National Indian Law Library

NILL No. 010009/1975

Volume 3, No.1 January- March 1975

"THE FIFTH DISASTER"-The Colonization of The North Slope of Alaska

There is an American city at thetop of the world which is closer toLeningrad than to Los Angeles ­closer to Istanbul than to Miami.The city, called Barrow, is locatedon the North Slope of Alaska, aland without edges, full of windsand silences. A land which is apart of the people who have livedthere as long as any people inNorth or South America - TheInupiat Eskimos.

The Inupiat - which means thepeople - have survived fourdisasters on the North Slope. Theyare now in the midst of the Fifth ­the American colonization of theirhomeland.

Eskimo legends tell of

disasters, some of which occurredthousands of years ago, othersless than 60 years ago. The FirstDisaster was The Cold Eclipse ­a time when the moon covered thesun and the Eskimo's homelandturned from a very warm countryto frigid desert. The Inupiat, theanimals, the birds and the plantsfroze. The legend says only fourfamilies survived.

The Second Disaster was TheBig Flood which followed a seriesof terrifying earthquakes andturned the mountains into an icyplain - all but a few Inupiatdrowned.

The Third Disaster came during

The Terrible Year of Two Winterswhen the Inupiat could not getfood and died of starvation.

The Fourth Disaster came afterthe Inupiats' first contacts withwhite men - men who broughtthem The Terrible Sicknessduring the flu epidemic of 1918.

The Fifth Disaster is TheTaking of the Land of theEskimos. And because the whitesare doing this, they may succeedwhere all past disasters havefailed. The land is part of theEskimos. It cannot be amputated- no more than the spirit can beseparated from any human being.To take the land of the Eskimos isto take their life.

ing hideSummer wanderers watch woman scrap

The great seaHas sent me adrift,It moves me as the weed in a great

river~

Earth and the great weatherMove me,Have carried me awayAnd move my inward parts with joy.

Eskimo

For hundreds of generations theEskimos have lived in wealthbecause an Eskimo was rich if hehad good luck in hunting, plenty ofstrong weapons, nets and tools,good boats, a strong body, and alarge happy family with lots ofchildren. The ocean has made theInupiat rich - it has given themfish, seal, walrus and whale. Forheat and light it has given themsea oil, drift wood, coal out­croppings along the beaches andnatural oil seams.

The ocean has given them time.Time beyond the time requiredfor survival in a harsh world andcruel climate. Time to make artand music, to dance and to hearthe stories of the old men.

Time to know every foot of theirland, the Arctic Slope, whichseems so ghostly and limitless toothers. Time to learn where to gofor caribou, rabbits, ducks andfish. This knowledge in turn gavethem time to visit relatives on thecoast along trails worn by ahundred generations.

The harsh world made themstrong, and their intimacy withthe wind and ice taught them thatone man cannot live alone in theArctic. The result was the Inupiatpeople - a people governed byconsensus and the love for theirchildren. A gentle society in acruel climate.

In 1867, many years after theThird Disaster, the United Statesof America bought the territoryknown as Alaska from Russia for$7,200,000. It was a transactionbetween two colonial powers.Russia offered what it did not ownand America bought it.

2

Although the Russians weretrading and trapping animalsfreely throughout most of Alaskaat the time of the "sale", they hadnot yet penetrated the NorthSlope. The Russians had ap­proached the area on a few oc­casions but had been rebuffed bythe Eskimos and, because of thehorrific climate, they did not pushtheir exploration further andinstead retreated south.

The penetration of the NorthSlope was no longer the interest orthe problem of the Russians afterthey signed the Trea ty of Cessionin 1867. The provisions of thattreaty did not give the Americansthe land itself - only the rights tocontrol trading and to taxproceeds from the territory. TheUnited States supposedlyrecognized like Russia that theland belonged to the originaloccupants.

Less than 20 years later, theUnited States was having so muchdifficulty managing the territorythat Congress passed the OrganicAct of 1884 to provide a civil

government for Alaska. The Aset up a temporary /seatgovernment at Sitka, a { ;hesettlement, designed to heprotect the United State$7,200,000 investment. A governwas appointed, courts We]established and a land sales ofii(began to clear land titles f(settlers.

The Organic Act also called f(the Secretary of Interior to seleltwo officers to work with Ugovernor as " ... a commission 1examine into and report upon ttcondition of the Indians residinin said Territory, what landsany, should be reserved for theiuse, what provision shall be madfor their education, what rights b;occupation of settlers should hrecognized, and all other factthat may be necessary to enabl(Congress to determine whalimitations or conditions should Iximposed when the land laws of thEUnited States shall be extended t(said district . . .".

The United States was ingready to colonize Alaska.

""'~~'.'>f~.j~:~!OI~.""'~~~I,q""~.•.~.1.:e:5.'f,.t J(.-,;.~~~,:j';;''':':'lill;~~.~i~'~';~·;,~ \.(, ,'lo ,";i: ::<}';I':-",,-:;:,:x~)o.';';

'4,,; . .,=:.=i ;c. r. •..__......... ·'.r'.'.',,,_'. -,~ .......

A Slow, But Brutal PenetrationColonialism has one purpose ­

the acquisition of wealth andpolitical power for the invader. Ofnecessity it then follows that thenative population must losewealth and power. Sometimes theprocess of penetra tion followed bythe transfer of wealth and poweroccurs rapidly, sometimes ithappens slowly, but it is alwaysbrutal.

In Alaska the penetration wasslow. The wealth and the poweraccumulated during thecolonization of the lower 48states was so great thatAmerica's demand for the ad­ditional resources available inAlaska was relatively smallcompared to the earlier ex­ploitation of the lower 48 states.There were isolated blitzkriegs ofexploiters for gold, other mineralsand fish whose marks are still onthe land. One reason white peoplein Alaska wanted statehood was tocontrol this.

During this period the vastnessof the area which encompassedsome 375 million acres made theprocess of colonization lessnoticeable. The abundance of landin relation to both the nativepopulation and white settlersdiluted the effects. This timethere was little need to shootpeople to obtain their land.

.However, the same diseasesthat came with the first settlers,missionaries and trappers whosettled the lower 48 states alsocame to Alaska. It was thesesubtler aspects of colonizationthat first hit the southern andwestern portions of Alaska andfinally the North Slope home ofthe Inupiat.

The traders, trappers andexplorers brought guns to ease thedifficulties of the Eskimos' hunt.The Inupiat were in awe of thisnew source of power and its white­skinned creators. Then the firstmissionaries arrived, asking thatthe Eskimos reject their owntraditions and give their loyalty to

a new Christian god. ManyInupiat did just that - theyadopted Christianity as quicklyand as easily as they contractedthe measles, whooping cough,diptheria and the tuberculosiswhich the white men also brought.

After the Fourth Disaster of TheTerrible Sickness in 1918 only afew villages on the North Sloperemained intact - most of therest of the villages and camps hadlost all but a few individuals. Theconfusion, shame and isolationfelt by the few surviving Inupiatafter the flu epidemic were blurredby another "gift" of the whiteman - alcohol. This gift eased themessage of the physical, mentaland social inferiority which wasinherent in the interaction be­tween the two cultures.

For the first 50 years followingthe Fourth Disaster the Inupiatsstruggled to maintain themselvesin the midst of the colonialprocess. They continued towelcome the white men into theirhomes and communities, showedthem their hunting grounds, senttheir children to their schoolswhere they spoke the white man'slanguage, and revered not onlytheir God but their tools anddiversions.

They pored over Sears &Roebuck catalogues which mostInupiat could not read and thenstruggled to model their houses­which before white contact weremade of sod and burrowed into theground - into forms similar tothose seen in the catalogue or atwhaling stations and missionaryposts. The idea of separate roomsand cheerful windows appealed tothe Inupiat. In their desire to havehouses like the white men theybuilt new ones - homes of drift­wood, flattened petrol cans,shipping crates and tar paper.The results were shacks - whichwithout insulation were a disasterto heat, hard to maintain andimpossible to keep sanitary.

Man carrying reluctant bridl

AHUSBAND'S SONG

Dear little wife, dear little wife,Weep not, cease longing for your

home,Cease longing for your home,You will be given suet to eat,Delicious suet,And eyes, luscious eyes,All this you will be given.And tender juicy shoulder piecesGiven you as gifts,Tender juicy shoulder meat.

Eskimo

For centuries Inupiat culturlhas revolved around the hunt. Thlcontinuity of the race wadependent upon the success of thlhunters.

During the Third Disaster ­The Terrible Year of Two Winter

and other hard timessacrifices were made to keep thEskimo hunter strong. This wadone because when food wascarce, if the hunter did not havthe strength required to continuthe hunt, then all was lost - aInupiat would die of starvatior

The Alaska Constitution- Another Kind of Promise To Be Broken

flexible system of local govern­ment which would avoid themajor errors of the older state·constitutions.

The constitution was also ad­vanced in other respects - it.forbade any discrimination in the'distribution of state servicesbecause of race and specificallyprotected the rights and claims ofthe Native peoples of the state.Alaska state law outlawed, evenbefore the nationwide civil rightsmovement, any sort ofdiscrimination in restaurants,hotels, schools, or jobs.

At the time of statehood a~Alaskans - about 175,000 peopleone-fifth of whom were Natives ~',

voted on the constitutionareferendum. On July 7, 1958Alaska became a State.

The delegates to the AlaskaConstitutional Convention of 1955­1956 wanted the best possibleconstitution - one that avoidedthe pitfalls of the constitutions ofthe lower 48 states - one whichwas innovative and provided formaximum local control. Sincelocal governments in Alaska werepractically non-existent they hadan open field.

What they developed was aprovision for a system of "naturalregions" - single units of localgovernment in which all localexecutive and administrativefunctions were vested forgeographic areas defined bymutual economic and social in­terests. The framers of theAlaskan Constitution called theseunits "boroughs" and they in­tended them to further a simple,

To the Alaska Natives, the land istheir life; to the State of Alaska, it wasa commodity to be bought and sold.

In such hard times infanticidewas practiced and the aged wouldcommit suicide by walking intothe cold because they were nQlonger useful to the family. Mostof these frightening, terribletimes were only remembered aslegends. Then, at about the samerate as the steady influx of whitesociety, suicides became notoccasional disasters, buteveryday occurrences. Only thistime the victims were the huntersthemselves.

The white men had comebringing Christianity, guns,alcohol, snowmobiles, Sears &Roebuck, cash, disease, andcastration of the Inupiat culture.As Inupiat society slowly stoppedrevolving around the hunt and thehunters, an epidemic of suicidesstarted. It is still going on. In 1974there were three times as manysuicides as there were in 1959. Thehomicide rate doubled in thissame period. Almost all of thesedeaths were related to alcohol andthe loss of self-respect.

The Alaska Statehoodmovement began in the early1950's. Ironically, the relativelysmall population of whites livingin the Territory wanted to be freeof control from the remote federalgovernment and absentee cor­porate interests. The whiteresidents perceived the federalagencies and fishing and mininginterests as being entities whichwere holding back Alaska's basicsocial and economic developmentwhile exploiting its naturalresources for short-termeconomic gains.

4

,.~.•,.1 "

The Duck-In, OEO and The. Oil

In 1924 the federal governmenthad staked out a large petroleumreserve of 23 million acres on theNorth Slope shortly after theEskimos had pointed out oilseams to government officials inthe land around Point Barrow.The Inupiat, having shared thisknowledge, were then permittedto continue to hunt for subsistencepurposes in the reserve and lifewent on pretty much as before.

Then at the end of theEisenhower administration, andbefore statehood, the federalgovernment decided to declarethe entire North Slope an ArcticWildlife Refuge. In an act ofrestraint, the Department ofInterior finally settled on only 6million acres, which turned out tobe almost the entire easternportion of the Slope. Again theInupiat were forced to readjusttheir homeland habits.

The fantastic whaling years ofthe late 1800's had finally takentheir toll and conservationistsaround the world were cam­paigning to stop the killing of allwhales. The whaling seasonshapes the year for the Inupiat. Itis their major source of food - agood catch can provide fullstomachs for months. It is con­sidered an honor for an Eskimo tokill a whale.

The Inupiats became fearful,and still are, that the con­servationists would succeed andthat there will be no more whalingseasons at Barrow. They knewthat the results would bedisastrous.

In the midst of coping with thisfear and the anxiety caused by thesetting aside of the petroleumreserve and the taking of theeastern portion of the slope for theWildlife Refuge - there came thethreat to detonate an atomicbomb at Point Hope, an Inupiatvillage. Point Hope is believed tobe the oldest continuouslyinhabited community in North orSouth America. The AtomicEnergy Commission wanted todemonstrate the peaceful use ofatomic energy by creating a largeharbor precisely on the villagesite.

Atomic testing had alreadydone irreparable damage to theSlope. The fallout from testing inSiberia and the Pacific wasdropping contaminated Cesium137 and Strontium 90 on themosses and lichen of the tundra.The caribou, eating the mosses,were absorbing the radiation andthe Eskimos, who were eating thecaribou, were too.

At one time the levels of ac­cumulation were so high that oneof the Atomic Energy Com­missioners recommended thatEskimos be fed entirely on foodsbrought up from the lower 48states.

