To JAMES GAMBLE: PORTLAND, OREG., March 26, 1965. DEAR SIR: In regard to the termination bill, S. 1413, of the Colville Tribes, we are not in favor of this bill. We stand by Tom Edwards' statement that Mary Wong has with her. I am in favor of termination and would like to be able to vote on it; also we don't want to wait for 4 or 5 years. Before anything happens we want to terminate now. Anything that the business council says or does we don't go along with them at all. Thank you. MRS. DONNA Fox. NESPELEM, WASH., March 26, 1965. DEAR JAMES GAMBLE: I am against the proposed legislation because of the bill, section 6(g). I would be a person declared incompetent to taking care of my money. HELEN M. GEORGE. NESPELEM, WASH., March 26, 1965. DEAR SIR: I am writing you a few lines about how I feel about termination. I do not want termination or to sell my reservation. I am 68 years old and I have had my freedom on my reservation and I would like to remain that way. I am one-half Colville and one-half white but I like my Indian part best. As ever, GEORGE MARCHAND AND NESPELEM, WASH., March 26, 1965. DEAR SIR: I am writing you a line or two about termination. I do not want termination or I would want to have our reservation remain as it is. I do not want to terminate or sell. Iwant my freedom. I am 40 years old and I am an enrolled member of the Colville Tribe. As ever, yours, FRED J. MARCHAND. MONSE, WASH., SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. (Attention of James Gamble). GENTLEMEN: This letter is written in protest and complete opposition of the Senate bill calling for termination of Federal supervision over the property and affairs of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, State of Washington. I am opposed to termination in any way, shape, or form. I feel that this reservation was set aside for the Indians and was meant to remain as such for as long as we "Indians" wished. I am a fullblood Indian and I detest the intentions of our white Indians of one-quarter degree, or less, trying to sell us out for what they can get out of it. I feel that the present bill, as introduced, is unfair and completely unrealistic, because it calls for a vote before an appraisal. Many tribal members have been misled to believe that each individual member's equity in the reservation is worth as much as $40,000. I am sure that, should the bill pass in its present form, many tribal members will go to the polls thinking that this is what they are worth. I feel that if an appraisal were made prior to the vote, the members will find out they are not worth the quoted amount but considerably less. In any business transaction, the most logical thing to do is to have your property appraised before you decide to sell it. Perhaps after the appraisal, you might discover that it would be more desirable to keep what you have and improve it, rather than sell it outright. I should like to have my name placed on record as being strictly opposed to Federal termination. I am completely satisfied with the present management of our reservation and would like to see it remain as such for future generations of Indians. However, if termination legislation is destined to pass, it would be my recommendation to have an appraisal before a vote. Respectfully yours, AGNES L. KRUGER. KELLER, WASH., March 29, 1965. JAMES GAMBLE, Senate Interior Committee, I am against proposed bill S. 1413. We are run by so-called Indians-some only about one-eighth Indian-whose only interest is the lure of money which they will receive. They have no consideration of our fullblood Indians. I don't believe the majority of our fullblood Indians, like myself, are ready for termination. Speaking for myself, I have been satisfied with the way the U.S. Government has been taking care of us and protecting our lands. We older Indians have had no education. For instance I have two old aunts who can't read nor write. Someone tells them "here, sign right here," and they sign without fully understanding what they are signing. I am sure there are a lot more like them. What do you want to do, have us all to end up welfare cases? The way we are, at least we have places to live. The late Jim James, chief of our tribe would have wanted it that way. I believe I have said enough. Please consider from the standpoint of a real Indian, not from those who are not Indians. They look like whites that is most of our councilmen—and our planning committee. There are today many groups calling themselves this or that, which tends to confuse. They tell you one thing and mean another. I am a Son Poil Indian. Sincerely, Mrs. KATHLEEN TSKULNAST BURKE. MONSE, WASH., JAMES GAMBLE, Senate Interior Committee, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. SIR: I am not for the termination bill S. 1413. I would like to have my people have a fair vote before the ones that want to sell us out, terminate us without our vote so, for myself and my old people what are getting very few left on our lands and also for my children and grandchildren, I want to remain on our Indian lands that is just a spot left for us Indians. So I say: No to S. 1413. I am a fullblood Colville. Thanks. DEAR SIR: I am opposed to bills H.R. 5925 and S. 1413. The majority of the Colville