-
Volume 1, NO.4
NfLL No.010003/1972
September 197
California Indians- Double Genocide
Ii
Iv
I
I
Ignorance makes of a mana fearful animal whoseresponse to alien
eyes, skincolor, dress, and customis hostile, whose singleimpulse
is to stamp out,to obliterate from sightand consciousness a
worldview that contravenes his own.
Almost Ancestors-The First Ctl/i!ornians
OIn 1848, when the Treaty of Guada-lupe-Hildalgo was signed at
the con-clusion of the Mexican War andCalifornia became a part of
the UnitedStates, about 200,000 Indians occupied90 per cent of the
new state. By theturn of the century less than 20,000had
survived.
The Spaniards began the initial actof obliteration of the native
culturewith their missions and pyramidalsociety (Indians as the
peon base andthe conquerors as the aristocracy) asfar back as 1769.
Spanish missionswere filled with Indians roundldup without
reference to tribe,tongue or personal willingness.What the
Spaniards did by this . :::xtransposition was decimate ~t. ··Wthe
populations of whole ..,~ ~.;~~:tribes-they learned a..Jl,i; ~W.too
late that In- ~ :2:dians who were .-. • ~uprooted, enslavedand
stripped of theircultural identity,chose death to life.o The Gold
Rushbrought an enormousinflux of Anglo-Saxons who lacked
even a discriminatory pyrarnidialvision for Indians. The
settlers calledthe Indians "Diggers," and seeing themas scarcely
human began to makeslaves of them, to herd them likecattle to
unde~irable lands to let themdie, and most of all to simply
extermi-
nate them. Being an Indian-killer w;considered by many settlers
to be ~honorable profession.The settler-conquerors are often I'
membered as brave adventurers, Ieoften as ignorant racists.
Their ations were not labeled as genocicuntil after the Second
World W;when the act of attempting to wilout another culture
finally bore on tlcollective conscience. The last SLviving Indians
are left with an uimaginable sense of loneliness. Idetity can now
be found only in their ovperson; their people, language, atculture
are gone.
The Lost TreatiesAfter the Treaty of GuadalupHildalgo, the U.S.
Government sethree commissioners to Californianegotiate with the
Indians for theland. They started at the top of t
state and when they finished thhad 18 treaties. In them, t
Indians had ceded 75 million acrto the United States, keepil
only 8.5 million for themselv,The Indians were never tc
that the treaties had toratified by the Senate. Th
also did not know tlthe California legislatu
and governor arguvigorously that ttreaties should I'
be ratified, Ithat rather t
Indians shouldbe removed beyo
the bordersthe state. T
-
stop what they considered to bean illegal and non-existant
acceptanceof their portion of the claim, thesettlement was
ratified.
Congress appropriated the $29 mil-lion and put it in trust. In
1968 alaw waS passed specifying how themonies were to be
distributed, andsince that time the Bureau of IndianAffairs has
been in the process ofdetermining who should be eligible
topl1fticip.ate in the settlement.
California Indians;;~~ti,;.,!79r~~,:~flJf~~JtI~.J1'lentW~;'d:~('
S~metime'i~i:iiliei.n~h'few Ym~nths;
, .. ' the; Bureaui of ; t~diitn ';Affarrs c. willdistribute)
ii/the •.iCalifomhiHndianstheprOeeeds'of the'
Califrniaclaimsjudgment. Ii is estimated' that: 'eachCalifornia
IIidianwilI receive between$600 and $800" to be' considered afmal
compensation for the seizure ofthe ,75 million acres of land.
ManyCalifornia Indians feel that their ac-ceptance' of the award
(which was theresult of a compromise of the claim)was procured
without their beingaware of all the facts and implications.
.. Many resent the roles of some of the• claims attorneys who,
the Indians
allege, spent too much time arguingamong themselves, and who
seemedintent on a settlement of the claim.
Thus, many California Indians arereluctant to accept this
payment. Inaddition to feeling that the award isinadequate payment
for land itself,many people feel that they should becompensated for
the genocide com-mitted by the State of California andits citizens.
In addition, many peoplewould prefer to receive trust landsrather
than money, for they do notwish to surrender their claims to
theland.
On September 9, 1972, a groupcalling themselves "California
Indiansfor a Fair Settlement" will be meetingin Sacramento to
aSsess various alter-natives to the settlement of this claim.Many
are hopeful of going. back tocourt to try to reopen the claims
case.In addition to payment for the deaths,enslavement, and
suffering of Cali-fornia Indians' when the land was ta-ken, they
want a land base for those
_ remaining survivors. Because they• know the government will
argue that
the case cannot be reopened becausethe Indians have been paid
for the
lap.d, they hope to join a~ a group anddeposit their claims
payments in atrust account either with the govern-ment or in a
bank.
There are several reasons why Ia-dians have been joining
together inthis effort. Some feel that they haveno right to sell
land; that it belongsto everyone. Others have joined be-cau~e they
know that California isworth much more than 47 cents anacre. Still
others say that this paymentis far too small considering that
thereis a risk that California Indians willlose all of their Indian
benefits andbecause they believe the governmentmust be made to pay
for the sufferingsof their ancestors.
For further information aboutCalifornia Indians for a Fair
Settlementwrite to:
Joseph Carrillo915 Capitol Mall, Room 309Sacramento, California
95814
Public Law 280
Law is a continuously evolvingphenomenon, Intrinsically socialIn
nature. These characteristicsit shares with the consciousnessof a
culture.
In 1953, as part of its general policyto terminate federal
services to Indiantribes, Congress passed Public Law 280which
purported to give specificstates, including California, civil
andcriminal jurisdiction over Indian tribeswithin their boundaries.
The intendedpurpose of P.L. 280 was to facilitatethe integration of
Indians into thelocal and state structures which sur-rounded
them.
