill to have the lands restored to the
18
Tribe but it never got anyplace in Congress because the
19
Department of Justice, the Department of Interior and
20
the Department of Agriculture all opposed the restoration
21
of the land. We were finally forced in 1972, to accept
22
monetary compensation for the lands.
23
At that time, when the money was appropriated, the
24
Tribal Council passed a resolution stipulating that the
25
money would be held in escrow and we would continue to
9.
1
seek restoration of the land to the Reservation.
2
The present ownership of the excluded lands is more
3
valuable to the Tribes than the compensation they received
4
based on 19th Century prices.
5
We hired a Forestry Consultant in 1970, and he
6
estimated that there was 15,678,900 board feet of timber
7
on the excluded lands. At a very conservative estimate
8
of $40.00 per thousand, the timber alone would be worth
9
over $6,000,000.00 and we would still have the land.
LO
Now this doesn't mean we could go out and cut
1
$6,000,000.00 of timber off of this land today. It means
2
that over the years 15 million board feet of timber
3
could be added to our timber management program and over
the years we could benefit by an increased annual yield.
5
The Tribal Council wants these lands restored to
.6
the Reservation. They will seek to do it by Executive
7
Legislature or Administrative means. They are precedents
8
for this action. Congress restored Blue Lake to the
9
Taos Pueblos. But President Nixon, by Executive Order
20
11670, restored 21,000 acres of the Mount Rainier Forest
11
Reserve to the Yakimas under almost identical circumstances.
2
This Tribe was forced to take a cash settlement
:3
based on 19th Century values for the land, $550,000.00.
:4
Now this would amount to a mere $94.00 per Tribal Member
:5
if it were given out in a per capita payment.
10.
1
As stated above, there is more than $6,000.000.00
2
worth of timber on the land. No one knows what, if any,
3
minerals exist in the area.
The Tribal Council believes that it would be far
5
more beneficial to the Tribes in land use, forestry and
possible mineral assets to have the land restored than
7
to accept the $550,000.00 and make a $94.00 per capita
8
payment.
9
This land was cmitted from the Reservation by an
o
error made by the United States Government. The United
States has been enjoying beneficial use of the land for
2
over 80 years at the expense of the Tribes. It would
3
cost the United States nothing to return the land to
the Tribes.
5
MR. MEREDITH: After hearing Mr. Houle's
6
explanation of the proposed plan, we will now begin the
7
public discussion.
8
I ask that all pertinent information be presented
9
as completely as possible. As I indicated to you earlier,
o
if anyone wishes to summarize their statements for the
1
record, you may do so.
2
In the event that time becomes a factor, I may
3
request that you limit your oral remarks. Anyone present
who desires to make a statement may do so. I wish to
5
remind you again that statements will not be made under
11.
1
oath and since this is not an adversary proceedings,
2
there will be no cross examination. Anyone desiring to
3
question a person making a statement for clarification
purposes only will direct their questions to me. If I
5
deem them pertinent, I will request the person making the
3
statement to answer the question.
7
In order to permit the conduct of the meeting and
oral comments to become a matter of record, I ask that
all speakers come to the microphone and make their
statements. This has several advantages but principally
allows everyone in the room to hear and also the recording
secretary to take down what you have to say. I ask that
you give your name and address and the interest which
you represent. I ask that you speak slowly and distinctly.
If you have a written statement, please hand it to me as
you come to the front. At that time you may elect to
read it for the record or leave it for the record. It
has equal effect either way so far as the record is
concerned.
The forms that you have filled out indicate whether
you plan to make an oral statement, hand in a statement
or make no statement.
If there are any of you who filled out these forms
that have come in after the meeting started that wish to
make an oral statement, I would appreciate your turning
FORD
is
1817
12.
in your forms to me since I will call the speakers from
the forms, those that indicated that they wanted to make
statements have so indicated on this form.
First, I would like to call Mr. Bill Morigeau.
MR. MORIGEAU: I hope that the hearing doesn't
turn into a conflict because I think the information that
will be brought out to you on behalf of the Tribe in
support of the Tribal Council is quite pertinent. I have
been working on the land work for at least the last
three Council Terms and we appropriate budgets from
$250,000.00 to $500,000.00 a year for land purchase and
I believe this land is worth anywhere, low grade land,
anywhere from $150.00 an acre right on up to $1,000.00,
$2,000.00 an acre. And if we were to take this offer
of $550,000.00 for approximately 10,000 acres that is
left in the southwest boundary, that would be a mere
$55.00 an acre and we couldn't do that.
I can't hardly recommend that we do that. And like
Mr. Houle said, the timber itself has a value of at least
$6,000,000.00. So the way that I figured and the way
that I priced the land by itself, the land is worth at
least $2,000.000.00. So there is in round figures, to
me there is about $8,000,000.00 worth of land and
resources.
13.
1
The appraisal on the timber was made back about
2
9 or 10 years ago and, of course, it was the value of
3
the timber then but as it is cut, it also grows so the
potential for the timberland is always there and the land
5
is worth and the timber is worth much more than I have
B
stated.
7
I just want to say that this is a land based Tribe.
I represent this Tribe on the National Congress of
American Indians and it is the land based Tribes that
keep the Tribes in the United States together.
They generally serve, furnish the vital information
to the National Congress of American Indians and I can't
hardly recommend to you people to accept $55.00 an acre
for that land. Thank you.
5
(Applause)
MR. MEREDITH: The next speaker will be
Victor Stinger.
MR. STINGER: I don't have too much to add
because I agree with everything that has been said by
Fred Houle and Bill Morigeau. But the one thing that
I want to mention is the land we are talking about is
part of the original land that we reserved for ourselves
in the Treaty and so by law it isn't for sale. We are
14.
not allowed to sell land, only stuff that we bought since
1968. And so in my opinion, we are not allowed to accept
money for this land because it is part of the original
Reserve we have reserved for ourselves. Thank you.
5
(Applause)
6
MR. MEREDITH: The next speaker is
Joe Cullooyah.
MR. CULLOOYAH: Well, I don't have too much to
say. Bill Morigeau and Vic Stinger covered it pretty
good. That is all.
(Applause)
MR. MEREDITH: Okay, our next speaker will be
6
Octave Adam Finley.
8
MR. FINLEY: I am Octave Adam Finley and on
these here funds, that is appropriated, I was wondering
if there is any way that this Tribe could purchase some
kind of a commissary for the Indians because it gets
2
pretty expensive for most of us to run into Missoula or
3
Kalispell, to buy your groceries. By the time that you
get there, you might as well go to one of these stores
5
here to buy them. That's why I thought that I'd kind of
15.
1
bring that up.
2
If we had our own store, I think that it would be
3
a lot cheaper on a lot of us here. Say have a store
4
centrally located. I think that it would work. I think
5
that is enough to put into a store of some kind where
6
you can buy your groceries. I know a lot of you have to
7
spend quite a bit by the time, like I say, by the time
8
you run into Missoula, that is $10.00, $15.00 worth of
9
gas to go to Missoula and back, especially to people with
LO
big cars.
11
That is all, thank you.
12
(Applause)
L3
MR. MEREDITH: Our next speaker will be
15
Mr. Britton V. Salois.
Le
17
MR. SALOIS: I am speaking on behalf of myself
18
as a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai
19
Tribes. We are looking at $150,000.00 (sic) versus
20
15,000 acres of land.
21
How much do you think a white man would charge you
22
for that land?
23
I think it has been the main consensus so far of the
24
speakers that they would rather have the land than the
25
money. We are being ripped off and I personally hope that
16.
this doesn't go through.
Would you let your parents go, your mother go for
$35.00 an acre? Think about it. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. MEREDITH: The next speaker will be
Mrs. Juanita Rose Bailey.
MRS. BAILEY: My name is Juanita Rose Bailey,
a member of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes
and I feel that most members of the Tribe have come to
realize that their land is becoming more and more
important to them. They should. The dollar isn't worth
that much to us right now because with the land and a
lot of hard work you can make your own dollar. Thank you.
(Applause)
8
MR. MEREDITH: I will call next Mr. Raymond
Clifford Elmo.
o
MR. ELMO: I am Clifford Elmo Raymond. I do
2
say my middle name because I have a cousin that's got
3
the same name.
I am in favor of going with the Tribal Council on
5
trying to get the omitted land back into the Reservation.
17.
Back when I was in high school in the late '40's,
a piece of land, an allotment was sold and at that time
the man that bought it immediately within a month sold
the timber off of it, half of it and paid for the land
5
and still had money in his pocket plus the land and half
of the timber.
Octave has suggested putting up a building to house
a store and $550.000.00 probably would barely build the
building to put it in, let alone stock it and is there a
Tribal member that knows the finances and the planning
that goes into running a store? I know I couldn't do it.
When we give up our land, we have given up everything.
Why do people from Europe come here, land, free land;
they steal it from us.
Look at Brigham Young when he stole the Salt Lake
Valley and no more man can back this down. They said that
we had to have someplace but according to the Bible,
thou shalt not steal. It does not give an end to the
means and the land is ours. I say keep it. We want 1t,
not a mere pittance that won't feed us for a month.
That is all I have to say.
(Applause)
MR. MEREDITH: I call now Mr. R. Louis Dupuis.
18.
1
MR. DUPUIS: My name is R. Louis Dupuis. I
a
am from Polson, and I am a member of the Tribe.
3
On November 12, I had a letter that appeared in
the Missoulian and that's what I want to repeat here.
5
I feel that I've got something that must be said
concerning the meeting that is being called by the
B.I.A., on the date of November 22nd, 1975, at 7:00
3
o'clock P.M., at the St. Ignatius Community Center. It
seems to me that the U. S. Government and the officials
are laboring under a serious misapprehension. They have
drawn the foregone conclusion that the Flathead Indians
are going to accept or have already accepted the pile
of money they have placed in plain sight to further tempt
us in exchange for several thousand acres of land in the
Southwest corner of our Reservation.
They've put a different slant on it other than what
is the true picture. Apparently they have decided to take
that land and give the Indians the money that they are
tempting us with. The U. S. Government and the U. S.
Courts are telling us that we lost the right to owner-
ship of the land simply because there was a mistake made
when the Reservation Boundary Survey was made. It does
not sound reasonable or of justice. In fact, it is ridic-
ulous that the loss of land could result because of an
error in the boundary survey and that this same error could
19.
1
nullify some of the terms of the 1855 Treaty. That
2
Treaty says that the South boundary commences at the
3
headwaters of the Jocko and follows the ridges that
4
divide the drainages of the Jocko on the North and the
5
Bitterroot on the South, westward to a point on the
6
Clark Fork River.
7
Then the West boundary begins further downstream
8
near the same point and thence follows northerly on
9
ridges that divide the drainages eastward to the Flathead
LO
River and westward to the Clark Fork River.
The Treaty does not say it in these exact words
but that is the meaning carried in the Treaty.
L3
The facts are plain to see that these lands are a
part of our original Treaty Reservation. The error was
L5
brought to light, I believe, by one of our Tribal
.6
attorneys, George M. Tunison, whom the Tribe hired in
7
the early 1940's. He worked on Tribal cases until his
8
death in the early 1950's. He was associated with the
same law firm that we have today.
20
But the point that I wish to make is that the
U. S. Government violated its responsibility in not
honoring the Treaty and was negligent in not protecting
3
the Indian Reservation from invasion.
Even after the error was brought to light, the
:5
U.. S. Government forced the Tribe to take this matter to
TORD LIBRARY is STREET
20.
the courts in seeking a restoration of these lands to
the Reservation. But the court decided that it would
3
be easier to give the Indians the money and take the land.
Several years ago, our Tribal Council rejected this
5
offer of money from the government and wanted the land
6
to be kept as a part of the Reservation instead. Now
7
it appears that the government does not accept the word
8
of the Tribal Council and chooses to bring the matter up
again, only this time it is going to the people, which
0
move will probably bring about dissatisfaction, dissension,
hard feelings and may even cause a split in Tribal unity.
I must say one thing more about the Reservation
Boundary Survey. There are several places where the
surveyors took shortcuts from one high point to another
5
and in doing so, lopped off several acres of land that
are in fact justly Reservation lands but supposedly lost
7
because of the erroneous survey.
I have got another paragraph on this but it is not
pertaining to this particular thing.
I will leave it with the master of ceremonies here.
(Applause)
MR. MEREDITH: The next speaker will be
Mr. Thurman Trosper.
21.
1
MR. TROSPER: My name is Thurman Trosper. I
2
am a member of the Tribe. I have been gone for many
3
years and I have now returned.
