Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "6773712",
    "label": "Correspondence, August - September 1974",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6773712"
}

{
    "id": "6773712",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6773712",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Correspondence, August - September 1974",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6773712",
    "collections": [
        "Bradley H. Patterson Files (Ford Administration)",
        "Bradley Patterson's Native American Programs Files"
    ],
    "subjects": [
        "Indians of North America"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/7737/6773712/content/library/document/0142/6773712.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/7737/6773712/content/library/document/0142/6773712.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/7737/6773712/content/library/document/0142/6773712.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/6773712",
    "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"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/12/7737/6773712/content/library/document/0142/6773712.pdf",
    "mediaId": "c9176591fcc34726",
    "ocrText": "The original documents are located in Box 1, folder \"Correspondence, Aug. - Sept. 1974\" of\nthe Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nCopyright Notice\nThe copyright law of the United States (Title 17, United States Code) governs the making of\nphotocopies or other reproductions of copyrighted material. Gerald Ford donated to the United\nStates of America his copyrights in all of his unpublished writings in National Archives collections.\nWorks prepared by U.S. Government employees as part of their official duties are in the public\ndomain. The copyrights to materials written by other individuals or organizations are presumed to\nremain with them. If you think any of the information displayed in the PDF is subject to a valid\ncopyright claim, please contact the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library.\nDigitized from Box 1 of the Bradley H. Patterson Files at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library\nAugust 2, 1974\nDear Mr. Gallegos:\nBrad Patterson of my staff spoke to you the other day about\nFloyd McKissick's request on behalf of Soul City. Arthur\nReid is familiar with it over in OEO.\nI wanted you to know that in the White House and in HUD we\nall think highly of the Soul City enterprise, and HUD of\ncourse, among quite a few other agencies, has made major\nand concrete commitments to back up Floyd's new undertaking.\nIf OEO can see its way clear to handle this request for $85,000\nfor the next six months, if it has merit when judged by itself,\nand if Soul City's needs for the short term are as clear as\nFloyd describes them, I would endorse your doing whatever\nis possible.\nIn HUD, A1 Trevino of the New Communities Administration\nwould be one to touch base with for an independent evaluation.\nSincerely,\nLeonard Garment\nAssistant to the President\nMr. Bert Gallegos\nActing Director\nOffice of Economic Opportunity\nGERALD P. FORD\n1200 19th Street\nWashington, D.C.\nbec: A1 Trevino (with a copy of incoming correspondence)\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 5, 1974\nDear Ron,\nI appreciate having your letter of July 22 as a follow-up to our\nluncheon.\nA quick analysis of some of the attachments shows that the principal\ndecline in UL.contracts came from the Department of Labor and, of course,\nthat was attributable to the new Comprehensive Employment and Training\nAct which moved federally funded manpower programs from the posture\nof national contracts nationally awarded to one of local contracts awarded\nat local decision.\nMy office has been in touch with each of the project officers mentioned\non your list of \"National Urban League Resource Projects\" and what we\nhave been told is related in the attached paper. (If you have a different view\nof the facts, I certainly want to hear it.)\nSome of these projects, and what is happening to them, are a normal\npart of the process of granting or contracting, and of reviewing and im-\nproving performance under those grants or contracts. Some of the others,\nhowever, indicate some possible management looseness in the past, and\nallegedly an overly large slice for overhead in New York. I know you and\nVernon will push your associates to correct any deficiencies, and I urge\nyou to keep in close touch with the federal project officers in order to\nidentify weak spots as the contract goes along, rather than wait until\nrefunding time draws close.\nI think we both realize that local League affiliates will have to aggressively\nidentify manpower and other opportunities which are opening up on their\nrespective local scenes, since the whole approach of national contracting\nis being changed. If local contracts with UL affiliates are added to these\nnational projects, what do the totals show?\nFORD LIBRARY & GERALD\n- 2 -\nAgain, I am not vouching for the views in the attachment, but\npassing on what was reported to Brad. I would urge you, Ron, to let\nme know where your own view of the picture is different.\nIn any event, there are some other matters that I would like to discuss\nwith you, so please give me a call.\nSincerely,\nLen\nLeonard Garment\nAssistant to the President\nAttachment\nMr. Ronald H. Brown\nDirector, Washington Bureau\nNational Urban League, Inc.\n425 Thirteenth Street, N. W.\nSuite 515\nWashington, D. C. 20004\nFORD & LIBRARY GERALD\nSTATUS OF COMMENTS ON URBAN LEAGUE PROJECTS\n1. Manpower Development and\nNo special problems; likely to be\nTraining\nrefunded.\n2. Labor Education Advancement\nNo special problems; likely to be\nrefunded.\n3. Business Development\nExpected to be funded through the respective\nOMBE regional offices with contracts dated\nto begin August 1, 1974. In addition to the\n\"regionalization\" thrust, a national contract\nis not favored because of OMBE concern\nabout the NUL headquarters capabilities, i.e.\nre managing this project, communicating\nwith affiliates, and preparing budget and\nperformance data on what the affiliates\nwere doing.\n4. New Careers for Women\nReportedly another organization was funded.\n5. Student Intern\nThe NUL proposal was rejected because it\nwas not submitted by the required deadline\n(November 1) and because it did not include\nan eligible \"developing institution\" as part\nof its package. NUL should resubmit its\napplication in a timely manner this year.\nThere was a second grant in this area:\n$70,000 to the UL for cooperating with\nAlabama A and M to place faculty members\nin federal agencies for training. NUL wanted\nto double the grant amount to $140, 000 but\nthis was disproportionate in terms of\nAlabama A and M's own priorities.\n6. Drug Abuse Training and\nThe UL has submitted this proposal four\nEmployment\ntimes, according to the HEW officer, and\neach time HEW staff have worked with the\nUL to try to improve it and make it more\nacceptable. This year's proposal has been\nrejected by both the Review Group and the\nNational Advisory Council on the grounds\n- 2 -\n6. Drug Abuse Training and\nthat (a) a precise staffing pattern was not\nEmployment (continued)\nspecified, (b) no resumes of prospective\nstaff were submitted, (c) the training design\nwas inadequate, (d) the criteria for ad-\nmission of trainees were not spelled out,\n(e) the evaluation design was vague,\nmethods for obtaining evaluations not\nadduced, (f) the costs were high, the budget\nlacking in justification, the overhead heavy.\nHEW has actually given the UL a model of\njust how this proposal should be re-done,\nand HEW is open and willing to consider a\nnew proposal when submitted in accordance\nwith the model and the letters sent to the UL.\n7. Road Builders Service\nMoney in this program goes to the States.\nSometimes the States pass some of it back\nto the Federal government, requesting the\nFederal government to negotiate contracts\non the States' behalf, but it is done only at\nthe State request. There is no \"national\ncontract\" other than the specific ones which\nindividual States request. In this case, the\nwork has been completed in 3 States;\nwork remains to be done in one more.\nStates can make their own individual, direct\narrangements with the Urban League or\nwith local League affiliates.\n8. Enrichment of Community\nThis was a three year, one-shot contract\nHealth/HEW/PHS\nand UL was so informed; the current\nextensions are to close it out. Experience\nhas been spotty; overhead to the National\nUL office was quite large: 22.8% the first\nyear, 44. 7% the 2nd and 3rd years; even\nsome of the remaining funds were spent on\nstaff in New York. Commitments were\noccasionally changed so that work was done\nin cities meeting NUL's priorities rather\nthan the government's. Now cities and\ncounties have their own out-reach programs,\nand it is considered sounder to have them\nhire their own, local out-reach workers-\n- 3 -\n8. Enrichment of Community\nand fire them for poor performance--\nHealth/HEW/PHS (continued)\nrather than operate through remote\nNew York/Washington arrangements. Not\nlikely to be refunded.\n9. Pre-School Dental\nThis was a national contract with services\ndelivered at Columbia, S.C. and\nWestchester County, N.Y. But as of\nJune 30, 1974, the special project authority\nfor these contracts expired. Now the\nprogram is on a formula basis and only\nStates are the grantor. NUL performed\nsatisfactorily and has been advised which\nState officials to apply to.\n10. Work Evaluation on HEW/SRS\nThe purpose of this project is to develop\na model of how local UL affiliates can\nhelp local and States agencies, providing\nservices to the handicapped link those\nservices to the needs of the black community\nUL has done well in this effort and a model\nis being developed from experience in\nseveral localities. When the project is\nfinished in October and the model complete,\nthat will end the R&D phase; the next step\nwould be for individual UL affiliates to\ntake the model and, in effect, sell their\nservices to local and State agencies at\nlocal levels. Funding is federal funding\nbut via State and local agencies. HEW is\npleased to see the growing numbers of\nblack clients who, in fact, are being\nreached in the service programs affected.\n11. Advocacy in Support of\nBegun as a two-year R&D project\nMinority Aged\n(in Columbia, S. C., Chicago and California)\nnow in an extension in its third year for\npurpose of close-out, wrap-up of research,\nand evaluation. After some initial on-site\norganizational problems, UL did a\nsatisfactory job, so much so that in\nColumbia, S.C. the local UL affiliate has\nalready received a contract of this same\nkind from the State Agency on Aging. And\n- 4 -\n11. Advocacy in Support of\nthis will be the picture nationally from\nMinority Aged (continued)\nnow on: local operational programs will\nhave to convince local and State and\narea agencies on Aging that what this\nR&D project showed is worth continuing.\n12. Law Enforcement\nA two-year grant. Audit from first\nMinority Manpower\nyear turned up $100, 000 in questionable or\nunallowable expenditures, but no criminal\ncharges. National UL instructed to\nstraighten out its procedures so that (a)\nthe existing unallowables are refunded, and\n(b) the problem won't occur again. NUL\nhas sent in some assurances and these are\nnow being reviewed carefully by senior\nLEAA people so that they are satisfied\nthey meet the requirements. Refunding will\nbe held up until this review is complete.\nNo programmatic problems; decision soon.