The harpoon that broke thewhale's back, so to speak, came in1961 when Mexico protested thatAmerican poachers fromCalifornia, Arizona and Texaswere violating the terms of theMigratory Bird Treaty of 1916.The federal government decidedthat it would be easier to stop theInupia ts from hunting Eiderducks, an essential part of their

subsistence diet, than to stop thepoachers in the politicallypowerful states of Arizona,California and Texas. So on May31, 1961, a federal game wardencame to Barrow to enforce thetreaty and the Inupiats foundthemselves standing up to theinsane forces that were passingthrough their lives.

Since it was the midst of thespring duck season it took no timeat all for the federal game wardento arrest a number of Inupiats.Two days later the agent w~s

confronted with 138 Inupiats allholding ducks and their guns - itwas the Barrow Duck-In of 1961!The federal government backedoff. Perhaps the trustee sensedthat the Duck-In was the begin­ning of change in their Inupiatworld.

5

14M3,&;i$@@¥%N¥#$M4#ii#il[

No. One Wall Street West

,, ,

. The Inupiat group which wasformed in 1964 was called UArctic Slope Native Associatioh(ASNA). The Inupiat had decidedto change their nature and tofight. It was a difficult transitionwhich took a terrible personal tollon the Inupiat leaders.

This period was also thebeginning of the development ofthe Office of Economic Op­portunity. With the emphasis oncommunity action and localplanning that OEO programsprovided it was only two yearsuntil the statewide AlaskaFederation of Natives (AFN) wasformed to champion Nativerights. It rapidly became theprincipal voice of the AlaskaNative claims movement.

had been founded, the stateleased some of these tracts toSinclair, Atlantic Richfield andBritish Petroleum who startedexploration immediately. Then onJuly 18, 1968, Atlantic Richfieldannounced that it had discoveredoil at Prudhoe Bay on the Arcti~Slope. The strike was on - oil .fever was about to change the'North Slope and the Inupiatsforever.

Native villages and to claim,under the Statehood Act, royaltiesfrom Federal oil and gas leases onNative lands.

The Department of Interior, theNatives' trustee, without in­forming those Native villagesaffected while also ignoring theclaims they had on file, began toprocess the State's selections. TheIndians of Tanacross Village wereto hear only through the mukluktelegraph that their lands onLake George were being sold atthe New York's World Fair as"Wilderness Estates." As word ofthe State's actions spread fromvillage to village, the Nativesbegan to organize regionalassociations for their commondefense.

Right after statehood, Alaskahad selected large tracts of landseast of Barrow on the North Slopein an area known as Prudhoe Bay.These had been routinely trans­ferred to the State under theterms of the Statehood Act withthe approval of the Department ofInterior's Bureau of LandManagement, but without theapproval of the Inupiats.

In 1964, just at the time ASNA

To stay the way we are we have tofight. But H we fight, we are nolonger the way we are.

Charles Edwardsen, Jr., Inupiat

Eskimo culture, with its non­aggression, courtesy, and con­sensus was being whipped bywhite entrepreneurs and an in­credibly thoughtless trustee. Thecultural values of sharing, self­confidence, and presumption ofgood will in others were preciselywhat was not needed if the land,the whale, and the Inupiat way oflife were to survive the colonialonslaught.

Until the Statehood Act of 1958there was no massive threat toAlaskan Native land rights, ex­cept perhaps to the Inupiat. Forthe most part colonization hadbeen restricted to the transfer ofwhite religious beliefs, language,and educational processes. AfterStatehood, there was never aquestion that most of the landbeing used by the Natives wouldbe taken from them.

Despite the fact that the AlaskaState Constitutional Congressprovided that the "State and itspeople do agree and declare thatthey forever disclaim all right andtitle . . . to any lands or otherproperty (including fishingrights) the right or title to whichmaybe held by any Indians,Eskimos or Aleuts ..." the Statesoon moved to take over landsclearly used and occupied by

6

On the North Slope it is hard to throwanything away. It can't be buriedbecause 18 inches down is a con­crete-iike iayer of permafrost. Itcan't be taken away because there isno "away", only thousands of milesof ice pack in front and hundreds ofmiles of impassable tundra behind.

So things stay where they are leftand each North Slope village is anincredible collection of debris,everything that's ever been broughtthere - rusted bulldozers, tin cans,wrecked snowmobiles, dismantledcranes, 5()..gallon drums, brokensleds and holed boats.

The discovery of oil brought theboomers, the get-rich-quick ar­tists, the great New York banksand the great corporations. Therewas an airlift of oil equipment andsupplies - 14 oil companies weresoon on the Slope using 500 millionpounds of equipment: pipes,derricks, fuel cans and helicop­ters.

Then on February 11, 1969,three of the major oil companiesannounced tha t they had decidedto build a $900 million pipelineacross Alaska.

The white people had what oneInupiat called a "financialorgasm". The oil companiesliterally trampled over theInupiat. Gentle, but newlyresolved to fight, they weremoved to protest - but no oneheard them, particularly not thestate of Alaska.

A few months later, in April,1969, the State announced that400,000 additional acres of landheld by the State under theoriginal BLM transfer which wereadjacent to the Prudhoe Bay fieldwere going to be sold by com­petitive bid. When they were soldit was in the midst of an incrediblefinancial ritual. The finalproceeds in bonus bids paid toAlaska in one day for the Inupiats'homeland totaled $900,220,590.2l.During and after the biddingwhich was held in Anchorage, a

single Inupia t, Charlie Ed­wardsen, Jr., led a small crowd ofsupporters in a picketing of theproceedings. Not even $.21 ofthese revenues gained by theState were to be channeled backinto the North Slope - an arealarger than the 36 of the 50 stateswhich was without a hospital, ahigh school, roads or sewage andwater systems.

I know what it will take to make thewhite nation act. It is here, it is allaround us, under the ground. It is oil.

Charlie Edwardsen, Jr., Inupiatbefore the 1968 PrudhoeBay oil strike.

Back in 1966, then-Secretary ofthe Interior Stewart L. Udall hadput on his federal fiduciary hatand moved on behalf of the AlaskaNatives to block any furthertransfer of their lands to the sta te.

Geese, man and animals

His left arm, the Bureau of LandManagement, had tentativelyapproved the transfer of another12 million acres to Alaska. Udallwas courageous in the face ofenormous pressures and he haltedthis pending transfer andsuspended the issuance of newfederal oil and gas leases pen­ding Congressional "settlement"of Native lands.

Alaska's then-Governor WalterJ. Hickel had condemned Udall'sact as illegal and the State filedsuit to force him to transfer theland. The local district courtupheld Alaska, but Udall ap­pealed. Just before he resigned inNovember, 1969 as Secretary ofthe Interior, he formalized his"land freeze" with the issuance ofPublic Land Order 4582. A monthlater, in December, 1969, theNinth Circuit Court of Appealsupheld his action and the taking oflands by the State was legally putin abeyance.

7

-

Eskimo

The lands around my dwellingAre more beautifulFrom the dayWhen it is given me to seeFaces I have never seen before.All is more beautiful,And life is thankfulness.

Federal Field Committee forDevelopment Planning in Alaska,a Presidential Commission leftover from the 1964 earthquake1970 three different proposal::. _j

settle the Alaska Land Con­troversy were before Congress.

The Alaskan Natives' newtrustee (and old governor),Secretary Hickel, proposed thatthe Natives be given restrictedtitle to approximately 12 millionacres of land stripped of oil andgas rights, to be selected from thepublic domain at the same time asthe State had an opportunity topick 103 million acres. He alsostated that the Natives shouldreceive cash compensation in theamount of $500 million, payableover a 20-year period withoutinterest, for the over 300 millionacres they were giving up.

There was no question about thevalidity of their claim to the landin the minds of the AlaskanNatives, and even the white man'slaws indicated on all fronts thatthey were either entitled to theirland or to just compensation for itby the federal trustee.

A long series of federal statutesand Supreme Court decisions hadestablished a rule that aboriginaloccupancy creates a propertyright which the United Statesalone has power to extinguish andthat Native land rights carry withthem the right of the tribe orNative group to enjoy theprotection of the United Statesagainst interference from allothers, including state govern­ments.

As early as 1783 a Congress ofthe Confederation issued aproclamation prohibiting allpersons from making settlements"on lands inhabited or claimed byIndians" and "from purchasingor receiving any gift for cession ofsuch lands or claim without theexpress authority and direction ofthe United States in Congressassembled" .

The Ordinance for the Nor­thwest Territory provided that theland and the property of the In­dians shall "never be taken fromthem without their consent" andthat "their property, rights, andliberty shall never be invaded ordisturbed, unless in just andlawful war authorized byCongress" .

It looked like there was about tobe a war in Alaska. In any casethere was no doubt that the UnitedStates was going to extinguishsome of the Natives' rights, and soalong with former JusticeGoldberg and the others, a bevy ofclaims lawyers had begunworking with various AlaskanNative groups in the preparationof a proposed Alaskan NativeClaims Settlement Act. At thesame time so had the Departmentof Interior and severalcongressional committees and the

Ironically, Governor WalterHickel succeeded Udall asSecretary of the Interior. WalterHickel, the Qil companies, thestate and the private interestssoon recognized tha t they werenow going to have to deal with theNative land issue.

Udall had known this. When heissued his form alized "landfreeze" he said:

This action will give opportunity forCongress to consider how thelegislative commitment that theNatives shall not be disturbed intheir traditional use and oc­cupancies of the lands in Alaskashould be implemented .•• to allowthese lands to pass into otherownership in the face of the Natives'claim would, in my opinion,preclude a fair and equitable set­tlement of the matter by Congress.It would also deny the Natives ofAlaska an opportunity to acquiretitle to the lands which they haveadmittedly used and occupied forcenturies.

The hopes of the Native peoplehad also gained new force when inJuly, 1969, Arthur J. Goldberg,former Supreme Court Justiceand U.S. Ambassador to theUnited Nations, agreed torepresent the Natives' causebefore Congress as a publicservice. Also joining Goldbergwere Ramsey Clark, formerAttorney General, and ThomasKuchel, former U.S. Senator fromCalifornia.

8

The Federal Field Committeefor Development Planning inAlaska recommended aCongressional settlement withthese provisions: fee simpie titlefor the Alaskan villages to ap­proximately 5 million acres ofland, with full mineral rights andprotection of hunting and fishingrights over larger areas; and cashcompensation ranging from aminimum of $100 million to $1billion, the exact amount to becontingent upon the size of theFederal oil and gas royalties inAlaska, and to be paid over a 10­year period without any interest.

Finally, the Alaska Federationof Natives on behalf of 60,000Native people offered itssolutions. AFN asked for con­veyance to Native villages of feesimple title to 40 million acres ofland with mineral rights to be heldby Native regional developmentcorporations, and cash com­pensation in the amount of $500million (roughly $1.50 per acre)payable over a nine-year periodwith interest paid at 4'L; and a 2'Lresidual royalty on grossrevenues from the Federal landsto which Native title was beingextinguished.

Given the vast amount of land inAlaska and the extent of theNative land right~ and needs, 40million acres seemed a rockbottom request to AFN. Itrepresented 10'L of the land fornearly 20'L of the people who ac­tually had valid claims to nearly100'L of the land. The state wouldstill find ample land from which tomake its selection of 103 millionacres set aside under theStatehood Act Provision, and thebalance of about 230 million acresof Alaska would be retained by thefederal government.

Considering the fact that thelands to which the Natives hadlegal rights had a value con­servatively estimated in the tensof billions of dollars, the cashsettlement proposed by the AFNbased on the $1.50 per acre figurewas an extremely modest one.

Alaska had gotten almost $1billion in bonus bids alone fromsale of rights to the oil companies­to explore the 400,000 acres ofiand. Further, when measured ..against the actual needs of theNatives, the cash compensationwas not substantial. Far morewould have been required to raisetheir family income and stan­dards of living to even half that ofthe white Alaskan residents.

The (Alaska Natives) claim title toover 300 millions acres of land in thefirst place. Now we are saying whenthey comprise 2~ of the populationand are getting 4S of the land, howgenerous we are.

Senator Edward Kennedy,Addressing the SenateCommittee consideringthe Alaska Native ClaimsSettlement Act, July 15, 1970

After the 1970 proposals were in,it took almost two years of intensenegotiation in Congress to work

out the final Alaska Native ClaimsSettlement Act. The pressures tosettle were enormous. The worldand the United States weremoving into the midst of the worldenergy CrISIS, the en­vironmentalists were protestingthe possible effects of building thepipeline and the oil companieswere saying that without thepipeline America would be at themercy of foreign powers.

The pressures were so greatthat they almost wreaked asmuch havoc among the variousmember groups of the AFN asthey did between the varioussenators, legislative committeesand federal agencies within theDepartment of Interior. TheInupiats in particular often felt ata disadvantage as variousproposals for dividing up the landon a per capita basis instead of alands loss basis, were formulated.They knew it had taken virtuallyall of their 56.5 million acre Slopeto sustain them in the past.

They were not sure theycould survive with the solutionstheir fellow Native Alaskans weresettling for. They were learninghow time with bureaucrats leadsto becoming more "reasonableand negotiable" just at theprecise moment in their historywhen they needed to be anythingbut reasonable.

The final settlement packagepassed by Congress providedAlaska Natives title to surfaceland and sub-surface resourcesfor 40 million acres, plus$462,500,000 from the UnitedStates to be paid over an ll-yearperiod. It also provided aguaranteed income of $500 millionfrom mineral reserves. TheSettlement Act was accepted byall the members of the AlaskanFederation of Natives except theInupiats of the North Slope whocontinued to oppose it right upuntil the time it was signed intolaw by President Nixon onDecember 18, 1971.

