The so-called liquidators, of course, are promoting this bill. After being elected to office they have abused their responsibility, their conduct has not complied to preceding standards and they are improperly representing the best interests of the tribes. This has been shown by their giveaway policy and pushing the bill through without explaining it to the members, followed up with sending only liquidators to promote the bill in the subcommittee hearings and leaving those opposing the bill with no representation at all. To further shown cause and circumstance that the promoters were not acting in the best interests of the tribe, our tribal attorney, Mr. Lyle Kieth, found it necessary to request that his contract be terminated. This is wholly understandable in the light of his responsibility to the tribe and reputable firms image. He just can't afford the burden of the actions of the promoters on the business council. Time is an important factor. There just hasn't been enough time and opportunity to intelligently inform, explain, and discuss the bill and its provisions with the Colville members. Many of our members are "non compos mentis," apathetic, greedy and foolish enough to accept the bill only on the basis of receiving money per se. But on the other hand we do have intelligent and dedicated people which is one reason the liquidator faction hasn't gained complete control. Even to an educated person the bill would be hard to understand because of the language used. It takes a practiced eye to read a bill twice and understand it thoroughly. And it has got to be understood and made certain that it is explained to everyone. The people promoting the bill are in reality, non-Indian interest groups and a handful of our tribal members. That is definitely not a majority of the enrolled members. There is evidence through their publications alone that the promoters have quite an expensive promotion program; so where do they get the funds to pay for all this? The sum of money seems disproportionate to the handful of promoters who openly promote the bill. In conclusion, I request that the committee reject bill S. 1413 in view of the circumstances related to the bill. LEWIS E. LEMERY. (The letter was also signed by six other members of the tribe.) NESPELEM, WASH., April 13, 1965. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Senator LEE METCALF, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATORS: I want the committee to know that this land is the most important part of my life and the Indian people that live on it for existence and happiness. Termination has but one meaning to me, and that is to part us from this land that is supposed to be ours forever by agreements made by your Government and Indian leaders. I am entirely against this bill S. 1413 which is a liquidation of our beloved land which would leave us no future to plan for. The money I would receive would never fulfill the happiness and living I have had here on this property, I am sure I shall look the same and I doubt very much whether I will look prosperous and important. Owning this reservation gives me pride and the feeling of importance and respect. Losing my hunting and fishing rights along with land and my identity as a Colville Indian enrollee would be like stabbing me in the back. It would hurt that much. The present majority of the business council sponsoring the passage of this bill are of a small degree of Indian blood, in fact four of them are one-eighth Indian and the woman they call their assistant is also one-eighth Indian. In fact all of them have lost their resemblance as Indians, several of this majority were adopted into our tribal membership just to give them a place to live, never realizing that some day they would be deciding our destiny and influencing our people with their written campaign and pledges signed for the benefit of Congress and the Senators for use in deciding our fate on termination. Every time there is a change in Government policy concerning the sale of allotments it goes out of Indian ownership, as most Indians who would like to buy don't have the finances and beside that it must be in fee simple and it loses its trust status which we prefer. It is frustrating to see these people that sold land and had a great deal of money broke and a nuisance for their want of more. If terminated we will have less than some that have squandered their money from land and timber sales. The outlook certainly looks grim and bleak. Surely you must understand that we are not educated enough to handle our affairs in more ways than I can state. We share our income from our assets with those of lesser Indian blood without prejudice or discontent. But if liquidated I think the shares should be the blood degree of the individuals entitled through their inherent rights if they should possess such. The people that are pushing this bill are those that have a small degree of Indian blood and want to leave their non-Indian heirs an estate. Most of whom live off the reservation and all they want is a large lump of money and care less about the people unable to cope with the situation. This business of effecting peoples lives and their property is a very serious matter which will make us less than second-class citizens. Truthfully we are not ready for termination, if we were we would not be asking anyone to sell it for us, it would only show how unfit we were to handle this affair. We have here tremendous potentials, probably in the long run more than we will see in our lifetime. We need help to develop these resources ourselves to attain business ability to handle these affairs and increase income. This is what we need, not termination. There are many steps to take before we plan for that phase. Therefore, I ask this Senate committee to reject this harmful bill and let us take advantage of opportunities offered through your programs. Sincerely yours, ALEXANDER SAM, Colville Enrolled Member. I respectfully request that the enclosed statement be made a part of the hearing. STATEMENT OF MRS. CECELIA M. TIMENTWA I am an enrolled member of the Colville Indian Reservation. I am a stockraiser and landowner in our world here, on our reservation. Here I have children and grandchildren. This land belongs to