\n13. Early Childhood Program\nThis program has gone on for two years and\nfor Exceptional Children\nhas been refunded for a third year at the\nreduced level indicated on the UL's list\n($158, 000 instead of $332,000). This\nis a demonstration program to show how\nmoney can be leveraged out of other\ncommunity resources so that the program\nitself can be self-supporting; requires ex-\ncellent relationships with school boards,\nState Departments of Education, other local\nfunding sources. UL changed its Project\nDirectors often; allegedly did not get\nenough results for the money expended.\nOverhead to UL headquarters was high--\nGERALD\n$200, 000 out of one year's $332, 000 grant.\nTherefore, HEW has insisted that all of the\nrefunded program ($158, 000) go directly to\nchildren in the service area and if the UL\ncan show good management, concentrated\nfocus and results, there could be more\nmoney next year.\n- 5 -\n14. Family Planning/HEW/PHS\nThis was a project to provide concentrated\ntechnical assistance to three areas,\nAlbany, NY; Albany, Georgia; and Miami,\nFla. The first contract was very loosely\nwritten, according to the HEW officer\ncurrently in charge, and while the UL\nperformed legally under that contract, the\nnew contract is written very tightly and\nspecified performance and results are\nmandated. UL is going to be pressed hard\nto produce what the new contract calls for.\nPreviously the UL's project managers were\nrotated; overhead to the national UL\noffice was 44. 7%.\nGERALD\nAugust 28, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nKENT FRIZZELL, Solicitor, Department\nof the Interior\nFROM:\nBRADLEY H. PATTERSON, Jr.\nSUBJECT:\nExecutive Order for Presidential\nchartering of the Indian Fisheries\nCommission\nI am enclosing a copy of Hank Adams' correspondence in regard\nto a proposed draft for an Executive Order for Presidential chartering\nof the Indian Fisheries Commission for your consideration and\ncomment.\nIs Presidential action appropriate for this situation or should it be\nan Act of Congress or If neither, what would be an appropriate\nway to give the right kind of recognition to the new Commission?\ncc: Wallace Johnson, Justice\nGeorge Dysart, Interior\nCentral Files\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nAugust 30, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nROBERT SCHONING, Director of\nNational Marine Fisheries,\nDepartment of Commerce\nSUBJECT:\nConsultation with Indian fishing\ncommunity by the International\nPacific Salmon Commission\nFollowing up our telephone conversation of yesterday and our\nmeeting of last July 11, I am writing to express the active interest\nwe have in making sure that a full and open consultative process\nis opened up promptly between the U.S. Members of the International\nFacific Salmon Fisheries Commission and the Indian fisheries\ncommunity, especially in the geographic area covered by Judge\nBoldt's decision in United States v Washington,\nA formal way to do this would be to add an Indian member to the\nCommission's Advisory Committee. But if that takes time, or\nrequires international agreement, I believe that an equally effective\nand certainly more expeditous step would be for the three U.S.\nCommissioners to take the initiative and call a meeting of themselves\nwith the principal members of the newly formed Indian Fisheries\nCommission.\nI would not presume to say what the agenda would be or specifically\nwhat kind of proposed 1974 or 1975 regulations should be discussed\nin such a meeting; I am sure the Commissioners have many points\nfor discussion on their minds, certainly the Indians do.\nBut of several things I am certain: the United States Government\ndoes have a clear responsibility to consult with responsible\nIndian leadership on any matter affecting them; the Indian tribes\nin the U.S. v Washington area have acted responsibly by establishing\nthe Fisheries Commission, so there is a group of experienced and\nrepresentative Indian leaders to consult with; the United States\nFORD is LIBRARY 078870\nGovernment, further, has a responsibility affirmatively to protect\nIndian trust rights, in this case as Judge Boldt has set them forth.\nThat duty rests on the shoulders of all officers with a federal\nresponsibility, including the three U.S. Commissioners.\nPersonally I believe that the responsibilities we have under the\nSalmen Fisheries Convention and those we have under our trust\nrole to Indian people are compatible. Is will be up to the skill\nand good will of the Commissioners, their staff, and the Indian\nrepresentatives to work out together proposals which can then\nbe persuasively presented to the Canadian Commissioners. The\nonly way to do this is to begin the Commissioners-Indian dialogue\npromptly and to continue It regularly, with appropriate local\nand Washington staff attending to be of help. I would hope that\nthe first such meeting could be held this month; perhaps you\npersonally should attend to help make sure it gets off on the right\nfeet.\nThrough the Advisory Committee and in other ways, the Commissioners\nhave long had a dialogue going with non-Indian fisheries representatives.\nIn the spirit of the Boldt decision, it is time to begin the Indian\nconsultative process as well.\nPlease let me know when this process starts.\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\n001 Stewart Blow, Department of State\nKent Friszeil, Department of the Interior\nbee: George Dysart\nHarry Sachse\nCentral Files\nSeptember 4, 1974\nDear Mr. Eve:\nThank you for sending the President a copy of your\nletter of August 29 to Governor Wilson. We have\nbeen following news reports of the events in Western\nNew York, although are under the impression that\nthe matters are under either tribal or State, but\nnot Federal jurisdiction.\nI shall send your letter to the Commissioner of\nIndian Affairs, Morris Thompson, so that he will\nknow of your concern.\nSincerely yours,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nMr. Arthur O. Eve\n143rd District\nErie County\n1301 Fillmore Avenue\nBuffalo, New York 14211\nbec: Morris Thompson (BIA)\nCentral Files\nFORD is LIBRARY\nSeptember 6, 1974\nDear Mae:\nI understand you and your colleagues at the Ford Foundation\nare now considering the application from the Native American\nRights Fund for increased support. In that connection I\nthought it might be useful for you to have an indication of the\nvalue we attach to the NARF's efforts.\nThe NARF has helped make a watershed difference in recent\nAmerican Indian history. Its careful work laid the ground for\nthe landmark U.S. V Washington case in which the long, sorry\nstory of abrogation of Indian fishing rights in the Pacific\nNorthwest was reversed and rewritten. The Fund also was\na central mover in the legislative drafting which accomplished\nthe Menomine Restoration.\nThese are only two examples of the value of an institution such\nas the NARF, and are a testimony to the high professional\ncompetence of its staff and its legal work.\nThe quiet, solid, programmatic performance of independent\ninstitutions such as NARF will be even more important in the\nfuture. I am confident that continued support of this organization\nby the Ford Foundation would be welcomed by all who have a\ngenunine interest in and concern for Indian affairs.\nSincerely,\nLeonard Garment\nAssistant to the President\nMr. McGeorge Bundy\nPresident\nThe Ford Foundation\nNew York, New York\nbee: John Echohawk\nReid Chambers\nFORD is LIBRARY 070235\nCentral Tiles\nSeptember 6, 1974\nDear Mr. Begay:\nThe President has asked me to thank you for your letter of\nAugust 29 and for your good wishes. He certainly intends\nto be as forthcoming and progressive as was the previous\nAdministration in working for interests of the Indian people,\nnot as welfare, as you say, but as obligation and opportunity.\nWe shall continue to depend on the skills and resources of\nthe United Southwestern Tribes, Inc, and their constituent\nmembers to help us Identify the priority issues which need\nattention.\nI am particularly interested in your having raised the matter\nof the Bicentennial. May I make this suggestion: that you\nand your USET colleagues get in touch directly and promptly\nwith Mr. Wayne Chattin, a Blackfoot Indian who has recently\njoined the staff of the American Revolution Bicentennial\nAdministration and is located in Denver with the specific\nresponsibility of working with Indian groups and leaders on\nplans for the Bicentennial. Mr. Chattin's telephone number is\n(303) 234-4291 and I very much hope you can get in contact soon.\nCordially,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nMr. Eugene A. Begay\nExecutive Director\nUnited Southeastern Tribes, Inc.\n1970 Main St. Wood Building\nSarasota, Florida 33577\nbcc: Morris Thompson (with incoming)\nCentral Files\nR-FORD & LIBRARY\nSeptember 6, 1974\nDear Mr. Poolaw:\nThe President has asked me to thank you for your\nletter of August 24 and for your good wishes from\nOklahoma.\nYou can be sure that neither the President nor any\nof his associates are going to forget Indian people\nor their needs; we will certainly continue and improve\nupon the new directions set and progress made by\nthe Nixon Administration beginning with the historic\nMessage of July 8, 1970.\nI would be interested in learning more about the\nAmerican Indian Defense, Inc. and the programs\nand priorities in which it has special interest.\nSincerely yours,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nMr. Kent F. Poolaw, President\nAmerican Indian Defense\nBox 15\nAnadarko, Oklahoma 73005\nbcc: Central Files\nGERALD #: FORD\nSeptember 6, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nSTEVE KURZMAN\nAssistant Secretary 2 Legislation\nHealth, Education and Welfare\nSUBJECT:\nSocial Services Legislation and\nFederally Recognised Indian Tribes\nFollowing up my telephone call of today, I would appreciate the\nopportunity to sit down with you, Bill Morrill, Jim Dwight, Stan\nThomas and others there, plus Ted Krenske of the Bureau of\nIndian Affairs to explore whether, in the pending legislation concerning\nnew social services programs, we should not include authorisation\nfor federally recognized Indian tribes to be direct sponsors or\nrecipients, rather than have these new programs filter to tribes\nvia States and counties. (We should probably exclude AFDC here,\nsince those State-tribal relationships seem to be working satisfactorily.)\nAs you know, in the recent years, following the thrust of the July 8, 1970\nMessage, the Administration has moved in one case after another to\nespouse the idea that federally recognized Indian tribes should at least\nbe eligible to be prime sponsors or direct recipients of important\nfederal programs which benefit Indians. Beginning with the signing\nof the General Revenue-Sharing Act and more recently with the new\nCETA measure, community development, surplus government property\nand the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, we are making sure that\nsuch legislation has written into it at least the authority for the elected\ntribal governments of federally recognized tribes, as responsible\ngovernmental units in their own right, to step in and take over such\nprograms directly, rather than compete or stand hat in hand at State\ncapitals. This revised position of ours is greatly strengthened by\nthe practically unanimous conviction on the part of Indian leaders\nthemselves that they prefer this route, and that they consider themselves\nresponsible governmental units not in any way subordinate to State\nofficers, plans or planning boards. Of course all of BIA, plus HEW's\nown ONAP function according to this principle, and I know that the\nAdministration on Aging is considering including this kind of new\nprovision in its reauthorization legislation coming up.