made by the Stanford Research Institute. The basic suggestion was that of industrializing the reservation with a large Indian operated integrated timber products complex. This recommendation promptly became a subject of contention among the Colvilles and also in the surrounding community where an economy existed that was heavily dependent on reservation timber supplies. The dispute as to the future of the reservation led to the formation of the Colville Indian Association as a group opposed to the activity of the official tribal council. The council followed policies that would keep the reservation active and not take steps toward termination. A breach developed within the Colville Indian Association over personalities and the question of whether the association should run candidates for tribal council. Shortly a new dissident group, the Colville Liquidation Promoters, broke away from the association and did field candidates for tribal council. In the May 1963 election this new group elected two council members. Some few months after this the liquidation promoters asked for advice on termination legislation from retired Superior Court Judge Joseph Wicks (himself an Indian) and myself. Revisions of pending proposals before Congress were worked out as alternatives to the tribal council position of continuing the reservation indefinitely. Our assistance was basically of a technical nature in the role of bill drafters. I did, however, undertake to secure a copy of the tribal roll of members so that a mail campaign could be carried on by those interested in termination. It seemed only fair that both sides, not just one side, should be able to present their case to the membership. I did succeed in obtaining the tribal roll and this was used in mailing the views of the Colville Liquidation Promoters in the tribal election early in 1964. In that election the CLP group won five additional seats on the council and working control of the council. Mrs. Trevino is upset that the Colville Tribal Council majority has voluntarily requested that full State law be applied on the Colville Reservation. Such a plea was entered with Governor Evans pursuant to existing law and was promptly approved. I view this as a solid step of responsibility. It saves the Colvilles some $30,000 per year and eliminates the problem of a double standard of law on the reservation. What it all boils down to is that the Colvilles must work out among themselves by a free elective process whether or not they want termination of the reservation. All proposals to that end require a vote of approval by the enrolled membership. It is up to them. As to Mrs. Tievino's references to me personally: My interest stems from the fact that I employ a number of Indian people. My discussion with Indians, particularly with Indian mothers, has made it clear to me that their ambition for their children is that those children take their place in the whole of the American social stream and not be confined to a reservation backwater. As you know, I am a member of the American Civil Liberties Union and take a considerable interest in questions relating to personal liberties. I have never been able to understand how different standards of personal liberties for American racial minorities-whether Indian, Negro, or whatever-can be tolerated in the framework of American ideals. A Nation pursuing equal rights for its black citizens must also be committed in principle to the theory that its Indian citizens have no personal rights that are superior to those enjoyed by the rest of us. Reservation rights, fishing rights, etc., are mere property rights and should not be the excuse for instituting a separate legal system for the governance of Indians on reservations. Indians must be Americans first and meet their responsibilities as Americans first-basically that of equal justice under law. To accomplish this there can be no room for more than one such standard of law and order. On reservations there is, and should not be, more than one standard. Jim, you know me personally quite well. I am sure you can join me in amusement over the suggestion that I am somehow involved in activity with the John Birch Society. These extremists are my bitter political enemies and I have complete contempt for them. I wish the Colvilles and all Indians well. I do want to see them undertake their responsibilities of citizenship in full. Reservation status amounts to hiding out from such responsibility. Sincerely, WILBUR G. HALLAUER, State Senator, Okanogan and Douglas Counties. Mr. GEORGE. Mr. Chairman, I would like to also submit a letter which is asking that the resolution of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, our resolution 1964-1, be included as part of the record. It is objection to the previous bill, S. 1442. Senator METCALF. Do you have a list of members of the Affiliated Tribes? Mr. GEORGE. There will be others that will submit statements from tribal governments. They will be from the Blackfeet, Fort Belknap, Reservation, Mont.; Fort Peck, Northern Cheyenne, Crow, Kootenai, and Salish Tribes of the Flathead Reservation; the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho; the Coeur d'Alene Tribe of Idaho; the Nez Perce Tribe of Idaho; the Spokane Tribe of Washington; the Yakima Tribe of Washington; the Makah Tribe of Washington, and the Kalispel Tribe of Washington, and they will submit additional statements to support our views in this within the next 10 days, and the chairman is going to hold the record open. Senator METCALF. Without objection the letters will be received. (The information follows:) Hon. LEE METCALF, AFFILIATED TRIBES OF NORTHWEST INDIANS, Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Nespelem, Wash., April 5, 1965. