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
6773712
label
Correspondence, August - September 1974
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
6773712
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
Correspondence, August - September 1974
citationUrl
collections
Bradley H. Patterson Files (Ford Administration)
Bradley Patterson's Native American Programs Files
subjects
Indians of North America
thumbnailUrl
largeImageUrl
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
6773712
coverageEndDate
logicalDate
1974-09-01
month
9
year
1974
coverageStartDate
logicalDate
1974-08-01
month
8
year
1974
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
c9176591fcc34726
ocrText
The original documents are located in Box 1, folder "Correspondence, Aug. - Sept. 1974" 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States of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.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 1 of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library
August 2, 1974
Dear Mr. Gallegos:
Brad Patterson of my staff spoke to you the other day about
Floyd McKissick's request on behalf of Soul City. Arthur
Reid is familiar with it over in OEO.
I wanted you to know that in the White House and in HUD we
all think highly of the Soul City enterprise, and HUD of
course, among quite a few other agencies, has made major
and concrete commitments to back up Floyd's new undertaking.
If OEO can see its way clear to handle this request for $85,000
for the next six months, if it has merit when judged by itself,
and if Soul City's needs for the short term are as clear as
Floyd describes them, I would endorse your doing whatever
is possible.
In HUD, A1 Trevino of the New Communities Administration
would be one to touch base with for an independent evaluation.
Sincerely,
Leonard Garment
Assistant to the President
Mr. Bert Gallegos
Acting Director
Office of Economic Opportunity
GERALD P. FORD
1200 19th Street
Washington, D.C.
bec: A1 Trevino (with a copy of incoming correspondence)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 5, 1974
Dear Ron,
I appreciate having your letter of July 22 as a follow-up to our
luncheon.
A quick analysis of some of the attachments shows that the principal
decline in UL.contracts came from the Department of Labor and, of course,
that was attributable to the new Comprehensive Employment and Training
Act which moved federally funded manpower programs from the posture
of national contracts nationally awarded to one of local contracts awarded
at local decision.
My office has been in touch with each of the project officers mentioned
on your list of "National Urban League Resource Projects" and what we
have been told is related in the attached paper. (If you have a different view
of the facts, I certainly want to hear it.)
Some of these projects, and what is happening to them, are a normal
part of the process of granting or contracting, and of reviewing and im-
proving performance under those grants or contracts. Some of the others,
however, indicate some possible management looseness in the past, and
allegedly an overly large slice for overhead in New York. I know you and
Vernon will push your associates to correct any deficiencies, and I urge
you to keep in close touch with the federal project officers in order to
identify weak spots as the contract goes along, rather than wait until
refunding time draws close.
I think we both realize that local League affiliates will have to aggressively
identify manpower and other opportunities which are opening up on their
respective local scenes, since the whole approach of national contracting
is being changed. If local contracts with UL affiliates are added to these
national projects, what do the totals show?
FORD LIBRARY & GERALD
- 2 -
Again, I am not vouching for the views in the attachment, but
passing on what was reported to Brad. I would urge you, Ron, to let
me know where your own view of the picture is different.
In any event, there are some other matters that I would like to discuss
with you, so please give me a call.
Sincerely,
Len
Leonard Garment
Assistant to the President
Attachment
Mr. Ronald H. Brown
Director, Washington Bureau
National Urban League, Inc.
425 Thirteenth Street, N. W.
Suite 515
Washington, D. C. 20004
FORD & LIBRARY GERALD
STATUS OF COMMENTS ON URBAN LEAGUE PROJECTS
1. Manpower Development and
No special problems; likely to be
Training
refunded.
2. Labor Education Advancement
No special problems; likely to be
refunded.
3. Business Development
Expected to be funded through the respective
OMBE regional offices with contracts dated
to begin August 1, 1974. In addition to the
"regionalization" thrust, a national contract
is not favored because of OMBE concern
about the NUL headquarters capabilities, i.e.
re managing this project, communicating
with affiliates, and preparing budget and
performance data on what the affiliates
were doing.
4. New Careers for Women
Reportedly another organization was funded.
5. Student Intern
The NUL proposal was rejected because it
was not submitted by the required deadline
(November 1) and because it did not include
an eligible "developing institution" as part
of its package. NUL should resubmit its
application in a timely manner this year.
There was a second grant in this area:
$70,000 to the UL for cooperating with
Alabama A and M to place faculty members
in federal agencies for training. NUL wanted
to double the grant amount to $140, 000 but
this was disproportionate in terms of
Alabama A and M's own priorities.
6. Drug Abuse Training and
The UL has submitted this proposal four
Employment
times, according to the HEW officer, and
each time HEW staff have worked with the
UL to try to improve it and make it more
acceptable. This year's proposal has been
rejected by both the Review Group and the
National Advisory Council on the grounds
- 2 -
6. Drug Abuse Training and
that (a) a precise staffing pattern was not
Employment (continued)
specified, (b) no resumes of prospective
staff were submitted, (c) the training design
was inadequate, (d) the criteria for ad-
mission of trainees were not spelled out,
(e) the evaluation design was vague,
methods for obtaining evaluations not
adduced, (f) the costs were high, the budget
lacking in justification, the overhead heavy.
HEW has actually given the UL a model of
just how this proposal should be re-done,
and HEW is open and willing to consider a
new proposal when submitted in accordance
with the model and the letters sent to the UL.
7. Road Builders Service
Money in this program goes to the States.
Sometimes the States pass some of it back
to the Federal government, requesting the
Federal government to negotiate contracts
on the States' behalf, but it is done only at
the State request. There is no "national
contract" other than the specific ones which
individual States request. In this case, the
work has been completed in 3 States;
work remains to be done in one more.
States can make their own individual, direct
arrangements with the Urban League or
with local League affiliates.
8. Enrichment of Community
This was a three year, one-shot contract
Health/HEW/PHS
and UL was so informed; the current
extensions are to close it out. Experience
has been spotty; overhead to the National
UL office was quite large: 22.8% the first
year, 44. 7% the 2nd and 3rd years; even
some of the remaining funds were spent on
staff in New York. Commitments were
occasionally changed so that work was done
in cities meeting NUL's priorities rather
than the government's. Now cities and
counties have their own out-reach programs,
and it is considered sounder to have them
hire their own, local out-reach workers-
- 3 -
8. Enrichment of Community
and fire them for poor performance--
Health/HEW/PHS (continued)
rather than operate through remote
New York/Washington arrangements. Not
likely to be refunded.
9. Pre-School Dental
This was a national contract with services
delivered at Columbia, S.C. and
Westchester County, N.Y. But as of
June 30, 1974, the special project authority
for these contracts expired. Now the
program is on a formula basis and only
States are the grantor. NUL performed
satisfactorily and has been advised which
State officials to apply to.
10. Work Evaluation on HEW/SRS
The purpose of this project is to develop
a model of how local UL affiliates can
help local and States agencies, providing
services to the handicapped link those
services to the needs of the black community
UL has done well in this effort and a model
is being developed from experience in
several localities. When the project is
finished in October and the model complete,
that will end the R&D phase; the next step
would be for individual UL affiliates to
take the model and, in effect, sell their
services to local and State agencies at
local levels. Funding is federal funding
but via State and local agencies. HEW is
pleased to see the growing numbers of
black clients who, in fact, are being
reached in the service programs affected.
11. Advocacy in Support of
Begun as a two-year R&D project
Minority Aged
(in Columbia, S. C., Chicago and California)
now in an extension in its third year for
purpose of close-out, wrap-up of research,
and evaluation. After some initial on-site
organizational problems, UL did a
satisfactory job, so much so that in
Columbia, S.C. the local UL affiliate has
already received a contract of this same
kind from the State Agency on Aging. And
- 4 -
11. Advocacy in Support of
this will be the picture nationally from
Minority Aged (continued)
now on: local operational programs will
have to convince local and State and
area agencies on Aging that what this
R&D project showed is worth continuing.
12. Law Enforcement
A two-year grant. Audit from first
Minority Manpower
year turned up $100, 000 in questionable or
unallowable expenditures, but no criminal
charges. National UL instructed to
straighten out its procedures so that (a)
the existing unallowables are refunded, and
(b) the problem won't occur again. NUL
has sent in some assurances and these are
now being reviewed carefully by senior
LEAA people so that they are satisfied
they meet the requirements. Refunding will
be held up until this review is complete.
No programmatic problems; decision soon.
13. Early Childhood Program
This program has gone on for two years and
for Exceptional Children
has been refunded for a third year at the
reduced level indicated on the UL's list
($158, 000 instead of $332,000). This
is a demonstration program to show how
money can be leveraged out of other
community resources so that the program
itself can be self-supporting; requires ex-
cellent relationships with school boards,
State Departments of Education, other local
funding sources. UL changed its Project
Directors often; allegedly did not get
enough results for the money expended.
Overhead to UL headquarters was high--
GERALD
$200, 000 out of one year's $332, 000 grant.
Therefore, HEW has insisted that all of the
refunded program ($158, 000) go directly to
children in the service area and if the UL
can show good management, concentrated
focus and results, there could be more
money next year.
- 5 -
14. Family Planning/HEW/PHS
This was a project to provide concentrated
technical assistance to three areas,
Albany, NY; Albany, Georgia; and Miami,
Fla. The first contract was very loosely
written, according to the HEW officer
currently in charge, and while the UL
performed legally under that contract, the
new contract is written very tightly and
specified performance and results are
mandated. UL is going to be pressed hard
to produce what the new contract calls for.
