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
1103389
label
Jurisdiction Over Indian Lands (PL 280) - General
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
1103389
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Jurisdiction Over Indian Lands (PL 280) - General
citationUrl
collections
Bradley H. Patterson Files (Ford Administration)
Bradley Patterson's Native American Programs Files
subjects
Law enforcement
Legislation
Indians of North America
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
1103389
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1976-12-01
month
12
year
1976
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1975-04-01
month
4
year
1975
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
a0c2734b0d22d9f4
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 3, folder "Jurisdiction Over Indian Lands
(PL 280) - General" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 3 of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
CONGRESS
(Nore.-Fill in all blank lines except
SESSION
S.
those provided for the date and
number of bull)
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
Mr.
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on
A
BILL
Providing for the improvement of law enforcement
and the determination of civil and criminal jur-
isdiction in Indian country, and for other pur-
poses.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the "Indian Juris-
4 diction Act of 1976.'
5
TITLE I - DETERMINATION OF CIVIL
6
AND CRIMINAL JURISDICTION
7
SEC.1. In any case in which pursuant to the
8 provisions (including amendments thereto) of the
9 Act of August 15, 1953 (67 Stat. 588), the Act
10 of May 31, 1946 (60 Stat. 229), the Act of June 25,
11 1948 (62 Stat. 827), the Act of June 8, 1940 (54
12 Stat. 249), the Act of June 30, 1948 (62 Stat.
13 1161), the Act of July 2, 1948 (62 Stat. 1224),
14 the Act of September 13, 1950 (64 Stat. 845),
15 or the Act of April 11, 1968 (82 Stat. 73),
16 person or property within Indian country has
FORD LIBRARY & GERALE day
17 become subject to State criminal or civil juris-
18 diction, the Indian tribe affected is authorized
- 2 -
1 to adopt a resolution indicating its desire to have the
2 tribe and the United States reacquire all or any measure
3 of their respective criminal or civil jurisdiction, or
4 both, acquired by such State pursuant to such statutes.
5
SEC.2. Any such resolution shall be adopted by the
6 tribal council or other governing body of such tribe, or
7 shall be adopted by any initiative or referendum procedure
8 contained in the tribal constitution and bylaws.
9
SEC.3. The tribe shall forward the resolution together
10 with a plan for the tribe's proposed implementation of its
11 assumption of jurisdiction to the Secretary of the Interior.
12 Within ninety (90) days after receipt of such resolution
13 and plan, the Secretary shall consult with the governor of
14 the affected State and with the Attorney General of the
15 United States concerning the orderly transfer of responsi-
16 bilities and shall approve the resolution unless he finds:
17
(a) The tribe's plan contains no adequate criminal
18
law and order code; or
19
(b) The tribe's plan contains no adequate means
20
for the resolution of civil disputes; or
21
(c) The tribe lacks the capacity to implement
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
22
the plan; or
23
(d) The resident tribal membership is so small
24
or scattered as to make the proposed return of juris-
25
diction clearly impracticable; or
26
(e) In cases where the tribe has not proposed a
27
full reacquisition of jurisdiction, the proposed alloca-
28
tion of jurisdiction among the tribe, the United States,
29
and the State is clearly impracticable.
30
SEC. 4. If the Secretary approves the tribal resolution
31 he shall set a date for the reacquisition of jurisdiction
32 which shall be not later than one year from the date of
33 his approval, provided that the tribe and Secretary may
34 agree to a postponement thereof to a mutually acceptable
35 date.
- 3 -
1
SEC.5. If the Secretary disapproves the tribal reso-
2 lution ----
3
(a) He shall state in detail in writing his reasons
4
for so doing, and his decision may be appealed by the
5
tribe to the United States District Court pursuant to
6
5 U.S.C. Sec. 551 et seq., and
7
(b) He shall, if requested by the tribe, promptly
8
assist the tribe in preparing an acceptable plan for a
9
transfer of jurisdiction (if such a plan is practicable)
10
and shall assist the tribe in achieving the capability
11
to implement the plan.
12
SEC.6. (a) No civil action or proceeding pending before
13 any court or agency of any State prior to the transfer of
14 jurisdiction pursuant to this Act shall abate by reason
15 thereof. For purposes of any such action or proceeding,
16 such transfer of jurisdiction shall take effect on the
17 date established pursuant to section 4 of this Act.
18
(b) No transfer of criminal jurisdiction pursuant
19 to this Act shall deprive any Court of a State of juris-
20 diction to hear, determine, render judgement, or impose
21 sentence in any criminal action instituted against any
22 person for any offense committed before the effective
23 date of such transfer, if the offense charged in such
24 action was cognizable under any law of such State at
25 the time of commission of such offense. For the pur-
26 pose of any such criminal action, such transfer shall
27 take effect on the date established pursuant to Section
28 4 of this Act.
29
SEC.7. Nothing herein is intended to address the ques-
30 tion of whether tribal courts may exercise jurisdiction
31 over non-Indians accused of committing offenses within
32 Indian country.
33
TITLE II - AUTHORIZATION OF FUNDS
34
SEC.1. There is hereby authorized to be appropriated
35 for the Department of Justice and the Department of the
- 4 -
1 Interior such funds as necessary for the proper implemen-
2 tation of the provisions of this Act.
INTERSTATE CONGRESS
for
EQUAL
EQUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, INC.
RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
CURRENT
FEDERAL
Executive Secretary
INDIAN
POLICY
422 Main Street
Winner, South Dakota 57580
(605) 842-2500
The Presidents Council
The White House.
My Name is Howard Gray and I reside at 9001-22nd Ave. N.
Seattle, Washington. My background is that of writer, and producer
of Outdoor documentary films. I am past President of the National
FORD
Outdoor Writers Association of America, a professional organization
covering the entire outdoor media.
In addition to producing documentary films on the Life
LIBRARY
cycle of the Pacific Salmon I served, for 18 years, as an advisory
member of the International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commision. I am
a member of the board of directors of C.U.R.E. (Citizens United for
Resource Emergencies) CURE is a group of 20 organizations, represent-
ing over 10,000 concerned citizens, and was formed shortly after
the Judge Boldt decision as a political action group with the speci-
fic and sole purpose of correcting the mistake of the decision.
In a period of less than four months aprox. 160.000
citizens of the State of Washington signed a petition showing their
distain with anyone who would so flaunt the 14th Amendment of the
Constitution that provides equal rights to all its citizens.
I am one of the founders of the "Interstate Congress
for Equal Rights and Responsibilities" an organization dedicated to
the principal that all people, regardless of race, color or creed
shall have equal rights granted by the constitution of the United
States and that NO LAW SHALL SUPERCEDE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
Certainly not secondary in importance I am speaking
for and representing the property owners Associations' of two
critical areas in the State of Washington. The Lummi Property Owners
Association and the Quinault Property Owners Association.
A real problem exists on Indian Reservations such as
the Lummi and Quinault wich stems from the fact that although the
Indians have sold hugh quanties of the reservation to Non-Indians
nevertheless, they Ziley still insist on exclusive Jurisdiction over
everything and every one on the reservation.
The historical precedents they cite to support the
claim of exclusive jurisdiction ignores completely the fact that
large portions of the reservations have been sold to Non-Indians
and also ignores the fact that Non-Indians have no voice whatsoever
in Tribal Councils. This means that when Indians attempt to enforce
Tribal Law against a Non-Indian that the constitutional rights of
the Non-Indian are being violated because he has no voice whatsoever
in the formation or operation of the Tribal Government.
The conflict created by the sale of Tribal land
to Non-Indians should be delt with forthrightly and now. The solution
should recognize the rights of the Indians and the rights of the
NonIndian living on the reservation.
MORE
A NONPROFIT CORPORATION CREATED TO INSURE THAT ALL CITIZENS OF THESE
UNITED STATES SHALL ACHIEVE EQUAL RIGHTS AND BEAR EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES
UNDER THE LAW
INTERSTATE CONGRESS
for
EQUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, INC.
EQUAL
RIGHTS AND
RECPONSIBILITIES
CURRENT
Executive Secretary
FEDERAL
INDIAN
422 Main Street
Howard Gray
POLICY
Winner, South Dakota 57580
Statement
(605) 842-2500
Page 2
Illegal acts of harassment are going on continually and out
of fear several property owners are being forced to sell at
a sacrefice. It is not inconceivable that equal rights and
freedom will precede order if Congress and the courts don't
soon decide on a society of equality with no super-Citizens.
I am in receipt of information that, in my opinion,
calls for moral valuation. First-- I have a copy of the Interior
and Justice" draft Bill.
The "Indian Jurisdiction Act of 1976.
The legal aspects of this act I will leave to our Attor-
neys to discus however as a layman I do understand Sec. 7 which
states
"Nothing herein is intended to address the
question of whether Tribal Courts may exercise
jurisdiction over Non-Indians accused of Comm-
itting offenses within Indian Country.
(Or)alternate language for Sec. 7.
"Nothing herein is intended to address or
alter the status of Civil or Criminal
Jurisdiction over Non-Indians residing
within reservation boundaries.
To further explain the Above Sec. 7 I refer to a letter written
by Ralph R. Reeser, director, Congressional and Legislative affairs
staff, Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. Mr Reeser
S tates, and I Qoute
"Special note should be made of the fact that
the draft Administration Bill would not alter
the legal status of Non-Indian rights. BUT
LEAVES THE MATTER TO THE COURTS
This is Pass-the Buck Legislation
There is a principle of law. I am told, in Federal Courts, which
holds that any Ambiguity contained in a law or treaty is to be
decided in favor of the poor Indian. Few could, or would dispute
this.
MORE
A NONPROFIT CORPORATION CREATED TO INSURE THAT ALL CITIZENS OF THESE
UNITED STATES SHALL ACHIEVE EQUAL RIGHTS AND BEAR EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES
UNDER THE LAW
INTERSTATE CONGRESS
for
EQUAL
EQUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES, INC.
RIGHTS AND
RESPONSIBILITIES
CURRENT
FEDERAL
Executive Secretary
INDIAN
Howard Gray Statement
POLICY
422 Main Street
Winner, South Dakota 57580
Page 3
(605) 842-2500
There is no way in which the Non-Indian land owner can
compete with Indian Tribes in available funds for court cases.
One has to but see the Indian Lobby at work to understand that
there would be NO CONTEST.
A simple amendment to the Indian Jurisdiction Act would,
by Congressional action, solve one of the most critical problems
now facing the Non-Indian Land owner.
"The powers of the Indian Tribal Governments
shall be restricted to compare with those of
Federal and State Governments. No act shall
preclude the Bill of Rights and the 14th Amend-
ment of the Constitution of the United States.
FOHD
If the Indian Jurisdiction Act is passed without giving the
Non-Indian complete jurisdiction over his legally bought Fee
Patent land how will the President and Congress explain to
the Thousands upon thousands of Non-Indian citizens who
probably out number the Indian by ten to one on over 5 Million
acres of so-called reservationland when he is told that-
He will be under the complete jurisdiction,
both civil and criminal, of a foreign nation.
This bill does not foster intergretion of the Indian people.
It is simply a Segregationist Bill that would further divide
the populous. It keeps the Indian people from becomming a part
of our Democratic society.
We cannot disaffirm the past, nor can we change it. We must
recognize that the past no longer exists and that we must face the
realities of the present. A district court recognized this to be true
when it further asked "How much of the sins of our forefathers must
we rightly bear ? Shall we pretend that history never was ? Feeling
what was wrong does not describe what is right. Anguish about
yesterday does not alone make wise answers for tomorrow. Somehow,
all the achings of the soul must coalesce and with the wisdom of
the mind develope a single National Policy for Governmental action"
Frustrations are felt all over the nation when courts
and Congress deal unfairly with the people. Congress must be made
to face up to the incompatible acts passed a century ago.
Many of our Federal Judges are using the courts for
social legislature. If it is their desire to do something for the
Indian they can find some law to support it. Only Congress can
abolish these special rights. No society based on our form of
Gocernment can exist without MAJOR CONFLICTS if superior rights are
given to one portion of its people
Howard Gray
A NONPROFIT CORPORATION CREATED TO INSURE THAT ALL CITIZENS OF THESE
UNITED STATES SHALL ACHIEVE EQUAL RIGHTS AND BEAR EQUAL RESPONSIBILITIES
UNDER THE LAW
STATEMENT BY ALAN R. PARKER
ON BEHALF OF THE
FRIENDS COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL LEGISLATION
FORD
FILED WITH THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIMINAL LAWS AND PROCEDURES OF THE
GERALD
LIBRARY
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE
on S. 1
April 18, 1975
My name is Alan R. Parker. I am Vice President of the American Indian Lawyers
Association, an unincorporated association of licensed attorneys of Native
American descent who are working in areas directly related to the legal rights
of Indian tribes. However, I file this statement as a private person speaking
on behalf of the Friends Committee on National Legislation.
The Friends Committee on National Legislation is widely representative of Friends
throughout the United States, having members drawn from 22 of the 28 Friends'
Yearly Meetings in the country, but it does not purport to speak for all Friends,
who cherish their rights to individual opinions. Friends have had a long-standing
concern in the area of criminal justice and social equality, and have also had a
history of involvement in the rights of Native Americans. That concern is currently
expressed in a special program which relates directly and exclusively with Native
American legislative issues.
Under existing federal law, the jurisdictional relationships between federal, state
and tribal governments regarding prosecution of criminal offenses taking place within
the boundaries of Indian reservations are carefully defined. The overall effect
of the law has been to protect the right of self-government on the part of Indian
tribes while safeguarding the respective interests of state and federal judicial
and law enforcement authorities within Indian country. (See 18 U.S.C. Sections 13,
.1151, 1152, 1153 and 1162.)
The bill, S. 1, amended, will, if enacted, disrupt this jurisdictional scheme and
result in a virtually total preemption of the tribal government's jurisdiction
within the boundaries of a reservation. That is, where existing jurisdictional law
preserves the exclusive authority of tribal governments over certain criminal offense
and classes of offenders within the reservation, S. 1 would vastly expand the nature
and scope of federal and state law at the expense of tribal law. (See proposed
U.S.C. Sections 203, 205, 685, 1861 and 1863.) Briefly, Section 203(a) would
abolish the distinction between Indian country and other types of federal enclaves
for purposes of delineating the reach of federal law, Section 685(b) expands the
2
scope of state jurisdiction over offenses in Indian country while Sections 1861
and 1863 would expand the number of enclave laws and retain provision for
assimilation of state law within federal enclaves where there may be a vacuum in
federal law. This is in contrast to existing federal law which recognizes the
special jurisdictional status of Indian reservations and provides for the application
of federal and state law only where the interest of the tribe in asserting tribal
authority cannot be supported.
This total disregard for the rights of tribal self-government evident in the
proposed S. 1, amended, has apparently been motivated by an understandable desire
to achieve uniformity in federal criminal law as it applies to federal enclaves
or "areas of special federal jurisdiction." Analysis of the comentary accompanying
various drafts of this legislation reveals that the authors have failed to appreciate
the special status that Indian reservations have enjoyed by virtue of their unique
right of self-government. Simply put, an Indian reservation, in addition to being
an area of special jurisdiction, encompasses at the same time a distinct political
community. Recognition of this special status has long been an integral part of
federal Indian policy. (See Worchester V. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 1832; Williams V.
Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 1959; and McClanahan V. Arizona, 441 U.S. 164, 1973.) By comparison,
other federal enclaves such as national parks or military reservations do not
encompass self-governing jurisdictional entities distinct from federal and state
governments.
In short, even the objective of achieving a desirable uniformity in the federal
enclave laws ought not to override the right of self-government enjoyed by the
Indian tribes which predates the founding of this Republic. It would be a relatively
simple matter to retain this special jurisdictional status without disturbing the
overall objectives of the bill as it applies to all other federal enclaves. The
appropriate provisions of the law could simply be retained in Title 18 or transferred
to Title 25 of the Code. Whichever approach is chosen surely ought to be taken
only after soliciting the input of Indian tribes and organizations. This effort at
reform of the federal criminal law could also address itself to the thorny problems
associated with Public Law 83-280 as those problems are now being addressed by the
Sehate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs. Recently the two major national Indian
organizations have articulated a position regarding what they feel are serious
shortcomings in Public Law 83-280 and certainly legislative activity on this point
ought to be coordinated with the efforts of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Friends Committee on National Legislation, 245 2nd St. N.E., Washington DC 20002
4/18/75 T-3
94TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. 2010
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
LISRARY
JUNE 25 (legislative day, JUNE 6), 1975
Mr. JACKSON (by request) introduced the following bill; which was read twice
and referred to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A
BILL
Providing for the improvement of law enforcement and the
determination of civil and criminal jurisdiction and law in
Indian country, and for other purposes.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That this Act may be cited as the "Indian Law Enforcement
4 Improvement Act of 1975".
5
TITLE I-DETERMINATION OF CIVIL AND
6
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION AND LAW
7
SEC. 101. The Congress, after careful review of the Fed-
8 eral Government's historical and special legal relationship
9
with the American Indian people, finds that-
II
2
1
(a) the Federal Government has heretofore recog-
2
nized the sovereignty of Indian tribes through treaties,
3
agreements, executive orders, and statutes;
4
(b) Congress has heretofore declared it to be the
5
policy of the United States to guarantee self-determina-
6
tion to American Indians and to preserve the Federal
7
Government's relationship with and responsibility to
8
Indian tribes;
9
(c) the lack of a consistent congressional Indian
10
policy in the past has resulted in the unclear jurisdic-
11
tional status of Indian country with varying patterns of
12
jurisdictional checkerboarding, overlapping and incon-
13
sistencies which show little or no promise of clear and
14
workable judicial determination;
15
(d) it has not been finally judicially determined
16
whether the application of tribal, State, and Federal
17
civil and criminal jurisdiction and law in Indian country
18
is exclusive or concurrent;
19
(e) jurisdictional problems of increasing severity
20
and magnitude in Indian country have demonstrated
21
that subjecting Indians and Indian country to State
22
or Federal civil and criminal jurisdiction and law with-
23
out regard to the unique cultural, political, geographic
24
and social factors of each Indian tribe and reservation
25
is unjust and unworkable;
3
1
(f) the Indian tribes will never surrender their
2
right to determine civil and criminal jurisdiction and
3
law within the Indian country;
4
(g) true self-determination of Indian tribes and
5
the solution of jurisdictional problems in Indian country
6
require that Indian tribes design their own legal and
7
judicial systems and determine how the exercise of civil
GERALO R. FORD
8
and criminal jurisdiction and law in Indian country be
9
shared by tribal, State and Federal Governments and
10
whether such jurisdiction and law be exclusive or con-
11
current; Indian tribal government and sovereignty must
12
therefore be nurtured and strengthened by comprehen-
13
sive Federal assistance in the improvement of law en-
14
forcement in Indian country.