4
I live up at Ronan, and the thing that bothers me
5
probably more than anything else about this particular
6
case is that the wishes of the Tribal Council have not
7
been adhered to.
8
This is a case that has been going on for a long,
9
long time and the Tribe has said repeatedly, the Council
LO
has said repeatedly that they want the land back and not
1
the money, particularly not the money at 1910 prices,
2
$50.00 an acre or some such figure.
3
My background is in Forestry and I can tell you
4
that the figures that have been quoted here tonight as
5
to the forest values are very conservative. The true
6
value of the timber is much higher than that and that
7
isn't the important thing. I think the important thing
8
is that we need to have a land base to sustain the Tribes.
9
The thing that bothers me about what is going on here
o
tonight is that it looks like the bureaucrats have
decided what is good for the Tribe. They have already
2
made that decision.
Now they come before us with an offer not of
concerning the basic question of whether or not we should
5
accept the money or not, but what should we do with the
22.
1
money after we accept it. How will it be paid out which
2
to me is a ridiculous question because the first question
3
has to be answered first and that question is, do we
accept the money or do we accept the land.
5
Now my position is very firm on this point. We
6
need to do everything we can to regain control of the
7
10,000 ácres in question but this isn't the only area
8
in question. There are lands on the Northern part of
9
the Reservation up near Yellow Bay that are in the same
o
category.
Now I will go one step further; it isn't just the
lands that are still in the National Forest ownership
3
but it is all of the land, the lands that have been
alienated. I think the Federal Government should buy
5
these lands back and return them to the Tribe and I would
propose that we act in unison and that we attempt to
7
resolve this particular question through the legislative
8
process.
I think we have run the gamut through the judicial
:0
process and I have no hope that this kind of question
will be settled administratively looking at the track
record of the B.I.A. So the only hope that we have got
is to go back to Congress as we have done, as has been
done with Blue Lake, Taos, the more recently, the small
band of Indians there near Grand Canyon National Park
23.
and, of course, the more recent case with the Yakimas.
I think this is completely feasible. It will take a
little time but I think this is the course of action that
I would recommend the Tribal Council and Tribes pursue.
Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. MEREDITH: The next person will be
Norbert Dupuis
MR. DUPUIS: My name is Norbert Dupuis, a
Salish member. I am a member of the American Indian
Movement.
These white people, they come in here to our land
just like rats. They come here to devour our country
and take everything we have got and it makes me mad and
I'm going to say this land is going to be occupied, this
thing as soon as we can.
I am going to fight for my mother and I will die,
too,
(Applause)
MR. MEREDITH: The next speaker will be
Mr. Joseph McDonald.
24.
MR. JOSEPH McDONALD: My name is Joe McDonald.
I am a resident of Ronan and I am a Tribal Councilman.
I have some different people that couldn't be here
tonight that asked me to submit these. In looking through
5
them, they are on both sides.
B
I, being a Tribal Councilman, I thought that at the
meeting we were going to discuss whether or not we had a
choice of taking a payment for the disputed land or
whether we had a choice of taking the land. It was
certainly a surprise and shock to me to come in here
tonight and get this supposed plan where we determine
how we are going to spend the money.
I certainly, to me, and to many of us, land is very
valuable and certainly the land, I haven't been up there;
5
I have been on certain parts of that area but I know,
you know, have flown over it. I know what much of it is
7
like and to many of us, that kind of land is, you know,
8
out on a lonely mountain ridge and that country is full
of rock slides I guess and maybe in some areas a few
rattlesnakes but to me, that kind of country is really
valuable and much more valuable than real rich, fertile
2
farmland as far as I am concerned.
3
So I do hope that the Tribe will support the Council
and the Council would be very adamant in their approach
5
of getting the land back. Thank you.
(Applause)
25.
MR. MEREDITH: The next speaker is Virginia
Brazill.
MRS. BRAZILL: Every time I get up to speak
5
they put this thing way up there and I could never reach
6
it. Usually they don't even give it to me.
My name is Virginia Brazill. I am from Arlee. I
am also running for Tribal Council.
Our Tribal Council in 1972, made a right decision.
They didn't give us the money to spend. They held it in
escrow until now.
Three years later, we find out that we have half
a million dollars that we could have spent or maybe we
should keep the land. I feel that we should keep the
5
land.
I think that we should keep the land for future
generations. Where are our children going to be one
B
generation from now, 30 years from now, 50 years from now
if we just sell our land.
When determination was an issue, many, many young
people spoke and said we must keep our Reservation in-
tact because we have children and grandchildren coming
3
and we want something for them.
I feel, as an individual Indian person that we
really must keep our Reservation intact if we want a
26.
fruitful future for our children and our children's
children. Thank you.
(Applause)
MR. MEREDITH: Some of you came in after the
program started and were given forms to fill out by my
great helper here in the front row. I would appreciate
it now if you would let me know if there are any others
that would like to make a statement that might not have
turned in your forms.
Would you please raise your hands and we can collect
the forms.
While some of the people are still filling out their
forms though that arrived late, we do have some people
that have indicated they wanted to make a statement. I'd
like now to call Tom McDonald.
MR. McDONALD: My name is Tom McDonald and I
am a candidate for the Tribal Council from Arlee and I
will make a brief statement and it is reiterating what
has already been said by Norbert Dupuis and Joe McDonald
and everyone that has spoken so far this evening. They
are all saying that we want the land and that I think it
is an insult to offer us, you know, the money that has
or
been offered us, you know, for the land.
27.
From my understanding of the amount of land and the
amount of money involved, that we would be -- we'd be
fools to accept the money and I don't think that any of
us are fools and I think that we are all, you know, going
to fight for the land.
I think that in the end we will get the land back.
Thank you
(Applause)
MR. MEREDITH: I will call now Douglas Allard.
MR. ALLARD: My name is Douglas Allard. I am
a Tribal member from St. Ignatius.
Actually I came up here to talk for Pete Woodcock
5
but what he told me to say, he told me in Indian and I
don't understand that and I have to talk for myself
instead.
Actually what he said, he said he came here because
he heard it was going to be round two of some kind of a
fight that's been going on here tonight. I don't know
what he was talking about. Somebody has been fighting
I guess and he came to see round number two. That's what
3
he told me.
My ideas are very similar, for a change, to the
or
members, as that of the members of the Tribal Council.
28.
The price that's offered for the land is, of course,
absolutely ridiculous. The hearing, however, according
to the little blurb that was handed to us is not on whether
or not we want the land or the money but what we are
going to do with the money and I think that we are kind
of contributing a little bit to the deliquency of the
Tribe by attending the hearing that is not designed to do
what we want to do.
I think the best thing we could have done with this
hearing is probably send the government people -- my
apologies to you personally. You don't look like a real
bad guy but I don't like government guys too good. I
have a lot of reasons for that -- the best thing we could
have done is to not attend the hearing I believe and tell
them to take the hearing and their little minutes and
thunk, just like that with them.
The idea of sitting around discussing something that
makes absolutely no difference to them is a little bit
ridiculous. They are here conducting a hearing on what
we are supposed to do with the money and we have already
decided that we don't want the money but we want the land.
All we are doing is putting down a bunch of stuff
on paper. They are not going to pay attention to it.
I don't know what your job is, I'm sorry. Maybe
you just -- maybe you work for us, I don't know. At any
29.
1
rate, I have to look at somebody when I say nasty things
2
instead of Bill Morigeau or some of these other guys.
3
I did that to him enough already.
4
At any rate, I believe that what they are putting
5
down on paper here will probably ultimately have absolutely
6
have nothing to do with any decisions ever made on anything
7
to do with this Tribe and I think that it should go in
8
the record that at least somebody here believes that they
9
are here paying lip service only to our needs and our
LO
demands and they probably will never even act on all of
the things that are said here tonight because all the
things that are said here have nothing to do with the
statements here about how we are going to spend our money
and I would like to have it go on the record that I think
5
that it's a little ridiculous of us to sit here and
listen to each other saying what we all know we want to
7
do. We don't want the money. We want the land.
.8
If you want to sell it for $550,000.00, I know
somebody that will buy it for $600,000.00.
20
We don't want that. Nobody wants the money. Every-
body wants the land yet we sit here and pay service to
their hearing about what we are going to do with the
money and they will go back and read the record and say
look at all of those dumb guys out there. We had a
5
hearing about what they were going to do with the money
30.
1
and they didn't know what it was about. They stood up
2
and they said they wanted the land.
3
I just want them to make damned good and sure that
they know we want the land and that somebody should pay
5
attention to what this says when it goes back there and
6
maybe the next time they have a hearing we ought to make
7
sure everything is about what we want it to be about and
8
not what they want it to be about. Thank you.
9
(Applause)
o
1
MR. MEREDITH: Patrick Pierre.
2
3
MR. PIERRE: I guess I'm the last one here.
The indication was that I wanted to talk last because I
wanted to kind of summarize what everybody is talking
B
about and bring it out back to the Indians, not to the
7
Tribal members but to the members --
8
9
MR. MEREDITH: I didn't notice your statement.
o
There are a few others that might like to make a statement.
1
2
MR. PIERRE: Good, I'd like to wait.
3
4
MR. MEREDITH: I'm sorry, I didn't notice that.
5
I. have one letter and there are some others that are
31.
1
filled out.
2
Is there anyone that wants to speak that came in
3
late and has a form that they have just filled out?
4
Would anyone else who wishes to speak please raise their
5
hands. Do you have a form to fill out? Have you filled
6
out one of these?
7
8
MR. ALVIN SLOAN: No, I haven't but can we
9
ask a question?
MR. MEREDITH: You can ask a question for
purposes of clarification. Would you state your question?
3
MR. ALVIN SLOAN: Well, so far, and I got in
a little late, but I checked this out on the front table
5
there and it seems that there might be some people here,
6
at least the question that was asked me seems to be
verified by my further questioning. That is we are
B
talking about the land involved and I'm not sure that
everybody here understands what the land involved is
and in the answer you gave, I'd like to have them state
not just the miles involved or from this point to that
involved but to tell the people here as you drive
through it and you see it from different areas and the
highways for example, etc., that you can see it from,
or
what are we talking about?
32.
I understand that probably as well as a lot of the
2
people here do but I think we all ought to understand
3
it better in as far as the selection of how we feel
4
about whether or not we should retain it.
5
MR. MEREDITH: What was your name, sir?
7
MR. SLOAN: Alvin Sloan.
8
MR. MEREDITH: Mr. Sloan, if you are aware of
9
the area, would you want to explain it to the people in
o
a statement to where it is or would you rather ask
someone else to do that?
MR. SLOAN: I would -- I think -- I asked this
3
question to Fred Houle and I think he can explain it
quite well.
5
MR. MEREDITH: Okay, Mr. Houle?
7
MR. HOULE: The land area that we are trying to
8
get back is that area on the Southwest boundary of the
9
Reservation. If anybody knows where Mrs. Bertha Gingery,
o
McGinnis Creek, Southwest as you travel out of Perma,
past Sepay Creek, you come to Knowles Creek. From the
2
area between Mrs. Gingery's house and Knowles Creek there
3
is an arrowhead-shaped piece of land. Most of it is
South of the river. There is some North of the river but
5
there are 10,000 acres -- 10,500 acres in the National
33.
1
Forest on both sides of the river from about Knowles
2
Creek down to the junction of where the Clark Fork River
runs into the Flathead River. That is the land area we
are trying to get back.
5
MR. SLOAN: Go on further, Mr. Houle. Could
7
you tell us basically what the use of that land is that
8
isn't in the National Forest?
9
MR. HOULE: Well, that land that is not in the
National Forest has been patented to third parties like
the majority of the Reservation here has. It was home-
steaded and is now owned by farmers along the river.
The area that is in the National Forest is the
5
timberlands.
6
MR. SLOAN: And how close to the confluence of
8
the river before you get into Paradise, would the marker
or whatever to show the Reservation Boundary is?
MR. HOULE: The far Southwest extent of the
Reservation is the confluence of the Flathead and the
Clark Fork River.
MR. SLOAN: Which is roughly where?
34.
1
MR. HOULE: Just before you get into Paradise,
2
as you cross the bridge.
3
MR. MEREDITH: Joann Kuntz is next.
5
6
MRS. KUNTZ: First of all, I'd like to thank
7
you for pronouncing my name right.
8
I am Joann Kuntz and I'm a member of the Tribe and
9
first of all, I am in shock. I thought we were here at
0
this meeting to talk about if we wanted to keep the land
1
or if we were going to sell it. I walk in and I get a
proposal and this is typical of the B.I.A. They give us
3
the proposal and expect us to rubber-stamp it.