Since the implementation of P.L.280 in California 19 years ago,
reser-vation Indians have had numerousdifficulties with the
"benefit" of beingsubject to the jurisdiction of local
lawenforcement agencies. Discrimination,brutality, and harrassment
have beenall too common when county and stateofficers have
exercised jurisdictionupon Indian reservations. In
numerousinstances, police and sheriffs fail torespond in time of
need, but have beenall too willing and available to arrestIndian
people for drunkenness, (actualor suspected), as well as for
otherpetty infractions.
As repugnant as these excesses have
been, the extension of the Califomipenal code to reservation
lands h,not until recently been a significalthreat to the remnants
of Indian cuture and life style. However, recentI'local governments
have begun to asert police power jurisdiction to aextent and in a
manner which, if UJheld by the federal courtS, will assUIthe
destruction of tribal sovereignt
Unlike many western states, Cafornia has very few areas which
aJtruly rural, except in the extrerrnorthern part of the state.
Particularin southern California, reservatiolwhich may have been
geographicalisolated. when established, are nobeing surrounded by
urban or concetrated suburban development. As goernment attempts to
regulate neland developments in previously UJdeveloped areas,
attention is beirdirected to nearby Indian reservtions which, until
now, have beelargely ignored. There are severcounties which have
begun to a,gressively enforce local building codeand zoning
ordinances on Califofornia reservations. Insofar as buildincodes
require expensive permits ,well as needlessly expensive and
Cllturally biased building specificatiorand materials, the
enforcement (such codes can easily render thconstruction of a
dwelling or otheimprovements beyond the financi,means of many
Indians.
The application of state and loc,ordinances also threatens
tribal planfor the economic development of rcservation resources.
The enforcemerof zoning laws can severely limit thability of tribal
governments to determine how reservation lands are tbe used. In
cases where Indian landadjoin non-Indian recreational or
otheproperty, the political influence cwealthy non-Indian
landowners mawell result in the use of Indian Ianbeing restricted
so as to be compatiblwith the maximization of the profitof the
white landowners.
Basically the zoning of Indian Iansubjects and subordinates the
Indian:whose occupation of particular resevations preceded the
Anglo OCClpation of surrou~ding lands, to thdesires and
manioulation of norIndian land owne~ and speculator:The result is
further economic ancultural disaster for Indian peopleAt the
present time the states an
-
counties are reading P.L. 280 as a defacto termination act, at
the very timewhen' Congress and the. Executivebranches of the
government are recog-nizing the immorality and destructive-ness of
termination and 'are. for' thatreason,abandoning it.
Termination-~~T().Wipe;(jut",
,.','
-
tions promised in the 18 lost Treawere never created and those
reseJtions that were created later \\widely scattered and very
smallis important to note that today cabout 6,000 of the 40,000
NaCalifornia Indians live on reservati(Approximately 50,000 other
NaiAmericans in California have b,relocated to California from
otstates and they do not live on reseJtions, but in urban areas. It
setstrange that the funds were remowhen those intended to be the
primbeneficiaries of the Johnson O'MaAct. were Indians "so
interminEwith the general population ofstate that it was not
praticaleconomical for the Department (Bto obtain separate services
for the
There is nothing in the languagethe legislative history of the
JohnO'Malley Act which has authorithe Bureau of Indian Affairs
todemine that the funds are for sclldistricts with large blocks of
tax-!Indian land and relatively large D1bers of Indian
children.
The attempt by the DepartmentInterior and Bureau of Indian Affto
restrict the distribution of J.Ofunds on the above basis has prompa
lawsuit by the California Indian Ecation Association, (C.I.E.A.)
agathe Secretary of Interior. The case'filed in March 1972 and set
fcthe controversy over the IntelDepartment regulations purportto
limit permissible J.O.M. bene!aries. The suit is being handby
California Indian Legal Serviand a copy of the complaint in 1case
is available from the NaticIndian Law Library, (No. oonA hearing on
a Motion to Dismissthe defendants is scheduled for e,September. The
basis for the motis an alleged lack of standingC.I.E.A. to bring
this suit. Further,plifying the standing issue aremembers of
C.LE.A. who have fipetitions on their own behalf to invene as
plaintiffs in the suit.
Public education of Californiadians has proven to be
unsatisfact(intrinsically, and in comparison vIndian education
programs in otstates. The consensus is that ifJohnson-O'Malley Act
of 1934 wreapplied to California, it could be
. California was the .first state tocontract with the Bureau of
IndianAffairs to receive J.O.M. funds. From1934 until the move for
terminationin the 1950's cancelled all J.O,M.funding in California,
the state re-ceived more than $300,000 a year,which was a
percentage of the JohnsonO'Malley appropriation approximatingthe
proportion of Indians in Californiato the national Indian
population(12%). It was in 1957, when the B.LA.adopted an
administrative regulationlimiting Johnson O'Malley funds toschool
districts with "large blocks ofnon-taxable ". Iridian oWned
property"that •• California:.'l.ost· its funding. Cali-fornia, of
course, has very few largeblocks of tax-freeland. The reserva-
federal government. It is this questionof the legal status of
terminatedIndians with which the Inter-TribalCouncil is
concerned.
California IndianEducation'The Johnson O'Malley Act of
1934acknowledged the federal govern-ment's responsibility as a
guardian todeal with the problems which areunique to Indian
education. Implicitin the J.O.M. legislation is a concept
....... :that this', fecieral .responsibility cant~stbe
metbyproviding the individualf;~t~te~ ~.th·. if ~mmCial inc~ntive
to',~undertakeeducation progra~design~
~;\~~~*~~})~nefi~,India~'2f~~re~;r::j,k:
li·;~~'.f:~;; "
~T{::'~-.:'"
)
)
-
-- .