15
SEC. 102. (a) As used in this Act, the term "Indian
16
country" includes—
17
(1) all land within the exterior boundaries of any
18
federally recognized Indian reservation, notwithstand-
19
ing the issuance of any trust or fee patent, and including
20
any right-of-way running through the reservation;
21
(2) all dependent Indian communities within the
22
borders of the United States, whether within the orig-
23
inal or subsequently acquired territory thereof, and
24
whether within or without the limits of a State;
4
1
(3) all trust or restricted Indian allotments or lands
1 subject
2
including any rights-of-way running through them; and
2 dian tr
3
(4) all trust or restricted land outside the limits of
3 ing its
4
any Indian reservation held by the United States for any
4 any me
5
Indian tribe, band, community, group, or pueblo.
5 all or {
6
(b) As used in this Act, the term "tribe" shall, where
6 of the
7 appropriate, mean federally recognized Indian tribe, band,
7 whethe
8 community, group, or pueblo.
8 concur
9
SEC. 103. (a) In any case in which, pursuant to the
9 or crim
10 provisions of section 2, 4, 6, or 7 of the Act of August 15,
10
(1
11 1953 (67 Stat. 588), the Act of February 8, 1887 (24
11 council
12 Stat. 390), the Act of May 27, 1902 (32 Stat. 245), the
12 adopte
13 Act of May 31, 1902 (32 Stat. 284), the Act of May 8,
13 in the
14 1906 (34 Stat. 182), the Act of May 6, 1910 (36 Stat.
14 That i
15 348), the Act of December 30, 1916 (39 Stat. 865), the
15 tive or
16 Act of June 14, 1918 (40 Stat. 606), the Act of April 28,
16 by ma
17 1924 (43 Stat. 111), the Act of June 26, 1936 (49 Stat.
17 memb
18 1967), the Act of August 25, 1937 (50 Stat. 806), the Act
18 endum
19 of June 25, 1948 (62 Stat. 827), the Act of July 2, 1948
19 centun
20 (62 Stat. 1224), the Act of September 13, 1950 (64 Stat.
20 member
21 845), the Act of August 27, 1954 (68 Stat. 868), the Act
21
(.
22 of June 18, 1956 (70 Stat. 290), the Act of August 8, 1958
22 the II
23 (72 Stat. 545), the Act of April 11, 1968 (82 Stat. 73),
23 with t
24 or the Act of November 25, 1970 (84 Stat. 1358), or court
24 tive II
25 decisions, any area of Indian country or person therein is
25 period
I
S 2
5
1 subject to State civil or criminal jurisdiction or law, the In-
2 dian tribe affected is authorized to adopt resolutions indicat-
3 ing its desire (1) to have the United States reacquire all or
4 any measure of such civil or criminal jurisdiction and to have
5 all or any measure of the corresponding civil or criminal law
6 of the State no longer applicable, and (2) to determine
7 whether tribal civil or criminal jurisdiction or law shall be
8 concurrent with all or any measure of Federal or State civil
9 or criminal jurisdiction or law.
10
(b) Any such resolution shall be adopted by the tribal
11 council or other governing body of such tribe, or shall be
12 adopted by the initiative or referendum procedure contained
13 in the tribal constitution and bylaws: Provided, however,
14 That if the tribal constitution and bylaws contain no initia-
15 tive or referendum procedure, the resolution may be adopted
16 by majority vote of the eligible voters who are enrolled
17 members of the tribe residing on its reservation in a refer-
18 endum election upon a petition signed by at least 25 per
19 centum of the eligible voters of the tribe who are enrolled
20 members residing on its reservation.
21
(c) Ninety days following receipt by the Secretary of
22 the Interior of any such resolution adopted in accordance
23 with the provisions of this Act, the resolution shall be effec-
24 tive unless the Secretary of the Interior has within that
25 period formally disapproved the resolution for the reason that
S. 2010-2
6
1
(1) the tribe has no applicable existing or proposed law and
2 order code, or (2) the tribe has no plan for fulfilling its
3 responsibilities under the jurisdiction sought to be reacquired
4 or determined.
5
(d) Whenever the resolution shall become effective,
6 (1) the United States shall reacquire, in accordance with the
7 provisions of the resolution, all or any measure of such civil
8 or criminal jurisdiction in such area of Indian country or
9 parts thereof occupied by the tribe, and all or any measure of
10 the corresponding civil or criminal law of the State shall no
11 longer be applicable therein, and (2) tribal civil or criminal
12 jurisdiction or law shall, in accordance with the provisions of
13 the resolution, be concurrent with all or any measure of Fed-
14 eral or State civil or criminal jurisdiction or law.
15
(e) Upon disapproval by the Secretary of any such res-
16 olution, the Secretary shall immediately assist the tribe under
17 title II hereof in preparation of a law and order code or plan,
18 and when such inadequacies are alleviated, the Secretary
19 shall approve the resolution. In the event of disapproval by
20 the Secretary of any such resolution, the tribe affected may
21 appeal the disapproval to the Federal Court for the District
22 of Columbia in which original jurisdiction for any such appeal
23 is hereby vested, and the Secretary shall have the burden
24 of sustaining his findings upon which the resolution was
25 disapproved.
7
1
SEC. 104. No action or proceeding pending before any
2 court or agency of any State immediately prior to the re-
3 acquisition or determination of jurisdiction pursuant to this
4 Act shall abate by reason thereof. For purposes of any such
5 action or proceeding, such reacquisition or determination of
6 jurisdiction shall take effect on the day following the date
7 of final determination of such action or proceeding.
8
SEC. 105. Section 6 of the Act of August 15, 1953
9 (67 Stat. 588) is hereby repealed, but such repeal shall
10 not affect any cession of jurisdiction validly made pursuant
11 to such section prior to its repeal.
12 TITLE II-IMPROVEMENT OF LAW ENFORCE-
13
MENT ON INDIAN RESERVATIONS
14
SEC. 201. (a) The Secretary of the Interior is author-
15 ized and directed to establish and implement programs to
16 improve law enforcement and the administration of justice
17 within Indian reservations and Indian country.
18
(b) In implementing such programs the Secretary is
19 authorized to make grants to, and contracts with, Indian
20 tribes, to implement programs and projects to-
21
(1) determine the feasibility of Federal reacquisi-
22
tions of jurisdiction and determination of jurisdiction
23
over such Indian country or parts thereof occupied by
24
such tribes, including preparation of law and order
25
codes, substantive laws, codes of civil and criminal pro-
8
1
cedure, and establishment of plans for fulfilling tribal
2
responsibilities under the jurisdiction sought to be re-
3
acquired or determined;
4
(2) establishing and strengthening police forces of
or
the tribes, including recruitment, training, compensation,
6-
fringe benefits, and the acquisition and maintenance of
7
police equipment;
8
(3) establishing and improving tribal courts in order
9
to assure speedy and just trials for offenders, the appoint-
10
ment, training and compensation of qualified judges,
11
and the appointment, training and compensation of
12
qualified Indian prosecution officers, and the establish-
13
ment of competent legal defender programs;
14
(4) the establishment and maintenance of correc-
15
tional facilities and the establishment and strengthening
16
of correctional personnel departments, including recruit-
17
ment, training, compensation, and fringe benefits,
Department of Justice
STATEMENT
OF
JOHN C. KEENEY
DEPUTY ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
CRIMINAL DIVISION
BEFORE
THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INDIAN AFFAIRS
OF THE
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
UNITED STATES SENATE
CONCERNING
S. 2010 - INDIAN LAW ENFORCEMENT IMPROVEMENT ACT
ON
MARCH 5, 1976
3, REVOLUTION /
1176
Good morning Mr. Chairman. I welcome the opportunity
to appear before your subcommittee today to discuss S. 2010.
As you know, we have filed a report on the bill which details
our views on S. 2010, as well as the basic principles which
underlie those views. Today, I would like to very briefly
outline our position.
I would like to stress, at the outset, that while we
have problems with some parts of S. 2010, we strongly support
the concept of Indian tribes having the right to decide for
themselves whether they are to be under state or federal
jurisdiction, and that any requests for a return to federal
jurisdiction should come from the tribes alone. We believe
that the tribes, rather than the states, should be given the
option, in an orderly fashion and with reasonable control by
the Department of Interior, to return to that criminal and
civil jurisdiction which prevailed in Indian country prior to
1954 and the enactment of P.L. 280.
Permit me now to turn to the specifics of S. 2010.
Title I lists numerous statutes which have given states
varying degrees of criminal and civil jurisdiction over reserva-
tions within their boundaries. It provides that tribes affected
by these statutes (and by court decisions) may adopt resolu-
tions expressing a desire to have the United States reacquire
all or any measure of the civil or criminal jurisdiction
-2-
presently exercised by the states. The tribe's resolutions
may also express a desire that the tribal government share
jurisdiction with either the federal or state governments.
S. 2010 permits the Secretary of Interior 90 days to
disapprove tribal resolutions for either of two reasons:
(1) the tribe has no applicable existing or proposed law and
order code, or (2) the tribe has no plan for fulfilling its
responsibilities under the jurisdiction sought to be reacquired
or determined. If the Secretary fails to disapprove a resolu-
tion within 90 days, it becomes effective. If he disapproves
the resolution, the bill provides that the Secretary will
assist the tribe in alleviating the inadequacies he found to
exist. The tribe may appeal the Secretary's disapproval to
the United States Circuit Court for the District of Columbia.
In any court proceeding the Secretary would have "the burden
of sustaining his findings upon which the resolution was
disapproved."
P.L. 280 was passed at a time when federal policy was to
terminate the then existing special relationships between the
tribes and the federal government. P.L. 280 gave five states
jurisdiction over virtually all of the Indian country within
their borders. Sections six and seven of the statute, in effect,
-3-
allowed additional states to assume jurisdiction over Indian
territory within their borders. In neither instance were
the tribes themselves given a voice in this process. A
portion of the 1968 Civil Rights Act attempted to address
this inequity by providing that Indian tribes, in the future,
must consent to state jurisdiction before becoming subject to
it. The 1968 Act also gave the states maintaining jurisdic-
tion over Indian country the power to retrocede it to the
federal government. But like the 1954 legislation, there was
no requirement that the tribes be consulted.
We believe the time has come for this situation to be
remedied. It is unfair that tribes who without being consulted
were placed under state jurisdiction between 1954 (when P.L. 280
was enacted) and 1968 should not be given the opportunity to
elect between federal and state jurisdiction.
However, we have reservations as to the approach taken
by S. 2010.
First, we believe the bill is far too broad in scope.
The list of statutes contained in Section 103 (a) includes several
that concern the allotment of land on Indian reservations. A
request from some tribes resulting in the federal government
reacquiring civil jurisdiction might, for example, give rise
to land claims by Indian tribes, invalidate past land transfers
and redefine the boundaries of some reservations. Other
-4-
statutes included in Section 103 (a) pertain to relatively
narrow areas such as granting to Oklahoma a right to tax
oil and gas production on trust lands. It is the Department's
position that these matters pertaining to tribal property
and resources ought to be considered separately and apart
from any proposed change in criminal jurisdiction. It would
be preferable to limit the scope of legislation in this area
to giving the tribe much greater power to bring about changes
in criminal and civil jurisdiction than now exists because
of P.L. 280.
Second, the limitations the bill places on the power of
the Secretary of Interior to refuse approval of a tribal
resolution are too severe. While it may be desirable to set
forth guidelines for the Secretary to follow in deciding to
approve or disapprove a tribal resolution, such guidelines
should permit the Secretary to take the interests of all
parties into consideration. The concerned state should have
a voice but certainly not a veto. Guidelines should not serve
as a means of narrowly restricting the Secretary's discretion
which is the apparent purpose of the criteria in S. 2010.
There are numerous potential problems which might arise when
a transfer of jurisdiction is proposed and the Secretary should
be able to intelligently respond to them. For example, it
should be possible for the Secretary to limit the frequency
-5-
with which a tribe changes its mind as to the jurisdictional
arrangement between the tribe and other governments. He
should be able to consider whether the allocation of juris-
diction the tribe proposes is a rational one and permits
other governments to function effectively. He also must be
able to assess the availability of tribal and federal resources
for establishing an efficient system of government and set
a date for the effective reassumption of jurisdiction with
this assessment in mind.
Third, it is not clear whether the bill intends to
grant jurisdiction to tribal courts over non-Indians. If
Congress intends to speak to this question one way or the
other it should do so clearly. If it does not, this should
also be made clear - as the matter is presently in litigation.
In closing, I would like to note that the Department
has established a special interdepartmental subcommittee
whose mission is to develop a legislative proposal in the
area of Indian territory jurisdiction which would accomplish
the objectives we all support. The chairman of that sub-
committee, Harry Sachse of the Solicitor General's Office,
is with me today, as is William J. Mulligan, United States
Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Both are
familiar with the problems of tribes in P.L. 280 states
and join with me in inviting your questions.
DOJ-1976-03
OFFICE OF
UNDER SECRETARY
UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
WASHINGTON
April 1, 1976
Memorandum
To:
Legislative Counsel
From:
Schoc
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
Special Assistant to the
Subject: Proposed Bill in re Retrocession
This is in comment on a proposed bill which provides for a means
whereby Indian Tribes may seek retrocession of state jurisdiction
under P.L. 83-280 and similar laws. Generally, the bill addresses
relevant considerations. My specific comments are as follows:
Section 3
This section should include language which makes it clear that the
90-day period for the Secretary's review does not begin to toll until
the Tribe's submission of a plan has sufficient data upon which the
Secretary can base an informed evaluation and judgment.
Secondly, neither the bill nor the proposed letter to Senator
Jackson explains what the bill considers to be an "adequate" law
and order code. Also, we should consider whether code provisions
which are on their face in violation of the Indian Bill of Rights
are considered "inadequate." In the same light, there is no definition
for what an "adequate means for the resolution of civil disputes "is,
or how many is" so small
as to make the proposed return of juris-
diction clearly impractical", or how clear" clearly impracticable"
must be. I suggest that a definition section be included for these
words.
Thirdly, the first paragraph of section 3 is somewhat disjointed in
its syntax so as to make unclear as to what the 90-day period applies.
As written, it could be interpreted to mean that the Secretary must
consult with the affected governor and the U.S. Attorney General within
90 days, but it leaves somewhat unclear the period of time within which
the Secretary must register his judgment of the submitted plan.
INTERIOR DEPT.
AFR i - 1976
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
2
Section 4
You may want to consider allowing the governor and the tribes an
opportunity to mutually agree to a postponement beyond the one
year as well as the tribe and the Secretary. This would provide
another means for the tribe to delay retrocession in the event
that the tribe and the Secretary disagreed on a retrocession date.
Section 7
I recommend that the word "non-Indians" be changed to read "non-
members," if it determined by the DOI that this legislative proposal
should not address the issue of political rights of non-members.
Omissions
Would be prudent to include some provision that the Secretary
must issue regulations and guidelines for the implementation of
the Act. This may cure the vagueness problem.
Political rights of non-members issue
Avoidance of this issue merely continues the state of confusion within
Indian country as to the respective political rights of members and
non-members and the extent of the governmental authority of tribal,
state, and federal governments. It is unfair and unreasonable for the
Federal Government to delay addressing this issue directly. The only
real question should be whether to address this issue in this piece
of legislation or whether to meet this issue in a soon-to-follow
separate proposed bill. A separate bill probably is the more prudent
course. Thus, it would be adviseable for the letter to Senator
Jackson to make reference to a prospective proposal from the
Administration.
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
DIE
INTERIOR
UNITED STATES
DEF RTMENT OF THE INTERIC
5.2010 Lets
OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR
?
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20240
April 2, 1976
MEMORANDUM TO THE LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
FROM : Deputy Solicitor
SUBJECT: Revision of S.2010
I have gone over the draft bill that was jointly prepared by
Interior and Justice and have the following comments.
Section 6 is unclear as to whether a state court or agency con-
tinues to have jurisdiction over pending proceedings or whether
such proceedings are transferred to the tribal authority and
thereafter continue to be adjudicated by the tribal authority.
FORD
The proposed letter states that the state court or agency would
retain such jurisdiction. I recommend that Section 6(a) be
changed to specifically state this result.
LIBRARY
David E. Lindgren
copy: Reid Chambers
INTERIOR DEPT.
APM j- 1976
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL
THERICAN REVOLUTION WCENTENNIAL
1776-1976
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 19, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
HOWARD BORGSTROM
fibri
FROM:
BOBBIE GREENE KILBERG
Attached is a copy of the Justice Department's letter on S. 2870
which I have marked up. I feel very strongly that the material
which I have excised should be eliminated in the cleared letter.
I do not think the excised language is necessary and believe it
puts Justice in the position of making moral and policy judgments
which are troublesome and which are not the responsibility of
the litigator.