The initials to me, B.I.A., you know, often bossing
5
Indians around like they always do, bossing the Indians
6
and they never give us what we want. They just tell us.
7
Thank you.
8
(Applause)
9
MR. MEREDITH: Is there anyone else here that
1
would like to make an oral statement?
2
Would you please come forward and fill out one of
3
these forms so we can get your name?
4
5
MR. LINDY McCLURE: My name is Lindy McClure
FORD LIBRARY &
35.
1
and I'm from St. Ignatius and I'm a member of the Tribe.
2
I want to know why Mr. Houle didn't state to the
3
people that that land down there that we want back is
4
also the Knowles dam site which if we got that land back,
5
that dam site would be ours and which would mean a pretty
6
penny to the Tribe.
7
I would like to know why Mr. Houle didn't state that
8
to the people so that the people would know that?
9
(Applause)
LO
MR. HOULE: I want to apologize for not
mentioning that, Lindy. The Tribal Council defeated the
3
construction of Knowles Dam in the early 1950's and to
the best of my knowledge, Knowles Dam will never be built
5
but it is a thought. It is a very valuable dam site but
6
I believe the matter is dead now, that they won't build
7
Knowles Dam.
8
(Applause)
9
0
MR. MEREDITH: Is there anyone else who wishes
to make a statement?
2
3
MRS. LUCILLE TROSPER OTTER: My name is Lucille
4
Otter and I'm a resident of Ronan, Flathead Allottee
5
No. 3313.
36.
I have a statement. Should I read it? But I wanted
to ask Mr. Houle a clarification of the Northeast
Boundary of the Reservation and why the Council is not
asking for that land back as well as the Southwest end
of the Reservation?
MR. HOULE: I am not aware of any land in the
Northwest or Northeast corner I believe you said. I am
not aware of any land up there that is in the National
Forest. It is all Burlington Northern land up in that
area or ACM land.
MRS. OTTER: As long as I am up here, I may as
well read my statement.
An error in survey, hardly likely. It appears to be
another instance of short changing the Indian of his lands.
The amount awarded by the Court of Claims in payment
of approximately 15,000 acres of land is not just
compensation to the Indians considering the time elapsed
since these surveys were made. Therefore, I suggest that
all lands be returned to the Tribe, especially that area
in the Northwest end of the Reservation.
Restoring this area, as well as the Southwest area,
to the Tribal Ownership will involve a long legal battle
but on the other hand will bring to the attention of the
37.
1
people of this nation in this bicentennial year that
another rip off of Indian resources was made.
3
Ownership of the lands in question would benefit
the Tribe much more than the cash award made by the
5
Court of Claims.
6
(Applause)
8
MR. MEREDITH: I notice a few other people
have come in in the last few minutes. Is there anyone
0
else that would like to make an oral statement here,
any of you people who came in a few minutes ago, do you
have anything --- do you want to make a statement?
3
MR. BILL MORIGEAU: Bill Morigeau again. Lindy
5
McClure asked about the ownership of the Knowles Dam.
6
The lower lands that went into the third party ownership,
7
the lands that we understand we can't get back; Knowles
8
Dam site was down in that area and I understood from
9
Mansfield and Metcalf that the Knowles Dam site just
o
reverted, the Knowles Dam site area reverted back to the
1
Tribe so there is really no question there. It belongs
2
to the Tribe right now but what Mr. Houle said about it
3
is correct. Thank you.
4
(Applause)
5
MR. MEREDITH: Is there anyone else who wishes
38.
1
to make an oral statement? Mr. Pierre would like to
speak last so he can explain this and summarize it and
3
if there are no further statements from anyone else, I
will ask him to come forward now. All right, Mr. Dupuis.
5
MR. LOUIS DUPUIS: I want emphasis in my mind
7
and to the people here that this land that we are talking
8
about belongs to the Tribe. We have ownership of it
by the defines of the Boundary so why can't we make the
o
government prove that we don't own it? That is all.
(Applause)
3
MR. MEREDITH: Does anyone else have an oral
statement to make?
5
6
MR. VICTOR STINGER: I want to add a little
7
something to this, just in case this record of this
8
hearing goes someplace that means something.
9
I have been the Chairman for the Land Committee
for the last couple of years on the Council and I think
if National Forest Land is selling for $55.00 an acre,
we'd be willing to buy any number of acres.
3
(Applause)
4
5
MR. MEREDITH: I will ask again if there is
39.
1
anyone else that has an oral statement to make? Then
I will ask Mr. Pierre to come up and summarize if you will.
3
MR. PATRICK PIERRE: Thank you. First of all,
5
my name is Patrick Pierre, Polson, Montana. I am a
6
member of the Tribe. I'd like to add that I'm a full-
blooded member.
B
I have been listening. I missed part of the first
part of this meeting. I didn't know what kind of money
they were talking about in dollars and cents, what kind
of per capita they were talking about but that is
immaterial, I mean how much the money is, the land is
worth shouldn't even be talked about. Everybody wants
the land and that is all there is to it.
Now this, as a part of what I got to say tonight,
I believe somebody here mentioned before that we have
lost a lot of land. The Reservation is hardly a
Reservation. I have been to Reservations where there is
no Homestead Act and it is a Reservation, all Indians.
It is Indian land and it is defined as such and the
people there make the decisions of what is going to take
place. They don't have the B.I.A., come in. They don't
3
have the people from the outside come in to tell them how
to run the Reservation or how to conduct themselves.
or
They run the Reservation and the Reservation thrives.
40.
Why? Because the sole interest is to keep the land, to
keep the Reservation above reproach where the people from
the outside are not going to come in and begin to say,
well, how come you don't belong to the county? How come
the county is taking care of you and how come the county
is taking care of you? Why isn't the Tribe doing it?
I believe we have got too much of that on this
Reservation. Although we have to live this way because
that is the way that it is put out.
Nevertheless, it still remains the Reservation and
if we let go of that portion of the Reservation which to
my understanding -- maybe I'm wrong -- somebody said
10,000 acres. I believe it's more than that. But I
believe that if we were to let that portion go, that
corner, what is to stop anybody from coming in and taking
off another chunk? What is to stop them from coming and
taking the Reservation boundary and moving it in a little
bit more, a squeeze?
We are already in a bind now. We have all kinds of
organizations right in the middle of our Reservation.
What can we do about it? We have got Mod, Free and what
have you and none of these organizations has said anything
that hey! Skip, you can come and belong to my Reservation.
You can come and belong to my organization rather. They
don't come and tell you, hey, you can come and belong to
41.
1
our organization. It doesn't matter if you are an Indian.
2
No sir, you have got to be some kind of an Indian to get
3
into some of these organizations.
4
Why? Because it don't belong to the Indians. It
5
is a white man's organization.
6
All right, you blew part of that land. What do you
7
get? You get a few measly dollars. You are rich today
8
and tomorrow you are broke. You ain't got no land. You
9
sold that portion of the land or Reservation. Sure,
10
it's good to have money but it's also good to have these
11
kids belong to a land that belongs to them and their
12
kids and so on down the line.
13
I personally don't believe that any money in regard
14
to this portion of the Reservation that we are talking
L5
about should even be talked about. It should be an open
L6
and shut case, we take the land back and that is all.
L7
I mean there shouldn't be nothing up to hey, this
L8
piece of paper don't say nothing about whether we got
L9
a choice of this land or the money. It says the money.
20
What are you going to do with the money? Are you going
21
to spend it on a Cadillac or are you going to forget
22
about the land and just let it go? No, if this is going
3
to go anywhere, let it go to the right place.
24
I don't know how many times this group of people
:5
has been heard anywhere besides right here on the
42.
Reservation.
I have got a man back there that don't understand
much of what I'm saying and he is going to have a chance
to talk and he is going to have a chance to talk through
me because I am going to interpret for him.
How many of us can interpret one for another here?
I still see the true value of -- I have been a Tribal
member and an Indian, first an Indian. That's how I
stand.
I don't believe that there should be any question
about how much money we are going to accept for that land
over there. This land belongs to the Reservation and it
is not for sale.
Just real quickly, how many believe that this land
should not be for sale, just raise your hands.
About 65%. What are the rest of you going to do,
sell? Aren't you proud of your Reservation? Don't you
want to keep this land intact? Do you want to give it
up just a portion at a time? Is that right? You are not
going to be here all your life, the rest of your days.
Now you are not going to live to be 1,000 years old
but these children are and they are going to need land.
They are going to need a place to put their homes and be
free.
5
This is for the Tribal members and as a Tribal
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
43.
1
member, I'm going to speak to some of these people that
2
didn't understand.
3
(Mr. Pierre spoke at length in
Indian language.)
4
5
Pete, he comes over here to listen in most of the
6
time and that is what happens. People come over to
7
listen in and what do they hear, they hear a bunch of
8
mumbo jumbo and then they go home and say I don' know
9
what I done, I went over there and nobody comes and told
10
me what was going on.
11
After awhile, they come over there with a piece of
12
paper and they say well, Pete, you was at the meeting,
13
here, sign this.
14
He might be signing away his Reservation.
15
(Mr. Pierre speaks Indian language
again.)
16
L7
The opinion of one full-blooded Tribal member. He
18
says that the land is more valuable than money. He says
19
that the land belongs to the Reservation and, therefore,
20
we want the land back.
21
This is just the opinion of one Tribal member who
22
should by all means be heard at everyone of these meetings
23
and if it's in my power, I will be here at these meetings
24
so I can interpret for these people like Pete. That is
25
Pete Woodcock, one of the oldest Tribal members of this
44,
Reservation.
I believe as a matter of fact I would like to stress
to everyone of you that knows somebody or can bring
somebody of the older Tribal members, the full-blood
Tribal members on this Reservation, to bring them and I
6
will personally interpret for them so that they can have
a voice in this and any matters that is of any importance,
I would like to have them here and I believe we have a
lot of C.H.R.'s around here. They should be hauling
these people to these meetings. Isn't that right?
Wouldn't you say that?
How many C.H.R.'s do we have here? How many people
did you haul here to this meeting tonight? How many did
you haul here, nobody? All right.
I believe that this should be -- a meeting of this
type should be first and foremost in these old people's
lives so that they can understand what is going on. I
don't know either one of you guys so if I don't call you
by name, don't be offended. But I think personally that
we should, whenever we have a meeting of this type, bring
these old people so that they can be heard. They are the
people that this Reservation at one time belonged to,
people like Pete Woodcock, John, Mose, my aunt Christine.
I don't have too much more to say except that I
believe I didn't catch the figures but I'm sure I don't
45.
1
think that $94.00 is something to trade for thousands
2
of acres of land. I believe the land is more valuable.
3
The reason that I say this is that I'm a sawmill man and
4
wood products are very important to me. I worked the
5
sawmill all my life and I started when I was 17 and I
6
am now 46 years old.
7
Right now we are getting pinched off. Pack River
B
Lumber Company, Dupuis Lumber, there is no more timber
9
yet we have timber standing all around us but we can't
0
get it to the mill so the mill is shutting down.
1
There are very few of us here that realize how much
2
it hurts to be pushed out of a job. Who is doing it?
3
We don't know. I mean we know but we are not going to
broadcast it.
5
I believe that that timber is a very good thing to
6
have on this Reservation but by all means if we get the
7
timber out, keep the B.I.A. - Forestry out of it.
8
(Applause)
9
Right now, that is about all I have. I thank each
o
and everyone of you for taking the time to listen.
1
(Applause)
2
3
MR. MEREDITH: Is there anyone else who desires
4
to make a statement or present any evidence germane to
5
this hearing? There being none, it becomes my duty to
46.
close the hearing.
VOICE FROM THE AUDIENCE: Before you close
the hearing, I'm curious. You heard all of our statements.
What are you going to do with this once more?
MR. MEREDITH: As I stated at the first part
of this hearing, it is not up to me to make any decision.
This is evidence that will be submitted to the Secretary
and then to the Congressional Committees and any state-
ment that you make here will be in the record that goes
forward.
else
MR. BRITTON V. SALOIS: I believe that we are
being taken. There seems to be a lack of communication
on what this money is all about. They are getting it
through to the people that we have the money and how do
8
you want to spend it without asking us or giving us
alternatives or anything like that. They are taking us
for granted. We are being insulted and can you really
call this hearing fair? I think that we ought to
disregard this hearing.
3
(Applause)
5
47.
MR. RAYMOND CLIFFORD ELMO: This hearing has
been called a slap in the face to our Tribal Council.
I am very much pleased with the fact that everybody is
supporting our Tribal Council here and no one has spoken
against the decision that they have tried to do on this
matter. That is all.