Indians. Many of us still have allotments to be passed on to my predecessors. To me this reservation is our home. I've lived on it, my ancestors lived on it. I need my right to hunt and fish, and I need the right to collect my Indian food, pick berries, and dig camas. The people who have land no longer are those who want to be terminated. I do not want termination, in any form. I want to live as I always have and to keep my Indian rights forever. In 1905 I was born. When I began to see, the white people were building railroads with mule teams. There wern't even highways as now. White people kept moving in around us and still are. Now, what people travel on is air. Being a landowner and stockraiser on the reservation has been my way of making a living. If I terminate I have no place to stay. You take my livelihood away. I oppose termination. GREAT FALLS, MONT., April 4, 1965. Senator LEE METCALF, I wish to register my unqualified opposition to S. 1413 the Colville termination bill. I am opposed to termination in principle because the Federal Governments work for Indians is not completed anywhere. Only now under President Johnson are the reservations beginning to recover from the stagnation and disruption of services caused by the termination drive of 1954. The non-Indian local level bordering the Colville Reservation is no more disposed to equal opportunity than it was in 1954, and the Colvilles still need the special programs under Federal supervision. My residence among them dates from 1938. I know well the Nex-Perce descendants of Chief Joseph Warriors who found on the Colville's rocky ground some substitute for the fertile Wallawa Valley. Let us not despoil them by force once again to our great dishonor and shame. Sincere regards. Sister PROVIDENCIA, SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. (Attention of James Gamble). SEATTLE, WASH., April 21, 1965. DEAR SIR: I would like to register my testimony against the proposed legislation of S. 1413. I do believe that since my people have been true to their treaty to the United States it would be a shame for the United States to lose face at this very crucial time in world affairs by reneging on a treaty signed in 1899 not 100 years ago. Tribal timber which has been bought by the frugality and determination of the business council should not under any circumstances be reduced to be made a national forest, it is almost our only income. During the past 5 years termination group has been financed by persons unknown. The minority group which is against termination of the Coville Indian Tribes has had to work independently without funds except their very own, therefore we have been extremely handicapped. PAULETTE E. JORDAN. MANSON, WASH., March 30, 1965. Re Pending legislation on termination of the Colville Indians, Washington. Senator LEE METCALF, Committee Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: This is in regard to a bill S. 1413 and companion bill H.R. 5925, which is a bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Indians located in the State of Washington and the individual members thereof and for other purposes. I Remonstrance is against S. 1413 for the reasons as follows: We oppose section 1 of this bill providing for referendum. This is a loaded dice provision against the tribes for it permits voting by emancipated members and their descendants and members who voluntarily separated themselves and have acquired residence outside of the reservation, and have lost their vote. As a prerequisite of the right to vote in elections the member must reside 1 year in district before he can offer his vote, or reside on trust allotments within the jurisdiction of the Colville Indian Agency, Coulee Dam, Wash. We request that section I be amended to read after the word "members" * * * actually resident 1 year in a district where he offers his vote, or be actually resident on trust allotments under the jurisdiction of a district where he offers his vote *** of the tribes voting in a referendum to approve a termination of Federal supervision in accordance with those sections. We feel that a member of the tribe must be present, actually resident and bearing the burdens of/and responsibilities of citizenship, he cannot evade the duties and also enjoy the privilege of voting to cut down the tribe and extinguish tribal property. It is neither tribal custom nor a democratic system of suffrage. It is not due process of law, and it is not in accord with the high sense of fair dealing with Indian affairs. It is expropriation and confiscation. II Wherein section 2 states that the purpose of the act is to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the trust and restricted property of the Colville Tribes and the individual members. III Wherein section 4 provides for the death of the tribes under the age old practice of "Destroy the tribal society" and "take away their land." This section ends tribal extistence by closing the roll and no child born thereafter shall be eligible for enrollment. This wipes out the self-protection by destroying tribal custom and written constitutions. Such protection by the constitution is cut off and the tribe can no longer ask protection from the Congress. It can no longer extinguish its property only by treaty. It will have lost its ancient attributes of inherent tribal sovereignty. It is no longer a state and cannot longer make its own laws and be governed by them. These rights, privileges, and immunities are not only recognized but are guaranteed by the great American Government. This Government, at an economically poor and lethal time, will have suddenly abandoned the tribes to State jurisdiction which is fraught with hatred and discrimination. Actually the State is powerless to help the tribes and its members in their, the tribes, journey towards betterment. It took the Federal Government nearly a hundred years to progress only this far in the educations and betterments of the tribes. The only interest the State has is to confiscate and put the Indians out of sight and out of way and out of mind. There will be born a "Hill 57" in the Okanogan country because the cities and towns will not allow them in its slum districts and will direct the Indian to stay clear of the boundaries. It