\nCould we have a session sometime soon among the people mentioned to\nexplore this further?\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nCCI Commissioner Thompson\nTed Krenske\nFORD is 07V839 LIBRARY\nSeptember 6, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJOHN WHITAKER\nSUBJECT:\nAIM Trial -- Contingency\nPlanning\nIt is at least a possibility that the AIM trial in St. Paul may\nresult in an acquittal. One needs little imagination to figure\nout the kind of statements which will come out of Banks,\nMeans and their sympathisers if that happens.\nMy suggestion: that you and Morrie do some contingency\nthinking about the kind of statement, if any, which the federal\ngovernment should make on the acquittal contingency. What\nwill responsible Indian people expect us to say? I think that\nMessrs. Hushen (White House) and Havel (Justice's new\nPress Officer) as well as Len and me will be interested to\nknow what you come up with.\nBradley H. Patterson\nCC: Mr. Thompson\nMr. Hushen\nMr. Havel\nFORD & 078838 LIBRARY\nSeptember 9, 1974\nDear Cap:\nOne of the most effective, because professional, organisations\nin the country rending service to Indian people is the Native\nAmerican Rights Fund of Boulder, Colorado. I have come\nacross numerous examples of their work and have found the\ncallber of their staff to be first-rate.\nNARF is now, I am told, negotiating with Mr. Blue Spruce of\nyour Office of Native American Programs, for a grant. On\nthe merits alone, I wanted you to know I consider the Fund\nas an outstanding candidate for assistance from the Federal\nExecutive Branch and hope that you and ONAP will give NARF's\napplication sympathetic consideration.\nSincerely,\nLeonard Garment\nAssistant to the President\nHonorable Caspor W. Weinberger\nSecretary\nHealth, Education and Welfare\nWashington, D.C.\nFORD & 07V830 LIBRARI\nCentral Files\nSeptember 10, 1974\nDear Ms. Sally Longo:\nYour request for the NCIO newsletter has been\nreceived in this office.\nI imagine you are not aware that the National\nCouncil on Indian Opportunity has recently been\ndissolved, soon to be replaced by a new, similar\nbody. Until such time as a new body is formed,\nI am receiving the NCIO correspondence.\nSincerely,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nMs. Sally Longo\nAlternate High School\n589 Washington Blvd.\nStamford, Connecticut 06902\nCentral Files\nFORD is GERALD LIBRARY\nSeptember 11, 1974\nDear Mr. Layton:\nThe President has asked me to thank you and Ms.\nMarshall for your letter of August 28 concerning\nthe wish of the Stellacoom Tribe for federal\nrecognition.\nThis is a matter which will take some careful\nreview and legal analysis within the Department of\nthe Interior, so I am forwarding your request\ndirectly to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs,\nthe Honorable Morris Thompson. After he has\nstudied your request I know you will hear from\nhim directly.\nSincerely yours,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nMr. Lewis Layton, Chairman\nSteilaconm Tribe of Indians\n13013 224th Street\nGraham, Washington 98338\nbcc: Morris Thompson (entire file to him for further response)\nCentral Files\nGERALD LIBRARY ? FORD\nSeptember 13, 1974\nDear Ms. Timson:\nYour letter of September 7, 1974, requesting several\ntypes of material concerning the problems and\nculture of our Native Americans, has been received\nin this office.\nI imagine you are not aware that the National Council\non Indian Opportunity has recently been dissolved, soon\nto be replaced by a new, similar body. Until such time,\nI am receiving the NCIO correspondence.\nI have taken the liberty of forwarding your letter directly\nto the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Honorable\nMorris Thompson. I am sure that the material you\nrequested will be sent as soon as possible.\nSincerely,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nMs. Helen Timson\nWayland Junior High School\n201 Main Street\nWayland, Massachusetts 01778\nCC: Honorable Morris Thompson\nGERALD & FORD LIBRAR,\nSeptember 16, 1974\nDear Mr. Waters:\nThank you for your letter of September 12th and the\nattachments.\nSince this seems to me to be primarily a matter of\nthe Civil Service laws and regulations, as you mention,\nI have forwarded copies of the materials you sent to\nMr. Kator.\nSincerely yours,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nMr. Richard Waters\n1425 Fourth Street S. W. #A 7\nWashington, D.C. 20024\nFORD is LIDBARY 038470\nSeptember 16, 1974\nDear Mr. Kelp:\nI am responding to your September 4th letter to Bob Robertson\nof the NCIO.\nThe NCIO, being a Cabinet Committee which never met as such,\nwent out of business on June 30.\nBut the line responsibility for the kind of questions you and Mrs. Villa\nhave raised is clearly the Bureau of Indian Affairs and they are still\nvery much in business.\nI am therefore forwarding your letter to the Office of BIA Commissioner\nMorris Thompson, himself an Indian, and I know you will get a\ndirect answer shortly. If you don't, let me know.\nSincerely yours,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nMr. Larry Kelp\nAction Line\nOakland Tribune\n401 Thirteenth Street\nBox 509\nOakland, California 94604\nbcc: Karen Ducheneaux\n@\nFORD & LIBRARY 07V830\nSeptember 16, 1974\nDear Irv:\nMr. Richard Waters, a former employee of the Civil\nRights Commission, has brought these papers to my\nattention.\nYour name is mentioned here, and I forward them\nto you for whatever action may be appropriate.\nSincerely,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nMr. Irving Kator\nU.S. Civil Service Commission\nWashington, D.C.\nCC: Mr. Louis Nunez, Deputy Staff Director\nCentral Files\nFORDO & 07V835 LIBRARY\nSeptember 16, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMORRIS THOMPSON\nOK\nKENT FRIZZELL\nok\nWALLACE JOHNSON\nNO\nJ. STANLEY POTTINGER\nOK\nSUBJECT:\nTribal Sovereignty\nThe President recently received the attached correspondence.\nIt raises a general policy question of which we are all roughly aware\nbut for which, as far as I can discover, none of us has done any\nspecific work in exploring the range of possible answers. Neither\nCourts nor Congress have declared themselves on this matter,\nalthough the Senate's passage of S 268 (not followed in the House)\ndid address it.\nRecognising that this issue is certain to be a matter of more and\nmore attention in the months ahead, I think we have an obligation\nto examine it and get some of our own ideas together preparatory\nto discussions we should have with Indian leaders themselves.\nI would like to invite each of you, in person or through a representative,\nto begin this exploration with me and propose the first of perhaps\nseveral informal meetings for Thursday, September 19 at 2:30 p.m.\nI intend to put together an option paper on this subject and particularly\nwould like, on Thursday, to get your advice on the questions and\nsub-issues which the paper should include. Please bring with you\nany administrative and/or legal references which bear specifically on\nthe issue raised in the attached papers.\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nFORD of LIBRARY 07VM\nCentral Files\nSeptember 18, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCOMMISSIONER MORRIS THOMPSON\nSUBJECT:\nResponse To Kootenai Nation Letter\nOf September 11, 1974\nConfirming our conversation of last night, you will be in touch\nwith Mr. Briscoe and prepare and sign a response to the\nKootenal Nation letter (the original incoming, which 1 received\nonly yesterday, is attached). It will be a response which recites\nthe positive things which are happening (e.g. 8. re S. 634, the\nChurch land exchange, etc.) which deals with as many of their\nquestions as is possible, and which designates an appropriate\nBIA official as a contact point for the Kootenais to talk with.\nIt will also be in telegraphic form to reach Bonner's Ferry\nbefore Friday night.\nThursday night. 12:00 midnight\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nCC: Frank Zarb\nJohn Carlson\nDennis Ickes\nFORDO : LIBRARY 07V830\nSeptember 18, 1974\nDear Mr. Moss:\nThe President has asked me to thank you for your letter of\nAugust 30 concerning the uniform testing guidelines which are\nbeing developed for application by businesses and by federal\nand local governments.\nI want to emphasize what you have stated, namely that these\nguidelines are only proposals and that they are still under\ndevelopment and consideration by the EEOCC. They will have\nto meet Supreme Court standards as set forth in the Griggs\ncase but as of now they are still subject to comment and further\ndiscussion. Letters and viewpoints such as yours are most\nhelpful in this process and I shall see to it that your letter is\ncirculated to Deputy Attorney General Silberman and the others\nwho are now working on this question.\nSincerely,\nLeonard Garment\nAssistant to the President\nMr. Wade L. Moss\nPersonnel Director\nCity and County of Montgomery\nCity Hall\nMontgomery, Alabama 36102\nbcc: Dave Rose, DOJ, CRD (for inclusion in comment letters circulated)\nCentral Files\nFORD & LIBRARY 07VS\nSeptember 19, 1974\nDear Mr. White Eagle:\nThis is in response to your letters to President Ford of August 23,\nand September 6, 1974 giving the Standing Rock Sloux Tribal Council's\nviews concerning certain statements, made by South Dakota public\nofficials.\nThe Department of Justice, which shares responsibility with the\nDepartment of the Interior for law enforcement on South Dakota\nIndian reservations in matters affecting the welfare of Indians and\nnon-Indians, is following activities and events on the reservations.\nThe Department of Justice believes that under current conditions\nand circumstances the existing law enforcement agencies on the\nreservations have the capability of handling the present law enforcement\nproblems. The Department will continue to be sensitive to the law\nenforcement needs on South Dakota Indian reservations and act\nappropriately to new situations which may threaten the lives and\nproperty of reservation residents where the situation is beyond the\ncapability of the reservation's available law enforcement agencies.\nI am enclosing for your information a copy of my letter to Governor\nKneip.\nSincerely,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nMr. Melvin White Eagle\nChairman\nStanding Rock Sloux Tribal Council\nFt. Yates, North Dakota 58538\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nCF\ncc: dakes\nbee Dick La Course\nZarb\nThompson\nSeptember 19, 1974\nDear Governor Kneip:\nThis is to keep you abreast of the Federal Government's activities\nin South Dakota as to the law enforcement problems relating to\njurisdiction on Indian reservations, and in further responce to your\nAugust 22 telegram.\nOn August 19, 1974, R. Dennis Ickes, Director of the Department of\nJustice's Office of Indian Rights arrived in South Dakota and in\nconjunction with the South Dakota United States Attorney's Office\nand the Bureau of Indian Affairs evaluated the law enforcement and\njurisdictional problems arising from recent Eighth Circuit and State\nSupreme Court decisions. On August 21, 1974, the United States\nAttorney and Mr. Ickes met with representatives from South Dakota\nAttorney General Kermit Sande's Office concerning the problem.\nTogether, Mr. Sande, Mr. Clayton and Mr. Ickes arranged for a\nmeeting in Sisseton of federal, State, and tribal officials who are\nresponsible for law enforcement on the Lake Traverse Reservation.\nThat meeting of approximately 40 law enforcement officials resulted\nin a better understanding of each governmental unit's jurisdictional\nresponsibilities and limitations.