Previously the UL's project managers were
rotated; overhead to the national UL
office was 44. 7%.
GERALD
August 28, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
KENT FRIZZELL, Solicitor, Department
of the Interior
FROM:
BRADLEY H. PATTERSON, Jr.
SUBJECT:
Executive Order for Presidential
chartering of the Indian Fisheries
Commission
I am enclosing a copy of Hank Adams' correspondence in regard
to a proposed draft for an Executive Order for Presidential chartering
of the Indian Fisheries Commission for your consideration and
comment.
Is Presidential action appropriate for this situation or should it be
an Act of Congress or If neither, what would be an appropriate
way to give the right kind of recognition to the new Commission?
cc: Wallace Johnson, Justice
George Dysart, Interior
Central Files
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
August 30, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ROBERT SCHONING, Director of
National Marine Fisheries,
Department of Commerce
SUBJECT:
Consultation with Indian fishing
community by the International
Pacific Salmon Commission
Following up our telephone conversation of yesterday and our
meeting of last July 11, I am writing to express the active interest
we have in making sure that a full and open consultative process
is opened up promptly between the U.S. Members of the International
Facific Salmon Fisheries Commission and the Indian fisheries
community, especially in the geographic area covered by Judge
Boldt's decision in United States v Washington,
A formal way to do this would be to add an Indian member to the
Commission's Advisory Committee. But if that takes time, or
requires international agreement, I believe that an equally effective
and certainly more expeditous step would be for the three U.S.
Commissioners to take the initiative and call a meeting of themselves
with the principal members of the newly formed Indian Fisheries
Commission.
I would not presume to say what the agenda would be or specifically
what kind of proposed 1974 or 1975 regulations should be discussed
in such a meeting; I am sure the Commissioners have many points
for discussion on their minds, certainly the Indians do.
But of several things I am certain: the United States Government
does have a clear responsibility to consult with responsible
Indian leadership on any matter affecting them; the Indian tribes
in the U.S. v Washington area have acted responsibly by establishing
the Fisheries Commission, so there is a group of experienced and
representative Indian leaders to consult with; the United States
FORD is LIBRARY 078870
Government, further, has a responsibility affirmatively to protect
Indian trust rights, in this case as Judge Boldt has set them forth.
That duty rests on the shoulders of all officers with a federal
responsibility, including the three U.S. Commissioners.
Personally I believe that the responsibilities we have under the
Salmen Fisheries Convention and those we have under our trust
role to Indian people are compatible. Is will be up to the skill
and good will of the Commissioners, their staff, and the Indian
representatives to work out together proposals which can then
be persuasively presented to the Canadian Commissioners. The
only way to do this is to begin the Commissioners-Indian dialogue
promptly and to continue It regularly, with appropriate local
and Washington staff attending to be of help. I would hope that
the first such meeting could be held this month; perhaps you
personally should attend to help make sure it gets off on the right
feet.
Through the Advisory Committee and in other ways, the Commissioners
have long had a dialogue going with non-Indian fisheries representatives.
In the spirit of the Boldt decision, it is time to begin the Indian
consultative process as well.
Please let me know when this process starts.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
001 Stewart Blow, Department of State
Kent Friszeil, Department of the Interior
bee: George Dysart
Harry Sachse
Central Files
September 4, 1974
Dear Mr. Eve:
Thank you for sending the President a copy of your
letter of August 29 to Governor Wilson. We have
been following news reports of the events in Western
New York, although are under the impression that
the matters are under either tribal or State, but
not Federal jurisdiction.
I shall send your letter to the Commissioner of
Indian Affairs, Morris Thompson, so that he will
know of your concern.
Sincerely yours,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Mr. Arthur O. Eve
143rd District
Erie County
1301 Fillmore Avenue
Buffalo, New York 14211
bec: Morris Thompson (BIA)
Central Files
FORD is LIBRARY
September 6, 1974
Dear Mae:
I understand you and your colleagues at the Ford Foundation
are now considering the application from the Native American
Rights Fund for increased support. In that connection I
thought it might be useful for you to have an indication of the
value we attach to the NARF's efforts.
The NARF has helped make a watershed difference in recent
American Indian history. Its careful work laid the ground for
the landmark U.S. V Washington case in which the long, sorry
story of abrogation of Indian fishing rights in the Pacific
Northwest was reversed and rewritten. The Fund also was
a central mover in the legislative drafting which accomplished
the Menomine Restoration.
These are only two examples of the value of an institution such
as the NARF, and are a testimony to the high professional
competence of its staff and its legal work.
The quiet, solid, programmatic performance of independent
institutions such as NARF will be even more important in the
future. I am confident that continued support of this organization
by the Ford Foundation would be welcomed by all who have a
genunine interest in and concern for Indian affairs.
Sincerely,
Leonard Garment
Assistant to the President
Mr. McGeorge Bundy
President
The Ford Foundation
New York, New York
bee: John Echohawk
Reid Chambers
FORD is LIBRARY 070235
Central Tiles
September 6, 1974
Dear Mr. Begay:
The President has asked me to thank you for your letter of
August 29 and for your good wishes. He certainly intends
to be as forthcoming and progressive as was the previous
Administration in working for interests of the Indian people,
not as welfare, as you say, but as obligation and opportunity.
We shall continue to depend on the skills and resources of
the United Southwestern Tribes, Inc, and their constituent
members to help us Identify the priority issues which need
attention.
I am particularly interested in your having raised the matter
of the Bicentennial. May I make this suggestion: that you
and your USET colleagues get in touch directly and promptly
with Mr. Wayne Chattin, a Blackfoot Indian who has recently
joined the staff of the American Revolution Bicentennial
Administration and is located in Denver with the specific
responsibility of working with Indian groups and leaders on
plans for the Bicentennial. Mr. Chattin's telephone number is
(303) 234-4291 and I very much hope you can get in contact soon.
Cordially,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Mr. Eugene A. Begay
Executive Director
United Southeastern Tribes, Inc.
1970 Main St. Wood Building
Sarasota, Florida 33577
bcc: Morris Thompson (with incoming)
Central Files
R-FORD & LIBRARY
September 6, 1974
Dear Mr. Poolaw:
The President has asked me to thank you for your
letter of August 24 and for your good wishes from
Oklahoma.
You can be sure that neither the President nor any
of his associates are going to forget Indian people
or their needs; we will certainly continue and improve
upon the new directions set and progress made by
the Nixon Administration beginning with the historic
Message of July 8, 1970.
I would be interested in learning more about the
American Indian Defense, Inc. and the programs
and priorities in which it has special interest.
Sincerely yours,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Mr. Kent F. Poolaw, President
American Indian Defense
Box 15
Anadarko, Oklahoma 73005
bcc: Central Files
GERALD #: FORD
September 6, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
STEVE KURZMAN
Assistant Secretary 2 Legislation
Health, Education and Welfare
SUBJECT:
Social Services Legislation and
Federally Recognised Indian Tribes
Following up my telephone call of today, I would appreciate the
opportunity to sit down with you, Bill Morrill, Jim Dwight, Stan
Thomas and others there, plus Ted Krenske of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs to explore whether, in the pending legislation concerning
new social services programs, we should not include authorisation
for federally recognized Indian tribes to be direct sponsors or
recipients, rather than have these new programs filter to tribes
via States and counties. (We should probably exclude AFDC here,
since those State-tribal relationships seem to be working satisfactorily.)
As you know, in the recent years, following the thrust of the July 8, 1970
Message, the Administration has moved in one case after another to
espouse the idea that federally recognized Indian tribes should at least
be eligible to be prime sponsors or direct recipients of important
federal programs which benefit Indians. Beginning with the signing
of the General Revenue-Sharing Act and more recently with the new
CETA measure, community development, surplus government property
and the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, we are making sure that
such legislation has written into it at least the authority for the elected
tribal governments of federally recognized tribes, as responsible
governmental units in their own right, to step in and take over such
programs directly, rather than compete or stand hat in hand at State
capitals. This revised position of ours is greatly strengthened by
the practically unanimous conviction on the part of Indian leaders
themselves that they prefer this route, and that they consider themselves
responsible governmental units not in any way subordinate to State
officers, plans or planning boards. Of course all of BIA, plus HEW's
own ONAP function according to this principle, and I know that the
Administration on Aging is considering including this kind of new
provision in its reauthorization legislation coming up.
Could we have a session sometime soon among the people mentioned to
explore this further?
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
CCI Commissioner Thompson
Ted Krenske
FORD is 07V839 LIBRARY
September 6, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JOHN WHITAKER
SUBJECT:
AIM Trial -- Contingency
Planning
It is at least a possibility that the AIM trial in St. Paul may
result in an acquittal. One needs little imagination to figure
out the kind of statements which will come out of Banks,
Means and their sympathisers if that happens.
My suggestion: that you and Morrie do some contingency
thinking about the kind of statement, if any, which the federal
government should make on the acquittal contingency. What
will responsible Indian people expect us to say? I think that
Messrs. Hushen (White House) and Havel (Justice's new
Press Officer) as well as Len and me will be interested to
know what you come up with.
Bradley H. Patterson
CC: Mr. Thompson
Mr. Hushen
Mr. Havel
FORD & 078838 LIBRARY
September 9, 1974
Dear Cap:
One of the most effective, because professional, organisations
in the country rending service to Indian people is the Native
American Rights Fund of Boulder, Colorado. I have come
across numerous examples of their work and have found the
callber of their staff to be first-rate.