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, DEAR SENATOR METCALF: In behalf of the officers of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, I hereby go on record in behalf of the organization to voice opposition to enactment of S. 1413, its companion bill, H.R. 5925, and H.R. 6331, bills now pending in the 1st session of the 89th Congress. I also request that the attached resolution, ATNI 1964-1, be made a part of the record of the hearing. The resolution is self-explanatory and sets forth the opposition views of the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians against S. 1442, 88th Congress. The resolution also applies as an argument against enactment of similar legislation in the 88th Congress and also the present session of the 89th Congress. We also request that the record be kept open for a period of 20 days in order that tribal governments from the Indian country can file statements with their comments on the pending legislation. The executive council will meet this month in Missoula, Mont., and express its views on the lack of merits in S. 1413, and ask that the bill not be passed by the 89th Congress. Letters will also be forthcoming from individual members of the Colville Reservation who oppose the proposed legislation and also from Indians on other reservations throughout the Western States who take a dim view of terminal legislation that would end the Federal trusteeship over Indian lands. Respectfully submitted. RESOLUTION, ATNI 1964–1 FRANK GEORGE, Secretary. Whereas the U.S. Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs has proposed the complete rewriting of the Colville termination bill, S. 1442, 88th Congress, so that it will provide for a one-step termination; and Whereas this legislation has been published by representatives of the Colville Tribes and congressional leaders as being a pattern and precedent to be seriously considered for other tribes; and Whereas such legislation, even if restricted to the Colvilles, vitally affects the Indian interests of many members of the various tribes who constitute the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians; be it Resolved, That the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians, meeting in convention at Spokane, Wash., October 15-17, 1964, does hereby express its opposition to S. 1442, 88th Congress, and urge its defeat; be it further Resolved, That the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians does hereby adopt the following statement summarizing its position in opposing the bill. STATEMENT OF AFFILIATED TRIBES OF NORTHWEST INDIANS IN OPPOSING S. 1442 The Colville termination bill violates the historic responsibilities of the Federal Government to the Indians involved and, if applied to other tribes, will constitute a complete repudiation of its obligations to the American Indian. Reams of material could be written about the unfairness of the approach to termination proposed in the Colville bill but the following points should indicate its main weaknesses: 1. (a) The bill, in placing fractional blood Indians on a parity with fullblood members of the tribes, would work an injustice on the very people the Federal Government is supposed to protect. A sixteenth blood member of these tribes, who has moved off the reservation and who has no children on the rolls, would have the same rights and vote as a fullblood member of those tribes, living on the reservation with several minor children on the rolls. No provision is made to recognize in the referendum and in the sharing of tribal assets the vast differerence in the basic Indian rights of the true reservation Indian and his distant white cousins. He gets no greater share, has no greater vote, and his children get no vote at all. (b) In section 6(e) of the bill it is provided that a parent as natural custodian (or as guardian) may vote minor children to withdraw or to remain in a tribal organization. If the bill is to be enacted into law, this same principle should be applied in the referendum so that a parent's vote may be weighted with the number of minor children in his family., This would be a proper interpretation of the term "members" denoting all enrolled members, including minor children. 2. The bill completely overlooks the existence of members of the tribes who are not ready for termination. It allows a combination of off reservation Indians and fractional bloods who have long been on a parity with the white population to vote away the Indian status and rights of the type of Indian who, if he applied for it, would not even be considered for a fee patent to his land. 3. The bill would create a great tax and social burden to the counties in which the reservation is located. In one fell swoop it would completely eliminate from the local economy and welfare posture all Federal supervision and assistance. The tribal government would disappear and its responsibilities and the expense of its services and administration, including outlays for welfare and in the maintenance of law and order, would pass to the counties and the State. The Indians, inevitably to be stripped of their land and economic base, would become the responsibility of the counties alone. The lack of funds for public health, road work, school assistance, and many other things would sadly outweigh the slight increase in local revenues. About 1,700 Indians depend directly on the reservation, or on operations connected with the reservation, for their livelihood. It would be tragic to create an economic vacuum for these Indians. 4. The bill could create chaos out of the rights of many non-Colville Indians and in the administration of neighboring tribes. A few questions will demonstrate this point. What about the land rights of a Spokane Indian on the Colville Reservation? What would happen to the Indian land rights of a Colville Indian on the Coeur d'Alene Reservation? How would the Flathead Tribe cope with the problem of a quarterblood member of that tribe who is oneeighth Colville and who, if that one-eighth quantum of blood should be terminated, might no longer be eligible for Flathead membership? What about a family of eight children, four of whom are Colvilles and four Kalispels-could the four Colville children be switched to the Kalispel Tribe and would children coming later be terminated Colvilles or newly born Kalispels? Would a terminated Colville become a non-Indian over whom the tribal courts of other tribes would have no jurisdiction? How would you cope with the visiting Indian, who, though half-terminated Colville, is nevertheless half Nez Perce? These are just some of the questions that demonstrate the unworkable character of the bill and its impact on the entire community of Indian tribes. 5. The bill is misleading and can be easily misunderstood. It provides for the referendum before the appraisal, which would afford the landgrabbers and the proponents, by exaggerating the value of reservation assets, the opportunity to induce the favorable votes of members who, after knowing the appraisal, would wish they could change their minds. The bill creates the impression that members of the tribes can vote to stay on the reservation as Indians or to withdraw their interests and go. Most people don't realize that even the Indians who stay will be completely terminated and stripped of their Indian rights, and the por tion of the former reservation they might hold in common and their individual Indian lands would completely lose their status as Indian trust lands and be subject to taxes, encumbrance, attachment, and alienation. 