\nIn addition, a Memorandum of Understanding has been submitted by\nthe United States Attorney and Mr. Ickes to state and tribal officials,\nas well as to your office. This Memorandum, if agreed to by the\nproposed signators, would clarify to law enforcement officials and\nprosecutors the current jurisdictional status of the Lake Traverse\nReservation during this period of time when jurisdictional authority\nis under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. The Memorandum also\nseeks the pledge of mutual cooperation from the signators.\nThe Department of Justice and the Department of the Interior are\ncontinuing to watch the situation closely and will take appropriate\naction If new circumstances arise where the capability of the reservation's\navailable law enforcement agencies is exceeded.\nSincerely,\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nGovernor Richard F. Kneip\nState Capitol\nPierre, South Dakota\nFORD & LIBRARY 07/830\nCF\ncc: Ackes\nbcc: Dick LaCourse\nZarb\nThompson\nSeptember 19, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nATTENDEES\nSUBJECT:\nSeptember 18, 1974, Meeting on\nNorthwest Fisheries and Indian\nTrust Rights\n1. Allocation of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Extra $690,000\nAssistant Secretary Reed notified the meeting that these funds\nwould be split up among the Service, the Indians and the State of\nWashington and denied an allegation that all those funds would be\nallocated to the State alone. He confirmed that the USFWS Regional\nDirector had been instructed to consult with State and Indian leaders\nabout the allocation and invited Mr. Kinley, on behalf of the Indian\nFisheries Commission, to let him know, after the coming tripartite\nmeeting, what the IFC's recommendations would be concerning\nthe final allocation.\n2. BIA Support for Indian Fisheries Management\nMr. McDonald agreed to arrange for a meeting this week between\nthe Indian Fisheries representatives and the appropriate BIA\nbudget officers to discuss the allocation of the additional BIA funds\nwhich the Congress has approved, and also to review the question\nof FY 1976 recommendations.\n3. Membership of the Advisory Committee to the International Pacific\nSalmon Fisheries Commission\nState will check to ascertain what the procedures are for getting\nan additional member added to the U.S. section of the Advisory\nCommittee, i.e. an Indian representative.\nFORD is LIBRARI GTV825\n. 2 -\n4. The 1975 Fishing Season\nMr. Kinley assured the meeting that he and his colleagues have\ndrafted and will present, at the meeting with the U.S. Commissioners\non September 28, specific proposed Commission regulations for\nthe 1975 season. He described them as meeting what seemed to be\nthe agreed objective: providing general flexibility for the responsible\nauthorities on the U.S. side staying in conformity with the International\nConvention, to go ahead and make internal U.S. arrangements which\nwill, in turn, enable compliance with the Boldt decision. Mr. Kinley\nagreed to circulate copies of his proposed regulations to the principal\nattendees at the meeting.\n5. The Anadromous Fish Act\nIn answer to an inquiry, the NOAA representative indicated that the\nAct does permit direct grants to federally recognised Indian groups\nproviding that the latter's proposals meet the statutory program\nrequirements. A review will be made of this eligibility and any\nproposals submitted, especially for FY 1976. Mr. Patterson confirmed\nthat it was government policy to have federally recognized tribal\ngovernments be direct recipients of domestic assistance programs,\nand not force such tribal governments to receive this federal assistance\nthrough State governments. This is evidenced in a number of recent\nor pending legislative actions.\n6. List of Questions\nAt the conclusion of the meeting, the Indian representatives\nmade available a list of questions which had been prepared earlier\nbut not circulated; it was agreed that they would be circulated, attached\nhere, for the attention of the attendees.\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nLIST OF ATTENDEES\nSeptember 18, 1974\nNorthwest Fisheries and Indian Trust\nRights\nNAME\nAGENCY\nPHONE\nBrad Patterson\nW.H.\n456-2657\nNat Reed\nInterior\n343-4416\nLee Talbot\nCEQ\n382-1254\nGuy R. McMinds\nNWIFC\n(206) 276-4471\nDonald Dworsky\nOMB\n395-4993\nTed Perry\nFWS\n343-4767\nMike Spear\nFWS\n343-4767\nMichele Metrinko\nInterior\n343-4344\nF. L. Kinley\nNWIFC\n(206) 276-4471\nEdward S. Lazowska\nJustice\n739-2736\nBruce C. Rashhow\nJustice\n739-2779\nJohn H. Dunnigan\nNOAA\n(206) 442-4140\nJames W. Brennan\nNOAA\n967-3043\nHubert A. Becker\nSolicitor's Office\n343-9331\nSam St. Arnold\nBIA\n343-9468\nDon McDonald\nBIA\n343-5704\nHoward Borgetrom\nOMB\n395-4993\nWilliam L. Sullivan, Jr.\nState\n632-2335\nGERALD ? FORD\n- 2 -\nAl Burt\nState\n632-1727\nMarshall M. Cutsforth\nBIA\n258-2651\nCharles Peterson\nNWIFC\n645-2411 (206)\nHank Adams\nNWIFC\n(206) 486-1793\nAl Powers\nOMB\n395-4993\nSOVEREIGNTY OF INDIAN TRIBAL OVERNMENTS\nDiscussion Questions\nFORD is LIBRARY 07V819\nI. What does the history of Indian low up to now tell us is\n(present)\nthe status of Indian Tribal Government sovereignty over\nnon-Indians living on fee patent land within the exterior\nboundaries of a federally-recognized Indian reservation -- and\nover their property, water, and other rights? -- i;e. in the\nabsence of any new statute?\nWhat inherent sovereignty is there, if any? (in the\nCohen sense, in quote 4)\nIs it correct to assume to hat the General Allotment Act\nwas an act of Congress which in eff ct gave the\n\"citizens of Georgia\" the \"right to enter' the affected\nIndian Reservations and thus met the standard of\nWorcester V Georgba while vastly shrinking the tribal\nauthority desdribed in the first part of the first\nsentence quoted in # 5?\nDoes the last paragraph of Busterv Wright (quoted in\n# 8) still have force and effect for tribes dealing with\nnon-Indian fee patent property within their Reservation\nBoundaries? Dojes Hamilton V US (quote 9) ?\nOr\nWould it be true to say that the General Allotment Act\nitself \"destroyed or limited\" the sovereign powers of\ntribal governments (to use the Buster V Wright language)\nand/or created \"vested rights of persons now occupying\nReservation lands\" as referred to in the 1934 Solicitor's\nOpinion (quote 10) ?\n-- Does the legislative history of the General Allotment\nAct reveal any statement of Congressional intent as to\nlimiting Indiantribal sovereignty over the lands which were\n(a) allotted to Indians or (b) to come under non-Indian\nfee patent ownership? What was it? If so, was this\nintent erased or changed by the IRA in 1934?\nAre or are not zoning, hunting, fishing and ater rights\nthroughout Indian roservations matters \"of federal concern\nas that phrase is used in Cohen (quote 11, paras 3,4,5)?\nConversely, does State action asserting jurisdiction over\nzoning, water rights, etc on non-Indian fee patent land\n-2-\nwithin Indi an Reservations constitute an infringement\n24 \"on the right of reservation Indians to make their\nown laws and be ruled by them\" as this criterion is\nused inWilliams V Lee (quots 12) ?\nIn other words, what do we conclude about the authority, under\npresent law, of tribal governments to extend their jurisdiction to\nnon-Indians and their fee patent property? Does this authority exist\nor doesn't it?\nFORD & LIBRARY 078420\nII. Should we, **** in effect, abandon the effort to assert\nthat under some mixture of past principles, theories and Court\ndecisions, Indian tribal governments have powers over non-Indian\nfee lands within Reservations, and simply posit that this issue will\nhave to be a Congressional determination? If so, what positi on\nshould this Administration recommend that Congress take?\n--Is it correct that any jurisdiction the Congress would give\nto tribal governments over fee lands would be governed by the\nrequirements of due process (the Fifth Amendment, as invoked\nb y the Indian Civil Rights Act)?\n--If so, what would due process require if, as one would assume,\nthe non-Indian landowners could never vote in tribal\nelections or hold tribal office? In order words, would the\nun er those conditions)\nconferring ofany such jurisdiction automatically negate due\nprocess?\nIf so, where does that leave us:\ni - Change the Indian Civil Rights Act to excise the\napplication of the Fifth Amendment?\nii - Require Indian tribes to permit non-Indian property-\nowners to vote and hold O fice? (Not likely).\niii - G-t going with an eminent domain program to\nreverse the General Allotment Act and buy out non-Indian\nlandowners? (Expensive )\niv.- By statute, change the boundaries of Indian\nreservations to be defined as only the limits of\ntrust lands? ( Checkerboarding...)\nV. Leave things as they are except perhaps with a\nsense of the Congress resolution that all Tribes and\naffected Counties should use the Umatilla model?\nFORD is LIBRARY GERALD\nGOVERNMENTAL POWERS AND INDIAN SOVEREIGNTY\nis\nFORD\nLegal and Administrative References\nGERALD\nLIBRARY\n1. Articles of Confederation\nThe United States, inCongress assembled, was given \"the sole and\nexclusive right of \"regulating the trade and managing all the affairs\nwith the Indians, not members of any of the States: provided, that the\nlegislative power of any state within its own limits be not infringed\nor violated.\n2. U.S. Constitution\nThe Congress shall have Power To XXXXXXXXXX regulate Commerce\nwith foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the\nIndian Tribes; \" (Article I, Section 8)\nNo\nperson shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without\ndue process of law;\" (Amendment V)\n3. Comment from an Informed BIA Source\nLet us remember that the difference between Indiansand non-Indians\nin this question of tribal sovereignty is not at all a racial one.\nSuppose that the white \"discoverers\" of America had found white primitive\npeoples here (as for instance the Romans did in northern and western\nEurope). Just as the Romans did, the new colonizers would have op osed\nand suppressed the white primitive aboriginal peoples as they did in\nfact suppress \"Indian\" nations. For the purposes of this question, then,\nthe Indian tribes are XXX unique not because of their race, but because\nof their aboriginality: they had prior political institutions, and the\nconquering whites imposed their own, later, ones. The question of how\nthese two sets of institutions will relate to one another now ani in\nthe future is still a political/legal one, not a racial one.\nit. Cohen's Statement on the Scope of Tribal Self-Government\nPerhaps the mo st basic principle of allIndian law, supported by a\nhost of decisions her@inafter analyzed, is the principle that those powers\nwhich are lawfully vested in an Indian tribe are not, in general,\ndeleated powers granted by express acts of Congress, but bather inherent\npowers of a limited sovereignty which has never been extinguished. Each\nIndian tribe begins its relationship with the Federal Government as\na sovereign power, recognized as such in treaty and legislation. The\npowers of sovereignty have been limited from time to time by special\ntreaties and laws designed to take from the Indian tribes control\nof matters which, in the judgment of Congress, these tribes could no\nlonger be safely permitted to handle. The statutes of Congress,\nthen, must ge examined to determine the limitations of tribal sovereignty\nrather than to d etermine its sources of its positive content. What is\nnot expressly limited remains within the domañn of tribal\nsovereignty.' (Cohen, Chapter 7, page 122)\n5. Supreme Court Doctrine, 1832\n\"The Cherokee nation, then, is a distinct community, occupying\nits own territory, with boundaries accurately described, in which the\nlaws of Georgia can have no force, and which the citizens of Georgia\nhave no right to enter, but with the assent of the Cherokees themselves,\nor in conformity with treaties, and with the acts of Congress. The\nwhole intercourse between the United States and this nation, is, by our\nconstitution and laws, vested in the government of the United States. The\nact of the state of Georgia, underwhich the plain iff in error was\nprosecuted, is, consequently, void and the judgment a nullity.