9

& d#§:::E

Mobil Oil Company v. Local Boundary Commissiol1The Oil Companies v. The ;nup~ats

You must understand that weEskimos are here forever. Theothers just came to extract andexploit these resources. When theyare through they will leave. U theywant to stay a little while fine. Theycan pay a little rent.

Joe Upicksoun, Inupiat

The juxtaposition of their im­poverished villages with aneconomy based on subsistence,against a massive infusion ofcapital investment at PrudhoeBay, gave the Eskimos some hopethat they would benefit from thenewly discovered wealth of theirArctic Slope homeland.

Instead, they soon found thatthe more likely consequence ofpetroleum development would bedamage to the basis of theirlivelihood - hunting - withoutany real compensation.

Because they were un­dereducated, this lack ofeducation was of greater momenteach day as it became necessaryfor them to deal with the whiteworld and also as the new,petroleum-related employmentopportunities were denied to theuneducated Inupiat. In 1971, ofsome 800 petroleum-related jobson the North Slope only 8 wereheld 'by Natives.

10

The price of even a high schooleducation on the North Slope hasalways been semi-permanentseparation of a child from itsInupiat family as he or she wasforced to attend boarding schoolhundreds or thousands of milesfrom home. It meant morecolonization that thesechildren had to stop speakingtheir native tongue; to experiencefood, clothing and housing totallydifferent from that of theirvillages; to be gone from theirfamilies for six to nine months ata time; and then to return only tofind themselves aliens in theirown culture - no longer com­fortable on the Slope or "Outside"either.

Seeing this alienationdestroying their young people andtheir culture's future - and alsoseeing that their people hadserious health problems (in anarea of 56.5 million acres therewas no hospital) and that novillage on the Slope had asanitation or water system, theInupiat leaders moved.

At first they were very un­comfortable, but they were alsodetermined not to see their peopledestroyed or displaced by theencroachment of "civilization".

Coincidentally this new Inupiatmovement came at about thesame time that the NativeAmerican Rights Fund wasestablishing itself as a nationallegal program in Boulder,Colorado. And soon the Inupiatswould be drawing on this newresource to protect whatremained of their existence.

Just before the Claims Actbecame final, the Arctic SlopeNative Association had begunformal efforts to try to use theAlaska State Constitution to someadvantage for the Eskimos. Theybegan to try to establish one of the

local government units orboroughs provided for under statelaw, a local government unit forInupiats which would encompassthe vast Arctic Slope and providethem some measure of protectionfrom the state, federal and cor­porate interests and furnish avehicle for their own self-determi­nation.

At the time, N<;>rth Slope localpowers rested with the AlaskaState Legislature hundreds ofmiles away in Juneau and thelegislature's unresponsivenesson the Slope had been shown by itswillingness to absorb the proceedsof the lucrative $900 million ArcticSlope oil lease sale without payingthe slightest attention to the NorthSlope's critical human needs.

The Eskimos thought that ;f

they could control their ownfairs - according to the whiteman's ways - they could thenregulate development thatthreatened their way of life, andimpose taxes to finance educationand other of their needs as apeople. It was the lack of a highschool in the immense region thatwas the greatest single impetus tothe borough's development- In an airplane crash on

Labor Day, 1971, Barrow lost awhole generation of high schoolstudents on their way to boardingschool in the lower 48.

The process of meeting legalrequirements to form a boroughon the North Slope took about ayear. ASNA began circulating thenecessary petitions to incorporateas a borough and ASNA's at­torney, Frederick Paul, requested

NARF's legal assistance with thecomplicated administrativeprocedures and regulations.NARF's Founding Director, DavidH. Getches, was assigned to thematter and tra veled to Alaska forthe innumerable hearings andmeetings which were held. TheState's Local Boundary Com­mission assembled a vast recordbefore it decided in February,1972, to accept the Eskimo'spetition.

Suddenly alarmed at theprospect of Eskimo control andtaxation, seven of the world'slargest oil companies with sub­

.•tantial investments at Prudhoe.~ Bay.fil;d a la wsuit to stop the; InUPlat s formation of the in­'~ciPient North Slope Borough

These companies includedMobil Oil Corpora tion, AmercadaHess Corporation, AmocoProduction Company, BritishPetroleum Company, ExxonCorpora tion, Union Oil ofCalifornia, and PhillipsPetroleum Company.

The oil companies charged thatthe Eskimo's petition to form aborough was improper because oftechnical deficiencies in therecord. They also asserted anumber of grounds based on thefact that the new borough'sassembly would not be properlyapportioned (even though 95% ofthe borough's isolated voters hadapproved the composition andapportionment of the assembly),

Finally, the oil companiesclaimed that certain legal stan­dards for the org aniza tion of theborough had not been met. Forinstance, they said that much ofthe North Slope Borough was"unused" land But the Courtlater found that virtually all

of the 56.5 million acre areawas utilized by the Eskimosfor subsistence hunting.

The companies bela tedlyclaimed the borough was un­constitutional inasmuch as theyas the major property owners onthe Slope would have to bear mostof the tax burdens and would getno benefit from a local govern­ment because the companies ­whose employees lived in self­contained luxury units and dor­mitories - were supplying suchservices as sewage and water forthemselves.

In April of 1972, just after the oilcompanies had sued the BoundaryCommission, the Arctic SlopeNative Association (which hadsponsored the petition to in­corporate) along with the fivecities of the North Slope(Anaktuvuk Pass, Barrow,Kaktovik, Point Hope, andWainwright) and two other in­dividuals residing in the areamoved to intervene in the oilcompanies'suit.

11

Protecting the World's largest Native Government

These people could becomemillionaries many times over. Thisgeneration of Eskimos are huntersand fishermen. The next generationwill probably be tax lawyers.

Oil company lawyer, 1974

The Association and the citiesasked that NARF, in the face ofsuch formidable adversaries,continue to help them through thissuit to help them protect theirhard-won borough. NARF agreedand its motion for intervention ontheir behalf was granted by thecourt over the objections of all ofthe oil companies.

The oil companies thenpromptly moved for a stay of theelections needed to select a mayorand other officials for the newborough. NARF defended theneed for the election successfullyin court and the elections wereheld.

It was then the task of theLieutenant Governor to certifythe election results at which timethe borough could begin to puttogether the despera tely neededservices for the Inupiat people.

The oil companies, however,again moved the court for a stay.This time they sought to enjoin theLieutenant Governor frommaking his certification pendingthe outcome of this first la wsuitagainst the Commission. TheSuperior Court denied the requestand a few days la ter the oilcompanies asked the SupremeCourt of Alaska to rule on thequestion., Three of the justiceshad to disqualify themselves forreasons of apparent connectionswith oil interests on the NorthSlope, The motion was decided byone of the two remaining justiceswho affirmed the decision of theSuperior Court and allowed theInupiat election to be certified.

12

With their lawsuit still pending,the oil companies continued tohold a cloud of litigation over theInupiat. Because of it the boroughhad difficulty obtaining financingfor planning and organization ofthe new government.

An additional complicatingfactor was that it was a totallynew form of government beingsuperimposed on a societygoverned previously by con­sensus. Now after 70 years, duringwhich time there had beennothing in the colonial process toencourage self-respect and self­reliance in Inupia t people, it wastime for self-determination. Theoil companies were not making itany easier"

After more than a year of un­successful legal manuevers by theoil companies to prevent theborough from actually beginningits operation, the Superior Courtissued a memorandum decisionon January 19, 1973. The Court

found in favor of the Inupiats onevery point, specifically rejectingeach of the contentions raised bythe oil companies.

However, in what had been awar of financial attrition fromthe beginning, the oil companieswith endless legal resources attheir hands then appealed theSuperior Court decision to theSupreme Court.

Once again NARF was in courton behalf of the Inupiats. Anotheryear passed; the long tense daysand nights of preparation ofbriefs were repeated. The strangesilences in the court before andafter oral arguments were thereagain. Then finally the decisioncame.

The system had worked for theInupiaL The Alaska StateSupreme Court upheld thedecision of the Superior Cour~\ )The new Inupiat government waS~/free to continue to move aheadwith its plans

Winning the Battle,losing the War

Uke the miner's canary, the Indianmarks the shift from fresh air topoison gas in our political at­mosphere; and our treatment ofIndia.'s .•• reflects the rise and fallof our ~~mocratic faith.

- the late Felix Cohen, Esq.

Many problems were still aheadfor the Eskimos in their giantborough, however. Hedging theirbets in case the State SupremeCourt failed to approve theirappeal against the borough, theoil companies launched a bevyofla wsuits challenging theborough's taxing powers. Theyalso sued the State of Alaska,attacking legislation providing fortaxation and regulation of the oilindustry by the State.

In September, 1974, GovernorWilliam Egan announced that as aresult of secret talks with the oilindustry growing out of theirlawsuit against the State, aspecial session in the statelegislature would be called.

This was an extraordinarymove and showed how high thestakes were. Only twice before inthe State's history had speciallegislative sessions been called:once in reaction to the disastrousFairbanks Flood in 1967 and theother following the tragic 1964earthquake.

It was clear that the oil com­panies had said that if certainlegislation was passed, their suitagainst the State could be settled.Built into the proposedemergency legislative packagewere severe limita tions on thepower of the North Slope boroughto tax the oil companies.

During the special session oilindustry lobbyists in Juneaureportedly out-numbered statelegislators. This factor, coupled

with industry pronouRcementsduring the special session that inspite of congressional approval ofL'1e Trans Alaska Pipeline routethe oil companies might not begin'full operations on the North Slopeunless they got their way madethe pressure overwhelming. TheInupiats had won the battle inCourt, but lost the war in thelegislature.

The legislature passed apackage which limited the powerof all the boroughs to tax oiltransportation, production, andrefining facilities according toborough population. In addition,the local sales tax on oil and gasproperty was limited to the first$1,000 of any sale. Of course,everyone knew that virtually allof this legislation was aimed atthe North Slope Borough and theInupiats. It is the only boroughthat the population area formulaaffects.

Self - DeterminationAfter Coloni zation

The Shamans were the Eskimos'television • • • revealing good andevil, past and future events - likelooking at the bottom of a bucket ofwater.

The North Slope Borough is likea shaman predicting the future oflocal Native government andself-determination in Alaska. If itcan continue to stand the tests oflitigation and legislation, morethan the intent of the draftsmen ofAlaska's constitution may bevindicated. It may be the real

beginning of Indian self­determination aftercolonization. If it fails it maymean cultural genocide cannot beavoided even in the moderncolonial process.It was, of course predictable

that the State of Alaska itselfwould become swept up in the roleof the invader to the detriment ofits individual Native citizens.Although the result will probablynot totally destroy these deter­mined people, nonetheless if theoil companies have their way toomuch, history may repeat itself.

Meanwhile, the North SlopeBorough government is movingforward. The Inupiat are still 18months away from having theirfirst high school at AnaktuvukPass, but it does have temporaryhigh school quarters for studentswho do not want to leave home inPoint Hope and similar tem­porary facilities will soon befinished in Wainwright.

The master plan for Barrow hasbeen completed and the largeproposed high school and com­munity complex there whichincludes the original BIAelementary school is beingrevamped with new architectureand engineering requirements.

It will take three more years toimplement fully a Department ofHealth for the whole Borough, butvillage health helpers are beingtrained and are continuing to gainnew skills.

The North Slope Boroughassembly set a firm policy ofunconditionally providing jobs forNatives on construction contractsfor all of the public works projectson the Slope. Rare exceptions fornon-Native people are made onlyfor those jobs which requireengineering or other professionalskills not available yet among theInupiat.

The Borough has more plansand its leaders are working hardto piece together a viable, Inupiatsociety in a rapidly changinghomeland.

13

On the North Slope milk is $2.95 ahalf gallon; bread, $1.05 a loaf; beer,$14 a case; Coke, 40 cents a can.

The Slope also has a NativeRegional Corporation like 11others throughout the state set upunder the Alaskan Native ClaimsSettlement Act. Each Native owns100 shares in his respectiveCorporation. These Corporationshave hired geologists, consultantsand attorneys. They have filedland selections, funds are beingdistributed to them under the Actand there are many lawsuits andsquabbles. Get-rich-quick typesand con-artists smell the moneyand not all of the regions havebeen able to keep clear of them.Even today most of the Nativeshave yet to receive the bulk ofeither their money or their land.

The Alaska pipeline has ofcourse been approved. Its con­struction has begun and it willhave an impact upon the NorthSlope villages throughout Alaskagreater than even the first contactwith white man.

Ahead lies a struggle betweeneconomic expedience and culturalgenocide. The outcome for theInupiats depends on whether theNorth Slope of Alaska will bedominated by the oil companies orby its original inhabitants.

The Role of TheNative American Rights Fund

The role played by NARF in theestablishment of the Inupiats'North Slope Borough is reflectiveof what NARF is trying to do allacross the country - that is, touse legal tools to help Indianpeople preserve and protect theirtribal existence and theirresources, as well as to guaranteeequal human rights and the ac­countability of the federal andsta te governments.

NARF was just coming intoexistence at the time the firstproposals for the Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act were being

14

put together, and for this reasonNARF attorneys were not asked tocomment on the AFN proposal. Hadthey been asked, it is likely thatNARFs role would have beenlimited, not only because theprogram was new, but becauseother legal resources were readilyavailable to the Alaska Natives. Inaddition to lawyers like fonnerSupreme Court Justice ArthurGoldberg, a bevy of claims at­torneys were assisting whose fees,which totalled millions of dollars,will be paid as a part of a special $2million provision in the settlementpackage.