NARF is now, I am told, negotiating with Mr. Blue Spruce of
your Office of Native American Programs, for a grant. On
the merits alone, I wanted you to know I consider the Fund
as an outstanding candidate for assistance from the Federal
Executive Branch and hope that you and ONAP will give NARF's
application sympathetic consideration.
Sincerely,
Leonard Garment
Assistant to the President
Honorable Caspor W. Weinberger
Secretary
Health, Education and Welfare
Washington, D.C.
FORD & 07V830 LIBRARI
Central Files
September 10, 1974
Dear Ms. Sally Longo:
Your request for the NCIO newsletter has been
received in this office.
I imagine you are not aware that the National
Council on Indian Opportunity has recently been
dissolved, soon to be replaced by a new, similar
body. Until such time as a new body is formed,
I am receiving the NCIO correspondence.
Sincerely,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Ms. Sally Longo
Alternate High School
589 Washington Blvd.
Stamford, Connecticut 06902
Central Files
FORD is GERALD LIBRARY
September 11, 1974
Dear Mr. Layton:
The President has asked me to thank you and Ms.
Marshall for your letter of August 28 concerning
the wish of the Stellacoom Tribe for federal
recognition.
This is a matter which will take some careful
review and legal analysis within the Department of
the Interior, so I am forwarding your request
directly to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
the Honorable Morris Thompson. After he has
studied your request I know you will hear from
him directly.
Sincerely yours,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Mr. Lewis Layton, Chairman
Steilaconm Tribe of Indians
13013 224th Street
Graham, Washington 98338
bcc: Morris Thompson (entire file to him for further response)
Central Files
GERALD LIBRARY ? FORD
September 13, 1974
Dear Ms. Timson:
Your letter of September 7, 1974, requesting several
types of material concerning the problems and
culture of our Native Americans, has been received
in this office.
I imagine you are not aware that the National Council
on Indian Opportunity has recently been dissolved, soon
to be replaced by a new, similar body. Until such time,
I am receiving the NCIO correspondence.
I have taken the liberty of forwarding your letter directly
to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Honorable
Morris Thompson. I am sure that the material you
requested will be sent as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Ms. Helen Timson
Wayland Junior High School
201 Main Street
Wayland, Massachusetts 01778
CC: Honorable Morris Thompson
GERALD & FORD LIBRAR,
September 16, 1974
Dear Mr. Waters:
Thank you for your letter of September 12th and the
attachments.
Since this seems to me to be primarily a matter of
the Civil Service laws and regulations, as you mention,
I have forwarded copies of the materials you sent to
Mr. Kator.
Sincerely yours,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Mr. Richard Waters
1425 Fourth Street S. W. #A 7
Washington, D.C. 20024
FORD is LIDBARY 038470
September 16, 1974
Dear Mr. Kelp:
I am responding to your September 4th letter to Bob Robertson
of the NCIO.
The NCIO, being a Cabinet Committee which never met as such,
went out of business on June 30.
But the line responsibility for the kind of questions you and Mrs. Villa
have raised is clearly the Bureau of Indian Affairs and they are still
very much in business.
I am therefore forwarding your letter to the Office of BIA Commissioner
Morris Thompson, himself an Indian, and I know you will get a
direct answer shortly. If you don't, let me know.
Sincerely yours,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Mr. Larry Kelp
Action Line
Oakland Tribune
401 Thirteenth Street
Box 509
Oakland, California 94604
bcc: Karen Ducheneaux
@
FORD & LIBRARY 07V830
September 16, 1974
Dear Irv:
Mr. Richard Waters, a former employee of the Civil
Rights Commission, has brought these papers to my
attention.
Your name is mentioned here, and I forward them
to you for whatever action may be appropriate.
Sincerely,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Mr. Irving Kator
U.S. Civil Service Commission
Washington, D.C.
CC: Mr. Louis Nunez, Deputy Staff Director
Central Files
FORDO & 07V835 LIBRARY
September 16, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MORRIS THOMPSON
OK
KENT FRIZZELL
ok
WALLACE JOHNSON
NO
J. STANLEY POTTINGER
OK
SUBJECT:
Tribal Sovereignty
The President recently received the attached correspondence.
It raises a general policy question of which we are all roughly aware
but for which, as far as I can discover, none of us has done any
specific work in exploring the range of possible answers. Neither
Courts nor Congress have declared themselves on this matter,
although the Senate's passage of S 268 (not followed in the House)
did address it.
Recognising that this issue is certain to be a matter of more and
more attention in the months ahead, I think we have an obligation
to examine it and get some of our own ideas together preparatory
to discussions we should have with Indian leaders themselves.
I would like to invite each of you, in person or through a representative,
to begin this exploration with me and propose the first of perhaps
several informal meetings for Thursday, September 19 at 2:30 p.m.
I intend to put together an option paper on this subject and particularly
would like, on Thursday, to get your advice on the questions and
sub-issues which the paper should include. Please bring with you
any administrative and/or legal references which bear specifically on
the issue raised in the attached papers.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
FORD of LIBRARY 07VM
Central Files
September 18, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
COMMISSIONER MORRIS THOMPSON
SUBJECT:
Response To Kootenai Nation Letter
Of September 11, 1974
Confirming our conversation of last night, you will be in touch
with Mr. Briscoe and prepare and sign a response to the
Kootenal Nation letter (the original incoming, which 1 received
only yesterday, is attached). It will be a response which recites
the positive things which are happening (e.g. 8. re S. 634, the
Church land exchange, etc.) which deals with as many of their
questions as is possible, and which designates an appropriate
BIA official as a contact point for the Kootenais to talk with.
It will also be in telegraphic form to reach Bonner's Ferry
before Friday night.
Thursday night. 12:00 midnight
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
CC: Frank Zarb
John Carlson
Dennis Ickes
FORDO : LIBRARY 07V830
September 18, 1974
Dear Mr. Moss:
The President has asked me to thank you for your letter of
August 30 concerning the uniform testing guidelines which are
being developed for application by businesses and by federal
and local governments.
I want to emphasize what you have stated, namely that these
guidelines are only proposals and that they are still under
development and consideration by the EEOCC. They will have
to meet Supreme Court standards as set forth in the Griggs
case but as of now they are still subject to comment and further
discussion. Letters and viewpoints such as yours are most
helpful in this process and I shall see to it that your letter is
circulated to Deputy Attorney General Silberman and the others
who are now working on this question.
Sincerely,
Leonard Garment
Assistant to the President
Mr. Wade L. Moss
Personnel Director
City and County of Montgomery
City Hall
Montgomery, Alabama 36102
bcc: Dave Rose, DOJ, CRD (for inclusion in comment letters circulated)
Central Files
FORD & LIBRARY 07VS
September 19, 1974
Dear Mr. White Eagle:
This is in response to your letters to President Ford of August 23,
and September 6, 1974 giving the Standing Rock Sloux Tribal Council's
views concerning certain statements, made by South Dakota public
officials.
The Department of Justice, which shares responsibility with the
Department of the Interior for law enforcement on South Dakota
Indian reservations in matters affecting the welfare of Indians and
non-Indians, is following activities and events on the reservations.
The Department of Justice believes that under current conditions
and circumstances the existing law enforcement agencies on the
reservations have the capability of handling the present law enforcement
problems. The Department will continue to be sensitive to the law
enforcement needs on South Dakota Indian reservations and act
appropriately to new situations which may threaten the lives and
property of reservation residents where the situation is beyond the
capability of the reservation's available law enforcement agencies.
I am enclosing for your information a copy of my letter to Governor
Kneip.
Sincerely,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Mr. Melvin White Eagle
Chairman
Standing Rock Sloux Tribal Council
Ft. Yates, North Dakota 58538
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
CF
cc: dakes
bee Dick La Course
Zarb
Thompson
September 19, 1974
Dear Governor Kneip:
This is to keep you abreast of the Federal Government's activities
in South Dakota as to the law enforcement problems relating to
jurisdiction on Indian reservations, and in further responce to your
August 22 telegram.
On August 19, 1974, R. Dennis Ickes, Director of the Department of
Justice's Office of Indian Rights arrived in South Dakota and in
conjunction with the South Dakota United States Attorney's Office
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs evaluated the law enforcement and
jurisdictional problems arising from recent Eighth Circuit and State
Supreme Court decisions. On August 21, 1974, the United States
Attorney and Mr. Ickes met with representatives from South Dakota
Attorney General Kermit Sande's Office concerning the problem.
Together, Mr. Sande, Mr. Clayton and Mr. Ickes arranged for a
meeting in Sisseton of federal, State, and tribal officials who are
responsible for law enforcement on the Lake Traverse Reservation.
That meeting of approximately 40 law enforcement officials resulted
in a better understanding of each governmental unit's jurisdictional
responsibilities and limitations.
In addition, a Memorandum of Understanding has been submitted by
the United States Attorney and Mr. Ickes to state and tribal officials,
as well as to your office. This Memorandum, if agreed to by the
proposed signators, would clarify to law enforcement officials and
prosecutors the current jurisdictional status of the Lake Traverse
Reservation during this period of time when jurisdictional authority
is under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Memorandum also
seeks the pledge of mutual cooperation from the signators.
The Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior are
continuing to watch the situation closely and will take appropriate
action If new circumstances arise where the capability of the reservation's
available law enforcement agencies is exceeded.