I did talk to Peter Taft about my concerns and he disagrees.
I would urge you to talk directly with him. On your specific
question about references to two of the seven historical Sioux
Tribes (page 4), Peter Taft will wait to hear directly from you.
I pointed out to him that the Interior letter refers to eight
Sioux Tribes, but it is not clear to me whether the reference
is or is not in the same context. As to your interest in having
a further description of the other litigation before the Indian
Claims Commission, I think Peter bekieves the description
on page 4 is sufficient, but again you should speak directly with
him.
FORD
LIBRARY
delations
110
GENERAL
LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS
Department of
Washington, D.C. 20530
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
Honorable James T. Lynn
Director, Office of Management
and Budget
Washington, D.C. 20503
Dear Mr. Lynn :
Enclosed are copies of a proposed communication 1.00 to be BOUS., transmitted 1
bill "To amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of
to the Congress relative to: S. 2700, 94th Cond,
August 13, 1946.
Please advise this office as to the relationship of the proposed commu-
nication to the Program of the President.
Sincerely,
United
Michael M. Uhlmann
Assistant Attorney General
LA-6A
FORMERLY G-122
1.22
DOJ
Department III OUBLICE
Washington, D.C. 20530
Honorable Henry M. Jackson
Chairman, Committee on Interior and
Insular Affairs
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
Dear Mr. Chairman:
You have requested the views of the Department of
Justice on S. 2780, 94th Cong., 1st sess., a bill "To
amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of August 13, 1946."
The bill would eliminate the application of the defense of
res judicata to permit certain Sioux Tribes to again liti-
gate a claim respecting the transfer of the Black Hills of
South Dakota to the United States in 1877.
The bill implies that the Sioux claim for a Fifth
Amendment taking of the Black Hills has not been decided
"on the merits." This is in error. The bar of res
judicata is inapplicable to claims which have not been
decided on the merits. United States V. Creek Nation,
192 Ct. C1. 425 (1970); Assiniboine Tribe V. United States,
128 Ct. Cl. 617 (1954), cert. den., 348 U.S. 863; and Black-
feet and Gros Ventre Tribes V. United States, 127 Ct. Cl.
807 (1954), cert. den., 348 U.S. 835. With respect to the
transfer of the Black Hills to the United States, the Court
of Claims decided on the merits in 1942 that no Fifth Amend-
ment taking action against the United States would lie.
Sioux Tribe V. United States, 97 Ct. Cl. 613 (1942), cert.
den., 318 U.S. 789. The court's examination into the
- 2 -
applicable facts and law was very thorough and its con-
clusion arrived at only after a number of years of liti-
gation and the writing of extensive findings and a well-
considered opinion. Id. at 616-689. In the recent
litigation arising under the Indian Claims Commission
Act, the courts determined that the Sioux had had their
day in court on the Fifth Amendment taking claim in the
1942 case and thereby refused to relitigate that issue.
FORD
United States V. Sioux Nation (Ct. C1., Appeal No.
16-74, June 25, 1975), not yet reported, cert. den.,
LIBRARY
December 8, 1975.
Congress enacted the Indian Claims Commission Act
to provide all the tribes an opportunity to have their
day in court on any past wrongs that they might elect to
file against the United States and which had not been
previously disposed of on the merits. Act of August 13,
1946, 60 Stat. 1049, 25 U.S.C. sec. 70. The resulting
monetary awards have been beneficial to the tribes and
with the act being a general statute embracing all tribal
claims it has relieved Congress from the piece-meal, case-
by-case method of considering such claims as had been the
procedure before enactment of the general act.
But there was a much more important benefit, partic-
ularly to the Indian people, underlying the statute's
enactment. This was the express provision in the act
prohibiting the submission of any more claims based on
ancient wrongs. See section 70k:
The Commission shall receive claims for a
period of five years after August 13, 1946, and
no claim existing before such date but not
presented within such period may thereafter be
submitted to any court or administrative agency
for consideration, nor will such claim there-
after be entertained by the Congress.
- 3 --
GERALD 10 FORD GENERAL
This provision was for the purpose of notivating the
Indian people to looking, not to the past, but to the
present and to the future for the answers DD their
problems. We believe that this is 2 most important goal
and that if the Indian Claims Commission Act is Feft
intact that goal will soon be reached. Otherwise, it
will not
We see no more merit in this amendment specially
benefiting the Sioux than similar amendments specially
benefiting the other tribes. In any complex litigation,
party plaintiffs, unsatisfied with a judgment, can always
select excerpts from the record and develop arguments
explaining why they should have been awarded more. This
is particularly true in the case of Indian claims involving
alleged wrongs covering multitudinous incidents over periods
as long as 200 years. The actual facts are frequently
obscured and their construction often difficult from the
limited records available. However, once a court has
engaged in this task, its difficulty is not an excuse for
abandoning the accepted doctrine of res judicata, especially
after review and affirmance of the doctrine by the Court of
Claims whose attitude is properly solicitous of the Indian
interest.
It may be claimed that without this proposed addi-
tional redress the Sioux will be peculiarly uncompensated.
We disagree. The Sioux have not been left without com-
pensation. They have pending in the Indian Claims Com-
mission at the present time a judgment in their favor of
$17.55 million. This IS one of the larger awards that an
Indian tribe has received. If the bill were passed, the
S.?
ultimate total judgment (if the Sioux were successful)
would exeeed by about three fold the largest of all other
Indian
judgments
In addition, this same group of Sioux
FORD
- 4 -
LIBRAR
has another large suit that is pending against the
United States. Sioux Tribe V. United States, Docket
No. 74, before the Indian Claims Commission. It appears
that this latter case will result in an even much larger
award in favor of the Sioux than the $17.55 million award
already received. Moreover, these same Sioux have general
accounting cases pending before the Indian Claims Commission
which no doubt will end in additional judgments in their
favor. See Sioux Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 115;
Sioux Tribe V. United States, Docket No. 116; Sioux Tribe
V. United States, Docket No. 117; Sioux Tribe V. United
States, Docket No. 118; and Sioux Tribe V. United States,
Docket No. 119, before the Indian Claims Commission.
It should also be pointed out that while these Sioux
are entitled the "Sioux Nation of Indians" they constitute
N
the descendants of essentially only two of the seven his-
torical Sioux Tribes which made up the Sioux Nation as a
whole. The descendants of the other somewhat smaller five
tribes have also received, or are receiving, various sizable
awards for the claims they have filed. Compared to the
judgments of other Indian tribes, it is our opinion that
X
the Sioux have fared and are faring relatively well without
the special benefit contemplated by the instant bill.
Since, as noted above, there is no unique or com-
pelling reason for Congress to grant these Sioux special
benefits, if it does so, Congress will be faced with all
the other Indian claims which have been subject to the
res judicata bar. Here again proponents of this bill will
minimize the number of the latter and their relative merit.
We do not. Many such claims have been expressly barred by
Indian Claims Commission decisions and many others would
have been barred had they been filed before the Commission.
To invite all of these claims to be again laid at the door
of Congress would, in our opinion, be most unwise.
- 5 -
Of course, Congress could relieve itself of con-
sideration of each of these additional claims individually
by merely amending the bill and making it applicable to
res judicata cases generally. We think such a solution
would be equally bad. Given the very liberal judicial
climate assigned to Indian claims cases, we would estimate
that the additional Indian claims (those now barred by res
judicata) might well require as much more litigation as
those completed under the Indian Claims Commission Act
amounting already to almost 30 years of concentrated
effort.
[congress and the Executive Branch have been very
generous towards the Indians in recent years. We strongly
favor the continuance of this policy and the exertion of
every feasible means of helping them reach their ultimate
destiny. But it is much better that the assistance granted
be by direct appropriation and by looking towards the
Indians' present and future needs rather than by keeping
divisive discontent ever simmering by still further reliti-
gation of ancient wrongs. Litigation of the ancient wrongs
was appropriate in its time and was altogether proper in
giving the Indians their day in court. But that work is
now being as fully completed under the Indian Claims Com-
mission Act as it is feasible to do so and it would be
counterproductive to reopen these claims to yet another
round of lawsuits.
The additional cost to the Government, if the bill
is enacted and the suit successful, would be about $85
million. This is a very large amount for one case but
insofar as the Department of Justice is concerned, the
cost is secondary to the disservice that would ultimately
result to the United States and particularly to the Indian
people if this type of bill were enacted.
- 6 -
The Department of Justice recommends against enact-
ment of this legislation.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised
this Department that there is no objection to the sub-
mission of this report from the Administration's program.
Sincerely,
Michael M. Uhlmann
Assistant Attorney General
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE or THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
Dear Mr. Chairman:
This responds to your request for our views on S. 2780, a bill
"To amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of August 13, 1946,
and for other purposes. 11
We recommend that the bill not be enacted.
S. 2780 would amend section 2 (25 U.S.C. 70a) of the Indian Claims
Commission Act of 1946 (60 Stat. 1049, 25 U.S.C. 70). One of the
provisions of section 2 presently provides that in all claims
under the Act against the United States heard and determined by
the Commission, all defenses shall be available to the United
States except those of the statute of limitations and laches.
S. 2780 would amend that provision of section 2 by authorizing
the Court of Claims ;, notwithstanding the defense of res judicata,
to decide on the merits whether the Act of February 8, 1977 (19
X
Stat. 254) effected a taking of the Black Hills portion of the
Great Sioux Reservation in violation of the Fifth Amendment of the
U.S. Constitution, and to enter judgment accordingly, in the case
of United States V. Sioux Nation of Indians, Appeal No. 16-74.
The Black Hills case has been under consideration in the courts
since 1923. The Indian plaintiffs are eight Sioux groups in the
States of North and South Dakota, Montana, and Nebraska, and in-
clude approximately 60,000 persons.
In a February 15, 1974 opinion (Sioux Nation of Indians V. United
States, Docket No. 74-B, 33 Ind. Cl. Comm. 151) the Indian Claims
Commission determined that under the Act of February 28, 1977,
the United States had taken over 7 million acres of Sioux land in
violation of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The
Commission awarded the Sioux plaintiffs damages for both the value
of the land at the time of the taking and the value of the minerals
thereunder removed prior to the time of the taking, including
interest on both.
PAERICAN REVOLUTION WENTENMINE
1776
1976
FORD
The United States appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Claims
(United States V. Sioux Nation, Appeal No. 16-74) on, inter alia,
the issue that there had been no Fifth Amendment taking. If the
1877 taking did not violate the Fifth Amendmont, then the award
would carry no interest.
The June 25, 1975 Court of Claims decision on that appeal did not
deal with whether the 1877 Act involved a taking of property by
the United States. Rather, the Court dealt with the question of
whether a 1942 Court of Claims decision had decided the taking
issue thereby precluding (under the res judicata doctrine) consider-
ation of the issue again. The 1975 Court of Claims majority held
that the 1942 Court of Claims decision had previously determined
that the 1877 Act did not involve E Fifth Amendment taking by the
United States. Therefore, the Court reversed the February 15, 1974
majority decision of the Indian Claims Commission.
On December 8, 1975, the United States Supreme Court denied the
Petition for Certiorari (No. 75-456) appealing the 1975 Court of
Claims decision.
In its 1975 decision, the Court of Claims described the actions
of the United States in the events leading to the 1877 Act as
"[A] more ripe and rank case of dishonorable dealings will never,
in all probability, be found in our history "
(at
6)
These
actions and events have been described at length, both before
the courts and before the Congress, and we agree that they were
a tragic chapter in our history, causing great suffering to the
Sioux. However, despite what the merits of this case may be, we
cannot support enactment of S. 2780.
The Court of Claims noted in its 1975 decision that when Congress
waived certain defenses of the United States in enacting the
Indian Claims Commission Act, it did not include res judicata
among the waived defenses. We would point out that because of
this, many tribes or groups whose claims had been ajudicated prior
to 1946 may not have filed their claims with the Indian Claims
Commission. Further, it would follow that if there are tribes or
groups which had filed previously ajudicated claims with the Com-
mission those suits would probably have been dismissed on the
ground of res judicata. In our judgment, enactment of S. 2780
2
would create an inequitable result with regard to 0 all these tribes
or groups. We see no reason to change the law to so uniquely
benefit one group when other groups, who may have also suffered
wrongs, are or have been precluded from such form of relief.
The Office of Management and Budget has advised that there is no
FORD
objection to the presentation of this report from the standpoint
of the Administration's program.
LIBRARY
Sincerely yours,
Commissioner of Indian Affairs
Honorable Henry M. Jackson
Chairman, Committee on
Interior and Insular Affairs
United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510
3
9-1TII CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
S. 2780
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
DECEMBER 12, 1975
Mr. ABOUREZK introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred
to the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs
A
BILL
To amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of August 13,
1946, and for other purposes.
1
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
3 That section 2 of the Indian Claims Commission Act of
4 August 13, 1946 (60 Stat. 1049; 25 U.S.C. 70a), as
5 amended, is hereby further amended by changing the period
6 at the end of the second paragraph to a colon, and by adding
7 the following language: "Provided, That, notwithstanding
8 the defense of res judicata, the Court of Claims is authorized
9 in United States against Sionx Nation of Indians, Appeal
II
2
1 Numbered 16-74, to decide on the merits whether the Act
2 of February 28, 1877 (19 Stat. 25+), effected a taking of
3 the Black Hills portion of the Great Sioux Reservation in
4 violation of the fifth amendment, and to enter judgment
5 accordingly.".
and Insular Affairs
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Interior
August 13, 1946, and for other purposes.
To amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of
1ST SESSION
SSIDIONOD HILFG
DECEMBER 12, 1975
By Mr. ABOUREZK
A BILL
S. 2780
1384
PRESIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS: GERALD R. FORD, 1974
(1960-62); and visiting professor at Stanford Univer-
The data base of the National Fire Data Center will
sity (1964). She taught in the Oakland, Calif., public
assist States and communities in setting priorities and in
schools from 1938 to 1942.
identifying possible solutions to problems. I will monitor
Dr. Ray was born on September 3, 1914, in Tacoma,
the progress of the Nation in reducing fire losses.
Wash. She received her B.A. (1937) and M.A. (1938)
The bill contains a provision that requires the Secretary
degrees from Mills College and her Ph.D. from Stanford
of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish 25 burn
University in 1945.
treatment centers, 90 burn programs, and 25 centers for
She has served on many scientific boards and commis-
expanded research on burns. Since these centers would
sions, including the Washington State Occanography
duplicate the burn research carried on through the trauma
Commission and Oceanographic Institute, the Plane-
program of the National Institute of General Medical
tary Sciences Corporation, Inc., the Committee on
Sciences and would add $5 million to the FY 75 budget, I
Public Understanding of the Sciences, the Committee of
will not seek appropriations to implement this particular
Corresponding Consultants for the World Report on the
provision of the bill.
Environment, the Puget Sound Occanographic Study
NOTE: As enacted, the bill (S. 1769) is Public Law 93-498, ap-
Committee, and the President's Task Force on
proved October 29, 1974.
Occanography.
Dr. Ray has published numerous articles and scientific
papers on marine biology and holds many honors in this
field. She received the William Clapp Award in Marine
Indian Claims Commission
Biology (1959), was a foreign member of the Danish
Royal Society for Natural. History (1963), and was
Appropriations Bill
named Maritime Man of the Year in 1966.
Statement by the President on Signing a Bill Providing
Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1975. October 29, 1974
I have signed S. 3007, an act to authorize appropri-
ations for the Indian Claims Commission for 1975.
Federal Fire Prevention and
It is a particular pleasure for me to be able to sign
Control Act of 1974
this bill because there are not many opportunities in life
to take clear and decisive action designed to right a past
wrong.
Statement by the President pon Signing the Bill
The background is this:
Into Law. October 29, '974
In 1877, the United States Government took over lands
I am today signing into law S. 1769, the Federal Fire
from the Sioux Indians in the Black Hills of South Dakota.
Prevention and Control Act of 1974.
At the same time, to prevent widespread starvation of
While fire prevention and control is and will remain a
these Indians deprived of their hunting grounds, the
State and local responsibility, I believe the Federal Gov-
Government supplied them with food and other provisions
ernment can make useful contributions. I endorse the
for a number of years.
intention of this act to supplement rather than supplant
Earlier this year, the Indian Claims Commission ruled
existing State and local government activities.
that the United States took the Black Hills lands illegally
The program established by this act, which will be
in violation of the fifth amendment. The 1877 value of
implemented by an agency within the Department of
the land and gold was estimated at $17.5 million which,
Commerce, will contribute to our knowledge of fire and
together with interest from that point, boosts the value
our ability to prevent it.
today to nearly $103 million.
Federal assistance for research and development on
However, the Indian Claims Commission Act of 1946
fire problems will be consolidated and expanded to pro-
contains a provision requiring that the Government-
vide the scientific and technological base for the develop-
supplied food and other provisions, valued at approxi-
ment of materials, equipment, and systems to reduce the
mately $57 million, be used to offset the Indians' claims
number and severity of fires.
against the Government. If this offsetting provision stayed
The Fire Academy system will supplement existing
in effect, it would totally wipe out the $17.5 million orig-
education and training for fire prevention personnel across
inal evaluation and leave the Sioux Indians with nothing.
the Nation.
The basic legal question of whether or not the Sioux
The research and development program will be closely
have a legitimate claim against the United States over
tied to the education and training program, thereby insur-
the Black Hills land is still being litigated in the courts.
ing that research and development results are disseminated
However, in passing this act Congress has determined—
quickly to communities.
and I agree-that if such a claim is held to be valid, it
Volume 10-Number 44
would be unfair and unjust to try to avoid paying it by
Bill Increasing Federal
deducting the cost of previously supplied food and
provisions.