Indian Tribes are against termination. Yours truly, LOUIS FRIEDLANDER. MONSE, WASH., March 26, 1965. JAMES GAMBLE, SIR: I am against S. 1413, termination bill. I'm a fullblood Colville Indian and I want to keep my Indian lands and my fishing and hunting for my children and my grandchildren-just like I have inherited from my grandparents and my ancestors. I would like to have a chance to vote before our termination coun 46-705-65- -17 cil sells our lands for us people that aren't for termination. So I say "No" for S. 1413. I have lived under Federal supervision for 49 years and I for one want to keep on being under Federal law because of the things that has been provided for my children and I, because of the Federal aid that has helped my children in their schooling. So for my children and myself I say "No" to S. 1413. Thanks. MRS. KATHRYN MCCRAIGIE. CARSON CITY, NEV SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, (Attention James Gamble). DEAR SIR: I am writing in regard to the proposed legislation providing for the termination of the Colville Indian Reservation, S. 1413. I have remained silent on the subject of termination as I am no longer a resident. However with the current attitude of Congress and the organized efforts of some, mostly breeds, I feel it necessary to express my thoughts. There 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-fourth degree Colville or more should be allowed to vote. Most of the Federal programs require that the Indian be of at least one-fourth degree Indian. Shouldn't this provision apply also to this? Thank you. CHARLIE MOSES, Jr., Quarter-degree Colville Indian. P.S.-Senator Metcalf, in conducting your hearings it would be well to ascertain the degree of Colville Indian the speaker is. KEWA, WASH., March 28, 1965. Hon. HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington, D.C. HON. SENATOR JACKSON: I am writing to protest the passing of the one-step termination bill, S. 1413, for the Colville Indians. This bill if passed at this time will be rushing our people into acts the majority will not understand and therefore will not be able to cope with to their best interest. Our stepped-up education program has only begun. Another 5 years would give our younger people the opportunity to gain the knowledge to be able to make decisions more wisely concerning our vast resources. A member of ours said to me yesterday (a fullblood Colville). "If they would wait awhile-a few more years us older people would be dead and the younger people could terminate and sell." Our people, the ones who are of lesser degree and live on the reservation, are forgetting the people on the reservation and those with greater degree of Indian blood for the money possibilities they believe will be coming their way. If a termination bill is to pass and come into effect this session I would recommend the inclusion of tribal members be given the opportunity to meet any and all bids received for property, allotments or tribal, to be sold by competitive bidding. I realize this letter will be in the minority group but ask that you give it every consideration. Respectfully submitted. NELLIE RIMA, Member, Colville Consolidated Tribes. Senator HENRY M. JACKSON, Silver Spring, Md. NESPELEM, WASH., March 29, 1965. (Care of S. Sterling Monroe, Jr.). MY FRIEND SENATOR JACKSON: My name: Joe Redthunder; address Nespelem, Wash., Post Office Box 275, where the landmark of my famous Indian Leader Chief Joseph and his band. I am a full descendant of Chief Joseph, for that reason I have a leadership with my group of fullblooded Indians. They do not read or write the borrowed language. We believe in Indian freedom, American way of life, not mention Selma, Ala., Vietnam. We don't want that. Also to say bill, S. 1413, will never fit in with our way of life. against bill, S. 1413. My people are not ready for such conditions. Thanking you with all my hope. Sincerely yours truly, fully oppose Mr. JOE REDTHUNDER. SENATE INTERIOR COMMITTEE, New Senate Office Building, NESPELEM, WASH., April 12, 1965. (Attention James Gamble). DEAR SIR: I'm against the termination, because when this bill ever goes through I will have no place to go. Here now I can go fishing, and hunting whenever I please. I don't have to pay any taxes. I practice my religious rights in the Indian way. Whenever I'm terminated I shall have to pay taxes, and if anything goes wrong legally I'll have to hire a lawyer, or guardian who will strip me of my money before I can say "Ouch." Why don't they let us educate our people more. We are not prepared to terminate yet, to my opinion they are rushing us into this thing. Those liquidators hold secret meetings, vote which goes on record and mailed to some office. We don't know what is going to happen when they turn us loose. Maybe it will be of some benefit to some of the enrolled Colville and a disadvantage to others; I really don't know. I have no job now, due to the fact I'm not educated enough. I use to go out and pick hops, now they have picking machines, which only takes two or three persons to operate. I use to work on the farm now I can't because the machinery took our place. The only place I have now is the reservation where I can go fishing and hunting when I get hungry. I