\"\n(Worcester V Georgia, 63 Pet 3XZX882X 515 (1832).\na\nFORD\n6. BIA Doctrine, 1886\n\"The great objection that is urged by the Indians to dissolving\ntheir tribal relations, allotting their lands, andmerging their political\nform of government into an organized Territory of the United States,\narises out of their excessive attachment to Indian tradition and\nnationality. I have great respect for those sentiments. They are pabriotic\nand noble impulses and principles. But is it not asking too much of the\nAmerican people to permit a political paradox to exist within their\nmidst -- nay, more, to ask and d emand that the people of this country\nshall forever burden themselves with the responsibility and expense of\nmainaaining and extending over these Indians its military arm, simply to\ngratify this sensimentality about a separate nationality?\n\"It is alleged that Congress has no power, in view of the treaties\nwith these Indians, to do away with their present form of government and\ninstitute in its stead a Terriborial government similar to those now exist-\ning in the eight organized Territories. While I greatly prefer that these\npeople should voluntarily change their form of government, yet it is\nperfectly plain to my mind that the treaties never contemplated the\nun-American and absurd idea of a separate nationality in our midst, with\npower as they may choose to organize a government of their own, or not\nto organize any government notr allow one to be organized, for the one\nproposition contains the other. These Indians have no right to obstruct\ncivilization and commerce and set up an exclusive claim to self-government,\nestablishing a government within a government, and then expect and claim\nthat the United States shall protect them from all harm, while insisting\nthat it shall not be the ultimate judge as to what is best to be done\nfor them in a political point of view. I repeat, to maintain any such\nview is to acknowledge a foreign sovereignty, with the right of\neminent domain, upon American soil -- a theory utterly repugnant to the\nspirit and genius of our laws, and wholly unwarrented by the Constitution\nof the United States. (Annual Reportof the Commissioner of Indian Affairs\n1886, quòted in Price's Law and the American Indiană, pages 679-80)\n7. Congressional Power over Treaties, 1903 (The Lone-Wolf Doctrine)\n\"In view of the legislative power possessed by Con ress over treaties\nwith the Indians and Indian tribal property, we may not specially con-\nsider the content pressed upon our notice that the signing by the\nIndians of the agreement of October 6, 1892, was obtained by fraudulent\nmisrepresentations and concealment, that the requisite three fourths of\nadult male Indians had not signed, as required by the twelfth article of\nthe treaty of 1867, and that the treaty as S gned had been amended by\nCongress without submitting such gmendments to the action of the\nIndians, since all these matters, in any event, were solely within the\ndomain of the legislative authority and its action is conclusive upon the\ncourts\n\"In effect the action of Con gress now complained of was but an\nexercise of such power\nWe must presume that Congress acted in\nperfect good faith in the dealings with the Indians of which complaint\nis made, and that the legislative branch of the government exercized\nits best judgment in th premises. In any event, as Cagress possessed\nfull power in the matter, the judiciary cannot question or inquire into\nthe motives which prompted the enactment of this legislation (Lone \"olf\nV Hitchcock, 187 US 553 (1903) as quoted from Price, pM 428).\n8. Doctrine on a Tribe's Taxing Power over Non-Indians Doing Business\nwithin Reservation Boundaries - 1906\n\"The authority of the Creek Nation to prescribe the terms upon which\nnoncitizens may transact business within its borders did not have its\norigin in act of Congress, treaty, or agre ment of the United States. It\nwas one of the inherent and essential attributes of its original\nsovereignty. It was a natural right that people, indispensable to its\nautonomy as a distinct tribe or nation, and it must remain an attribute\nof its government until by the agre ment of the nation itself, or by the\nspper power of the republic it is taken from it. Neither the authority\nnor the power of the United States to license its citizens for trade in\nthe Creek Nation, with or without the consent of that tribe, is in issue\nin this case, because the complainžants have no such licenses. The\nplenary power and lawful authority of the government of the United States\nby license, by treaty or by actX of Congress to t ake from the Breek\nNation every vestiga of its original or acquired governmental authority\nand power may be admitted, and for the purposes of this decision are here\nconceded. The fact remains, nevertheless, thatevery original\nattribute of the government of the Creek Nation still exists intact\nwhich has not been Matro destroyed or limited by act of Gengress or by\nthe contracts of the Creek tribe itself\nits\nauthority\nto\nfix\nthe\nterms\nupon which noncitizens might conduct business within its territorial\nboundaries guamantied by the treaties of 1832, 1856 and 1866, and sustained\nby repeated decisions of the courts and opinions of the Attorneys Gene ral\nof the United States, remained undisterbed\n\"It is said that the sale of these lots and the incorporation of\ncities and towns upon the sites in which the lots are found authorized by\nact of Congress to collect taxes for municipal purposes segregated the\ntown sites and the lots sold from the territory of the Creek Nation,\nand deprived it of governmental SKWAYS jurisdiction over this property and\nover its occupants. But the jurisdiction to govern the inhabitants of a\ncountry is not conditioned or Immited by the title to the land which\nthey occupy in it, or by the existence of municipalities therein endowed\nwith power to collect taxes for city purposes and to enact and enforce\nmunicipal ordinances. Neither the United States, nor a state, nor any\nother sovereignty loses the power to govern the people within its borders by\nthe existence of towns and cities therein endowed with the usual powers\nof municipálities, nor by the ownership nör occupancy of the land within\nits territorial juri@diction by citizens or foreigners.\" (Buster V Wright\n82 S.W. 855, 1904, as quoted in Cohen, Sage 142.\n9. Doctrine on Property of Licensed Traders - 1907\n\"In the case of James H. Hamilton V US, it appeared that land,\nbuildings, and personal property owned by the claimant, a licensed trader,\nwithin the Chickasaw Reservation, had been confimated by an act of the\nChickasww legislature. The plaintiff brought suit to recover damages on\nthe theory that such confiscation constituted an Indian depreda-\ntion. The Court of Claims dismissed the suit, declaring:\n\"The claimant by applying for and accepting a license\nto trade with the Chickasaw Indians, and subsequently\nacquiring property within the limits of their reserva-\ntion, sub jected the same to the jurisdiction of their\nlaws. (42 Ct. Claims 287 (1907), quoted in Cohen,\nFORDO is 074830 LIBRARY\npage 145.\nCohen sums up! \"It clearly appears, from the foregoNing cases,\nthat the powers of an Indian tribe are not limited to such powers as it\nmay exercise in its capacity as a ländowner. In its capacity as a sovereign,\nand inthe exercise of local self-government, it may exercise powers\nsimilar to those exercised by any state or nation in regulating the use\nand disposition of private property, save insofar as it is restricted\nby specific statutes of Congress.\" (p. 145)\n10. Interior Solititor's Opinion, 1934\n\"Over tribal lands, the tribe has the rights of a landowner as well\nas the rights of a local government, dominion as well as sovereignty.\nBut over all the lands of the reservation, whether owned by the tribe,\nby members thereof, or by outsiders, the tribe has the sovereign power\nof determining the conditions upon which persons ahall be permitted to\nenter its domain, to reside therein, and Co do business, provided only\nsuch determination it consistent withsapplicable federal law and does\nnot infringe any vested rights of persons now occupying reservation\nlands under lawful authority.' XSXSX (55 00 14, October 25, 1934)\n11. Cohen's Viewpoint, 1940\n\"The right of self-government is not something grant ed to the Indians\nby any act of Congress. It is rather an inherent and original right of\nthe Indian tribes, recognized by courts and legislators, a right of which\nthe Indian tribes never have been deprived.' (24 Minn. L. Rev. 145).\nPrice goes on to commen : \"Without 'inherent sovereignty', tribal\ngovernments may be limited to the powers granted by federal or state\ngovernments or rising from control of land. With inherent sovereignty,\nat least in certain areas, tribal actions are lawful unless their validity\nis limited by the United States Constitution or federal statutes. (p 676 )\nCohen sums up: state jurisdiction in any matters affecting\nIndians can be upheld only if one of two conditions is met: either that\nCongress has expressly delegated back to the state, or recognized in the\nstate, some power of government respecting Indians; or that a question\ninvolving Indians involves non-Indians to a degree which calls into\nplay the jurisdiction of a state government.\" (pge 117)\n\"If, where the subject matter is of federal concern, a non-Indian\nis subject to federal, rather than state jurisdiction, even for acts\noccurring outside of an Indian reservation, a fortiori he is subject to\nfederal jurisdiction for atts of federal concern committed within an\nIndian reservation. Indeed, there is a very broad realm of conduct in wh\nwhich non-Indians on an Indian reservation are subject to federal rather\nthan state power. (p 120).\n\"The mere fact that the locus of an event is on an Indian reserva-\ntion does not prevent the exercise of state juriddiction where the parties\ninvolved are not Indians and the subjedt matter of the t ransaction is not\nof federal concern.' (Cohen, page 121)\nThe foregoing sections may be summarized in two propositions:\n(1) In matters involving only Indians on an Indian reservation,\nthe state has no jurieddction in the absence of\nspecific legislation by Congress.\n(2) In all other cases, the state has jurisdiction unless\nthere is involved a subject matter of special federal\nconcern.\n12. The \"Infringement\" Test - 1958 - Supreme Court\nERALO FORD LIBRARY\n\"Justice Black pointed out that since Worcester, two government's\ninterests in\nIndian affairs had been acknowledged: the tribal governments'\ninterest in matters involving Indians on the reservation, and the\nfederal government's concern for Indian-non-Indian interactions.