Volume 2, No.3

National Indian Law Library

NILL No. 010008/1973

October - December, 19~

MAKING THE WHITE MAN'S LAW FIT THE INDIAN­THE MENOMINEE RESTORATION ACT

This year, in the midst of theWatergate crisis, Indians madethe American political processwork for them. There is both ironyand hope in this coincidence.Watergate provides the irony. TheIndians provide the hope.

,.. ~ Millions of Americans have<--;~en stunned and disillusioned by(' \~te revelations of Watergate.

_ Few, if any, Indians have beenbecause they have been thevictims of an "Indian WatergateAffair" since they signed the firsttreaties with the United Statesgovernment. Corruption, ob-struction of justice, andabrogation of constitutional andcongressional authority by piousmen with mis-guided motiveshave all been a continuous part ofIndian experience in theAmerican political system.Congress has been dragging onthe Indian Watergate Affair forabout 200 years,even though ithashad no trouble obtainingevidence, because there has beenno public outcry. It is just thatCongress has found it easier todeal with the near political ruin ofa single President than it has withthe near annihilation of an entirerace.

..,; r- The experiences of the~~nominee Tribe of Wisconsin''':hclude some of the most shocking

evidence in Indian Watergate.

.,~~,"" .-:;,-,~ ':. ',: . .

This year the Menomineegathered and took their evidenceto Congress in the form of a self­designed piece of legislation ­The Menominee Restoration Act.They asked Congress to judge thattheir former trust relationshipwith the United States Govern­ment should be restored.Congress gave the Menominee theexact decision they wanted, andtherein lies both the hope andpotential resolution of allWatergate affairs.

The fact that after 200 years th,Menominee were still willing t(risk an encounter with th(American political system shoul(provide an example for alcitizens who have beeldisillusioned by past and currenpolitical corruption. The fact thathe encounter was successfuindicates that when the system i~

not subjected to Watergate-typ,abuses, it really can work to th,benefit of all Americans, evelNative Americans.

81 1827 TREATY ~ 16~1-32 TR~TIr:S I§J 1836 TREAT" mIl 16+6 jlit£ATY

~i'-i'-'-r'~{

traditional dress to remind tlMenominee people as he mOVEamong them that "this is!' We

the white man's law fi~ ~ Iidian."

In 1854, Chief Oshkosh and tlMenominee signed the Wolf RivlTreaty which confined the Trilto less than 235,000 acres of foreland along the Wolf Rivernortheastern Wisconsin. The1

same acres then shortly becanthe Menominee Indian Resevation which the United Statlgovernment agreed to hold j

trust. As was the case wi1hundreds of other Indian tribethe federal government abpromised to hold the oth(Menominee assets in trust .protect the Tribe's various trea1rights and through the Bureau I

Indian Affairs to manage tlreservation and supply bascommunity services.

MENOMINI LAND CESSiONS1827-1856

million acres in what is nowWisconsin and upper Michigan.(See map). During the next 40years the Menominee were forcedto cede almost all of their land tothe United States. Some was foradvancing white settlers - somewas for other Indian tribes who,because their own lands weremore coveted than that of theMenominee, were convenientlytransferred to Menomineeterritory.

Chief Oshkosh, a tribalspokesman during much of thiscessation period, is rememberedfor his tolerance and humor. Hewas presented with a gift of a tophat and formal dress coat byGovernor Dodge of Wisconsin justafter the Treaty of Cedars in 1836in which the Menominee ceded 3million acres to the United States.

Chief Oshkosh saved the coatand hat and wore them over his

THE PEOPLE OF THEWILD RICE

Menominee Chief Oshkosh, 1836

This Js how the white man's law fitsthe Indian.

The Menominee Indians hadtheir first encounter with whitemen in the early 1600's. For thenext 200 years they were buffetedand proselytized by both Britishand French colonists. By the endof the 17th century the majority ofthe Menominee had been con­verted to Catholism by Jesuitmissionaries, and the process ofacculturation was under way.Compared to other tribes, thesubsequent toll in divisivenessbetween the Catholic Menomineeand those following the traditionalMenominee religion was small.These divisions were not unlikethe later divisions between fulland mixed bloods, but for themost part the Menomineemaintained strong tribal unity.

In 1817 the Tribe signed its firsttreaty of peace and friendshipwith the United States govern­ment. At that time the Menomineestill occupied their aboriginallands consisting of more than nine

2

,

We accepted our present reservationwhen It was considered of no valueby our white friends. All we ask isthat we are permitted to keep It as ahome.

/" Neopit, Menominee

C~ C.ht.'ef,.,.1.8.82 _

''Nowadays, we undoubtedly oughtto break up the great Indianreservations, disregard the tribalgovernments, allot the land Inseveralty (with, however, only alimited power of alienation), andtreat the Indians as we do othercitizens, with certain exceptions, fortheir sake as well as ours."

Theodore Roosevelt,The Winning of tho West,1889

In 1887 Congress made its firstmajor attempt to deal with theIndian problem by passing theIndian Allotment Act. TheAllotment Act was an attempt toforce individual Indians to own

.' private property - a concepttotally inappropriate to a people

",whose existence was centered on.r~~mUnallY shared mother

'--The Menominee Tribe was theonly tribe in the State of

Wisconsin who refused to par­ticipate in the Allotment Act andtherefore their tribal landsremained intact. This initialattempt by Congress to "cover­up" the clash between the twocultures by imposing the values ofone upon another lasted almosthalf a century. It saw two-thirdsof the Indian land in the UnitedStates pass into non-Indianownership - primarily throughfla ttery, tricks and unmet taxassessments. Unfortunately, theMenominees' decision to notparticipate in the GeneralAllotment Act was the first in aseries of events which led them tonear devastation. It was anexample of early IndianWatergate irony,

Because the boundaries of theMenomInee Reservation, as theywere established in 1854, providedfor a land base of less than 1/36ththe original size of Menomineetribal lands, the Menominee wereno longer able to sustain them­selves by their traditional meansof hunting, fishing and gatheringwild rice. The land was, at thatpoint in time, a little-desired,inaccessible, but neverthelessmagnificent forest. Beyond itsessential significance as aspiritual, cultural and physicalrefuge, the forest also soonbecame the basis for a modesttribal lumbering operation.

In 1908 legislation was passedgiving the U.S. Forest Service theresponsibility for administering asustained-yield harvest of theMenominee forest. It was the firstsustained-yield forest in theUnited States. In this same year amill was built at the Neopit set­tlement on the reservation.Although both the timber cuttingoperations and the mill werecontrolled and managed by theBIA in cooperation with theForest Service, they did provideemployment for a significantnumber of Menominee men.

As the Menominee becamemore familiar with the white

man's law and the ways of IndieWatergate they discovered ththey had the right to review thegovernmental trustee's operat!{and management of their assetThey soon saw that local foreservice agents - in violation ofcongressional mandate - he:decided to clear-cut their timbeThe more the Menominee iJvestigated, the more trouble thE:found. It was finally concludE:that there had been gro~

mismanagement by the BIA of UTribe's forest assets and afterlong bureaucratic struggle UMenominee obtained permissicfrom Congress to sue their trust€in the U.S. Court of Claims, Ttsuit was filed in 1935, and the ca~

was before the court for the ne}sixteen years. During this periothe governmentts managemertactics improved somewhat anthe Menominee's assets ircreased.

Finally, in 1951, the Unite(States Court of Claims awarded;$8.5 million judgment to thlMenominee for the BIA'1mismanagement of their trustThis money, like all tribal assetswas deposited to the Menominelaccount in the U.S. Treasunbringing the Tribe's total assets t(almost $10 million. However, nonEof the money could be spenwithout Congressional approvaland this restriction turned out t<be a fatefully crucial one.

t------'THE MENOMINEE TERMINATION ACT·

A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF INDIAN WATERGATE

At some future timeYou will think of meAnd cry

Pre-ColumbianMenominee Poetry

In 1953, the Menominee Tribewas one of only three Indian tribesin the country who were finan­cially able to pay the U.S.government for the cost of most oftheir federal services. They wereable to do so because they werelearning how the white man's lawwas fitting the Indian. They hadinstinctively resisted par­ticipation in one law (the Allot­ment Act), and that decision hadleft them with the assets thattempted some Indian Watergateparticipants to violate anotherlaw. The Menominee then suc­cessfully prosecuted thoseresponsible only to obtain assetswhich so irked and provoked aman that he used his will andsenatorial position to make yetanother law - a law which hebelligerently believed fitted theMenominee. It did not. The law,the Menominee Termination Act,was so ill-fitting that theMenominees nearly died fromexposure.

Virtually all individualMenominees were poor in 1953.Their incomes, housing, health,and education all fell far belownational and Wisconsin norms.Because of this the Menomineefelt a need to distribute a portionof the 1951 Court of Claimsjudgment - about $5 million ­among themselves on a $1,500 percapita basis. It was a reasonableand sound decision since thesemonies would have come to theMenominee earlier as annualstumpage payments had theforest been managed properly in

4

Menominee Record of a Mide Song

the first place. As wards of theU.S. government they neededcongressional approval todistribute their own money tothemselves. The thenRepresentative Melvin Laird andSenator Joseph McCarthy in­troduced the Menominee requestbill and it passed the House.

However, in hearings before theSenate Committee it ran upagainst Senator Arthur V.Watkins.

"What made the white people of thiscountry so strong? Wbat madeAmerica so strong? Why Is Americathe most powerful nation in theworld today • . .? I believe tbat onereason for that is that the people whocame here bad to stand on their feetfrom the very beginning. They hadto conquer the wildemess •••. Sothese people bad a lot of work to do.They worked, and fought and died •••• They bad to struggle and work andplan, and bave an ambition to getahead, - and that is why they didget ahead. In our time, let us look ata man like Henry Ford. He startedout with practically nothing • • • heestablished one of the greatestbusinesses in the entire world. Andhe became a great characterbecause he had to struggle ••••"

Senator Arthur V; Watkinsof Utah, addressing the Menomineeson the benefits of Termination,June 20, 1953---_....

Senator Watkins was aRepublican from Utah who servedin the U.S. Senate from 1947 to1958. He was also the architectand prime mover of MenomineeTermination. When the Laird-McCarthy Menomineedistribution bill reached the~

Senate Committee on Interior and ~~Insular Affairs, it ran up lIgainst"an amendment sponsored bY',Senator Watkins. As chairman o~the Committee he exercisedextraordinary control over the'proceedings and refused to reporfthe Laird bill favorably, calupon the Menominees to submit aplan for "termination" before th$1,500 per capital payment coul,be distributed. The amount 0confusion, deception, and lack hunderstanding between t eMenominee and the governmen~that followed resemblesmicrocosm of everything thagone on in the Indian Water~..Affair.

1I

;.~

,Menominee Sawmill at Neopit, 1971

"'~...__._._...-,,,~,

Senator Watkins: It was a veryinteresting experience. I ap­preciated your help in introducIngme to those people and giving methe opportunity to see how theylived, how they felt about it. Thatwas one of the most interestingexperiences of the whole trip.

Mr. Waupochick (a Menominee):We wish you could have stayedlonger.

Senator Watkins: I had the sameexperiences visiting Europe, therefugee camps of the near East.

There is no word in any Indianlanguage for "termination". Ithas been translated as meaning"to wipe out" and with realjustification in the case of theMenominee.. They felt and un­derstood from Senator Watkinsthat they had no choice but to

tI/t):cept termination even though- 'ley, and certainly not Senator

Watkins, knew what the im­plications of it would be.

In June 1953 Senator Watkinsspent a few hours on theMenominee Indian Reservation.He spoke to the General Councilfor about 45 minutes. He told theMenominee that Congress haddecided to terminate them andthat within three years their af­fairs would be turned over to themand that they would not receivetheir per capital payments untilafter termination.

The Council was then asked tovote on the principal of ter­mination. The vote was 169 to 5.Many of the 169 voting for ter­mination (which was only five percent of the Tribe) thought thatCongress had already decided totermina te them - others believedthey were voting in fa vor of the$1,500 payments.

Following this first vote theMenominees began to work on aplan for termination whileWatkins was working on his own.Another General Council meetingwas held and, having had onlyminimal planning experience

with termination, the samECouncil voted 197 to 0 to OPPOSEand reject termination. SenatorWatkins prevented hisCongressional colleagues fromever getting this second messagefrom the Menominee.

Senator Watkins badly wanted ourtermination. He was firmly con­vinced that factors such as ourstatus as Reservation Indians, ourtribal ownership of land, and our taxexemption were blocking ourinitiative, our freedom, and ourdevelopment of private enterprise.He wished to see us rapidlyassimilated into the mainstream ofAmerican society - as tax paying,hard working, "emancipated"citizens. Senator Watkins did notbelieve that our consent to ter­mination was necessary for itsenactment.

DRUMS TeltlmOny Submltted to the SenateCommittee on fntenorlind fnm/ar A//ans,ju/)! 21, 1971

5

,I

On June 17, 1954, theMenominee Termination Act wassigned into law by PresidentEisenhower. The Act finally gavethe Menominee the $1,500 percapita payments they hadoriginally sought (and to whichthey were already entitled), but italso closed the tribal rolls,required that the tribe submit aplan to provide for future controlof their assets, and ended allfederal services. Perhaps mostimportantly, the act eliminatedthe tax exempt status of thereservation lands.

It was then to take Congress,Wisconsin and the Menomineeseven years to agree on aninordinately complex terminationplan. After the plan was com­pleted. the Menominee then wereunexpectedly asked to pay the ,.costs for a formida ble array ofstudies, meetings and designsassociated with the planningprocess. The actual plan was sucha complex and lengthy legal

document that few Menominee,governmental officials, lawyers,or experts associated with itcomprehended it. It provided away of preserving a semi­separate tribal identity by per­mitting the Menominee to vote tobecome a separate WisconsinCountry. However, almost im­mediately their hospital and otherhealth services, including sewagesystems were declared belowWisconsin state standards andwere condemned and closed.There hasn't been a hospital or afull-time doctor or dentist inMenominee Country since ter­mination. The BIA high schoolclosed and Menominee childrenare now bussed to schools inadjacent Shawano County, wherethe curriculum, orientation andatmosphere are totally non­Indian. Correspondingly the drop­out, expulsion and absenteeismrates of the Menominee havesoared.

The tribal assets were turnedover to a new corporation,

6

Menominee Enterprises Inc.(MEl), and suddenly Menomineesurvival was based on knowledgeof a complicated, corporate-styleof living including: par valuestocks, voting trusts, incomebonds and shareholder rights.

Menominee Beaded Garters

Menominee termination wasone of the most abortiveoperations in Indian Watergate. Itis particularly sad because itprobably need not have occurred.Congress' own internal system ofchecks and balances wascorrupted by one overzealoussenator and several disinterestedones. The excessive absenteeismamong members of the SenateCommittee on Interior and In­sular Affairs permitted SenatorWatkins to control theproceedings and therefore the

record which came out of thehearings on the Menominee bill.Menominee objections to 4- ~,~

mination were plainly eviden ~. . ....... ~ -~

'out .lIke the Watergate tapes _there were "gaps and erasures"in the record where Menomineeobjections had been voiced.Congress passed the MenomineeTermination bill believing that ithad been approved by the tribalmembership.

The effects of termination andcorporate-style management ofMenominee assets pitted brotheragainst brother and, parentsagainst their children., It in­creased the poverty of most in­dividual Menominees, createdpolitical turmoil, and brought oneconomic chaos.

But most importantly, ter­mination eroded the Menomineeland base. Two-thirds of the netoperating income from the MEl's l'lumber operation went to pay ,

,,~

taxes. Because MEl has lacke.d~,profits, or had only margin?'.,ones, it lacked the mone. 'necessary to modernize or ..diversify the milling operations.Consequently, it could not com­pete with the surrounding in­dustry. MEl, as well as individualMenominee, were forced to sellcorporate shares and land inorder to pay county and $tatetaxes. As a result, acres and acresof the heartland of themagnificent Menominee forestwere sold to non-Indians andMenominee reservation lands fellinto the hands of non-Indian"developers who destroyedreligious sites and the culturalcharacter of the community.

Interestingly enough, the,corporate structure of MEl did ';not provide for control by the1Menominee. Non-Indianbusinessmen and so-called ex-.perts were given control over the loperation to insure its succesThe result was collusion with no~ ;Indian interests and the demise ofMenominee assets.

TERMINATING TERMINATION

.' What type of life must these peoplebe living to think that life under theBIA would be better than the lifethey have now?