The effort to establish the NorthSlope Borough presented entirelydifferent issues and cir­cumstances. When the Inupiatpeople asked NARF to assist themthey had little funds to pay theirattorneys. The Claims Act had yetto be implemented and eventuallypayments would be made to thenew Regional Corporations andnot to the Arctic Slope NativeAssociation which wasspearheading the boroughmovement.

Further, the concept ofestablishing a Native-controlledgovernment was high amongthose priorities set by NARF's all­Indian Steering Committee for theuse of NARF's limited legalresources. The borough conceptwas one of the few remainingoptions open to the Inupia t as theystruggled to keep their people andtheir culture alive followingcolonization. It was the firstmajor step towards a program ofself-determination in the morethan 100-year-old Inupiat­American relationship.

Once the establishment of theborough was reaffirmed by theSupreme Court and the fledglinggovernment was able to use partof its own revenues for legalcounsel, NARF's role wasreduced to providing onlyresearch and comments on thelitigation strategies used in theother suits filed by the oil com-

panies to limit the borough'~

taxing power. These suits,' 'ledout of court, were, of <. .. se,critical to the borough's ability toraise adequate revenues to ser­vice the 56.5 million acre area ..However, the borough govern­ment also had, unlike before, itsown financial resources whichenabled it to retain privatecounsel.

Each year since 1971 NARF hasfaced a steadily increasingdemand for its services. Inalloca ting NARF resources thestaff must follow the specificpolicy guidelines set by theSteering Committee, as well asdeal with the practical realities ofwhether or not a particularclient's problem can be solvedthrough legal remedies.

There are always difficultiesinvolved in raising the financialresources needed to operate a non­profit program. One promising newmethod, however, which NARF isexploring is court awarded at eyfees which reimburse the programfor resources expended in winningcases.

(Con tinued on page 471

THE NATIONAL INDIAN LAW LIBRARY

The National Indian Law Library(NU.L) is a project of the NativeAmerican Rights Fund. Established in1972 with a grant from the CarnegieCorporation of New York, its main purposeis to serve as a national clearinghouse forattorneys and scholars working in the areaof Indian law.

The recognition of the need for an Indianlaw library came from the practical ex­periences of NARF attorneys and otherspracticing Indian law. They found that thestandard commercial reporting systemsemployed indexing systems that failed toreflect major portions of this specializedlaw, and that therefore there was nomethod for keeping up-to-date in thisrapidly growing field. Many who wereworking on reservations and in rural In­dian Communities lacked law libraries orother resources. Finally, until NUL wasestablished, there was no center wherecurrent litigation in Indian law was beingcollected, assembled and made availableto attorneys.

Since May, 1972, NUL has beencollecting, cataloguing, and makingavailable materials on Indian litigationand other matters concerning Indian law.Its holdings include legal memoranda andopinions, law review articles, specialstudies and governmental documents. Inan effort to make NUL's holdings moreaccessible to tribes and attorneys, acomprehensive General Index to Indianlaw with more than 400 subject headingshas been prepared by NARF and all ofNILL's holdings are catalogued under thisindex. In addition, NILL materials arecatalogued by tribe, state, plaintiff­defendant, and author-title.

The NILL case files contain only themost important substantive pleadings andbriefs. Procedural motions and otherminor court documents are not includedunless they become a major issue in thecase. NILL makes every attempt tomaintain case files with all the importantdocuments filed in every court in which thecase has been litigated. However, greatreliance is placed on attorneys working inIndian law to contribute such documents tothe NILL collection and contributions arewelcomed.

Cases are shown with the essential dataas follows.

001234 NILLAcquisition NoWisconsin v. Gurnoe, Richard.Wise., Sup. Ct., Chippewa, 1970, d.1972"~' 1'1" I'State Court Tribe Dates

The line directly below the title gives thestate, court(S), tribe(s), and applicabledate(s). The courts are state courts unlessshown as federal or tribal courts or anadministrative agency. A date precededby the letter "d" indicates that the casehas been settled or decided. The date is thedate of the earliest document in the file.The letter "c" and a NILL number, e.g.,C.ool235, indicate a connected or con­solidated case.

Articles, studies, hearings and othermaterials begin with the title of theholding. Below the title is indicated thenature of the item and the publication,organization or institution involved. If theitem is an article, the volume and pagenumber are given. The third line is theauthor, if applicable, and the date of theitem. The last line indicates the number ofpages in the holding and where it may beobtained other than from NILL.

THE NILL CATALOGUE

In 1973, Volume 1of the NILL Cataloguewas published listing NILL acquisitionsfrom 001000 to 001700. Volume 2 waspublished in 1974, supplementing Volume1. Volume 2 includes acquisitions from001701 to 002300.

This Announcements supplement forNILL includes the next 100 acquisitionsindexed by subject which have beenacquired since the publication of Volume 2.Therefore, full and efficient use of theNILL collection requires the user to haveboth volumes of the Catalogue along withthis supplement.

Users interested in items not indexed inthe catalogues or supplement shouldrequest them anyway since new materialsare added to NILL's holdings daily; andthe NILL staff will make every effort toobtain or locate requested materials itdoes not have.

A cumulative Catalogue containing allNILL holdings is scheduled for publicationin the summer of 1975.

HOW TO ORDER NILL MATERIAL

Most of NILL's holdings are availabl€upon request. Requests for case materialshould be as specific as possible. Forexample, if one is interested only indocuments filed in the United State:;Supreme Court and not in the lower federalcourts, this should be stated in the requestThis will eliminate unnecessaryreproduction and mailing costs, and willenable the NILL staff to fill the orderquickly. Some materials however, cannotbe sent out because of copyright restric-·tions or because they are distributed byanother agency. Examples of suchmaterials are books, legal monographs,and unpublished law review articles. Insuch cases, information is given indicatingwhere the material may be obtained.

When ordering please indicate both thetitle of the holding and its acquisitionnumber. There is a $.10 per pagereproduction charge for NILL holdings.Costs are waived for Indian individuals,tribes, Indian organizations and Indianlegal services. Please address requests to:

National Indian Law LibraryNative American Rights Fund1506 BroadwayBoulder, Colorado 80302

303/447-8760

15

ornfI Lorgt Owl

ABORIGINAL TITLE

002379"Approaches to Settlement of Indian Title aaims: TheAlaskan ModeL"Article, University of British Colwnbia Law Review(Canada), 8:321.Lysyk, Kenneth, 1973.21 pgs.

ABORIGINAL TITLE:EXTINGUISHMENT

002358California v. Hickox, Delmar Ralph.Cal., Humboldt Coooty Ct., Karok, 1974.Indian asserts oboriginal right to hoot and fish offreservation free from state control.*

002378"The Indian Title Question in canada: An Appraisal inthe light of Calder."Article, Canadian Bar Review (canada), 51:450.Lysyk, Kenneth, 1973.30 pgs.

ABORIGINAL TITLE: RECOGNITION OF

002352Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States.Ind. a. Comm. Nos. 67, 124, Ct. a., Miami Tribe ofOklahoma, 1954, d. 1959, (C.002353).Indian tribe entitled to further proceedings concerningvalue assigned by Commission to ceded lands whichtribe had held by recognized title.Opinions,2Ind. Q.Comm.617 (1954): 4 Ind. Cl. Comm.346,408 (1956): 146 Ct. a. 421: 175 F.Supp. 926 (1959).

002378"The Indian Title Question in canada: An Appraisal inthe light of Calder."Article, Canadian Bar Review (canada), 51:450.Lysyk, Kenneth, 1973.30 pgs.

ABORIGINAL TITLE: USE ANDOCCUPANCY

002324Iowa Tribe of the Iowa Reservation in Kansas andNebrllSka v. United States.Sac and Fox Tribe v. United States.

* means additional material available.

16

Ind. Cl. Comm. No. 135, Ct. a., Iowa Tribe of the IowaReservation in Kansas and Nebraska, Sac and Fox,1958, d. 1971.Court of Qaims refuses to upset findings of fact byIndian Claims Commission and affirms decision thattribes failed to prove aboriginal title to claimed lands.Opinions, 6 Ind. a. Comm. 496 (1958): 12 Ind. a.Comm. 487 (1963),15 Ind a. Comm. 248 (1965); 179 Ct.a. 8, 23, 383 F.2d 991, 999: cert. denied, 389 U.S. 900(1967): 22 Ind. Q. Comm. 232 (1969): 195 Ct. a. 365(1971).

ADMINISTRATION OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

002311American Indian Law: A Bibliography of Books, LawReview Articles and Indian Periodicals.Compilation, University of New Mexico, School of Law.Sabatini, Joseph D., January, 1973.40 pgs.Available from:American Indian Law CenterUniversity of New MexicoSchool of LawAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87106

002320The New American State Papers: Indian Affairs.Books, Scholarly Resources, Inc.Cochran, Thomas C., editor, 1972.Vol. 1: General: Indian Land Cessions, 1790-1841.Vol. 2: General: Indian Land Cessions, 1842-1859.

Indian Health, Education, 1797,1826.Vol. 3: General: Indian Health, Education, 1828-1840.

Indian Trading, 1795-1825.Vol. 4: Northwest: 1789-1846.Vol. 5: Northwest: 1847-1860.Vol. 6: Southeast: 1789-1827.Vol. 7: Southeast: Indian Land Title DisPute With

Georgia, Index and pages 1-431.Vol. 8: Southeast: Indian Land Title Dispute With

Georgia, pages 432-3nd.Vol. 9: Southeast: 1828-1838.Vol. 10: Southeast: 1833-1843.Vol. 11: Southeast: 1843-1846.Vol. 12: Southeast: 1846-1858.

O1ickasaws, Choctaws, 1818-1839.Vol. 13: Southeast: Olickasaws, O1octaws, 1841-1846.

Plains Indians.Available from:Scholarly Resources, Inc.1508 Pennsylvania AvenueWilmington, Delaware 19806

0023311970 Census of Population: American Indians.U.S. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population 1970,Subject Reports, Final Report PC(2)-IF: AmericanIndians, 1973.216 pgs.Available from:U.S. Government Printing OfficeWashington, D.C. 20402

002332"Questions and Answers on Federal GovernmentIndian Affairs."Report, Bureau of Indian Affairs.Office of Management and Budget, June 5, 1974.96 pgs.

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW ANDPROCEDURE: ADMINISTRATIVEDISCRETION

002304Hopkins, Amos v. United States.Cal., 9th Cir., d. 1969.Allotment Act authorizes distribution of land amongIndians for agricultural use but that authorization doesnot create vested right to allotment or precludeexercise of discretion by Interior Secretary.Opinion, 414 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1969).

002316Redding, John v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, 1974.Non-Indian lessees attempt to stop strip mining in theirarea, stating RI.A. approval of tribe's mining contractwas in violation of the National Environmental PolicyAct.*

002338Lawrence, Edwin E. v. United States.CaL, 9th Cir., d. 1967.Contract made by Indian without Interior Secretary'sapproval to lease trust lands is declared null and void.Opinion, 381 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1967).

002339Leaf,Ike v. Udall, Stewart L.CaL, N.D. CaL, Pit River, d. 1964.Interior Secretary has discretion to disapprove at­torneys' contract with tribal members to representthem in clams matter.Opinion, 235 F.Supp. 366 (N.D. Cal. 1964).

* means additional material available.

_.-. '.

002364Northern Inyo Hospital v. Fair Employment PracticeCommission of the State of California.CaL, Ct. App., 1974.State Fair Employment Commission did not abuse itspower in finding that failure to rehire Indian employeeconstituted racial discrimination in employment.Opinion, unreported.

002396Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States.Ct. Cl., Navajo, d. 1966, (C.002395).Reimbursable appropriations to tribe by Congresswhich Interior Secretary had exclusive discretion toadjust or eliminate were not proper subject of counterclaim in suit by tribe against government.Opinion,177Ct. Cl. 365; 368F.2d 279 (1966).

002398Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. Walthill, Village of.Neb., D. Neb., 8th Cir., Omaha Tribe ofNebraska, 1971,d. 1972.Federal government empowered to acceptretrocession of less than all criminal jurisdiction overIndian country offered by state.Opinion, 334 F.Supp. 823 (D.Neb. 1971); aff'd, 460 F.2d1327 (8th Cir. 1972).

ALLOTMENTS: RIGHT TO

002304Hopkins, Amos v. United States.CaL, 9th Cir., d. 1969.Allotment Act authorizes distribution of land amongIndians for agricultural use but that authorization doesnot create vested right to allotment or precludeexercise of discretion by Interior Secretary.Opinion, 414 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1969).

002340Lewis, Gary Carson v. General Services Ad­ministration.CaL, 9th Cir., d. 1967.Indians not entitled to allotments on government landsacquired by eminent domain for military purposes andlater offered for sale to private persons.Opinion, 377 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1969).

002361Pallin, Irene Mitchell v. United States.CaL, 9th Cir., Yurok, 1974.Court may review evidence concerning Indian's rightto allotment but not Interior Secretary's classificationof land considered for allotment, and no allolrnent ispermissible where land is incapable of supportingIndian and his family.Opinion, 496 F.2d 27 (9th Cir. 1974).

17

Arctic Short Birds

ALLOTMENTS: SELECTION ANDAPPROVAL

002304Hopkins, Amos v. United States.Cal., 9th Cir., d. 1969.Allotment Act authorizes distribution of land amongIndians for agricultural use but that authorization doesnot create vested right to allotment or precludeexercise of discretion by Interior Secretary.Opinion, 414 F.2d 464 (9th Cir. 1969).