\n\"Prior to Williams, these two interests were protected from state\nintrusion by the general rule that states could not act in Indian\naffairs without explicit 6ongressional authorizzation. Williams re-\nformulated the rule as: 'Absent governing Acts of Congress, the\nquestion has always been whether the state action infringed onl the\nright of reservation Indians to make their own laws and be ruled by\nthem. it Implicit in this new 'infringement test' was the assumption\nthat there were some Indian matters in which the states couds assert\ntheir power without prior Fecderal permission. Thus the Court no longer\nrecognized totel federal preemption of Indian affairs, and to the\nextent states could now act in areas formerly reservedto the tribes,\nIndian autonomy was restricted. But there was a contradictory\nimplication in Williams' emphasis on tribal self-government and\nfederal authority over it. By emphasizing Indian power and prerogatives\nJustice Black suggested the existence of Indian interests distinct\nfrom the federal interest in Indian regulation -- interests which\npotentially merited défense against subordination to conflicting\ninterests of either the state or federal governments. Unfortunately\nthe boundaries between the competing interests recognized in Williams\nwere left unclarified by the Court's opinion. (Price, pp 197-98).\n(Williams V Lee is 358 US 217, 1958).\n13. Interior Solicitor's Views -- 1967\n\"Although it cannot be said that, for purposes of jurisdiction, the\nIndian reservation is wholly without territorial significance (because the\nspecial and exclusive jurisdictions over certain subject matters involving\nIndians which have been assigned to the Federal and tribal governments\nare frequently coterminous with the Indian reservati on or country), the\ntouchstone os jurisdiction in cases involving Indians is ultimately\nneither personal status nor the situs of activity. It is, rather, the\nsubject matters\n\"The shibboleth that a state categorically is without jurisdiction\nover Indians on Indian reservations does not survive analysis. The hoary\nauthbrities customarily cited to support it, products of an era in which\nIndian tribes were truly regarded and treated as foreign nations, have\nlittle relèvance in the se enth decade of the 20th Century.\n\"There is no generic bar to a state's exercising jurisdiction over\nIndians on reservations. There are, however, broad classes of matters\n**** which have been subjected by Federal law to exclusive Federal or\ntribal gognizance. Internal governmentMX and the relations of members\ninter se are examples of classes of matters over which jurisdiction\nhas been left by the Federal Government largely in the tribes. The test\nof the propriety of state actions which approaches these areas is whether\nit interferes with powers reserved to the tribes.\" (74 ID 397, 1967)\n14. William Schaab Viewpoint - 1968\nis\nFORD\n07\n\"Chief among the outdated court-created doctrines is the theory that\nLIBRARY\ntribal self-government is exercised on the basis of a primordial right\ninsteadMX of congressional enactments. That doctrine of \"residual\nsobereignty\" was given wide currency by Felix Cohen as \"the most basic\nprinciple of all Indian law. \" The doctrine has come to permeate the\njudicial view of Indian tribes, articularly in those cases where the\ncourts have refused to intervene in disputes involving Indians. Although\nthe factual basis for the doterine was originally sound, history has\nchanged the facts and the doctrine should now be discarded JudKicial\npower should be withheld from cases involving Indian tribes or individual\nIndians only because intervention would violate a federal statute or\nsome clearly defined ZMSXEM congressional policy. Towithhold judicial\nremedies only because Indian tribes at the beg nning of thel th Century\nwere treated as separate \"nations\" is to refuse justice without reason.\n\"The courts should replace the doctrine of residual sovereignty\nwith a new doctrine based on Con ress' present policies, beginning with th\nthe Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 Those policies require that the\ncourts and the protections of the Federal Constitution be available to\nnon-Indians who enter into commercial relati ns with Indian tribes.\nThe Indian Reorganization Act was not intended fo recognize or confirm\nself-government by the Indian bribes on thebasis of a primordial right.\nCongress realized that the Act was necessary because Indian government\nhad \"disintegrated\" under prior federal policies and the Indians needed\nan expression of Congress' on fidence in their ability to govern them-\nselves. In the Act 'ongress sought to create a new system of tribal\ngovernment. Upon acceptance of the Act, the tribe could exercise limited\nrights of self-government under a tribal constitution approved by the\nSecretary and obtain \"the devices of modern business organization\" by\nreceiving from the Secretary a tribal corporate charter. Those charters\nbecame% the foundation of its government; primordial rights were\nthe reby extinguished.\" (8 Nat. Resurces Journal 303, 1968), quoted in\nPrice, pp 635-6).\n15. President Nixon's Indian Message - 1970\n\"Hhis, then, must be goal of any new national policy toward the Indian\npeople: to strengthen the Indian's sense of autonomy without threatening\nhis sense of community. We must assure the Indian that he can assume\ncontrol of his own life without being separated involuntarily from the\nMMMMY tribal group. And we must make it clear that Indiana can become\nindependent of federal control without being cut off from Federal concern\nand federal support.\" (July 8½ 1970).\n16. Opinion of the Attorney General of the State of Washington - 1970\n\"\nno county in this State would have authority to encumber by means\nof a zoning ordinance tribal or allotted lands on an Indian reservation\neven though the tribe was one which had petitined for complete state\ncivil and criminal jurisdiction under the 1957 act and state jurisdiction\nhad been a sumed. However, the decision in that case does not preclude\na county from enacting a valid zoning ordinance which COV rs the entire\ncounty including fee patent lands within the exterior boundaries of an\nIndian reservation.\n\"The only question which remains to be explored is whether fee\npatent land whthin the exterior boundaries of an Indian reservation\ncomes within the soppe of the term \"Indian country' and thus, somehow,\ngives the tribal council or the tribe itself some sort of inherent\nauthority which would enable it to retain the jurisdiction to zone all\nof the land within the reservati on inclluding fee patent lands. We have be\nbeen unable to find any legal authority whi to suoport such a theory,\nwhich was to some extent relied upon in a recent legal opinion on the\nsubject by the prosecuting attorney og Gray's Harbor county.\"\n\"Accordinaly it is our conclusion that a county has authority to\nenact a zoning ordinance to govern 'fee patent land' located within the\nexterior boundaries of an Indian reservation.\" (AGO 1970 Nol 11, June\n4, 1970).\n17. NW Area Regional Solititor's Views - 1971\n\"In response to your first question, we do not know of any authority\nwhich holds that an Indiantribe or the Secretary of the Interior has\nauthority to regulate the use of non-trust property within the boundaries\nof an Indian reservation. Converselyly we are not aware of any authority\nholding that an Indian tribe does not have such authority. We are aware\nthat Indian tribes have requested the Secretary of the Interior for the\napproval of regulations restricting the use of fee land within\nreservation boundaries SO as to be compatible with tribal comprehensive\nzoning regulations. However, the Secretary has refused to approve such\nregulations as they a ffect fee land. He has suggested the tribe\ncoordinate its zming with that of the county or municipality to achieve\ncomprehensive zoning for all lands within the reservation.\n\"We have been attempting to give this matter serious study as it\nis aX common problem toall reserVations in the Northwest. Trbbes are\nencouraged to conduct land use studies and to control land use within\nthe reservation, but it is of little value unless the fee land can be\ncontrolled as well. !? (Memorandum dated December 14, 1971\n18. NW Area Regional Solicitor's Statement - 1973\n\"We are faced with several possible alternatives:\n1. The counties have exclusive authbrity to regulate the use of\nall lands on a reservation, trust as well as fee.\n2i. The tribal councils and the Secretary of the Interior have\nexchusive authority to regulate the use of all lands on a\nreservation, fee ad well as trust.\n3. The ttribal councils and the Sedretary have exclusive juris-\ndicti n to regulate the use of trust lands and the county has\nexclusive jurisdiction over fee lands, each without regard\nto the other.\n4. The tribal councils and the Secretary should enter into\ncooperative agreements to provide for the regulation of all\nlands on a reservation based upon one plan.\nBased upon legal precedent, we know that the county does nd have\nthe authority set forth in alternative No. 1. (See 25 UFR 1.4). From\nexperience we knod that alternative 3 is not workeble. This leaves\nNos. 2 and 4. We also have the question of what huspens effect, if\nany, the acceptance of PL 280 has upon these alternatives.\"\n(Memorandum of March 31, 1972).\n19. Monroe Price's Own Comments and Questions - 1973\n\"Assuming the reservation exerts governmental controls over a\nnon-Indian (or integrated) subdivision located on trust land: will the\ntribe be permitted to exclude non-Indians from erercising the franchise?\nAnd what occurs when there is a non-Indian majority living on the\nreservation because of the construction of relatively dense sub-\ndivisions? Political change aside, can the tribe establish criteria for\nthe distribution of its resources which discrminate between members and\nnon-members? Willit be permitted SO to zone and arrange the reservation\nthat portions of it remain free from non-Indian insrusion and settle-\nment?\n\"Although tribes have purported to continue to exert control over\nnon-Indian residential subdivisions located on reservations, their sus-\ntained power to do SO is doubtful. The Supreme Court has recognized the\npower of the states toX enact laws concerning certain activity by\nnon-Indians on Indian reservations, espeadally in criminal cases. The\nextent of that nower is subject to come debate -- whether, for example,\nit exists in the absence of federal legislation to the contrary, or\nwhether it must be spefifically granted by federal legislation, whether\nit interferes with KM tribal autonomy and what constitutes such inter-\nference. But the power has been growing, and, unless checked, will con-\ntinue to grow. Indeed, non-Indians, living in subdivisions created on\nIndian reservations will demand either modification of tribel governance,\na degree of autonomy, or subjection to state and county rules and\nenforcement rights. Inevitably, the non-Indian subdivision will be\nintegrated into the state into which it is located. (Price, P 606).