Sincerely,
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Governor Richard F. Kneip
State Capitol
Pierre, South Dakota
FORD & LIBRARY 07/830
CF
cc: Ackes
bcc: Dick LaCourse
Zarb
Thompson
September 19, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
ATTENDEES
SUBJECT:
September 18, 1974, Meeting on
Northwest Fisheries and Indian
Trust Rights
1. Allocation of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Extra $690,000
Assistant Secretary Reed notified the meeting that these funds
would be split up among the Service, the Indians and the State of
Washington and denied an allegation that all those funds would be
allocated to the State alone. He confirmed that the USFWS Regional
Director had been instructed to consult with State and Indian leaders
about the allocation and invited Mr. Kinley, on behalf of the Indian
Fisheries Commission, to let him know, after the coming tripartite
meeting, what the IFC's recommendations would be concerning
the final allocation.
2. BIA Support for Indian Fisheries Management
Mr. McDonald agreed to arrange for a meeting this week between
the Indian Fisheries representatives and the appropriate BIA
budget officers to discuss the allocation of the additional BIA funds
which the Congress has approved, and also to review the question
of FY 1976 recommendations.
3. Membership of the Advisory Committee to the International Pacific
Salmon Fisheries Commission
State will check to ascertain what the procedures are for getting
an additional member added to the U.S. section of the Advisory
Committee, i.e. an Indian representative.
FORD is LIBRARI GTV825
. 2 -
4. The 1975 Fishing Season
Mr. Kinley assured the meeting that he and his colleagues have
drafted and will present, at the meeting with the U.S. Commissioners
on September 28, specific proposed Commission regulations for
the 1975 season. He described them as meeting what seemed to be
the agreed objective: providing general flexibility for the responsible
authorities on the U.S. side staying in conformity with the International
Convention, to go ahead and make internal U.S. arrangements which
will, in turn, enable compliance with the Boldt decision. Mr. Kinley
agreed to circulate copies of his proposed regulations to the principal
attendees at the meeting.
5. The Anadromous Fish Act
In answer to an inquiry, the NOAA representative indicated that the
Act does permit direct grants to federally recognised Indian groups
providing that the latter's proposals meet the statutory program
requirements. A review will be made of this eligibility and any
proposals submitted, especially for FY 1976. Mr. Patterson confirmed
that it was government policy to have federally recognized tribal
governments be direct recipients of domestic assistance programs,
and not force such tribal governments to receive this federal assistance
through State governments. This is evidenced in a number of recent
or pending legislative actions.
6. List of Questions
At the conclusion of the meeting, the Indian representatives
made available a list of questions which had been prepared earlier
but not circulated; it was agreed that they would be circulated, attached
here, for the attention of the attendees.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
LIST OF ATTENDEES
September 18, 1974
Northwest Fisheries and Indian Trust
Rights
NAME
AGENCY
PHONE
Brad Patterson
W.H.
456-2657
Nat Reed
Interior
343-4416
Lee Talbot
CEQ
382-1254
Guy R. McMinds
NWIFC
(206) 276-4471
Donald Dworsky
OMB
395-4993
Ted Perry
FWS
343-4767
Mike Spear
FWS
343-4767
Michele Metrinko
Interior
343-4344
F. L. Kinley
NWIFC
(206) 276-4471
Edward S. Lazowska
Justice
739-2736
Bruce C. Rashhow
Justice
739-2779
John H. Dunnigan
NOAA
(206) 442-4140
James W. Brennan
NOAA
967-3043
Hubert A. Becker
Solicitor's Office
343-9331
Sam St. Arnold
BIA
343-9468
Don McDonald
BIA
343-5704
Howard Borgetrom
OMB
395-4993
William L. Sullivan, Jr.
State
632-2335
GERALD ? FORD
- 2 -
Al Burt
State
632-1727
Marshall M. Cutsforth
BIA
258-2651
Charles Peterson
NWIFC
645-2411 (206)
Hank Adams
NWIFC
(206) 486-1793
Al Powers
OMB
395-4993
SOVEREIGNTY OF INDIAN TRIBAL OVERNMENTS
Discussion Questions
FORD is LIBRARY 07V819
I. What does the history of Indian low up to now tell us is
(present)
the status of Indian Tribal Government sovereignty over
non-Indians living on fee patent land within the exterior
boundaries of a federally-recognized Indian reservation -- and
over their property, water, and other rights? -- i;e. in the
absence of any new statute?
What inherent sovereignty is there, if any? (in the
Cohen sense, in quote 4)
Is it correct to assume to hat the General Allotment Act
was an act of Congress which in eff ct gave the
"citizens of Georgia" the "right to enter' the affected
Indian Reservations and thus met the standard of
Worcester V Georgba while vastly shrinking the tribal
authority desdribed in the first part of the first
sentence quoted in # 5?
Does the last paragraph of Busterv Wright (quoted in
# 8) still have force and effect for tribes dealing with
non-Indian fee patent property within their Reservation
Boundaries? Dojes Hamilton V US (quote 9) ?
Or
Would it be true to say that the General Allotment Act
itself "destroyed or limited" the sovereign powers of
tribal governments (to use the Buster V Wright language)
and/or created "vested rights of persons now occupying
Reservation lands" as referred to in the 1934 Solicitor's
Opinion (quote 10) ?
-- Does the legislative history of the General Allotment
Act reveal any statement of Congressional intent as to
limiting Indiantribal sovereignty over the lands which were
(a) allotted to Indians or (b) to come under non-Indian
fee patent ownership? What was it? If so, was this
intent erased or changed by the IRA in 1934?
Are or are not zoning, hunting, fishing and ater rights
throughout Indian roservations matters "of federal concern
as that phrase is used in Cohen (quote 11, paras 3,4,5)?
Conversely, does State action asserting jurisdiction over
zoning, water rights, etc on non-Indian fee patent land
-2-
within Indi an Reservations constitute an infringement
24 "on the right of reservation Indians to make their
own laws and be ruled by them" as this criterion is
used inWilliams V Lee (quots 12) ?
In other words, what do we conclude about the authority, under
present law, of tribal governments to extend their jurisdiction to
non-Indians and their fee patent property? Does this authority exist
or doesn't it?
FORD & LIBRARY 078420
II. Should we, **** in effect, abandon the effort to assert
that under some mixture of past principles, theories and Court
decisions, Indian tribal governments have powers over non-Indian
fee lands within Reservations, and simply posit that this issue will
have to be a Congressional determination? If so, what positi on
should this Administration recommend that Congress take?
--Is it correct that any jurisdiction the Congress would give
to tribal governments over fee lands would be governed by the
requirements of due process (the Fifth Amendment, as invoked
b y the Indian Civil Rights Act)?
--If so, what would due process require if, as one would assume,
the non-Indian landowners could never vote in tribal
elections or hold tribal office? In order words, would the
un er those conditions)
conferring ofany such jurisdiction automatically negate due
process?
If so, where does that leave us:
i - Change the Indian Civil Rights Act to excise the
application of the Fifth Amendment?
ii - Require Indian tribes to permit non-Indian property-
owners to vote and hold O fice? (Not likely).
iii - G-t going with an eminent domain program to
reverse the General Allotment Act and buy out non-Indian
landowners? (Expensive )
iv.- By statute, change the boundaries of Indian
reservations to be defined as only the limits of
trust lands? ( Checkerboarding...)
V. Leave things as they are except perhaps with a
sense of the Congress resolution that all Tribes and
affected Counties should use the Umatilla model?
FORD is LIBRARY GERALD
GOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY
is
FORD
Legal and Administrative References
GERALD
LIBRARY
1. Articles of Confederation
The United States, inCongress assembled, was given "the sole and
exclusive right of "regulating the trade and managing all the affairs
with the Indians, not members of any of the States: provided, that the
legislative power of any state within its own limits be not infringed
or violated.
2. U.S. Constitution
The Congress shall have Power To XXXXXXXXXX regulate Commerce
with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the
Indian Tribes; " (Article I, Section 8)
No
person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without
due process of law;" (Amendment V)
3. Comment from an Informed BIA Source
Let us remember that the difference between Indiansand non-Indians
in this question of tribal sovereignty is not at all a racial one.
Suppose that the white "discoverers" of America had found white primitive
peoples here (as for instance the Romans did in northern and western
Europe). Just as the Romans did, the new colonizers would have op osed
and suppressed the white primitive aboriginal peoples as they did in
fact suppress "Indian" nations. For the purposes of this question, then,
the Indian tribes are XXX unique not because of their race, but because
of their aboriginality: they had prior political institutions, and the
conquering whites imposed their own, later, ones. The question of how
these two sets of institutions will relate to one another now ani in
the future is still a political/legal one, not a racial one.
it. Cohen's Statement on the Scope of Tribal Self-Government
Perhaps the mo st basic principle of allIndian law, supported by a
host of decisions her@inafter analyzed, is the principle that those powers
which are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are not, in general,
deleated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but bather inherent
powers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished. Each
Indian tribe begins its relationship with the Federal Government as
a sovereign power, recognized as such in treaty and legislation. The
powers of sovereignty have been limited from time to time by special
treaties and laws designed to take from the Indian tribes control
of matters which, in the judgment of Congress, these tribes could no
longer be safely permitted to handle. The statutes of Congress,
then, must ge examined to determine the limitations of tribal sovereignty
rather than to d etermine its sources of its positive content. What is
not expressly limited remains within the domañn of tribal
sovereignty.' (Cohen, Chapter 7, page 122)
5. Supreme Court Doctrine, 1832
"The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying
its own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the
laws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia
have no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves,
or in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of Congress. The
whole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our
constitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States. The
act of the state of Georgia, underwhich the plain iff in error was
prosecuted, is, consequently, void and the judgment a nullity."