002340Lewis, Gary Carson v. General Services Ad­ministration.Cal., 9th Cir., d. 1967.Indians not entitled to allotments on government landsacquired by eminent domain for military purposes andlater offered for sale to private persons.Opinion, 377 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1967).

ATTORNEYS: CONTRACTS, FEDERALAPPROVAL

002339Leaf, Ike v. Udall, Stewart L.Cal., N.D. Cal., Pit River, d. 1964.Interior Secretary has discretion to disapprove at­torneys' contract with tribal members to representthem in claims matter.Opinion, 235 F.Supp. 366 (N.D. Cal. 1964).

ATTORNEYS: U.S. ATTORNEY TOREPRESENT INDIANS

002341Lyngstad, Leonard v. Roy, Anna.N.D., Sup. Ct., Chippewa, d. 1961.Off-reservation land purchased by Indian withproceeds from sale of crops raised on trust land is notexempt from state taxes.Opinion, 111 N.W.2d 699 (N.D. 1961).

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS

002320The New American State Papers: Indian Affairs.Books, Scholarly Resources, Inc.Cochran, Thomas C., editor, 1972.For volume titles, see Administration of Indian Af­fairs, number 002320.

* means additional material available.

18

Available from:Scholarly Resources, Inc.1508 Pennsylvania AvenueWilmington, Delaware 19806

BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS:SERVICES, ENTITLEMENT ANDELIGIBILITY

002312Dun~n, Ambrose, Jr. v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Cal., N.D.Cal., Pomo, Covelo, 1974, (C.002197).Indians allege that tennination of their reservationviolated due process standards which resulted in lossof valuable federal services.*

CAPACITY TO SUE

002316Redding, John v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, 1974.Non-Indian lessees attempt to stop strip mining in theirarea, stating B.LA. approval of tribe's mining contractwas in violation of the National Environmental PolicyAct.*

CAPACITY TO SUE: INDISPENSABLEPARTY

002400Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Udall, Stewart.Wash., D.C., D.D.C., Three Affiliated Tribes of FortBerthold, d. 1961.Interior Secretary prohibited from imposing an ar­bitrary compensatory royalty on lessee of mineralrights in favor of allottee who owned adjacentproducing well.Opinion, 192 F.Supp. 626 (D.D.C. 1961).

CAPACITY TO SUE: INDIVIDUALINDIANS; TREATY RIGHTS

002333Kansas City, Kansas, City of v. United States.Kan., D. Kan., U.S. Sup. Ct., Wyandotte, 1960, d. 1961.Individual Indian has no standing to challenge statuteabrogating treaty provision which had set aside tractof land to be used as cemetery.Opinion, 192 F.Supp.179 (D. Kan.1960); aff'd, 365 U.S.568 (1961).

CAPACITY TO SUE: INTERVENTION

002356Mole Lake Band v. United States.Ct. Cl., O1ippewa, d. 1956.Where reservation included lands which previouslyhad been granted to state, govermnent remainedobligated to Indians to secure to them the enjoymentand proceeds from those lands.Opinion, 134 Ct. Cl. 478; 139 F.Supp. 938 (1956); cert.denied, 352 U.S. 892 (1956).

CITIZENSHIP: INDIANS AS CITIZENS

002362United States v. Rosebear, Robert Gene.Minn., D. Minn., 8th Cir., Olippewa, 1973, d. 1974,(CJI02554).Indians are citizens within tenns of Selective ServiceAct and thus are subject to being drafted into the ar­med forces.* Opinions, 353 F.Supp. 121 (D. Minn. 1973); 500 F.2d1102 (8th Cir. 1974).

CIVIL JURISDICTION: CIVIL ACTIONSARISING IN INDIAN COUNTRY

002336Kaine, Ruben v. Wilson, Frank.S.D., Sup. Ct., Oglala Sioux, d. 1968.State court has no jurisdiction over civil actionbrought by non-Indian against tribal Indian forwrongful use and possession of fee land located inIndian country.Opinion, 83 S.D. 477, 161N.W.2d 704 (S.D. 1968).

002392Morgan, Adrian v. Colorado River Indian Tribe.Ariz., Ct. App., Sup. Ct., Colorado River Indian Tribe,d. 1968.Tribe's sovereign immunity protects it from suit instate court for wrongful death which occurred attribally owned enterprise.Opinion, 7 Ariz. App. 92, 436 P.2d 484 (Ariz. App. 1968);vacated, 103 Ariz. 425, 443 P.2d 421 (Ariz. 1968).

* means additional material available.

CIVIL JURISDICTION: CONSENT TOAPPLICATION OF STATE LAWS

002375Hunt, Emmett v. O'Cheskey, Fred L.N.M., Ct. App., Sup. Ct., Laguna, d. 1973.State may not tax gross receipts on income of Indiansresiding on reservation when income and grossreceipts are derived solely from on-i"eservation ac­tivities.Opinion, 85 N.M. 381,512 P.2d 954 (N.M. App. 1973);cert. quashed, 85 N.M. 388, 512 P.2d 961 (N.M. 1973)..

002392Morgan, Adrian v. Colorado River Indian Tribe.Ariz., Ct. App., Sup. Ct., Colorado River Indian Tribe,d. 1968.Tribe's sovereign immunity protects it from suit instate court for wrongful death which occurred attribally owned enterprise.Opinion, 7 Ariz. App. 92, 436 P.2d 484 (Ariz. App.1968);vacated, 103 Ariz. 425, 443 P.2d 421 (Ariz. 1968).

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

002306Alexis, Karen and Patricia, In re the WeHare of.wilsh., Super. Ct., Suquamish, 1973.Indians assert that tribal court has jurisdiction overstate custody proceeding in which non-Indian fosterparents seek to adopt Indian children.*

CIVIL JURISDICTION: INDIANCOUNTRY

002336Kain, Ruben v. Wilson, Frank.S.D., Sup. Ct., Oglala Sioux, d. 1968.State court has no jurisdiction over civil action broughtby non-Indian against tribal Indian for wrongful useand possession of fee land located in Indian country.Opinion, 83 S.D. 477,161 N.W.2d 704 (S.D. 1968).

CIVIL JURISDICTION: LICENSING,BUSINESSES

002326Industrial Uranium Co. v. State Tax Commission.Ariz., Sup. Ct., Navajo, d. 1963.State may levy privilege tax on mining operation onreservation because such taxation does not interfere

19

Man Trying /0 CalCh a GooS(

with tribal self-government or rights protected bytreaty or federal statute.Opinion, 95 Ariz. 130, 387P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1963).

CIVIL JURISDICTION: LOCAL LAWSAND ORDINANCES

002307Madrigal, Lela v. Riverside, County of.Cal., 9th Or., Cahuilla, 1974, (C.ooi209, 001002).Suit to enjoin enforcement of COtmty building, zoningand outdoor festival ordinances claimed not to beapplicable on Indian trust land.Opinion, 495 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1974).

CIVIL JURISDICTION: RULES OFCIVIL PROCEDURE

002346Martinez, Mary v. Seaton, Fred.Colo., loth Or., Southern Ute, d. 1961.Indian, who sought declaration of her tribal rights,could not validly acquire jtnisdiction in District ofColorado over Interior Secretary by serving him as hetraveled in the state.Opinion, 285 F.2d 587 (10th Cir. 1961).

002359Aguchak, Luther R. v. Montgomery Ward Co., Inc.Alas., Sup. Ct., Alaskan Natives, 1974.Fonn of summons served upon indigent bush residentsso inadequately notified them of their rights andobligations in small claims proceedings that they weredenied due process of law.·Opinion, 520 P.2d 1352 (Alas. 1974).

CIVIL RIGHTS

002369Frazier, Mary K. v. Morton, Rogers C.B.S.D., D.S.D., 1974.Non-Indian Bureau of Indian Affairs employeechallenges Indian preference employment policy.•002387United States v. Bushyhead, Henry.Okla., W.O. Okla.• 1974.Indians contend that federal statutes and regulationsprohibiting use of birds protected by internationaltreaty cannot be applied to their use for religious andcultural purposes.•• means additional material available.

20

CIVIL RIGHTS: EQUAL PROTECTION

002305Wisconsin v. Diamond, Roger.Wise., W.O. Wise., Lac Courte Oreilles Band ofO1ippewa, 1974.Indian seeks removal to federal court of state criminalproceeding against him for fishing in violation of stateregulations.•002323Teterud, Jerry V. Gillman, James.Iowa, S.D. Iowa, free, 1973.Class action brought under the First and Fourteenthamendments by Indian imnate claiming a con­stitutional right to wear hair longer than prisonregulations allow.•002368Wachacha, Mose v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians,Inc.N.C., W.D.N.C., Eastern Band of Cherokee, 1974.Indians seek reapportionment of representation ontribal council and contend that two duly elected of­ficials are being denied their seats on council.•

CIVIL RIGHTS: PRISONERS' RIGHTS

002323Teterud, Jerry v. Gillman, James.Iowa, S.D. Iowa, free, 1973.Class action brought under the First and Fourteenthamendments by Indian inmate claiming a con­stitutional right to wear hair longer than prisonregulations allow.•

CIVIL RIGHTS: STATE ACTION

002364Northern Inyo Hospital v. Fair Employment PracticeCommission of the State of California•Cal., Ct. App., 1974.State Fair Employment Commission did not abuse itspower in finding that failure to rehire Indian employeeconstituted racial discrimination in employment.Opinion, unreported.

002394Native American Church of Navajoland, Inc. v.Arizona Corporation Commission.Ariz., D. Ariz., U.S. Sup. Ct., Navajo, 1971, d.1972.Federal court refuses to declare unconstitutional a

---\

J. criminal statute barring peyote use in suit challengingdenial of certificate of incorporation to Indian religiousorganization.Opinions, 329F.Supp. 907 (D. Ariz. 1971); aft'd, 405 U.S.901, 30 L.Ed.2d 775, 92 S.Ct. 934 (1972).

CIVIL RIGHTS: TRIBAL ACTION

002342Loncassion, Lorraine v. Leekity, Willis.N.M., D.N.M., Zuni, d. 1971.Federal court has jurisdiction under Indian CivilRights ~~ct to detennine Indian's damage claimagainst poi1~e officer and tribe.Opinion, 334 ?Supp. 370 (D.N.M. 1971).

002368Wacbacha, Mose v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians,Inc.N.C., W.D.N.C., Eastern Band of Cherokee, 1974.Indians seek reapportiorunent of representation ontribal council and contend that two duly elected of­ficials are being denied their seats on council.•

CLAIMS AGAINST UNITED STATES

002379"Approaches to Settlement of Indian Title Claims: TheAlaskan Model."Article, University of British Columbia Law Review(Canada), 8:321.Lysyk, Kenneth, 1973.21 pgs.

002396Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States.Ct. Cl., Navajo, d. 1966, (C.002395).Reimbursable appropriations to tribe by Congresswhich Interior Secretary bad exclusive discretion toadjust or eliminate were not proper subject of counterclaim in suit by tribe against government.Opinion, 177 Ct. Cl. 365,368 F.2d 279 (1966).

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

002395Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States.Ct. Cl., Navajo, d. 1966, (C.OO2396).Terms of lease negotiated by government on tribe'sbehalf implicitly included heliwn deposits for whichtribe is entitled to additional compensation.Opinion, 176 Ct. Cl. 502, 364 F.2d 320 (1966).

• means additional material available.

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

002345Maryland Casualty Co. v. CiUzens National Bank ofWest Hollywood.Fla., 5th Cir., Seminole Tribe of Florida, d. 1966.Indian tribe's revolving credit fWld is immWle fromgarnishment to satisfy money judgement obtained byconstruction company against tribe.Opinion, 361 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1966).

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

002326Industrial Uranium Co. v. State Tax Commission.Ariz., Sup. Ct., Navajo, d. 1963.State may levy privilege tax on mining operation onreservation because such taxation does not interferewith tribal self-government or rights protected bytreaty or federal statute.Opinion, 95 Ariz. 130, 387 P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1963).

002397Navajo Tribe v. National Labor Relations Board.Wash., D.C., D.C. Cir., Navajo, d. 1961.National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction tohold union representation election in mining plantlocated on reservation although tribal governmentobjected to it.Opinion,288 F.2d 162 (D.C.Cir. 1961); cert. denied, 366U.S. 928 (1961).

CONSTITUTION, UNITED STATES: AS ASOURCE OF FEDERAL AUmORITYOVER INDIAN AFFAIRS; SUPREMACYCLAUSE

002329Humboldt, County of v. Swoap, David B.caL, Super. Ct., 1973.Students challenge county welfare department's in­clusion of their federal education grant as availableincome to reduce their welfare benefits.• Opinion, unreported.

21

I Saw a Strangt Bird

, Hilex••

COURT OF CLAIMS: APPEALS FROMINDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION

002324Iowa Tribe of the Iowa Reservation in Kansas andNebraska v. United States.Sac and Fox Tribe v. United States.Ind. Cl. Corron. No. 135, Ct. Cl., Iowa Tribe of the IowaReservation in Kansas and Nebraska, Sac and Fox,1958, d. 1971.Court of Claims refuses to upset findings of fact byIndian Claims Cormnission and affinns decision thattribes failed to prove aboriginal title to claimed lands.Opinions, 6 Ind. Cl. Corron. 496 (1958); 12 Ind. Cl.Corron. 487 (1963), 15 Ind. Cl. Corron. 248 (1965); 179 Ct.Cl. 8, 23, 383 F.2d 991, 999; cert. denied, 389 U.S. 900(1967); 22 Ind. Cl. Corron. 232 (1969); 195 Ct. Cl. 365(1971).