Deposit Insurance
Although we cannot undo the injustices from our his-
tory, we can insure that the actions we take today are
Statement by the President on Signing H.R. 11221
just and fair and designed to heal such wounds from the
Law, While Expressing Reservations About One of
past.
Its Provisions. October 29, 1974
NOTE: As enacted, the bill (S. 3007) is Public Law 93-194, ap-
I have signed H.R. 11221 which provides import
proved October 27, 1974.
new consumer protection in the area of credit
finance.
This legislation would double the basic Federal
ance limits for deposits and savings accounts in
Bill Concerning the Regulation of
banks, savings and loan associations and credit
from $20,000 to $40,000. This increase will help
Interest Rates
financial institutions to attract larger deposits. It
also encourage savers to build up funds for retirement
Statement by the President Upon Signing S. 3838 Into
other purposes in institutions with which they are
Law, While Expressing Reservations About Certain of
miliar and which are insured by Federal agencies
Its Provisions. October 29, 1974
have earned their confidence over the years.
I am signing into law today S. 3838, "To authorize
H.R. 11221 also contains fair credit billing provisi
the regulation of interest rates payable on obligations
which will protect consumers against the repeated
issued by affiliates of certain depository institutions, and
correct billings of computers that sometimes fail
for other purposes".
respond to consumer's inquiries. Now creditors must
Titles II and III of the bill would remove burdensome
knowledge customer inquiries within 30 days. More
over, the creditor must resolve any dispute within
inequities by authorizing exemptions from state usury
days either by correcting the customer's bill or explain-
laws of large business and agricultural loans and of large
ing why the original bill is correct. Until these require
borrowings of bank holding companies and bank deposits.
ments have been met, there can be no dunning letter
Such usury laws as this bill addresses are well-meaning
sent or other action taken to collect amounts in dispute.
but futile attempts to keep interest rates at "reasonable"
Another extremely important provision in this les-
levels. In fact, their net effect is that the same borrowers
islation prohibits discrimination on the basis of SCX
who are supposedly protected from "unreasonable" inter-
marital status in the granting or denying of credit. Whi
est rates are, instead, unable to obtain funds at the levels
there has been a voluntary improvement in credit pre-
set by law.
cedures in recent years, women are still too often treated
S. 3838 scems to me a clearly second-best remedy to
as second-class citizens in the credit world. This legishe-
this problem, and the States which have these usury laws
tion officially recognizes the basic principle that women
may wish to reconsider their applicability under today's
should have access to credit on the same terms as men.
conditions.
This bill should also have a beneficial impact on the
On the other hand, I am deeply concerned about Title
availability of mortgage credit, since it returns to insti-
I of the bill which enables the Federal financial regula-
tutions insured by the Federal Savings and Loan Insur-
tory agencies to place interest rate ceilings on securities
ance Corporation well over a billion dollars in insurance
issued by holding companies which at present are not
premiums not now required by the corporation.
subject to such regulations. I believe this provision goes
One provision of H.R. 11221 is particularly unfor-
in the same direction as the state usury laws from which
tunate, however, in that it will severely undermine the
the other titles of this bill authorize exemptions. I hope
present method of gathering legitimate views of other ex-
that the regulatory agencies will not see fit to exercise the
ecutive branch agencies and identifying potential con-
discretionary authority granted by this provision.
flicts with other existing legislation in this field. Thus, it
The Adininistration has introduced a bill, the Financial
could seriously hamper efforts to achieve a coherent Ad-
Institutions Act (S. 2591), containing a set of reforms
ministration K gislative program. Therefore, I am asking
that would gradually free the credit market from harm-
the Congress to amend the law by deleting section 111.
ful regulations of the sort imposed by Title I of S. 3838.
This would pres rve the executive branch's ability to de
I strongly urge the Congress to pass S. 2591.
velop a coordinated and colierent legislative program.
NOTE: As enacted, the bill (S.3838) is Public Law 93-501, ap-
This bill includes a number of provisions which could
proved October 29, 1974.
more appropriately be considered in the framework of 1
Volume 10-Number 44
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 1, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JIM MITCHELL
#
Bobbi
FROM:
BOBBIE GREENE KILBERG
Ted Marrs has informed me that the Scheduling Office has
tentatively accepted a proposal for the President to meet with
150 tribal leaders, possible on a date as early as July 12. It
would be very useful if we could announce our support for the
bill dealing with Public Law 280 on that date.
CC: Paul O'Neill
Ted Marrs
Howard Borgstrom
FORD LIBRARY is 07V839
NATIONAL
CONGRESS
OF
SUITE 700, 1430 K STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005 (202) 347-9520
AMERICAN
-INDIANS-
June 21, 1976
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
Doris M. Meissner
PRESIDENT
Chairwoman
Mel Tonasket
Task Force on Indian Matters
Colville
U. S. Department of Justice
FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT
Washington, D. C. 20530
Veronica Murdock
Mohave
RE: Legislation Regarding P. L. 280,
TREASURER
Tribal Jurisdiction and Law
Ray Goetting
Caddo
Enforcement on Indian Reservations
RECORDING SECRETARY
Ramona Bennett
Dear Ms. Meissner,
Puyallup
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Thank you for providing our office with a copy
Charles Trimble
of your Task Force Memorandum of May 24, 1976, concerning
Oglala Sioux
the "Indian Jurisdiction Act," the Justice Department's
AREA VICE PRESIDENTS
legislative proposal now being reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget. Your courtesy in extending an in-
ABERDEEN AREA
vitation to review and comment on this proposal is appre-
Joe Chase
ciated.
Mandan
ALASKA AREA
Gordon Jackson
The National Congress of American Indians agrees
Tlinget
with the statement of philosophy contained in the Task Force
ANADARKO AREA
Memorandum, page 1, and with the general intent of the pro-
Juanita Ahtone
posed legislation. We would welcome the opportunity to re-
Kiowa
view this proposal in its final form, following examination
BILLINGS AREA
by the Office of Management and Budget.
Ray Spang
Northern Cheyenne
You will find the specific views of the National
GALLUP AREA
Congress of American Indians, as well as those of Tribes and
Victor Sarracino
other Indian organizations, in the language of S. 2010, and
Laguna
aptly set down in the record of testimony on the "Indian Law
MINNEAPOLIS AREA
Enforcement Improvement Act" heard before the Senate Indian
Stanley Webster
Affairs Subcommittee, December 3 & 4, 1975.
Oneida
MUSKOGEE AREA
Katharine Whitehorn
Sincerely
Osage
Mel Gonaslat
FORD LIBRARY
PHOENIX AREA
Irene Cuch
Mel Tonasket
Ute
President
PORTLAND AREA
Roger Jim
CC: Senator James Abourezk, Chmn., Sen. Indian Affairs Subcommittee
Yakima
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Chmn., Sen. Int. & Ins. Affairs Comm.
SACRAMENTO AREA
Commissioner Morris Thompson, Bureau of Indian Affairs
Rachel Nabahe
Wendell Chino, President, National Tribal Chairmen's Association
Shoshone/Paiute
P. S. Deloria, Director, American Indian Law Center
SOUTHEAST AREA
Jonathan Ed Taylor
Cherokee
NATIONAL
CONGRESS
OF
SUITE 700, 1430 K STREET, N.W., WASHINGTON D.C 20005 202) 347 9520
AMERICAN
July 21, 1976
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
The Honorable Richard Kneip
PRESIDENT
Governor
Met Tonasket
State of South Dakota
Colville
State Capitol Building
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
Veronica Murdock
Mohave
TREASURER
RE: Organized Opposition in South Dakota
Ray Goetting
Caddo
to the Political, Social and Human
RECORDING SECRETARY
Rights of Indian Nations and Peoples
Ramona Bennett
Puyallup
Dear Governor Kneip,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
Charles Trimble
The National Congress of American Indians, the oldest
Ogiala Sioux
and largest national Indian organization, has a constituency of
AREA VICE PRESIDENTS
Indian nations, tribes and peoples whose objective is to consoli-
date individual tribal efforts into an organized voice which can
ABERDEEN AREA
speak to effectuation and implementation of legislative and admin-
Joe Chase
Mandan
istrative procedures in compliance with treaties and the basic
ALASKA AREA
tenets of the trust responsibility.
Gordon lackson
Tlinget
As you are undoubtedly aware, there exists a situation
ANADARKO AREA
of great magnitude within South Dakota concerning certain citizens
Juanita Ahtone
of your State who are engaged in deliberate and aggressive attempts
Kiowa
to violate Indian political, social and human rights. These funda-
BILLINGS AREA
mental rights are guaranteed to Indian governments and Indian peo-
Ray Spang
ples by treaties, which are upheld by the United States Constitu-
Northern Cheyenne
tion, by statute and by the first element of the trust responsibil-
GALLUP AREA
ity, which extends to the preservation, protection and enhancement
Victor Sarracino
of Indian tribal sovereignty.
Laguna
MINNEAPOLIS AREA
The membership of the National Congress of American
Stanley Webster
Oneida
Indians has addressed their concerns regarding the radical element
MUSKOGEE AREA
of South Dakota citizenry which is militating against Indian peoples
Katharine Whitehorn
whose borders touch those of your State. The attached resolutions
Osage
are expressions of those concerns.
PHOENIX AREA
Irene Cuch
We respectfully request that you and your staff carefully
Ute
review and respond to the attached resolutions so that the official
PORTLAND AREA
position of the State of South Dakota might be stated clearly for
Roger Jim
the understanding of all concerned. Your immediate attention to this
Yakima
matter will do much to relieve our deep concern that such activities
SACRAMENTO AREA
could be condoned or sanctioned, even in their most subtle form, by
Rachel Nabahe
the majority of South Dakota citizens or by your Administration.
Shoshone/Paiute
SOUTHEAST AREA
Sincerely,
Jonathan Ed Taylor
Cherokee
Mel Tonasket
NCAI President
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
July 21, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FOSTER CHANOCK
FROM:
BOBBIE KILBERG
Attached at Tab A is a set of talking points on the issue of civil
and criminal jurisdiction on Indian reservations which has been
concurred in by Interior, Justice and OMB. Attached at Tab B
is the relevant part of the President's statement to the Indian
leaders, and attached at Tab C is the lead-in paragraph to the
AP wire story which appeared in a Spokane, Washington news-
paper and most probably in other papers throughout the West.
There are two additional points that you should be aware of
that do not appear in the talking points:
(1) The present legal status of non-Indians residing within
reservation boundaries is uncertain and confused. The issues
involved are very complex and there are a number of cases
presently in litigation that deal with different aspects of non-
Indian status. The Administration draft bill does not attempt
to legislatively alter any aspect of that status and the Adminis-
tration position to date has been to leave the dispute to the
courts. Many Anglo residents of Indian reservations want the
Administration to legislatively attempt to solve non-Indian
jurisdictional problems.
(2) The draft Administration bill only applies to States
that have exercised jurisdiction under P.L. 280 and similar
GEBALD FORD LIBRARY
statutes. North Dakota asserted State jurisdiction over the
Devil's Lake Reservation by a statute prior to P.L. 280;
Montana asserted jurisdiction for criminal matters over the
Flathead Reservation under the provisions of P. L. 280. Wyoming,
Colorado and South Dakota have not asserted State jurisdiction.
-2-
However, the AP news wire story will create concern in
all Western states, regardless of their P. L. 280 status, because
the story implies that any tribe in any State could assume all
criminal and civil jurisdiction over Indians and non-Indians residing
on its reservations.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 16, 1976
OFFICE OF THE WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY
THE WHITE HOUSE
REMARKS OF THE PRESIDENT
TO THE
AMERICAN INDIAN LEADERS
THE EAST ROOM
3:15 P.M. EDT
Let me welcome each and every
one of you to the White House this afternoon. I am
extremely happy to have the opportunity to meet with you
individually as well as collectively and I am very proud
to have the distinguished leaders and the elected
representatives of America's Indian tribes here in the
East Room of the White House.
I looked over your schedule and I hope from the
distinguished speakers that spoke with you that you have
had an informative briefing session, not only with
Secretary Kleppe, but the others -- those who were
responsible for some of the Government Indian programs.
I think it is vitally important that you tell us what
your problems are, what your needs are and then we can
be fully informed as to the right policies and the
right programs.
Let me take just a few minutes to talk with
you on a personal basis, to let you know of my
personal concern and for the needs of Indians and
BESALD FORD
native Americans. The Federal Government has a very
unique relationship with you and your people. It is
a relationship of a legal trust and a high moral
responsibility. That relationship is rooted deep in
history, but it is fed today by our concern that the
Indian people should enjoy the same opportunities as
other Americans, while maintaining the culture and the
traditions that you rightly prize as your heritage.
That heritage is an important part of the
American culture that we are celebrating in this great
country in our Bicentennial year. Your contribution has.
been both material and spiritual. Your ancestors intro-
duced settlers not only to new foods and new plants,
but to Indian ways of life and Indian values which they
absorbed.
MORE
Page 2
This is a year for all of us to realize what a
great debt we individually and colletively owe to the
American Indians. Today, you are concerned about
such serious problems as poverty, unemployment, crime,
poor health and unsuitable housing on Indian reservations.
I share your concern. I am hopeful about the future
and about what we can achieve by continuing to work
together.
The 1970s have brought a new era in Indian affairs.
In the last century, Federal policy has vacillated between
paternalism and the threat of terminating Federal responsi-
bility. I am opposed to both extremes. I believe in
maintaining a stable policy so that Indians and Indian
leaders can plan and work confidently for the future.
We can build on that foundation to improve the
opportunities available to American Indians, and at the same
time, make it possible for you to live as you choose
within your tribal structure and in brotherhood with
your fellow citizens.
We have already begun to build. My Administration
is supporting the concept of allowing Indian tribes to
determine whether they and their members, in addition to
being under tribal jurisdiction, should be under State
or Federal civil and criminal jurisdiction.
I have directed the Departments of Justice
and Interior to draft legislation which would accomplish
this goal efficiently, effectively and within adequate
guidelines. They have solicited the views of the
Indian community in preparing their recommendations
which I will soon send to the Congress.
I am committed to furthering the self-
determination of Indian communities but without terminating
the special relationship between the Federal Government
and the Indian people. I am strongly opposed to termination.
Self-determination means that you can decide the nature
of your tribe's relationship with the Federal Government
within the framework of the Self-Determination Act, which
I signed in January of 1975.
Indian tribes, if they desire, now have the
opportunity to administer Federal programs for themselves.
We can then work together as partners.
On your part, this requires initiative and
responsibility as you define your tribal goals and
determine how you want to use the Federal resources.
On the Federal Government's part, self-determination
for Indian tribes requires that Federal programs must be
flexible enough to deal with the different needs and desires
of individual tribes.
MORE
Page 3
In the past, our flexibility has been limited
by the lack of effective coordination among departments
and agencies offering a wide variety of programs and
services to the Indian people. Programs serving both
reservation and non-reservation Indians are spread
across half a dozen different Cabinet Departments
involving agencies ranging from the Economic Develop-
ment Administration to the Federal Aviation Administration.
MORE
FGRD & LIBRARY GERALD
Page 4
As many of you know, this is Ted Marrs' last
day on the White House staff. Ted's service as White
House Liaison for Indian Affairs has been invaluable to me
as President and to the Cabinet officers and, I am confident,
to the Indian community.
With his departure, I will announce shortly
the name of a person who will assume Ted Marrs' duties
in the Office of Public Liaison in the area of Indian
Affairs. This appointee will be an individual with respon-
sibility to work with the Cabinet officers, with the
Office of Management and Budget, with the Domestic
Council and with my Legal Office to encourage the improved
coordination of the various Federal agencies and programs
that currently serve the Indian population.
As an additional step in this direction, I am
also sending a memorandum to the heads of all Cabinet
departments with Indian responsibilities, directing them
to give priority attention to the coordination of Indian
programs. These two actions will help to insure that one
and one half billion dollars spent annually on Indian
programs and services will be spent efficiently, with
cooperation and without duplication.
An important task we can help you with is the
challenge of economic development of your lands. I
congratulate you on the initiative that you have shown. I
pledge encouragement. I pledge help in your efforts
to create long-term economic development.
Many Indian reservations contain valuable
RALD FORD LIERARY
natural resources. There must be the proper treatment of
these resources with respect for nature, which is a
traditional Indian value. My Attorney General has estab-
lished an Indian resources section whose sole responsibility
is litigation on behalf of Indian tribes to protect your
natural resources and your jurisdictional rights.
Indian leaders and the Indian people have
gained an increasing skill in managing these resources so
they benefit your tribes and our nation as a whole. I
wholeheartedly and unequivocally pledge our cooperation in
working with you to improve the quality of Indian life
by providing soundly managed programs and a stable policy.
We can make the rest of the 1970s decisive years
in the lives of the Indian people. Together we can write
a new chapter in the history of this land that we all serve
and this land that we all share.
I thank you very much.
END
(AT 3:25 P.M. EDT)
(1) In his statement to American Indian leaders on July 16,
the President indicated he would introduce legislation to allow
those Indian tribes, which have been subject to State civil and
criminal jurisdiction under provisions of Public Law 83-280 and
similar statutes, to decide whether they wish to continue under
State jurisdiction or return to Federal jurisdictional status,
subject to adequate standards established by the Secretary of
the Interior. Under this retrocession legislation, a tribe could
independently make a request to the Secretary of the Interior
for retrocession of jurisdiction. However, in the process of
considering retrocession, the Secretary of the Interior would
be required to consult with the U.S. Attorney General and with
the governors of the appropriate States. The draft Adminis-
tration bill requires more comprehensive standards for
retrocession than the Jackson bill, S. 2010.
(2) This bill would only apply to those tribes over which
States have exercised jurisdiction under Public Law 280 and
similar statutes.
(3) The draft Administration bill does not alter the present
legal status of non-Indians residing within reservation boundaries.
In contrast, the Jackson bill does provide for an alteration in in
non-Indian status.