Representative John P. Say/or,October 16, 1973

In 1968 after a very costly legalbattle, the United States SupremeCourt ruled that the Menomineetreaty rights to hunt and fish had"survived" termination.(Menominee Tribe v. U.S. 391US404, 1968). This suit was thebeginning of the Menominees'battle to reverse the effects oftermination. But the actualprocess of reversal (Le.restoration) didn't begin until 1970

when a group of Menomineeformed an organization known asDetermination of Rights andUnity of Menominee Shareholders(DRUMS).

Seeing that MEl was notoperating economically ordemocratically, lawsuits werefiled by DRUMS to force arestructuring of MEl so that theMenominee people would have astronger voice in running its af­fairs. Another lawsuit wasbrought to control a MEl landsales program which was strip­ping the Menominee of theirsacred land. However, DRUMSsoon recognized that terminationhad its roots in Congress and thatwas where they were going tohave to be torn out.

DRUMS, and a Madison,Wisconsin, attorney, JosephPreloznik, who began workingwith the DRUMS leaders when hewas with the OEO legal servicesprogram, Wisconsin Judicare, sawthat the law suits had achievedimportant but only preliminaryresults. They were a little like thetrials of those men originallycharged with the burglary of theDemocratic NationalHeadquarters in the Watergatebuilding. They pointed theMenominee prosecutors in theright direction - toward ter­minating termination.

Joe Preloznik began consultingwith the Native American RightsFund about the problems of theMenominee soon after NARF

Following a Trail

7

___00

"

Menominee Dance Ground

Menominee Tambourine Drum.,." ., .

case during the restoration effort,the Menominee people turned outfor the hearings in great force.Three busloads of tribal membersarrived from Wisconsin and manyother tribal representativestraveled to Washington by othermeans. Tribal members andAssistant Secretary of the In-··terior, Marvin Frank'!....~representing the BIA (which'.supported termination), testified I ~;"on behalf of the legislation. .....

Ironically, only a few weeks,before the Menominee 7Restoration Act was reported out:of the full Committee on Interiorand Insular Affairs with theunanimous bi-partisan support ofits members, Senator Arthur V.:Watkins was buried in Utah. The'policy of termination was tofollow its architect to the graveonly four months later.

Full House Subcommitteehearings were held inWashington, D.C. on June 28,1973.As had so consistently been the

Menominees' former Congf'e'ss­man, and Representative:r~LioydMeeds, Congressman fro'In';the

State of Washington and. Chair­man of the Indian Affairs Sub­committee. Field hearings' wereheld in Keshena, Wisconsin and inMenominee County in May, 1973.The hearings began with atraditional Menominee prayer,offered by a Menominee, DonPerote, and were open to anyonewho wished to testify. Withoutexception, all of the manyMenominee who testified were infavor of the Restoration Act. Thehearings closed with Congress­man Meeds' promise that promptaction would be taken on the bill.

came into existence. In late 1971,DRUMS asked Preloznik andSenator Edward M. Kennedy torequest the Native AmericanRights Fund to do the time con­suming and complex task ofdrafting a bill to restore the trustrelationship and tax free status ofMenominee lands. NativeAmerican Rights Fund attorneys,Yvonne Knight and CharlesWilkinson, made their first trip tomeet with the Menominee inDecember 1971. These were thefirst of more than 1400 man-hoursthey were to spend working withthe Menominee on the MenomineeRestoration Act (MRA) duringthe next two years.

DRUMS was determined thatthe mistakes made during thedecision-making process of ter­mination be avoided in seekingrestoration. For this reasonDRUMS carried on a continuingseries of consultations with theMenominee people concerning theprovisions they wished to see inthe MRA. Community meetingswere held in Menominee County,Milwaukee and Chicago. Themeetings were repeated andrepeated again~ No single piece oflegislation can possibly include allthe ideas of a culture as diverse asthat of the Menominee, but theMRA finally came amazinglyclose to reaching that difficultgoal.

On April 20, 1972, theMenominee Restoration Act wasintroduced into both the Houseand the Senate. As is the case withvirtually all complex legislation,changes were then suggested bymany different sources. The samekind of hearings as were held onthe Termination Act wererepeated. This time, however,Menominee people' made certainthat there were no gaps orerasures in the record.

From the beginning, thestrongest and most effectiveadvocates for the Act in the Houseof Representatives wereRepresentative David Obey, the

8

)I

..

The passage of the MenomJneeRestoration Act is a historic momentIn the Indian history of the UnitedStates. It symboUzes an admission

of fanure on the part of the UnitedStates Congress and a formalrepudiation of the termination ap­proach.

Representative Harold Froelich,October 16, 1973

The MRA was scheduled for aroll-call vote before the full Houseof Representatives on October 16,1973. It passed the House by theoverwhelming vote of 404 to 3. Thevote represented one of thelargest turnouts in the Houseduring the entire year. TheMenominee had plainly madetheir compelling case in the Houseof Representatives. Un­fortuna tely, the MRA did notmove nearly as quickly on theSenate side. The first day ofSenate Subcommittee hearingswere held on September 17, 1973.The hearings were begun by amoving address by ErnestNeconish, a Menominee-speakingelder spokesman of the Tribe.Senators Jackson, Proxmire,Nelson and Kennedy all per­sonally testified in support of the

.. , legislation. Perhaps the most( .l\omprehensive testimony during""le!tfbe entire legislation process was

given by a panel of sevenMenominee including: Sylvia

Wilber, Chairperson of MEl;Theodore Boyd, Vice-President ofMEl; Ben Miller, Chairman of theMenominee County Board; AdaDeer, Chairperson of theMenominee Common Stock andVoting Trust; Robert Deer, Vice­Chairman of MEl; and CarolDodge, Director MenomineeCounty Education Committee.These persons represented allsegments of the community.Capitol Hill veterans said thatthey had never seen more com­plete or impressive testimony.The Menominee had learned howto make one part of the Americanpolitical system fit the Indian.

By mid-November, however, ithad become apparent that the bill

was moving slowly in the fullSenate Committee on Interior andInsular Affairs. No hearing hadbeen set and it was feared that thebill might not be reported out ofthe Committee during the session.Quick action was becoming evenmore necessary because of theincreasingly crushing tax burdenupon the Menominee.

Therefore, the MenomineeLegislative Delegation stepped upits continuing pressure on themembers of the Senate InteriorCommittee and, almost certainlyin response to this pressure, theCommittee rearranged itscalendar and scheduled an im­mediate mark-up session for theMIlA.

The Committee gaveunanimous support and the fullSenate approved the MenomineeRestoration Act on December 7,1973. President Nixon signed itinto law on Saturday, December22, 1973.

It is difficult to overestimatethe significance of the MenomineeRestoration Act. For theMenominee it was the onlyrealistic method of preservingtheir tribal existence and for thisreason MRA has become asymbol for all Native Americans.Restoration is not the firstreversal in U.S. Indian policy, butit is probably the most importantone. It provides the evidenceneeded to show that the Americanpolitical system - imperfect as ithas been and will continue to be ­can be used as a tool to preserveIndian culture.

Further, after hearing evidencefrom the Menominee, any jurywould conclude that howeverconfining, disproportionate, andpaternalistic the original treatiesbetween Indian tribes and theUnited States are - those treatieshave yet to be improved upon.They must be guarded anddefended just as carefully as thedoctrine of separation of powersfor something as important asconstitutional government is atstake - it is the survival of a race.

9

.'

2. All treaty rights are reinstated.

HOW THE MRA FITS THE MENOMINEE

1. The magnificent Menominee forestland, which is in excess of 200,000 acres,will go back into trust. This means that theMenominee will be relieved of the crushingtax burden and that the tribal corporationshould greatly improve its present,p-ecarious financial situation.

In general, the goal of the Menominee 4. A tribal constitution will be adoptedRestoration Act is to return to the and a tribal council established.Menominee those benefits to which theywere entitled before restoration. In ad- 5. The tribal roll will be reopened and alldition, the act is broad enough to permit Menominee of at least ¥4 blood will bethe Menominee to enter into a new, flexible eligible to be added to the roll.trust relationship which can both providemaximum self-determination to 6. The tribe will regulate hunting andMenominee and serve as a model for other fishing on the reservation,tribes. An analysis of the most importantprovisions of the act is as follows: 7. Menominee County, which is presently

controlled politically by the Menomineepeople, will remain in existence. Thus theMenominee will have control of the countygovermnent as well as the tribal govern­ment.

8. The Senate Committee reportspecifically directs the Secretary, inreaching a trust relationship with theMenominee, to provide for "maximumMenominee Indian self-determination"

3. All federal services, too which the and to maintain "cultural pride and tribalMenominee were entitled before ter- autonomy".mination, are returned This means thatthe Menominee will again be entitled tohealth, education, and other basic servicesto which Indians are entitled.

The first priority of the Native. American Rights Fund is to assist

Indian people to preserve trtribal existence. The lei5"'~'assistance provided to theMenominee in drafting the MRAwas done because restoration wasthe only means to preserve theMenominee Tribe. NARF at­torneys Charles Wilkinson andYvonne Knight have representedthe Menominee in this effort inassociation with Joseph Preloznikof Madison, Wisconsin. In ad­dition to meeting with theMenominee people on numerousoccassions to be certain that theirwishes were fully embodied in thelegislation, the work also includeddrafting the original legislation,subsequent re-drafting, meetingwith Congressmen and theirstaffs, testifying in both theSenate and the House, presentingposition papers on several dif­ferent issues and meeting withrepresentatives of the manydifferent administrative agencies 1"',',involved. "

/

HeddIe for Weaving Beadwork

Menominee Moccasin Cutting Boards

~ ~- - - - - -- -lW8l1&W@ftlffttlllff -

Flute

Silver Bracelet

Catlinite Sacrificial Bowl

10

..The Nafionallndian Law Library

In the fall of 1969, when the first sub­stantive meetings and correspondencerelating to the development of the NativeAmerican Rights Fund took place, theIndian representatives, Ford Foundationpersonnel, and lawyers involved in theplanning process were faced with twoconfficting problems. One was the im­mediate and blatant need for highly skilledand aggressive legal representation ofNative American people. The other wasthe unavailability, or in many areas, thetotal absence of lawyers with the requisiteIndian law expertise.

The fact that there was no person orinstitution aware of all of the law affectingIndians had been particularly detrimentalto the restoration of Indian rights. Theefforts of those few attorneys involved inthe field have been uncoordinated and theresults, often even the existence, of Indian~.••~~ .. ·tigation have not been generally known to~}Dthersworking in the field. In addition, the

". standard conunercial reporting system• which has been applied to Indian Jaw was,

and still is, archaic. It uses fewer than 40major subject ~adings to cover a field oflaw well-known as a morass of statutes,treaties and solicitor's opinions. Evenpublished or reported dedsions arerelatively inaccessible and therefore notreadily applicable to approprlate cases.

Early in 1971, David Getches, the Fund'sFounding Director, met with Eli Evans ofthe Carnegie Corporation of New Yorkabout the Fund's need for assistance hlan Indian legal coordination effort. OnMay 23, 1972, Alan Pifer, President of theCarnegie Corporation, announced a$119,000 grant providing monies for thefirst three years of the operation of theLibrary. Today, the National Indian LawLibrary acts as a clearinghouse ­collecting, cataloguing and makingavailable information on Indian litigationand related issues.

How To Use The Library..In an effort to make the Library's

collection more accessible to tribes andlawyers in the field, NILL has prepared a

~mprehensive Subject Index to Indian'''law and has published a catalogue of the

, Library's holdings using this index as thekey to the collection. The index, developedover a two year period. contains ap-

proximately 400 subject headings, em­ploying a key word and phrases system.This system is perhaps the easiest to workwith, especially for lawyers new to thespecialized field of Indian Law.

TheNIIL Catalogue, Volume I, 1973-1974is divided into three parts. Part I containsthe Library's current holdings arrangedby subject matter. Where the holding is acase, a brief description of the litigation isprovided. Part II of the Catalogue lists theholdings numerically by acquisitionnumber and indicates the specificdocuments in each me. Part III contains aplaintiff-defendant listing and an author­title listing.

Since the Library adds new materials toits collection every day, the holdings listedon the following pages are intended as anupdate to the Catalogue. New acquisitionswill be published in Announcement~ andcumulated annually in subsequent editionsof the Catalogue.

Most NILL materials are available uponrequest. There is a $.03 per pagereproduction charge which is waived forIndian tribes, individuals, groups andlegal services. NILL is unable to supplycopies of materials for which copyrightpermission has not been granted.

H possible, requests for holdings shouldbe made with reference to the acquisitionnumber and, because holdings containmany issues of Indian Jaw, users shouldspecify the issues for which information isbeing sought. Doing so enables the Librarystaff to check the NILL in-house cardcatalogue for any new materials whichmay have been added to the collectionsince publication of the Catalogue orAnnouncements. This results in moreprecise responses to requests for in­formation, eliminates unnecessaryreproduction and mailing costs andenables the Library to quickly fill an orderwith the most relevant information.library users should note that the NILL in­house card catalogue provides access tothe Library's holdings by tribe, state anddefendant-plaintiff. Requests formaterials by these categories may bemade.

Recent NILL AcquisitionsThe holdings listed on the following

pages according to subject matter havebeen acquired since the publication of the

NILL Catalogue, Volume I, 1973-1974. TheCatalogue may be ordered from theLibrary for $10.00 per copy. Catalogueorders and requests for Library holdingsshould be addressed to:

Native American Rights FundNational Indian Law Ubrary1506 BroadwayBoulder, Colorado 80302Telephone 303 447-8760

CASES

The line directly below the title gives thestate, court(s), tribes(s) and date(s) whenapplicable. The court, except where shownas a Federal Court, tribal court or ad­ministrative agency, is a court of the stateindicated at the beginning of the line. Thecourts listed are not meant to be a historyof the case. but only refer to the documentsin the library files. The date is that of theearliest document in the case of our files.The date preceded by the letter "d." in­dicates the date on which the case wassettled or decided. If no date preceded bythe letter "d." is shown, then the case isundecided, on appeal in another court, orthe decision is unreported and we have norecord of it. If only a date preceded by theletter "d." is shown, then all of thelitigation in our file occurred during theyear of the decision. The symbol (C.-)indicates a connected or consolidatedcase.

001005 Acquisition NumberWisconsin v. Richard Gumoe.Wise., Cir. Ct., Sup. Ct.• Chippewa, 1970. d.I972

" I" I" I'State Courts Tribe Dates

ARTICLES. STUDIES. HEARINGS. ETC.

The first line is the title of the holding.Below it is indicated the nature of the itemand the publication, organization or in­stitution involved If the item is an article,the volume and page number are given.The third line is the author, if applicable,and the date of the item. The last line in­dicates the number of pages in the holdingand where it may be obtained other thanfrom NILL.

11

The listing below includes only the most recent acquisitions of the Library and does not show those subjectheadings that apply only to older holdings. A complete listing can be obtained by consulting the 1973-74 NULCatalogue and its update: Announcements, Vol. 2, Nos. 2and 3.

---

'.

ABORIGINAL TITLE: CLAIMS AGAINSTUNITED STATES

001853Otoe and Missourla Tribe of Indians v. United States.Okla., Ct. Cl., Otoe and Missouria Tribe, 1954.Amicus argues that cession of land held by aboriginaltitle for an unconscionable consideration may be thebasis for an award under Indian Claims CommissionAct.

001953Nez Perce Tribe v. United States.Idaho, Ind. Cl. Comm., Nez Perce, 1963.Tribe claims it received unconscionable considerationfor cession of aboriginal lands under 1855 Treaty.

ABORIGINAL TITLE:EXTINGUISHMENT

001894"Fishing Rights of Alaskan Indians."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1942.31 pgs.

002019United States v. Lego, Raymond.Cal., 9th Cir., Pitt River, 1973.Indian accused of cutting timber in violation of federallaw argues innocence because law exempts Indianlands and logging occurred on aboriginal land neverceded to government.

ABORIGINAL TITLE: RECOGNITION OF

001851Yankton Sioux Tribe v. U.S.So. Dak., Ind. Cl. Comm., Yankton Sioux, 1968.Yankton claim that as identifiable tribe which had titleto lands ceded by 1858 Treaty, they are entitled tocompensation from Indian Claims Commission.

001935The Uintah and White River Bands of Ute Indians v.The United States of America.Utah, Ct. Cl., Uintah and. White River Bands of UteIndians, 1957.Tribe claims compensation for loss of lands which itheld by recognized title.

12

001942James, Albert v. Eureka, City of.caL, Super. Ct., Wiyot, 1973.Descendants of original Indian occupants massacredon island seek retmn of ownership rights to island.

001959"The Indians of Michigan and the Q:!ssion of TheirLands to the United States By Treaties."Article, Michigan Pioneer and Historical CollectionsAnnual Meeting, 26:274.Felch, Alpheus, 1894.25 pgs.