I
(Applause)
MR. MEREDITH: Does anyone else have a
statement? If not, I will now close the hearing. There
being no further statements, a copy of this transcript
will be furnished to the Tribe. Anyone else wishing a
copy of the transcript of this hearing should make
personal arrangements with the Reporter who is taking
the statements at this hearing.
I wish to thank everyone for your cooperation given
during this hearing. Since there is nothing further in
connection with this hearing and no more testimony or
evidence to be offered, the hearing stands adjourned.
(End of proceedings.)
48.
7
CERTIFICATE
STATE OF MONTANA
)
: SS.
3
County of Missoula
)
I, Carroll B. Copeland, Official Court
or
Reporter, State of Montana, residing in Missoula, Montana,
do hereby certify:
That I was duly authorized to and did report
the testimony and evidence in the above entitled public
hearing.
I further certify that the foregoing pages of
this transcript represents a true and accurate
transcription of my stenographic notes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my
hand this 5th day of December, 1975.
Carroll B. Copeland,
Official Court Reporter.
49.
Nevertheless, I sign this legislation with mixed emo-
cash compensation, the Tribe with the permission of the
tions, not over whether miners, widows, and their de-
Commission, sought to have the land itself restored.
pendents need this assistance-they do-but because of
In a comprehensive opinion, Attorney General Mitchell
the precedent it tends to establish.
reviewed the unintentional but mistaken actions of 1907
This legislation departs from the U.S. tradition that
and ruled that the Executive order of that time did not
compensation for work-related accidents and diseases
constitute a "taking" of the land by the Government in
should be provided by State workmen's compensation
the legal sense and that it can be restored by Executive
laws, financed by the owners of the industries containing
action now.
the hazards. Responsibility for black lung compensation
Ordinarily, of course, Indian land claims are being,
clearly should lic with the owners and operators of the
and should be, settled by cash award, but this case has
mines.
exceptional circumstances which the Attorney General
In this case, however, the States have not yet improved
has described.
their owner-financed laws to meet the challenge posed by
I am equally pleased to note that the Yakima Tribe
black lung-and there are too many victims of this dread
itself has pledged by tribal resolution to maintain exist-
disease for me not to have acted.
ing recreation facilities for public use" and to "recognize
Therefore, I have moved to pick up the responsibility
the dedication of that portion included in the Mt. Adams
that others have neglected-so that disabled miners and
wilderness use."
their families will not be deserted by our society in their
hour of critical and justified personal need.
NOTE: For the text of the Executive order, see the following item.
The health and salety of coal miners has been a pri-
mary concern of this Administration. One of my earliest
legislative recommendations was for more effective Fed-
Yakima Indian Reservation
eral laws in the area of coal mine health and safety, cul-
minating in the enactment of the Federal Coal Mine
Health and Safety Act of 1969. Since that law was en-
Executive Order 11670. May 1972
neted, major progress has been made in improving work-
PROVIDING FOR THE RETURN OF CERTAIN LANDS TO THE
ing conditions in our Nation's coal mines and in the
YAKIMA INDIAN RESERVATION
protection offered to those who work in them.
The 1969 act established the temporary black lung
In 1855, the United States entered into a treaty with
benefits program. The legislation I have signed today will
the Yakima Tribe of Indians. The treaty created a reser-
stend Federal responsibility for this program from Janu-
vation, generally described by natural landmarks, for
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, MAY 22, 1972
881
the exclusive use and benefit of the Tribe. Over the years,
SECTION 1. A portion of the eastern boundary of the
there have been continuing disputes regarding the true
Gifford Pinchot National Forest is modified as follows:
location of the reservation boundary.
Beginning at the point on the main ridge of the Cascade
In 1897, President Cleveland created by proclamation
Mountains, where the Yakima Indian Reservation bound-
the Mount Rainier Forest Reserve in an area near the
ary as located by the 1926 Pecore survey from Goat Butte
western boundary of the Yakima Reservation. In 1908,
intersects said main ridge; thence southwesterly along the
President Theodore Roosevelt extended the boundary of
main ridge of the Cascade Mountains to the summit or
that Forest to include a tract of some 21,000 acres, then
the pinnacle of Mount Adams, as shown on the diagram
mistakenly thought to be public land. The tract is in-
of the Rainier National Forest attached to the Presiden-
cluded within a larger area now called the Gifford Pin-
tial proclamation of October 23, 1911, 37 Stat. 1718;
chot National Forest. In 1912, a portion of the tract was
thence southerly along a divide between the watersheds
designated the Mount Adams Wild Area, and this por-
of the Klickitat and White Salmon Rivers is shown on
tion has been administered since 1964 for the public bene-
the 1932 Calvin Reconnaissance Survey Map (Petition-
fit under the Wilderness Act.
er's Exhibit No. 4, Docket No. 47, Indian Claims Com-
In 1966, the Indian Claims Commis
that this
mission) to its intersection with the north line of Section
tract had originally been intended for
on in the
34, Township 7 North, Range 11 East, Willamette
Yakima Reservation. However, the Commission does not
Meridian.
have authority to return specific property to a claimant; it
SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is directed to as-
may only grant money damages. Accordingly, the Tribe
sought Executive action for return of its land.
sume jurisdiction over the tract of land heretofore ad-
The Attorney General has at my request reviewed the
ministered as a portion of the Gifford Pinchot National
specific history and background of this particular case,
Forest and excluded from the Forest by Section 1 of this
including the principles which govern the taking of land
order, and to administer it for the use and benefit of the
by the United States and the question of whether this
Yakima Tribe of Indians as a portion of the reservation
particular land was so taken. In a recent opinion, the
created by the Treaty of 1855, 12 Stat. 951.
Attorney General has advised me that, in these excep-
SEC. 3. Any prior order or proclamation relating to the
tional and unique circumstances, the land was not taken
tract of land affected by this order, to the extent incon-
by the United States within the meaning of the Fifth
Amendment and that possession of this particular tract
sistent with this order, is hereby superseded.
can be restored to the Tribe by Exec
RICHARD NIXON
Now, THEREFORE, by virtue of the authority vested
The White House
in me by the Constitution and statutes of the United
May 20, 1972
States, particularly 16 U.S.C. 473, it is ordered as
follows:
[Filed with the Office of the Federal Register, 11:10 a.m.,
May 22, 1972]
1
WEEKLY COMPILATION OF PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS, MAY 22, 1972
Lung Benefits Act of 1972
ary 1, 1972, to June 30, 1973. In the latter half of 1973,
the Federal Government will continue to accept ap-
nent by the President Upon Signing the
plications for black lung benefits but beneficiaries en-
nto Law. May 20, 1972
rolled during this period will be transferred to the State
programs on January 1, 1974.
lay I have signed H.R. 9212, the Black Lung Bene-
I urge that all mining States review their workmen's
of 1972.
compensation programs to make certain that adequate
legislation extends for 18 months the Federal rc-
laws exist for the black lung disease by that time.
bility for operating a transitional program enacted
9 to provide cash benefits for coal miners disabled
lung disease.
der the original law, lifetime monthly benefits have
Yakima Indian Reservation
warded to more than 260,000 miners, widows, and
dents at a Federal cost of more than $600 million.
Statement by the President Upon Signing Executive
Black Lung Benefits Act of 1972 will mean that
Order. May 20, 1972
I thousands of additional miners and their de-
its will be eligible for lifetime benefits from the Fed-
It is with particular pleasure that I sign this Executive
overnment, because of its extension of filing time
order which places 21,000 acres of land in the State of
ecause it provides for generous liberalization of
Washington under the trust jurisdiction of the Secretary
ity requirements.
of the Interior for the Yakima Indian Tribe.
n heartened that this legislation provides benefits
This action rights a wrong going back 65 years.
hans of black lung victims, who are excluded in
The United States Government lost the treaty map in
esent law through legislative oversight. Other de-
its own files and by the time it was found actions had been
its are covered but not orphans. Under the new
taken which had mistakenly displaced the Indians from
me 2,000 orphans of black lung victims-and all
this land.
rphans in the future-will receive the benefits to
The Indian Claims Commission has ruled that the
they should be fully entitled.
Yakima Tribe has a rightful claim, but rather than accept
erthcless, 1 sign this legislation with mixed emo-
cash compensation, the Tribe with the permission of the
not over whether miners, widows, and their de-
Commission, sought to have the land itself restored.
is need this assistance-they do-but because of
In a comprehensive opinion, Attorney General Mitchell
cedent it tends to establish.
reviewed the unintentional but mistaken actions of 1907
legislation departs from the U.S. tradition that
and ruled that the Executive order of that time did not
asation for work-related accidents and diseases
constitute a "taking" of the land by the Government in
be provided by State workmen's compensation
the legal sense and that it can be restored by Executive
nanced by the owners of the industries containing
action now.
cards. Responsibility for black lung compensation
Ordinarily, of course, Indian land claims are being,
should lie with the owners and operators of the
and should be, settled by cash award, but this case has
exceptional circumstances which the Attorney General
is case, however, the States have not yet improved
has described.
vner-financed laws to meet the challenge posed by
I am equally pleased to note that the Yakima Tribe
ing-and there are too many victims of this dread
itself has pledged by tribal resolution to "maintain exist-
for mc not to have acted.
ing recreation facilities for public use" and to "recognize
efore, I have moved to pick up the responsibility
the dedication of that portion included in the Mt. Adams
have neglected--so that disabled miners and
wilderness use."
milies will not be deserted by our society in their
critical and justified personal need.
NOTE: For the text of the Executive order, see the following item.
GERALD LISBERT B.FORD
STATEMENT OF MR. E. W. MORIGEAU,
MEMBER OF THE TRIBAL COUNCIL
OF THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES
OF THE FLATHEAD RESERVATION, MONTANA,
BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,
IN HEARING ON
S. 1517, NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
April 24, 1970
4591
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is
E. W. Morigeau; I am a member of the Tribal Council of the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead
Reservation, Montana. I have been a member of the Tribal
Council for 20 years. I am accompanied today by Mr. Floyd
Nicolai, who also is a member of the Tribal Council, and by
Mr. Richard A. Baenen, a member of the law firm of Wilkinson,
Cragun & Barker, general counsel to the Confederated Tribes.
We appear here in support of S. 1517, introduced by Senators
Mansfield and Metcalf, a bill to set aside certain lands in
Montana for the benefit of the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation. The lands in-
volved, 10,585.86 acres, more or less, are the residue of
Reservation lands which were erroneously excluded from the
Flathead Reservation by faulty boundary surveys performed by
FORD & LIBRANT
the United States in the 1880's and which have not been
patented to innocent third parties but which are held today
by the United States and administered by the National Forest
Service. This bill recognizes that the error was on the part
of the United States in surveying the lands; it also recog-
nizes that the Tribes have been the innocent victims of the
2.
mistake of the trustee and that the Tribes have an equitable
right to the beneficial ownership of the lands; the bill pro-
vides recognition of these facts and that the lands shall be
so held by the United States for the Tribes.
On behalf of the Tribes we request favorable con-
sideration of S. 1517. We urge the Committee to recommend
that it be enacted by the Senate. The lands are mainly forest
lands and will be used by us in our sustained yield forest
program, a program that returns money to the Tribes and is
a source of employment to tribal members. My introductory
remarks are supported by the record, which I will summarize
now for the Committee. These remarks are part of a prepared
statement which at this time I request the Chairman to accept
as part of and incorporate into the record.
By the Treaty of Hell Gate, July 16, 1855 (12 Stat.
975), ratified April 18, 1859, we ceded to the United States
all of our theretofore aboriginally-owned lands, and by
Article II of that Treaty we reserved from the cession and
the United States confirmed in us beneficial ownership in a
tract of land to be held for our exclusive home. Article II
of the Treaty described the out-boundaries of our reserved
lands and provided:
"All which tract shall be set
apart, and, so far as necessary,
surveyed and marked out for the
exclusive use and benefit of said
confederated tribes as an Indian
reservation. Nor shall any white
3.
man, excepting those in the employ-
ment of the Indian department, be
permitted to reside upon the said
reservation without permission of
the confederated tribes, and the
superintendent and agent.