BERALD FORD LIBERRY
-2-
(4) The Administration has made a substantial effort to
consult with the governors of 35 states in order to elicit their
views on the draft legislation.
Spokesman Review, Spokane, Washington, Saturday, July 17, 1976
"Ford Backs Tribal Jurisdiction Rights", Washington--AP
President Ford told Indian leaders Friday he soon will
seek a new law that could give tribal governments criminal
and civil jurisdiction over people living on Indian reservations.
0
I. The Act of August 15, 1953, Public Law 83-280, granted five
States jurisdiction over Indian country. Section 6 of P.L. 280
permitted other States to amend their constitutions in order to
assume such jurisdiction, and section 7 permitted States without
a constitutional impediment to assume such jurisdiction through
legislation. The States could act unilaterally without consulta-
tion with tribes.
Original P.L. 280 States
GENALD R. FORD LIBREDY
California; Minnesota; Nebraska; Oregon; Wisconsin
Later P.L. 280 States
Alaska; Florida; Idaho; Montana (only on one reservation and
concurrent with tribe); Nevada; Washington
Other Statutes (prior to 1954)
North Dakota (1946); Iowa (1948) ; Kansas (1940); and New York
(1948 and 1950).
II. Administration draft bill:
Any tribe subject to State civil and criminal jurisdiction
pursuant to statutes listed in bill may adopt a resolution request-
ing that the tribe and U.S. acquire any or all of the jurisdiction
acquired by the State. Only jurisdiction tribe could acquire was
that it had prior to P.L. 280.
Tribe will forward resolution and plan of implementation to
Secretary. Secretary has 90 days to accept or reject it, and to
consult with affected governor and the U.S. Attorney General.
Secretary will approve the tribal resolution unless: (1)
tribal plan contains inadequate law and order code; (2) no adequate
means to resolve civil disputes; (3) tribe lacks capacity to implement
plan; (4) jurisdiction impracticable - small or scattered membership;
(5) proposed allocation of jurisdiction among tribe, U.S., and
State impractible.
If Secretary approves, retrocession within one year, or later
by mutual extension. Secretary will assist tribe with preparing
acceptable implementation plan and achieving capability to implement
it if tribe's plan disapproved, although tribe has primary responsi-
bility for such.
not
Draft bill does/ address question of tribal jurisdiction over
non-Indians
III. Major Issues
Administration Draft
S. 2010
Statutes affected
only those conferring
lists statutes
by legislation
civil and criminal
not properly
jurisdiction would
includable in
cease to apply
legislation of
this type (tax
statutes, allot-
ment acts etc.)
Also cites "court
decisions" as retro-
cession basis -
confusing and could
lead to litigation
Extent of
subject to Secretarial
tribe can keep
reacquisition
approval. One of five
changing its mind
criteria. Assures
on jurisdictional
against fragmented
arrangements among
concurrent jurisdiction.
tribe, State and
U.S. and could
result in fragmented
concurrent jurisdic-
tion. This arrange-
ment not subject
to Secretarial
discretion
Guidelines for
5 criteria set out
2 criteria too
Secretarial
above (II) address
narrow and severely
approval of
the potential problems
limit Secretary's
tribal plan
tribes could face in
discretion to approve
implementation of plan.
or disapprove. Does
Gives Secretary reason-
not take into account
able discretion to approve
any potential problems
or disapprove
in implementation.
Tribal
Jurisdiction
Does not address
Provides for
over non-
the issue. Left
tribal jurisdiction
Indians
to the courts,
over non-Indizns.
2
2
IV. State responses to draft legislation
1. Issues
Support
Oppose
Not affected/No objection
Washington
California
South Dakota
Kansas
Alaska
North Carolina
Nevada
2. Washington
a. What is to be the status and powers of Indian tribal
governments and how does this relate to other governmental
(State and local) jurisdictions
1. Need for Federal policy direction on appropriate
method of delivery of State-funded services - do State
and local agencies continue to administer or will funds
be channeled through tribes
2. Federal policy on State-tribal relations, most
notably in hunting and fishing and State taxing juris-
diction on reservations
b. What is the territory over which tribal jurisdiction will
be authorized
1. "Checkerboard" pattern of Indian/non-Indian land
ownership on reservations
2. Incorporated Washington cities located wholly or
partially within reservation boundaries (includes Tacoma)
3. Question of jurisdiction of reservations encompassing
major State highways
c. Revision of term "Indian country" to "established Indian
reservation" - would remove checkerboard situations from bill
d. Legislation must consider the rights of non-Indians and
the extent of their participation in tribal government.
Recommends revising section 7 to take non-Indians out of
tribal government jurisdiction.
3
California
a. Cites compelling State interest in applying State civil
and criminal laws to Indian reservations, particularly
California environmental and safety laws. Draft legislation
would not protect State interests as they are affected by
tribal activities.
b. Law enforcement - prior to P.L. 280, States unable to
apply their laws to Indian reservations, tribes ill-equipped
to apply their laws, and U.S. failed to adopt and apply
Federal law. Enactment of this draft would lead to same
absence of any enforcement jurisdiction on reservations.
C. California tribes not adequately able to regulate their
FORD LIBRARY &
own reservations at this time.
Alaska
a. Unique situation because of Alaska Native Claims Settlement
Act: legislation could create legal and social confusion,
and undo settlement
1. 40 million acres of land to Natives specifically
not considered "Indian lands"
2. Thousands of Native allotment applications pending
all over the State. Allotments came from public domain,
not former reservations.
3. ANCSA intent to accomplish settlement without creating
any reservation system or lengthly trusteeship.
b. Congress has never recognized tribal sovereignity in Alaska.
OF THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
March
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
3,
July 21, 1976
FORD is GERALO LIBRARY
Note to Bobbie Greene Kilberg:
This responds to your request for a summary of my telephone conversation
of July 20, 1976, with Mr. Ingram of Montana.
Mr. Ingram, a non-Indian, lives on the Flathead Reservation, Montana.
He expressed concern about what he perceives to be the President's
unqualified support for legislation authorizing tribes to request
reacquisition of State civil and criminal jurisdiction. Mr. Ingram
is not opposed to retrocession per se, but to tribal jurisdiction
over non-members. In this regard, Mr. Ingram, an attorney, stated
that he represents both "Montanans Opposing Discrimination" and the
"Interstate Congress for Rights and Responsibilities." Mr. Ingram
stated his concern about the "President's support" of tribal jurisdic-
tion over non-members, and his belief that the President has not
taken into account the views and feelings of those non-tribal members
affected.
Mr. Ingram particularly raised the following points:
1. he wants tribal jurisdiction over non-members deleted from any
legislation the Administration might consider;
2. "Indian country" should be redefined to exclude non-Indian
landowners;
3. tribal courts are not favorably disposed towards non-Indians,
especially in the criminal area;
4. with retrocession, law and order on reservations may break down
completely, and non-Indians will have no protection;
5. non-tribal members will have no voice in tribal decisions
that would affect their lives and property;
AMERICANA REVOLUTION
1776-1976
6. he expressed concern about the extent of tribal civil jurisdiction
over non-members, particularly zoning, taxes, probate and land
title disputes. He stated that even on reservations where State
jurisdiction applies, there is confusion surrounding the exercise
of such jurisdiction, and many tribal and State court judgments
in Indian country are not being enforced under the present jurisdic-
tional arrangement;
7. he emphasized that once tribes did reacquire jurisdiction, there
should be full faith and credit between tribal and State courts.
Mr. Ingram indicated that his organizations are so concerned about
the impact of tribal jurisdiction that they are seriously considering
a letter campaign to the President. He said that he could generate
10,000 letters opposing the legislation.
I told Mr. Ingram that the Governor of Montana had not responded
to our request for his views on the draft bill and suggested that
he urge his Governor to send us Montana's comments. I emphasized
that we had requested responses from 35 governors so that we could
have the benefit of the views of all the citizens affected by any
retrocession legislation. I also assured Mr. Ingram that I would
relay his concerns to you.
I described the Interior/Justice draft in detail. I stressed that
it was entirely procedural in nature, and contained no substantive
provisions concerning tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians, but left
the matter to the courts. I also pointed out that we had written
guidelines into section 3 which insured sufficient Secretarial
discretion in approving a retrocession plan, so that any plan
finally approved must be adequate and protect everyone's interests.
Gerrie S. Greene
Gerrie S. Greene
2
TELEGRAM
FULL RATE
The White House
(STRAIGHT TELEGRAM)
NIGHT LETTER
Mashington
July 27, 1976
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
It has been erroneously reported that President Ford supports
legislation to give tribal governments criminal and civil juris-
diction over people living on Indian reservations
This is
inaccurate. The President does not support any bill that would
alter the present legal status of non-Indians residing within
reservation boundaries
In his statement to American Indian leaders on July 16, President
Ford indicated that he supported the concept of allowing certain
Indian tribes (those which have been subject to State civil and
criminal jurisdiction under provisions of Public Law 83-280 and
related statues) to decide by tribal resolution whether they
wish to continue under State jurisdiction or return to Federal
jurisdictional status. This resolution is subject to the ap-
proval or disapproval of the Secretary of the Interior under a
clear set of reasonable guidelines.
Under this concept, a tribe by itself could initiate a
request to the Secretary of the Interior for a return to
Federal jurisdictional status. In reaching his decision on
this request, the Secretary of the Interior would be required
to consult with the U.S. Attorney General and with the governors
of the appropriate States. Application would be limited to
tribes in States which have exercised jurisdiction under P.L.
280 and related statues.
The Departments of Justice and Interior are drafting legislation
on this subject, and the Administration has asked the governors
of 31 states for their views on the draft legislation. It is
the President's intention to continue these consultations and to
expand them to include a wide range of interested groups.
Stephen som G. McConahey
Special Assistant to the President
for Intergovernmental Affairs
APPROVED FOR DISPATCH
Honorable Jay S. Hammond
Honorable William G. Milliken
Governor of Alaska
Governor of Michigan
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Lansing, Mighican 48903
(907/465-3500)
(517/373-3400)
Honorable Paul Castro
Honorable Wendell R. Anderson
Governor of Arizona
Governor of Minnesota
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55101
(602/271-4331)
(612/296-3391)
Honorable Edmund G. Brown, Jr.
Honorable Charles C. Finch
Governor of California
Governor of Mississippi
Sacramento, California 95814
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
(916/445-2841)
(601/354-7575)
Honorable Richard D. Lamm
Honorable Thomas L. Judge
Governor of Colorado
Governor of Montana
Denver, Colorado 80203
Helena, Montana 50601
(303/89202471)
(406/449-3111)
FORD CIBRARY
Honorable Ella Grasso
Honorable J. James Exon
Governor of Connecticut
Governor of Nebraska
Hartford, Connecticut 06115
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
(203/566-4840)
(402/471-2244)
Honorable Reubin O'D Askew
Honorable Mike O'Callaghan
Governor of Florida
Governor of Nevada
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Carson City, Nevada 89701
(904/488-4441)
(702/885-5670)
Honorable Cecil D. Andrus
Honorable Jerry Apodaca
Governor of Idaho
Governor of New Mexico
Boise, Idaho 83701
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
(208/384-2100)
(505/827-2221)
Honorable Robert D. Ray
Honorable Hugh L. Carey
Governor of Iowa
Governor of New York
Des Moines, Iowa 50319
Albany, New York 12224
(515/281-5211)
(518/474-8390)
Honorable Robert F. Bennett
Honorable James E. Holshouser
Governor of Kansas
Governor of North Carolina
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
(913/296-3232)
(919/829-5811)
Honorable Edwin W. Edwards
Honorable Arthur A. Link
Governor of Louisiana
Governor of North Dakota
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804
Bismarck, North Dakota 58501
(504/389-5281)
(701/224-2200)
Honorable James B. Longley
Honorable David L. Boren
Governor of Maine
Governor of Öklahoma
Augusta, Maine 04330
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105
(207/289-3531)
(405/521-2345)
Honorable Robert Straub
Governor of Oregon
Salem, Oregon 97301
(503/378-3111)
Honorable James B. Edwards
Governor of South Carolina
Columbia, South Carolina 29211
(803/758-3261)
..
Honorable Richard F. Kneip
Governor of South Dakota
Pierre, South Dakota 57501
(605/224-3212)
Honorable Dolph Briscoe
Governor of Texas
Austin, Texas 78711
(512/475-4101)
Honorable Calvin L. Rampton
Governor of Utah
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114
(801/533-5231)
Honorable Mills E. Godwin, Jr.
Governor of Virginia
Richmond, Virginia 23219 (804/786-2211)
Honorable Daniel J. Evans
Governor of Washington
Olympia, Washington 98501
(206/753-6780)
Honorable Patrick J. Lucey
Governor of Wisconsin
Madison, Wisconsin 53702
(608/266-1212)
Honorable Ed Herschler
Governor of Wyoming
Cheyenne, Wyoming 82001
(307/777-7434)
JAMES O. EASTLAND, MISS., CHAIRMAN
SUBCOMMITTER:
JOHN L. MC CLELLAN, ARK.
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEBR.
PHILIP A. HART, MICH.
HIRAM L. FONG, HAWAII
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. DAK., CHAIRMAN
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, MASS.
HUGH SCOTT, PA.
JOHN L MC CLELLAN, ARK.
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, NEBR.
BIRCH BATH, IND.
STROM THURMOND, S.C.
PHILIP A. HART, MICH.
HUGH SCOTT, PA.
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, N. DAK.
CHARLES MC C. MATHIAS, JR., MD.
JAMES ABOUREZK, S. DAK.
WILLIAM L. SCOTT, VA.
ROBERT c. BYRD, W. VA.
WILLIAM L. SCOTT, VA,
JOHN V. TUNNEY, CALIF.
WILLIAM P. WESTPHAL, CHIEF COUNSEL
JAMES ABOUREZK, 9. DAK.
FRANCIS C. ROSENBERGER
CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
United States Senate
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMPROVEMENTS IN JUDICIAL MACHINERY
(PURSUANT TO SEC. 10, S. RES. 375, AGREED TO MARCH 3, 1976)
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20510
July 30, 1976
Mel Tonasket, President
National Congress of American Indians
Suite 700
1430 K Street NW
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Mr. Tonasket:
Thank you for your recent letter requesting my views regarding
the formation and activities of the Interstate Congress on
Civil Rights and Responsibilities and similar groups.
I must first confess that I am not personally familiar with
the above mentioned organization. As a general statement, how-
ever, I feel that all groups of people in this country should
have the right to associate with similarly thinking people and
form groups to advocate their cause. This would apply across
the board from groups like AIM to groups such as the Interstate
Congress on Civil Rights and Responsibilities.
Thank you for bringing the Interstate Congress on Civil Rights
and Responsibilities to my attention and also for informing me
of the National Congress of American Indians' view concerning
the group.
With kind regards, I am
And
Sincerely,
Quentin N. Burdick
GERALD FORD LIBRAS
QNB:rfk
MORRIS K. UDALL
COMMITTEES:
20 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
INTERIOR AND INSULAR AFFAIRS
POST OFFICE AND CIVIL SERVICE
Congress of the United States
House of Representatives
Mashington, D.C. 20515
August 2, 1976
Mr. Mel Tonasket, President
National Congress of American
Indians
1430 K Street, NW
Suite 700
Washington, D C 20005
Dear Mr. Tonasket:
Thanks for sharing with me your letter to Governor
Castro and the articles describing formation of the
Interstate Congress on Civil Rights and Responsibilities.
I hope that my record in Congress since 1961 has
reflected my concern with the political, social and human
rights of the Indian people. Rest assured that I will
continue to follow that concern.
Sincerely,
Wotedee Morris
1mb
GERALD R. FORD
THIS STATIONERY PRINTED ON PAPER MADE WITH RECYCLED FIBERS
DON BONKER
1531 LONGWORTH House OFFICE BUILDING
THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
STATE OF WASHINGTON
(202) 225-3536
COMMITTEES:
Congress of the United States
DISTRICT OFFICES:
209 FEDERAL BUILDING
MERCHANT MARINE AND
OLYMPIA, WASHINGTON 98501
FISHERIES
Douse of Representatives
(206) 753-9528
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
U.S. POST OFFICE
SELECT COMMITTEE
Mashington, D.C. 20515
LONGVIEW, WASHINGTON 98632
ON AGING
(206) 636-5260
104 N. LAUREL STREET
August 2, 1976
PORT ANGELES, WASHINGTON 98362
(206) 457-0213
RECEI
0 1376
Mr. Mel Tonasket, President
National Congress of American Indians
Suite 700, 1430 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Mr. Tonasket:
Thank you for the copy of your letter to Governor Evans outlining
your opposition to the Interstate Congress on Civil Rights and Responsi-
bilities.
I think the position of the Washington Congressional delegation is
clear and well known in regards to the Indian Rights and any attempt to
abrogate the treaties existing between the U. S. Government and Indian
Tribes.
Although I may disagree with the purpose or objective of some group
I also recognize their right to form an organization so long as they
comply with all laws relative to such activity.
Sincerely
Don Bonker
Member of Congress
GERALD FORD VISRAST
GRT THE GRE 40 X
STATE OF UTAH
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
1896
SALT LAKE CITY
CALVIN L. RAMPTON
August 3, 1976
GOVERNOR
RECEIVED AUG - 6 1976
R.
FORD
Mr. Mel Tonasket
NCAI President
GERALD
Suite 700, 1430 K Street, N.W.
Washington, D. C. 20005
Dear Mr. Tonasket:
Thank you for your letter of July 21, 1976, expressing
concern over the participation of certain Utah citizens in
the activities of the Interstate Congress on Civil Rights and
Responsibilities.
While I am not in a position to control the activities of
individual citizens of the State with regard to the Interstate
Congress on Civil Rights and Responsibilities, I can state
clearly the position of my administration.