ABORIGINAL TITLE: USE ANDOCCUPANCY

001851Yankton Sioux Tribe v. u.s.So. Dak., Ind. Cl. Comm., Yankton Sioux, 1968.Yankton claim that as identifiable tribe which had titleto lands ceded by 1858 Treaty, they are entitled tocompensation from Indian Claims Commission.

001892"Alaskan Indian Fishing Rights."Memo to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Office of theSolicitor.Cohen Felix S., 1942.2 pgs.

001894"Fishing Rights of Alaskan Indians."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1942.31 pgs.

001953Nez Perce Tribe v. United States.Idaho, Ind. Cl. Comm., Nez Perce, 1963.Tribe claims it received unconscionable considerationfor cession of aboriginal lands under 1855 Treaty.

ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

001867"One of the Last Human Hunts of Civilization, And theBasest and Most Brutal of Them All."Pamphlet.Bailin, Roxanne and Grossman, Aubrey, 1971.30 pgs.

\)

"

"

.'

f

i .

001874"American Indian Reservation Economic Develop­ment Retarded or Thwarted Through Abridgement orLoss of Indian Titles to Land and Rights to the Use ofWater by Policies, Agencies and Personnel of FederalGovernment."Memorandum and Implementation.Veeder, William H., 1969.157 pgs.

001890"Departmental Review of Tribal Ordinance."Memo to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Cohen, Felix S., 1941.2 pgs.

001900"Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Rights of the NezPerce Indians."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.White, Mastin G., 1949.6 pgs.

001901"Residence Requirements For Taking Fur Animals inFur Management Areas in Alaska."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.White, Mastin G., 1950.4 pgs.

001902"Klamath Terminal Legislation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1955.24 pgs.

001903"Hunting and Fishing Rights of the Klamath IndianTribe - Authority to Hire Game Wardens."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1956.3 pgs.

001904"State Jurisdiction Over Criminal Trespass Actions onKlamath Indian Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1956.5 pgs.

001905"Imposition of North Dakota State Fish and GameLaws on Indians Claiming Treaty and Other Rights toHunt and Fish."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1957.8 pgs.

001906"Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald Eagle Act ­Indian Hunting Rights."Memo to Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries andWildlife, Office of the Solicitor.Vaughn, Charles H., 1962.2 pgs.

001921"Interim Procedure for Student Expulsions."Memorandum, Commissioner of Indian Affairs.Bruce, Louis R., 1972.3 pgs.

001923"Claim of Kootenai Tribe of Idaho to FederallyRecognized Fishing and Hunting Rights."Memorandum to BIA, Regional Solicitor, Portland.Dysart, George D., 1973.5 pgs.

001926"Memorandum Relative to the Titles to Rights to theUse of Water and the Authority to Control and Ad­minister Them on the Flathead Indian Reservation."Memo, BIA.Veeder, William H., 1967.39 pgs.

001944"Suggestions for Proposed New Regulations forBureau of Indian Affairs General AssistanceProgram."Memo.Barlow, Sarah W" 1972.34 pgs.

001948Klamath Indian Tribe - Termination of FederalSupervision.Hearings before the Committee on Interior and InsularAffairs and its Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, U.S.Senate, 84th Congress, May 21 and October 18, 1956.186 pgs. .

001949Federal Indian Policy.Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs ofthe Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.Senate, 85th Congress, March 27, May 13 and 16, June17, July 1 and 22, 1957.302 pgs.

001950Survey of Conditions of the Indians in the UnitedStates.Hearings before a Subcommittee of Committee onIndian Affairs, U.S. Senate, May 28 and 29, 1931.480 pgs.

13

001956"Disposition of Funds From Sale of Land by TulalipTribes."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs.Goss, Earle D., 1972.9 pgs.

001961"Requirements of Procedural Due Process in theBureau of Indian Affairs General AssistanceProgram."Memo to Louis R. Bruce.Barlow, Sarah W., 1972.55 pgs.

001965"Scope of the Snyder Act of November 2, 1921, 42 Stat.208,25 U.s.C. §13."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Assistant Solicitor.Soller, Cl1arles M. 1971.5 pgs.

001966''Validity of Sections 1.906 and 1.1605 of the TurtleMountain Tribal Code of 1968."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Associate Solicitor.Goss, Earle D., 1971.8 pgs.

001967"Requirement of Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp byMembers of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians toHunt Ducks on the Reservation."Opinion, Acting Commissioner, 1951.Lee, H. Rex.1 pg.

001968The Southwest Indian Report.Report, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, May, 1973.177 pgs.

001969Survey of Conditions of the Indians In the UnitedStates.Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee onIndian Affairs, United States Senate, Part 1, November12, 13 and 16, 1938.408 pgs.

001972Federal Funding of Indian Education: A BureaucraticEnigma.Report, Legal Action Support Project, Report No.5.Smith, Susan and Walker, Margaret, May, 1973.142 pgs.

14

001985"A Study of RI.A. Timber Management on theQuinault Indian Reservation, 195G-1970."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies In American Indian Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Beaty, Robert E., 1971.87 pgs.

001991Tsosie, Helen and Nelson, ViDa Jean, In reoAriz., B.I.A., Secretary of Interior, 1972.Action to determine whether welfare recipients areentitled to additional clothing allowance from BIAgeneral assistance for their children attending boar­ding school.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ANDPROCEDURE

001909"Getting Back The Land: How Native Americans CanAcquire Excess and Surplus Federal Property."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:33.·J.Hodge, Ronald A., 1973.9 pgs.

001911"Repaying Historical Debts: The Indian ClaimsCommission."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:359.Danforth, Sandra C., 1973.45 pgs.

001991Tsosie, Helen and Nelson, Viua Jean, In reoAriz., B.I.A., Secretary of Interior, 1972.Action to determine whether welfare recipients areentitled to additional clothing allowance from BIAgeneral assistance for their children attending boar­ding school.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ANDPROCEDURE: EXECUTIVEDISCRETION

001940"Impoundment of Appropriated Funds by thePresident."Joint hearings before the Ad Hoc Subcommittee onImpoundment of Funds of the Committee on Govern­ment Operations and the Subcommittee on Separationof Powers of the Committee on the Judiciary, UnitedStates Senate, 93rd Congress, Washington, D.C.,January 30 and 31, and February 1, 6, and 7, 1973.1129 pgs.

<.

'.

".

,

im,;-';

ALLOTMENTS

001976"The Indian Heirship Land Problem."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.W'llliafus," Ethel J:, 1970.82 pgs.

ATTORNEYS

001993Pitt River Indians ofCalffornfa v. Phelps, Louis L.Cal., Super. Ct., Pitt River Indians, 1973.Indians bring suit against former attorneys chargingmalpractice In handling of claims settlement beforeIndian Claims Conunlssion.

"

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

001965"Scope of the Snyder Act of November 2, 1921, 42 Stat.208, 25 U.S.C. § 13."Memorandum to Conunlssioner of Indian Affairs,Assistant Solicitor.Soller, Charles M., 1971.5 pgs.

001985"A Study of B.lA. Timber Management on theQuinault Indian Reservation, 1950-1970."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Beaty, Robert E., 1971.87 pgs.

ATTORNEYS: CONTRACTS, FEDERALAPPROVAL

001863Uttell, Norman M. v. Udall, Stewart L.Ariz., D.D.C., Navajo, d. 1966.Appeal by Interior Secretary from injunctionprohibiting him from terminating contract withNavajo tribal attorney.

001993Pitt River Indians of CalHornfa v. Phelps, Louis L.Cal., Super. Ct., Pitt River Indians, 1973.Indians bring suit against former attorneys chargingmalpractice in handling of claims settlement beforeIndian Claims Conunlssion.

ATTORNEYS: FEDERAL AUTHORITY

001863Uttell, Norman M. v. Udall, Stewart L.Ariz., D.D.C., Navajo, d. 1966.Appeal by Interior Secretary from injunctionprohibiting him from terminating contract withNavajo tribal attorney.

001992"Tribal Claims Attorney Contracts; 'Approval ofSettlement' Provisions."Solicitor's Opinion.Melich, Mitchell, June 2, 1972. 3 pgs.

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS: SER·VICES, ENTITLEMENT ANDELIGIBILITY

001870Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings County.Cal., E.D. Cal., Santa Rosa Band, 1973.Indian band alleges that county's enforcement onrancheria of ordinance requiring mobile home permitsinterferes with B.I.A.'s provision of housing im­provement services.

001912"Indians - Protection.of Personal Rights in General­The Right of Off-Reservation Indians to ReceiveGeneral Welfare Assistance (Rufz v. Morton, 462 F.2d818, 9th Cir. 1972)."Article - Case Note, North Dakota Law Review,49:405.Myhre, Russell J., 1973.6 pgs.

001944"Suggestions for Proposed New Regulations forBureau of Indian Mfairs General AssistanceProgram."Memo.Barlow, Sarah W., 1972.34 pgs.

001961"Requirements of Procedural Due Process in theBureau of Indian Mfairs General AssistanceProgram."Memo to Louis R. Bruce.Barlow, Sarah W. 1972.55 pgs.

15

001990Lamy, Lucson v. Maes, Paul.N.M., D.N.M., Zuni, 1972.Qass action against BIA general assistance ad­ministrators by welfare applicants seeking promptaction on their applications.

001991Tsosie, Helen and Nelson, Viua Jean, In reoAriz., RI.A., Secretary of Interior, 1972.Action to determine whether welfare recipients areentitled to additional clothing allowance from BIAgeneral assistance for their children attending boar­ding school.

001999Statistics He BIA General Assistance For Indians.Study.Ward, Martha, 1973.200 pgs.

BUY INDIAN ACT

001946"Negotiability of Construction Contract Under the'Buy Indian' Act of June 25, 1910."Memorandwn to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Office of the Solicitor.Melich, Mitchell, 1971.8 pgs.

CAPACITY TO SUE

001993Pitt River Indians of California v. Phelps, Louis L.cat, Super. Ct., Pitt River Indians, 1973.Indians bring suit against former attorneys chargingmalpractice in handling of claims settlement beforeIndian Claims Commission.

CAPACITY TO SUE, INTERVENTION

001854San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians of California v.United States.cat, Ind. Cl. Comm., San Pasqual Band, 1973.Tribe moves to file an amended petition or a petition inintervention in a claim before Indian Claims Com­mission.

001859Blackfeet and Gros Ventre Tribes v. United States.Mont., Ct. Cl., Blackfeet, Gras Ventre, Assiniboine,Sioux Tribe of Fort Peck Reservation, Mont., 1958.Tribe seeks to intervene in claim for lands ceded togovernment.

16

-" ...

001988United States v. San Diego, City of.cat, S.D. cal., capitan Grande Band of Mission In­dians, 1973.Tribe moves to intervene in suit arising frommunicipal and public use of reservation roadsproviding access to city-owned reservoir and camp­ground, resulting in trespass and damage to Indianland.

002004Public Service Company of New Mexico v. En­vironmental Protection Agency.N.M., 10th Cir., JicariI1a Apache, 1972.Utility seeks judicial review of EPA's disapproval ofNew Mexico State Implementation Plan for achievingair quality standards established for Four Comersregion.

002005Arizona Public Service Co., et aI. v. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.N.M., 10th Cir., Jircarilla Apache Tribe of Indians,1972.Utility seeks judicial review of EPA's disapproval ofNew Mexico State Implementation Plan for achievingair quality standards established for Four Comersregion.

002006Arizona Public Service Company, et a!. v. En­vironmental Protection Agency.Ariz., 9th Cir., Navajo, 1972.Utilities petition for judicial review of EPA ad­ministrator's disapproval of the Arizona Im­plementation Plan relating to air quality in the FourComers region. .

002021United States and Bay Mills Indian Community v.Michigan.Mich., W.O. Mich., Chippewa, 1973.Government and tribe sue to enjoin state interferencewith the right of treaty Indians to fish in Lake Superiorfree of state regulation.

CAPACITY TO SUE: TRIBES

001953Nez Perce 'Iiibe v. United States.Idaho, Ind. Cl. Comm., Nez Perce, 1963. .Tribe claims it received unconscionable considerationfor cession of aboriginal lands under 1855 Treaty.

'.

I':·

CIVIL JURISDICTION: CIVIL ACTIONSARISING IN INDIAN COUNTRY

002022Yellowstone Loan Co. v. Brown, Francis B.Wyo., Dist. Ct., Arapahoe, 1973.Indian debtor challenges jurisdiction of state court tohear action on promissory note because loan andservice of process were made on reservation.

CIVIL JURISDICTION: CONSENT TOAPPLICATION OF STATE LAWS

001957"Indians - Civil Jurisdiction in New Mexico - State,Federal and Tribal Courts."Article, New Mexico Law Review, 1:196.Ransom, Richard E. and Gilstrap, William G.,January, 1971.10 pgs.

002008Chiefs of St. Regis Mohawk Reservation for Removalof Intruders Upon Tribal Lands, In re Complaint of.N.Y., Franklin County Ct., Mohawk, 1973.Tribal chiefs invoke state Indian laws to support theirremoval of non-enrolled Indian from reservation.

CIVIL JURISDICTION: CONSENT TOAPPLICATION OF STATE LAWS;PUBLIC LAW 280

001865Comenout Children, In reoWash., Super. Ct., Quinault, 1973.Action to prevent state court from taking away Indiancouple's parental rights by showing that statejurisdiction had been retroceded to the federalgovernment.

CIVIL JUR!SDICTION: HEALTH LAWSAND REGULATIONS

001888"Enforcement of Florida Deer Removal andQuarantine Law on Seminole Indian Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Kirgis, Frederic L., 1940.7 pgs.

CIVIL JURISDICTION: INDIANCOUNTRY

001870Santa Rosa Band of Indians V. Kings County.CaL, E.D. CaL, Santa Rosa Band, 1973.Indian band alleges that county's enforcement onrancheria of ordinance requiring mobile home permitsinterferes with B.LA.'s provision of housing im­provement services.

CIVIL JURISIDCnON: LOCAL LAWSAND ORDINANCES

001870Santa Rosa Band of Indians V. Kings County.CaL, E.D. CaL, Santa Rosa Band, 1973.Indian band alleges that county's enforcement onrancheria of ordinance requiring mobile home permitsinterferes with B.I.A. 's provision of housing im­provement services.

CIVIL RIGHTS

001920"The Eighteen-Year-Gld Vote Amendment As Appliedto Indian Tribes."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Solicitor.Melich, Mitchell, 1971.6 pgs.

001986"Blacks and America's Tribal Indians: A Comparisonof Civil Rights."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Bishop, William L., 1971.48 pgs.

CIVIL RIGHTS: EQUAL PROTECTION

001907"Indian Control for Quality Indian Education."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:237.Gross, Michael Paul, 1973.29 pgs.

001925White Eagle, Melvin V. One Feather, Philomene.N.D., 8th Cir., Standing Rock Sioux, d. 1973.Tribal members claim unequal apportionment ofelective districts denies them equal protection in tribalelection.

17

001943McCovey, Mary Ann v. Humboldt, County of.CaL, N.D. CaL, Hoopa, 1973.Indian employee discharged during change of hospitalmanagement claims that racial and sexualdiscrimination were the only bases for her not beingreinstated by new administration.

001978"Freedom of Religion for the American Indian in theTweJJtieth Century."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Pressly, Thomas J., 1970.40 pgs.

002007United States v. Pollman, Harlan Frank.Mont., D. Mont., Confederated Salish and Kootenai,1972.Non-Indian is accused of trespassing with intent to fishon lake within boundaries of Flathead reservation inviolation of federal and tribal law.

CIVIL RIGHTS: PRISONERS' RIGHTS

001964Cunningham, Larry W. v. Wolff, Charles L.Neb., D. Neb., 1973.Indian penitentiary inmates claim violations of theirfirst and fourteenth amendment rights by prison of­ficials.

002003Calf Looking, Albert v. Richardson, Elliot.Wash., D.C., D.D.C., 1973.Indian prisoners and their spiritual and cultural ad­visor seek damages and relief from denial of visitationrights by prison officials.

CIVIL RIGHTS: TRIBAL ACTION

002002Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization v. Wilson, Dick.S.D., D.S.D., Oglala Sioux, 1973.Politically active members of Oglala Sioux Tribe seekrelief from harrassment and deprivation of civil rightsby tribal officials.

18

,"

CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES

001982"Indian Rights Secured by Treaties: A Survey ofRemedies."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in AmeriCan Indian Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Wagner, Ruth Ellen, 1971.124 pgs.

COMPENSATION FOR TAKING BYUNITED STATES

001885"Umatilla - Hunting and Fishing."Memo to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Kirgis, FredericL., 1937.7 pgs.