002353Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United states.Ind. Cl. Corron. Nos. 251, 124-A, Ct. Cl., Miami Tribe ofIndiana, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, 1958, d. 1960,(C.OO2352).Tribe awarded additional compensation for landcession and for annuity payments which were com­muted without tribe's consent.Opinions, 6 Ind. Cl. Corom. 513, 552 (1958); 150 Ct. Cl.725, 281 F.2d 202 (1960); cert. denied, 366 U.S. 924(1961).

CREDIT AND LOANS: TOINDIVIDUALS

002359Aguchak, Luther R. v. Montgomery Ward Co., Inc.Alas., Sup. Ct., Alaskan Natives, 1974.Fonn of SUIIUIlons served upon indigent bush residentsso inadequately notified them of their rights andobligations in small claims proceedings that they weredenied due process of law.• Opinion, 502 P.2d 1352 (Alas. 1974).

002370Ben, Irene Mark v. General Motors Acceptance Cor­poration.Colo., D. Colo., Navajo, 1974.Federal court has jurisdiction to hear civil rights claimthat insurance company charges high risk rates toIndian automobile purchasers without regard to anycriterion but race.Opinion, 374 F.Supp. 1199 (D. Colo. 1974).

• means additional material available.

22

CREDIT AND LOANS: TO TRIBES

002345Maryland Casualty Co. v. Citizens National Bank ofWest Hollywood.Fla., 5th Cir., Seminole Tribe of Florida, d.l966.Indian tribe's revolving credit fund is immune fromgarnishment to satisfy money judgement obtained byconstruction company against tribe.Opinion, 361 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1966).

002374Hydaburg Cooperative Association v. Morton, RogersC.B.Alas., D. Alas., Alaska Natives, 1974.Alaska village challenges modification of federalcontract resulting in discontinuance of governmentsponsored cannery operation upon which villageeconomy depends.•002396Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States.Ct. Cl., Navajo, d. 1966, (C.002395).Reimbursable appropriations to tribe by Congresswhich Interior Secretary had exclusive discretion toadjust or eliminate were not proper subject of counterclaim in suit by tribe against government.Opinion, 177 Ct. Cl. 365, 368 F.2d 279 (1966).

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: CONSENTTO APPLICATION OF STATE LAWS

002343McCoy, Frank, In reoN.C., E.D.N.C., Eastern Cherokee, d. 1964.state acquired criminal jurisdiction over Indian bandand its lands when band refused to accompany tribe tonew reservation which had been established by federaltreaty.Opinion, 233 F.Supp. 409 (E.D.N.C. 1964).

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

002366New York v. Redeye, James Winston.N.Y., Cattaraugus County Ct., Seneca, 1974.Indians seek to prevent application of state huntingregulations on reservation.• Opinion, unreported. I

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

002305Wisconsin v. Diamond, Roger.Wisc., W.O. Wise., Lac Courte Oreilles Band ofO1ippewa, 1974.Indian seeks removal to federal court of state criminalproceeding against him for fishing in violation of stateregulations.•

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: INDIANCOUNTRY

002302Howard, Dallas, In re Petition of.Mont., Sup. Ct., d. 1970.Habeas corpus relief denied to Indian arrested onreservation by county sheriff deputized by RI.A. forviolations of parole imposed after conviction in statecourt.Opinion, 466 P.2d 82 (Mont. 1970).

002328Cook, Donald v. South Dakota.S.D., Sup. Ct., Concow, Redwood, 1973, d. 1974.Indian need not be member of tribe on whose reser­vation he allegedly committed crime to be exemptfrom state jurisdiction; however, state has jurisdictionover all persons on diminished portion of reservationopened to non-Indian settlement.• Opinion, 215 N.W.2d 832 (S.D. 1974).

002337Lafferty, Henry v. South Dakota.S.D., Sup. Ct., O1eyenne River Sioux, d. 1963.State has criminal jurisdiction over that portion ofreservation which was opened to non-Indian settlementby federal statute.Opinion, 125 N.W.2d 171 (S.D. 1963).

002343McCoy, Frank, In reoN.C., E.D.N.C., Eastern Cherokee, d. 1964.State acquired criminal jurisdiction over Indian bandand its lands when band refused to accompany tribe tonew reservation which had been established by federaltreaty.Opinion, 233 F.Supp. 409 (E.D.N.C. 1964).

• means additional material available.

002357Monroe, Alice, Application of.Wash., Sup. Ct., ffiackfeet, d. 1959.Indian who is accessory to grand larceny committed onreservation is subject to exclusive federal criminaljurisdiction.Opinion,346 P.2d 667 (Wash. 1959).

002376Wyoming v. Moss, John Pius.Wyo., Dist. Ct., Sup. Ct., Arapahoe, 1969, d. 1970.Lands formerly within reservation which were cededto government are no longer Indian country for pur­pose of criminal jurisdiction.• Opinion, 471 P.2d 333 (Wyo. 1970).

002398Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. Walthill, Village of.Neb., D. Neb., 8th Cir., Omaha Tribe of Nebraska 1971d. 1972. ' ,Federal . government empowered to acceptretrocession of less than all criminal jurisdiction overIndian country offered by state.Opinion, 334 F.Supp. 823 (D.Neb. 1971); aff'd, 460 F.2d1327 (8th Cir. 1972).

CRIMINAL JURISDICTION: TENMAJOR CRIMES ACT (18 U.S.C. S1153)

002335Kills Crow, Arnold v. United States.S.D., 8th Cir., d. 1971.Indian indicted under Major Crimes Act is not entitledto jury instruction on lesser included offense of simpleassault.Opinion, 451 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1971).

002355Mull, Charles v. United States.Ariz., 9th Cir., U.S. Sup. Ct., San Carlos Apache, 1968,d. 1969.Court finds that Major Crimes Act does not un­constitutionally discriminate on basis of race andrefuses to permit consideration of defense to crimebased on Apache culture.Opinion, 402 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1968); cert. denied, 393U.S. 110 (1969).

002357Monroe, Alice, Application of.Wash., Sup. Ct., Blackfeet, d. 1959.Indian who is accessory to grand larceny committed onreservation is subject to exclusive federal criminaljurisdiction.Opinion, 346 P.2d 667 (Wash. 1959).

23

~II TIl( bird witltin

CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS, AND CULTURE

002308Goodman, Irene, In reoUtah, Dist. Juv. Ct., Navajo, 1971.State court refuses to tenninate parental rights ofNavajo Indian.*Opinion, unreported.

002311American Indian Law: A Bibllography of Books, LawReview Articles and Indian Periodicals.Compilation, University of New Mexico, School of Law.Sabatini, Joseph D., January, 1973.40 pgs.Available from:American Indian Law CenterUniversity of New MexicoSchool of LawAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87106

002355Mull, Charles v. United States.Ariz., 9th Cir.•U.S. Sup. Ct., San Carlos Apache, 1968,d. 1969.Court finds that Major Crimes Act does not un­constitutionally discriminate on basis of race andrefuses to permit consideration of defense to crimebased on Apache culture.Opinion, 402 F.2d 571 (9th Cir. 1968),cert. denied, 393U.S. 1107 (1969).

002362United States v. Rosebear, Robert Gene.Minn., D. Minn., 8th Cir., Chjppewa, 1973, d. 1974,(C.002554).Indians are citizens within terms of Selective ServiceAct and thus are subject to being drafted into the ar­med forces.* Opinions, 353 F.Supp. 121 (D.Minn. 1973), 500 F.2d1102 (8th Cir. 1974).

CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS AND CULTURE:DEFAMATION OF

002313United States v. Diaz, Ben.Ariz., D. Ariz., 9th Cir., San Carlos Apache, 1973.Trader challenges application of federal antiquitystatute to five-year-old Indian artifacts which he isaccused to taking from a reservation.*

* means additional material available.

24

002318Indian Arts and Crafts, In the Matter of.James L. Houston Co., In the Matter of.Krupp, Herman d.b.a. Oceanic Trading Co., In theMatter of.Lange Heinz d.b.a. Northwest Arts and Crafts, In theMatter of.Leonard F. Porter, Inc., In the Matter of.Western Novelty Co., In the Matter of.Federal Trade Commission, Alaska Natives, 1974.Federal Trade Commission sues marketers of arts andcrafts for misrepresenting that their products arehand-made by Alaska Natives.*

CUSTOMS, TRADITIONS, AND CULTURE:RELIGION

002323Teterud, Jerry v. Gillman, James.Iowa, S.D. Iowa, Cree, 1973.Class action brought under the First and Fourteenthamendments by Indian inmate claiming a con­stitutional right to wear hair longer than prisonregulations allow.*

002387United States v. Bushyhead, Henry.Okla., W.D. Okla., 1974.Indians contend that federal statutes and regulationsprohibiting use of birds protected by internationaltreaty cannot be applied to their use for religious andcultural purposes.*002394Native American Church of Navajoland, Inc., v.Arizona Corporation Commission.Ariz., D. Ariz., U.S. Sup. Ct., Navajo,1971, d. 1972.Federal court refuses to declare unconstitutional acriminal statute barring peyote use in suit challengingdenial of certificate of incorporation to Indian religiousorganization.Opinion,329 F.Supp. 907 (D. Ariz. 1971); aff'd, 405 U.S.901,30 L.Ed.2d 775, 92 S.Ct. 934 (1972).

DOMESTIC RELATIONS: CUSTODY

002319Wakefield, M. Brent v. Uttle Ught, Gail.Md., Cir. Ct., Crow, 1973.Non-Indian couple seeks permanent custody of Indianchild.*

DOMESTIC RELATIONS: DIVORCE

002327Conroy, Evelyn Sybil v. Conroy, Gerry.S.D., D.S.D., Oglala Sioux, 1972, d. 1973.Federal court has no jurisdiction in suit seekingdeclaration Ulat wife is entitled to one-half interest inall trust lands acquired by her husband during Uleirmarriage.• Opinion, 369 F.Supp. 179 (D.S.D., 1973).

DUE PROCESS

002312DlDlcan, Ambrose, Jr. v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Cal., N.D.Cal., Porno, Covelo, 1974, (C.00219'7).Indians allege that termination of their reservationviolated due process standards which resulted in lossof valuable federal services.•002335Kills Crow, Arnold v. United States.S.D., 8th eir., d. 1971.Indian indicted under Major Crimes Act is not entitledto jury instruction on lesser included offense of simpleassault.Opinion, 451 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1971).

002355Mull, Charles v. United States.Ariz., 9th Cir., U.S. Sup. Ct., San Carlos Apache, 1968,d. 1969.Court finds that Major Crimes Act does not un­constitutionally discriminate on basis of race andrefuses to permit consideration of defense to crimebased on Apache culture.Opinion, 402 F.2d 571 (1968); cert. denied, 393 U.S. 110(1969).

002359Aguchak, Luther R. v. Montgomery Ward Co., Inc.Alas., Sup. Ct., Alaskan Natives, 1974.Form of summons served upon indigent bush residentsso inadequately notified them on their rights andobligations in small claims proceedings Ulat Uley weredenied due process of law.• Opinion, 502 P.2d 1352 (Alas. 1974).

002384Daniels, Cynthia v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Cal., N.D. Cal., California Indians, 1974.Indians seek to enjoin interference wiUl water serviceto Uleir property located on rancheria.•

• means additional material available.

DUE PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEEDINGS; PROBATE HEARINGS

002372Bigheart, Velma Rose v. Pappan, John.

Okla., 10th eir., U.S. Sup. Ct., 1973, 1974.Federal statute restricting inheritance of trustproperty to Ulose of Indian blood is not unconstitutionaland supercedes state law entitling spouse to share inestate regardless of provisions in will.• Opinion, 482 F.2d 1066 (10th eir. 1973); cert. denied,_U.S._, 40 L.Ed.2d 288 (1974).

DUE PROCESS: ADMINISTRATIVEPROCEEDINGS; RULE MAKING

002387United States v. Bushyhead, Henry.Okla., W.O. Okla., 1974.Indians contend that federal statutes and regulationsprohibiting use of birds protected by internationaltreaty cannot be applied to their use for religious andcultural purposes.•

EDUCATION

002310"On Teaching Indian History: Legal Jurisdiction inChippewa Treaties."Article, Ethnohistory, 19:209.Keller, Robert H., Jr., Summer 1972.10 pgs.

002311American Indian Law: A Bibliography of Books, LawReview Articles and Indian Periodicals.Compilation, University ofNew Mexico, School of Law.Sabatini, Joseph D., January, 1973.40 pgs.Available from:American Indian Law CenterUniversity of New MexicoSchool of LawAlbuquerque, New Mexico 87106

002329Humboldt, ColDlty of v. Swoap, David B.Cal., Super. Ct., 1973.Students challenge county welfare department's in­clusion of Uleir federal education grant as availableincome to reduce their welfare benefits.• Opinion, unreported.

25

Owl with Young

002332"Questions and Answers on Federal GovernmentIndian Affairs."Report, Bureau of Indian Affairs.Office of Management and Budget, June 5, 1974.96 pgs.