\n20. Tulalip Zoming Ordinance -- Comments by the Regional Solicitor - 1973\nOrdinance Number 35 was passed June 2, 1973. \" said Tribe does\nhereby assert jurisdiction over the use of all lands located and lying\nwithin the boundaries of the Thablip Indian Reservation ask created by\nthe Treaty with the Dwwamish and Allied Tribes of January 22, 1955\n=\nSupseintendent commented in a letter to the tribal chairman of\nJune 20, 1973: \"In a discuss on with the Office of the Regional Solicitor,\nit was brought to my attention that a Tribe's zoning authority on non-\nTrust lands has never been clearly established. He further felt that\nthis authority could only be determined through court decisions over St\nperiod of time. The Solicitor though further felt that the Secretary\ndid not have any power that would relate to non-Indian lands. Thefefore,\napproval or disapproval action in respect to these lands would not have\nany \"Borce or effect in relation to zoning questions. \"\n21. SX2X68 S 268 - 1973\nSection 503 (b) includes the following language: tribes would be\nauthorized to:\n\"enact zoning ordinances or otherwise to regulate the use of\nthe reservation and other tribal lands of such tribe, subject\nto the approval of the Secretary. \"\nThe Report on the bill states: \"While existing law clearly appears\nto permit an Indian tribe, in its quasi-sovereign capacity and in the\nexercise of local self-government, to exercise powers similar to those\nexercised by any state or municipal coproration in regulating the use\nand disposition of private property within its jurisdicti n, the\nCommittee thought it desirable expressly to set forth within the act\ntribal zoning and other regulatory powers over reservation and other tribal\nlands. Any concern that an Indian tribe might seek to adopt an\nunreasonable land use regulation is avoided by making zoning regulations\nsubjedt to approval by the Secretary of the Interior.\"\n22. Kkg NW Regional Solicitor Views -- 1973\n\"We believe that one of the most pressing problems Confronting\nthe various Indian tribes in our area, second only to the regulation\nof water, is the need for land use regulations.\n\"All reservations are surrounded by lands which are subject to zoning\nor land use planning by states, counties and cities, leaving reservation\nlands unregulated. As a result, reservations near heavily populated areas\nare finding an influx of non-Indians seeking to make use of unregulated\nlands. Efforts of tribes to bring this situati on under control are met\nwith the age-old trust-non-trust, dual jurisdiction dilemma\n...\n\"Unless thEre is clarifying logislation in this field, there can be\nno meaningful land use planning on reservations, leaving them with the only\nunrestricted lands in the United States (assuming the National Land Use\nPolicy Bill is passed without authorizing KMM tribes to zone all lands\nof a reservation.) There rema ins only the unsatisfactory procedure of\ncounties zoning fee lands and the tribes, with secretarial approval,\nzoning trust lands. Even this does not solve the problem of zoning lands\npartially haz in fee and partially in trust status. \" (Exceprts from\na memoranduri of November 27, 1973).\n23. Oliphant V Schlie, January, 1974\n\"The Judge restricted his decision to the geographic area or\nterritory known as Government Lot 3, wh is held in trust for the\nTribe, and specifically indicated that he was not determining whether\nor not the Suquamish Tribe or its Tribal Court could exercise jurisdiction\nover non-Indians on the unrestricted fee lands within the boundaries of\nthe Port Madison Reservation.\" (Excepp t from Regional Solicitor memo\nof January 21, 1974)\n24. Umatilla Zoning Ordinance, February 6, 1974\nThis \"interim\" ordinance was approved on February 6, 1974, signed\nby the three Commissioners of Umatilla County and by the Board of Trustees\nof the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla India n Reservation.\n\"Remedies on Trust Lands section provides for the Board of Trustees\nto levy a fine of $100 for each violation and sue for an injunction\n\"in a court of competent jurisdiction.\"\n\"Remedies on Deeded Lands\" section specifies that violations will be\nsubject to any of three (cited) of the Oregon Revi sed ZStatutes.\nlands. Any concern that an Indian tribe might seek to adopt an\nunreasonable land uso regulation is avoided by making zöning regular Dinso\nsubjedt to approval by the Secretary of the Interior.\"\nERALD\n22. KEX NW Regional Solicitor S Views -- 1973\nLIBRARY\n\"We believe that one of the most pressing problems confronting\nthe various Indian tribes in our area, second only to the regulation\nof water, is the need for land use regulations.\n\"All reservations are surrounded by lands which are subject to zoning\nor land use planning by states, counties and cities, leaving reservation\nlands unregulated. As a result, reservations near heavily populated areas\nare finding an influx of non-Indians seeking to make use of unregulated\nlands. Efforts of tribes to bring this situati on under control are met\nwith the age-old trust-non-trust, dual jurisdiction dilemma\n\"Unless thkere is clarifying logislation in this field, there can be\nno meaningful land use planning on reservations, leaving them with the only\nunrestricted lands in the United States (assuming the National Land Use\nPolicy Bill is passed without authorizing XMX tribes to zone all lands\nof a reservation.) There remains only the unsatisfactory procedure of\ncounties zoning fee lands and the tribes, with secretarial approval,\nzoning trust lands. Even this does not solve the problem of zoning lands\npartially het in fee and partially in trust status.\" (Exceprts from\na memorandum of November 27, 1973).\n23. Oliphant V Schlie, January, 1974\n\"The Judge restricted his decision to the goographic area or\nterritory known as Government Lot 3, wh ch is held in trust for the\nTribe, and specifically indicated that he was not determining whether\nor not the Suquamish Tribe or its Tribal Court could exercise jurisdiction\nover non-Indians on the unrestricted fee lands within the boundaries of\nthe Port Madison Reservation.\" (Excepp t from Regional Solicitor memo\nof January 31, 1974)\n24. Umatilla Zoning Ordinance, February 6, 1974\nThis \"interim\" ordinance was approved on February 6, 1974, signed\nby the three Commissioners of Umatilla County and by the Board of Trustees\nof the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla India n Reservation.\n\"Remedies on Trust Lands section provides for the Board of Trustees\nto levy a fine of $100 for each violation and sue for an injunction\n\"in a court of competent jurisdiction.\n\"Remedies on Deeded Lands\" section specifies that violations will be\nsubject to any of three (cited) of the Oregon Revi sed ZStatutes.\n25. Warm Springs Zoning Ordinance, January 22, 1974 Comments by NW\nRegional Solicitor\n\"As to the authority of the Warm Springs Tribes to enforce the\nordinance against fee lands, we can only repeat what we have stated before-\nthere is no legal precedent either supcorting such authority or refuting\nit. We believe that the Tribes may have success in enforcement of the\nordinance as against members of the Warn Springs Tribe who own\nfee lands, especially where the enforement involves actions against the\nindividuals rather than against the land. If it has been determined by the\nproperty authority of the Tribes that this ordinance is necessary for the\nhealth and welfare of its members, the control of its own members as to\ntheir conduct within the Reservation -- even if the domduct involves\nthe use of fee land -- could well come within the cope of tribal\nauthority.\"\n\"The most difficult question concerns the enforcement as to FORD\nnon-Indian fee owners, especially as to resident non-Indian fee owners,\nThe latter group could seriously charge that the enforcement of the\nordinance againstthem, without their participation in the legislative\nLIBRARI\nprocess of its adoption, has denied those who reside within the\nreservation of the equal protection of the laws. 25 USC 1302(8). In\nother words, the resident non-Indian would be subject to the restrictions\nplaced upon the use of his land, although 2zizz he had been excluded\nby the law of the tribes from participating in the endactment thereof. \"\n\"As we have urged on numerous occasi ns, we believe the answer\nmust come through congressional authorization\n(Excerpt from a memorandum dated March 19, 1974)\n26. Confederated Salish and Kootenal Tribes V Namen (August, 1974)\nExcerpts from the Distrit Judge's Order and Memorandum Opinion:\n\"While the Flathead Reservation continues to exist, and the\nland within its original exterior boundaries is still Indian country,\nit would defy reality to hold that the entire Reservation presently\nexists for 'the exclusive use and benefit' of the Tribes. (p. 28)\n\"Where the United States holdstitle in trust for Indian tribes,\nfederal common law /and not Tribal law/ is applicable to a\ndetermination of the extent of a federal grant, despite the lack\nof any Congressional language to that effect. \" (P.21).\n27. Suqmanish Law and Order Ordinance (recent but exact date unknown)\n\"The Tribal Court of the Suquamish Tribe shall have jurisdiction\nover all persons who enter the exterior boundaries of the Port\nMadison Reservation for whatever purpose;\n\"\n\"The territorial jurisdiction of the Trial Court of the\nPort Madison Reservation shall embrace all land and property within\nthe exterior original boundaries of the Port Madison Reservation.\"\n(Excerpts)\n28. Petition of Port Madison non-Suqmamish Residents owning Fee Lands\n\"The present Suquarish Indian Tribal Government in Kitsap County,\nWashington, is claiming jurisdiction over the property and persons of all\nresidents living within the original exterior boundaries of the Port\nMadkson Reservation Indian Reservation. Therefore the undersigned persons\nwho own property, or reside within these boundaries, petition the Presi-\ndent and the Congress of the United States to uphold the validity of our\npatent or fee simple lands; and to be relieved of the claims of the\npresent Suquamish Tribal Government that all residents in this area are\nunder their jurisdiction and shall be governed by them without represen-\ntation. These patent lands were orighnally purchased from Indian allotted\nlands, and there is nothing in the original abstracts that reserves\nthe right of jurisdiction over the new owners, by the Suquamish Indians.\n\"We respect the Indian right to govern themselves, if that be\ntheir wish, but we also ask that our rights be protected by allowing us\nto maintain our status af witizens of DX Kitsap County,\nthe State of Washington and the United States of America. No Tribal\nGovernment of the Suquamish, until the present one, has insisted on\nsovereignty rights over the non-Suquamich Indian population.\ntherefore, in the interests of the peace and welfare of all\ncitizens living in this area, do petition that the patent lands be\ndelated from the original boundaries of this reservation, and that this\narea be recognized for that it presently is: approximately 2600 acres\nof allotted lands owned by individual Indians and lived on by 50\nmembers of the Euquamish Indian Tribe; approximately 4700 acres of fee\nsimple land lived on by 2928 non-Members of the Suquamish Tribe; and 36\nacres of trinal lands, leased for 50 years to nom-Indians. (Februar7,\n1974)\nFILE FORD LIBRAS\nSeptember 20, 1974\nGeorge:\nKindly prepare a response for my signature.\nI think we should do a fairly positive defense and\nassertion of OEO/ONAP's authority to assist any\ndisadvantaged people because they are economically\ndisadvantaged (to use the OEO Act language) and\nmany of them happen to be Indian. Using this\nauthority, and spurred by the President's Message\nof 1970 (quote it) ONAP aids many Indian recipients\nboth andand off Federally recognized reservations\nand will continue to do so. BIA and HEW funds for\nFederally recognized Indian tribes themselves have\ngone from\nin FY 1969 to\nin FY 1975,\nThat kind of tone. Do you agree?\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nGeorge Blue Spruce\nONAP/HEW\nFORD is LIBRARY\nSeptember 20, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nWARREN RUSTAND\nSUBJECT:\nPresidential Schedule Proposals\nIn response to your good note of the 18th, the schedule proposal in\nwhich my office currently has most interest is the pending one you\nhave for a Presidential meeting with national Indian leaders. I\nwas away when Dave Parker's memo came in asking me to propose\nthis, but in my absence Bill Casselman and Frank Zarb gave you\na recommendation.