(Worcester V Georgia, 63 Pet 3XZX882X 515 (1832).
a
FORD
6. BIA Doctrine, 1886
"The great objection that is urged by the Indians to dissolving
their tribal relations, allotting their lands, andmerging their political
form of government into an organized Territory of the United States,
arises out of their excessive attachment to Indian tradition and
nationality. I have great respect for those sentiments. They are pabriotic
and noble impulses and principles. But is it not asking too much of the
American people to permit a political paradox to exist within their
midst -- nay, more, to ask and d emand that the people of this country
shall forever burden themselves with the responsibility and expense of
mainaaining and extending over these Indians its military arm, simply to
gratify this sensimentality about a separate nationality?
"It is alleged that Congress has no power, in view of the treaties
with these Indians, to do away with their present form of government and
institute in its stead a Terriborial government similar to those now exist-
ing in the eight organized Territories. While I greatly prefer that these
people should voluntarily change their form of government, yet it is
perfectly plain to my mind that the treaties never contemplated the
un-American and absurd idea of a separate nationality in our midst, with
power as they may choose to organize a government of their own, or not
to organize any government notr allow one to be organized, for the one
proposition contains the other. These Indians have no right to obstruct
civilization and commerce and set up an exclusive claim to self-government,
establishing a government within a government, and then expect and claim
that the United States shall protect them from all harm, while insisting
that it shall not be the ultimate judge as to what is best to be done
for them in a political point of view. I repeat, to maintain any such
view is to acknowledge a foreign sovereignty, with the right of
eminent domain, upon American soil -- a theory utterly repugnant to the
spirit and genius of our laws, and wholly unwarrented by the Constitution
of the United States. (Annual Reportof the Commissioner of Indian Affairs
1886, quòted in Price's Law and the American Indiană, pages 679-80)
7. Congressional Power over Treaties, 1903 (The Lone-Wolf Doctrine)
"In view of the legislative power possessed by Con ress over treaties
with the Indians and Indian tribal property, we may not specially con-
sider the content pressed upon our notice that the signing by the
Indians of the agreement of October 6, 1892, was obtained by fraudulent
misrepresentations and concealment, that the requisite three fourths of
adult male Indians had not signed, as required by the twelfth article of
the treaty of 1867, and that the treaty as S gned had been amended by
Congress without submitting such gmendments to the action of the
Indians, since all these matters, in any event, were solely within the
domain of the legislative authority and its action is conclusive upon the
courts
"In effect the action of Con gress now complained of was but an
exercise of such power
We must presume that Congress acted in
perfect good faith in the dealings with the Indians of which complaint
is made, and that the legislative branch of the government exercized
its best judgment in th premises. In any event, as Cagress possessed
full power in the matter, the judiciary cannot question or inquire into
the motives which prompted the enactment of this legislation (Lone "olf
V Hitchcock, 187 US 553 (1903) as quoted from Price, pM 428).
8. Doctrine on a Tribe's Taxing Power over Non-Indians Doing Business
within Reservation Boundaries - 1906
"The authority of the Creek Nation to prescribe the terms upon which
noncitizens may transact business within its borders did not have its
origin in act of Congress, treaty, or agre ment of the United States. It
was one of the inherent and essential attributes of its original
sovereignty. It was a natural right that people, indispensable to its
autonomy as a distinct tribe or nation, and it must remain an attribute
of its government until by the agre ment of the nation itself, or by the
spper power of the republic it is taken from it. Neither the authority
nor the power of the United States to license its citizens for trade in
the Creek Nation, with or without the consent of that tribe, is in issue
in this case, because the complainžants have no such licenses. The
plenary power and lawful authority of the government of the United States
by license, by treaty or by actX of Congress to t ake from the Breek
Nation every vestiga of its original or acquired governmental authority
and power may be admitted, and for the purposes of this decision are here
conceded. The fact remains, nevertheless, thatevery original
attribute of the government of the Creek Nation still exists intact
which has not been Matro destroyed or limited by act of Gengress or by
the contracts of the Creek tribe itself
its
authority
to
fix
the
terms
upon which noncitizens might conduct business within its territorial
boundaries guamantied by the treaties of 1832, 1856 and 1866, and sustained
by repeated decisions of the courts and opinions of the Attorneys Gene ral
of the United States, remained undisterbed
"It is said that the sale of these lots and the incorporation of
cities and towns upon the sites in which the lots are found authorized by
act of Congress to collect taxes for municipal purposes segregated the
town sites and the lots sold from the territory of the Creek Nation,
and deprived it of governmental SKWAYS jurisdiction over this property and
over its occupants. But the jurisdiction to govern the inhabitants of a
country is not conditioned or Immited by the title to the land which
they occupy in it, or by the existence of municipalities therein endowed
with power to collect taxes for city purposes and to enact and enforce
municipal ordinances. Neither the United States, nor a state, nor any
other sovereignty loses the power to govern the people within its borders by
the existence of towns and cities therein endowed with the usual powers
of municipálities, nor by the ownership nör occupancy of the land within
its territorial juri@diction by citizens or foreigners." (Buster V Wright
82 S.W. 855, 1904, as quoted in Cohen, Sage 142.
9. Doctrine on Property of Licensed Traders - 1907
"In the case of James H. Hamilton V US, it appeared that land,
buildings, and personal property owned by the claimant, a licensed trader,
within the Chickasaw Reservation, had been confimated by an act of the
Chickasww legislature. The plaintiff brought suit to recover damages on
the theory that such confiscation constituted an Indian depreda-
tion. The Court of Claims dismissed the suit, declaring:
"The claimant by applying for and accepting a license
to trade with the Chickasaw Indians, and subsequently
acquiring property within the limits of their reserva-
tion, sub jected the same to the jurisdiction of their
laws. (42 Ct. Claims 287 (1907), quoted in Cohen,
FORDO is 074830 LIBRARY
page 145.
Cohen sums up! "It clearly appears, from the foregoNing cases,
that the powers of an Indian tribe are not limited to such powers as it
may exercise in its capacity as a ländowner. In its capacity as a sovereign,
and inthe exercise of local self-government, it may exercise powers
similar to those exercised by any state or nation in regulating the use
and disposition of private property, save insofar as it is restricted
by specific statutes of Congress." (p. 145)
10. Interior Solititor's Opinion, 1934
"Over tribal lands, the tribe has the rights of a landowner as well
as the rights of a local government, dominion as well as sovereignty.
But over all the lands of the reservation, whether owned by the tribe,
by members thereof, or by outsiders, the tribe has the sovereign power
of determining the conditions upon which persons ahall be permitted to
enter its domain, to reside therein, and Co do business, provided only
such determination it consistent withsapplicable federal law and does
not infringe any vested rights of persons now occupying reservation
lands under lawful authority.' XSXSX (55 00 14, October 25, 1934)
11. Cohen's Viewpoint, 1940
"The right of self-government is not something grant ed to the Indians
by any act of Congress. It is rather an inherent and original right of
the Indian tribes, recognized by courts and legislators, a right of which
the Indian tribes never have been deprived.' (24 Minn. L. Rev. 145).
Price goes on to commen : "Without 'inherent sovereignty', tribal
governments may be limited to the powers granted by federal or state
governments or rising from control of land. With inherent sovereignty,
at least in certain areas, tribal actions are lawful unless their validity
is limited by the United States Constitution or federal statutes. (p 676 )
Cohen sums up: state jurisdiction in any matters affecting
Indians can be upheld only if one of two conditions is met: either that
Congress has expressly delegated back to the state, or recognized in the
state, some power of government respecting Indians; or that a question
involving Indians involves non-Indians to a degree which calls into
play the jurisdiction of a state government." (pge 117)
"If, where the subject matter is of federal concern, a non-Indian
is subject to federal, rather than state jurisdiction, even for acts
occurring outside of an Indian reservation, a fortiori he is subject to
federal jurisdiction for atts of federal concern committed within an
Indian reservation. Indeed, there is a very broad realm of conduct in wh
which non-Indians on an Indian reservation are subject to federal rather
than state power. (p 120).
"The mere fact that the locus of an event is on an Indian reserva-
tion does not prevent the exercise of state juriddiction where the parties
involved are not Indians and the subjedt matter of the t ransaction is not
of federal concern.' (Cohen, page 121)
The foregoing sections may be summarized in two propositions:
(1) In matters involving only Indians on an Indian reservation,
the state has no jurieddction in the absence of
specific legislation by Congress.
(2) In all other cases, the state has jurisdiction unless
there is involved a subject matter of special federal
concern.
12. The "Infringement" Test - 1958 - Supreme Court
ERALO FORD LIBRARY
"Justice Black pointed out that since Worcester, two government's
interests in
Indian affairs had been acknowledged: the tribal governments'
interest in matters involving Indians on the reservation, and the
federal government's concern for Indian-non-Indian interactions.
"Prior to Williams, these two interests were protected from state
intrusion by the general rule that states could not act in Indian
affairs without explicit 6ongressional authorizzation. Williams re-
formulated the rule as: 'Absent governing Acts of Congress, the
question has always been whether the state action infringed onl the
right of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by
them. it Implicit in this new 'infringement test' was the assumption
that there were some Indian matters in which the states couds assert
their power without prior Fecderal permission. Thus the Court no longer
recognized totel federal preemption of Indian affairs, and to the
extent states could now act in areas formerly reservedto the tribes,
Indian autonomy was restricted. But there was a contradictory
implication in Williams' emphasis on tribal self-government and
federal authority over it. By emphasizing Indian power and prerogatives
Justice Black suggested the existence of Indian interests distinct
from the federal interest in Indian regulation -- interests which
potentially merited défense against subordination to conflicting
interests of either the state or federal governments. Unfortunately
the boundaries between the competing interests recognized in Williams
were left unclarified by the Court's opinion. (Price, pp 197-98).