TRIBES AND TERRITORIESOF CALIFORNIA INDIANS
did not even contend that their clientshad title (even though
conclusiveevidence of the established Indiancommunities stands
close by the HotSp~gs. to this day in the form ofadobe cOttages,
now modernized toaccoDlodate tourists; a sign over onereads "built
by the Indians in 1830").Instead the'attorneys asserted that
theIndians had merely a "usufructuaryright under Guadalupe
Hidalgo", theright of "use and occupancy", and thatthe indians and
their ancestors had"remained in continuous, open, notor-ious
adverse possession". This wasnot the law; the Indians owned
titlesto their communities or rancherias inWarner Valley and the
attorneysshould have claimed title.
Further the attorneys for the Indiansdid not cite any of the
controllingdecisions of the Supreme Court whichrecognized the
effect of Spanish and
(
Mexican law in preserving and pro-tecting Indian title, and
giving effect.to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgoin perpetuating and
protecting thoseproperty rights.
The Supreme Court of the UnitedStates having been inadequately
ad-vised by counsel for the Indians, err-oneously held that "If
these Indianshad any claims founded on the actionof the Mexican
Government theyabandoned them by not presentingthem to the
commission for consider-ation ...." pursuant to the Act ofMarch
1851 which established theCalifornia Land Claims Commissionbut of
which the Indians had neverbeen informed. Still the Act
estab-lishing the California Land ClaimsCommission had no
application what- Usoever to Indian titles, for these hadalready
been the subject of a specialAct of Congress in which the 18
200 .11••ISO100soo
single most effective measure to im-prove the quality of
education forIndian children in that state.
If it could have been said at one timethat the State of
California agreed tothe withdrawal of I.O.M. funds, that isno
longer the case. Both the Californialegislature and Department of
Educa-tiOI! wish the BIA to reinstate I.O.M.funding. Calif9rnia
Indians neveraSsented to the withdrawal in thefll"Stplace; and
they, too, urge rein~statement.
: ~.:..'-,~,.::_~- ~>"!.~. ;~.L;~. ~.,,;-:: ;0~,:-;\
,'9.:~f~:'·" -:::-_,~:-·t.::;:i I' ")'j{~.-:,t..;:., .. "':-
,r.•:;The.~AgUa;:caIiente,Band ;an,djnanyother?,Ban.dso(,:Southern·
CaliforniaIndians had used since time immem-orial
~.areanow;~o~as'Warner'sValley. For generations the Indiansregarded
the, hot springs there', assacred and made pilgrimages to themfrom
far and near.
A gentleman muned Harvey claimedtitle to the Warner Ranch
landspursuant to a patent from the U.S.Government to I. I. Warner
on Ianu-ary 16, 1880, and brought action tooutst the Indians.
Harvey won in thelower courts and the case eventuallyreached the
Supreme Court of theUnited States on appeal (Barker V.Harvey, 181
U.S. 480 45 L. Ed. 9631901).
The Indians, without an attorney oftheir own choosing, were
forced torely upon counsel selected by thegovernment for. them. The
SupremeCourt of the United States reliedupon the attorney employed
by theBureau of Indian Affairs, and thegovernment attorney, to
present theIndians' case, but examination otthe brief in the Suprme
Court revealsa patent failure to assert the truelegal position of
the Indians and thecase was lost by default.
Even the most supedicial researchinto the Spanish and Mexican
lawconcerninS! Indian land tenure would'lave reve'iIed that the
Indians held.itle to established communities andrancherias.
Attorneys for the Indians
6
-
--_..
treaties were negotiated. Had theattorneys been diligent in
protecting
Athe interests of the Indians, they\.ftould have immediately
petitioned
the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates for a rehearing for this
andother reasons, but no such petitionwas ever filed.
The genOCide of the California Indianpeople and the theft of
their landcannot be undone. The, deciinationthat occurred in the
19th centurymight be viewed as the ruthless actsof
conquerors-irrational, without mo-tive or considerable
premeditation-and therefore not reflective on theconsciousness of
the society which
Opermitted it. This is not true oflaw as it has been applied to
Cali-fornia Indians.
Law is a more accurate reflector ofthe conscience of American
societythan any other activity, because itmust ultimately rely on
support fromthe culture as a whole. Unlike therules of morality,
law is surroundedby and intertwined with customs andrites which
reveal attitudes and beliefshidden by the bare rule. It is
thereforeall the more despicable that the geno-cide has continued
to occur through-out the 20th century.
The law has been used to removefrom th~ California Indians land
andmost of the remnants of their culture.In some instances it has
been becauseIndians were not informed of theirrights or their need
to petition; inother instances they have been poorlyrepresented;
and in still others theCongress has made laws which, al-though may
have been intended tobenefit Indians, were in fact instrumen-tal in
furthering the cycle of destruc-tion.o It may be possible to
somewhatmitigate the hardship and degradationstill endured by the
surviving Cali-fomia natives. There can be no justi-
Degana',vidah...Quetza!ccat!UniversityP.O. Box 409Davis,
California 95616Telephone: (916) 758-0470
Bruce R. Greene, Executive DirecCalifornia Indian Legal
Services2527 Dwight WayBerkeley, California 94704Telephone (415)
845-6171
ClLS also has branch offices in Bish.Escondido, Eureka and
Ukiah.
Deganawidah-QuetzalcoatlUniversityDescendants of Native
Americansthe United States number apprcmately 7 to 8 million
persons. Th<people share racial and cultural Vallwhich they have
maintained in spitepersistent efforts to assimilate th(into the
dominant society.
the Office of Economic OpportunThe primary objective of the
projis to obtain land for landless CaIifoIIndians, and to help
existing resertions with their land problems,cluding boundary
disputes, clouetitles, rights of way and others.
