These are people organizing meetings, groups, etc., that I never knew were Indians. The Bureau and Congress have held hearings to determine the wishes of the tribe. Undoubtedly the organized proponents of termination had many representatives to speak at these meetings. Who spoke for the fullbloods, who in most instances are less educated than the breeds and unaccustomed to speaking before large crowds. If termination must come, then only those members of the tribe one-quarter degree Colville or more should be allowed to vote. Most of the Federal programs require that the Indian be of at least one-quarter degree Indian. Shouldn't this provision apply also to this important decision? In conducting your hearings on S. 1413 it would be well to ascertain the degree of Colville Indian the speaker is. Thank you, CHARLIE MOSES, Jr., (4/4 Colville Indian.) SACRET HEART MISSION, De Smet, Idaho, March 28, 1965. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: May I urge you to withhold approval of S. 1413, Colville termination bill, as totally uncompatible with the high purposes of the American Indian Capital Conference on Poverty, Washington, D.C., May 9-12, 1964. Sincerely yours, (Rev.) C. E. BYRNE, Sr. INCHELIUM, WASH., March 29, 1965. Senator LEE METCALF, DEAR SIR: I am a Colville Indian, three-quarter degree. I have had 13 children, 11 living. The oldest is 18 years of age, the youngest not quite a year old. Therefore, I feel a responsibility, perhaps not as great as yours at this time, concerning S. 1413, termination bill. These last few weeks have been sad days for me, to think Indians who are only concerned with what money they can get from the sale of the reservation. It seems almost sacrilegious. Our forefathers did not ask for money, only a place to call home. Their wise ways have been a sanctuary to their people striving to learn the white man's way. I do not think the time is ready. If those responsible for such a bill were to give serious thought as to the consequences of such an act, instead of being blinded by the dollar sign, they would not feel it their right to ask for selling this reservation, which price comes greater than dollars. My feeling is our great country, America, is full of opportunity. One can be quite successful, without robbing, or stepping down on a fellow man. For years the Indian Bureau was an enemy to the Indians. It seems now, the Indian is learning to work with the Bureau; they are helpful—a purpose they were placed here for-because the Indian is learning to do business, therefore, it would be disastrous, at this point, to terminate the Indian. New welfare offices would come about to take the place of our reservation. If these liquidators were sincere in their thinking, I feel before placing such a bill as 1413 in Congress, they would have worked it out among their people, instead of the underhanded methods that have been used. I beseech you Senator Metcalf to turn this bill down. If these liquidators are persistant, perhaps a loan could supply the dollar, and yet leave us our land we call home, "Our reservation." Please be not an instrument to such an act. A meeting of the people was held last Saturday at Nespelem, delegates were requested to go to Washington to represent us. I'm hoping our delegates are successful in obtaining permission to go, and speak in our defense, in all fairness to every Indian. Thank you, for your valuable time, your decision is so important to all of us. In all sincerity, MATILDA CARDEN. MEN'S CLUB, Chilocco, Okla. DEAR MR. GAMBLE: As an individual and as a member of the Colville Confederated Tribes, I ask you to represent my views concerning bill S. 1413. I am against termination of the Colville Confederated Tribes. It is neither the way nor the means to end my rights as a member of the tribe. Thank you very much for your time and effort. I am also a student of Arkansas City Junior College at Arkansas City, Kans. I am a sophomore with ambition to become a secondary teacher. Once again I thank you. VERNON M. CLARK. NESPELEM, WASH., March 29, 1965. Hon. Senator LEE METCALF, Chairman, Subcommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, SENATOR METCALF: Enclosed resolution adopted by members of our tribe who are opposed to the enactment of S. 1413, which Interior Subcommittee is to hold a hearing on April 5, 1965. We sincerely appreciate your response in reference to our telegrams and night letters which undoubtedly was very informative, heretofore all the correspondence from our tribal members were only from members who were in favor of the bill. Now you are aware that there are many who oppose the bill in its entirety. The delegates that are mentioned on enclosed resolution are delegates who membership feels will best represent the views of the opposition. However, inasmuch as the business council is sending a large delegation at tribal expense, which is every enrolled member's expense, we respectfully request that you prevail upon the tribal council to authorize the expenditure of tribal funds to finance the delegates mentioned on resolution enclosed herein. We desire that the funds be in the same amount per delegate as provided for the expenses of the members of the business council. May we hear from you at your earliest convenience? Thank you, HARVEY MOSES, Member of Colville Business Council. RESOLUTION Be it hereby Resolved, That we, the members of the Colville Confederated Tribes residing on and off the reservation and meeting in Nespelem, Wash., March 27, 1965, do authorize a delegation to testify at Senate subcommittee hearings, April 5, 1965, in Washington, D.C., on S. 1413. The delegation is comprised of all members of the tribal business council not previously delegated and the following members of the tribe as list: T. B. Charlie, Louie