(Williams V Lee is 358 US 217, 1958).
13. Interior Solicitor's Views -- 1967
"Although it cannot be said that, for purposes of jurisdiction, the
Indian reservation is wholly without territorial significance (because the
special and exclusive jurisdictions over certain subject matters involving
Indians which have been assigned to the Federal and tribal governments
are frequently coterminous with the Indian reservati on or country), the
touchstone os jurisdiction in cases involving Indians is ultimately
neither personal status nor the situs of activity. It is, rather, the
subject matters
"The shibboleth that a state categorically is without jurisdiction
over Indians on Indian reservations does not survive analysis. The hoary
authbrities customarily cited to support it, products of an era in which
Indian tribes were truly regarded and treated as foreign nations, have
little relèvance in the se enth decade of the 20th Century.
"There is no generic bar to a state's exercising jurisdiction over
Indians on reservations. There are, however, broad classes of matters
**** which have been subjected by Federal law to exclusive Federal or
tribal gognizance. Internal governmentMX and the relations of members
inter se are examples of classes of matters over which jurisdiction
has been left by the Federal Government largely in the tribes. The test
of the propriety of state actions which approaches these areas is whether
it interferes with powers reserved to the tribes." (74 ID 397, 1967)
14. William Schaab Viewpoint - 1968
is
FORD
07
"Chief among the outdated court-created doctrines is the theory that
LIBRARY
tribal self-government is exercised on the basis of a primordial right
insteadMX of congressional enactments. That doctrine of "residual
sobereignty" was given wide currency by Felix Cohen as "the most basic
principle of all Indian law. " The doctrine has come to permeate the
judicial view of Indian tribes, articularly in those cases where the
courts have refused to intervene in disputes involving Indians. Although
the factual basis for the doterine was originally sound, history has
changed the facts and the doctrine should now be discarded JudKicial
power should be withheld from cases involving Indian tribes or individual
Indians only because intervention would violate a federal statute or
some clearly defined ZMSXEM congressional policy. Towithhold judicial
remedies only because Indian tribes at the beg nning of thel th Century
were treated as separate "nations" is to refuse justice without reason.
"The courts should replace the doctrine of residual sovereignty
with a new doctrine based on Con ress' present policies, beginning with th
the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 Those policies require that the
courts and the protections of the Federal Constitution be available to
non-Indians who enter into commercial relati ns with Indian tribes.
The Indian Reorganization Act was not intended fo recognize or confirm
self-government by the Indian bribes on thebasis of a primordial right.
Congress realized that the Act was necessary because Indian government
had "disintegrated" under prior federal policies and the Indians needed
an expression of Congress' on fidence in their ability to govern them-
selves. In the Act 'ongress sought to create a new system of tribal
government. Upon acceptance of the Act, the tribe could exercise limited
rights of self-government under a tribal constitution approved by the
Secretary and obtain "the devices of modern business organization" by
receiving from the Secretary a tribal corporate charter. Those charters
became% the foundation of its government; primordial rights were
the reby extinguished." (8 Nat. Resurces Journal 303, 1968), quoted in
Price, pp 635-6).
15. President Nixon's Indian Message - 1970
"Hhis, then, must be goal of any new national policy toward the Indian
people: to strengthen the Indian's sense of autonomy without threatening
his sense of community. We must assure the Indian that he can assume
control of his own life without being separated involuntarily from the
MMMMY tribal group. And we must make it clear that Indiana can become
independent of federal control without being cut off from Federal concern
and federal support." (July 8½ 1970).
16. Opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Washington - 1970
"
no county in this State would have authority to encumber by means
of a zoning ordinance tribal or allotted lands on an Indian reservation
even though the tribe was one which had petitined for complete state
civil and criminal jurisdiction under the 1957 act and state jurisdiction
had been a sumed. However, the decision in that case does not preclude
a county from enacting a valid zoning ordinance which COV rs the entire
county including fee patent lands within the exterior boundaries of an
Indian reservation.
"The only question which remains to be explored is whether fee
patent land whthin the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation
comes within the soppe of the term "Indian country' and thus, somehow,
gives the tribal council or the tribe itself some sort of inherent
authority which would enable it to retain the jurisdiction to zone all
of the land within the reservati on inclluding fee patent lands. We have be
been unable to find any legal authority whi to suoport such a theory,
which was to some extent relied upon in a recent legal opinion on the
subject by the prosecuting attorney og Gray's Harbor county."
"Accordinaly it is our conclusion that a county has authority to
enact a zoning ordinance to govern 'fee patent land' located within the
exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation." (AGO 1970 Nol 11, June
4, 1970).
17. NW Area Regional Solititor's Views - 1971
"In response to your first question, we do not know of any authority
which holds that an Indiantribe or the Secretary of the Interior has
authority to regulate the use of non-trust property within the boundaries
of an Indian reservation. Converselyly we are not aware of any authority
holding that an Indian tribe does not have such authority. We are aware
that Indian tribes have requested the Secretary of the Interior for the
approval of regulations restricting the use of fee land within
reservation boundaries SO as to be compatible with tribal comprehensive
zoning regulations. However, the Secretary has refused to approve such
regulations as they a ffect fee land. He has suggested the tribe
coordinate its zming with that of the county or municipality to achieve
comprehensive zoning for all lands within the reservation.
"We have been attempting to give this matter serious study as it
is aX common problem toall reserVations in the Northwest. Trbbes are
encouraged to conduct land use studies and to control land use within
the reservation, but it is of little value unless the fee land can be
controlled as well. !? (Memorandum dated December 14, 1971
18. NW Area Regional Solicitor's Statement - 1973
"We are faced with several possible alternatives:
1. The counties have exclusive authbrity to regulate the use of
all lands on a reservation, trust as well as fee.
2i. The tribal councils and the Secretary of the Interior have
exchusive authority to regulate the use of all lands on a
reservation, fee ad well as trust.
3. The ttribal councils and the Sedretary have exclusive juris-
dicti n to regulate the use of trust lands and the county has
exclusive jurisdiction over fee lands, each without regard
to the other.
4. The tribal councils and the Secretary should enter into
cooperative agreements to provide for the regulation of all
lands on a reservation based upon one plan.
Based upon legal precedent, we know that the county does nd have
the authority set forth in alternative No. 1. (See 25 UFR 1.4). From
experience we knod that alternative 3 is not workeble. This leaves
Nos. 2 and 4. We also have the question of what huspens effect, if
any, the acceptance of PL 280 has upon these alternatives."
(Memorandum of March 31, 1972).
19. Monroe Price's Own Comments and Questions - 1973
"Assuming the reservation exerts governmental controls over a
non-Indian (or integrated) subdivision located on trust land: will the
tribe be permitted to exclude non-Indians from erercising the franchise?
And what occurs when there is a non-Indian majority living on the
reservation because of the construction of relatively dense sub-
divisions? Political change aside, can the tribe establish criteria for
the distribution of its resources which discrminate between members and
non-members? Willit be permitted SO to zone and arrange the reservation
that portions of it remain free from non-Indian insrusion and settle-
ment?
"Although tribes have purported to continue to exert control over
non-Indian residential subdivisions located on reservations, their sus-
tained power to do SO is doubtful. The Supreme Court has recognized the
power of the states toX enact laws concerning certain activity by
non-Indians on Indian reservations, espeadally in criminal cases. The
extent of that nower is subject to come debate -- whether, for example,
it exists in the absence of federal legislation to the contrary, or
whether it must be spefifically granted by federal legislation, whether
it interferes with KM tribal autonomy and what constitutes such inter-
ference. But the power has been growing, and, unless checked, will con-
tinue to grow. Indeed, non-Indians, living in subdivisions created on
Indian reservations will demand either modification of tribel governance,
a degree of autonomy, or subjection to state and county rules and
enforcement rights. Inevitably, the non-Indian subdivision will be
integrated into the state into which it is located. (Price, P 606).
20. Tulalip Zoming Ordinance -- Comments by the Regional Solicitor - 1973
Ordinance Number 35 was passed June 2, 1973. " said Tribe does
hereby assert jurisdiction over the use of all lands located and lying
within the boundaries of the Thablip Indian Reservation ask created by
the Treaty with the Dwwamish and Allied Tribes of January 22, 1955
=
Supseintendent commented in a letter to the tribal chairman of
June 20, 1973: "In a discuss on with the Office of the Regional Solicitor,
it was brought to my attention that a Tribe's zoning authority on non-
Trust lands has never been clearly established. He further felt that
this authority could only be determined through court decisions over St
period of time. The Solicitor though further felt that the Secretary
did not have any power that would relate to non-Indian lands. Thefefore,
approval or disapproval action in respect to these lands would not have
any "Borce or effect in relation to zoning questions. "
21. SX2X68 S 268 - 1973
Section 503 (b) includes the following language: tribes would be
authorized to:
"enact zoning ordinances or otherwise to regulate the use of
the reservation and other tribal lands of such tribe, subject
to the approval of the Secretary. "
The Report on the bill states: "While existing law clearly appears
to permit an Indian tribe, in its quasi-sovereign capacity and in the
exercise of local self-government, to exercise powers similar to those
exercised by any state or municipal coproration in regulating the use
and disposition of private property within its jurisdicti n, the
Committee thought it desirable expressly to set forth within the act
tribal zoning and other regulatory powers over reservation and other tribal
lands. Any concern that an Indian tribe might seek to adopt an
unreasonable land use regulation is avoided by making zoning regulations
subjedt to approval by the Secretary of the Interior."