001887"Bonneville Dam Area - Fishing Rights."Memo to Acting Solicitor from Assistant Solicitor.Westwood, C.T., 1938.2 pgs.

001934Southern ute Tribe or Band of Indians v. The UnitedStates of America.Colo., Ind. Cl. Comm., Southern Ute, 1964.Tribe claims compensation for lands taken by U.S.without payment and seeks accounting from govern­ment for proceeds of land sales.

001935The Uintah and White River Bands of Ute Indians v.The United States of America.Utah, Ct. CL, Uintah and White River Bands of UteIndians, 1957.Tribe claims compensation for loss of lands which itheld by recognized tiUe.

001936The Uintah Ute Indians of Utah v. The United States ofAmerica.Utah, Ind. Cl. Comm., Uintah Ute Indians, 1952.Tribe seeks recovery for lands in Uintah ValleyReservation taken by government in 1881 andestablished as reservation for White River Utes.

'.

, "

.-,.­~.

r~

'. I .'II

! ..i. •

, c

001951Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of theF1athead Reservation, Montana v. United States.Mont., Ct. Cl., Confederated Salish and KootenaiTribes, 1963, d. 1971.Tribal confederation contends that survey errorresulted in loss of reservation lands and that federalgovermnent wrongfully profited from lease of powersites on tribal lands.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

001863UUeU, Norman M. v. Udall, Stewart L.Ariz., D.D.C., Navajo, d. 1966.Appeal by Interior Secretary from injunctionprohibiting him from terminating contract withNavajo tribal attorney.

001874"American Indian Reservation Economic Develop­ment Retarded or Thwarted Through Abridgement orLoss of Indian Titles to Land and Rights to the Use ofWater by Policies, Agencies and Personnel of FederalGovermnent."Memorandum and Implementation.Veeder, William H., 1969.157 pgs.

001911"Repaying Historical Debts: The Indian ClaimsCommission."Article, North Dakota Law Review,49:359.Danforth, Sandra C., 1973.45 pgs.

001992"Tribal Claims Attorney Contracts; 'Approval ofSettlement' Provisions."Solicitor's Opinion.Melich, Mitchell, June 2, 1972.3 pgs.

CONSTITUTION, UNITED STATES:AS A SOURCE OF FEDERALAUTHORITYOVER INDIAN AFFAIRS

001920"The Eighteen-Year-0ld Vote Amendment As Appliedto Indian Tribes."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Solicitor.Melich, Mitchell, 1971.6 pgs.

j1

CONSTITUTION, UNITED STATES: AS ASOURCE OF FEDERAL AUTHORITYOVER INDIAN AFFAIRS; COMMERCECLAUSE

001945Rainbow's End TraDer Sales, In reoCal., Board of Equalization, Yurok, 1973.Indians claim exemption from state sales tax on trailersale completed on reservation.

002000Walker River Paiute Tribe V. Sheehan, John J.Nev., D. Nev., Walker River Paiute, 1973.Tribe and its licensed trader seek to enjoin statetaxation of interstate shipments of cigarettes to thereservation.

CONSTITUTION, UNITED STATES:CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATESBASED UPON

001885"Umatilla - Hunting and Fishing."Memo to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Kirgis, Frederic L., 1937.7 pgs.

CONSTITUTION, UNITED STATES:LIMITED FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVERINDIAN AFFAIRS; DUE PROCESSCLAUSE

001951Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of theF1athead Reservation, Montana V. United States.Mont., Ct. Cl., Confederated Salish and KootenaiTribes, 1963, d. 1971.Tribal confederation contends that survey errorresulted in loss of reservation lands and that federalgovermnent wrongfully profited.from lease of powersites on tribal lands.

COURT OF CLAIMS: SPECIALJURISDICTION ACTS

001934Southern Ute Tribe or Band of Indians V. The UnitedStates of America.Colo., Ind. Cl. Corom., Southern Ute, 1964.Tribe claims compensation for lands taken by U.S.without payment and seeks accounting from govern­ment for proceeds of land sales.

19

001935The Uintah and White River Bands of Ute Indians v.The United States of America.Utah, Ct. Cl., Uintah and White River Bands of UteIndians, 1957.Tribe claims compensation for loss of lands which itheld by recognized title.

CREDIT AND LOANS: TO INDIVIDUALS

001949Federal Indian Polley.Hearings before theSubcommittee on Indian Mfairs ofthe Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.Senate, 85th CongreSs, March 'n, May 13 and 16, June17, July 1 and 22, 1957.302 pgs.

CREDIT AND LOANS: TO TRIBES

001899"Fish Trap Loans and Use of Statistics Relating toAlaska Sahnon Fishery."Memo to Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Office ofthe Solicitor.White, Mastin G., 1947.4 pgs.

001949Federal Indian Polley.Hearings before theSubcommittee on Indian Mfairs ofthe Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.Senate, 85th Congress, March 'n, May 13 and 16, June17, July 1 and 22, 1957.302 pgs.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

001968The Southwest Indian Report.Report, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, May, 1973.177 pgs.

CRIMINAL JURSIDICTION: CONSENTTO APPLICATION OF STATE LAWS;ACTS OF CONGRESS

001896"State Jurisdiction He Game Laws on Allotted LandsWithin the Sisseton Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Sollcitor.Gardner, Warner W., 1943.7 pgs.

20

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: CONSENTTO APPLICATION OF STATE LAWS;PUBLIC LAW 280

001904"State Jurisdiction Over Criminal Trespass Actions onKlamath Indian Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1956.5 pgs.

002007United States v. Pollman, Harlan Frank.Mont., D. Mont., Confederated Salish and Kootenai,1972.Non-Indian is accused of trespassing with intent to fishon lake within boundaries of Flathead reservation inviolation of federal and tribal law.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: INDIANCOUNTRY

001888"Enforcement of Florida Deer Removal andQuarantine Law on Seminole Indian Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Kirgis, Frederic L., 1940.7 pgs.

001889"State Jursdiction Over Hunting and Fishing on LandsPurchased for Indians by Federal Government."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1941.9 pgs.

001896"State Jurisdiction Re Game Laws on Allotted LandsWithin the Sisseton Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Gardner, Warner W., 1943.7 pgs.

001930United States ex reI. Douglas Blacksmith v. Erickson,Don R.S.D., D.S.D., Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux, d. 1973.Action to determine if crime committed on land ownedby non-Indian on reservation was in Indian Countryand thus subject to federal Jurisdiction.

001958"Criminal Procedure on the American Frontier: AStudy of the Statutes and Court Records of MichiganTerritory 1805-1825."Article, Michigan Law Review, 57:195.Blume, Wtlliam Wirt, 1958.62 pgs.

·.001996"Federal Indian Criminal Law."Staff memo, Native American Rights Fund.Vollmann, Tim, August, 1972.23 pgs.

002019United States v. Lego, Raymond.CaL, 9th Cir., Pitt River, 1973.Indian accused of cutting timber in violation of federallaw argues innocence because law exempts Indianlands and logging occurred on aboriginal" land neverceded to government.

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: TENMAJOR CRIMES ACT (18 U.S.C. § 1153)

001996"Federal Indian Criminal Law."Staff memo, Native American Rights Fund.Vollmann, Tim, August, 1972.23 pgs.

l~.kJ{ C~ CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS AND CULTURE

001869Indian Americans: Unity and Diversity.Book, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Ethnic Groups in AmericanLife Series.Wax, Murray L., 1971.245 pgs., On Shelf.

001871"Indians in Minneapolis."Study.The League of Women Voters of Minneapolis, 1968.115 pgs.

001914"The Iroquois in the American Revolution."(book review)North Dakota Law Review; 49:417.Price, Linda, 1973.3 pgs.

001915"The Ponca Chiefs: An Account of the Trial of Stan­ding Bear."(book review)

" North Dakota Law Review, 49:419.Schoppert, Thomas K., 1973.4 pgs.

001916"The Search For an American Indian Identity ­Modern Pan-Indian Movements."(book review)North Dakota Law Review, 49:423.Raymond, Arthur, 1973.9 pgs.

001953Nez Perce Tribe v. United States.Idaho, Ind. Cl. Comm., Nez Perce, 1963.Tribe claims it received unconscionable considerationfor cession of aboriginal lands under 1855 Treaty.

001960Lewis Cass and the Indian Treaties: A Monograph onthe Indian Relations of the Northwest Territory From1813 to 1831.Monograph.Comfort, Benjamin F., 1923.54 pgs.

001964Cunningham, Larry W. v. Wolff, Charles L.Neb., D. Neb., 1973.Indian penitentiary inmates claim violations of theirfirst and fourteenth amendment rights by prison of­ficials.

001970Aboriginal Society in Southern CaIHornia.Reprinted from the University of CaliforniaPublications in American Archaeology and Ethnology,Vol. 26, 1929.Strong, William Duncan, 1972.358 pgs.

002003Calf Looking, Albert v. Richardson, Elliot.Wash., D.C., D.D.C., 1973.Indian prisoners and their spiritual and cultural ad­visor seek damages and relief from denial of visitationrights by prison officials.

CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS AND CULTURE:RELIGION

001978"Freedom of Religion for the American Indian in theTwentieth Century."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Pressly, Thomas J., 1970.40 pgs.

21

~'.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS: CUSTODY

001865Comenout Chlldren, In reoWash., Super. Ct., Quinault, 1973.Action to prevent state court from taking away Indiancouple's parental rights by showing that state jur­sidiction had been retroceded to the federal govern­ment.

DOMESTIC RELATIONS: SUPPORT ANDALIMONY

001987Story, Edith May V. White Owl, Ronald Gene.N.D.,Oist. Ct., Three Affiliated 'liibes of Fort BertholdRes., 1973.Order dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction becausealleged non~upport by Indian took place in anotherstate and jurisdiction over Indian was the tribal court,not state ~urt.

DUE PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEEDINGS

001921"Interim Procedure for Student Expulsions."Memorandum, Commissioner of Indian Affairs.Bruce, Louis R., 1972.3 pgs.

001961"Requirements of Procedural Due Process in theBureau of Indian Affairs General AssistanceProgram."Memo to Louis R. Bruce.Barlow, Sarah W., 1972.55 pgs.

001963Azbill, Debra V. Keller, Arthur H.Cal., N.D. Cal., 1973.Student expelled from public school without priorhearing or approval of Board of Trustees and withoutprovision for continuing education claims denial of dueprocess.

DUE PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEEDINGS; JUDICIAL REVIEW

002004Public Service Company of New Mexico V. En·vironmental Protection Agency.N.M., loth Cir., Jicarilla Apache, 1972.Utility seeks judicial review of EPA's disapproval of

22

New Mexico State Implementation Plan for achievingair quality standards established for Four Cornersregion.

002005Arizona Public Service Co., et al. v. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.N.M., loth Cir., Jicarilla Apache Tribe of Indians, 1972.Utility seeks judicial review of EPA's disapproval ofNew Mexico State Implementation Plan for achievingair quality standards established for Four Cornersregion.

002006Arizona Public Service Company, et al. v. En­vironmental Protection Agency.Utilities petition for judicial review of EPA ad­ministrator's disapproval of the Arizona Im­plementation Plan relating to air quality in the FourCorners region.

DUE PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEEDINGS; RULE MAKING

002005Arizona Public Service Co., et at v. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.N.M., loth Cir., Jicarilla Apache Tribe of Indians, 1972.Utility seeks judicial review of EPA's disapproval ofNew Mexico State Implementation Plan for achievingair quality standards established for Four Cornersregion.

002006Arizona Public Service Company, et at v. En­vironmental Protection Agency.Ariz., 9th Cir., Navajo, 1972.Utilities petition for judicial review of EPA ad­ministrator's disapproval of the Arizona Im­plementation Plan relating to air quality in the FourCorners region.

EDUCATION

001940"Impoundment of Appropriated Funds by thePresident."

. Joint hearings before the Ad Hoc Subcommittee onImpoundment of Funds of the Committee on Govern­ment Operations and the Subcommittee on Separationof Powers of the Committee on the Judiciary, UnitedStates Senate, 93rd Congress, Washington, D.C.,January30and31, and February 1,6, and 7,1973.1129 pgs.

'.

.'

.uki (~

..

~'4~f

001968The Southwest Indian Report.Report, U.S. Conunission on Uvil Rights, May, 1973.177 pgs.

001979"The Indian and Equality of Educational 0p­portunity."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies In American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Lewis, Michael L., 1?70.47 pgs.

002011Indian Participation In the Government and Educationof Indian People.a) U.S. Senate Bill S.1017, 93rd Congress, 1st Session(1973), 27 pgs.

EDUCATION: BUREAU OF INDIANAFFAIRS

001921"Interim Procedure for Student Expulsions."Memorandwn, Commissioner of Indian Affairs.Bruce, Louis R., 1972.3 pga.

001972Federal Funding of Indian Education: A BureaucraticEnigma.Report, Legal Action Support Project, Report No.5.Smith, Susan and Walker, Margaret, May, 1973.142 pgs.

EDUCATION: DISCRIMINATION

001871"Indians in Minneapolis."Study.The League of Women Voters of Minneapolis, 1968.115 pgs.

001907"Indian Control for Quality Indian Education."Article, North Dakota Law Review; 49:237.Gross, Michael Paul, 1973.29 pgs.

EDUCATION: FEDERAL AUTHORITY

001929"Indian Education Legislation of 1972 Pending Beforethe Ninety-Second Congress."Study.Robinson, David B., 1972.23 pgs.

001994Redman, John Charles v. Ottfna, John R.Wash., D.C., D.D.C., 1973.Beneficiaries of 1972 Indian Education Act seek tocompel defendant to issue guidelines, promulgateregulations and otherwise begin implementing act.

EDUCATION: IMPACT AID(20 U.S.C. § 236)

001929"Indian Education Legislation of 1972 Pending Beforethe Ninety-Second Congress."Study.Robinson, David B., 1972.23 pgs.

EDUCATION: TITLE I (20 U.S.C.§ 241a et seq.)

001972Federal Funding of Indian Education: A BureaucraticEnigma.Report, Legal Action Support Project, Report No.5.&rUth, Susan and Walker, Margaret, May, 1973.142 pgs.

EMINENT DOMAIN

001885"Umatilla - HlDlting and Fishing."Memo to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Kirgis, Frederic L., 1937.7 pgs.

001887"Bonneville Dam Area - Fishing Rights."Memo to Acting Solicitor from Assistant Solicitor.Westwood, C.T., 1938.2 pgs.

EMPLOYMENT

001968The Southwest Indian Report.Report, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, May, 1973.177 pgs.

EMPLOYMENT: DISCRIMINATION BYEMPLOYERS

001943McCovey, Mary Ann v. Humboldt, County of,Cal., N.D. Cal., Hoopa, 1973.Indian employee discharged during change of hospital

23

management claims that racial and sexualdiscrimination were the only bases for her not beingreinstated by new administration.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION:FEDERAL LAWS

001894"Fishing Rights of Alaskan Indians."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1942.31 pgs.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION:NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICYACT

002004Public Service Company of New Mexico v. En­vironmental Protection Agency.N.M., 10th Or., Jicarilla Apache, 1972.Utility seeks judicial review of EPA's disapproval ofNew Mexico state Implementation Plan for achievingair quality standards established for Four Cornersregion.

002005Arizona Public Service Co., et a!. v. EnvironmentalProtection Agency.N.M., 10th Cir., Jicarilla Apache Tribe of Indians, 1972.Utility seeks judicial review of EPA's disapproval ofNew Mexico state Implementation Plan for achievingair quality standards established for Four Cornersregion.

002006Arizona Public Service Company, et at v. En­vironmental Protection Agency.Ariz., 9th ar., Navajo, 1972.Utilities petition tor judicial review of EPA ad­ministrator's disapproval of the Arizona Im­plementatioo Plan relating to air quality in the FourCorners region.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION:TRIBAL POWERS

001886"Hunting and Fishing - Tribal Power - Bad River."Memo to the Conunissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Kirgis, Frederic L., 1938.2 pgs.

24

·.

FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER INDIAN,AFFAIRS

001947"Justice and the American Indians."Article, Contact, 3:33.Echohawk, John E., 1973.6 pgs.

001998Program of Legal Studies for Native People: Casesand Materials on Native Law (Canada).Textbook.Sanders, Douglas, 1973.404 pgs.

FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER INDIANAFFAIRS: CONTRACTS

001856Red Elk, Elgin (Atetwuthtakewa), In re Estate of.Okla., Dept. of the Interior, Comanche, 1964.A contract among heirs not to contest decedent's willwhich disposed of her restricted property is asserted1ynull and void for lack of Interior Secretary's approval.