\nAs soon as you set a date, I will be glad to supply talking points if\nyou should wish, since I have had a five-year expierence with these\nleaders and their problems. I can work up a briefing memorandum\nin close coordination with Bill, Frank, Norm Ross and with\nCommissioner Thompson. The best date for the Indian leaders\nwould, I think, come between October 3 and 18.\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nFORD is LIBRARY 07V835\nSeptember 20, 1974\nDear Mr. Johnson:\nThe President has asked me to thank you for your telegram\nof September 17. He appreciates your congratulations\nand support.\nThe President is planning to have a meeting with Indian\nleaders soon and will begin this process with the\nPresidents of the National Tribal Chairman's Association\nand of the National Congress of American Indians. My\nadvice would be that If you have specific problems with\nthe Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act you start by\nbringing them to the attention of Commissioner Thompson,\nhimself of course from Alaska, and the officer in the\nbest position to make an initial review with you of just what\nproblems are and what are the options for action.\nSincerely yours,\nBradley HI Patterson, Jr.\nMr. Ralph A. Johnson\nPresident\nCook Inlet Region\nAnchorage Alaska\nbcc: Morris Thompson, BIA (with incoming telegram for file)\nCentral Files\nBLUATO FORD LIBRARY\nSeptember 23, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nGEORGE BLUE SPRUCE\nSUBJECT:\nLetter from Illinois State\nRepresentative Bruce Deuglas\nInstead of writing Mr. Douglas in response to his letter, I telephoned\nhim. He was overseas, but returned and called me today and we\nhad a long talk. He claims he represents perhaps 15, 000 to 20,000\nChicago urban Indians. I explained why BIA keeps out of the urban\nIndian picture, how your office inherited the Presidential (July 8,\n1970) instructions to OEO to lead the urban Indian effort, explained\nhow the General Revenue Sharing, CETA, Hyusing and similar\nacts now include urban Indian groups as eligible and mentioned (as\nhe know) that Indian Health had and limited seed money for urban Indian\nprojects. He asked if we would (a) put this in writing for him and\n(b) be willing to help get a meeting together in Chicago with him\nand with the appropriate regional people -- or have him come here\nif necessary.\nDo you have such a broad information sheet on the eligibilities\navailable for urban Indians, including CETA and housing etc? If\nnot, would you at least give him some of the specific statutory\ncitations and xerox the pages from the right statutes so he knows\nwhere to start? I would appreciate it if you would write him on\nthe President's behalf (with a copy sent back to me) and mention\nmy conversation with him.\nPlease also discuss the possibility of a meeting, either in Chicago\nor Washington.\nThank you,\nFORD is LIBRARY GIVE\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nSeptember 23, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION\nSUBJECT:\nSeneca Nation Letter re: Part A\nof Title IV of the Indian Education\nAct\nI would appreciate it if you would respond to the attached letter on\nbehalf of the President. (My understanding is that there is a study\nnow under way to examine the possible overlaps in this area and\nthat pending the outcome of that study no appropriations for Part A\nwere requested.)\nKindly send me a copy of your response.\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nFORD LIBRADT GIVE\nSeptember 23, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMARY BROOKS\nDIRECTOR OF THE MINT\nSUBJECT:\nNomination for the U.S. Assay\nCommission\nI am enclosing here the application of Mr. Rudi Saenger\nfor consideration for inclusion on the U.S. Assay\nCommission for 1975.\nI have met Mr. Saenger and have talked with him; he\nparticularly assures me that he is a numismatist as a\nhobby and not as a dealer.\nIt seems that his application is sound on its own merits\nand I forward it for appropriate consideration by you and\nyour staff.\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nHonorable Mary Brooks\nDirector of the Mint\nDepartment of the Treasury\nWashington, D.C. 20220\nFORDO 3 LIBRARY 07/820\nSeptember 24, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nDAVE WIMER\nSUBJECT:\nCandidate for the Legal Service\nCorporation Board of Directors\nLen has suggested that I send along to you this letter and resume\nfrom David Getches of the Native American Rights Fund. NARF\nhas been one of the most skillful and helpful private institutions\nin the country in supporting our whole new direction in Indian\npolicy and in protecting Indian rights. Although himself not\nan Indian, David has been one of the principal leaders in NARF's\nefforts.\nBoth his letter and his resume say a great deal about him and\nhis ideas and I hope that he can be given consideration, especially\nsince Indian legal matters will be one of the concerns of the\nnew Corporation.\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nFORD in LIBRARY OTHER\nSeptember 24, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMORRIS THOMPSON\nSTAN POTTINGER\nJOHN CARLSON\nSUBJECT:\nTelegram from\nDennie Banks\nEven though some of the statements here are\neasily rebutted and though the press will probably\nbe given this telegram, I do not plan to have a\nresponse prepared unless I hear a contrary\nrecommendation from one of you.\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nbec: Leonard Garment\nCentral Delive Files\nFORD is LIBRAST\nSeptember 26, 1974\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nMORRIS THOMPSON\nSTAN POTTINGER\nJOHN CARLSON\nKENT FRIZZELL\nWALLACE JOHNSON\nFRANK ZARB\nBEN HOLMAN\nSUBJECT:\nDeclaration of War from\nthe Kootenais\nThe attached communication was received in my office at 3:30 p.m.\ntoday.\nAs some of you know, I had a long and, I would say, generally\nfriendly talk with Ms. Trice Monday or Tuesday night of this\nweek and tried very hard to persuade her to take up Commissioner\nThompson's offer of a breakfast meeting with her and her\ncolleagues in Spokane next Monday morning (he will be there\nanyway for another meeting). She seemed quite reluctant --\ntrying to get Morrie or me to come to Bonner's Ferry instead.\nSo far, that is where things stand. Morrie and I both continue\nto be opposed to the idea of either his or my running out on the\nscene of every such threatened or actual confrontation.\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr.\nFORD & LIBRARY 078829\nCF F\nSeptember 30, 1974\nMEETING WITH LEADERS OF THE\nAMERICAN INDIAN COMMUNITY\nUnscheduled\n(15 minutes)\nThe Oval Office\nI. PURPOSE\nTo reassure Indian people of your support for the\nphilosophy and goals of self-determination.\nII. BACKGROUND, PARTICIPANTS AND PRESS PLAN\nA. Background:\n1. Indian leaders first of all want reassurance that\nthe policy of \"self-determination without termination\",\nset forth in a Special Message of 1970, is going to\nbe continued and in fact strengthened in this\nAdministration.\n2. Indian leaders also would like to hear confirmation\nfrom you that they will continued to be consulted\non matters which affect them -- a promise made\nin 1970 and adhered to somewhat imperfectly since.\n3. Five specific issues on Indian minds which you are\nlikely to hear about are:\na) Are we going to replace the defunct National\nCouncil on Indian Opportunity with a new\nDomestic Council or Cabinet Committee on\nIndian Affairs?\nFORD is LIBRARY 938870\nSecretary Morton\nSecretary Weinberger\nMorris Thompson, Commissioner of Indian Affairs\nFrank G. Zarb, Office of Management and Budget\nBradley H. Patterson, Jr., White House Staff\nC.\nPress Plan:\nPress photo opportunity. Meeting to be announced.\nIII. TALKING POINTS\n1.\nI welcome you here today to assure you of my intention\nof establishing lines of communication between my\nAdministration and Indian people across the country.\nWe will continue the policy of \"self-determination\" begun\nin 1970; and we will build on that policy and strengthen\nit in the future. The Indian legislative program proposed\nin 1970 stands, and I seek your own cooperation in\npersuading the Congress to move it.\n2.\nI recognise the importance of consultation with the Indian\nCommunity before making major policy decisions. This\nprocess will continue under my Administration and all\nagencies have been instructed to carry on such a consultative\nmechanism.\n3.\nIf some of those five specific points are raised:\na) NCIO Replacement\nBETORD is LIBRARY 070838\nYes, we do plan to establish a Cabinet Committee or\nDomestic Council Committee on Indian Affairs, as\nan internal Executive Branch coordinating body, to\nensure that the principal federal Departments\nhandling Indian matters (Interior, HEW, Justice,\nAgriculture, Commerce, etc) work together and\nspeak as one voice.\nb) FY 1976 Budget\nAlthough we all recognize the present economic\nconstraints facing us, I will do everything in my\npower to ensure that budget changes do not impact\nthe Indian people disproportionately.\nc) White House/Executive Office Liaison Arrangements\nI am still in the process of organising the staff here,\nand do plan to have an office on the Domestic Council\nor White House Staff which concerns itself with\nIndian matters. In OMB, Mr. Zarb is the Assistant\nDirector with oversight over Interior's Indian\nresponsibilities.\nd) Protection of Trust Rights\nYou do have my commitment that the Federal Executive\nBranch will continue to carry out its responsibilities\nto protect Indian trust lands and natural resources\nrights. We hope very much to see the bill creating\nan Indian Trust Counsel enacted, and would like\nyour own help in pushing this legislation.\ne) Recognition of Eastern Indians\nOnly the Congress can extend this recognition -- by\nlegislation. If the history and circumstances of any\nof the Eastern Indian bands duplicates that of the\nMenominees, whom we did restore to Reservation\nstatus, I would like to know of it. I am skeptical\nof creating new Indian reservations at this point in\nour history.\nFORD LIBRARY is\nb) How will the FY 1976 budget stringencies\naffect Indian programs?\nc) What kind of Indian liaison arrangements,\nif any, do you plan to have in the White House/\nExecutive Office?\nd) Will we continue vigorously to discharge our\ntrust responsibility for protecting Indian land,\nwater and fishing rights?\na) Ms. Attaquin and Mr. Strickland will want to\nknow your views about extending federal\nrecognition to the many small and mostly\nlandless Eastern Indian bands which they\nrepresent.\nSuggested answers are under \"Talking Points\".\nAt Tab A is a fact sheet summarising the very solid\naccomplishments which have been realized for\nIndian people in the past 5 years.\nAt Tab B is a summary of the major pending\nlegislation affecting Indians.\nGERALD FORD LIBRARY\nB. Participants:\nMelford Tonasket, President of the National Congress\nof American Indians, and Charles Trimble,\nExecutive Director of NCAI\nRobert Lewis, President of the National Tribal\nChairmans' Association (and Governor of Zuni\nPueblo) and William Youpee, Executive Director\nof NTCA\nHelen Attaquin, President of the Coalition of Eastern\nNative Americans, and W. J. Strickland, Executive\nDirector of CENA\nLaDonna Harris, President of Americans for Indian\nOpportunity (AIO)\nRichard LaCourse, Director of the American Indian\nPress Association"
}