22. Kkg NW Regional Solicitor Views -- 1973
"We believe that one of the most pressing problems Confronting
the various Indian tribes in our area, second only to the regulation
of water, is the need for land use regulations.
"All reservations are surrounded by lands which are subject to zoning
or land use planning by states, counties and cities, leaving reservation
lands unregulated. As a result, reservations near heavily populated areas
are finding an influx of non-Indians seeking to make use of unregulated
lands. Efforts of tribes to bring this situati on under control are met
with the age-old trust-non-trust, dual jurisdiction dilemma
...
"Unless thEre is clarifying logislation in this field, there can be
no meaningful land use planning on reservations, leaving them with the only
unrestricted lands in the United States (assuming the National Land Use
Policy Bill is passed without authorizing KMM tribes to zone all lands
of a reservation.) There rema ins only the unsatisfactory procedure of
counties zoning fee lands and the tribes, with secretarial approval,
zoning trust lands. Even this does not solve the problem of zoning lands
partially haz in fee and partially in trust status. " (Exceprts from
a memoranduri of November 27, 1973).
23. Oliphant V Schlie, January, 1974
"The Judge restricted his decision to the geographic area or
territory known as Government Lot 3, wh is held in trust for the
Tribe, and specifically indicated that he was not determining whether
or not the Suquamish Tribe or its Tribal Court could exercise jurisdiction
over non-Indians on the unrestricted fee lands within the boundaries of
the Port Madison Reservation." (Excepp t from Regional Solicitor memo
of January 21, 1974)
24. Umatilla Zoning Ordinance, February 6, 1974
This "interim" ordinance was approved on February 6, 1974, signed
by the three Commissioners of Umatilla County and by the Board of Trustees
of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla India n Reservation.
"Remedies on Trust Lands section provides for the Board of Trustees
to levy a fine of $100 for each violation and sue for an injunction
"in a court of competent jurisdiction."
"Remedies on Deeded Lands" section specifies that violations will be
subject to any of three (cited) of the Oregon Revi sed ZStatutes.
lands. Any concern that an Indian tribe might seek to adopt an
unreasonable land uso regulation is avoided by making zöning regular Dinso
subjedt to approval by the Secretary of the Interior."
ERALD
22. KEX NW Regional Solicitor S Views -- 1973
LIBRARY
"We believe that one of the most pressing problems confronting
the various Indian tribes in our area, second only to the regulation
of water, is the need for land use regulations.
"All reservations are surrounded by lands which are subject to zoning
or land use planning by states, counties and cities, leaving reservation
lands unregulated. As a result, reservations near heavily populated areas
are finding an influx of non-Indians seeking to make use of unregulated
lands. Efforts of tribes to bring this situati on under control are met
with the age-old trust-non-trust, dual jurisdiction dilemma
"Unless thkere is clarifying logislation in this field, there can be
no meaningful land use planning on reservations, leaving them with the only
unrestricted lands in the United States (assuming the National Land Use
Policy Bill is passed without authorizing XMX tribes to zone all lands
of a reservation.) There remains only the unsatisfactory procedure of
counties zoning fee lands and the tribes, with secretarial approval,
zoning trust lands. Even this does not solve the problem of zoning lands
partially het in fee and partially in trust status." (Exceprts from
a memorandum of November 27, 1973).
23. Oliphant V Schlie, January, 1974
"The Judge restricted his decision to the goographic area or
territory known as Government Lot 3, wh ch is held in trust for the
Tribe, and specifically indicated that he was not determining whether
or not the Suquamish Tribe or its Tribal Court could exercise jurisdiction
over non-Indians on the unrestricted fee lands within the boundaries of
the Port Madison Reservation." (Excepp t from Regional Solicitor memo
of January 31, 1974)
24. Umatilla Zoning Ordinance, February 6, 1974
This "interim" ordinance was approved on February 6, 1974, signed
by the three Commissioners of Umatilla County and by the Board of Trustees
of the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla India n Reservation.
"Remedies on Trust Lands section provides for the Board of Trustees
to levy a fine of $100 for each violation and sue for an injunction
"in a court of competent jurisdiction.
"Remedies on Deeded Lands" section specifies that violations will be
subject to any of three (cited) of the Oregon Revi sed ZStatutes.
25. Warm Springs Zoning Ordinance, January 22, 1974 Comments by NW
Regional Solicitor
"As to the authority of the Warm Springs Tribes to enforce the
ordinance against fee lands, we can only repeat what we have stated before-
there is no legal precedent either supcorting such authority or refuting
it. We believe that the Tribes may have success in enforcement of the
ordinance as against members of the Warn Springs Tribe who own
fee lands, especially where the enforement involves actions against the
individuals rather than against the land. If it has been determined by the
property authority of the Tribes that this ordinance is necessary for the
health and welfare of its members, the control of its own members as to
their conduct within the Reservation -- even if the domduct involves
the use of fee land -- could well come within the cope of tribal
authority."
"The most difficult question concerns the enforcement as to FORD
non-Indian fee owners, especially as to resident non-Indian fee owners,
The latter group could seriously charge that the enforcement of the
ordinance againstthem, without their participation in the legislative
LIBRARI
process of its adoption, has denied those who reside within the
reservation of the equal protection of the laws. 25 USC 1302(8). In
other words, the resident non-Indian would be subject to the restrictions
placed upon the use of his land, although 2zizz he had been excluded
by the law of the tribes from participating in the endactment thereof. "
"As we have urged on numerous occasi ns, we believe the answer
must come through congressional authorization
(Excerpt from a memorandum dated March 19, 1974)
26. Confederated Salish and Kootenal Tribes V Namen (August, 1974)
Excerpts from the Distrit Judge's Order and Memorandum Opinion:
"While the Flathead Reservation continues to exist, and the
land within its original exterior boundaries is still Indian country,
it would defy reality to hold that the entire Reservation presently
exists for 'the exclusive use and benefit' of the Tribes. (p. 28)
"Where the United States holdstitle in trust for Indian tribes,
federal common law /and not Tribal law/ is applicable to a
determination of the extent of a federal grant, despite the lack
of any Congressional language to that effect. " (P.21).
27. Suqmanish Law and Order Ordinance (recent but exact date unknown)
"The Tribal Court of the Suquamish Tribe shall have jurisdiction
over all persons who enter the exterior boundaries of the Port
Madison Reservation for whatever purpose;
"
"The territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court of the
Port Madison Reservation shall embrace all land and property within
the exterior original boundaries of the Port Madison Reservation."
(Excerpts)
28. Petition of Port Madison non-Suqmamish Residents owning Fee Lands
"The present Suquarish Indian Tribal Government in Kitsap County,
Washington, is claiming jurisdiction over the property and persons of all
residents living within the original exterior boundaries of the Port
Madkson Reservation Indian Reservation. Therefore the undersigned persons
who own property, or reside within these boundaries, petition the Presi-
dent and the Congress of the United States to uphold the validity of our
patent or fee simple lands; and to be relieved of the claims of the
present Suquamish Tribal Government that all residents in this area are
under their jurisdiction and shall be governed by them without represen-
tation. These patent lands were orighnally purchased from Indian allotted
lands, and there is nothing in the original abstracts that reserves
the right of jurisdiction over the new owners, by the Suquamish Indians.
"We respect the Indian right to govern themselves, if that be
their wish, but we also ask that our rights be protected by allowing us
to maintain our status af witizens of DX Kitsap County,
the State of Washington and the United States of America. No Tribal
Government of the Suquamish, until the present one, has insisted on
sovereignty rights over the non-Suquamich Indian population.
therefore, in the interests of the peace and welfare of all
citizens living in this area, do petition that the patent lands be
delated from the original boundaries of this reservation, and that this
area be recognized for that it presently is: approximately 2600 acres
of allotted lands owned by individual Indians and lived on by 50
members of the Euquamish Indian Tribe; approximately 4700 acres of fee
simple land lived on by 2928 non-Members of the Suquamish Tribe; and 36
acres of trinal lands, leased for 50 years to nom-Indians. (Februar7,
1974)
FILE FORD LIBRAS
September 20, 1974
George:
Kindly prepare a response for my signature.
I think we should do a fairly positive defense and
assertion of OEO/ONAP's authority to assist any
disadvantaged people because they are economically
disadvantaged (to use the OEO Act language) and
many of them happen to be Indian. Using this
authority, and spurred by the President's Message
of 1970 (quote it) ONAP aids many Indian recipients
both andand off Federally recognized reservations
and will continue to do so. BIA and HEW funds for
Federally recognized Indian tribes themselves have
gone from
in FY 1969 to
in FY 1975,
That kind of tone. Do you agree?
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
George Blue Spruce
ONAP/HEW
FORD is LIBRARY
September 20, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
WARREN RUSTAND
SUBJECT:
Presidential Schedule Proposals
In response to your good note of the 18th, the schedule proposal in
which my office currently has most interest is the pending one you
have for a Presidential meeting with national Indian leaders. I
was away when Dave Parker's memo came in asking me to propose
this, but in my absence Bill Casselman and Frank Zarb gave you
a recommendation.