001965"Scope of the Snyder Act of November 2, 1921, 42 Stat.208, 25 U.S.C. 13."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Assistant Solicitor.Soller, Charles M., 1971.5 pgs.

FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER INDIANAFFAIRS: FUNDS; TRmAL

001852An Analysis of the Course of Actions and DealingBetween the United States and the Yankton SiouxTribe Following the Treaty of April 19, 1859, to 1888.Study re yankton Sioux Tribe v. United States, Ind. Cl.Comm.Foley, Dr. Michael F. and Champe, Dr. John L., June,1972.206 pgs.

001956"Dispositioo of Funds From sale of Land by TulalipTribes."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs.Goss, Earle D., 1972.9 pgs.

t,

.'

,

(~

FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER INDIANAFFAIRS: WELFARE

001990Lamy, Lucson v. Maes, Paul.N.M., D.N.M., Zuni, 1972.Class actioo against BIA general assistance ad­ministrators by welfare applicants seeking promptaction on their applications.

FEDERAL BENEFITS, ENTITLEMENTTO

001909"Getting Back The Land: How Native Americans CanAcquire Excess and Surplus Federal Property."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:333.Hodge, Ronald A., 1973.9 pgs.

001949Federal Indian PolicyHearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs ofthe Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.Senate, 85th Congress, March 27, May 13 aOO16, June17, July 1 and 22, 1957.302 pgs.

001971The Menominee Restoration Act: Legal Analysis.Study, Native American Rights FundWilkinson, Charles F., Knight, Yvonne T. andPreloznik, Joseph F., 1973.101 pgs.

001972Federal Funding of Indian Education: A BureaucraticEnigma.Report, Legal Action Support Project, Report No.5.Smith, Susan and Walker, Margaret, May, 1973.142 pgs.

FEDERAL BENEFITS, ENTITLEMENTTO: SOCIAL SECURITY

002020Eagle Elk, Edward, In re the Appeal of.S.D., Dept. of Inter., Sioux, 1972.Interior Secretary rules that social security survivor'sbenefits held in child's BIA trust account should beturned over to duly appointed guardian.

t'

FEDERAL BENEFITS, ENTITLEMENTTO: WELFARE

001912"Indians _. Protection of Personal Rights in General­The Right of Off-Reservation Indians to ReceiveGeneral Welfare Assistance (RuJz v. Morton, 462 F.2d818, 9th Cir. 1972)."Article - Case Note, North Dakota Law Review,49:405.Myhre, Russell J., 1973.6 pgs.

001944"SUggestions for Proposed New Regulations forBureau of Indian Affairs General AssistanceProgram."Memo.Barlow, Sarah W., 1972.34 pgs.

001961"Requirements of Procedural Due Process in theBureau of Indian Affairs General AssistanceProgram."Memo to Louis R. Bruce.Barlow, Sarah W., 1972.55 pgs.

001999Statistics Re BIA General Assistance For Indians.Study.Ward, Martha, 1973.200 pgs.

GRAZING

001935The Uintah and White River Bands of Ute Indians v.The United States of America.Utah, Ct. Cl., Uintah and White River Bands of UteIndians, 1957.Tribe claims compensation for loss of lands which itheld by recognized title.

GRAZING: TAYLOR GRAZING ACT

001696Kale, Kenneth M. v. United States of America.Calif., 9th Cir., d. 1973.Indian claims his application for an allotment in publicland was wrongfully denied with the result that theland was patented instead to a developer.

25

HEALTH AND SAFETY

001968The Southwest Indian Report.Report, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, May, 1973.177 pgs.

HOUSING

001870Santa Rosa Band of Indians v. Kings Co1Dlty.cal., E.D. cal., Santa Rosa Band, 1973.Indian band alleges that county's enforcement onrancheria of ordinance requiring mobile home permitsinterferes with B.I.A.'s provision of housing im­provement services.

001871"Indians in Minneapolis."Study.The League of Women Voters of Minneapolis, 1968.115 pgs.

HOUSING: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

001945Rainbow's End Trailer Sales, In reoCal., Board of Equalization, Yurok, 1973.Indians claim exemption from state sales tax on trailersale completed on reservation.

HOUSING: PUBLIC HOUSING

001872"Indian Housing Authority Organization and Sites inIndian Areas."Information and instructions, U.S. Dept. of Housingand Urban Development, 1972.48 pgs.

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS001890"Departmental Review of Tribal Ordinance."Memo to the Conunissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Cohen, Felix S., 1941.2 pgs.

001898"Jurisdiction of Flathead Tribal Council to RegulateHunting in Reservoir Areas."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.White, Mastin G., 1947.5 pgs.

26

001998Program of Legal Studies for Native People: Casesand Materials on Native Law (Canada).Textbook. .Sanders, Douglas, 1973.404 pgs.

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS: ABORIGINAL

001887"Bonneville Dam Area - Fishing Rights."Memo to Acting Solicitor from Assistant Solicitor.Westwood, C.T., 1938.2 pgs.

001892"Alaskan Indian Fishing Rights."Memo to Conunissioner of Indian Affairs, Office of theSolicitor.Cohen, Felix S., 1942.2 pgs.

001894"Fishing Rights of Alaskan Indians."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1942.31 pgs.

001923"Claim of Kootenai Tribe of Idaho to FederallyRecognized Fishing and Hunting Rights."Memorandum to BIA, Regional Solicitor, Portland.Dysart, George D., 1973.5 pgs.

001983"Muckleshoot Fishing Rights Question."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian LawVol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed. . ,La Clair, Leo, 1971.56 pgs.

001989Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation V.

United States.Wash., Ind. Cl. Corom., Confederated Tribes of theColville Reservation, 1972.Tribes bring suit under fair and honorable dealingsclause claiming U.S. caused and permitted destructionof fisheries in which plaintiffs had special rights andprior to extinguishment of tille, aided third persons inremoval of resources from reservation and grantedrailroad rights of way without fair compensation.

If.,...•..•..'

'~'1#;" .

f....~N

~. ,.

";.,,"i -'

\,

j{~~I:;

001997Washlilgton v. Quigley, Frank.Wash., Super. Ct., Sup. Ct., Chinook 'liibe, 1956, d. 1958.Member of a tribe having no treaty with U.S. claimsaboriginal hunting rights on land located on tribe'sformer usual and accustomed hunting ground which hepurchased from non-Indian.

HUNTING, FISHING: FEDERALCONTROL

001880"Migratory Bird Treaty Act - Swinomish IndianReservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.FahY,01arles, 1934.3 pgs.

001894"Fishing Rights of Alaskan Indians."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1942.31 pgs.

001897"Indian Rights in Columbia River Reservoir."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Gardner, Warner W., 1945.33 pgs.

001899''Fish Trap Loans and Use of Statistics Relating toAlaska Salmon Fishery."Memo to Assistant Secretary of the Interior, Office ofthe Solicitor.White, Mastin G., 1947.4 pgs.

002007United States v. Pollman, Harlan Frank.Mont., D. Mont., Confederated Salish and Kootenai,1972.Non-Indian is accused of trespassing with intent to fishon lake within botmdaries of Flathead reservation inviolation of federal and tribal law.

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS:OFF-RESERVATION

001877"Blackfeet Indians - Right to Htmt, Fish and CutTimber - Glacier National Park."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Finney, E.C., 1932.12 pgs.

001891"Right to Fish in Usual and Accustomed Places asProvided by Early Treaties - Indians Contend StateLaw Not Applicable."Memo to Secretary of the Interior, Office of theSolicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1941.1 pg.

001906"Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Bald Eagle Act ­Indian Htmting Righ~."

Memo to. Director, Bureau of Sport Fisheries andWildlife, Office of the Solicitor.Vaughn, Charles H., 1962.2 pgs.

00IMlSatiacum, Robert v. Washington.Wash., U.S. Sup. Ct., Puyallup, 1973.In affirming conviction of Indian for wasting fishcaught under treaty rights, petitioner contends courtunnecessarily determined that reservation no longerexists.

001980"Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights: NorthwestDevelopments."Study, University of Washington Indi&l1 LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Wallen, Woodrow, 1970.47 pgs.

001983"Muckleshoot Fishing Rights Question."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.La Clair, Leo, 1971.56 pgs.

001997Washington v. Quigley, Frank.Wash., Super. Ct., Sup. Ct., Chinook 'liibe, 1956, d. 1958.Member of a tribe having no treaty with U.S. claimsaboriginal hunting rights on land located on tribe'sformer usual and accustomed hunting ground which hepurchased from non-Indian.

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS: RESERVATION

001881"Red Lake Reservation - Title to Submerged Lands ­Indian Fishing Rights."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Kirgis, Frederic L., 1936.9 pgs.

27

1 :,

.111.''!

i1(,i.'i! ,

:i

001883"State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Restricted In­dian Reservation Lands."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R, 1936.2 pgs.

001886"Htmting and Fishing - Tribal Power - Bad River."Memo to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Kirgls, Frederic L., 1938.2pgs.

001893"Conflict Between Migratory Bird Treaty With GreatBritain and Treaty With the Yakimas Re HuntingRights on Reservation."Memo to Conunissioner of Indian Affairs, Office of theSolicitor.Margold, Nathan R, 1942.3 pgs.

001900"Htmting, Fishing, and Trapping Rights of the NezPerce Indians."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.White, Mastin G., 1949.6 pgs.

001903"Htmting and Fishing Rights of the Klamath IndianTribe - Authority to Hire Game Wardens."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1956.3 pgs.

001905"Imposition of North Dakota State Fish and GameLaws on Indians Claiming Treaty and Other Rights toHtmt and Fish."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1957.8 pgs.

001967"Requirement of Migratory Bird Htmting Stamp byMembers of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians toHtmt Ducks on the Reservation."Opinion, Acting Commissioner, 1951.Lee, H. Rex.1 pg.

28

.'

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS: STATE CONTROL001879"Fishing Rights - Yakima Tribes."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R, 1934.6 pgs.

001881"Red Lake Reservation - Title to Submerged Lands ­Indian Fishing Rights."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Kirgis, Frederic L., 1936.9 pgs.

001883"State and Federal Jurisdiction Over Restricted In­dian Reservation Lands."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R, 1936.2 pgs.

001884"Upper Red Lake - Fishing Rights of Indians."Memo to Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affa.Office of the Solicitor. .Margold, Nathan R., 1936.1 pg.

001888"Enforcement of Florida Deer Removal andQuarantine Law on Seminole Indian Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Kirgis, Frederic L., 1940.7 pgs.

001889"State Jurisdiction Over Hunting and Fishing on LandsPurchased for Indians by Federal Government."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R, 1941.9 pgs.

001891"Right to Fish in Usual and Accustomed Places asProvided by Early Treaties - Indians Contend StateLaw Not Applicable."Memo to Secretary of the Interior, Office of theSolicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1941.1 pg.

001895"Hunting and Fishing Regulation on Diminished andCeded Portions of the Wind River Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Gardner, Warner W., 1943.17 pgs.

001896"State Jurisdiction Re Game Laws on Allotted LandsWithin the Sisseton Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Gardner, Warner W., 1943.7 pgs.

001901"Residence Requirements For Taking Fur Animals inFur Management Areas in Alaska."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.White, Mastin G., 1950.4 pgs.

001924Wisconsin v. Bodin, Roger.WIS., Bayfield County Ct., Lake Superior Chippewa d.1973. 'Action to determine whether non-Indian's purchase ofgame fish caught by Indian under treaty rights isallowable.

001980"Indian Hunting and Fishing Rights: NorthwestDevelopments."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Wallen, Woodrow, 1970. 47 pgs.

001997Washington v. Quigley, Frank.Wash., Super. Ct., Sup. Ct., Chinook 1iibe, 1956, d. 1958.Member of a tribe having no treaty with U.S. claimsaboriginal hunting rights on land located on tribe'sfonner usual and accustomed hunting ground which hepurchased from non-Indian.

002021U~ted States and Bay Mills Indian Community v.Michigan.Mich., W.D. Mich., Chippewa, 1973.~vernm~t and tribe sue to enjoin state interferenceWlth the nght of treaty Indians to fish in Lake Superiorfree of state regulation.

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS: TERMINATIONOF RIGHTS BY WITHDRAWAL

001877"~lackfeet Indians - Right to Hunt, Fish and CutTimber - Glacier National Park."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Finney, E.C., 1932.12 pgs.

001878"Wenetchee - Fishing Rights."Memo, Office of the Solicitor.W.H.F., 1933.1 pg.

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS: TREATIES

001879"Fishing Rights - Yakima Tribes."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1934.6 pgs.

001880"Migratory Bird Treaty Act - Swinomish IndianReservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Fahy, Charles, 1934.3 pgs.

001885"Umatilla - Hunting and Fishing."Memo to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Office ofthe Solicitor. 'Kirgis, Frederic L., 1937.7 pgs.

001891"Right to Fish in UusaI and Accustomed Places asProvided by Early Treaties - Indians Contend StateLaw Not Applicable."Memo to Secretary of the Interior, Office of theSolicitor.Margold, Nathan R, 1941.1 pg.

001893"Conflict Between Migratory Bird Treaty With GreatBritain and Treaty With the Yakimas Re HuntingRights on Reservation."Memo to Conunissioner of Indian Affairs, Office of theSolicitor.Margold, Nathan R, 1942.3 pgs.

001905"Imposition of North Dakota State Fish and GameLaws on Indians Claiming Treaty and Other Rights toHunt and Fish."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1957.8 pgs.

29

001924Wisconsin v. Bodin, Roger.WiS., Bayfield County Ct., Lake Superior Chippewa, d.1973.Action to determine whether non-Indian's purchase ofgame fish caught by Indian under treaty rights isallowable.

002021United States and Bay Mills Indian Community v.Michigan.Mich., W.O. Mich., Chippewa, 1973.Government and tribe sue to enjoin state interferencewith the right of treaty Indians to fish in Lake Superiorfree of state regulatioo.

INDIAN

001915"The Ponca Chiefs: An Account of the Trial of Stan­ding Bear."(book review)North Dakota Law Review, 49:419.Schoppert, Thomas K., 1973.4 pgs.

INDIAN: DEFINED

001974"Who is an Indian in Federal Indian Law?"Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Vogel, Bart, 1970.40 pgs.

INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

001925White Eagle, Melvin v. One Feather, Philomene.N.D., 8th Cir., Standing Rock Sioux, d. 1973.Tribal members claim unequal apportionment ofelective districts denies them equal protection in tribalelection.

001966"Validity of Sections 1.906 and 1.1605 of the TurtleMountain Tribal Code of 1968."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Associate Solicitor.Goss, Earle D., 1971.8 pgs.

30

001975"The Indian Bill of Rights."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Sloan, Marilyn, 1970.61 pgs.

INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT: DUEPROCESS

002002Oglala Sioux Civil Rights Organization v. Wilson, Dick.S.D., D.S.D., Oglala Sioux, 1973.Politically active members of Oglala Sioux Tribe seekrelief from harrassment and deprivation of civil rightsby tribal officials.

INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT: HABEASCORPUS

001995Enos, Lawrence v. Rhodes, William Roy.Ariz., D. Ariz., Pima-Maricopa, 1973.Indian petitions for writ of habeas corpus and moneydamages.

INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT:JURISDICTION IN FEDERAL COURTS

002002Oglala Sioux Uvil Rights Organization v. Wilson Dick.S.D., D.S.D., Oglala Sioux, 1973.Politically active members of Oglala Sioux Tribe seekrelief from harrassment and deprivation of civil rightsby tribal officials.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION

001911"Repaying Historical Debts: The Indian ClaimsCommission."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:359.Danforth, Sandra C., 1973.45 pgs.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION:AMENDED PLEADINGS AND MOTIONS

001854San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians of California v.United States.Cal., Ind. Cl. Corom., San Pasqual Band, 1973.Tribe moves to file an amended petition or a petition inintervention in a claim before Indian Claims Com­mission.

""j"" ..

\",--

'.

i.';

":'

001858Blackfeet and Gros Ventre Tribes v. United States.Mont., Ct. Cl., Blackfeet and Gros Ventre Tribes, 1966.Indian Claims Commission denies motion to dismissTribe's claim without prejudice or, alternatively, togrant an indefinite continuance so that evidence couldbe sought to support claim for loss of land.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION: CLAIMSWITHIN JURISDICTION OF

001853Otoe and Missouria Tribe of Indians v. UnitedStates.Okla., Cl Cl., Otoe and Missouria Tribe, 1954.Amicus argues that cession of land held by aboriginaltitle for an lDlconscionable consideration may be thebasis for an award under Indian Claims ConunissionAct.

