REPORT - Schlosser Law Files

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14the Indians on the official roll of the Hoopa Valley Tribe. The totalamount of such funds disbursed per capita was $12,657,666.50. (Subsequently,on 21 separate occasions commencing on April 10, 1969,and ending on March 7, 1980, additional per capita paymentsamounting to some $16,660,492 were made to individual Hoopa Indianson the official roll of the Hoopa Valley Tribe.)In 1963, certain Indians (generally identified as “Yurok” Indians)claiming descent from Indians allotted on the reservation, but notenrolled as members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, brought a suitagainst the United States in the United States Court of Claims inthe case of Jessie Short et al. v. US. (Ct. C1. 102-63) alleging thatthe government had wrongfully excluded them from sharing in theper capita payments from revenues of the communal lands of theSquare made by the Secretary from 1955 onward. In 1972, a TrialCommissioner of the Court of Claims sustained the plaintiffs’ position.His decision was later upheld on October 17, 1973, by theCourt of Claims (202 Ct. C1. 870) and the Supreme Court refused toreview the decision in 1974.In construing the various relevant laws and executive ordersnoted above, the court held that--(1) the Hoopa Valley Reservation, as established by the ExecutiveOrder of June 23, 1876, pursuant to the 1864 Act, and asaugmented by the addition of land under the Executive Orderof October 16, 1891, was a single Indian reservation;(2) no Indian tribe as a tribe had, or has, a vested right tothe ownership of, or management authority in, the reservationor its resources;(3) the reservation had been duly set apart for Indian purposesin 1876 to accommodate the Indian tribes of northernCalifornia;(4) the Secretary had wrongfully paid per capita paymentsonly to members of the Hoopa Valley Tribe to the exclusion ofthe plaintiffs; and(5) that any Indian who had certain connections to the reservationand who could meet the court’s standards for qualificationas an “Indian of the Reservation” was entitled to share inthe distribution of revenues from the “Square” and, therefore,was entitled to damages against the United States.The court in the Short case is now engaged in determining whichof the plaintiffs meet that criteria. Once this process has been completed,the court will enter judgment against the United States onbehalf of each individual plaintiff found to meet that criteria.Puzz v. United StatesThe decision of the Court of Claims in the Short case involved amoney damage claim against the United States by individual Indianswith respect to their right to share in the revenue derived fromthe resources of the “Square” upon individualization by the Secretary.The case did not deal with the issue of where the authority tomake management decisions relating to the lands and resources ofthe “Square” or, for that matter, the reservation as a whole wasvested.In 1980, some of the plaintiffs in the Short case filed suit againstthe United States in the United States District Court for the
15Northern District of California in the case of fizz v. US. (No. C 802908 TEH). In this case, the plaintiffs challenged the right of theUnited States to recognize the governing body of the Hoopa ValleyTribe as the sole governing authority of the reservation entitled tomanage the reservation resources. On April 8, 1988, the court heldthat the reservation, as extended, was intended for the communalbenefit of northern California Indians and that, absent statutorydelegation, existing tribes lacked power to manage the resources.The court ordered the Bureau of Indian Affairs to assume the managementof the reservation and its resources and to consult fairlywith all persons having an interest in the reservation on its decisions.BACKGROUNDNature of US.-Indian RelationshipFrom the earliest contact with the Indians of this continent, theEuropean powers and the United States have dealt with the Indianson a government-to-government or tribal basis. The historicaldevelopment of the relationship between the United States and theIndian tribes, whether it is denominated as a trust, guardianship,or government-to-government relationship, has resulted in a politicalrelationship focusing on the Indian tribes, not on individual Indians.The great mass of treaties, statutes, and executive orders implementingFederal Indian policy are premised upon this tribal, politicalrelationship. To the extent such laws confer special benefits onindividual Indians or impose special burdens or limitations on suchIndians or their property, these laws are nevertheless foundedupon the status of such Indians as members of Indian tribes enjoyinga political relationship with the United States.The Supreme Court, in upholding the constitutionality of the lawextending a preference to Indians for Federal employment in theBureau of Indian Affairs, held that the law, and the many otherFederal laws for the benefit of Indians, were not invidiously discriminatorybecause the laws were not based upon the racial backgroundof the individual but upon their status as members of anIndian tribe. Morton. v. Mancart, 41'7 U.S. 535 (1974). In those limitedcases where the Congress has legislated specially with respect toindividual Indians outside their relationship as a member of anIndian tribe, other rational grounds are, or will be, found.Crea.tion of 1ndia.n Reserua.tionsWhere the United States has not recognized the title of anIndian tribe to its aboriginal lands, usually through creation of apermanent reservation for such tribe from those aboriginal lands,the tribe does not have a cornpensable t,itle in such lands and theCongress may take the lands without incurring a 1iabilit.y to thetribe. Tee-Hit-Ton In.dicLris v. Uzited States, 348 U.S. 272 (19553.As a consequence of the nature of the relatioiiship betweenIndian tribes and the United States, Indian reservations were recognizedor set aside by treat,y, statute, or executive order for Indiantribes, not individuai Indians. In most, cases, the enabling law spe-
Page 1 and 2: 1100~~ CONGRESS REPT. 100-9382d Ses
Page 3 and 4: 3(2) Subject to all valid existing
Page 5 and 6: 5Tribe, the Hoopa Valley Reservatio
Page 7 and 8: 7The Secretary shall assure that no
Page 9 and 10: 9The original location of these tri
Page 11 and 12: ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~ -~ ~ ~~~ ~~
Page 13: 13Under this method of administrati
Page 17 and 18: 17Recognition of Indian Tribes; Tri
Page 19 and 20: 19that H.R. 4469, as reported, is a
Page 21 and 22: 21a1 recognition that such tribes o
Page 23 and 24: 23the number of persons on the Sett
Page 25 and 26: 25Paragraph (3) provides that, with
Page 27 and 28: 27Paragraph (2) provides that the I
Page 29 and 30: 29Paragraph (2) provides that any s
Page 31 and 32: 31COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONThe Commi

REPORT - Schlosser Law Files

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?