002380First Annual Report to the Congress of the UnitedStates From the National Advisory Counell on IndianEducation.Report.National Advisory Council on Indian Education,March, 1974.Volume I, 60 pgs., Volume II, 579 pgs.Available from:National Advisory Council on Indian EducationPennsylvania Building, Suite 326425 13th Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20004

EMINENT DOMAIN: ALLOTMENTS

002399Nicodemus, Julia v. Washington Water Power Com­pany.Idaho, 9th Cir., Coeur d'Alene, d. 1959.Federal statute permits establishment of public utilityeasement across allotment without InteriorSecretary's approval by eminent domain proceeding infederal court.Opinion 264 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1959).

EMINENT DOMAIN: FEDERALPOWERS

002353Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States.Ind. Cl. Corom. Nos. 251, 124-A, Ct. Cl., Miami Tribe ofIndiana, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, 1958, d. 1960,(C.00(352).Tribe awarded additional compensation for landcession and for annuity payments which were com­muted without tribe's consent.Opinions, 6 Ind. Cl. Corom. 513, 552 (1958); 150 Ct. Cl.725, 281 F.2d 202 (1960); cert. denied, 366 U.S. 924(1961).

* means additional material available.

26

EMINENT DOMAIN: STATE POWERS

002363Seneca Nation of Indians v. New York.N.Y., W.D.N.Y., Seneca, 1974.Tribe contends that New York laws cannot be used toappropriate tribal lands for highway purposes.*

002399Nicodemus, Julia v. Washington Water Power Com­pany.Idaho, 9th Cir., Coeur d'Alene, d. 1959.Federal statute pennits establishment of public utilityeasement across allotment without InteriorSecretary's approval by eminent domain proceeding infederal court.Opinion, 264 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1959).

EMINENT DOMAIN: TRIBAL LAND

002363Seneca Nation of Indians v. New York.N.Y., W.D.N.Y., Seneca, 1974.Tribe contends that New York laws cannot be used toappropriate tribal lands for highway purposes.*

EMPLOYMENT

002332"Questions and Answers on Federal GovernmentIndian Affairs."Report, Bureau of Indian Affairs.Office of Management and Budget, June 5, 1974.96 pgs.

EMPLOYMENT: B.LA. PREFERENCEFOR INDIANS

002369Frazier, Mary K. v. Morton, Rogers C.B.S.D., D.S.D., 1974.Non-Indian Bureau of Indian Affairs employeechallenges Indian preference employment policy.*

EMPLOYMENT: DISCRIMINATION BYEMPLOYERS

002364Northern Inyo Hospital v. Fair Employment PracticeCommission of the State of California.Cat, Ct. App., 1974.State Fair Employment Commission did not abuse itspower in finding that failure to rehire Indian employeeconstituted racial discrimination in employment.Opinion, unreported.

ENROLLMENT: QUALIFICATIONS

002389Helm, Myrtle Sandaine v. Nicholson, Narcisse, Jr.Wash., E.D. Wash., Colville, d. 1971.Federal court assertedly has no jurisdiction over suitby Indian against United States in which she seeksreinstatement as tribal member.

oj<

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION:NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTALPOLICY ACT

002314Report of Environmental Factors by the Departmentof the Interior and the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual,Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians Submittedin Support of Interior's Recapture Recommendationand the Indian Bands' Application for a Non-PowerUcense.Report to the Federal Power Commission.secretary of the Interior, La Jolla, Rincon, SanPasqual, Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians,1974, (C.OOl261).289 pgs.

002316Redding, John v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, 1974.Non-Indian lessees attempt to stop strip mining in theirarea, stating B.I.A. approval of tribe's mining contractwas in violation of the National Environmental PolicyAct.•

* 'means additional material available.

ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION:TRIBAL POWERS

002316Redding, John v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Mont., b. Mont., Crow, 1974.Non-Indian lessees attempt to stop strip mining in theirarea, stating B.I.A. approval of tribe's mining contractwas in violation of the National Environmental PolicyAct.*

FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER INDIANAFFAIRS

002320The New American State Papers: Indian Affairs.Books, Scholarly Resources, Inc.Cochran, Thomas C., editor, 1972.For volume titles, see Administration of Indian M­fairs, number 002320.Available from:Scholarly Resources, Inc.1508 Pennsylvania AvenueWilmington, Delaware 19806

002398Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. Walthill, Village of.Neb., D.Neb., 8th Cir., Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, 1971,d. 1972.Federal government empowered to acceptretrocession of less than all criminal jurisdiction overIndian country offered by state.Opinion, 334 F.Supp. 823 (D.Neb. 1971); aff'd, 460 F.2d1327 (8th Cir. 1972).

FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER INDIANAFFAIRS: CONTRACTS

002374Hydaburg Cooperative Association v. Morlon, RogersC.B.Alas., D. Alas., Alaska Natives, 1974.Alaska village ellallenges modification of federalcontract resulting in discontinuance of governmentsponsored cannery operation upon which villageeconomy depends.*

27

II, 1

Bird with a Fish

FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER INDIANAFFAIRS: FUNDS; INDIVIDUAL

002386Boures, Juanita v. Morris, Charles R.Wash., SUper. ct., Alaska Natives, 1974.Suit claiming that income from Alaska Native ClaimsSettlement Act should not be considered availableresource in determining welfare eligibility.•

FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER INDIANAFFAIRS: FUNDS; TRIBAL

002345Maryland Casualty Co. v. Citizens National Bank ofWest Hollywood.F1a., 5th Cir., SeminoleTribe of Florida, d. 1966.Indian tribe's revolving credit fund is immune fromgarnishment to satisfy money judgement obtained byconstruction company against tribe.Opinion, 361 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1966).

FEDERAL AUTHORITY OVER INDIANAFFAIRS: LICENSING ANDREGULATION

002307Madrlgal, Lela v. Riverside, County of.Cal., 9th Cir., Cahuilla, 1974, (C.001209, 001002).Suit to enjoin enforcement of county building, zoningand outdoor festival ordinances claimed not to beapplicable on Indian trust land.Opinion, 495 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1974).

FEDERAL BENEFITS, ENTITLEMENTTO

002322Decoteau, John W. v. Tangdahl, T.N.N.D., D.N.D., Turtle Mountain Chippewa, Sisseton­Wahpeton Sioux, Devils Lake Sioux, 1974.Tribes and individual Indians seek to compel im­plementation of Food Stamp Program on reservationsin North Dakota.•

002329Hmnboldt, County of v. Swoop, David B.Cal., Super. Ct., 1973.Students challenge county welfare department's in­clusion of their federal education grant as availableincome to reduce their welfare benefits.• Opinion, unreported.

• means additional material available.

28

FEDERAL BENEFITS, ENTITLEMENTTO: WELFARE

002332"Questions and Answers on Federal GovernmentIndian Affairs."Report, Bureau of Indian Affairs.Office of Management and Budget, June 5, 1974.96 pgs.

FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION

002314Report of Environmental Factors by the Departmentof the Interior and the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual,Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians Submittedin Support of Interior's Recapture Recommendationand the Indian Bands' Application for a Non-Powerlicense.Report to the Federal Power Commission.Secretary of the Interior, La Jolla, Rincon, SanPasqual, Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians,1974, (C.001261).289 pgs.

002382Otoe-Missourla Tribe of Indians v. Oklahoma Gas &Electric Co.F.P.C., Otoe-Missourla, 1974.Indians assert that Federal Power Commission shouldexert licensing jurisdiction over power plant which willuse surplus water from government dam.•

FUNDS

002332"Questions and Answers on Federal GovernmentIndian Affairs."Report, Bureau of Indian Affairs.Office of Management and Budget, June 5, 1974.96 pgs.

002377"Charitable Donations Under the Alaska NativeClaims Settlement Act."Article, UCLA-Alaska Law Review, 3:148.Goodman. Richard, 1973.21 pgs.

HEALTH AND SAFETY: HEALTHSERVICES

002332"Questions and Answers on Federal GovernmentIndian Affairs."

Report, Bureau of Indian Affairs.Office of Management and Budget, June 5, 1974.96 pgs.

HEALTH AND SAFETY: WATER ANDSANITATION

002384Daniels, Cynthia v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Cal., N.D. Cal., California Indians, 1974.Indians seek to enjoin interference with water serviceto their property located on racheria.*

HOUSING: FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

002332"Questions and Answers on Federal GovernmentIndian Affairs."Report, Bureau of Indian Affairs.Office of Management and Budget, June 5, 1974.96 pgs.

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS: ABORIGINAL

002358California v. Hickox, Delmar Ralph.Cal., Humboldt County Ct., Karok, 1974.Indian asserts aboriginal right to hunt and fish offreservation free from state control.*

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS: OFF·RESERVATION

002358California v. Hickox, Delmar Ralph.CaL, Humboldt County Ct., Karok, 1974.Indian asserts aboriginal right to hunt and fish offreservation free from state control.*002390"Does the Peace Treaty Between the United States ofAmerica and the Crow Tribe of 1851 Take PrecedenceOver Wyoming Game and Fish Laws When Applied toRegistered Members of the Crow Tribe in the State ofWyoming."Opinion, Deputy County and Prosecuting Attorney,

• means additional material available.

Sheridan County, Wyoming.Rasmussen, H.W., February 26, 1973.6 pgs.

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS: RESERVATION

002366New York v. Redeye, James Winston.N.Y., Cattaraugus County Ct., Seneca, 1974.Indians seek to prevent application of state huntingregulations on reservation.• Opinion, unreported.

002385Johnson, Henry v. Arnett, G. Raymond.Cal., Super. Ct., Yurok, 1974.Indians seek injunction against state interference withfishing rights on reservation.*

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS: STATE CONTROL

002305Wisconsin v. Diamond, Roger.Wise., W.D. Wise., Lac Courte Oreilles Band ofChippewa, 1974.Indian seeks removal to federal court of state criminalproceeding against him for fishing in violation of stateregulations.•002358California v. Hickox, Delmar Ralph.CaL, Humboldt County Ct., Karok, 1974.Indian asserts aboriginal right to hunt and fish offreservation free from state control.*002366New York v. Redeye, James Winston.N.Y., Cattaraugus County Ct., Seneca, 1974.Indians seek to prevent application of state huntingregulations on reservation.*Opinion, unreported.

002385Johnson, Henry v. Arnett, G. Raymond.Cal., Super. Ct., Yurok, 1974.Indians seek injunction against state interference withfishing rights on reservation.•

002390"Does the Peace Treaty Between the United States ofAmerican and the Crow Tribe of 1851 Take Precedence

29

Owl AttacKing Snow GooSt

Over Wyoming Game and Fish Laws When Applied toRegistered Members of the Crow Tribe in the State ofWyoming."Opinion, Deputy County and Prosecuting Attorney,Sheridan County, Wyoming.Rasmussen, H.W., February 26, 1973.6 pgs.

HUNTING, FISHING, TRAPPING ANDGATHERING RIGHTS: TREATIES

002390"Does the Peace Treaty Between the United States ofAmerica and the Crow Tribe of 1851 Take PrecedenceOver Wyoming Game and Fish Laws When Applied toRegistered Members of the Crow Tribe in the State ofWyoming."Opinion, Deputy County and Prosecuting Attorney,Sheridan County, Wyoming.Rasmussen, H.W., February 26, 1973.6 pgs.

INCOMPETENT INDIAN

002325Iron, Wallace v. Knowles, Gladys E.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, d. 1964.Grazing lands belonging to competent Indian lessorare not subject to government range controlregulations providing for liquidated damageassessment for overgrazing.Opinion, 234 F.SUpp. 327 (D. Mont. 1964).

INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT

002365"Indian American Legal Rights, Duties andRemedies."Transcript of proceedings, Indian Conference ofMontana, University of Montana.Tri-State Tribes, Inc., May, 1972.107 pgs.Available from:Tri-State Tribes, Inc.SUite 228208 No. 29th StreetBillings, Montana 59101

* means additional material available.

30

INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT: DUEPROCESS

002389Heim, Myrtle Sandaine v. Nicholson, Narcisse, Jr.Wash., E.D. Wash., Colville, d. 1971.Federal court assertedly has no jurisdiction over suitby Indian against United States in which she seeksreinstatement as tribal member.*

INDIAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACT:JURISDICTION IN FEDERAL COURTS

002342Loncassion, Lorraine v. Leekity, WUUS.N.M., D.N.M., Zuni, d. 1971.Federal court has jurisdiction under Indian CivilRights Act to determine Indian's damage claimagainst police officer and tribe.Opinion, 334 F.SUpp. 370 (D.N.M. 1971).

002389Helm, Myrtle Sandaine v. Nicholson, Narcisse, Jr.Wash., E.D. Wash., Colville, d. 1971.Federal court assertedly has no jurisdiction over suitby Indian against United States in which she seeksreinstatement as tribal member.*

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION:DAMAGES, RELIEF, OFFSETS ANDINTEREST

002334Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas v. United States.Ind. Cl. Comm. No. 316, Ct. Cl., Kickapoo Tribe ofKansas, 1962, d. 1967.Government and tribe challenge amount of offsetsallowed in land claim.Opinions, 10 Ind. Cl. Comm. 320 (1962); 15 Ind. Cl.Comm. 628 (1965); 178 Ct. Cl. 527, 372 F.2d 980 (1967).

002352Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States.Ind. Cl. Comm. Nos. 67, 124, Ct. Cl., Miami Tribe ofOklahoma, 1954, d. 1959, (C.002353). .Indian tribe entitled to further proceedings concern~value assigned by Commission to ceded lands whichtribe had held by recognized title.Opinions, 2Ind. Cl. Comm.617 (1954); 4 Ind. Cl. conun).346,408 (1956); 146 Ct. Cl. 421, 175 F.SUpp. 926 (1959 .

