when Colville Business Council Resolution 1965-1 was adopted by a vote of seven for and six against.

I appear here despite extended efforts on the part of proponents of this bill who are members of the Colville Business Council to prevent my appearance as a witness before your committee on this great issue on which hinges the future destiny of our people. This was accomplished through creation of a financial barrier by withholding approval of authorization to permit me to appear here on a parity with those whose presence here today is brought about because their expenses were defrayed from the tribal coffers. It is my conviction that considerable thought was given to choosing the minority to make it a certainty that testimony would be offered in opposition to this bill by those whom I feel are less gifted in talents and are more inarticulate than myself. It is a known fact that most of the proponents will not testify on this bill, but merely came here for the ride just because they were anointed with the favors that are at the disposal of the council members who advocate the enactment of this disintegration bill.

I am fervently opposed to enactment of S. 1413, 89th Congress.

Mr. Chairman, you are fully aware of the many years that I have firmly objected to any legislation relating to proposals advocating the end of Federal trusteeship over Indian-owned lands. That view is also known to many of my friends in the Indian country on reservations all over the West, and from this day on I am calling upon them to come to the assistance of those of us who have a deep reverence for the cause of Indianhood especially in behalf of us who are fullblood Indians and who also live close to Indian traditions. I am advising them that we on the Colville Indian Reservation who oppose this bill are engaged in a struggle for the protection of our rights, liberties, and property. I ask Indians everywhere to come to our assistance in due proportion to their abilities, until our adversaries are brought to reasonable terms of accommodation and the hostile designs against us are overcome by taking timely measures to prevent the ill effect of legislation such as that proposed on the pending bill being discussed today, S. 1413.

I am appealing to all by broadcasting the information that the enemies of the true Indian-fractionated Indians, and non-Indians who seem to worship in the temple of Mammon with the objective of destroying our culture and our tribal identity, and all of our institutions which have survived from ancient days or newly established in recent days that now protect Indians against exploitationhave endeavored by every artifice in their power to bring about encroachments on our economic welfare to render easier schemes for separating Indians from their possessions in the name of progress.

I am also aware of the fact that our adversaries have in all generations taken advantage of differences among our tribal membership to sow seeds of suspicion and discord and thereby obstruct a unity which is first, as a requirement, in the protection of Indian rights.

I have long opposed any legislation, Federal or State, related to proposals advocating the ending of Federal trusteeship over Indian-owned lands. The pending bill, S. 1413, proposes what I have always opposed.

I opposed the enactment of H.R. 1063 which later became Public Law 280, 83d Congress. This was a major breakthrough on Indian rights and prerogatives in that the act destroyed part of the Indians' immunity from State jurisdiction, and its adverse effect has been felt on the Colville Indian Reservation through an act enacted by the Washington State Legislature which I firmly believe to be invalid.

I also opposed the 83d Congress approval of House Concurrent Resolution 108, which expressed the sense of Congress that certain tribes of Indians should be freed from Federal supervision. House Concurrent Resolution 108, 83d Congress originally included the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation of Washington and the Osage Tribe of Oklahoma but was later amended to exclude the two reservations.

I testified against the inclusion of the Colville Confederated Tribes in the provisions of House Concurrent Resolution 108 before the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs in 1953.

House Concurrent Resolution 108, 83d Congress, is a pious statement or expression to be used as a basis for immediate termination of Federal responsibility and withdrawal of Federal services to various Indian tribes.

All through history the pressures to let the Indians control their own lands or free them from Bureau control have been, to a degree, the result of outside,

non-Indian influences who want the Indian lands through having them thrown open to them, either by lease or by purchase. Strong non-Indian influences are behind this drive for termination or disintegration of the Colville Indian Reservation. It is my conviction that no administrative action or legislation proposed which affects Indian land can be exempt from scrutiny with this in mind.

It is

The desire of Indians, like myself, to continue as tribes is not merely a matter of pride in our traditions or retention of our ancient rights. emphatically not a matter of wanting to stand still. We have proven that united, organized tribes are essential tools of progress. We have learned that as tribes we can protect our property, stand off paternalism, make ourselves heard, as we could never do if fractionated or disorganized. Through retention of group identity, also, we can retain native values which we regard as essential to the pursuit of happiness.