6. The counties and the State have indicated their disapproval to the setting up of another national forest (about 35 percent of Washington State already being in Federal status). If the bill should be enacted into law, it is virtually certain that the provision for sale of the Colville timberlands to the Department of Agriculture would be eliminated by amendment, with substitution of provisions as to the manner of termination totally unacceptable to the Indians. Senator Jackson himself has personally expressed opposition to the national forest idea. Whatever the true purpose and motives may be, the Klamath formula proposed can serve only as a come-on for the Indians to vote for termination in the referendum-only to be grievously disillusioned later. CONCLUSION The Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians considers S. 1442, 88th Congress, as now proposed, to be a thinly veiled effort of the Federal Government to "emancipate" itself from its historic obligations to the Indian people. The terminationists propose to put over their plan by a combinaton of appeal to the selfish interest of people to split up and "get their share" of tribal assets and of permitting fractional bloods, fully assimilated white men and women who have the good fortune to be on the rolls, to exercise the same vote as fullblood Indians with large Indian families. We condemn this bill and every bill like it and call on the Indian nations and their friends to do all they can to defeat this latest proposal of the terminationists. The foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians in convention assembled at Spokane, Wash., October 17, 1964, by a unanimous vote of all delegates present. Mr. GEORGE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to be too time consuming. That concludes my remarks. Senator METCALF. Thank you very much. Dr. Sherman. STATEMENT OF DR. PASCHAL SHERMAN, PETITIONERS PARTY, COLVILLE INDIAN TRIBES Dr. SHERMAN. I was included in this mainly to answer questions if there were questions to answer but by way of summarization I want to say that we have always been against termination because of our experience with Indians who were given full control of their property upon obtaining fee patents to their land. Almost not a single one on the Colville Reservation has any now. Only just a few, one or two, have succeeded. Now, that situation is going to happen again if termination is approved even under the conditions of this bill. Termination of large tribes of Indians has never succeeded, mainly because as a rule termination came when the Indians were not prepared by way of education and experience. We would like this committee to consider the proposition that the Klamath termination should be fully investigated before it attempts to apply the Klamath formula toward the termination of the Colville Reservation. Nobody has investigated the Klamath. The newspapers have submitted very unfavorable reports. We think that some definitive study should be made of the Klamath termination in order to determine whether or not you could give a new direction to the termination policy of the Congress. We want to repeat at this time the idea we brought forth at the hearings in Spokane in October 1962. At that time in pressing our idea that termination should not be approved we proposed that Indian reservations be made a part of the conservation program of the administration. Now, there is a great program for conservation of natural resources now being considered by the Government in which the Congress as well as the executive departments are very much interested. Why can't Indian reservations, which are run already along conservation lines, be included in that program? There should then be no consideration toward terminating Indian reservations until, for example, you are also going to terminate national parks and national forests. If you are going to buy the reservations for, say, $100 million, you are going to pay about $412 million interest a year. Even with receipts from timber sales, the cost to the Government will be far more than what it costs now to run the reservation. Now that is one angle you may take into consideration. Another is what is the Government gaining by termination, by selling the forest of the Indian reservation to the Department of Agriculture for a national forest? You have conservation now. You have sustained yield management. There is really nothing gained. There is nothing gained certainly so far as the Indians are concerned, except the prospect of a windfall of money to those who want to withdraw. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Senator Fannin. Senator FANNIN. Mr. Chairman, Dr. Sherman, there seems to be a great deal of disagreement, and as I understand your background you are very familiar with what has been transpiring over the years. But I am just wondering if you would be in agreement that a vote under the bill would be equitable. In other words, you are asking that a decision be made based on the desire of the people, but you mentioned about education. Are you speaking of the education of the children, the youth, or are you talking about the education that would be prevalent when the vote would be taken? Is that what you are referring to? Dr. SHERMAN. I am speaking of the education that will be applied when the vote is taken and that is somewhere around I think eighth grade for the average Colville. I think it is that type of education. Really, an intelligent decision could not be made on an important matter like this which involves many technical problems. Termination has many facets so far as problems are concerned. We do not think that the people are prepared and equipped to make an intelligent decision for their own benefit. Senator FANNIN. Thank you. Senator METCALF. Dr. Sherman, are you a medical doctor? Senator METCALF. Doctor of philosophy. What is your specialty? Dr. SHERMAN. I am a doctor of philosophy in American constitutional history. Besides, I am an attorney at law admitted to practice law in the State of Washington. Senator METCALF. Thank you. You belong to the same profession as Senator Fannin and I. |