For further information about Cland the Land Project write to
the ClCentral Office:
It is the consensus of the NatjAmerican community that its
cultuheritage may be preserved and <hanced through educational
Opportlities at an ethnic university. To tend, the nation'slirst
Americandian-ehicano University was foundin 1971. It is located in
north-centCalifornia on land seized by Chicarand Indians after it
had been ab,doned by the United States Army. T640 acre campus
called Deganawid,Quetzalcoatl University, in memcof leading ligures
in Iroquois aAztec history, welcomed its ficlass in July of 1971.
The D-(curriculum consists of agriculturliberal arts and vocational
offerinlit emphasizes studies in Native Amiican history and
contemporary cultu
Prospective students and interestpersons may write for further
inf.mation about D-QU to DirectorStudent Services:
fication for Indians livlng as "squat-ters" when the very
instrument~lityby which their lands were stolen fromdiem-the
federal government-owns44% of California, of which 14%· isvacant.
The Indians realistically needbut a fraction of 1%. Similarly,
thereis no justification for the multiplicityof land problems now
afflicting reser-vations, rancherias and allotmentswhen the means
are at hand, at arelatively small cost, to remedy suchproblems.
Land is critical to Indian culturalsurvival. It is religiously
sacred toIndians and for many it can providea dignified, secure
home. For some itcan increase economic self-sufficiencyand help
provide a more adequatestandard of living. The alternativeto
constructive action is continuinggenocide.•. injustice, festering
bitter-ness and the final death of the firstCalifornians.
California IndianLegal ServicesCalifornia Indian Legal Services
pro-vides legal assistance and advice toIndians throughout the
state. TheNative American Rights Fund wasoriginally a pilot project
of CILS, andthe Fund continues to have a closeworking relationship
with the CaE-fomia program.
CILS recently established the Cali-fornia Rural Indian Land
Consolida-tion Project, with the assistance of
"There Is Dot much that Ismore imPortant for humanbeings than
their relationswith each other, and It Isthese which laws are
designedto e~ress." '
;~",!i',L~": . OweD Barfield
Continuing Genocide
~H:8-":"·, ;",.
j
-
8arona Group of Capitan Band of Missionladians
Barona Reservation
Native Tribes AndGroups Of CaliforniaIn 1770(approximate
totalpopulation -300,000)
o
o
u
Cahto TribeLaytonville Reservation
Los Coyotes Band of Mission ladiansLos Coyotes Reservation
ManzanIta Band of MissIon IndiansManzanita Reservation
Pomo-Patwln TribeMiddletown Rancheria
Pala Band of MissIon ladiansPala Reservation
Mesa Grande Band of Mission ladiansMesa Grande Reservation
Mission Creek Band of Mission ladiansMission Creek
Reservation
t.a Pasta Band of Mission IndiansLa Pasta Reservation
Morongo Band of Mission ladiansMorongo Reservation
Pauma Band of MissIon IndiansPauma Reservation
Pechaaga Band of MissIon IndiansPechanga Reservation
. La Jolla Band of Mission IndiansLa Jolla Reservation
Cahuilla Band of MissIon ladiansRamona Reservation
San Lu!seno Band of MissIon IndiansRincon Reservation
Yuki, Pitt River, Uttle Lake, Koakow, Wylackl,Pomo, NomaIackl
aud Wlatua Tribes
Round Valley Reservation
Tache TribeSanta Rosa Rancheria
San Pascual Band of Mission IndiansSan Pascual Reservation
San Manuel Band [of MissIon IndiansISan Manuel Reservation
Santa Rosa Band of Mission IndiansSanta Rosa Reservation
Santa Ysabel Band of Mission ladiansSanta Ysabel Reservation
Santa Ynez Band of Mission ladiansSanta Ynez Reservation
Pitt Rivcr-Paiute TribeXL Reservation
Paiute, Maldu, Pitt River and Washoe TribesSusanville
Rancheria
Soboba Band of Mission ladiansSoboba Reservation
CahII Dehe Band of Wlatua ladiansColusa Rancheria
Pitts TrfbeBig Bend Rancheria
Wlatua TribeCortina RancheriaRumsey )Uncheria
Quechan TribeFort Yuma Reservation
Augustlae Band of Mission IndiansAugustine Reservation
Mono TribeCold Springs RancheriaBig Sandy Reservation
(Auberry)
Nomalackl-WaUackl TribeGrindstone Creek Rancheria
Paiute TribeCedarville RancheriaFort Bidwell ReservationFort
Independence Reservation
MoJave TribeFort MoJave Reservation
Palute-Shoshone TribesBig Pine ReservationBishop ReservationLone
Pine Reservation
YurokTribeHoopa Extension ReservationHoopa Valley
ReservationTrimdad Reservation
Cnyapalpe Band of MissIon ladiansCuyapaipe Reservation
MissIon Band of Indians of Campo CommunityCampo Reservation
Cabazon Band of MissIon ladiansCabazon Reservation
Cahuilla Band of MissIon IndiansCahuilla Reservation
Maldu TribeBerry Creek RancheriaEnterprise RancheriaMooretown
RancheriaNevada City RancheriaAuburn Rancheria (mixed)Greenville
RancheriaStrawberry Valley Reservation
VleJas, Barona and non-reservation ladiansCapitan Grande
Reservation
Me-Wuk TribeJacksw"1 RaucheriaSheep Ranch RancheriaBuena Vista
RancheriaCortina RancheriaShingle SpringsChicken Ranch
InaJa-Cosmit TribeInaja-Cosmit Reservation
YumaHalchidhomaKohuanaMohave
WlatuaWintuNomlakiPatwin
MalduN"ISCnan' ,
Kern RiverTubatulabalBankalachi
SerranoKitanemuk (Tejon)Alliklik
Mohineyam(Vanyume)Serrano
GabrielfDoFernandenoGabrielinoNicoleno
Lulseao-CahulllaJuanenoLuisenoCupenoCahuilla
TolowaHupaWhIIkutMattoleWaDaId
r:.s,;dSlakyoneKato'Bear River:.'/',;;"\,f.,,:,,"
Y~kJ" iWJ,yot"
MiwokYaid CostaDoanHuclmom YokutsWappo Modoc
Shasta Moao-BaiuaOckKoaomlha PaviotsoOkwaauchu Owens Valley
PaiuteAchomawl (Pitt River) Mono Lake PaiuteAtsagewl Monache"
- Paaamlat ShoshoneY.... (Koso)Yahl Ute-Cliemehuevl~