Camille, Lorraine F. Misiaszek, George Friedlander, Lester Covington and Steve Cleveland. Expenses shall be advanced to the delegation in accordance with procedure established by the Colville Business Council. This resolution was unanimously adopted by the membership attending the meeting. Attest: HARVEY MOSES, Chairman. LUCY COVINGTON, Secretary. NESPELEM, WASH., March 29, 1965. Hon. LEE METCALF, Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: I urge that S. 1413, 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, not be passed by the 89th Congress. We Indians do not need such legislation and the Colville Business Council is wrong when they push for its enactment. My late husband, Cleveland Kamiakin, son the chief of the Yakima Nation at the time the treaty of 1855 was signed, always opposed termination proposals and I wish to offer similar views at this time. Many of us oppose liquidation of our homeland and the destruction of Indianhood. We do not share the views of the mixed-bloods on the Colville Business Council who are for termination of Federal trusteeship. I favor retention of the Colville Indian Reservation intact as the property of the confederated tribes. We do not want our land holdings to pass into the ownership of the non-Indian ranchers, sheepmen, State legislators, and others who look upon our tribal estate with avarice. We need to retain the tribal estate if the tribes are to survive and retain our tribal entity. Please accept this letter and insert it in the record of the hearing to be held April 5. DEAR SIR: In this letter, we refer to three separate issues, which we are numbering for easier reference. They are: (1) Objection to time limit between introduction of S. 1413 and the date of the hearing; (2) objection to method by which delegates were selected; and (3) listing, in order, our objections to specific sections of the bill. (1) This bill was introduced March 8, 1965. The tribal membership in general was not notified until March 22, either that such bills had been introduced or that hearings on these vitally important matters had been scheduled to take place within 2 weeks in Washington, D.C., more than 2,000 miles away from the home of the people affected. Two weeks is not sufficient time for all of the individual tribal members to prepare proper and intelligent criticisms expressing their views so that only those who are able to lay their hands on necessary funds for travel are represented. Those who remain at home are entitled to equal representation. We suggest that field hearings be held so that the people can represent themselves directly, or, if field hearings cannot be held, may we direct your attention to the printed record of the field hearings held in Spokane, Nespelem, and Seattle on October 24, 25, and 26, 1963. (2) We state of certain knowlędwge that no general tribal meeting was held for the purpose of selecting representatives or delegates to attend the hearings on April 5, 1965. We did hear rumors that a "special" meeting was to be held in the Nespelem schoolhouse, called by certain members of the business council. We immediately contacted the tribal executive secretary, Harry Owhi, and inquired into the purpose of that meeting and to learn if any meetings had been scheduled for the purpose of reviewing the bills, or otherwise dealing with the question of termination. We were told that no such meetings were scheduled. On that day, a former trustee of the Colville Indian Association, Mary Sumerlin, and I, decided to learn firsthand what matters were being discussed at the rumored meeting. We drove up to the Nespelem schoolhouse where members of the business council were conducting a meeting dealing with the bill, S. 1413, termination, and the selection of delegates, which delegates were selected because of their opposition to any termination bill, and nearly all of whom have benefited by paid positions with the Indian Bureau. Even though these delegates were selected in this secret manner, there can be no doubt that they will enjoy expense-paid trips to the hearings with moneys taken from our funds. We are enclosing a clipping from a local newspaper that names the delegates selected in this manner. We respectfully submit that none of these delegates were selected by a general tribal meeting and so, cannot represent the wishes of the tribal membership. (3) We take strong exception to the following sections of S. 1413, and its sister bill, H.R. 5925: Section 6(b): This section is a grave danger to the Indian owners of the timber for several reasons. First, the language in general is so cloudy as to leave room for great dissension among those attempting to interpret it into orderly action, especially since it does not provide any basis on which to price the timber. There is no language anywhere in the bill to guide the appraisers in establishing timber prices. Who is going to set the criteria for establishing these prices? We do not believe that the Congress would want to be any less fair with the Colvilles than with the Klamaths, in which case, according to the Stanford research report: "The Federal Government purchased the timber at a price representing the value that could be obtained from cutting the timber immediately. Actually, of course, immediate cutting of all the timber is not planned, but the Government was willing to ignore the costs of holding an investment in the timber until it is actually cut. If a similar arrangement could be worked out for the Colville timber, it is estimated that the value of the timber would be over $100 million.” Also we object to the use of "naturalization courts" (as provided in section 6(e), rather than any court of competent jurisdiction in dealing with the rights, property and affairs of any U.S. citizen. U.S.