11
In setting the out-boundaries of our reservation,
agents of the United States surveyed in 1887 what purported
to be the north boundary and in 1893 what purported to be
the southwest boundary. We long claimed that the surveys had
placed aboriginally-owned lands reserved by the Treaty out-
side the survey lines delineating the reserved area and
sought for many years a resolution of this dispute. Finally,
we were reduced to seeking a special jurisdictional act in
order to have a forum within which to resolve this and other
disputes with the United States. In 1946, Congress enacted
H.R. 2678 (79th Cong., 2nd Sess.), but President Truman
vetoed the enactment. The provisions of H.R. 2678 are perti-
nent to the inquiry here. Section 1 provided that jurisdiction
was conferred on the Court of Claims "to hear, examine, adju-
dicate, and render judgment in any and all legal and equitable
claims" which we might have arising out of any treaties,
agreements, Acts of Congress or Executive Orders or:
"
by reason of any lands taken
from said Indians by Acts of Con-
gress or otherwise, including lands
lost to them by erroneous surveys,
or lands opened to settlement, or
used for dam, power, and reservoir
sites and irrigation projects, or
loss of lands by submergence by
erection of reservoirs without
4.
compensation and without their con-
sent given in the usual manner, or
for the failure or refusal of the
United States to protect the in-
terests of any of said Indians in
lands as to which they had or
claimed possessory right of use and
occupancy, or because of any mis-
management or wrongful handling of
any of the funds, lands, properties,
or business enterprises belonging
to or held in trust for said
Indians.'
Section 7 provided:
"That if the court shall find
that any lands formerly belonging
to or possessed by said Indians
have been appropriated by the
United States, or set apart and
reserved as national reservations,
dam, power, and reservoir sites,
and irrigation projects, or that
loss of lands has been occasioned
by submergence by the erection of
reservoirs, or that lands have been
taken for other public uses or
otherwise reserved or disposed of
in any manner whereby the said
Indians have been deprived of the
use or benefits of such lands and
the natural resources thereof, with-
out compensation therefor and with-
out their consent it is hereby
declared that such action shall be
sufficient grounds for equitable
relief, and the court shall render
judgment in favor of said Indians,
and shall award to them, as for a
taking under the power of eminent
domain, just compensation for all
such lands, sites, projects, and
natural resources." (Sen. Rept.
1714, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 4).
In transmitting his veto of the bill, President
Truman stated:
5.
"
The jurisdiction thus to be
conferred, it is provided, would
extend to claims arising by reason
of any lands taken from these Indians,
including lands lost by erroneous sur-
veys, or lands opened to settlement,
lands used for dam, power, and reser-
voir sites or irrigation projects, or
lands lost by submergence, resulting
from the erection of reservoirs,
without compensation and without the
consent of the Indians given in the
usual manner
"In addition to other objection-
able features of the bill, an attempt
is made in its provisions to define
the 'grounds for equitable relief'
and the basis upon which the court
shall render judgment in favor of
the Indians and award to them just
compensation 'as for a taking under
the power of eminent domain. It is
possible that under the provisions of
the bill the use by the United States
of any lands 'formerly*** possessed'
by the Indians, even though the In-
dians were without any recognized
title, would constitute a sufficient
basis 'for equitable relief' and 'for
a taking under the power of eminent
domain. Thus the bill does not
merely waive the statute of limita-
tions and laches and provide a forum
for the adjudication of any preexis-
ting claims which the Indians may
have against the United States, but
it seeks to create liability against
the Government which would not other-
wise exist. Moreover, by providing
for the payment of just compensation,
the bill would probably require the
Government to pay interest, for a
period of more than 30 years, on a
claim that did not even exist prior
to its passage
"
(Ibid., p. 2.)
Congress removed what the President considered to be
objectionable provisions, and as finally enacted, the jurisdic-
tional act conferred on this Court jurisdiction "to hear,
6.
examine, adjudicate, and render judgment in any and all legal
and equitable claims of whatsoever nature
"
(60 Stat.
715). Gone were provisions constituting mere setting apart as
a "national reservation" (national forest) a taking under the
power of eminent domain.
Pursuant to this Act we filed a complaint which
contained several causes of action. Included therein were
claims that the surveys of the north (Para. 8) and southwest
(Para. 9) boundaries of the Reservation were erroneously run,
thereby establishing the boundaries of the Reservation so as
to exclude lands aboriginally held by us and confirmed in us
by our treaty.
A hearing was held and evidence taken on whether or
not the boundaries of the Reservation were established as
called for by the Treaty. The Court of Claims held in Con-
federated Salish and Kootenai Tribes V. United States, 173
Ct. Cls. 398 (1965), that the defendant's surveys were erro-
neous and that reserved treaty lands were outside the sur-
veyed out-boundaries.
Portions of the reserved lands affected by the
erroneous survey were patented to third parties or granted to
railroads. However, 10,585.86 acres of land were placed in
various national forests and have remained there. The legal
description of those lands is set out in the proposed Bill.
The sequence of events affecting these lands is as follows:
7.
On March 3, 1891, Congress passed "An Act to repeal
timber-culture laws, and for other purposes." (Fifty-First
Congress, Sess. II, c. 561, 26 Stat. 1095.) In pertinent part
that Act provided:
"SEC. 10. That nothing in this
act shall change, repeal, or modify
any agreements or treaties made with
any Indian tribes for the disposal
of their lands, or of land ceded to
the United States to be disposed of
for the benefit of such tribes, and
the proceeds thereof to be placed in
the Treasury of the United States;
and the disposition of such lands
shall continue in accordance with
the provisions of such treaties or
agreements, except as provided in
section 5 of this act. (At 1099;
emphasis added.)
"SEC. 24. That the President of
the United States may, from time to
time, set apart and reserve, in any
State or Territory having public
land bearing forests, in any part of
the public lands wholly or in part
covered with timber or undergrowth,
whether of commercial value or not,
as public reservations, and the Presi-
dent shall, by public proclamation,
declare the establishment of such
reservations and the limits thereof."
(At 1103; emphasis added.)
President Cleveland issued on February 22, 1897, a
Proclamation under the authority of Section 24 which purported
to affect land erroneously excluded by the faulty survey on
1/ Section 5 amended Sections 2289 and 2290 of Chapter 5,
Revised Statutes, relating to homestead entries.
8.
the north end of the Reservation. (Proclamation No. 29,
February 22, 1897, 29 Stat. 907.)
The Proclamation recites Section 24 of the Act of
March 3, 1891, and after stating that "whereas, the public
lands in the State of Montana, within the limits hereinafter
described, are in part covered with timber, and it appears
that the public good would be promoted by setting apart and
reserving such lands as a public reservation," proceeds to
describe, inter alia, portions of the excluded lands.
The Proclamation continues, after describing the
lands:
"Excepting from the force and
effect of this proclamation all
lands which may have been, prior
to the date hereof, embraced in
any legal entry or covered by any
lawful filing duly of record in
the proper United States Land Office,
or upon which any valid settlement
has been made pursuant to law, and
the statutory period within which to
make entry or filing of record has
not expired; and all mining claims
duly located and held according to
the laws of the United States and
rules and regulations not in con-
flict therewith;
"
(At 908;
emphasis added.)
On June 4, 1897, Congress provided in a general
appropriations act:
"The President is hereby autho-
rized at any time to modify any
Executive Order that has been or
may hereafter be made establishing
any forest reserve, and by such
modification may reduce the area or
9.
change the boundary lines of such
reserve, or may vacate altogether
any order creating such reserve.'
(Fifty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I,
Act of June 4, 1897, c. 2, 30 Stat.
11, 36.)
President Theodore Roosevelt issued on November 6,
1906, a Proclamation purportedly affecting lands situated
outside of the exterior boundaries of our Reservation because
of the erroneous survey of the southwest boundary. By the
Proclamation, these lands were considered part of the Lolo
National Forest. Cited as authority for the Proclamation was
the Act of June 4, 1897, and by the Proclamation the Lolo
Forest Reserve was "enlarged to include the said additional
lands, and that the boundaries of the reserve are now as shown
on the diagram forming a part hereof." (34 Stat. 3261.)
The Proclamation was not to "take effect upon any
lands withdrawn or reserved, at this date, from settlement,
entry, or other appropriation, for any purpose other than
forest uses, or which may be covered by any prior valid claim,
so long as the withdrawal, reservation, or claim exists." (At
3261; emphasis added.)
In addition, Public Land Orders have been issued
affecting some of the land involved. These orders are of
relatively recent dates and appear to be in the main adminis-
trative actions by the Secretary of the Interior transferring
lands from one national forest to another.
10.
After the Court's determination and the conclusion
of the study that showed the 10,585.86 acres were held by the
United States, our attorneys filed on our behalf a motion in
the Court of Claims seeking a determination that the lands had
not been taken by the United States by virtue of the erroneous
survey. This course of action was taken because the Bureau of
Indian Affairs refused to recognize or seek a confirmation of
title in the Tribes to these lands. The United States through
the Justice Department objected, and contended that the lands
had been taken by the United States. Of course, the value of
the lands to the Tribes today is far in excess of any value
they can recover in the Court of Claims, a value to be deter-
mined as of the date of taking, which in most instances will
be set before the turn of the century.
The Court of Claims on July 3, 1968, held that the
lands erroneously excluded from the exterior boundary of the
Reservation by reason of the faulty surveys in which lands
are now a national forest have not remained the property of
plaintiffs and therefore are properly subject to a claim of
taking by the United States and should be treated as such. A
Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed in the Supreme Court
seeking a review and reversal of the Court's opinion, but
the Petition was denied on January 20, 1969 (with the Chief
Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan dissenting
to the denial).
11.
The Tribes in fairness and equity should have these
lands restored to them and the proposed bill contains a pro-
vision by which we would not benefit from any court action if
the lands are restored. Hearings in the Court of Claims have
been suspended on request of our attorneys pending considera-
tion of this bill. There has been no money judgment. We have
recovered a nominal sum for some of the lands on the north,
about $.50 an acre for about one thousand acres. Under the bill
we will repay that amount to the United States. This recovery
came in our aboriginal title claim in the Indian Claims Com-
mission, Docket No. 61. It came because we were not certain,
without benefit of a full trial, of the extent of loss on the
north. There has been no recovery for lands on the southwest,
for we excluded those lands from the aboriginal title claim.
We knew those lands were ours and we. wanted them back. It is
for this reason that legislation is sought on behalf of the
Tribes.
We do not, as we prepare this statement, know the
position of the Department of Agriculture. We understand that
it recommends that the Court of Claims determination not be
reversed, and that the lands involved in S. 1517 be retained in
the National Forest of which they are a part.
We are not asking that the Court of Claims' decision
"be reversed". We assert that as a matter of equity and moral
obligation we are entitled to have these lands held in trust
12,
for us. The lands were lost through an error by the United States
Government, the trustee of the Tribes. The Tribes were in no
way at fault. No innocent third party has intervened, for as
to the lands patented to third parties, we are not seeking any
restoration and we will accept a money judgment which will be
based on a valuation date before the turn of the century. We
would rather have the land, but we recognize the position of
innocent third parties. The United States, however, is not
innocent; it committed the error and it should not be allowed
to benefit from that error at the expense of its ward.
We also understand the Department of Agriculture
contends that these lands are valuable public lands which have
been managed, protected, and improved at public expense for
over 60 years and that much of their current value is due to
their treatment as National Forest lands during this period.
The fact that the United States has expended money
based on its own error is irrelevant. The United States also
has expended money for tribal forest lands and it cannot be
said that because it has spent money to take care of the
forest lands of the Tribes, that the Tribes are not entitled
to keep those lands and they should be placed in the National
Forest system. In addition, the 60-year period was caused
solely by the trustee's total failure and insensitivity to the
claim of the Indians. We long claimed that the trustee had
erroneously surveyed the Reservation. When the trustee was
13.
notified of the erroneous survey, it failed to fulfill its
trustee obligation and conduct a resurvey to determine the
correctness of its prior survey. Had it done this many years
ago when it was brought to its attention, the United States
would not have administered the lands for the 60 years. There-
fore, the argument based on length of time is of no moment.
The lands involved are not in an area used very much
for public purposes, and the fact that 10,000 acres may now be
eliminated from public use certainly is not detrimental to the
public and is not an argument to support denying us our equi-
table right. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of
National Forest land in the area of Montana wherein these lands
lie which are available to the general public. Finally, the
general public is as a general rule allowed to utilize tribal
land on the Flathead Reservation by virtue of Tribal Council
action and most likely the public use will continue as at
present if beneficial interest to the lands is restored to the
Tribes.
We understand Agriculture alleges that enactment of
S. 1517 would be a questionable departure from the traditional
and well-accepted manner of treating Indian land claims.
That is not true. Each case must be determined on
its own facts. This is a relatively small acreage, is adja-
cent to the present Reservation, was confirmed as part of the
Reservation by the United States by solemn treaty, and is
14.
outside our Reservation only because of the error of the United
States, acting under the treaty and as trustee, an error which
to date it refuses to correct. The Administration has been
morally insensitive. We know that Congress will not be so.