Qemeh~vi
Chlmarlko Kawaiisu (Tehachapi)
PomoWashoEsseIea
SaIIaaaAntonianoMiguelenoPlayano
ChumashObispenoPurisimenoYnezenoBarbarenoVenturenoEmigdianoCuyamaIsland
YlIIIIlIIlDieguenoKamia
Known Tribes AndReservations InCalifornia In 1972(approximate
totalpopulation -40,000)Agua Caliente Baud
Agua Caliente Reservation
Pitt River TribeAltur'as Rancherialikely ReservationLookout
Rancheria
8
-
J
Sycuan Band of Mission Indianso Sycuan
ReservationTorres-Martinez Band of Mission Indians
Torres-Martinez Reservation
Tole River TribeTule River Reservation
Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk IndiansTuolumne Rancheria
Twenty-NIne Palms Band of (MissIon] InclfansTwenty-N'me Palms
Reservation
VIeJas Groupof;,Capltan Grande Band ofMission Indians:
, Viejas Reseryation,-I.: . ,i];\:(~~~':,,;,rF;iJ~,
Pomo TribeSulphur Bank RancheriaBig Valley.(Mission)
ReservationCache Creek ReservationLower Lake ReservationRobinson
ReservationScotts Valley (Sugar Bowl) ReServationUpper Lake
*1'Coyote Valley ReservationGuidiville ReservationHopland
.ReservationManchester-Point Arena ReservationPinoleville
ReservationPotter Valley ReservationRedwood Valley
ReservationOoverdale ReservationDry Creek ReservationGraton
Reservation
O Lytton ReservationMark West ReservationStewart's Point
Reservation
National Indian LawLibrary Tribal IndexThe National Indian Law
Library isin-the process of compiling a TribalIndex which will list
all tribes knownin the United States since its discovery.It will
also include native villages ofAlaska and all reservations existing
to-day.
The Index will be used in conjunc-tion with the Indian Claims
Commis-sion Reports and the regular holdingsof the National Indian
Law Library.Anyone wishing information aboutany tribe will be able
to look up thetribe in the index and find a listingof all cases in
which that particulartribe has been involved.
Persons interested in this project,who either may have
informationabout little known tribes or who wouldlike to purchase a
copy of the National
_ Indian Law Library Tribal Indexl)should write directly to:
Diana Lim, Research AssociateNative American Rights FundNational
Indian Law Library
-_ ..
1506 BroadwayBoulder, Colorado 80302Telephone (303) 447-8760
ext. '48
National Indian LawLibrary HoldingsThe following is a list of
recentacquisitions now available through theNational Indian Law
Library. Togetherwith the lists in the first and secondissues of
Announcements, they com-prise a current listing of all
Libraryholdings. We will continue to up-datethis list in subsequent
issues of ,An-nouncements.
The Library will soon have accessto an'Off-set press to be used
inprinting the complete catalogue ofdocuments available in each
case andthe subject index. We have alreadybeen receiving requests
for theseitems. The document catalogue willbe ready near the end of
October, andthe subject index later this year. Ifyou are interested
in receiVIng eitherof these documents, please fill outthe
Subscription and Catalogue re-quest form on the last page of
thisissue.
The recently acquired case materials are dividedunder very
general subject headings pendingpublication of our comprehensive
Subject Cata-logue. The number in the upper left hand corneris the
Library acquisition number and should beuSed in ordering materials.
The line directlybelow the title gives the state, court(s),
tribe(s).and daters) when applicable. The court, exceptwhere shown
as a Federal Court, tribal court oradministrative agency, is a
court of the stateindicatedat the beginning ofthe line. The
courtslisted are not meant to be a history of the case,but only
refer to the documents in the libraryfiles. The date is that of the
earliest documentin the case in ourfiles. The date preceded by
theleIter "d" indicates the date on which the casewas settled or
decided. If no date preceded bythe letter "d" indicates the date on
which thethe letter "d" is shown, then the case is un-decided, on
appeal in another court, or thedecision is unreported and we have
no record ofit. If only a date preceded by the letter "d"is shown,
then all of the litigation in our fileoccurred during the year of
the decision. Thesymbol (C-) indicates a connected or con-solidated
case.
Although the Library has made every effort tomake our files as
complete and accurate aspo~ible, there may be errors which we rely
uponyou to help us correct.
1005 Acquisition NumberWisconsin v. Richard Gurnoe.Wisc., Cir.
Ct., Sup. Ct., Chippewa, 1970, d.1972" I" .. , .. ·····1'State
Courts Tribe Dates
(C. l006).-Connected or consolidated case
ADMIMSTRAnON OF INDIAN AFFAIR~
001297Freeman, Enola E. v. Morton, Rogen C. BWash., D.C., DD.C.,
1972.Action challenging B.I.A.. interpretationstatutes concerning
Indian preference asplying only to initial hiring.001332Thompson,
Mae v. Hickel, Walter J.N.M., D.N.M., Navajo, 1970.Action
contesting Dept. of Int. regulationhibiting general assistance
grants supplemerstate welfare to reservation Indians.001496Begay,
SaUy John v. Graham, John O.Ariz., Super. Ct., Navajo, 1969.Action
contesting denial of state welfare bfits to family because family's
resourcesceeded allowable maximum.001497Smith, Joe v. Finch, Robert
H.Ariz., D. Ariz., Navajo, 1969.Action contesting administrative
decisionnying Social Security Disability Insurance bfits to
Indian.001505Burcell, William v. Armstrong, Ellis.Cal., E. D. Cal.,
1972.Suit alleging federal flood relief progranadministered that
allottee's property nnreaably susceptible to flood, thus
reducinEvalue and endangering life.