Everyone should know that equality does not mean sameness. One of the features of our country is that in it very different people, having different ideas, religions, tastes, are equals. The Indians' right to be thus different, to realize themselves in their own way, in equality, must be vigorously defended.

I cannot emphasize too strongly or too often that the special rights accorded to Indians, as Indians, do not in any way diminish their ordinary rights as American citizens.

Many forget the fact that Indians did not come to this country seeking freedom or a better life. They did not seek the melting pot of races. They were here first. They were free. They had a good life. For that reason I am proud of being an Indian. Every drop of blood that courses my veins is Indian blood.

I am opposed to the conviction expressed by some Indians and many nonIndians that all Americans should be alike; that conformity to a somewhat imaginary American norm is the best thing for everyone; and that discrete communities having customs, legal rights, and restrictions not common to all Americans must be dissolved as rapidly as possible. In its obvious brutal form, the argument is that Indians must be assimilated or integrated whether they like it or not.

Many of us oppose disintegration legislation such as S. 1413. This bill cannot equalize people. No one can make a people over against their will.

It is our firm conviction that the trusteeship over Indian lands should not be terminated but that the energies of our tribal members should be encouraged through a wider orbit of participation toward exercising initiative in the development of our human and natural resources located on the Colville Indian Reservation. We feel that we still need the sheltering influence of the Congress of the United States for a while longer. The misconception that the peculiar position of the Indian is a position of inferiority, of second-grade or incomplete citizenship, offers a serious threat to Indian well-being. We sense that there are groups bent on undermining the protection of Indian rights by giving a bad name to the mechanisms which are now available to protect the Indian. Attacks are being revived toward giving the Indian Bureau and the institutions of tax exemption a bad name by stressing the alleged incompatibility of these institutions with full citizenship, and thereby claiming a high moral purpose in stripping the Indian of the protecton which the Federal law affords him.

Our special status as Indians today under Federal law is not a diminishment of full U.S. citizenship but an addition to full citizenship.

It is a status that the Indian has bought and paid for when he exchanged valuable lands for the right to hold his remaining lands free of State taxes and it is a right that was solemnly promised to the Indians by the United States. This right is reflected in the Enabling Act for the State of Washington where Congress in recognition of Indian possessions required the incoming State to disclaim all right and title to lands "owned or held by any Indian or Indian tribes." The Supreme Court has said that this right of tax exemption is a valuable property right of which the Indians may not be deprived without their consent. Also the right of local self-government and the correlative right to be free from the obligation of State laws while on our own reservation are rights upon which other Indian tribes have insisted also and which have been solemnly guaranteed in treaties, agreements and statutes, and they are parts of an original Sovereignty which Indians have not surrendered and which Congress has never presumed to abrogate. The fact that the State of Washington is presently trespassing in the arena of law and order does not make it right. We hope to test the constitutionality of that law before the year is out.

It is not necessary to terminate the trusteeship in order to make us a better people no more than it is possible to have us all legislated into a prosperous people overnight. We still need someone to help us to combat the miseries that have plagued our people for so long and we feel that the only body with power to care for us is the Bureau of Indian Affairs serving under the direction of the Congress of the United States, and it is our fervent wish that we be allowed to continue subject to congressional power since the State of Washington has no such power because to recognize tribal rights would be recognition of special privileges and immunities which are forbidden under the State's constitution (art. I, sec. 12—“No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation, other than municipal, privileges or immunities which, upon the same terms, shall not equally belong to all citizens or corporations") and which also forbids special legislation and thereby precluding any hope of having State legislation protecting Indian rights (including hunting and fishing rights) and property of the State's Indian citizenry (Washington State Constitution, art. II, sec. 28).

Land has always been an important item in the existence of Indianhood. In the Indian concept, land is no "real estate." It has value and its products will sustain people. Above all, land is in the Indian sense something that stands for existence, identity, the place of belonging. This is the significance that Indians are asked to destroy through legislation like S. 1413 of the 89th Congress. Understandably we Indians of substantial Indian blood hesitate.