We have and will continue to support the concept of Tribal
self-government and Indian self-determination and as citizens
of the State, Indians social and human rights will be quaran-
teed and protected on the same basis as our other citizens.
There have been times in the past, and I expect there will
be in the future, when the government of the State and Tribal
governments have disagreed on issues. These differences have
always been worked out through direct negotiation or other
acceptable and appropriate ways.
For further information you may contact Mr. Bruce Parry,
Utah Division of Indian Affairs, Room 104 State Capitol Building.
Governor Sincerely, Hamp
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 10, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FOSTER CHANOCK
BOBBIE KILBERG
FROM:
STEVE McCONAHEY
sem
SUBJECT:
Indians
For your information, attached are copies of responses we
have received from my July 27 telegram and July 28 letter
regarding clarification of the President's position on
the criminal and civil jurisdiction of tribal governments
on Indian reservations.
Attachments
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
August 4, 1976
To:
Mr. Stephen G. McConahey
Special Assistant to the President
for Governmental Affairs
White House
Washington, D.C. 20500
From: James B. Rossiter, Chairman
Concerned Citizens Council, Inc.
Nebraska Chapter, Interstate Congress on Equal
PERALD FORD LIBRART
Rights and Responsibilities. - P.O.B6-1308
Walthill, Nebraska 68067
In response to your Telegram of July 27, 1976, on the
President's position on criminal and civil jurisdiction
for Tribal Indians, we wish to make a few comments.
First, the Indian people themselves have never trusted the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, and federal government, unfortunately
many non-Indian fee patent holders did. In this respect,
"approval or disapproval of the Secretary of the Interior under
a clear set of reasonable guidelines" means nothing but disaster
to us. We have had and are now experiencing some of this
"reasonalbleness" as are many other people from other parts of
the nation.
Second, why have the courts and congress determined that the
Reservation Indians should be immune from all forms of tax-
ation? The answer poses the biggest hypocrisy of all. The
United States Supreme Court, the tax courts and the Commissioner
of Indian Affairs have all stated that the Indian must be immune
from these taxes because he is fiscally non-competent or in-
competent to handle his own financial affairs. This is why the
Bureau of Indian Affairs exists, and spent $3,461,893,000 in
1975, to oversee Tribal and individual affairs. Yet we are now
told that these same Reservation Indians can govern the finances
and taxes of Thurston and Knox counties. One has but to inquire
about the many projects and programs and millions of dollars
spent on the reservations, and then ask what are the results?
Third, congressional and court actions has created a legal status
the very essence of which violates the non-Indian population's
civil rights and rights to equal protection and due process of
law. Whenever responsibilities of citizenship, such as taxation,
subjection to state courts and allegiance to state law are
involved, the Reservation Indian is a member of an Atonomous
Nation. However, when the rights of citizenship are at issue
such as voting and holding public office and the right to federal,
state, and county tax benefits, the Reservation Indian contends
he is a full fledged citizen and resident of the nation, state
and county. The inconsistency makes reason stare.
more
Either the Reservation Indian is a full fledged citizen of the
United States and subject therefore to like punishments, pains,
penalties, taxes, licenses and exactions of every kind suffered
by all other races of people in this country, or, he is a member
of a sovereign nation with a right to govern his nation and his
people, but not to govern those persons in governmental sub-
divisions to which he owes no allegiance and pays no taxes.
As the President said "My Attorney General has established an
Indian resources section whose sole responsibility is litiga-
tion on behalf of Indian tribes to protect your natural
resources and your jurisdictional rights". We would hope
there might be someone that is, interested in protecting our
inherit rights.
Frankly, we are convinced that the report to be submitted by
the Indian Policy Review Commission will be strictly biased.
Members of our groups were flatly denied access to these
hearings to-testify. We are quite concerned by the impact
of the report on proposed legislation of criminal and civil
jurisdiction, and are also concerned by proposed legislation
that would interfer with the individual rights of the Indian.
We would appreciate- a copy of the names and addresses of
the individuals who testified at the Indian Policy Review
Commission's hearings.
If the Governors of the several states affected by S1328 or
S2010 do not realize the total impact of this type of legis-
lation, we would think it quite remote that they would be
interested in this new proposal.
We are pleased to learn from Ms Bobbie Kilburg that meetings
with our groups are being discussed. We are sure we can be
of help in determining which direction this social experiment
might take.
James B Rossiter very truly B. Rossiter
Chairman
JBR:br
SENTS
THE STATE OF MONTANA
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE CAPITOL, HELENA 59601
ROBERT L. WOODAHL
ATTORNEY GENERAL
August 3, 1976
Dear Mr. McConahey:
Thank you for your letter of July 28. The
President has been erroneously reported in
Montana regarding the tribal jurisdiction
matter.
I would suggest that a new press release be
put out clarifying the President's position.
Sincerely yours, number
RLW:mo
CC: Lloyd Ingraham
Mr. Stephen G. McConahey
Special Assistant to the President
for Intergovernmental Affairs
The White House
Washington, D.C. 20000
the
THE July 28, 1976
ar.Mr. Woodahl
receive of-Senator
President's speech formUnly's 1976 to the
ident: Fondisup parts legislations too give-trib
leaders. Itshas reporte À
and SCET androivi EjurisdicHo over
201 evations. this issinacemyate Thes people F1
that would alteritos
idlue withingreservation DI
statementizoù orten Indian leadersion
THE Ford indicated that heysupported the July do
ject to.State civir and criminal jurisdiction
ricertain Indian tribes (those which have
eristata jurisdiction or return to Federal to
by tribal resolution whether they wish
Law 83 280 and relatedistatu
THE resolution iss subject to the for
approval of the Secretary of the Interior approv under
of-reasonable guideLines
ast to at tribe.by itself could initia
ed to:consultwith.the request.,th jurfsdictional the Secretary Secretary of states of U.S. the the cinsreaching Interior Attorney Interior for would his a-rat de
inited Governors 08:25 appropriate:States General
under 280-and-related statutes.
tostribe In States which have exercise Applicat
Possible
from
Quality
The Departments of Justice and Interior are drafting leg
islationson this subject, and the Administration has asked
the Governors of 31 states for their views on the draft
legislation. IS is the President's intention to continue a wide
these consultationsland to-expand them to include
range OF interested groups
Sincerely,
Stephen G. McConahey
Special Anatobant to the President
for INtergovermmental, Affairs
The Honorable Robert: Woodahl
Attorney General for the State of Montana
Stateicanital
Helena, Montana 59601
Enclosure
cc:
Foster Chanock
HI
ARIZONA COMMISSION
CREAT NO/I81 SF STATE
OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
1912
1645 WESTJEFFERSON
PHOENIX ARIZONA 85007
August 20, 1976
RECEIVED 6 1976
Mr. Mel Tonasket, President
National Congress of American Indians
CERALE FORD
1430 K Street, N.W.
Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Mr. Tonasket:
Your letter of July 21st to Governor Raul H. Castro has been referred
to our Commission for comment. We would like you to know that on behalf of
Governor Castro, our office shares your deep concern with respect to Indian
political and human rights which your organization feels is being threatened
by a group calling itself "Interstate Congress on Civil Rights and Responsi-
bilities."
Unfortunately, except for the scant pieces of information received
through news reports, our office is not aware of any illegal activities
being carried out by ICCRR members in violation of Indian rights, Federal
laws or treaties, or State statutes. Accordingly, although our administrative
position does not condone lawlessness and constantly strives to protect the
rights of each citizen in the State of Arizona, we do feel that it would be
premature and inconsistent if we were to publicly comment upon the opinions
expressed by a relatively few individuals of a newly-formed association.
Our State of Arizona recognizes the aboriginal rights of Indian tribes
and their unique position in their trusteeship relations with the Federal
Government. We hope that as long as the Arizona tribes wish, such a relation-
ship will continue to serve not only for the betterment of the Arizona Indian
reservations, but also for the improvement of all communities within reach of
each Indian reservation.
Hopefully, towards this endeavor of cooperation, all will come to realize
this need for respect for human rights and harmony among all peoples.
Sincerely,
CLINTON M. PATTEA
Executive Secretary
TM: CMP/pa
cc: The Honorable Raul Castro
Governor of Arizona
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 23, 1976
MEMORANDUM FOR:
BRAD PATTERSON
Bobbi
FROM:
BOBBIE GREENE KILBERG
Attached is some material in regard to the P.L. 280
problem which will be helpful to you. In July, I
specifically committed the White House to organize a
meeting with representatives of non-Indian people
residing within reservation boundaries, particularly
those individuals in checkerboard areas. I made this
commitment to Lloyd Ingraham who lives on the Flathead
Reservation in Montana. Mr. Ingraham represents
"Montanans Opposing Discrimination" and also states
he represents the "Interstate Congress for Rights and
Responsibilities. " I also spoke with James Rossiter
of Walthill, Nebraska, who is Chairman of Concerned
Citizens Council, Inc. He also states that he repre-
sents the Interstate Congress. In addition, Velma
Shelton has received correspondence from Tom Tobin,
an attorney for the Interstate Congress. In planning
a meeting, I think it would be wise to include repre-
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
sentatives of the governors' offices of major western
states affected, especially North Dakota, Montana,
Wyoming, Colorado, South Dakota and Nebraska.
Jim Mitchell supports a meeting with non-Indian repre-
sentatives but opposes its being convened by the White
House. He instructed Maury Thompson to get back to
him with a plan for convening such a meeting by BIA
or Interior. As we discussed at lunch, Maury said
that it would generate hostility for BIA to call a
meeting, and I concur. While I would prefer that the
meeting be called by the White House, I have no objection
to Secretary Kleppe personally calling the meeting in
conjunction with the Attorney General or the Deputy
Attorney General. What is important is that the non-
Indian representatives feel that they have had an
opportunity for their views to be heard by the Adminis-
tration's policymakers. This is a legitimate request,
and it has not been met to date.
Mr. Ingraham and I decided on the afternoon of
September 13 as a tentative date for the meeting.
THOMAS S. FOLEY
OFFICES:
5TH DISTRICT, WASHINGTON
HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
AREA CODE 202, 225-2006
CHAIRMAN
Congress of the United States
574 U.S. COURTHOUSE
COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE
SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201
AREA CODE 509, 456-4680
MEMBER
house of Representatives
40 SOUTH COLVILLE
COMMITTEE ON STANDARDS
WALLA WALLA. WASHINGTON 99362
OF OFFICIAL CONDUCT
Washington, D.C. 20515
AREA CODE 509, 529-6111
August 24, 1976
Dear Mel:
Thank you for your recent memo and the attached information on your
concerns about the formation of the Interstate Congress on Civil Rights
and Responsibilities.
I can assure you that I share your interest in guaranteeing that
the legitimate constitutional rights of Indians not be violated or
suffer from wrongful encroachment. I appreciated hearing of your concern
in this specific matter and hope that you will keep me advised of the
Congress' opinions of all specific legislation.
With best personal regards.
Sincerely,
I'om
Thomas S. Foley
Member of Congress
Mr. Mel Tonasket, President
National Congress of American Indians
1430 K Street, N.W. Suite 700
Washington, D.C. 20005
TSF:sca
GERAL in FORD
and
2-The Sunday Missoulian, August 29, 1976
2 Glacier County Newspapers
Clash on Indian Voting Rights
By CHARLES S. JOHNSON
pays taxes represents the kind of antediluvian thinking upon
Missoulian State Bureau
which the poll tax was predicated."
CUT BANK Should an Indian who is not subject to
The Browning editor, who is not an Indian, said he
state taxes or courts be allowed to vote in state elections and
didn't find it "threatening that a state with 5 per cent Indian
run for office?
population should have some Indian representation in the
The Cut Bank weekly newspaper asked this provocative
state legislature
question earlier this summer. It quickly triggered a war of
But the Cut Bank editor raised another question and
words with the rival weekly in Browning on the Blackfeet
suggested turning the tables: "Can a white man run for the
Indian Reservation on the opposite end of Glacier County in
Blackfeet Tribal Council?'
northern Montana.
Miles responded that Johnson apparenty did no appre-
In many ways these two small newspapers are the
clate "the difference between state government and a pri-
voices for their communities and reveal the many differ-
vate corporation.
ences that separate them even though they are only 35 miles
Johnson, a former executive secretary of the Montana
apart.
Republican party, said in an interview that he did not advo-
cate preventing reservation Indians from voting or seeking
The Cut Bank Pioneer Press, edited by J. Riley John-
office.
son, serves mainly the eastern, non-Indian portion of the
All I did is raise an issue, period, and ask for a solu-
county (although he recently hired a correspondent in
tion," he said, emphasizing that he did not propose a specific
Browning). In Browning, the Glacier Reporter, run by Larry
solution.
D. Miles, is aimed for the most part at Indians living on the
Miles, a former college journalism professor, was unim-
reservation.
pressed by Johnson's later statement, but said he had no-
Johnson raised the emotional issue in an editorial in
thing to add to his original comments.
June after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states do not
Meanwhile, Kennerly, a quiet man who is the center of
have the right to tax Indians living on reservations. He then
the controversy, was puzzled but not upset.
zeroed in on a specific example close to home - Leo M.
"The only thing I don t pay is state income taxes," he
Kennerly Jr a Blackfeet Indian from Browning and the
said:
Democratic nominee for the House of Representatives from
Kennerly, the reservation's planning director who oust-
Dist, 14
ed two-term Rep. Gail Stoltz Valier, in the primary elec-
Can he serve in the legislature and pass judgment on
tion, said he pays other state and federal taxes on his income
state matters if he is not a citizen of that state? the editorial
and the grocery store he owns in Browning
asked. "That is, he is not a taxpayer or subject to that state's
In a sense I don't pay (state) taxes, but there are a lot
laws.
of other people who don't either he said.
Miles fired back through his Browning paper, blasting
Earl Old Person, Blackfeet Tribal chairman, came to
Johnson's editorial as "nonsense" and adding: "His thinking
Kennerly's defense and said the candidate "has just as much
that one should not be able to vote or run for office unless he
right to run for state office as anyone else.
GERILD FORD
Blackfeet's neighbors resent
Indians' special legal status
By CHARLES S. JOHNSON
Many white landowners and a few In-
"The tribe is willing to get together,
Gazette State Bureau
dians reacted angrily and called a press
but Glacier County isn't," said Leo M.
conference in Helena to denounce the or-
Kennerly Jr., the reservation's planning
BROWNING - An undercurrent of
dinance as an abridgement of their rights.
director. "We've attended meetings in Cut
tension, rising swiftly as Indians and
Reagan objected because "we can't vote
Bank with the county commissioners, but
whites clash over jurisdictional issues,
there or serve on juries."
they've never returned the courtesy by
threatens to destroy the tranquility of the
The Bureau of Indian Affairs eventu-
coming here."
Blackfeet Indian Reservation.
ally nullified the ordinance, but not be-
A current hassle involves a state law
The reservation, which forms the
fore the battlelines had been formed.
requiring teachers at schools near reserva-
eastern border of Glacier National Park,
The furor has subsided somewhat by
tions to complete a mandatory Indian
is the center of complex disputes over law
now, but Earl Old Person, the flat-topped,
studies course by 1979. The Cut Bank
enforcement, taxation, fishing rights and
soft-spoken Blackfeet tribal chairman,
teachers oppose it, to the dismay of some
other explosive issues.
still wonders what the objections were.
Indians.
These questions are by no means.
"If they can try us by their laws, why
"It's just a one-course thing that ori-
unique. to the Blackfeet but confront Indi-
can't they be tried by our laws?" he asked
ents you about Indians and reservations
as he leaned back in his easy chair be-
and how to react," Kennerly said. "If I
neath a portrait of John F. Kennedy.
In Cut Bank, some, believe the matter
is far from over and rumors persist that
the ordinance will be adopted again.
Most agree that something must be
done to simplify the complicated law en-
forcement jurisdictional problems. Gla-
cier County Sheriff Jean Gertzen said it is
"a nightmare to know what to do and
where to
Law enforcement has become a
sometimes touchy subject in Browning
and Cut Bank since 22-year-old Clayton
Hirst, an Indian, was found dead, hanging
in the Glacier County Jail in March 1975.
His death was officially ruled a sui-
cide, but lawyers for his family, citing a
later autopsy done for them by the San
Francisco medical examiner's office,
charge that Hirst was electrocuted and au-
thorities tried to cover it up with a simu-
lated hanging.
The family retained Roy and San
PHILIP E. ROY
Francisco trial lawyer Melvin Belli who
JEAN GERTZEN
filed a $35 million damage suit in federal
outspoken lawyer
law enforcement chaos
court against a number of state and local
ans and whites near reservations across
officials. No trial date has been set.
was a teacher going into a black neighbor-
the country.
Most of those involved in the suit on
hood. I would want to learn a few things
The complication
side declired
unique status of Indian reservations be-
Gertzen, Montana's only female sheriff
What, then, is the solution to "all
cause of federal treaties and laws. As a re-
and one of a handful nationally, wasn't re-
these various disputes?
sult, reservations deal nearly exclusively
luctant to speak.
As one might expect, no one much
with the federal government and are all
"The whole thing is just a fabrication
agrees except that it's really out of the
but autonomous from state and local gov-
any way you look at it," she said. "It's too
state's hands. Gov. Thomas L. Judge ap
érnments, even though they receive some
bad it had to happen, but it was just one
pointed a state task force last year to
services from them.
of those situations."
study the jurisdictional problems, but it
As Barney Reagan, an outspoken
She called the lawsuit "a pain in the
gave up after tribes at three of the state's
white lawyer from nearby Cut Bank, said:
neck financially and emotionally" and
seven reservations, including the Black-
"There is a serious question whether Indi-
said: "Even if we're cleared, people will
feet, withdrew their support.
ans living on reservations are citizens of
say for years, 'I wonder, I wonder.