CIVIL RIGHTS
001302WUber, Ullian v. Board of Educadon of J.School District
No. 8-Wis., W.D. WiS., Menominee, 1972.Action charging school
officials. with discrnating against Indian students in
enrollmentcurriculum.001490FerreU, Derryl v. Kerr, Henry W.Cal.,
N.D. Cal., 1972.Action by Indian prisoners charging violaof 14th
Amendments rights in parole polic'001504Duro, Raphael v. VaDey
Center Union SciDistrict.Cal., S.D. Cal., Rincon Band, 1972.Action
to prevent school officials. frompending Indian male students for
violatiolschool hail' length regulations.001508California v.
Carrillo, Joe.Cal., lust. Ct., 1972.Suit alleging unconstitutional
discriminain composition of master panel of jurondetriment of
Indians and Meixcan American:001513Shepard, Grover Lee v. Justice
Court, COlof Inyo, Southern Inyo Judicial District.Cal., Super.
Ct., 1972.Suit alleging denial of equal protection in sprosecution
for public drunkenness.001520San Diego Unified School District v.
AttolGeneral of the State of California.Cal., U.S. Sup. Ct.,
1971.State action to desegregate de facto raimbalance in school
district.
HUNTING AND FISHING RIGHTS
001321Cvuf~ei'iiLed Tribes of die Uilliidllii IudReservadon v.
Malson, H. G.Ore., D. Ore., 9th Cir., Walla Walla, CaytUmatilla,
1960, d.l963..Action to ascertain extent of off·reservatfiShing
rights given Indians in treaty.
-
001322Confederated Taiba of the Umatilla Reserva-tion v. Malson,
H. G.Ore., D. Ore., Walla Walla, Cayuse, Umatilla,1966,
d.l%7.Action to ascertain extent of off-reservationhunting rights
given Indians in treaty.001333OrganJzed Village of Kake v. Egan,
William A.Alaska, D.Alaska, U.s. Sup. Ct., 1959, d.l%2(C.1334,
1299)..' .Action to prevent enforcement of state fishingregulations
against, Alaskan Indians.001334 ,;)Augoon Commnnfty AssocIation v.
Egan~ WO-llam A. " . ;', 'Alaska, D. Alaska, U.S. Sup. Ct., 1959,
d.l%2(C.I333, 1299). ."Action to prevent enforcement of state
fIShingregulations against Alaskan Indians.
. 001500 " .', ..,,.'1M,';,;"'.•,·!. •Minnesot8'~. CIllfk¥~ :;
... ,Z
Minn., Probate Ct;fDist; Ct.;'Minn. Chippewa.:",~ Prosecution of
Indian~gwiranteed hunting rights, " by treaty, for: on-~rv:ation
violation of state
game laws. . c'" • ': 001509 ' . ". ": r ',r\
U~:~::~t~=er972.Al,'tion .to determine 'state's authority to
regulateoff-reservation possession of crabs for COIll:
, mercial purpose by ~dian. .
JURlSDICllON
001301Sonth Dakota v. Molas&, Joe.S.D., Sup. Ct;, Sioux,
1971, d.I972.State prosecution of Indian for forgery COIll:mitted
in Indian country.001303WaDDeka, Panline v. CampbeD, David.Ariz.,
Super. Ct., Navajo, 1971.Action to prohibit application of state
financialresponsibility regulations to on-reservation ac-cidents
involving Indians.001305WhIte Monataln Apache Taibe v.
SheRey,MeMnT.Ariz., Sup. Ct., White Mountain Apaches,d. 1971.Action
challenging state court authority toenforce contract between tribal
and non-Indiancompanies.001329UnIted States ell: reL TDdon louis
Condon v.Erikson, Don R.S.D., D. S.D., Cheyenne River Sioux, d.
1972.Suit claiming state .lacked jurisdiction overcrime committed
by Indian in portion of reser-vation opened to white settlement by
Act ofCongress.001336KDls Plenty, Percy v. UnIted States.S.D., 8th
Cir., Rosebud Sioux, 1972.Appeal by Indian acquitted of driving
whileintoxicated by tribal court and then con\ictedof involuntary
manslaughter arising fmm sameHo~f,fft in federal court.
Davis, Arnold, In the Matter of the AppUcationfor a Writ of
Habeas Cor:pns.Davis, Arnold v. Warden, Nevada State PrlsIon.Nev.,
Dist. Ct., Sup. Ct., Pyramid Lake, 1970.Habeas corpJIS proceedings
claiming state courtlacked jurisdiction over Indian and
reservationwhere offense occurred.001501iYuakah indian Tribe v.
Washingion.Wash., Super. Ct., Sup. Ct., u.s. Sup. Ct.,Makah, 1966,
d.I970.Action to declare reservation and roads onreservation
outside of state jurisdiction.
10
001506Montana v. Redneck, Leonard.Mont., Just. Ct., Crow,
1972.Criminal prosecution for traffic violation; of-fense allegedly
comitted off-reservation, butapprehension and summons issued on
highwaywithin reservation.001521Whyte, Clifford Becher v. DistrIct
Court ofMontezuma Conatry.Colo., Sup. Ct., U.S. Sup. Ct., Ute
MountainTribe, d.1959.Action to determine whether state court
ortribal court has jurisdiction to grant divorcebetween enrolled
Indians married on reser-vation.