When the Indian problem could not be solved by subjecting the Indians to forced migration and physical decimation, then the trend went toward "civilizing" the Indian people. Today we are faced with the word "integration." The terms "civilize" and "integration" taken in their period of time in their respective days are approximately the same.

Consideration and much thought should also be expended in learning why it was that the Klamath people and the Menominees were terminated, and now the same question faces the Indians of the Colville Reservation. In each case, the Indians own or owned large tracts of timbered lands. The fact that we have vast resources and the fact that somebody outside of our tribal membership wishes to acquire those holdings seems to be the principal motivating influence that creates the termination dilemma facing us today.

The job of eliminating the need for the Bureau of Indian Affairs must be done with honor and I know that your subcommittee has that view in mind at all times. The job must be done in a manner that will inspire pride in what is being done. Treaties and agreements must not be broken nor should any of the agreements be set aside. All legal and moral obligations which have been assumed by the Federal Government should be discharged before the final closing of the doors. The solution will not be found today nor will it come about in a matter of months. However, we know that the affairs of the Indians will be satis factorily consummated some time in the future and it will come about by normal adjustment. It will not come because of enactment of S. 1413 which, in my humble judgment, is a very leaky vessel to carry enlightenment to the Indians of the Colville Indian Reservation.

Senator METCALF. The witness will summarize.

Mr. GEORGE. Yes.

I just want to say that in one of the pages I say that all through the history the pressure to let the Indians control their own lands and free them from Bureau control has been to a degree the result of outside non-Indian influences who want the Indians' lands through having them thrown open to them either by lease or by purchase and strong non-Indian influences are behind this drive for termination or disintegration of the Colville Indian Reservation.

It is my conviction that no administrative action or legislation proposed which affects Indian land can be exempt from scrutiny with this in mind.

In connection with that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for the record a letter, which is self-explanatory, from our general counsel, Lyle Keith, who has asked to be relieved from his contract, and he explains some of the influences behind it, the State Senator Wilbur

Hallauer, and our former Superior Court Judge, Joseph Wicks, and it brings out all of the facts that Miss Covington mentioned today in how the pressures are coming from non-Indian groups.

Senator METCALF. This is a letter addressed to Mr. Nicholson.

Mr. GEORGE. Yes; and it shows copies were made to every member of the council. It is a request from our general counsel asking to be relieved of the contract.

Senator METCALF. We also have letters here from James E. Keefe, from the Washington State Senate.

Mr. GEORGE. It is a letter from one of the tribal members, yes, sir; but he refers to a letter from Senator Hallauer. I would like to have that incorporated in the record.

Senator METCALF. All of them will be incorporated.
Mr. GEORGE. Yes.

Senator METCALF. Without objection so ordered.
(The information referred to follows:)

KEITH WINSTON & REPSOLD,
Spokane, Wash., March 37, 1965.

Mr. NARCISSE NICHOLSON, Jr.,
Chairman, Colville Business Council,
Colville Indian Agency, Nespelem, Wash.

DEAR NARCISSE: Reference is made to our general attorneys' contract 14-200650 No. 1215. The above numbered contract was approved by the Secretary of the Interior on March 26, 1963, for a period of 3 years beginning October 9, 1962. Paragraph II of said contract reads as follows:

"It shall be the duty of the said attorneys to act as general counsel and advise and represent the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indian Reservation in connection with all tribal matters, including, but not restricted to, representation before any and all courts, departments, tribunals, committees of Congress, and other governmental agencies or departments of both Federal and State governments either having any duty or control over the affairs of the tribe or having any functions related to the interests of the tribe. This contract shall not be deemed to authorize the prosecution of claims against the United States."

For the past several months the attitude of the majority of the Business Council of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation has been such that it has not seen fit except in very minor matters to call upon us for advice and assistance. In fact, without exception the more important issues which have confronted the tribe and the council during this several month period have been decided without reference to us tribal attorneys. For example, the council has agreed to pay Okanogan County and Ferry County $16,800 and $8,500 annually plus the $40,000 which they have previously agreed upon. Tribal council actions on such vital matters as termination of Federal guardianship and submission to State jurisdiction have been passed upon and concluded by the now-ruling majority of the business council without the advice or knowledge of retained and approved legal counsel, and in fact without prior contact with such attorneys about such matters.