001935The Uintah and White River Bands of ute Indians v.The United States of America.Utah, Ct. Cl., Uintah and White River Bands of UteIndians, 1957.Tribe claims compensation for loss of lands which itheld by recognized title.

001938Klamath and Modoc Tribes and Yahooskin Band ofSnake Indians v. The United States of America.Cal., Ind. Cl. Comm., Klamath and Modoc Tribes andYahooskin Band of Snake Indians, 1964.Tenninated tribe claims additional compensation forland erroneously excluded from reservation bygovernment survey and ceded to government in 1906.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION:DAMAGES, RELIEF, OFFSETS ANDINTEREST

001934Southern Ute Tribe or Band of Indians v. The UnitedStates of America.Colo., Ind. Cl. Comm., Southern Ute, 1964.Tribe claims compensation for lands taken by U.S.without payment and seeks accounting from govern­ment for proceeds of land sales.

001937Klamath and Modoc Tribes v. The United States ofAmerica.Cal., Ind. Cl. Comm., Klamath and Modoc, 1964.Commission's approval sought for proposed com­promise settlement of tribe's claim that governmentpaid unconscionable consideration for lands ceded in1864 Treaty.

001938Klamath and Modoc Tribes and Yahooskin Band ofSnake Indians v. The United States of America.Cal., Ind. Cl. Comm., Klamath and Modoc Tribes andYahooskin Band of Snake Indians, 1964.Terminated tribe claims additional compensation forland erroneously excluded from reservation bygovernment survey and ceded to government in 1906.

001939Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,an Indian Reorganization Act Corporation, For And OnBehaH of the Uncompahgre Dand of ute Indians v. TheUnited States of America.Utah, Ind. Cl. Comm., Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintahand Ouray Reservation on behaH of the UncompahgreBand of Ute Indians, 1965.Tribe proposes settlement of claim against govern­ment for failure to provide tribe with a reservation asrequired by 1880 agreement.

001954Nez Perce Tribe v. United States.Idaho, Ind. Cl. Comm., Ct. Cl., Nez Perce,1970.Tribe seeks additional compensation for reservationlands ceded by 1893 agreement to defendant for un­conscionable consideration.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION: INTENTOF CONGRESS IN CREATING

001853Otoe and Missouria Tribe of Indians v. United States.Okla., Ct. Cl., Otoe and Missouria Tribe, 1954.Amicus argues that cession of land held by aboriginaltitle for an tmconscionable consideration may be thebasis for an award tmder Indian Claims CommissionAct.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION:PROCEDURES

001858Blackfeet and Gros Ventre Tribes v. United States.Mont., Ct. Cl., Blackfeet and Gros Ventre Tribes, 1966.Indian Claims Commission denies motion to dismissTribe's claim without prejudice or, alternatively, togrant an indefinite continuance so that evidence couldbe sought to support claim for loss of land.

001937Klamath and Modoc Tribes v. The United States ofAmerica.Cal., Ind. Cl. Comm., Klamath and Modoc, 1964.Conunission's approval sought for proposed com­promise settlement of tribe's claim that governmentpaid unconscionable consideration for lands ceded in1864 Treaty.

31

001939Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation,an Indian Reorganization Act Corporation, For And OnBehaH of the Uncompahgre Band of ute Indians v. TheUnited States of America.Utah, Ind. Cl. Corom., Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintahand Ouray Reservation on behaH of the UncompahgreBand of Ute Indians, 1965.Tribe proposes setUement of claim against govern­ment for failure to provide tribe with a reservation asrequired by 1880 agreement.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION:REHEARING AND RECONSIDERATION

001954Nez Perce Tribe v. United States.Idaho, Ind. Cl. Corom., Ct. Cl., Nez Perce,1970.Tribe seeks addition~ compensation for reservationlands. ceded by 1893 agreement to defendant for un­conscionable consideration.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION:UNCONSCIONABLE CONSIDERATION

001938Klamath and Modoc Tribes and Yahooskin Band ofSnake Indians v. The United States of America.Cal., Ind. Cl. Corom., Klamath and Modoc Tribes andYahooskin Band of Snake Indians, 1964.Terminated tribe claims additional compensation forland erroneously excluded from reservation bygovernment survey and ceded to government in 1906.

001954Nez Perce Tribe v. United States.Idaho, Ind. Cl. Corom., Ct. Cl., Nez Perce,1970.Tribe seeks additional compensation for reservationlands ceded by 1893 agreement to defendant for un­conscionable consideration.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION:VALUATION

001859Blackfeet and Gros Ventre Tribes v. United States.Mont., Ct. Cl., Blackfeet, Gros Ventre, Assiniboine,Sioux Tribe of Fort Peck Reservation, Mont., 1958.Tribe seeks to intervene in claim for lands ceded togovernment.

001860Oleyenne-Arapaho Tribes, et aI. v. United States.Okla., Ind. Cl. Corom., Cheyenne-Arapaho, 1959.Tribes dispute government's valuation of lands inclaim before Indian Claims Commission.

32

001933The Confederated Bands of ute Indians v. The UnitedStates of America.Utah, Ind. Cl. Corom., Confederated Bands of UteIndians, 1961.Tribe contends that Government failed to base itsproposed findings of fact in mineral claim on the entirerecord and rejected critical data in its proposedvaluation.

001935The Uintah and White River Bands of ute Indians v.The United States of America.Utah, Ct. Cl., Uintah and White River Bands of UteIndians, 1957.Tribe claims compensation for loss of lands which itheld by recognized title.

001938Klamath and Modoc Tribes and Yahooskin Band ofSnake Indians v. The United States of America.Cal., Ind. Cl. Corom., Klamath and Modoc Tribes andYahooskin Band of Snake Indians, 1964.Terminated tribe claims additional compensation forland erroneously excluded from reservation bygovernment survey and ceded to government in 1906.

001954Nez Perce Tribe v. United States.Idaho, Ind. Cl. Comm., Ct. Cl., Nez Perce,1970.Tribe seeks additional compensation for reservationlands ceded by 1893 agreement to defedant for un­conscionable consideration.

002025Pillager Bands of Chippewa v. United States.Minn., Ct. Cl., O1ippewa, 1972.Treaty terms expressly state that Indians cede landsoutright to government and thus date of taking forvaluation purposes is date treaty became effective.

INDIAN COUNTRY

001955Waterman, Delia v. Mayor, City of Oneida.N.Y., Sup. Ct., Oneida, d. 1973.Indian receiving water service from city refuses to paytax on reservation property as repayment for con­struction cost.

INDIAN COUNTRY: DEFINED

001889"state Jurisdiction Over Hunting and Fishing on LandsPurchased for Indians by Federal Government."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1941.9 pgs.

III

001930United States ex reI. Douglas Blacksmith v. Erickson,DonR.S.D., D.S.D., Sisseton-Wahpeton Sioux, d. 1973.Action to detennine if crime committed on land ownedby non-Indian on reservation was in Indian Countryand thus subject to federal jurisdiction.

INDIAN COUNTRY: JURISDICTION,GENERALLY

001875To Amend Title 18, U.s. Code, Entitled "Crimes andCrimInal Procedure."Hearing, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,House of Representatives, 1953.47 pgs.

001876''Navigable Waters - Exclusion - Quinaielt Reser­vation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Graves, O.H., 1928.9 pgs.

001932•nm, Allen v. CIT fuanclal Services Corporation.N.M., Ct. App., Navajo, 1973.Action to detennine if state or tribal law governsreposession of vehicle located on reservation.

001957"Indians - Civil Jurisdiction in New Mexico - State,Federal and Tribal Courts."Article, New Mexico Law Review, 1:196.Ransom, Richard E. and Gilstrap, William G.,January, 1971.10 pgs.

001958"Criminal Procedure on the American Frontier: AStudy of the Statutes and Court Records of MichiganTerritory 1805-1825."Article, Michigan Law Review, 57:195.Blume, William Wirt, 1958.62 pgs.

001977"Jurisdiction Over Indians and Indian Lands InWashington."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies In American Indian Law,Jolmson, Ralph W., Ed.Newman, Nicholas C., 1970.50 pgs.

INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT

001920"The Eighteen-Year..()ld Vote Amendment As Appliedto Indian Tribes."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Solicitor.Melich, Mitchell, 1971.6 pgs.

IRRIGATION

001868"The Navajo Irrigation Project."Memo, B.I.A.Veeder, William H., 1965.12 pgs.

IRRIGATION: FEDERAL AUTHORITY

001926"Memorandum Relative to the Titles to Rights to theUse of Water and the Authority to Control and Ad­minister Them on the Flathead Indian Reservation."Memo, BIA.Veeder, William H., 1967.39 pgs.

JURISDICTION, FEDERAL COURT:CIVIL RIGHTS

002002Oglala SiouxCivil Rights Organization v. Wilson, Dick.S.D., D.S.D., Oglala Sioux, 1973.Politically active members of Oglala Sioux Tribe seekrelief from harrassment and deprivation of civil rightsby tribal officials.

LANDS

001909"Getting Back The Land: How Native Americans CanAcquire Excess and Surplus Federal Property."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:333.Hodge, Ronald A., 1973.9 pgs.

001969Survey of Conditions of the Indians In the UnitedStates.Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee onIndian Affairs, United States Senate, Part I, November12, 13 and 16, 1938.408 pgs.

33

LANDS: VALUATION

001938Klamath and Modoc Tribes and Yahooskin Band ofSnake Indians v. The United States of America.cal., Ind. Cl. Corom., Klamath and Modoc Tribes andYahooskin Band of Snake Indians, 1964.Terminated tribe claims additional compensation forland erroneously excluded from reservation bygovenunent survey and ceded to govenunent in 1906.

001948Klamath Indian Tribe - Termination of FederalSupervision.Hearings before the Committee on Interior and InsularAffairs and its Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, U.S.Senate, 84th Congress, May 21 and October 18, 1956.186 pgs.

001951Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of theFlathead Reservation, Montana v. United States.Mont., Ct. Cl., Confederated Salish and KootenaiTribes, 1963, d. 1971.Tribal confederation contends that survey errorresulted in loss of reservation lands and that federalgovenunent wrongfully profited from lease of powersites on tribal lands.

LEASING

001969Survey of Conditions of the Indians in the UnitedStates.Hearings before a Subcommittee of the Committee onIndian Affairs, United States Senate, Part 1, November12, 13 and 16, 1938.408 pgs.

MINERAL RIGHTS: CLAIMS AGAINSTUNITED STATES

001989Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v.United States.Wash., Ind. Cl. Corom., Confederated Tribes of theColville Reservation, 1972.Tribes bring suit under fair and honorable dealingsclause claiming U.S. caused and permitted destructionof fisheries in which plaintiffs had special rights andprior to extinguishment of title, aided third persons inremoval of resources from reservation and grantedrailroad rights of way without fair compensation.

34

MINERAL RIGHTS: VALUATION

001933 _The Confederated BWids of Ute Indians v. The UnitedStates of America.Utah, Ind. Cl. Corom., Confederated Bands of UteIndians, 1961.Tribe contends that Govenunent failed to base itsproposed findings of fact in mineral claim on the entirerecord and rejected critical data in its proposedvaluation.

PROBATE

001902"Klamath Terminal Legislation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Annstrong, J. Reuel, 1955.24 pgs.

PROBATE: STATE INHERITANCELAWS

001919"Probate Tax on Property of Indian Living onReservation...Opinion, Attorney General of Virginia.January 30, 1970.2 pgs.

PUBLIC DOMAIN

001877"Blackfeet Indians - Right to Hunt, Fish and CutTimber - Glacier National Park."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Finney, E.C., 1932.12 pgs.

001878"Wenetchee - Fishing Rights."Memo, Office of the Solicitor.W.H.F., 1933.1 pg.

PUBLIC DOMAIN: SURPLUS LANDS

001866"Restoration of Lands Formerly Indian to TribalOwnership."Instructions, B.I.A., 54 Interior Decisions 559.Collier, John, 1934.4 pgs.

.'

001898"Jurisdiction of Flathead Tribal Council to RegulateHunting in Reservoir Areas."Opinion, Office of the ·Solicitor.White, Mastin G., 1947.5 pgs.

001909"Getting Back The Land: How Native Americans CanAcquire Excess and Surplus Federal Property."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:333.Hodge, Ronald A., 1973.9 pgs.

PUBLIC LAW 280

001875To Amend Title 18, U.s. Code, Entitled "Crimes andCriminal Procedure."Hearing, Conunittee on Interior and Insular Affairs,House of Representatives, 1953.47 pgs.

001945Ralnbow's End TraDer Sales, In reoCal., Board of Equalization, Yurok, 1973.Indians claim exemption from state sales tax on trailersalecom~eredonreservMion.

001949Federal Indian Policy.Hearings before the Subconunittee on Indian Affairs ofthe Conunittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, U.S.Senate, 85th Congress, March 'l:l, May 13 and 16, June17, July 1 and 22, 1957.302 pgs.

001977"Jurisdiction Ov~ Indians and Indian Lands InWashington."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Jolmson, Ralph W., Ed.Newman, Nicholas C., 1970.50 pgs.

PUBLIC LAW 280: RETROCESSION

001865Comenout Children, In reoWash., Super. ct., Quinault, 1973.Action to prevent stare court from taking away Indiancouple's parental rights by showing that statejurisdiction had been retroceded to the federalgovernment.

RESERVATIONS: BOUNDARIES

001913"Indians - Reservations - Effect of LaterCongressional Acts on Act Establishing ReservationBoundaries (New Town v. United States, 454 F.2d 121,8th Cir. 1972)."Article - Case Nore, North Dakota Law Review,49:410.Boulger, Jolm V., 1973.7 pgs.

001951Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of theFlathead Reservation, Montana v. United States.Mont., ct. Cl., Confederated Salish and KootenaiTribes, 1963, d. 1971.Tribal confederation conrends that survey errorresulted in loss of reservation lands and that federalgovernment wrongfully profited from lease of powersites on tribal lands.

002018Clarification of L'Anse Reservation.Letrer to Raymond P. Lightfoot, Area Director, B.lA.,Minneapolis, Minnesota from Marina R. Shulstad, forthe Field Solicitor, u.s. Department of Interior, Twinaties, Minnesota.June 26, 1973.7 pgs.

RESERVATIONS: CREATION

001889"State Jurisdiction Over Hunting and Fishing on LandsPurchased for Indians by Federal Government."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1941.9 pgs.

001897"Indian Rights in Columbia River Reservoir."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Gardner, Warner W., 1945.33 pgs.

RESERVATIONS: CREATION;TREATIES

001959"The Indians of Michigan and the Cession of TheirLands to the United States By Treaties."Article, Michigan Pioneer and Historical CollectionsAnnual Meeting, 26:274.Felch, Alpheus, 1894.25 pgs.

35

'.RESERVATIONS: DIMINISHED BYACTS OF CONGRESS

001895"Hunting and Fishing Regulation on Diminished andCeded Portions of the Wmd River Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Gardner, Warner W., 1943.17 pgs.

002022Yellowstone Loan Co. v. Brown, Francis B.Wyo., Dist. ct., Arapahoe, 1973.Indian debtor challenges jurisdiction of state court tohear action on promissory note because loan andservice of process were made on reservation.

RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:HIGHWAYS AND ROADS

001988United States v. San Diego, City of.Cal., S.D. Cal., Capitan Grande Band of Mission In­dians, 1973.Tribe moves to intervene in suit arising frommunicipal and public use of reservation roadsproviding access to city-owoed reservoir and cam­pground, resulting in trespass and damage to Indianland.

RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:RAILROADS

001989Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v.United States.Wash., Ind. Cl. Comm., Confederated Tribes of theColville Reservation, 1972.Tribes bring suit under fair and honorable dealingsclause claiming U.S. caused and permitted destructionof fisheries in which plaintiffs had special rights andprior to extinguislunent of title, aided third persons inremoval of resources from reservation and grantedrailroad rights of way without fair compensation.

RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:TRIBAL LAND

001988United State!! v. San Diego, City of.Cal., S.D. Cal., Capitan Grande Band of Mission In­dians, 1973.Tribe moves to intervene in suit arising frommunicipal and public use of reservation roadsproviding access to city-owoed reservoir and cam­pground, resulting in trespass and damage to Indianland.

36

SOVEREIGNTY

001981"Indian Tribal Sovereignty."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.McGimpsey, Earl R., 1971.76 pgs.

SOVEREIGNTY: CONFLICT OF LAWS

001894"Fishing Rights of Alaskan Indians."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1942.31 pgs.

001932dun, Allen v. CIT Financial Services Corporation.N.M., ct. App., Navajo, 1973.Action to determine if state or tribal law governsreposession of vehicle located on reservation.