PROBATE
001304CrowC;'Nettie S. v. Eastern Band of Cherokeeindians, In~
".N.C., W.D.N.C., Eastern Band of Cherokees,1972.Action to set
aside tribal assignment of part ofIndian's inherited lands to
another heir.001493 :.: " .•..•...Aleen, DoRy Cnsker v. Secretary
of the interior.Mont., D. Mont., 9th Cir., 1970. .'Action
contesting wilI of Indian's deceasedhusband.
TAXATION
001058Your Food Stores, Inc., v. Village of Espanola,New
Menco.N.M., Sup. Ct., Santa Clara, d.l%1.Action contesting
annexation and subsequenttaxation of Indian land by municipal
corp-oration.001326Moore, Frederick J. v.Johnson, Ernest H.Maine,
Super. Ct., Passamaquoddy, 1971.Action by Indian to declare
on-reservationsales transaction non-taxable.001327State Tall:
Commfssion v. Rocky Monataln HallWyo., State Admin. Proceeding,
Arapaho,Shoshone.Action to prevent state from imposing tax
onIndians or their businesses on Indian reservation.001328Applebee,
MbmIe, In re.Minn., Dist. Ct., Chippewa, 1972.Proceedin~ to enforce
property tax againstIndian reSiding on reservation.001331Colombe,
Thomas J. v. Todd Conaty.S.D., Cir. Ct., Rosebud Sioux,
d.l%5.Action by enrolled Indian who was refusedabatement of state
personal property tax whileliving on reservation.001502Makah indian
Tribe v. CIanam Conaty.Wash., Super. Ct., Sup. Ct., Makah,
1965,d.l%8.Action to prohibit state taxation of Indian-owned
business on reservation.001503Makah indIan Tribe v. Tall:
Commfssion of theState of WashIngton.Wash., U.S. Sup. Ct., Makah,
1%8, d.I970.Action to restram state fmm taxing cigarettessold to
Indians on reservation.001507WDson, Robert S. v. Montana.Mont.,
Dist. Ct., Crew, 1972.Suit challenging levy of state income
taxagainst salary of Indian earned wholly withinreservation from
job in tribal commodity pro-gram.
TERMINATION
001298 ~Albers, Lucme J. v. Morton, Rogers C. B.Cal., E.D. Cal.,
1972.Action claiming Indians were illegally depriVedof allotments
by termination of rancheria with-out Indians knowledge or
consent.
TRESPASS, INDIAN LAND
001342Baker, Constance Frye v. CaUfornla.Cal., Super. Ct., Hoopa
Ext. Res., 1972.Action by Indian allotment holders claimingcounty
and state trespassed in building andmaintaining a road crossing
Indian land.001344Orcntt, Harvey v. Conaty of Humboldt.Cal., Super.
Ct., 1972.Action by Indian allotment holder claimingcounty
trespassed in locating a road acrosshis land.001345Pauma Band of
Mission Indians v. Conaty ofSan Diego.Cal., S.D. Cal., Pauma Band
of Mission Indians,1972.Trespass action against state and county
forbuilding and maintaining a highway acrossIndian
reservation.001346Inaja Band of Mission Indians v. Conaty ofSan
Diego•.Cal., S.D. Cal., Inaja Band of Mission Indians,1972.Trespass
action against county for constructingand maintaining road within
Indian reservation.001511Baker, Constance Frye v. CaUfornla.Cal.,
D. Cal., Hoopa Extension Reservation("'1972. \....Action in
trespass against state for buildingroad across tribal land and
asking for U.S.representation in the action.
TRIBAL MEMBERSIllP
001340LaramIe, Jnae Karen v. Nicholson, NarcIsse, Jr.Wash., 9th
Cir., Colville Confederated Tribes,1972.Action by Indian minors
seeking adoption intotribe and tribal dividends fmm date of
adoptionapplication.001499Thompson, AUce M. v. Tonasket, MeLWash.,
9th Cir;, Colville, 1972.Action brought by Indian for re-enrolIment
intribe and for tribal dividends lost.
TRUST OBLIGATIONS
001087Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Commonwealth ofMassachnsetts.Mass.,
Super. Ct., Passamaquoddy, (C.1495).Suit alleging breach of treaty
and trust obli-gations arising fmm treaty made between stateand
tribe.001298Albers, LueWe J. v. MortoD, Rogen C. B.Cal., E.D. Cal.,
1972.Action claiming Indians were illegally d~prived of allotments
by termination of ranchenawithout Indians knowledge or
consent.001495Iuillt Tribal Council of me PassaiiUiijiiGddyTribe v.
Secretary of the Interior. ('-Maine, D. Maine, Passamaquoddy,
1972.(C. 1087).
-
)
~uit seeking order for Dept. of Justice toA rep~esent tribe in
its claims against state of\ ~ ~alDe although no formal treaty
exists between
. tribe and federal government.
WATER RIGHTS
001347Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians v. VistaIrrigation
District. 'Cal., S.D. CaI., Los Coyotes Band of MissionIndians,
1972.Action claiming violation of Indian band's waterrights in use
of groundwater.001348Pala Band of Mission Indians v.
EscondidoMutual Water Company.Cal., S.D. Cal., Pala Band of Mission
Indians,1972.Suit arising from construction of dam and
,reservoir.on tribal land resulting in loss ofwater to tribe.' .
,001349Capitan Grande Band of MissIon Indians v.
,Helix irrigation District.Cal., S.D. Cal., Capitan Grande Band
of MissionIndians, 1972.