can cut my own wood whenever I run out of wood; sell some. My folks go out and dig roots, for my medicine and berries to eat. Now they are trying to take away my land and turn me loose into this cruel world I don't know anything about. There is such thing as vagrancy, in the big cities. If we have enough leaders on the Colville Reservation, we can have our own sawmills, dams, schools, even colleges, and universities. Why can't the President propose a bill to educate us; put in compulsory schools; let us run our own government; and let the Government protect us from the discriminations, taxations, and let us be as Indians. And when we can prove ourselves capable to handle our own affairs then maybe we will be ready to terminate. Yours very truly, WILLIE FRANK. NESPELEM, WASH., April 10, 1965. Hon. LEE METCALF, Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: I want to be recorded as being opposed to enactment of S. 1416, the Colville termination bill. I am an enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation and own several tracts of allotted land. I object to S. 1413 as it is a bill that would not benefit those of us who intend to spend our lifetimes on the Colville Indian Reservation. I favor retention of our traditions and ancient rights which I consider valuable and a matter of pride in our way of life. I am among those who want to retain our special status and not step down to my ordinary rights as a citizen of the United States. As an Indian, I have strong convictions to the effect that I should continue my life as a fullblood Indian and not submit to a conformity, and especially to a lesser status, on a parity with those whose forebears came from alien shores. We need to continue as an organized and recognized tribe or tribes of Indians under the protecting cloak of the U.S. Government. We are entitled to this right. Our right to hold our lands free of State taxation is a valuable vested right and I have no desire to give it up in the face of exaggerated claims being made "in the interest of progress." Please do not enact S. 1413. It is a bad bill and not conducive to fulfilling the legal and moral obligations of the Federal Government. I want to retain my Indian status which I prize very highly. S. 1413 will not make a white person out of me or benefit me in any way. Indian status is not incompatible to good citizenship and more people should realize this fact. S. 1413 will only result in a big landgrab, and the land to be seized upon is owned by the Indians of this reservation. Sincerely, Hon. LEE METCALF, Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, U.S. Senate, LUCY REDTHUNDER. DENVER, COLO., April 11, 1965. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: The purpose of this letter is to present your subcommittee my written testimony concerning S. 1413 for inclusion in the printed records of the hearing on S. 1413. I am in favor of having termination legislation enacted for the Colvilles, but I am not in favor of S. 1413. I am in favor of H.R. 6331 which would vest each Colville with cash equal to the true value of his equity. The bill S. 1413 would not give us the true value of our equity. I am very much opposed to the language of subsection (b) of section 6 which states: "The fair market value of the timber assets shall be defined to be the market price that would be realized if the sale of the timber assets were made over a period of ten years." The Colville Indian Association of which I am a member has done a great deal of research on determining the best approach to termination. The association has shown that the amount of timber involved each year for 10 years would amount to trying to increase the Washington State's volume of timber sold by 25 percent. To have the Secretary of the Interior determine the value of our timber based on market impact considerations trying to allow for increasing the volume of timber marketed by 25 percent would be very unfair to we Indians who are the owners of this property. Subsection (c) of section 2 of H.R. 6331 is a much more realistic approach for determining the true value of our timber assets. This approach would cast our Federal Government in its true role as our guardian, the guardian of each Colville's equity in the Colville Indian Reservation. I am also opposed to S. 1413 because it creates a so-called remaining group just like the Klamath Act did to the Klamath Indians in Oregon. This mistake should not be repeated. The worst thing that should happen to a Colville should be the situation wherein he will end up with a fist full of money equal to the true value of his equity in the Colville Indian Reservation. Very truly yours, Mrs. DOLLY E. CLEM. NESPELEM, WASH., April 10, 1965. Hon. LEE METCALF, Chairman, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, New Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR METCALF: Please include my statement as a part of the record of the hearing on S. 1413. I oppose enactment of S. 1413. I am an enrolled Indian on the Colville Indian Reservation and do not agree that our reservation should be terminated by a lifting of the trusteeship over the trust-held lands of the reservation. Please do not pass S. 1413. We do not like it. Sincerely, NED CLEVELAND. |