Finally, the Department of Agriculture reportedly
asserts that it believes we will receive adequate compensation
for the 10,585.86 acres involved in S. 1517 through the pending
Court of Claims determination and that the Court proceeding will
be equitable to the Indians and to the general public who use
and benefit from the National Forest system.
This is blatently false. We will receive a value
based upon Victorian prices (19th Century). We will have to
take this value because of the error of our trustee. .The
general public will not be affected, and, assuming it was, the
equities are on our side.
We understand also that the Justice Department
opposes this bill on a stated principle that we, having sought
and obtained relief in the courts, apparently are dissatisfied
with the results and now seek to circumvent the Court's action
to secure the return of the land because it promises to be of
greater financial benefit.
The Department of Justice misstates the issue and
reaches a conclusion which is based on an erroneous fact.
While we originally sought judicial relief, it was
only because that was the only way we could get a determination
15.
made of the correctness of the boundary claim. We have alleged
for many years that the boundaries should be resurveyed, but
our request was denied, and instead of the trustee exercising
its trust duty to determine if the boundaries were properly
surveyed in the first instance, it forced us to go to a court
and that is why there was a judicial determination. Thus, we
had to incur the expense and delay of litigation to prove a
fact which the defendant conceded at trial, that the southwest
boundary had been erroneously surveyed.
"This boundary [southwest] was
surveyed in 1893 by Deputy Surveyor
George Scheetz. Defendant concedes
that the instructions which Scheetz
had received from the Surveyor General
of the United States were erroneous
and that, as a result, approximately
11,900 acres of land and water were
omitted from the Reservation.
"
(173 Ct. Cl. 398, 403 (1965))
Of the approximately 10,585.86 acres involved,
9,014.51 lie in the southwest, the area admitted by defendant
to have been erroneously excluded. Had the United States, as
trustee, taken the time it took as the Tribes' adversary in
the Court of Claims litigation to investigate the allegation
of erroneous survey when first raised, it would have been able
to correct the error many years ago.
The Justice Department also asserts, so we understand,
that after the Court of Claims determined that the lands were
erroneously excluded from the Reservation and that we were
entitled to recover, we abruptly changed our position.
16.
That is an error. We did not abruptly change our
position. We only showed in the first proceeding that the
lands had been erroneously excluded.
"
The primary issue in this
action is whether certain of the
reservation boundaries, as surveyed
by the United States, are in accord
with the requirements of the Treaty.
Specifically, we must consider plain-
tiff's assertion that the existing
boundaries on the north and on the
southwest of the reservation are
incorrect." (173 Ct. Cl. 398, 399.)
The United States refused to administratively deter-
mine whether the boundaries had been properly surveyed. A
special jurisdictional act was the only method available to us
to get that determination. Upon securing a judicial deter-
mination that the lands had been excluded, the next act was to
seek a determination that we had not lost beneficial ownership
to any of the lands which had not been patented to third parties.
Our position has been consistent throughout the litigation.
In our initial pleading before the Court of Claims
on whether the surveys were correct, we stated in conclusion:
"Further proceedings should be
ordered [after a determination of
the correct location of the boun-
daries in which it may be deter-
mined when and what of the excluded
lands were taken from plaintiff. "
(See p. 19 of Tribes' Brief in Support
of Exceptions filed December 7, 1964,
to Report of Commissioner filed Sep-
tember 24, 1964, in United States Court
of Claims, Docket No. 50233-9-Erroneous
Survey, Southwest Boundary. For the
same language for lands on the north,
see p. 20 of the Tribes' Brief in Sup-
port of Exceptions, filed October 23,
17.
1964, in Docket No. 50233-J8-Erroneous
Survey of North Boundary.)
The Justice Department is in error.
We are not seeking to accomplish by legislation what
we failed to accomplish by litigation. What we do seek is an
equitable right to lands. The trustee has consistently failed
to offer administrative relief and has forced us into court,
and the court has said that we must now take money when in
equity we are entitled to the land. What we are seeking is
action by the trustee in recognition of a judicial determination
that the trustee made an error some 60 years ago, that no third
parties have been injured, and that we are entitled to have
confirmed in us beneficial ownership of the lands involved.
We did not seek and have not received compensation
for the lands erroneously excluded on the southwest in any forum,
either the Court of Claims or the Indian Claims Commission, and
the Department of Justice entered a stipulation to that effect.
In the case before the Indian Claims Commission, Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes V. United States, Docket No. 61,
Additional Findings of Fact and Valuation, Findings entered
September 29, 1965, 16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 1, Finding 23 reads:
"Petitioners and defendant stipu-
lated at the hearing that the total
area to be valued, excluding the pre-
sent Flathead Indian Reservation, is
12,500,000 acres. This figure in-
cludes the area of Flathead Lake out-
side the Flathead Reservation, which
is 55,000 acres.
FORD it LIBERRY SERVID
18.
"The total acreage to be valued
does not include a tract of 12,292
acres of land outlined in red on
Joint Exhibit 1 which is the subject
of a claim of an erroneous boundary
survey in another case pending before
the Commission." (At page 2; emphasis
added.)
That acreage, which was excluded by the stipulation,
encompasses 9,014.51 acres of the acreage involved in the
proposed legislation. Therefore, we (1) have not been compen-
sated for that land, (2) expressly excluded it from the abori-
ginal title claim, and (3) this exclusion shows a consistent
position on our part that we were not after compensation but
that we wanted and were entitled to the land.
As for the 1,571.35 acres on the north, under the terms
of the S. 1517 bill the Tribes will have to return what money
they received.
We did seek a determination that the lands were
erroneously excluded (173 Ct. Cl. 398 (1965)), but only because
that was the only way the trustee would permit us to show that
the trustee had erroneously excluded land. If we had not sought
that determination in the Court of Claims, we would have been
out in the cold.
We are seeking legislation to correct the trustee's
error.
I will conclude by noting that we have not recovered
a single penny for the lands involved in the southwest and have
recovered no more than nominal value for the acreage on the
19.
north, which we must return under Section 2 of S. 1517. (In the
valuation phase of the case at the Indian Claims Commission,
cited supra, the Commission gave no value to timber, which is
what is involved here [see 16 Ind. C1. Comm. at 73].) We speci-
fically excluded recovery in the Indian Claims Commission in
Docket No. 61; we have not recovered anything in the Court of
Claims in terms of financial reward; and we have expressly
sought a ruling that we should not recover money but the land.
The only determination in the Court of Claims is one that the
lands were erroneously excluded and taken. There has not even
been a valuation trial.
With this background we submit that the proposed bill
is one which is in the interest of the Tribes and the United
States. It is a bill which recognizes the obligation of the
United States as trustee to the Indians and which recognizes
that the United States has committed an error which it is willing
to rectify at this date, the error now having been brought to its
attention by a decision of the Court of Claims.
We urge that the Committee report favorably on the
bill.
Respectfully submitted,
E. W. Morigeau
FORD is LICEASY STATE
Floyd Nicolai
Members, Tribal Council,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes of the Flathead Reservation,
Montana
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
May 17, 1976
Issp
MEMORANDUM FOR:
SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR
FROM:
TED MARRS jun
SUBJECT:
SALISH AND KOOTENAI LAND CLAIM
It will be appreciated if a response
with rationale is provided.
This, if it should and can be ac-
complished would be good to announce
in a White House briefing.
Enclosures
of LIBRARY FORD
94.
DEPARTMENT
THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES
OF THE FLATHEAD RESERVATION
(406) 246-359
MONTANA
DIXON, MONTANA 59831
Charmar
TRIBAL COUNCIL MEMBER
Charman
Patrick H. Letthand
Secretary
April 27 1976
Joseph F. McDonald
B.sc.
Treasurer
John E. Malatare
Countrie
Bergeant
Arms
Harold W. Mitchel
Dr. Theodore Marrs
4591
E.W. Morigeau
Sonny Mongeau
Thomas E. Patto
Noel Pichette
Special Assistant to the President
Victor L. Stinger
White House
Fred Whitworth
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington D. C. 20000
Dear Dr. Marrs:
Last month a delegation from the Flathead Reservation, Montana,
met with you in Washington, D. C. to discuss primarily education
matters. During the course of the meeting other matters were
discussed including one of our aboriginal claims cases wherein the
United States erroneously excluded several thousand acres of land
from our reservation when the reservation was surveyed in the late
1800's. At that time you expressed interest in reviewing the situation
and see if something could be done to restore the land to the Tribes.
You suggested to the delegation that the information be sent to you
for consideration and possible assistance.
FORD
The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, by the Treaty of
is
HellGate, ceded their vast aboriginal homeland to the United States
but they retained from the cession a portion of their lands to be their
future homeland. Article 2 of the Treaty described the boundaries
of the reserved land. In determining the boundaries of the reservation,
agents of the Federal Government in 1887 surveyed what was purported
to be the north boundary, and in 1893 what was purported to be the
southwest boundary.
In 1965 the U. S. Court of Claims agreed with us and held that portions
of the outboundaries had been erroneously surveyed and lands reserved
by the Tribes by the Treaty were outside the surveyed boundaries. We
have tried in the Court of Claims to have the lands declared tribal
property but we were only able to obtain a monetary settlement based
on 19th century land values. The money has been placed in an escrow
account while we attempt to have the land restored by Executive,
Congressional or administrative means, each of which methods has
precedent. So far we have not been successful. Therefore, this appeal
to you.
THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES
OF THE FLATHEAD RESERVATION
DIXON, MONTANA 59831
Mr. Theodore Marrs
1655
April 27 1976
Special Assistant to the President
Page Two
I am enclosing a statement that some members of our Council made to
Congress in 1970 which gives a good description of the problem and
legal facts of the situation. Also, enclosed is the transcript of a public
hearing that was held here on the reservation where the people expressed
their desire to have the land restored to them.
I'm sure you are aware that Congress restored the Blue Lake area to
the Taos Pueblos and by Executive Order 11670 dated May 20, 1972,
President Nixon restored some 21, 000 acres of the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest to the Yakimas under almost identical circumstances
as ours. Since this is our bicentennial election year it would be most
appropriate if you and President Ford could review this matter and
restore this 10, 585. 86 acres to the Flathead Reservation. It would
cost the Unted States nothing and we could give back that portion of the
meager cash settlement attributable to those lands restored.
Your review of this matter would be appreciated by all the members of
our Tribe. If you have any questions please call.
Sincerely yours,
Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
AnoldW Harold W. Mitchell, Jr.
Chairman, Tribal Council
FJHOULEJR/frfrey
04 27 76
enclosures (3)
STATEMENT OF MR. E. W. MORIGEAU,
MEMBER OF THE TRIBAL COUNCIL
OF THE CONFEDERATED SALISH AND KOOTENAI TRIBES
OF THE FLATHEAD RESERVATION, MONTANA,
BEFORE THE SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS,
IN HEARING ON
S. 1517, NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
April 24, 1970
4591
Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, my name is
E. W. Morigeau; I am a member of the Tribal Council of the
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead
Reservation, Montana. I have been a member of the Tribal
Council for 20 years. I am accompanied today by Mr. Floyd
Nicolai, who also is a member of the Tribal Council, and by
Mr. Richard A. Baenen, a member of the law firm of Wilkinson,
Cragun & Barker, general counsel to the Confederated Tribes.
We appear here in support of S. 1517, introduced by Senators
Mansfield and Metcalf, a bill to set aside certain lands in
Montana for the benefit of the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation. The lands in-
volved, 10,585.86 acres, more or less, are the residue of
Reservation lands which were erroneously excluded from the
Flathead Reservation by faulty boundary surveys performed by
the United States in the 1880's and which have not been
patented to innocent third parties but which are held today
by the United States and administered by the National Forest
-
Service. This bill recognizes that the error was on the part
of the United States in surveying the lands; it also recog-
nizes that the Tribes have been the innocent victims of the
2.
mistake of the trustee and that the Tribes have an equitable
right to the beneficial ownership of the lands; the bill pro-
vides recognition of these facts and that the lands shall be
so held by the United States for the Tribes.
On behalf of the Tribes we request favorable con-
sideration of S. 1517. We urge the Committee to recommend
that it be enacted by the Senate. The lands are mainly forest
lands and will be used by us in our sustained yield forest
program, a program that returns money to the Tribes and is
a source of employment to tribal members. My introductory
remarks are supported by the record, which I will summarize
now for the Committee. These remarks are part of a prepared
statement which at this time I request the Chairman to accept
as part of and incorporate into the record.
By the Treaty of Hell Gate, July 16, 1855 (12 Stat.