; Suit arising from construction on tribal land of, dam and
reservoir resulting in loss of water totribe.001510Rincon Band of
Mission Indians v. Vista Irriga-tion District.Cal., D. Cal., Rincon
Band of Mission Indians,La JoUa Band of Mission Indians,
1972.Action by tribes to recover damages from andprevent further
diversion and appropriation ofriver water in violation of paramount
waterrights.o MISCELLANEOUS001300Mobo 00 Corporation v. Local
Boundary Com.mission.Alaska, Super. Ct., 1972"Action by oil
companies to prevent incorpora-tion of borough on Alaska North
Slope therebysubjecting oil property to taxation.001324California
Indian Education Association v.Morton, Rogers C. B.Cal., E.D. CaL,
1972.Action to declare illegal regulations stipulatingJOM funds go
only to school districts WIth largeblocks of non-taxable Indian
property or largenumbers of Indian children.001325DOIon, Phoebe
WUson v. Ander Land Company.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, 1971,
d.I972.Action by Indian to recover land lost in allegedlyfraudulent
transaction.001330Cherokee Nation v. State of Oklahoma.Okla., 10th
Cir., Cherokee, Choctaw~ Chicksaw,d.I972.Action by tribe claiming
title to riverbed con·.taining oil and gas deposits.001337Rosebud
Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, Richard (Honor.able).S.D., D,5.D., Rosebud
Sioux, 1972.Action seeking to ascertain meaning of certainacts of
Congress defining boundaries of reser-vation.001491Walker River
Paiute Tribe of Nevada v. South.ern P:c!fic T:~pcrt:t:!G::: Cc.
U Nev., D. Nev.., Walker River Paiute Tribe, 1972.Action arising
from construction and mainten·ance 01 railway on tribal lands in
violati()n offederal regulations and from breach of contractwith
tribe,
-- .
001492Lake, Kee v. Peabody Coal Company.Ariz., D. Ariz., Navajo,
1972.Action by Indians based on Indian Civil RightsAct and breach
of contract to. recover damagesfor sudace rights and property
involved in BlackMesa mining operation.001494Grayson, Toche v.
Tulsa Scottish Rite Chari-table And Education Foundation.Okla.,
Dist. Ct., Creek, 1962, d.I963.Action arising from alleged unlawful
holdingand possession of lands inherited by Indians.
Steering CommitteeOf The NativeAmerican Rights FundCharles
Lohah, Chairman, (Osage)DaVid Risllng, Jr., Vice-Chairman,
(Hoopa)La Nada MeanS, Executive Committee,
(Shoshone.Bannock)Alfonso Ortiz, Executive Committee,
(San Juan Pueblo)WendeD Chino, (Mescalero Apache)Fred Gabourle,
(Seneca)Leo Haven, (Navajo)PbUip Martin, (MissIssippi
Choctaw)Francis McKInley, (Navajo-Ute)John Stevens,
(Passamaquoddy)Richard TrudeD, (Sioux)
Native AmericanRights Fund StaffDirector
David H. GetchesDeputy Director
John E. Echohawk (Pawnee)Staff Attorneys
L. Graeme Bell, IIIJoseph J. BrecherThomas W. Fredericks
(Mandan)Daniel H. IsraelYvonne T. Knle:ht (Ponca)Douglas R. Nash
(Nez Perce)Robert S. PelcygerThomas L. SmithsonCharles F.
WUklnson
Of CounselReId Peyto!! Ch!!mbe~Vine Deloria, Jr. (Standing Rock
Sioux)Thomas N. Tureen
Assistant to the DirectorJoan L. Carpenter
Legal SecretariesPerl M. Bateman (Oglala Sioux)Connie M. Benoist
(Cheyenne River SGaU L. Benoist (Cheyenne River SiouxJanice C. Bray
(Kiowa)Mayredean C. Palmer (Kiowa)Susan P. RobersonFrieda Wagner
(Pomo-Concow)Patricia Wright
MaintenanceKen GarryVic Hart
ReceptionistsNorma A. Cuny (Oglala Sioux)Sylvia C. Sweeney
(Ottawa-Chippewa)
RecordsBernadine Quintana (Oglala Sioux)
ReproductionRonald FundingslandDavid Wray
BookeeperSusan Rosseter Hart
Law ClerksRichard L. KaJar
(UCLA Clinical Pmgram)Victor Palmer (Kiowa)Barbara J.
Walkingstick (Cherokee)Barbara L. Webb (Tlinget)
National Indian Law LibraryLibrarian
Melody K. MacKenzie (Hawaiian)Legal Advisor
Joseph R. MembrinoResearch Associates
Peter S. HrobskyDiana Urn (Acoma Pueblo)
SecretaryEUeen Lente (Laguna Pueblo)
New Staff Of TheNative AmericanRights FundStaff Attorney
Douglas R. Nash. Mr. Nash is aPerce Indian and a graduate
ofUniversity of New Mexico Schof Law, and past Executive Dire<of
the American Indian Law Stud<Association. Prior to joining the
Fhe worked with the Indian Civil RilTask Force for the U.S.
Departrrof Interior. Mr. Nash will be wodwith the Fund in the areas
of hunand fishing and other treaty right:Native Americans.
Legal Advisor, National Indian )Library
Joseph R. Membrino. Mr. MembJis a graduate of Boston College
)School and a member of the Conmcut Bar. Until joining the Fundwas
a staff attorney with WatertLegal Aid and Reference
Societ~Waterbury, Connecticut. His wwith the Library involves
preparalof a general index to the Libraholdings.
-
oooo
publicc
;r·
5·:
,)p'.'."
Announcementsand CatalogueRequest Form
f'
~'."
.. paJsanbaJ uO/JoaJJOO ssaJPPvi,',i , 1:) \~;.
~::.'r,,;·::;L:~~~'!ft;:,t,) ;~:\~,~~r,t)~i', ,
f,;'):{,; ~'9 "->;~« /~:?;:
>'-{ .1:~~:t:f~?;
..••.................•......•...•......•..
expand its work and to cbver the costof the publication of this
newslett~r.Contributions to the Fund and tothe Library are tax
deductible. Acoupon is provided below for yourconvenience.
Enclosed is my contribution toassist the Native AmericanRights
Fund in the assertionand protection of Indian rightsand the orderly
development ofthe body of law affecting In-
~. __ ~~aI!s; _ cc.:: :~