001952Law and the American Indian: Readings, Notes andC..ases.Book, Contemporary Legal Education Series.Price, Monroe E., 1973.841 pgs.

STATE BENEFITS, ENTITLEMENTOF INDIANS

001922"Eligibility of the 'Expanded SWinomish Indian FishCompany Project' for a Grant of State Funds."Opinion, Attorney General of Washington. .Murphy, Qlarles F. and Gingery, William M., 1972.8 pgs.

STATE BENEFITS, ENTITLEMENTOF INDIANS: EDUCATION

001963Azbill, Debra v. Keller, Arthur H.Cal., N.D. Cal., 1973.Student expelled from public school without priorhearing or approval of Board of Trustees and withoutprovision for continuing education claims denial of dueprocess.

f

'.

-~ '.

..STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ANDLACHES

001993Pitt River Indians of CalHornla v. Phelps, 1A)uis L.Cal., Super. Ct., Pitt River Indians, 1973.Indians bring suit against former attorneys chargingmalpractice in handling of claims settlement beforeIndian Claims Commission.

STA'llJ'IE): AS A SOURCE OF FEDERALAUTHORITY OVER INDIANS

001897"Indian Rights in Columbia River Reservoir."Opinion, Office of the Soliciloc.Gardner, Warner W., 1945.33 pgs.

002001"Summary of Statutory Authorizations For Bureau ofIndian Affairs Activities and Appropriations."Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1973.'l:l pgs.

STATUTES: CONSTRUCTIONFAVORALLE TO INDIANS

001893"Conffict Between Migratory Bird Treaty With GreatBritain and Treaty With the Yakimas Re HuntingRights on Reservation."Memo to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Office of theSolicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1942.3 pgs.

001894"Fishing Rights of Alaskan Indians."Opinion, Office of the Soliciloc.Margold, Nathan R., 1942.31 pgs.

001955Waterman, Delia v. Mayor, City of Oneida.N.Y., Sup. Ct., Oneida, d. 1973.Indian receiving water service from city refuses to paytax on reservation property as repayment far con­struction cost.

STATUTES: STATE

001924Wisconsin v. Bodin, Roger.Wis., Bayfield County Ct., Lake Superior O1ippewa, d.1973. .Action to determine whether non-Indian's purchase ofgame fish caught by Indian under treaty rights isallowable.

SUBMERGED LANDS AND WETLANDS

001881"Red lakeReservation - Title to SUbmerged lands­Indian Fishing Rights."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Kirgis, Frederic L., 1936.9 pgs.

1)01897"Indian Rights in Columbia River Reservoir."Opinion, Office of the Solicitoc.Gardner, Warner W., 1945.33 pgs.

002007United States v. Pollman, Harlan Frank.Mont., D. Monl, f.::onfederated Salish and Kootenai,1972.Non-Indian is accused of trespassing with intent to fishon lake within boundaries of Flathead reservation inviolation of federal and tribal law.

002018Clarification of L'Anse Reservation.Letter to Raymond P.lightfoot, Area Director, B.lA.,Minneapolis, Minnesota from Mariana R. Shulstad, forthe Field Solicitor, U.S. Department of Interior, TwinCities, Minnesota.June 26, 1973.7 pgs.-

SUBMERGED LANDS AND WETLANDS:RIVERBEDS

001876"Navigable Waters - Exclusion - Quinaielt Reser­vation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Graves, O.H., 1928.9 pgs.

37

;===~------------ -.'

},

SURVEY ERRORS:" CLAIMS AGAINSTUNITED STATES

001951Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of theFlathead Reservation, Montana v. United States.Mont., Cl;; Cl., Confederated SaliSh and KootenaiTribes, 1963, d. 1971.Tribal confederation contends that survey errorresulted in loss of reservation lands and that federalgovernment wrongfully profited from lease of powersites on tribal lands.

TAXATION: ALLOTMENTS

001857Big Eagle, Hayes v. United States.Okla., Ct. Cl., Osage, 1961.Noncompetent Osages challenge government trustee'sdeduction of monies from their restricted trust funds topay federal tax on headright income.

TAXATION: CIGARETTES

002000Walker River Paiute Tribe v. Sheehan, John J.Nev., D. Nev., Walker River Paiute, 1973.Tribe and its licensed trader seek to enjoin statetaxation of interstate shipments of cigarettes to thereservation.

TAXATION: ESTATE ANDINHE RITANCE

001855Wook-Kah-Nah, In re Estate Of.Okla., Dept. of the Interior, Comanche, 1964.Heirs of deceased Indian contend that estate tax andother probate expenses should be charged to estatebefore distribution to beneficiaries rather than againstinheritance of each devisee.

TAXATION: IMMUNITY, EXEMPTION

001857Big Eagle, Hayes v. United States.Okla., Ct. Cl., Osage, 1961.Noncompetent Osages challenge government trustee'sdeduction of monies from their restricted trust funds topay federal tax on headright income.

38

001910"State Taxation On Sales to Reservation Indians: AComment on the North Dakota Attorney General'sPosition."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:343.Hamlin, Thomas, 1973.16 pgs.

001919"Probate Tax on Property of Indian Living onReservation."Opinion, Attorney General of Virginia.January 30, 1970.2pgs.

001945Rainbow's End Trailer Sales, In reoCal., Board of Equalization, Yurok, 1973.Indians claim exemption from state sales tax on trailersale completed on reservation.

001955Waterman, Della V. Mayor, City of Oneida.N.Y., Sup. Ct., Oneida, d. 1973.Indian receiving water service from city refuses to paytax on reservation property as repayment for con­struction cost.

TAXATION: INCOME, FEDERAL

001857Big Eagle, Hayes V. United States.Okla., Ct. Cl., Osage, 1961.Noncompetent Osages challenge government trustee'sdeduction of monies from their restricted trust funds topay federal tax on headright income.

TAXATION: LICENSE TAX

001895"Hunting and Fishing Regulation on Diminished 'andCeded Portions of the Wind River Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Gardner, Warner W., 1943.17 pgs.

TAXATION: SALES

001879"Fishing Rights - Yakima Tribes."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1934.6 pgs.

~,tii, .

•... -. ' .. '"\,; .../:'

/ ;' ,;'.JIt."ttt·~lJ' ,

001948Klamath Indian Tribe - Termination of FederalSupervision.Hearings before the Committee on Interior and InsularAffairs and its Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, U.S.Senate, 84th Congress,May 21 and October 18, 1956.186 pgs.

TERMINATION: RESERVATIONS

TERMINATION: DISTRIBUTION OFASSETS

001948Klamath Indian Tribe - Termination of FederalSupervision.Hearings before the Committee on Interior and InsularAffairs and its Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, U.S.Senate, 84th Congress, May 21 and October 18, 1956.186 pgs.

001971The Menominee Restoration Act: Legal Analysis.Study, Native American Rights Fund.Wl1kinson, Charles F., Knight, Yvonne T. andPrelomik, Joseph F., 1973.101 pgs.

001973"The History, Meaning, and Effect of Termination ofFederal Supervision Over Indian Reservations."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W.., Ed.Peterson, Rod, 1970.47 pgs.

001984"The Last Days - An Inquiry Into the ProposedColville Termination."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Holland N. Huntley 1971.60 pgs.

TIMBER

TERMINATION

001910"State Taxation On Sales to Reservation Indians: AComment on the North Dakota Attorney General'sPosition."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:343.Hamlin, Thomas, 1973.16 pgs.

001928"'liibal Taxing Authority Over Traders on Reser­vation."Letter, Pirtle, Robert L., 1973.5 pgs.

001945Rainbow's End Trailer Sales, In reoCal., Board of Equalization, Yurok, 1973.Indians claim exemption from state sales tax on trailersale completed on reservation.

TAXATION: TRIBAL PROPERTY

001857Big Eagle, Hayes v. United States.Okla., Ct. n., Osage, 1961.Noncompetent Osages challenge government trustee'sdeduction of monies from their restricted trust funds topay federal tax on headright income.

TERMINATION: CONTINUINGFEDERAL OBLIGATIONS

001902"Klamath Terminal Legislation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Annstrong, J. Reuel, 1955.24 pgs.

001984"The Last Days - An Inquiry Into the ProposedColville Termination."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Holland, N. Huntley, 1971.60 pgs.

·,

001971The Menominee Restoration Act: Legal Analysis.Study, Native American Rights Fund.Wllkinson, Charles F., Knight, Yvonne T. andPrelomik, Joseph F., 1973.101pgs.

002019United States v. Lego, Raymond.Cal., 9th Cir., Pitt River, 1973.Indian accused of cutting timber in violation of federallaw argues innocence because law exempts Indianlands and logging occurred on aboriginal land neverceded to government.

39

TIMBER: MANAGEMENT PROBLEMS

001985"A Study of B.I.A. Timber Management on theQuinault Indian Reservation, 1950-1970."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indfan Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Beaty, Robert E., 1971.87 pgs.

TIMBER: VALUATION

001938Klamath and Modoe Tribes and Yahooskin Band ofSnake Indians v. The United States of America.Cal., Ind. Cl. Chrom., Klamath and Modoc Tribes andYahooskin Band of Snake Indians, 1964.Tenninated tribe claims additional compensation forland erroneously excluded from reservation bygovernment survey and ceded to government in 1906.

TRADERS

002024The Trading Post System on the Navajo Reservation.Report to the Federal Trade Commission, Los AngalesRegional Office, June, 1973.134 pgs.

TRADERS: REGULATION

001928"Tribal Taxing Authority Over Traders on Reser­vation."Letter, Pirtle, Robert L., 1973.5 pgs.

TREATIES OR AGREEMENTS WITHSOVEREIGNS OrnER THAN UNITEDSTATES

001998Program of Legal Studies for Native People: Casesand Materials on Native Law (Canada).Textbook.sanders, Douglas, 1973.404 pgs.

TREATIES WITH UNITED STATES

001947"Justice and the American Indians."Article, Contact, 3:33.Echohawk, John E., 1973.6 pgs.

40

001959"The Indians of Michigan and the Cession of TheirLands to the United States By Treaties."Article, Michigan Pioneer and Historical CollectionsAnnual Meeting, 26:274.Felch, Alpheus, 1894.25 pgs.

001960 '.Lewis Cass and the Indian Treaties:A Monograph on

lthe Indian Relations of the Northwest Territory From'1813 to 1831.Monograph.Chmfort, Benjamin F., 1923.54 pgs.

001962"Indian Land Cessions in NorthernSoutheastern Michigan (1805-1808)."Article, Northwestern Ohio Quarterly, 29:27.Smith, Dwight L., 1957.11 pgs.

·,':;'d

TREATIES WITH UNITED STATECLAIMS AGAINST FEDERAL GOYE'MENT UNDER

oo1852tAn Analysis of the Course of Actions and,Between the United States and the y~Tribe Following the Treaty of April 19, 1859, toStudy re Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United StateSCorom. .:'Foley, Dr. Michael F. and Qlampe, Dr. Jo1972. .~

206 pgs.

001982"Indian Rights Secured by Treaties:~Remedies." ,J .

Study, University of WashingtOllri IiiProblems Seminar, Studies in Ame eaJl;'Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Wagner, Ruth Ellen, 1971.124 pgs.

.'

.,~

TREATIES WITH UNITED STATES:CONSTRUCTION FAVORING INDIANS

001893"Conffict Between Migratory Bird Treaty With GreatBritain and Treaty With the Yakimas Re HuntingRights on Reservation."Memo to Conunissioner of Indian Affairs, Office of theSolicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1942.3 pgs.

TRESPASS TO INDIAN LAND

001861United States v. Escondido Mutual Water Company.Cal., S.D. Cal., Rincon Band, La Jolla Band, SanPasqua! Band, Pala Band of Mission Indians, 1972, (C.001259, 001510).Government, on behalf of tribes seeks adjudication ofwater rights and damages from water companies fortrespass and breach of contract.

001904"State Jurisdiction Over Criminal Trespass Actions onKlamath Indian Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1956.5 pgs.

001917"Trespass Upon the Reservation of the MattaponiTribe."Opinion, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia.Garnett, Leslie C., Mattaponi, 1917.3 pgs.

001918"Protection of Indian Tribes."Memorandum, Attorney General of Vlrginia.Saunders, Jno. R., Mattaponi, 1918.1 pg.

001988United States v. San Diego, City of.Cal., S.D. Cal., Capitan Grande Band of Mission In­dians, 1973.Tribe moves to intervene in suit arising frommunicipal and public use of reservation roadsproviding access to city-<>wned reservoir and cam­pground, resulting in trespass and damage to Indianland.

002007United States v. Pollman, Harlan Frank.Mont., D. Mont., Confederated Salish and Kootenai,1972.

--- '.

Non-Indian is accused of trespassing with intent to fishon lake within boundaries of Flathead reservation inviolation of federal and tribal law.

TRIBAL COURTS

001908"The limits of Indian Tribal Sovereignty: The Cor­nucopia of Inherent Powers."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:303.Bean, Jerry L., 1973.29 pgs.

TRIBAL COURTS: DUE PROCESS

001995Enos, Lawrence v. Rhodes, William Roy.Ariz., D. Ariz., Pima-Maricopa, 1973.Indian petitions for writ of habeas corpus and moneydamages.

TRIBAL COURTS: JURISDICTION

001957"Indians - Civil Jurisdiction in New Mexico - State,Federal and Tribal Courts."Article, New Mexico Law Review, 1:196Ransom, Richard E. and Gilstrap, William G.,January, 1971.10 pgs.

001987Story, Edith May v. White Owl, Ronald Gene.N.D., Dist. Ct., Three Affiliated Tribes of Fort BertholdRes., 1973.Order dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction becausealleged non~upport by Indian took place in anotherstate and jurisdiction over Indian was the tribal court,not state court.

002022Yellowstone Loan Co. v. Brown, Francis B.Wyo., Dist. Ct., Arapahoe, 1973.Indian debtor challenges jurisdiction of state court tohear action on promissory note because loan andservice of process were made on reservation.

TRIBAL GOVERNMENT: SElF·GOVERN·MENT, POLICY OF

001882"Fort Hall Reservation - Remedies Available to TribeAgainst Trespassing Hunters."Memo to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1936.3 pgs.

41

'.001920"The Eighteen-Year.Qld Vote Amendment As Appliedto Indian Tribes."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Solicitor.Melich, Mitchell, 1971.6 pgs.

TRIBAL LAW: ELECTIONS

001925White Eagle, Melvin v. One Feather, Phllomene.N.D., 8th Cir., Standing Rock Sioux, d. 1973.Tribal members claim unequal apportionment ofelective districts denies them equal protection in tribalelection.

TRIBAL LAW: SOURCE AND STATUSOF, GENERALLY

001952Law and the American Indian: Readings, Notes andCases.Book, Contemporary Legal Education Series.Price, Monroe E., 1973.841 pgs.

TRIBAL~LAW: TRIBAL CODES

001882"Fort Hall Reservation - Remedies Available to TribeAgainst Trespassing Hunters."Memo to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Margold, Nathan a, 1936.3 pgs.

001932Jim, Allen v. CIT Financial Services Corporation.N.M., Ct. App., Navajo, 1973.Action to determine if state or tribal law governsreposession of vehicle located on reservation.

001966"Validity of Sections 1.906 and 1.1605 of the TurtleMountain Tribal Code of 1968."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Associate Solicitor.Goss, Earle D., 1971.8 pgs.

002007United States v. Pollman, Harlan Frank.Mont., D. Monl, Confederated Salish and Kootenai,1972.Non-Indian is accused of trespassing with intent to fishon lake within boundaries of Flathead reservation inviolation of federal and tribal law.

42

TRIBAL LAW: TRIBAL CONSTITUTION

001882"Fort Hall Reservation - Remedies Available to TribeAgainst Trespassing Hunters."Memo to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Margold, Nathan a, 1936.3 pgs.

TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP

001902"Klamath Terminal Legislation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1955.24 pgs.

TRIBAL MEMBERSHIPS: QUALIFI.CATIONS

001974"Who is an Indian in Federal Indian Law?"Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Vogel, Bart, 1970.40 pgs.

TRIBAL PROPERTY: LANDS

001952Law and the American Indian: Readings, Notes andCases.Book, Contemporary Legal Education Series.Price, Monroe E., 1973.841 pgs.

001998Program of Legal Studies for Native People: Casesand Materials on Native Law (Canada).Textbook.Sanders, Douglas, 1973.404 pgs.

TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND POWERS

001900"Hunting, Fishing, and Trapping Rights of the NezPerce Indians."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.White, Mastin G., 1949.6 pgs.

I

1

j

J

"

..'001917"Trespass Upon the Reservation of the MattaponiTribe."Opinion, Assistant Attorney General of Virginia.Garnett, Leslie C., Mattaponi, 1917.3 pgs.