Old Person said the Blackfeet pulled
the state of Montana."
But there are other less dramatic ju-
out because the whites "put pressure on
Philip E. Roy, an equally brash Indi-
the governor" over Ordinance 50. "If
an lawyer from Browning, doesn't see any
these people who started up all this fuss
question whatsoever. "Indians are not cit-
had given the task force a chance to get
izens of Montana," he said matter-of-fact-
on its way, it could have worked," he
ly.
said.
Their opinions are typical of the gulf
Others are looking elsewhere for sol-
that separates Cut Bank and Browning,
utions.
the two major towns in Glacier County.
"Until the Congress of the United
Although Indians and whites in both
States does anything, we're not going to
towns profess to get along well with each
solve lawyer Reagan said.
other individually, bitterness and animosi-
Sheriff Gertzen said the only solution
ty seem to be mounting.
is to abolish reservations.
Most knowledgeable observers agree
A prominent Cut Bank resident, who
that the jurisdictional disputes are poten-
declined to be identified, said Congress
tially the most volatile around the Black-
should provide that state law applies on
feet Reservation, followed closely by the
reservations, while maintaining the feder-
Crow Reservation in southeastern Mon-
al protection the Indians now have.
tana.
Old Person said individuals in the
Cut Bank, which bills itself as the na-
two towns might be able to work out
tion's icebox because of winter tempera-
some of their differences if it weren't for
tures that regularly plunge to the minus
the interference of some county officials.
30s, is the county seat, a ferming and oil
Johnson said the question must be
town. Most of its 4,004 residents are
resolved soon by Congress or courts.
white, and some frankly resent the federal
"If they want to set up the reserva-
EARL OLD PERSON
money that goes to the reservation.
tion as a separate area, fine," he said. "If'
Blackfeet tribal leader
Browning (population 1,700) is the
they want to integrate it, fine, but let's
heart of the Blackfeet Reservation, which
quit fooling around."
an Indian brochure calls "a million-and-a-
risdictional disputes around the reserva-
Some whites privately blame Roy for
half acre Eden." But about the only sign
tion.
inciting the Blackfeet, and his blunt views
of paradise in poverty-stricken Browning
Some Cut Bank residents resent hav-
undoubtedly offend some.
is the breathtaking view of the shiny
ing the county pay for the cost of provid-
"The cry is raised by non-Indians
mountains in Glacier Park.
ing services to the reservation when Indi-
that Congress must intervene and quit
After months of simmering, the juris-
ans are exempt from some state taxes.
pampering the Indian," Roy said. "To
dictional problems finally bubbled over
The result, they say, is higher taxes for
that I would say poppycock. The law is
last fall when the Blackfeet Tribal Council
the whites.
settled in 95 per cent of the cases."
passed Ordinance 50 asserting complete
J. Riley Johnson, editor of the Cut
The solution is not to "force state ju-
tribal authority over both Indians and
Bank Pioneer Press, said the burden of
risdiction on the Indians" as some advo-
whites for all civil and criminal offenses
paying for reservation services should be
cate but to settle the remaining issues in
committed on the reservation.
spread nationwide. "Why should little
federal courts, where Indians have fared
Previously, jurisdiction was divided
Glacier County foot all the bill for the
well, he said.
among tribal, state and federal law en-
Blackfeet Reservation?" he asked.
"The reemergence and resurgance of
forcement agencies and court systems, de-
Old Person and other Blackfeet lead-
tribal authority is a reality that people
pending on the crimes and persons in-
ers blame Glacier County officials for ref-
who surround reservations have got to
using to oonerate
recognize the lawver said
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 30
Dennis -
I just had a phone talk with Mr. Lloyd
Ingraham of Ronan, Montana. He is agreeable to
10:00 AM on the 9th for the meeting.
He would appreciate it if you would
send him a letter over Kent's signature
confirming the meeting. He said their agenda is
broader than just jurisdiction, but also includes
taxing powers, water rights, fishing rights.
A copy of the letter should go to Mr. Tom Tobin,
whose address is Winner, South Dakota (phone
605-842-2500 for the rest of it). Pls. send me
a copy of it, too.
I said that a twp-hour meeting would be
OK (but did not guarantee that Kent would be
there for all of it.) I told him Peter Taft
would be there from Justice. Ingraham wanted
somebody from OMB invited and aid we could
invite the proper prople (Porgstrom). You may
want to have Thompson and Reid Chambers
represented, plus some Civil Rights people from
Justice.
Ingraham said about 25 people would be
coming. He mentioned some hames: Jack Freeman,
Ed Bader (S.D.) Michael Platt (St. John's, Ariz),
Mr. Hellinger (Roosevelt County, Utah), Mr. Howard
RALD GERALD FORD
Gray (Seattle/Tacoma), Mr. Rock well, from
Montana, Messrs. Bobby Reagan and Fred Johnson
from Cutbank, Montana, Al Crook from Wind River,
Wyoming.
Ingraham's address is Drawer Z, Ronan,
Montana 59864 and his phone is 106-676-0600.
Grad
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
James Rossiter
Concerned Citizens Council, Inc.
P.O. Box 308
Walthill, Nebraska 68067
Tel: 402-846-5425
Lloyd Ingraham
Drawer Z
Ronan, Montana 59864
Tel: 406-676-0600
Rich Bechtel
(Office of the Governor of Montana
located in Arlington, Va.)
Tel: 524-2211
(He made contact with Bobbie on
behalf of the Governor)
GERALO f.. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
bloyd Irgrabam
Form Tabus
Jack Freemore
Ed Bader S.D.
Not Fam Barea
Michael Platt ST.Jobns aug.
Mr Hellinger Prosserelt Utah County
Howard Guy Seattle Hacome
Rockmell - Wout
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Babby Reagon ] Cutbons
Fred Johnson Wontana
al Crook -Wind Runs
Interstate Congres for
ER r Rup
c/o Tour Tobin
Winner, S.D.
605-842-2560
Weter Tawn
Fishung
name- - SE.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
Flathead ligarettes tare
sales of Cs by Indians P.
States could
non Indians but to
not on seles
Indian
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 30, 1976
NOTE FOR:
Secretary Kleppe
Under Secretary Frizzell'
Solicitor Austin
Commissioner Thompson
Because of the mistaken news report
about our position on PL 280, the President has
received a number of letters from non-Indians
who reside within the boundaries of Indian
reservations.
We are sending the enclosed response to
these inquiries; it is the duplicate of a tele-
gram sent on July 27 to all the Governors by
Steve McConahey of the Domestic Council.
As Mr. Frizzell is aware, there will
be a session on September 9 at 10 AM at Interior
to give some of these non-Indian spokesmen a
hearing. Peter Taft of Justide has told me this AM
that he will join Kent for this session.
cc: Peter Taft
Brad Patterson
Steve McConahey
Mrs. Kilberg
Bill Baroody
THE WHITE HOUSE
wASHINGTON
August 30, 1976
Dear Senator Hibbs:
Thank you for your letter to' the President expressing
concern about his jurisdictional statement to American
Indian leaders on July 16. It has been erroneously
reported that President Ford supports legislation to
give tribal governments criminal and civil jurisdiction
over all people living on Indian reservations. This is
inaccurate. The President does not support legislation
to alter the present legal status of non-Indians residing
within reservation boundaries.
In his statement to Indian leaders on July 16, President
Ford indicated that he supported the concept of allowing
certain Indian tribes (those which have been subject to
State civil and criminal jurisdiction under provisions
of Public Law 83-280 and related statutes) to decide by
tribal resolution whether they wish to continue under
State jurisdiction or return to Federal jurisdictional
status. This resolution is subject to the approval or
disapproval of the Secretary of the Interior under a
clear set of reasonable guidelines.
FORD
Under this concept, a tribe by itself could initiate
request to the Secretary of the Interior for a return to
Federal jurisdictional status. In reaching his decision
on this request, the Secretary of the Interior would be
required to consult with the U.S. Attorney General and
with the governors of the appropriate States. Application
would be limited to tribes in States which have exercised
jurisdiction under P.L. 83-280 and related statutes.
The Departments of Justice and Interior are drafting
legislation on this subject, and the Administration
has asked the governors of 31 States for their views
on the draft legislation. It is the President's
2
intention to continue consultations on the draft and
to expand those consultations to include a wide range
of interested groups, including representatives of
non-Indians residing within reservation boundaries.
Sincerely, H.
Bradley
H.
Patterson,
Jr.
The Honorable Rex Hibbs
Senator of the State of Montana
Helena, Montana 59601
CC. Patterson Rilberg
STATE OF CONNECTICUT
EXECUTIVE CHAMBERS
HARTFORD
QUIF
SUSTINET
TRANSTULIT
ELLA GRASSO
GOVERNOR
August 10, 1976
Mr. Stephen G. McConahey
Special Assistant to the President
for Intergovernmental Affairs
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dear Mr. McConahey:
Thank you so much for your telegram advising us of
the President's position concerning proposed legislation to
alter the present legal status of non-Indians residing within
reservation boundaries.
I have forwarded this information to Commissioner
Joseph N. Gill of the Connecticut Department of Environ-
mental Protection for his information.
With best wishes,
Cordially,
ELLA Teea GRASSO
Governor
GERALD R. LIBRARY FORD
AUG 18 1976
Mr. Flaer H. Winter
President
White Earth Equal Rights
Committee
Mahnowen, Minnesots $6557
Dear Mr. Winter:
This is in further response to your July 20 letter to President Ford
(which was acknowledged by our Solicitor's office on August 3) concern-
ing the President's July 16, 1976 statement of support for legislation
concerning civil and criminal jurisdiction on Indian reservations. We
understand that a press service account of the statement was not pre-
cisely accurate and has led to some misunderstanding of his position.
A copy of the President's complete July 16 statement is enclosed for
your information. On page 2, he states that -
---- My Administration is supporting the concept of allowing
Indian tribes to determine whether they and their members,
in addition to being under tribal jurisdiction, should be
under State or Federal civil and criminal jurisdiction.
I have directed the Departments of Justice and Interior to
draft legislation which would accomplish this geal effi-
ciently, effectively and within adequate guidelines.
GERALE FUND
As the foregoing indicates, the President has directed that legislation
be drafted, for his consideration and approval or revision prior to
submission to the Congress, to allow those Indian tribes which have been
subject to State civil and criminal jurisdiction as authorized by Public
Law 83-280 (i.e., the Act of August 15, 1953 which is codified at 18
U.S.C. 1162 and 28 U.S.C. 1360) to elect to return to Federal jurisdic-
tional status or to do nothing and remain under their current State
jurisdictional status. The Administration's draft bill would only apply
to those tribes over which States have exercised jurisdiction under P.L.
83-280 (or certain other statutes not applicable to your State).
Special note should be made of the fact that the draft Administration
bill would not alter the legal status of non-Indians residing within
reservation boundaries, including their property rights, but leaves the
2
matter to the courts. The Administration is aware that this issue is
extremely complex and that a number of cases are currently in litigation
dealing with different aspects of tribal jurisdiction over non-Indians.
It should be noted that from 1953 to 1968, States acquired, or were
authorized to acquire, jurisdiction over Indian country (see the defi-
nition in 18 U.S.C. 1151) within their boundaries without any requirement
for consent by the tribes involved. When President Eisenhower signed
P.L. 83-280 into law in 1953, he noted the lack of a provision requiring
consent of the Indians involved and urged the Congress to amend the law
to require such consent as a prerequisite to assumption of jurisdiction
by a State. In 1968, legislation was enacted providing that any further
acquisitions of such jurisdiction by States would only be applicable if
accepted by a majority vote of the adult Indians within the affected area
(25 U.S.C. 1326). The draft bill described in President Ford's July 16
statement would give those tribes over which States acquired jurisdiction
under P.L. 83-280 while consent of the affected Indians was not required,
an opportunity to, in effect, consent to continued State jurisdiction by
inaction or to elect a return to their pre P.L. 83-280 jurisdictional
status.
The above mentioned 1968 legislation also included the so-called Indian
Civil Rights Act" (25 U.S.C. 1302) which placed restrictions on the
powers of Indian tribal governments comparable to those placed on the
Federal and State governments by the Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and those restrictions extend to
tribal government activities involving non-Indians as well as Indians.
Under the Administration's draft legislation, a tribe could independently
make a request to the Secretary of the Interior for retrocession of
FORD
jurisdiction. Such a request would be subject to adequate standards
established by the Secretary. In the process of considering the request,
the Secretary would be required to consult with the Governor of the
&
LIBRARY
affected State and the U.S. Attorney General.
The draft legislation would set out comprehensive standards required for
a return to pre F.L. 83-280 jurisdiction. In reviewing a tribe's request
for such a return, the Secretary would be required to consider: whether
the tribe's plan contains an adequate law and order code; whether the
tribe's plan contains adequate means for the resolution of civil disputes;
whether the tribe lacks the capacity to implement the plan: whether the
resident tribal membership is so small or scattered as to make the
preposed return of jurisdiction clearly impracticable; and, in cases
where the tribe has not proposed a full rescquisition of jurisdiction,
whether the proposed allocation of jurisdiction among the tribe, the
United States, and the State is clearly impracticable. If the Secretary
disapproves a tribe's plan, he could assist the tribe in preparing are
acceptable plan if one is practicable.
3
On May 3, 1976, the Administration, through the National Governors'
Conference, communicated with 35 Governors in order to elicit their
views and comments on the draft legislation. Substantial efforts were
made subsequent to that time to solicit their responses in order to have
the views of all the affected citizens.
We hope that this response has been helpful in explaining what the
Administration draft legislation would do and what it would not do. The
President appreciates your concerns in this matter and will give then
serious consideration when arriving at a formal Administration position.
Sincerely yours,
(Sgd) Ralph Reeson
Ralph R. Reeser
Director, Congressional and
Legislative Affairs Staff
Enclosure
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 23, 1976
TO:
BRAD PATTERSON
FROM:
STEVE McCONAHEY
For your information
Comments:
Per our conversation of this
evening. Attached is the
letter we received from Governor
Evans of Washington.
OF
THE WASHINGTON 30 WASHINGTON 52AL THE
1889
STATE OF WASHINGTON
OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR
OLYMPIA
DANIEL J. EVANS
GOVERNOR
com
August 13, 1976
Mr. Steven G. McConahey
Special Assistant to the
President for Intergovernmental
Affairs
The White House
Washington, DC 20050
Dear Steve:
Thank you for your recent telegram clarifying the President's position
in regard to legislation giving tribal governments criminal and civil
jurisdiction.
Enclosed, for your information, is a copy of my letter to Mr. John
Kyle, Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Legal Affairs, Depart-
ment of the Interior, in regard to Senate Bill 2010 to which you make
reference. This letter states the position of the State of Washington
in regard to that bill and the administration's substitute which was
forwarded to us.
I very much appreciate the President's interest in attempting to resolve
some of the very difficult problems that we have experienced in this
area, and I am hopeful that Congress will clarify more fully than it has
to date the jurisdictional authorities of the Indian tribes vis-a-vis
the states. As you know, this is a subject over which Congress exercises
plenary jurisdiction, and which has been very difficult for the states to
deal with due to the ambiguities and lack of direction that has prevailed
thus far.
Sincerely,
San
Daniel J. Evans
Governor
TALO FORU VIGRAG
DJE:jc
THE INTERIOR
United States Department of the Interior
S.
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20245
March
3,
1849
IN REPLY REFER TO:
IS
Note to Brad Patterson:
Re: your August 30 note to Commissioner Thompson, et al,
enclosing a copy of your response to inquiries resulting from
the mistaken news report about the President's statement on
retrocession of P.L. 280 jurisdiction.
A number of letters to the President on this matter have been referred
to Interior and BIA. We have been sending responses such as that
enclosed. Any future responses will include mention of the July 27
telegram to the 31 Governors.
Raph R Reem Ralph R. Reeser
Director, Congressional and
Legislative Affairs Staff
AMERICAN REVOLUTION WEENTENNIAL
1776-1976
1
[9/9/76]
Alder H. Custeas Pender, )bbraske
Jamaid Gay Signate weith
John Forge Jr. Independence Mo.
Bla - walthill, not
f.w Rockwell St. Ignative Montana
Litulon Underton Rossevelt utah
Earl Metter - Washington, D.C.
L.L.Ingraham. Konan, Mont.
won 7.By Sing Eas I Ylacies Park mont
Edward Bader - Timber Lake, 50.Dah.
John C. Cochrane - Big.Hrm, mont.
Philip N Hogen- Kadoka, SD 57543
Mitchel Platt - St. Johns, Ar.2: 85936
Chris Fanand - D.O.I. Reg. ASST Secy-dand & Water
Jack Free man president ISC for TR+ R
Mules E. Flint u.s. Dipt. of Justice
Dennis Ickes Deputy Under Secretary Dept. of the Inter
Sue Kemnitger INTerioR Branch
Efficest Management Budger
MRS John C.Cochrone, Houszwife, Big ARM Mont. on
Flathead Indian ReseRvation
Im Schermecharn us Dept I Justice.
George Crossland - BIA
W.e Brady Executive Secretariat, Deproflation
DOI C.
nace Hell One will Jobia Jan
And person Montana
Mari we Rockwell Montena
BENALO FORD
a Rulon Onderton Onchesne Co Comm.
William Knowelt utah
William 7, Bighty Rx Sr, pub mont
6. Carn 944
UNIVERSITY
THE
STATE
&
AUSTIN
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
SCHOOL OF LAW
2500 Red River
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78705
September 24, 1974
Mr. Bradley Patterson
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Brad:
I have thought about the problem you put to me on the telephone on
Friday and have discussed it with several of my colleagues who teach
constitutional law. My view, and that of those with whom I have talked,
is that it would not be constitutional to give broad governmental powers
to an Indian tribal council when non-Indians who own land within the
borders of the reservation have no voice in the selection of those who are
to govern them.