975), ratified April 18, 1859, we ceded to the United States
all of our theretofore aboriginally-owned lands, and by
Article II of that Treaty we reserved from the cession and
the United States confirmed in us beneficial ownership in a
tract of land to be held for our exclusive home. Article II
of the Treaty described the out-boundaries of our reserved
lands and provided:
"All which tract shall be set
apart, and, so far as necessary,
surveyed and marked out for the
exclusive use and benefit of said
confederated tribes as an Indian
reservation. Nor shall any white
3.
man, excepting those in the employ-
ment of the Indian department, be
permitted to reside upon the said
reservation without permission of
the confederated tribes, and the
superintendent and agent.
if
In setting the out-boundaries of our reservation,
agents of the United States surveyed in 1887 what purported
to be the north boundary and in 1893 what purported to be
the southwest boundary. We long claimed that the surveys had
placed aboriginally-owned lands reserved by the Treaty out-
side the survey lines delineating the reserved area and
sought for many years a resolution of this dispute. Finally,
we were reduced to seeking a special jurisdictional act in
order to have a forum within which to resolve this and other
disputes with the United States. In 1946, Congress enacted
H.R. 2678 (79th Cong., 2nd Sess.), but President Truman
vetoed the enactment. The provisions of H.R. 2678 are perti-
nent to the inquiry here. Section 1 provided that jurisdiction
was conferred on the Court of Claims "to hear, examine, adju-
dicate, and render judgment in any and all legal and equitable
claims" which we might have arising out of any treaties,
agreements, Acts of Congress or Executive Orders or:
" . by reason of any lands taken
from said Indians by Acts of Con-
gress or otherwise, including lands
lost to them by erroneous surveys,
or lands opened to settlement, or
used for dam, power, and reservoir
sites and irrigation projects, or
loss of lands by submergence by
erection of reservoirs without
4.
compensation and without their con-
sent given in the usual manner, or
for the failure or refusal of the
United States to protect the in-
terests of any of said Indians in
lands as to which they had or
claimed possessory right of use and
occupancy, or because of any mis-
management or wrongful handling of
any of the funds, lands, properties,
or business enterprises belonging
to or held in trust for said
Indians."
Section 7 provided:
"That if the court shall find
that any lands formerly belonging
to or possessed by said Indians
have been appropriated by the
United States, or set apart and
reserved as national reservations,
dam, power, and reservoir sites,
and irrigation projects, or that
loss of lands has been occasioned
by submergence by the erection of
reservoirs, or that lands have been
taken for other public uses or
otherwise reserved or disposed of
in any manner whereby the said
Indians have been deprived of the
use or benefits of such lands and
the natural resources thereof, with-
out compensation therefor and with-
out their consent it is hereby
declared that such action shall be
sufficient grounds for equitable
relief, and the court shall render
judgment in favor of said Indians,
and shall award to them, as for a
taking under the power of eminent
domain, just compensation for all
such lands, sites, projects, and
natural resources." (Sen. Rept.
1714, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 4).
In transmitting his veto of the bill, President
Truman stated:
5.
The jurisdiction thus to be
conferred, it is provided, would
extend to claims arising by reason
of any lands taken from these Indians,
including lands lost by erroneous sur-
veys, or lands opened to settlement,
lands used for dam, power, and reser-
voir sites or irrigation projects, or
lands lost by submergence, resulting
from the erection of reservoirs,
without compensation and without the
consent of the Indians given in the
usual manner
"In addition to other objection-
able features of the bill, an attempt
is made in its provisions to define
the 'grounds for equitable relief'
and the basis upon which the court
shall render judgment in favor of
the Indians and award to them just
compensation 'as for a taking under
the power of eminent domain. It is
possible that under the provisions of
the bill the use by the United States
of any lands 'formerly*** possessed'
by the Indians, even though the In-
dians were without any recognized
title, would constitute a sufficient
basis 'for equitable relief' and 'for
a taking under the power of eminent
domain. Thus the bill does not
merely waive the statute of limita-
tions and laches and provide a forum
for the adjudication of any preexis-
ting claims which the Indians may
have against the United States, but
it seeks to create liability against
the Government which would not other-
FORD LIBRAK &
wise exist. Moreover, by providing
for the payment of just compensation,
the bill would probably require the
Government to pay interest, for a
period of more than 30 years, on a
claim that did not even exist prior
to its passage. (Ibid., p. 2.)
Congress removed what the President considered to be
objectionable provisions, and as finally enacted, the jurisdic-
tional act conferred on this Court jurisdiction "to hear,
6.
examine, adjudicate, and render judgment in any and all legal
and equitable claims of whatsoever nature
"
(60 Stat.
715). Gone were provisions constituting mere setting apart as
a "national reservation" (national forest) a taking under the
power of eminent domain.
Pursuant to this Act we filed a complaint which
contained several causes of action. Included therein were
claims that the surveys of the north (Para. 8) and southwest
(Para. 9) boundaries of the Reservation were erroneously run,
thereby establishing the boundaries of the Reservation so as
to exclude lands aboriginally held by us and confirmed in us
by our treaty.
A hearing was held and evidence taken on whether or
not the boundaries of the Reservation were established as
called for by the Treaty. The Court of Claims held in Con-
federated Salish and Kootenai Tribes V. United States, 173
Ct. Cls. 398 (1965), that the defendant's surveys were erro-
neous and that reserved treaty lands were outside the sur-
veyed out-boundaries.
Portions of the reserved lands affected by the
erroneous survey were patented to third parties or granted to
railroads. However, 10,585.86 acres of land were placed in
various national forests and have remained there. The legal
description of those lands is set out in the proposed Bill.
The sequence of events affecting these lands is as follows:
7.
On March 3, 1891, Congress passed "An Act to repeal
timber-culture laws, and for other purposes." (Fifty-First
Congress, Sess. II, c. 561, 26 Stat. 1095.) In pertinent part
that Act provided:
"SEC. 10. That nothing in this
act shall change, repeal, or modify
any agreements or treaties made with
any Indian tribes for the disposal
of their lands, or of land ceded to
the United States to be disposed of
for the benefit of such tribes, and
the proceeds thereof to be placed in
the Treasury of the United States;
and the disposition of such lands
shall continue in accordance with
the provisions of such treaties or
agreements, except as provided in
section 5 of this act. 11/ (At 1099;
emphasis added.)
"SEC. 24. That the President of
the United States may, from time to
time, set apart and reserve, in any
State or Territory having public
land bearing forests, in any part of
the public lands wholly or in part
covered with timber or undergrowth,
whether of commercial value or not,
as public reservations, and the Presi-
dent shall, by public proclamation,
declare the establishment of such
reservations and the limits thereof."
(At 1103; emphasis added.)
President Cleveland issued on February 22, 1897, a
Proclamation under the authority of Section 24 which purported
to affect land erroneously excluded by the faulty survey on
1/ Section 5 amended Sections 2289 and 2290 of Chapter 5,
Revised Statutes, relating to homestead entries.
8.
the north end of the Reservation. (Proclamation No. 29,
February 22, 1897, 29 Stat. 907.)
The Proclamation recites Section 24 of the Act of
March 3, 1891, and after stating that "whereas, the public
lands in the State of Montana, within the limits hereinafter
described, are in part covered with timber, and it appears
that the public good would be promoted by setting apart and
reserving such lands as a public reservation," proceeds to
describe, inter alia, portions of the excluded lands.
The Proclamation continues, after describing the
lands:
"Excepting from the force and
effect of this proclamation all
lands which may have been, prior
to the date hereof, embraced in
any legal entry or covered by any
lawful filing duly of record in
the proper United States Land Office,
or upon which any valid settlement
has been made pursuant to law, and
the statutory period within which to
make entry or filing of record has
not expired; and all mining claims
duly located and held according to
the laws of the United States and
rules and regulations not in con-
flict therewith;
(At 908;
emphasis added.)
On June 4, 1897, Congress provided in a general
appropriations act:
"The President is hereby autho-
rized at any time to modify any
Executive Order that has been or
may hereafter be made establishing
any forest reserve, and by such
modification may reduce the area or
9.
change the boundary lines of such
reserve, or may vacate altogether
any order creating such reserve."
(Fifty-Fifth Congress, Sess. I,
Act of June 4, 1897, c. 2, 30 Stat.
11, 36.)
President Theodore Roosevelt issued on November 6,
1906, a Proclamation purportedly affecting lands situated
outside of the exterior boundaries of our Reservation because
of the erroneous survey of the southwest boundary. By the
Proclamation, these lands were considered part of the Lolo
National Forest. Cited as authority for the Proclamation was
the Act of June 4, 1897, and by the Proclamation the Lolo
Forest Reserve was "enlarged to include the said additional
lands, and that the boundaries of the reserve are now as shown
on the diagram forming a part hereof." (34 Stat. 3261.)
The Proclamation was not to "take effect upon any
lands withdrawn or reserved, at this date, from settlement,
entry, or other appropriation, for any purpose other than
forest uses, or which may be covered by any prior valid claim,
so long as the withdrawal, reservation, or claim exists." (At
3261; emphasis added.)
In addition, Public Land Orders have been issued
affecting some of the land involved. These orders are of
relatively recent dates and appear to be in the main adminis-
trative actions by the Secretary of the Interior transferring
lands from one national forest to another.
10.
After the Court's determination and the conclusion
of the study that showed the 10,585.86 acres were held by the
United States, our attorneys filed on our behalf a motion in
the Court of Claims seeking a determination that the lands had
not been taken by the United States by virtue of the erroneous
survey. This course of action was taken because the Bureau of
Indian Affairs refused to recognize or seek a confirmation of
title in the Tribes to these lands. The United States through
the Justice Department objected, and contended that the lands
had been taken by the United States. Of course, the value of
the lands to the Tribes today is far in excess of any value
they can recover in the Court of Claims, a value to be deter-
mined as of the date of taking, which in most instances will
be set before the turn of the century.
The Court of Claims on July 3, 1968, held that the
lands erroneously excluded from the exterior boundary of the
Reservation by reason of the faulty surveys in which lands
are now a national forest have not remained the property of
ERALD FORD
plaintiffs and therefore are properly subject to a claim of
taking by the United States and should be treated as such. A
Petition for Writ of Certiorari was filed in the Supreme Court
seeking a review and reversal of the Court's opinion, but
the Petition was denied on January 20, 1969 (with the Chief
Justice, Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan dissenting
to the denial).
11,
The Tribes in fairness and equity should have these
lands restored to them and the proposed bill contains a pro-
vision by which we would not benefit from any court action if
the lands are restored. Hearings in the Court of Claims have
been suspended on request of our attorneys pending considera-
tion of this bill. There has been no money judgment. We have
recovered a nominal sum for some of the lands on the north,
about $.50 an acre for about one thousand acres. Under the bill
we will repay that amount to the United States. This recovery
came in our aboriginal title claim in the Indian Claims Com-
mission, Docket No. 61. It came because we were not certain,
without benefit of a full trial, of the extent of loss on the
north. There has been no recovery for lands on the southwest,
for we excluded those lands from the aboriginal title claim.
We knew those lands were ours and we. wanted them back. It is
for this reason that legislation is sought on behalf of the
Tribes.
We do not, as we prepare this statement, know the
position of the Department of Agriculture. We understand that
it recommends that the Court of Claims determination not be
reversed, and that the lands involved in S. 1517 be retained in
the National Forest of which they are a part.
We are not asking that the Court of Claims' decision
-"be reversed". We assert that as a matter of equity and moral
obligation we are entitled to have these lands held in trust
12,
for us. The lands were lost through an error by the United States
Government, the trustee of the Tribes. The Tribes were in no
way at fault. No innocent third party has intervened, for as
to the lands patented to third parties, we are not seeking any
restoration and we will accept a money judgment which will be
based on a valuation date before the turn of the century. We
would rather have the land, but we recognize the position of
innocent third parties. The United States, however, is not
innocent; it committed the error and it should not be allowed
to benefit from that error at the expense of its ward.
We also understand the Department of Agriculture
contends that these lands are valuable public lands which have
been managed, protected, and improved at public expense for
over 60 years and that much of their current value is due to
their treatment as National Forest lands during this period.
The fact that the United States has expended money
based on its own error is irrelevant. The United States also
has expended money for tribal forest lands and it cannot be
said that because it has spent money to take care of the
forest lands of the Tribes, that the Tribes are not entitled
FORD & LIBRARY OTVU
to keep those lands and they should be placed in the National
Forest system. In addition, the 60-year period was caused
solely by the trustee's total failure and insensitivity to the
claim of the Indians. We long claimed that the trustee had
erroneously surveyed the Reservation. When the trustee was
13.
notified of the erroneous survey, it failed to fulfill its
trustee obligation and conduct a resurvey to determine the
correctness of its prior survey. Had it done this many years
ago when it was brought to its attention, the United States
would not have administered the lands for the 60 years. There-
fore, the argument based on length of time is of no moment.