It is not our intent to here criticize those decisions and since they are not the product of our advice and evaluation, we only desire to be relieved of any appearance of responsibility for their adoption or ultimate effects.

It has been fairly general information for the past few months that the majority of the council have been securing legal and other advice from persons not under approved tribal attorney contract. In witness of that, there has recently come into my posession a copy of letter dated March 19, 1965 from State Senator Wilbur G. Hallauer addressed to Senator James Keefe, of the Washington State Senate, and a copy of a letter dated March 20, 1965, from State Senator James A. Keefe to Mrs. Pearl S. Trevino, a Colville Indian, of this city. The middle paragraph on page 2 of Senator Hallauer's letter bears out the statement made in the past preceding sentence of this letter. Copies of letters are enclosed.

It is not our desire to receive payment for services which we are not permitted to render to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. May we therefore, through this letter, request that we be relieved from the obligation of performing further services to the Confederated Tribes under such referenced contract and that our compensation under the contract be discontinued as of the date that we are relieved from the provisions of the contract above referred to. It is with deep regret that we feel compelled to terminate an attorney-client relationship which has run since 1947-18 years.

Under paragraph X of the referenced contract, the Colville Confederated Tribes may terminate the contract without cause upon 30 days' notice in writing. Due to the fact that we do not have such a cancellation right under the contract, we suggest that the tribe give us such 30-day notice of termination.

This letter is not intended to apply to our Claims Attorney Contract No. I-1-ind. 42442, since the business council has not interferred with the performance of the obligations imposed upon us and the Messrs. Weissbrodt, Weissbrodt & Liftin under that contract.

Very truly yours,

Mrs. PEARL S. TREVINO,
Spokane, Wash.

LYLE KEITH.

P. H. WINSTON.
NELSON B. REPSOLD.

E. LAWRENCE WHITE.
ROBERT J. MCNICHOLS.
LEO J. DRISCOLL.

WASHINGTON STATE SENATE,
Spokane, Wash., March 20, 1965.

DEAR MRS. TREVINO: I received your letter some time ago, and as I am not too familiar with the problems of our good friends called the Indians, I talked to our expert, Senator Hallauer, from Okanogan. He submitted a letter which I am enclosing. I hope it meets with your approval.

Sincerely,

JAMES E. KEEFE, Senator, Third District.

WASHINGTON STATE SENATE,
Oroville, Wash., March 19, 1965.

Senator JAMES KEEFE,

Washington State Senate,

Olympia, Wash.

DEAR SENATOR KEEFE: You have asked me for a brief account of the situation on the Colville Reservation in connection with a letter received by you from Mrs. Pearl Trevino, an enrolled member of the Colville Tribes.

The legal organization of the Colville Reservation is based on a 1935 congressional act. This calls for a 15-member governing body of the reservation called the tribal council. The council members must reside on the reservation and are elected on a district basis as with the legislature. Enrolled members of the Colville Tribes that live off the reservation (approximately 70 percent of the total 5,000 members) can and do vote by absentee ballot.

Many tribal members, particularly among those living off the reservation, are making their own way in the surrounding culture and society and they want their patrimony now. Since the reservation property probably has a worth of $100 to $150 million, this means about $20,000 to $30,000 per enrolled tribal member. For the majority, living off the reservation, with no intention of returning to the reservation ghetto, with no right to hold tribal office, the temptation is overwhelming that they should have their inheritance and be able to put it to use for their own good and, hopefully, for the betterment of their children.

A majority of these off-reservation Colvilles are in the lower economic category. For many of the families the tribal inheritance, if placed at current 6-percent rates, would mean income of $1,000 per month. This is many times the usual $300 per year per capita payment that has been the recent distribution to the membership.

About 1955 Congress passed a law requiring that a plan for orderly and eventual termination of all reservations be presented by the officials of each reservation within 5 years. On the Colville Reservation a report and recommendation were