The case that seems to me most compelling for this conclusion is
Kramer V. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969). The Court there
said that
statutes distributing the franchise constitute the foundation of
our representative society. Any unjustified discrimination in
determining who may participate in political affairs or in the
selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of repre-
sentative government.
In that case the Court held unconstitutional a New York statute that limited
voting in school board elections to those who own or lease taxable property
in the district or have a child enrolled in the local schools.
Although we think that this is the result that ought to be reached,
none of us want to assert categorically that it is the result that the
Court would reach in your situation. The recent case of Morton V. Mancari,
94 S.Ct. 2474 (1974), shows very dramatically that constitutional principles
often take on a very different meaning when Indians are involved. None of
us are expert in Indian law or in the historical events that have led up to
the situation you describe and thus we do not want to say flatly that the
Court would strike down legislation giving tribal councils this power.
It was good to talk with you and I hope that this qualified answer is
of some help to you.
Sincerely,
Charlie
Charles Alan Wright
DEPARTMENT
THE UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
SCHOOL OF LAW
2500 Red River
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78705
September 24, 1974
Mr. Bradley Patterson
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Brad:
I have thought about the problem you put to me on the telephone on
Friday and have discussed it with several of my colleagues who teach
constitutional law. My view, and that of those with whom I have talked,
is that it would not be constitutional to give broad governmental powers
to an Indian tribal council when non-Indians who own land within the
borders of the reservation have no voice in the selection of thosewho are
to govern them.
The case that seems to me most compelling for this conclusion is
Kramer V. Union Free School District, 395 U.S. 621 (1969). The Court there
said that
statutes distributing the franchise constitute the foundation of
our representative society. Any unjustified discrimination in
determining who may participate in political affairs or in the
selection of public officials undermines the legitimacy of repre-
sentative government.
In that case the Court held unconstitutional a New York statute that limited
voting in school board elections to those who own or lease taxable property
in the district or have a child enrolled in the local schools.
Although we think that this is the result that ought to be reached,
none of us want to assert categorically that it is the result that the
Court would reach in your situation. The recent case of Morton V. Mancari,
94 S.Ct. 2474 (1974), shows very dramatically that constitutional principles
often take on a very different meaning when Indians are involved. None of
us are expert in Indian law or in the historical events that have led up to
the situation you describe and thus we do not want to say flatly that the
Court would strike down legislation giving tribal councils this power.
It was good to talk with you and I hope that this qualified answer is
of some help to you.
Sincerely,
FORD
Charlie
Charles Alan Wright
LAW OFFICES
R. F. HIBBS
HIBBS, SWEENEY & COLBERG
POST OFFICE BOX 1321
HUGH SWEENEY
TELEPHONE 252-4101
SUITE 301 MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE BUILDING
MAURICE R. COLBERG. JR.
AREA CODE 406
WILLIAM N. JENSEN
2720 THIRD AVENUE NORTH
WILLIAM T. WAGNER
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59103
HORTON B. KOESSLER
October 7, 1976
Mr. Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Re: Indian Sovereignty
Dear Mr. Patterson:
Thank you for your letter dated August 30, in which
you corrected the belief created by the press, namely, that
President Ford has recommended legislation giving Indians complete
sovereignty over those on the reservations. Those living on and
doing business on some reservations are reaching a sorry plight.
Such publicity adds fuel.
To the casual observer and, particularly, the political
observer from the industrial areas, this situation seems trivial.
Many non-Indians recall only that we took from the Indian his
property and his way of life--sometimes in a heartless, rough-
shod manner. Such an observer reasons that if we hand the Indian
back some money and some autonomy, it may even the score. There's
not much of the Indian's aboriginal way of life we could give
back now if we tried.
Through the years, the Indians generally had come a
long way from their barbaric ways. There are many who have
established homes, businesses and credit. I recall that one near
here, displayed his leadership to Indians and non-Indians alike and
made a creditable race for Congress.
It is well to say, "but those improvements are in the
way of the white man--the Indians have a right to stay Indian and
to still improve." That cannot be. There isn't room in the
same town, state or country for two non-coordinated cultures or
governments to exist. The Indian who has developed our patterns
is as fearful of the attempts for power by those of this race as are
the non-Indians. There are those of both races who have learned
to live at peace and to attain some prosperity on reservations.
They know that it isn't the present day Indian--nor the present
day white who fought the battles or engaged in the trickery that
hurt one side or the other. We can't be expected to repay one
another for what our grandparents did.
Mr. Bradley H. Patterson, Jr. -2-
October 7, 1976
The publicity, such as I mentioned, only stirs the
greed and power lust of the least responsible Indians. They
look with envy at anyone with the right to control them. They
are no different from other opportunists except that the
unwitting do-gooders among us seem to give them an excuse--a
backdrop against which to perform.
There is corollary--another sad development. Many
non-Indians, seeing the growing threats of some Indians toward
irresponsible self-assertion, are forming heated anti-Indian
cliques. It all leads to distrust and antagonism on each side.
We need to help the Indian--he needs to learn to help himself.
The only way we can help him is within the society which we
know. There can't be any other.
So far as we can determine, Montana has not exercised
jurisdiction under P.L. 83-280.
Prenth Yours very truly
REX HIBBS
RFH/mdh
August 30, 1976
Dear Senator Hibbs:
Thank you for your letter to the President expressing
concern about his jurisdictional statement to American
Indian leaders on July 16. It has been erroneously
reported that President Ford supports legislation to
give tribal governments criminal and civil jurisdiction
over all people living on Indian reservations. This is
inaccurate. The President does not support legislation
to alter the present legal status of non-Indians residing
within reservation boundaries.
In his statement to Indian leaders on July 16, President
Ford indicated that he supported the concept of allowing
certain Indian tribes (those which have been subject to
State civil and criminal jurisdiction under provisions
of Public Law 83-280 and related statutes) to decide by
tribal resolution whether they wish to continue under
State jurisdiction or return to Federal jurisdictional
status. This resolution is subject to the approval or
disapproval of the Secretary of the Interior under a
clear set of reasonable guidelines.
Under this concept, a tribe by itself could initiate a
request to the Secretary of the Interior for a return to
Federal jurisdictional status. In reaching his decision
on this request, the Secretary of the Interior would be
required to consult with the U.S. Attorney General and
with the governors of the appropriate States. Application
would be limited to tribes in States which have exercised
jurisdiction under P.L. 83-280 and related statutes.
The Departments of Justice and Interior are drafting
legislation on this subject, and the Administration
has asked the governors of 31 States for their views
on the draft legislation. It is the President's
2
intention to continue consultations on the draft and
to expand those consultations to include a wide range
of interested groups, including representatives of
non-Indians residing within reservation boundaries.
Sincerely,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
The Honorable Rex Hibbs
Senator of the State of Montana
Helena, Montana 59601
BHP:lrc
BHP-2
GLRALD R. FORD
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 30, 1976
NOTE FOR:
Secretary Kleppe
Under Secretary Frizzell
Solicitor Austin
Commissioner Thompson
Because of the mistaken news report
about our position on PL 280, the President has
received a number of letters from non-Indians
who reside within the boundaries of Indian
reservations.
We are sending the enclosed response to
these inquiries; it is the duplicate of a tele-
gram sent on July 27 to all the Governors by
Steve McConahey of the Domestic Council.
As Mr. Frizzell is aware, there will
R.FOR
be a session on September 9 at 10 AM at Interior
CERALD
to give some of these non-Indian spokesmen a
hearing. Peter Taft of Justice has told me this AM
that he will join Kent for this session.
cc: Peter Taft
Brad Patterson
Steve McConahey
Mrs. Kilberg
Bill Baroody
OF
THE
SEAL
STATE
The Big Tky Country
GREAT
MONTANA STATE SENATE
DP
THE
HELENA, MONTANA 59601
SENATOR REX F. HIBBS
July 19, 1976
DISTRICT NO. 9, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY
BILLINGS. MONTANA 59102
COMMITTEES:
JUDICIARY
NATURAL RESOURCES
STOCKGROWING AND GRAZING
The Honorable Gerald L. Ford
President of the United States
Washington, D.C.
CERALD
Dear Mr. President:
The annexed article quotes you as proposing a new
law giving tribal governments criminal and civil jurisdiction
over people living on Indian reservations.
There is a growing movement to create nests of
sovereignties, irresponsibly governed, but independent within
these United States. That movement seems to have reached to
you.
The urge to bring this about stems from a combination
of the militant Indians and misguided liberal whites who don't
have to live with the havoc they are causing. Those tribal
members who have made efforts to acquire property and to live
in harmony with their own people and with the non-Indians, are
as afraid of this movement as the whites are.
There are many second and third generation non-Indians
who have their lives and their fortunes invested on Indian
reservations. There are the substantial Indians whose roots are
still deeper. I am somewhat familiar with the Law and Order Code
tentatively adopted by the Crow Tribe in Montana. By way of
example it proposes punishment for murder as a fine of $500.00
or six months imprisonment.
Perhaps the laws affecting Indians need improvement.
These new proposals however making of them a nation within a
nation can lead to no good for the Indian whose heart is right.
It can only give power to a dissident group and it will drive
from the reservations thousands of good people who have settled
there--doing business with the Indian people in the belief that
the laws of the United States and of the state protected them.
Although I am no longer a member of the Montana State
Legislature, I am somewhat familiar with political processes
and with the need to develop color in election years. The
The Honorable Gerald L. Ford -2-
July 19, 1976
enclosed proposal seems to me a poor way to do it. Most of
the ranchers and others doing business on Indian reservations
might have been counted on to help the Republican nominee.
Of late years, the Indian vote tends to the radical side.
Such a proposal, in my opinion, will lose votes and it won't
buy back the liberal ones, if that is what was intended.
Sincerely,
RFH/mdh
Enclosure
P.S. - Once I was a delegate to a Republican National Convention.
Ford vows
more clout
for tribes
WASHINGTON (AP) -
President Ford told Indian
leaders Friday he soon will seek
a new law that could give tribal
governments criminal and civil
jurisdiction over people living
on Indian reservations.
Addressing about 200 Ameri-
can Indian leaders in the East
Room, Ford said the legislation
now being drafted would let the
tribes determine whether they
wanted to share jurisdiction
with state or federal authorities
or handle such matters them-
selves "effectively and within
adequate guidelines."
Some Indian leaders said in
advance of the session that they
suspected the President might
be trying to use them for politi-
cal purposes, particularly since
the White House had invited
them to wear traditional native
costumes to the affair.
Few of the Indians wore na-
tive garb, however, and Ford's
speech seemed well received as
he declared that in this Bicen-
tennial year "together we can
write a new chapter" in the of-
ten-troubled relations between
Indians and the federal govern-
ment.
Senate
of the
State of Montana
BILL INGS. 1976 JUL PM 19 NX 161
BILLIN ;S
HiGh
Unite States 13c
Helena
BELLAMY AWARD SCHOOL
SENATOR REX F. HIBBS
DISTRICT NO. 9, YELLOWSTONE COUNTY
BILLINGS, MONTANA 59102
1
The Honorable Gerald L. Ford
President of the United States
Washington, D.C.
M.O.D.
Montanans Opposing Discrimination
P. 0. Box 673, Polson, Montana 59860
Affiliated With
INTERSTATE CONGRESS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
October 12, 1976
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
The White House
Washington, D. C. 20013
Dear Mr. Patterson:
Thank you for your letter of October 5, and thank
you also for your invitation to submit in writing some
legislative and/or administrative recommendations. We
are now working on this and Mr. Tobin feels that we will
have something completed by the first part of January
1977.
Sincerely,
F.W. Rockwell
F. Wayne Rockwell
President
Montanans Opposing Discrimination is dedicated to the end that no federal, state or local government
shall make any distinction in civil or political rights on account of race, color or national oirgin
October 5, 1976
Dear Mr. Rockwell:
Thank you for sending me the copy of Mrs. Randall's
letter. I am very sorry to see any tension or 111-
will between Indian and non-Indian.
I learned a lot from our meeting in September and
was glad to have your views presented first-hand.
We would repeat our invitation to you and to Tom
Tobin to supplement our meeting by setting forth
pour position in writing and by putting down in
writing some of the legislative and/or administrative
recommendations which you and your associates would
suggest.
Sincerely yours,
Bradley E. Patterson, Jr.
Mr. F. Wayne Rockwell
President
Montanans Opposing Discrimination
Post Office Box 673
Polson, Montana 59860
FORD & LIBRA RAID
bcc: Mr. Ickes
Mr. Taft
Mrs. Kilberg
BHP:pft
M.O.D.
Montanans Opposing Discrimination
P. 0. Box 673, Polson, Montana 59860
Affiliated With
INTERSTATE CONGRESS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Winner, South Dakota
October 1, 1976
Bradley Patterson
The White House
Washington, D. C.
Dear Mr. Patterson:
I am sending you a copy of a letter received from
a Mrs. Bruce Randall, 525 Custer, Wolf Point, Montana
59201. This letter is representative of others we have
received. She states that she attended "our" meeting.
Actually, it was the Wolf Point meeting. We had been
requested to come over and help them organize under
M. O. D.
After reading this letter I believe that you will
share our concern over the situations on and near reserva-
tions all over the western states.
I would be very interested in your comments.
Sincerely,
J.W.Packully
F. Wayne Rockwell
President
Enclosure
CC: Peter Taft
Bobbie Kilberg
Blair Richindifer
Kim Fast
Montanans Opposing Discrimination is dedicated to the end that no federal, state or local government
shall make any distinction in civil or political rights on account of race, color or national oirgin
voivin,
Sept. 26, 1976
MOD 302 Main P.O. Box 673
Polson, mt. 59860
Dear Sirs -
after attending your meeting in
walf Pornt, Iwas how, fied Indians to sce
the militant, dissident who
were in imported to disrupt the meeting,
and hamstring your proceedings. I
understand that events in our Town.
Since, have taken on a dangerous
Turn. There was a shoot out of 3
young indians from Frazer and a
raping at a local Saundromat. The
attitude of the lvibes is more belligerant,
and deliberately hostile toall of us.
I have lived have for 42 years, and have
seen this Reservation grow froma small
group of indians, to a grossly ever-grown
minorily group who are determined to
drive us off I talked To several farmers
& rancher 5 who live South of the viver,
and the stories of robbery, assault,
poaching of game, etc. alt is being
ignored because they say nothing can be
FORD & GERALD LIBRARY
done about it. How shameful 1! 2hey
are off the reservation in unlicensed
vehicles, predators on other peoples
property, and nothing can be done? The
people who came to your meeting were
afraid of re prisals, if they pok- out
against the Indian, an other sad state
of affairs, I could have gotten up and
told my story, too but for fear of my
life and home I did not.
another thing I cannot understand, the
building of the Indian Community College
in Poplar - Montana has several colleges
and Universitys, the programs and Instructors
all for the Indian, over the white person,
Iobject To any more programs or aid
of any Kind being given To Them.
Mrs. Bruce Randall
525 Custer
welf Point, Mt. 59201
TATES POSTA
®
MAILGRAM SERVICE CENTER
MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645
western union
Mailgram
®
UNITED
SERVICE
U.S.MAIL
*
2-050004E345 12/10/76 ICS IPMBNGZ CSP WSHB
5058420962 MGM TDBN ALBUQUERQUE NM 105 12-10 0556P EST
BRAD PATTERSON, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE
PRESIDENT
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON DC 20500
DEAR SIR,
WE ARE DEEPLY DISTURBED THAT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET IS
ATTEMPTING TO SET INDIAN POLICY BY INSERTING LANGUAGE IN THE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL DIRECTLY IN CONFLICT WITH ESTABLISHED LAW,
PARTICULARLY RECENT FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS UPHOLDING THE RIGHT OF
INDIAN TRIBES TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER ALL PERSONS ON THE
RESERVATION, MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS.
WE URGE YOU TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO DELETE ALL AND ANY SUCH
RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS FROM YOUR BUDGET REQUEST TO THE CONGRESS.
SINCERELY
LADONNA HARRIS, PRESIDENT
AMERICANS FOR INDIAN OPPORTUNITY
GENE CRAWFORD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
NATIONAL LUTHERAN INDIAN COUNCIL
17:56 EST
MGMCOMP MGM
GERALD R. FORD LIBRARY
STATES POSTA
R
MAILGRAM SERVICE CENTER
®
MIDDLETOWN, VA. 22645
western union
Mailgram
UNITED
SERVICE
U.S.MAIL
*
2-049821E345 12/10/76 ICS IPMBNGZ CSP WSHB
5058420962 MGM TDBN ALBUQUERQUE NM 105 12-10 0554P EST
BP
THE HONORABLE GERALD FORD, PRESIDENT OF
UNITED STATES
WASHINGTON DC 20500
DEAR SIR,
WE ARE DEEPLY DISTURBED THAT THE OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET IS
ATTEMPTING TO SET INDIAN POLICY BY INSERTING LANGUAGE IN THE
APPROPRIATIONS BILL DIRECTLY IN CONFLICT WITH ESTABLISHED LAW,
PARTICULARLY RECENT FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS UPHOLDING THE RIGHT OF
INDIAN TRIBES TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION OVER ALL PERSONS ON THE
RESERVATION, MEMBERS AND NON-MEMBERS.
WE URGE YOU TO TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO DELETE ALL AND ANY SUCH
RESTRICTIVE PROVISIONS FROM YOUR BUDGET REQUEST TO THE CONGRESS.
SINCERELY
LADONNA HARRIS, PRESIDENT
AMERICANS FOR INDIAN OPPORTUNITY
GENE CRAWFORD, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
NATIONAL LUTHERAN INDIAN COUNCIL
17:54 EST
MGMCOMP MGM
GERALD FORD LIBRAS