The lands involved are not in an area used very much
for public purposes, and the fact that 10,000 acres may now be
eliminated from public use certainly is not detrimental to the
public and is not an argument to support denying us our equi-
table right. There are hundreds of thousands of acres of
National Forest land in the area of Montana wherein these lands
lie which are available to the general public. Finally, the
general public is as a general rule allowed to utilize tribal
land on the Flathead Reservation by virtue of Tribal Council
action and most likely the public use will continue as at
present if beneficial interest to the lands is restored to the
Tribes.
We understand Agriculture alleges that enactment of
S. 1517 would be a questionable departure from the traditional
and well-accepted manner of treating Indian land claims.
That is not true. Each case must be determined on
its own facts. This is a relatively small acreage, is adja-
cent to the present Reservation, was confirmed as part of the
Reservation by the United States by solemn treaty, and is
14.
outside our Reservation only because of the error of the United
States, acting under the treaty and as trustee, an error which
to date it refuses to correct. The Administration has been
morally insensitive. We know that Congress will not be so.
Finally, the Department of Agriculture reportedly
asserts that it believes we will receive adequate compensation
for the 10,585.86 acres involved in S. 1517 through the pending
Court of Claims determination and that the Court proceeding will
be equitable to the Indians and to the general public who use
and benefit from the National Forest system.
This is blatently false. We will receive a value
based upon Victorian prices (19th Century). We will have to
take this value because of the error of our trustee. .The
general public will not be affected, and, assuming it was, the
equities are on our side.
We understand also that the Justice Department
opposes this bill on a stated principle that we, having sought
and obtained relief in the courts, apparently are dissatisfied
with the results and now seek to circumvent the Court's action
to secure the return of the land because it promises to be of
greater financial benefit.
The Department of Justice misstates the issue and
reaches a conclusion which is based on an erroneous fact.
While we originally sought judicial relief, it was
only because that was the only way we could get a determination
15.
made of the correctness of the boundary claim. We have alleged
for many years that the boundaries should be resurveyed, but
our request was denied, and instead of the trustee exercising
its trust duty to determine if the boundaries were properly
surveyed in the first instance, it forced us to go to a court
and that is why there was a judicial determination. Thus, we
had to incur the expense and delay of litigation to prove a
fact which the defendant conceded at trial, that the southwest
boundary had been erroneously surveyed.
"This boundary [southwest] was
surveyed in 1893 by Deputy Surveyor
George Scheetz. Defendant concedes
that the instructions which Scheetz
had received from the Surveyor General
of the United States were erroneous
and that, as a result, approximately
11,900 acres of land and water were
omitted from the Reservation.
"
(173 Ct. Cl. 398, 403 (1965))
Of the approximately 10,585.86 acres involved,
9,014.51 lie in the southwest, the area admitted by defendant
to have been erroneously excluded. Had the United States, as
trustee, taken the time it took as the Tribes' adversary in
the Court of Claims litigation to investigate the allegation
of erroneous survey when first raised, it would have been able
to correct the error many years ago.
The Justice Department also asserts, so we understand,
that after the Court of Claims determined that the lands were
erroneously excluded from the Reservation and that we were
entitled to recover, we abruptly changed our position.
16.
That is an error. We did not abruptly change our
position. We only showed in the first proceeding that the
lands had been erroneously excluded.
"
The primary issue in this
action is whether certain of the
reservation boundaries, as surveyed
by the United States, are in accord
with the requirements of the Treaty.
Specifically, we must consider plain-
tiff's assertion that the existing
boundaries on the north and on the
southwest of the reservation are
incorrect. " (173 Ct. Cl. 398, 399.)
The United States refused to administratively deter-
mine whether the boundaries had been properly surveyed. A
special jurisdictional act was the only method available to us
to get that determination. Upon securing a judicial deter-
mination that the lands had been excluded, the next act was to
seek a determination that we had not lost beneficial ownership
to any of the lands which had not been patented to third parties.
Our position has been consistent throughout the litigation.
In our initial pleading before the Court of Claims
on whether the surveys were correct, we stated in conclusion:
"Further proceedings should be
ordered [after a determination of
the correct location of the boun-
daries in which it may be deter-
mined when and what of the excluded
lands were taken from plaintiff. "
(See p. 19 of Tribes Brief in Support
of Exceptions filed December 7, 1964,
FORD s LIBRARY QERALD
to Report of Commissioner filed Sep-
tember 24, 1964, in United States Court
of Claims, Docket No. 50233-9-Erroneous
Survey, Southwest Boundary. For the
same language for lands on the north,
see p. 20 of the Tribes' Brief in Sup-
port of Exceptions, filed October 23,
17.
1964, in Docket No. 50233-8-Erroneous
Survey of North Boundary.)
The Justice Department is in error.
We are not seeking to accomplish by legislation what
we failed to accomplish by litigation. What we do seek is an
equitable right to lands. The trustee has consistently failed
to offer administrative relief and has forced us into court,
and the court has said that we must now take money when in
equity we are entitled to the land. What we are seeking is
action by the trustee in recognition of a judicial determination
that the trustee made an error some 60 years ago, that no third
parties have been injured, and that we are entitled to have
confirmed in us beneficial ownership of the lands involved.
We did not seek and have not received compensation
for the lands erroneously excluded on the southwest in any forum,
either the Court of Claims or the Indian Claims Commission, and
the Department of Justice entered a stipulation to that effect.
In the case before the Indian Claims Commission, Confederated
Salish and Kootenai Tribes V. United States, Docket No. 61,
Additional Findings of Fact and Valuation, Findings entered
September 29, 1965, 16 Ind. Cl. Comm. 1, Finding 23 reads:
"Petitioners and defendant stipu-
lated at the hearing that the total
area to be valued, excluding the pre-
sent Flathead Indian Reservation, is
12,500,000 acres. This figure in-
cludes the area of Flathead Lake out-
side the Flathead Reservation, which
is 55,000 acres.
18.
"The total acreage to be valued
does not include a tract of 12,292
acres of land outlined in red on
Joint Exhibit 1 which is the subject
of a claim of an erroneous boundary
survey in another case pending before
the Commission." (At page 2; emphasis
added.)
That acreage, which was excluded by the stipulation,
encompasses 9,014.51 acres of the acreage involved in the
proposed legislation. Therefore, we (1) have not been compen-
sated for that land, (2) expressly excluded it from the abori-
ginal title claim, and (3) this exclusion shows a consistent
position on our part that we were not after compensation but
that we wanted and were entitled to the land.
As for the 1,571.35 acres on the north, under the terms
of the S. 1517 bill the Tribes will have to return what money
they received.
We did seek a determination that the lands were
erroneously excluded (173 Ct. Cl. 398 (1965)), but only because
that was the only way the trustee would permit us to show that
the trustee had erroneously excluded land. If we had not sought
that determination in the Court of Claims, we would have been
out in the cold.
We are seeking legislation to correct the trustee's
error.
I will conclude by noting that we have not recovered
a single penny for the lands involved in the southwest and have
recovered no more than nominal value for the acreage on the
19.
north, which we must return under Section 2 of S. 1517. (In the
valuation phase of the case at the Indian Claims Commission,
cited supra, the Commission gave no value to timber, which is
what is involved here [see 16 Ind. Cl. Comm. at 73].) We speci-
fically excluded recovery in the Indian Claims Commission in
Docket No. 61; we have not recovered anything in the Court of
Claims in terms of financial reward; and we have expressly
sought a ruling that we should not recover money but the land.
The only determination in the Court of Claims is one that the
lands were erroneously excluded and taken. There has not even
been a valuation trial.
With this background we submit that the proposed bill
is one which is in the interest of the Tribes and the United
States. It is a bill which recognizes the obligation of the
United States as trustee to the Indians and which recognizes
that the United States has committed an error which it is willing
to rectify at this date, the error now having been brought to its
attention by a decision of the Court of Claims.
We urge that the Committee report favorably on the
bill.
Respectfully submitted,
E. W. Morigeau
Floyd Nicolai
Members, Tribal Council,
Confederated Salish and Kootenai
Tribes of the Flathead Reservation,
OF THE INSTRIOF THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
1849
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
3.
SEP 17 1976
Memorandum
To:
Mr. Brad Patterson
The White House
Subject: Salish and Kootenai Land Claim
Attached in accordance with Dr. Theodore Marrs' request of May 17 is the
draft of a proposed response to Mr. Harold W. Mitchell, Jr., Chairman of
the Tribal Council, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, on their
land claim. My apologies are extended for the delay in this transmittal
which was occasioned by the need for research to explore alternative
methods, other than legislation, to accommodate the tribes.
Thomas &. Wappe
Secretary of the Interior
Attachments
GERALD ? LIBRARY FORD
THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
AND
1.
SA99
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
SEP 17 1976
Memorandum
To:
Mr. Brad Patterson
The White House
Subject: Salish and Kootenai Land Claim
Attached in accordance with Dr. Theodore Marrs' request of May 17 is the
draft of a proposed response to Mr. Harold W. Mitchell, Jr., Chairman of
the Tribal Council, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, on their
land claim. My apologies are extended for the delay in this transmittal
which was occasioned by the need for research to explore alternative
methods, other than legislation, to accommodate the tribes.
(Sgd) Thomas S. Kleppe
Secretary of the Interior
Attachments
THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
1,
THE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
SEP 17 1976
Hemorandum
To:
Mr. Brad Patterson
The White House
Subject: Salish and Kootenai Land Claim
Attached in accordance with Dr. Theodore Marr's request of May 17 is the
draft of a proposed response to Mr. Harold W. Mitchell, Jr., Chairman of
the Tribal Council, Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes, on their
land claim. My apologies are extended for the delay in this transmittal
which was occasioned by the need for research to explore alternative
methods, other than legislation, to accommodate the tribes.
(Sgd) Thomas S. Kleppe
Secretary of the Interior
Attachments
GERALD R. FORD
DRAFT
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
As you are aware, S. 1517, which was introduced in the 91st Congress on
March 12, 1969, and its companion bill, H.R. 9138, failed of enactment
because of the basic policy that Indian claims to land should be satis-
fied by money payments rather than by restoration of the land.
At the time S. 1517 was introduced the outstanding similar, yet somewhat
different, legislation pending was the proposed Blue Lake restoration to
the Taos Pueblos. In hearings on the Blue Lake restoration, the concern
was expressed that a precedent would be set and that Indian tribes would
want land rather than money from the Indian Claims Commission and the
courts. An exception was ascertained in the Blue Lake case on the basis
that the land had great religious significance and the Taos Indians had
occupied and used the land since the 12th century.
Perhaps a more closely related example to the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai request is the recently enacted Public Law 93-620. Section 10
of the act provided that 185,000 acres of land be added to the Havasupai
Reservation. It further provides and requires that the Secretary of the
Interior, in consultation with the Havasupai Tribal Council, develop a
land use plan for the 185,000 acres before the law can be implemented.
According to a Department of Agriculture review, 73 cases involving
National Forest System lands were being adjudicated by the Indian Claims
Commission. They estimated that these cases included approximately 40
million acres of National Forest land. It is obvious that certain cri-
teria must be established when Congress considers requests by tribes for
restoration of land in lieu of money.
2
A thorough examination has been made of various statutes and authorities
to determine whether or not the subject lands can be restored adminis-
tratively. The conclusion has been reached that the legislative route
is the only method that can be considered.
The Department of the Interior is presently working on a position paper
which would recommend to the Office of Management and Budget, an Indian
land acquisition policy to govern future acquisitions of land in trust
for Indian tribes. This paper proposes that prime consideration be
given to lands "unintentionally alienated" from Indians in the past due
to erroneous surveys, legislative error, improper surveys and so forth.
Proximity of the land to a reservation would be one of the prime factors
to be considered in this category.
It is hardly necessary to comment on the question of the Government's
equitable and moral responsibility owed to the Confederated Salish and
Kootenai Tribes. I am optimistic that if the subject position paper
referred to is accepted in its present form, any future request of the
tribe for transfer of the lands which were the subject of S. 1517 could
be given prime consideration.
Sincerely,
GERALD R. FORD
Mr. Harold W. Mitchell, Jr.
Chairman, Confederated Salish &
Kootenai Tribes Tribal Council
Dixon, Montana 59831