may be undercover and well hidden but this now is already taking place. IV Wherein section 5 liquidates the Colville Reservation by individualizing the entire reservation by vesting each person whose name appears on the final roll his equal cash share in the fair market value of the entire reservation. This will completely eliminate the tribal existance and the tribe and members are no longer under the protection of the Government that put them there in the first place. In a report to the Business Council of the Colville Tribes, December 1960 by the Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Calif., titled "Analysis of Economic Development Possibilities of the Colville Indian Reservation" the institute reported: Page 18. Human Resource: 66* ***there is an insufficient number, however, with training and experience to fill the management and supervisory positions that would be required if the tribes, as a business entity, were to undertake management and development of their assets. This is also true of those who would be employed in skilled and semiskilled labor." The Stanford Report continued: "The disparity between the number of persons required for the undertaking of a development program and the number of those potentially available is shown in table III. Essentially and economically the reservation is not farmland." Page 49: "In 28 tribal farm leases * * * the average farmland per lease in 1960 was 40 acres. On this kind of ground this is starvation acres." Reference is further made to the bulletin or report of the hearings held on H.R. 2432, "Colville Restoration Bill" labeled "Colville Indian Lands, Washington. Wednesday, February 9, 1949. House of Representatives, Committee on Public Lands, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C., and more particularly the statement of C. L. Graves, superintendent, Colville Indian Reservation, to Chairman Morris (p. 12). Mr. BARRETT. How is it that the settlers got 160 acres and the Indians got 80? Mr. GRAVES. I cannot answer that. Mr. MORRIS. Do you consider 80 acres suitable for a living? Mr. GRAVES. No. The homesteaders *** at least 75 percent of them went broke * * * the units were not large enough. *** lost to the State in taxes. * ** 80 acres or 160 acres in that portion of Washington is not anywhere near *** economic * * *. The reservation is now the home-the only home of the Indians. This reservation is the livelihood of the Indian through his use of natural products and grazing. Liquidate the reservation and the Indian will very soon be a derelict and a castout. This already happens when an Indian sells out his lands. Witness the present way a majority of Indians squander the small per capita and funds from the sale of lands. We ask that you and others vote against S. 1413 and H.R. 5925. Very truly yours, ROBERT L. EVANS, Members, Moses Band, Colville Confederated Tribes. NESPELEM, WASH., April 13, 1965. Hon. LEE METCALF, Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, DEAR SENATOR METCALF: I am opposed to enactment of S. 1413. Please make my letter a part of the printed hearings. As an enrolled and allotted tribal member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, I look upon S. 1413 as a device to create a dangerous and unsound program ending in the lifting of the Federal trusteeship over our lands on the reservation. We do not want to be deprived of our rights as Indians. It is not necessary for us to step down in status on the level of non-Indian citizens. We have all the rights of citizenship in addition to the status that was given us in exchange for the cession of large tracts of land. There is no valid reason for passage of S. 1413. Please do not pass Senator Jackson's bill. Sincerely, Hon. LEE METCALF, KATE STURGIS. NESPELEM, WASH., April 10, 1965. Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: Please make my letter a part of the hearing held April 5 and 6 on S. 1413, a bill to provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of the Confederated Tribes of Colville Indians located in the State of Washington and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes. I oppose enactment of S. 1413. The Federal trusteeship over Indian lands on the Colville Reservation should not be terminated. We Indian landowners are not ready to be terminated. There are many of us who want to maintain our tribal identity and we place a high value on our land. We want to keep it in trust status and in Indian ownership. We do not want our reservation to be destroyed by legislation like S. 1413. In order to continue to exist, we Indians must retain our land on the Colville Indian Reservation. We fervently hope that we be allowed to continue subject to congressional power. The Indian problem on the Colville Reservation cannot be solved by enactment of S. 1413. Passage of S. 1413 would be harmful to us. Please do not pass S. 1413. Sincerely, DELIA G. COVINGTON. NESPELEM, WASH., April 10, 1965. Hon. LEE METCALF, DEAR SENATOR METCALF: I herewith offer a statement in opposition to enactment of S. 1413, the Colville termination bill being sponsored by the Colville liquidation promoters. I request that my statement also appear in the printed hearings. I am a full-blood Indian and enrolled on the Colville Indian Reservation. I own individual trust allotments and I want to continue owning them in trust status. I oppose S. 1413 because it seeks to destroy values that our forebears valued so highly-the land. My paternal grandfather fought against the U.S. Army with Chief Joseph in 1877 because he followed and adhered to a principle that Indians were entitled to live on their homeland which had been theirs since the beginning of time. My forebears never adopted convictions that conveyed any inkling that land was something that could be bartered in the common market. It was a sacred possession made available to them by the Creator. Indians fought the whites in the Indian wars of the 19th century because the white man wanted to make Indians a displaced people. With the wars behind us, now we have to fight the whites and enrolled tribal members having a large admixture of non-Indian blood in the Halls of Congress. I fervently ask that you see to it that we fullbloods get favorable consideration |