-born Indians were declared to be citizens of the United States in 1924. Section 16: The tribal governing body or business council setup and the constitution under which they function was imposed upon the Colville Indians by the Indian Bureau without the consent of the Indians. Since 1937, the tribal membership has found itself totally unable to stop these instruments from dissipating their property and funds and otherwise from meddling in their affairs. Their study of the concept of termination of Federal supervision, with its possible ramifications, has convinced the Colville Indians that the only way to stop these violences perpetuated by the business council is to end the authority which created and perpetuated the tribal governing body system. Section 16 strengthens and prolongs the wasteful and despised authority. The language in this section should be stricken, and it should be specified in the bill that the authority of the business council should end at the time the bill is enacted. Section 27: The entire language in this section should be stricken. The Secretary of the Interior should not be delegated any such authority over persons whose trust status, to all intents and purposes, has otherwise been removed. The Secretary of the Interior should be directed to issue the proclamation upon the date the other sections of the bill have been put into effect. Section 28: Although we have commented on section 6(b), which deals with our timber, we submit that the language in section 28 could adversely modify or completely abrogate the supposed intent of section 6 since all of our timber could be committed during the 4-year transition period between the enactment of the bill and the termination of Federal supervision. Since the timber is 90 percent of the asset, it is most desirable that any commitments of our timber should be stopped until equitable evaluation and disposal is provided, and such clear and definite language would be inserted in any honest termination bill. We believe that we are being helpful to the Congress, and that is our intent, by pointing out that clear, concise and specific language inserted in every section of a final termination bill can only eliminate expensive and time-consuming arguments over interpretation and semantics. We are for orderly termination of Federal control over the rights, property and affairs of the Colville Indian people, and we believe this can best be effected by the use of language which would prohibit misinterpretation as to the intent of the Congress. We respectfully request that this letter be included as a part of and included in the printed record of the hearings held on or subsequent to April 5, 1965, conducted by Senator Lee Metcalf, of the Senate Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Respectfully submitted. FRANK W. MOORE, Past President, Colville Indian Association. [From the Spokesman-Review, Mar. 31, 1965] COLVILLE UNIT WILL OPPOSE TERMINATION NESPELEM, WASH.-Eleven Colville Indian delegates have been named to oppose Senate bill 1413 before a Senate subcommittee in the Nation's Capital next Monday. The delegation was chosen Saturday at a meeting here. Lorraine F. Misiaszak, one of the delegates, said more than 250 Colvilles attended the meeting and expressed opposition section by section to the entire bill which would liquidate the Colville reservation. Mrs. Misiaszak said they also objected to "the short notice" of the hearing given by the subcommittee. Delegates chosen were Joe Boyd, Melvin Stensgar, Lucy Covington, Harvey Moses, Shirley Palmer, Louie Camille, T. B. Charley, Steve Cleveland, Mrs Misiaszak, George Friedlander and Lester Covington. INCHELIUM, WASH., March 31, 1965. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, New Senate Building, Washington, D.C. SIR: I oppose 1413 in it's entirety. It is the most vicious legislation ever to be imposed on the American Indian. With no other group, would our lawmakers of the land support such a drastic bill. I sincerely petition Congress to reject S. 1413. Yours truly, Hon. LEE METCALF, HENRY J. QUINTASKET. NESPELEM, WASH., March 29, 1965. Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: Please include this letter with the testimony offered on S. 1413 in a hearing to be conducted by your committee on April 5. I am opposed to enactment of S. 1413, the Colville termination bill being sponsored by a bare majority of the Colville Business Council. We do not need this kind of legislation and the business council should not now be sponsoring such legislation. Termination or liquidation of Federal trusteeship will be detrimental to the membership of the Confederated Tribes, especially we fullblood members, of the Colville Reservation. The withdrawal of Federal trusteeship will jeopardize the economic welfare of many Indians especially those of us of the older generations who do not fully understand the way of life that were not of the devising by Indians. I firmly oppose passage of S. 1413 despite the pious expressions of those of fractionated Indian blood who advocate this destructive piece of congressional legislation. Sincerely yours, Hon. LEE METCALF, ANNIE OWHI. NESPELEM, WASH., March 29, 1965. Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: Please include this letter as a part of the hearing record on S. 1413 which is to be discussed before your committee on April 5. I oppose enactment of S. 1413, the Colville termination bill now being sponsored by a majority of the membership of the Colville Business Council. The liquidation promoters do not express the views of Indians who are either fullbloods or of substantial Indian quantum. The liquidators have motives of a mercenary nature. They are inspired to espouse a philosophy which would result in Federal services and protection being terminated. |