001920"The Eighteen-Year-Qld Vote Amendment As Appliedto Indian Tribes."Memorandum to Conunissioner of Indian Affairs,Solicitor.Melich, Mitchell, 1971.6 pgs.

001932Jim, Allen v. CIT Financial Services Corporation.N.M., Ct. App., Navajo, 1973.Action to determine if state or tribal law governsreposession of vehicle located on reservation.

001955Waterman, Delia v. Mayor, City of Oneida.N.Y., Sup. Ct., Oneida, d. 1973.Indian receiving water service from city refuses to paytax on reservation property as repayment for con­struction cost.

001975"The Indian Bill of Rights."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Sloan, Marilyn, 1970.61 pgs.

001981"Indian Tribal Sovereignty."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.McGimpsey, Earl R., 1971.76 pgs.

TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND POWERS:BASIS FOR

001908"The limits of Indian Tribal Sovereignty: The Cor­nucopia of Inherent Powers."Article, North Dakota Law Review, 49:303.Bean, Jerry L., 1973.29 pgs.

001947"Justice and the American Indians."Article, Contact, 3:33.Echohawk, John E., 1973.6 pgs.

001952Law and the American Indian: Readings, Notes andCases.Book, Contemporary Legal Education Series.Price, Monroe E., 1973.841 pgs.

002008Chiefs of St. Regis Mohawk Reservation for Removalof Intruders Upon Tribal Lands, In re Complaint of,N.Y., Franklin County Ct., Mohawk, 1973.Tribal chiefs invoke state Indian Jaws to support theirremoval of non-enrolled Indian from reservation.

TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND POWERS:LICENSING AND REGULATION

001882"Fort Hall Reservation - Remedies Available to TribeAgainst Trespassing Hunters."Memo to the Conunissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Margold, Nathan R., 1936.3 pgs.

001886"Hunting and Fishing - Tribal Power - Bad River."Memo to the Conunissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Kirgis, Frederic L., 1938.2 pgs.

001890"Departmental Review of Tribal Ordinance."Memo to the Conunissioner of Indian Affairs, Office ofthe Solicitor.Cohen, Felix S., 1941.2 pgs.

001895"Hunting and Fishing Regulation on Diminished andCeded Portions of the Wind River Reservation."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Gardner, Warner W., 1943.17 pgs.

001898"Jurisdiction of Flathead Tribal Council to RegulateHunting in Reservoir Areas."Opinion, Office of the Solicitor.White, Mastin G., 1947.5 pgs.

43

001903"Hunting and Fishing Rights of the Klamath IndianTribe - Authority to Hire Game Wardens."opinion, Office of the Solicitor.Armstrong, J. Reuel, 1956.3 pgs.

001928"Tribal Taxing Authority Over Traders on Reser­vation."Letter, Pirtle, Robert L., 1973.5 pgs.

002007United States v. Pollman, Harlan Frank.Mont., D. Mont., Confederated salish and Kootenai,1972.Non-Indian is accused of trespassing with intent to fishon lake within boundaries of Flathead reservation inviolation of federal and tribal law.

TRIBES: RECOGNITION BY UNITEDSTATES

001941Satiacum, Robert v. Washington.Wash., U.S. Sup. Ct., Puyallup, 1973.In affirming conviction of Indian for wasting fishcaught under treaty rights, petitioner contends courtunnecessarily detennined that reservation no longerexists.

TRUST AND RESTRICTED LANDS:CONVEYANCE

001976"The Indian Heirship Land Problem."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar. Studies In American Indian Law,Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Wilfulms, Ethel J., 1970.82 pgs.

TRUST FUNDS: ACCOUNTING

001934Southern Ute Tribe or Band of Indians v. The UnitedStates of America.Colo., Ind. Cl. Comm., Southern Ute, 1964.Tribe claims compensation for lands taken by U.S.without payment and seeks accounting from govern­ment for proceeds of land sales.

44

TRUST FUNDS: INDIVIDUAL

002020Eagle Elk, Edward, In re the Appeal of.S.D., Dept. of Inter., Sioux, 1972.Interior Secretary rules that social security survivor'sbenefits held in child's BIA trust account should beturned over to duly appointed guardian.

TRUST RELATION

001868"The Navajo Irrigation Project."Memo, B.LA.Veeder, William H., 1965.12 pgs. i.

001874 ~: ,"American Indian Reservation Economic Develop­ment Retarded or Thwarted Through Abridgement orLoss of Indian Titles to Land and Rights to the Use ofWater by Policies, Agencies and Personnel of FederalGovernment."Memorandum and Implementation.Veeder, William H., 1969.157 pgs.

001927"Inventory of Rights to the Use of Water on theFlathead Indian Reservation."Memo, BIA.Veeder, William H., 1969.17 pgs.

001985"A Study of B.LA. Timber Management on theQuinault Indian Reservation, 1950-1970."Study, University of Washington Indian LegalProblems Seminar, Studies in American Indian Law,Vol. II, Johnson, Ralph W., Ed.Beaty, Robert E., 1971.87 pgs.

TRUST RELATION: BREACH, CLAIMSAGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

001951Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of theFlathead Reservation, Montana v. United States.Mont., Ct. Cl., Confederated Salish and KootenaiTribes, 1963, d. 1971.Tribal confederation contends that survey errorresulted in loss of reservation lands and that federalgovernment wrongfuUy profited from lease of powersites on tribal lands.

UNCONSCIONABLE DEALINGS: CLAIMSAGAINST UNITED STATES

001989Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation v.United States.Wash., Ind. Ct. Comm., Confederated Tribes of theColville Reservation, 1972. .Tribes bring suit under fair and honorable dealingsclause claiming U.S. caused and pennitted destructionof fisheries in which plaintiffs had special rights andprior to extinguislunent of title, aided third persons inremoval of resources from reservation and grantedrailroad rights of way without fair compensation.

URBAN INDIANS

002023Reservation to City.Book, Univ. of Chicago Dept. of Geography ResearchPaper No. 131.Neils, Elaine M., 1971.198 pgs. On Shelf.

VOTING

001920"The Eighteen-Year.()ld Vote Amendment As Appliedto Indian Tribes."Memorandum to Commissioner of Indian Affairs,Solicitor.Melich, Mitchell, 1971.6 pgs.

WATER RIGHTS

001874"American Indian Reservation Economic Develop­ment Retarded or Thwarted Through Abridgement orLoss of Indian Titles to Land and Rights to the Use ofWater by Policies, Agencies and Personnel of FederalGovernment."Memorandum and Implementation.Veeder, William H., 1969.157 pgs.

001968The Southwest Indian Report.Report, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, May, 1973.177 pgs.

WATER RIGHTS: RESERVED RIGHTS

001861United States v. Escondido Mutual Water Company.Cal., S.D. Cal., Rincon Band, La Jolla Band, SanPasqual Band, Pala Band of Mission Indians, 1972, (C.001259, 001510).Government, on behalf of tribes seeks adjudication ofwater rights and damages from water companies fortrespass and breach of contract.

001864"Analysis of Opinion November 16, 1967, to the ExtentThat it Relates to the Rights of the Crow Indians in theBighorn River."Opinion, B.LA.Veeder, William H., 1967.17 pgs.

001868"The Navajo Irrigation Project."Memo, B.I.A.Veeder, William H., 1965.12 pgs.

001926"Memorandum Relative to the Titles to Rights to theUse of Water and the Authority to Control and Ad­minister Them on the Flathead Indian Reservation."Memo, BIA.Veeder, William H., 1967.39 pgs.

001927"Inventory of Rights to the Use of Water on theFlathead Indian Reservation."Memo, BIA.Veeder, William H., 1969.17 pgs.

WELFARE

001871"Indians in Minneapolis."Study.The League of Women Voters of Minneapolis, 1968.115 pgs.

001991Tsosie, Helen and Nelson, Vina Jean, In reoAriz., B.I.A., Secretary of Interior, 1972.Action to determine whether welfare recipients areentitled to additional clothing allowance from BIAgeneral assistance for their children attending boar­ding school.

45

Menominee Wooden Mortar and Pestle

INDIAN STREAMBEDOWNERSHIP AFFIRMEDOn :December 17, 1973, The

United States Supreme Courtdecided the Bonelli case which,although not an Indian case, mayhave an important and beneficialimpact on Indian claims to thebeds or former beds of navigablestreams on their reservations.

The rule is that the state is theowner of the streambed ofnavigable streams and lakes, atleast in those instances when theestablishment of an Indianreservation came after the ad­mission of a state into the Union.

In the Bonelli case, the State ofArizona not only claimed that itwas the owner of the streambedunderlying the current course ofthe Colorado River, but that italso owned the land where theColorado used to flow before itscourse was altered. Arizona'sposition, if it had been upheld,could have been very costly formany Indian tribes for it wouldhave meant that states couldclaim ownership of parts of Indianreservations through whichnavigable streams formerly ran.

Despite the fact that theArizona State and SupremeCourts found in favor of Arizona,the United States Supreme Courtrejected Arizona's position. Itruled that the only land owned bythe state at any given time wasthe land underlying the River andthat when the River altered itscourse, the state lost its title to theland abandoned by the stream.Now the Supreme Court has ef­fectively precluded states fromasserting ownership to the

46

abandoned beds of navigablestreams that traverse or borderIndian reservations even wherethe state owns the actualstreambed.

The Native American RightsFund filed a brief amicus curiaeon behalf of the Cocopah Tribe ofIndians in Bonelli calling at­tention to the potential impact onthe Cocopah Tribe and othertribes that are similarly situatedof a decision which would haveupheld the state. Fund attorneysA. John Wabaunsee, Charles F.Wilkinson and David H. Getchesrepresented the Cocopahs. TheNational Indian Law Libraryacquisition number fordocuments in Bonelli is 002055.

INDIAN LAW REPORTER

The American Indian LawyerTraining Program has announcedpublication of the Indian LawReporter. The Reporter willprovide a unique service to thepractitioners of Indian law bycompiling and editing on amonthly basis all currentdevelopments in the field of In­dian law including: digests andsummary analyses of recentfederal and state court decisions;federal administrative decisions,orders and rulings falling withinthe official sphere of agencyresponsibility in the area of In­dian affairs; litigation andprogram status reports from thefederal agencies; and legislativeinformation of particularrelevance.

All material published in the

Reporter will be indexed ac­cording to NARF's NILL com­prehensive subject index to In­dian law. The Reporter will be avaluable reference tool for theworking lawyer and should alsobe of interest to a wide spectrumof organizations and individualswho wish to be kept informed inthe area of Indian law.

Annual subscriptions are $30.Inquiries should be directed toAlan Parker, Esq., Editor, Indian .Law Reporter, 1035 30th Street. \N.W., Washington, D.C., 20001 ~,

-'Telephone: (282) 337-5210.

NATIVE AMERICANRIGHTS FUND

STEERING COMMITTEELaNADA BOYER. Shoshone-Bannock

Resident, Fort Hall IndianReservation, Blackfoot, Idaho

VAL CORDOVA, Taos PuebloChairman, All Indian Pueblo Council,Albuquerque, New Mexico

CURTIS L. CUSTALOW, SR., MattaponiChief, Mattaponi Tribe, WestPoint, Virginia

MARTHA GRASS, PoncaDirector, American Indian ReferralCenter, Marland, Oklahoma

JOHN CLIFFORD, Rosebud SiouxEducator, South Milwaukee,Wisconsin

•

LEO J. LaCLAIR, MuckleshootReginald Heber Smith Fellow,Seattle Legal Services, Seattle,

PIi..... WashingtonI ~ROYLOGAN,Osage~ncher, Hominy, Oklahoma

CIPRIANO MANUEL, PapagoProject Director, National Centerfor Native American LanguageEducation, D-Q University, DavisCalifornia '

JANET McCLOUD, TulalipMember, Tulalip Indian Tribe,residing at Yelm, Washington

FRANCIS McKINLEY, UteDirector, National Indian Trainingand Research Center, Tempe, Arizona

DAVID RISLING, JR., HoopaCoordinator, Native American StudiesUniversity of California, Davis 'California

JOHN STEVENS, Passama9uoddyState Commissioner of IndiaAffairs, Augusta, Maine

JOSEPH UPICKSOUN, Inupiat EskimoPresident, Arctic Slope NativeAssociation, Barrow, Alaska

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEEDAVID RISLING, JR., ChairmanJOHN STEVENS, Vice-ChairmanLaNADA BOYER(j0J. LaCLAm

.

--.:."

NATIVE AMERIGANRIGHTS FUND

STAFF1nt.'I'T1o~"""""''''1nUJ.I\,L..... .lVn.

John E. Echohawk (Pawnee)STAFF ATTORNEYS

L. Graeme Bell (Washington, D.C'>Joseph J. BrecherThomas W. Fredericks (Mandan)David H. GetchesRoyS.HaberDaniel H. IsraelYvonne T. Knight (Ponca)Scott E. LittleDouglas R. Nash (Nez Perce)Robert S. PelcygerThomas L. SmithsonA. John Wabaunsee (Pottawattomi)Charles F. Wilkinson .

RESEARCH ASSOCIATEWalter R. Echo-Hawk (Pawnee)

OF COUNSELTbomasN. Tureen

ASSISTANT TO THE DIRECTORJoan L. Carpenter

LAW CLERKSDavid J. Dunbar (Blackfoot)Oran LaPointe <Rosebud Sioux)Melody MacKenzie (Hawaiian)

LEGAL SECRETARIESElva Arquero (Cochiti Pueblo)Gail L. Benoist (Cheyenne River Sioux)Janice C. Bray (Kiowa)Carol J. KerlingerCa~leneKnowlton (Cheyenne River

SiOUX)Sara~ S. Pensoneau (Santee Sioux­

Chippewa)Susan P. Roberson (Washington DC)Patricia J. Wright ' . "

BOOKKEEPINGSusan Rosseter HartCarmel Lewis (Acoma Pueblo)

RECEPTIONIST/ XEROXRose M. Archuleta (Taos Pueblo)Norma A. Cuny (Oglala Sioux)Ava N. Hamilton (Arapaho)

RECORDSBernadine Quintana (Oglala Sioux)

REPRODUCTIONCharles A. Parton (Fort Sill Apache)Martin E. Red Bear (Oglala Sioux)

MAINTENANCEGeorgeD. Tahbone (Kiowa)

NATIONAL INDIANLAW LIBRARY

LIBRARIANDiana Lim (Acoma Pueblo)

LEGAL ADVISORJoseph R. Membrino

RESEARCH ASSISTANTKarletta J. Naha (Navajo-Tewa)

SECRETARYConstance M. Benoist (Cheyenne

River Sioux)

47

Make your check payable to:Native American Rights Fund

Mail to:Native American Rights Fund1506 BroadwayBoulder, Colorado 80302

Enclosed is my contribu­tion to assist the NativeAmerican Rights Fund inthe assertion and protec­tion of Indian rights andthe orderly developmentof the body of law affectingIndians:

Name (please print>

: .ooNILL Catalogue Vol. 1, $10

1974 Issues of Announcements

Native American RightsFundThe National Indian LawLibrary1506 BroadwayBoulder, Colorado 80302

Announcementsand CatalogueRequest Form

Please check the boxes forpublications you wish toreceive:

or to the

Requests for assistance and in­formation may be directed to tliemain office,

Native American ·Rights Fund Offices

John E. Echohawk,DirectorNative American Rights Fund1506 BroadwayBoulder, Colorado 80302Telephone (303) 447-8760

Washington, D.C. office,

L. Graeme Bell, III,Staff Attorney

Native American Rights Fund1712 N. Str~et, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036Telephone (202) 785-4166

Name

City State Zip

0$5 [J $10 C=$25 L1$50 L. $100Other $, _

Address······

Announcements is published quarterly by the Native American Rights Fund,lnc., 1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado, 80302; Joan L. Carpenter, editor; O1arlesA. Parton and Martin Red Bear, printing and circulation. Third class postage paidat Boulder, Colorado. All rights reserved. Subscription rates: libraries and non­lndian organizations, 1 year, $10.00; Indian tribes, organizations and individuals,no charge. Attocneys and other irrlividuals, by contribution.

• Address

• City State Zip· .

3:il'IVA 3:WI.L

Gas 'ON l!W.IiJdope.IO[o:) •.IiJPIDoa:

aIVd:3:DV.LSOd 's"n.~.IQ l!JO.IduON

ZO£08 0P~JOIOO ': 10:A~It\P~O.lt;: 90':

AnJqn 1t\~'I U~!PUI I~uon~N aqpund slq~m u~;)!Jawv aAn~!