As soon as you set a date, I will be glad to supply talking points if
you should wish, since I have had a five-year expierence with these
leaders and their problems. I can work up a briefing memorandum
in close coordination with Bill, Frank, Norm Ross and with
Commissioner Thompson. The best date for the Indian leaders
would, I think, come between October 3 and 18.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
FORD is LIBRARY 07V835
September 20, 1974
Dear Mr. Johnson:
The President has asked me to thank you for your telegram
of September 17. He appreciates your congratulations
and support.
The President is planning to have a meeting with Indian
leaders soon and will begin this process with the
Presidents of the National Tribal Chairman's Association
and of the National Congress of American Indians. My
advice would be that If you have specific problems with
the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act you start by
bringing them to the attention of Commissioner Thompson,
himself of course from Alaska, and the officer in the
best position to make an initial review with you of just what
problems are and what are the options for action.
Sincerely yours,
Bradley HI Patterson, Jr.
Mr. Ralph A. Johnson
President
Cook Inlet Region
Anchorage Alaska
bcc: Morris Thompson, BIA (with incoming telegram for file)
Central Files
BLUATO FORD LIBRARY
September 23, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
GEORGE BLUE SPRUCE
SUBJECT:
Letter from Illinois State
Representative Bruce Deuglas
Instead of writing Mr. Douglas in response to his letter, I telephoned
him. He was overseas, but returned and called me today and we
had a long talk. He claims he represents perhaps 15, 000 to 20,000
Chicago urban Indians. I explained why BIA keeps out of the urban
Indian picture, how your office inherited the Presidential (July 8,
1970) instructions to OEO to lead the urban Indian effort, explained
how the General Revenue Sharing, CETA, Hyusing and similar
acts now include urban Indian groups as eligible and mentioned (as
he know) that Indian Health had and limited seed money for urban Indian
projects. He asked if we would (a) put this in writing for him and
(b) be willing to help get a meeting together in Chicago with him
and with the appropriate regional people -- or have him come here
if necessary.
Do you have such a broad information sheet on the eligibilities
available for urban Indians, including CETA and housing etc? If
not, would you at least give him some of the specific statutory
citations and xerox the pages from the right statutes so he knows
where to start? I would appreciate it if you would write him on
the President's behalf (with a copy sent back to me) and mention
my conversation with him.
Please also discuss the possibility of a meeting, either in Chicago
or Washington.
Thank you,
FORD is LIBRARY GIVE
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
September 23, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION
SUBJECT:
Seneca Nation Letter re: Part A
of Title IV of the Indian Education
Act
I would appreciate it if you would respond to the attached letter on
behalf of the President. (My understanding is that there is a study
now under way to examine the possible overlaps in this area and
that pending the outcome of that study no appropriations for Part A
were requested.)
Kindly send me a copy of your response.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
FORD LIBRADT GIVE
September 23, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MARY BROOKS
DIRECTOR OF THE MINT
SUBJECT:
Nomination for the U.S. Assay
Commission
I am enclosing here the application of Mr. Rudi Saenger
for consideration for inclusion on the U.S. Assay
Commission for 1975.
I have met Mr. Saenger and have talked with him; he
particularly assures me that he is a numismatist as a
hobby and not as a dealer.
It seems that his application is sound on its own merits
and I forward it for appropriate consideration by you and
your staff.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
Honorable Mary Brooks
Director of the Mint
Department of the Treasury
Washington, D.C. 20220
FORDO 3 LIBRARY 07/820
September 24, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
DAVE WIMER
SUBJECT:
Candidate for the Legal Service
Corporation Board of Directors
Len has suggested that I send along to you this letter and resume
from David Getches of the Native American Rights Fund. NARF
has been one of the most skillful and helpful private institutions
in the country in supporting our whole new direction in Indian
policy and in protecting Indian rights. Although himself not
an Indian, David has been one of the principal leaders in NARF's
efforts.
Both his letter and his resume say a great deal about him and
his ideas and I hope that he can be given consideration, especially
since Indian legal matters will be one of the concerns of the
new Corporation.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
FORD in LIBRARY OTHER
September 24, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MORRIS THOMPSON
STAN POTTINGER
JOHN CARLSON
SUBJECT:
Telegram from
Dennie Banks
Even though some of the statements here are
easily rebutted and though the press will probably
be given this telegram, I do not plan to have a
response prepared unless I hear a contrary
recommendation from one of you.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
bec: Leonard Garment
Central Delive Files
FORD is LIBRAST
September 26, 1974
MEMORANDUM FOR:
MORRIS THOMPSON
STAN POTTINGER
JOHN CARLSON
KENT FRIZZELL
WALLACE JOHNSON
FRANK ZARB
BEN HOLMAN
SUBJECT:
Declaration of War from
the Kootenais
The attached communication was received in my office at 3:30 p.m.
today.
As some of you know, I had a long and, I would say, generally
friendly talk with Ms. Trice Monday or Tuesday night of this
week and tried very hard to persuade her to take up Commissioner
Thompson's offer of a breakfast meeting with her and her
colleagues in Spokane next Monday morning (he will be there
anyway for another meeting). She seemed quite reluctant --
trying to get Morrie or me to come to Bonner's Ferry instead.
So far, that is where things stand. Morrie and I both continue
to be opposed to the idea of either his or my running out on the
scene of every such threatened or actual confrontation.
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr.
FORD & LIBRARY 078829
CF F
September 30, 1974
MEETING WITH LEADERS OF THE
AMERICAN INDIAN COMMUNITY
Unscheduled
(15 minutes)
The Oval Office
I. PURPOSE
To reassure Indian people of your support for the
philosophy and goals of self-determination.
II. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS AND PRESS PLAN
A. Background:
1. Indian leaders first of all want reassurance that
the policy of "self-determination without termination",
set forth in a Special Message of 1970, is going to
be continued and in fact strengthened in this
Administration.
2. Indian leaders also would like to hear confirmation
from you that they will continued to be consulted
on matters which affect them -- a promise made
in 1970 and adhered to somewhat imperfectly since.
3. Five specific issues on Indian minds which you are
likely to hear about are:
a) Are we going to replace the defunct National
Council on Indian Opportunity with a new
Domestic Council or Cabinet Committee on
Indian Affairs?
FORD is LIBRARY 938870
Secretary Morton
Secretary Weinberger
Morris Thompson, Commissioner of Indian Affairs
Frank G. Zarb, Office of Management and Budget
Bradley H. Patterson, Jr., White House Staff
C.
Press Plan:
Press photo opportunity. Meeting to be announced.
III. TALKING POINTS
1.
I welcome you here today to assure you of my intention
of establishing lines of communication between my
Administration and Indian people across the country.
We will continue the policy of "self-determination" begun
in 1970; and we will build on that policy and strengthen
it in the future. The Indian legislative program proposed
in 1970 stands, and I seek your own cooperation in
persuading the Congress to move it.
2.
I recognise the importance of consultation with the Indian
Community before making major policy decisions. This
process will continue under my Administration and all
agencies have been instructed to carry on such a consultative
mechanism.
3.
If some of those five specific points are raised:
a) NCIO Replacement
BETORD is LIBRARY 070838
Yes, we do plan to establish a Cabinet Committee or
Domestic Council Committee on Indian Affairs, as
an internal Executive Branch coordinating body, to
ensure that the principal federal Departments
handling Indian matters (Interior, HEW, Justice,
Agriculture, Commerce, etc) work together and
speak as one voice.
b) FY 1976 Budget
Although we all recognize the present economic
constraints facing us, I will do everything in my
power to ensure that budget changes do not impact
the Indian people disproportionately.
c) White House/Executive Office Liaison Arrangements
I am still in the process of organising the staff here,
and do plan to have an office on the Domestic Council
or White House Staff which concerns itself with
Indian matters. In OMB, Mr. Zarb is the Assistant
Director with oversight over Interior's Indian
responsibilities.
d) Protection of Trust Rights
You do have my commitment that the Federal Executive
Branch will continue to carry out its responsibilities
to protect Indian trust lands and natural resources
rights. We hope very much to see the bill creating
an Indian Trust Counsel enacted, and would like
your own help in pushing this legislation.
e) Recognition of Eastern Indians
Only the Congress can extend this recognition -- by
legislation. If the history and circumstances of any
of the Eastern Indian bands duplicates that of the
Menominees, whom we did restore to Reservation
status, I would like to know of it. I am skeptical
of creating new Indian reservations at this point in
our history.
FORD LIBRARY is
b) How will the FY 1976 budget stringencies
affect Indian programs?
c) What kind of Indian liaison arrangements,
if any, do you plan to have in the White House/
Executive Office?
d) Will we continue vigorously to discharge our
trust responsibility for protecting Indian land,
water and fishing rights?
a) Ms. Attaquin and Mr. Strickland will want to
know your views about extending federal
recognition to the many small and mostly
landless Eastern Indian bands which they
represent.
Suggested answers are under "Talking Points".
At Tab A is a fact sheet summarising the very solid
accomplishments which have been realized for
Indian people in the past 5 years.
At Tab B is a summary of the major pending
legislation affecting Indians.
GERALD FORD LIBRARY
B. Participants:
Melford Tonasket, President of the National Congress
of American Indians, and Charles Trimble,
Executive Director of NCAI
Robert Lewis, President of the National Tribal
Chairmans' Association (and Governor of Zuni
Pueblo) and William Youpee, Executive Director
of NTCA
Helen Attaquin, President of the Coalition of Eastern
Native Americans, and W. J. Strickland, Executive
Director of CENA
LaDonna Harris, President of Americans for Indian
Opportunity (AIO)
Richard LaCourse, Director of the American Indian
Press Association