002353Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States.Ind. Cl. Corom. Nos. 251, 124-A, Ct. Cl., Miami Tribe ofIndiana, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, 1958, d. 1960,(C.002352).Tribe awarded additional compensation for landcession and for annuity payments which were com­muted without tribe's consent.Opinions, 6 Ind. Cl. Corom. 513, 552 (1958); 150 Ct. Cl.725, 281 F.2d 202 (1960); cert. denied, 366 U.S. 924(1961).

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION:EVIDENTIARY PROBLEMS

002324Iowa Tribe of the Iowa Reservation in Kansas andNebraska v. United States.Sac and Fox Tribe v. United States.Ind. Cl. Corom. No. 135, Ct. Cl., Iowa Tribe of the IowaReservation in Kansas and Nebraska, Sac and Fox,1958, d. 1971.Court of Claims refuses to upset findings of fact byIndian Claims Commission and affirms decision thattribes failed to prove aboriginal title to claimed lands.Opinions, 6 Ind. Cl. Corom. 496 (1958); 12 Ind. Cl.Corom. 487 (1963),15 Ind. Cl. Corom. 248 (1965); 179 Ct.Cl. 8, 23, 383 F.2d 991, 999; cert. denied, 389 U.S. 900(1967); 22 Ind. Cl. Corom. 232 (1969); 195 Ct. Cl. 365(1971).

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION:UNCONSCIONABLE CONSIDERATION

002352Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States.Ind. Cl. Corom. Nos. 67, 124, Ct. Cl., Miami Tribe ofOklahoma, 1954, d. 1959, (C.002353).Indian tribe entitled to further proceedings concerningvalue assigned by Commission to ceded lands whichtribe had held by recognized title.Opinions, 2 Ind. Cl. Corom.617 (1954); 4 Ind. Cl. Corom.346,408 (1956); 146 Ct. Cl. 421; 175 F.Supp. 926 (1959).

002353Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States.Ind. Cl. Corom. Nos. 251, 124-A, Ct. Cl., Miami Tribe ofIndiana, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, 1958, d. 1960,(C.002352).Tribe awarded additional compensation for landcession and for annuity payments which were com­muted without tribe's consent.Opinions, 6 Ind. Cl. Corom. 513, 552 (1958); 150 Ct. Cl.725, 281 F.2d 202 (1960); cert. denied, 366 U.S. 924(1961).* means additional material available.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION:VALUATION

002334Kickapoo Tribe of Kansas v. United States.Ind. d. Corom. No. 316, Ct. Cl., Kickapoo Tribe ofKansas, 1962, d. 1967.Government and tribe challenge amount of offsetsallowed in land claim.Opinions, 10 Ind. Cl. Corom. 320 (1962); 15 Ind. Cl.Corom. 628 (1965); 178 Ct. Cl. 527, 372 F.2d 980 (1967).

002352Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States.Ind. Cl. Corom. Nos. 67, 124, Ct. Cl., Miami Tribe ofOklahoma, 1954, d. 1959, (C.002353).Indian tribe entitled to further proceedings concerningvalue assigned by Conunission to ceded lands whichtribe had held by recognized title.Opinions, 2Ind. Cl. Comm. 617 (1954); 4 Ind. Cl. Corom.346,408 (1956); 146 Ct. Cl. 421; 175 F.Supp. 926 (1959).

002353Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States.Ind. Cl. Corom. Nos. 251, 124-A, Ct. Cl., Miami Tribe ofIndiana, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, 1958, d. 1960,(C.002352).Tribe awarded additional compensation for landcession and for annuity payments which were com­muted without tribe's consent.Opinions, 6 Ind. Cl. Comm. 513,552 (1958); 150 Ct. Cl.725, 281 F.2d 202 (1960); cert. denied, 366 U.S. 924(1961).

INDIAN COUNTRY: DEFINED

002337Lafferty, Henry v. South Dakota.S.D., Sup. Ct., O1eyenne River Sioux, d. 1963.State has criminal jurisdiction over that portion ofreservation which was opened to non-Indian settlementby federal statute.Opinion, 125 N.W.2d 171 (S.D. 1963).

002343McCoy, Frank, In reoN.C., E.D.N.C., Eastern Cherokee, d. 1964.State acquired criminal jurisdiction over Indian bandand its land when band refused to accompany tribe tonew reservation which had been established by federaltreaty.Opinion, 233 F.Supp. 409 (E.D.N.C. 1964).

002376Wyoming V. Moss, John Pius.Wyo., Dist. Ct., Sup. Ct., Arapahoe, 1969, d. 1970.Lands formerly within reservation which were ceded

31

rrI

• Snow Owls and Egg

!

I!,~

II;;';

""!II!i

Ii

to government are no longer Indian country for pur­pose of criminal jurisdiction.• Opinion, 471 P.2d 333 (Wyo. 1970).

INDIAN COUNTRY: JURISDICTION,GENERALLY

002365"Indian American Legal Rights, Duties andRemedies."Transcript of proceedings, Indian Conference ofMontana, University of Montana.Tri-State Tribes, Inc., May, 1972.107 pgs.Available from:Tri-State Tribes, Inc.SUite 228208 No. 29th StreetBillings, Montana 59101

INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT

002347Martinez, Mary v. Southern Ute Tribe of Southern UteReservation.Colo., D.Colo., 10th Cir., U.S. Sup. Ct., Southern Ute,1957, d. 1958.Federal court does not have jurisdiction over suit byIndian against tribe which excluded her from reser­vation and denied her membership rights.Opinions, 151 F .Supp. 476 (D.Colo. 1957); &H'd, 249 F.2d915 (lOth Cir. 1957); cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 (1958);reb. denied, 357 U.S. 924 (1958).

002354Motah, Lee v. United States.Okla., 10th Cir., Comanche, d. 1968.Federal court has no jurisdiction over dispute con­cerning tribal election because no federal question wasinvolved and because government had not consented tosuit.Opinion, 402 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1968).

IRRIGATION

002314Report of Environmental Factors by the Departmentof the Interior and the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual,Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians Submittedin Support of Interior's Recapture Recommendationand the Indian Bands' Application for a Non-PowerUcense.

• means additional material available.

32

IRRIGATION: ASSESSABILITY OFCHARGES AND LIENS

002303Hood, Percy v. United States.Wash., 9th Cir., Lummi, d. 1958.Land which passed out of Indian ownership prior topassage of statute for reclamation project authorizingliens to insure recovery. of costs of project was notconsidered Indian land subject to lien.Opinion, 256 F.2d 522 (9th Cir.1958).

JURISDICTION, FEDERAL COURT

002351Meeks, Isabelle v. McAdams, Oren.Wyo., 10th Cir., Shoshone, d. 1968.Federal court has no jurisdiction over wrongful deathaction where suit is between Indians and arose in in­dian country.Opinion, 390 F.2d 650 (10th Cir. 1968).

002394Native American Church of Navajoland, Inc. v.Arizona Corporation Commission.Ariz., D. Ariz., U.S. Sup. ct., Navajo, 1971, d. 1972.Federal court refuses to declare unconstitutional acriminal statute barring peyote use in suit challengingdenial of certificate of incorporation to Indian religiousorganization.Opinions, 329F.Supp. 907 (D.Ariz.1971); aff'd, 405 U.S.901, 30 L.Ed.2d 775, 92 S.Ct. 934 (1972).

JURISDICTION, FEDERAL COURT:ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW (5 U.S.C.§ 701 et seq.)

002354Motah, Lee v. United States.Okla., 10th Cir., Comanche, d. 1968.Federal court has no jurisdiction over dispute con­cerning tribal election because no federal question wasinvolved and because government had not consented tosuit.Opinion, 402 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1968).

JURISDICTION, FEDERAL COURT:ALLOTMENTS (25 U.S.C. § 3(5)

002327Conroy, Evelyn Sybil v. Conroy, Gerry.S.D., D.S.D., Oglala Sioux, 1972, d. 1973.Federal court has no jurisdiction in suit St.. ..ngdeclaration that wife is entitled to one-half interest in

all trust lands acquired by her husband during theirmarriage.* Opinion, 369 F.Supp. 179 (D.S.D. 1973).

002340Lewis, Gary Carson v. General Services Ad­ministration.CaI., 9th Cir., d. 1967.Indians not entitled to allotments on government landsacquired by eminent domain for military purposes andlater offered for sale to private persons.Opinion, 377 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1967).

002361Pallln, Irene Mitchell v. United States.CaI., 9th Cir., Yilrok, d. 1974.Court may review evidence concerning Indian's rightto allotment but not Interior Secretary's classificationof land considered for allotment, and no allotment ispermissible where land is incapable of supportingIndian and his family.Opinion, 496 F.2d 'll (9th Cir. 1974).

JURISDICTION, FEDERAL COURT:CIVIL RIGHTS (28 U.S.C. ~ 1343)

002370Ben, Irene Mark v. General Motors Acceptance Cor­poration.Colo., D. Colo., Navajo, 1974.Federal court has jurisdiction to hear civil rights claimthat insurance company charges high risk rates toIndian automobile purchasers without regard to anycriterion but race.Opinion, 374 F.SUpp. 1199 (D. Colo. 1974).

002389Helm, Myrtle Sandaine v. Nicholson, Narcisse, Jr.Wash., E.D. Wash., Colville, d. 1971.Federal court assertedly has no jurisdiction over suitby Indian against United States in which she seeksreinstatement as tribal member.*

JURISDICTION, FEDERAL COURT:DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP (28 U.S.C.S 1332)

002301Hot on Service, Inc. v. Hall, Winifred.Ariz., 9th Cir., Navajo, d. 1966.Federal court jurisdiction cannot be based on federalquestion or diversity theories in suit by state cor-

* means additional material available.

poration against Indian lessor for goods sold and rentdue from lease of Indian land.Opinion, 366 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1966).

JURISDICTION, FEDERAL COURT:FEDERAL QUESTION, GENERALLY(28 U.S.C. § 1331)

002301Hot on Service, Inc. v. Hall, Winifred.Ariz., 9th Cir., Navajo, d. 1966.Federal court jurisdiction cannot be based on federalquestion or diversity theories in suit by state cor­poration against Indian lessor for goods sold and rentdue from lease of Indian land.Opinion, 366 F.2d 295 (9th Cir. 1966).

002307Madrigal, Lela v. Riverside, County of.CaI., 9th Cir., Cahuilla, 1974, (C.001209, 001002).Suit to enjoin enforcement of county building, zoningand outdoor festival ordinances claimed not to beapplicable on Indian trust land.Opinion, 495 F.2d 1 (9th Cir. 1971).

002327Conroy, Evelyn Sybil v. Conroy, Gerry.S.D., D.S.D., Oglala Sioux, 1972, d. 1973.Federal court has no jurisdiction in suit seekingdeclaration that wife is entitled to one-half interest inall trust lands acquired by her husband during theirmarriage.*Opinion, 369 F.SUpp. 179 (D.S.D. 1973).

002342Loncassion, IArraine v. Leekity, Willis.N.M., D.N.M., Zuni, d. 1971.Federal court has jurisdiction under Indian CivilRights Act to determine Indian's damage claimagainst police officer and tribe.Opinion, 334 F.SUpp. 370 (D.N.M. 1971).

002347Martinez, Mary v. Southern Ute Tribe of Southern UteReservation.Colo., D.Colo., loth Cir., U.S. Sup. Ct., Southern Ute,1957, d. 1958.Federal court does not have jurisdiction over suit byIndian against tribe which excluded her from reser­vation and denied her membership rights.Opinions, 151 F.Supp.476 (D.Colo. 1957); aff'd, 249 F.2d915 (10th Cir. 1957); cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 (1958);reh. denied, 357 U.S. 924 (1958).

002348Martinez, Mary v. Southern Ute Tribe.Colo., loth Cir., Southern Ute, d. 1960.Federal court refuses to accept jurisdiction over suit

33

by Indian who seeks declaration of tribal membershiprights.Opinion, 273 F.2d 731 (10th Cir. 1960); cert. denied, 363U.S. 847 (1960).

JURISDICTION, FEDERAL COURT:FEDERAL QUESTION, TRIBES(28 U.S.C. § 1362)

002373United States v. state Tax Commission.Miss., 5th Cir., Mississippi Band of Choctaw, 1974.Government claims that state sales tax is not ap­plicable to on-reservation housing developmentprogram sponsored by tribe.•

002391Amending the Judicial Code to Permit Indian Tribes toMaIntain Clvll Actions In Federal District CourtsWithout Regard to the $10,000 Umltation, and ForOther Purposes.Report No. 2040 to accompany S.I356, Committee onthe Judiciary, House of Representatives, 89thCongress, 2d session, September 12, 1966.6 pgs.

JURISDICTION, FEDERAL COURT:U.S.-PLAINTIFF (28 U.S.C. § 1345)

002315United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrlgation District.Nev., D. Nev., Pyramid Lake Paiute, 1974.Suit seeks judicial allocation of Truckee River watersbetween state of Nevada and United States.•

002373United States v. state Tax Commission.Miss., 5th Cir., Mississippi Band of OJ.octaw, 1974.Government claims that state sales tax is not ap­plicable to on-reservation housing developmentprogram sponsored by tribe...

JUVENILES: CHILD WELFARE

002306Alexis, Karen and Patricia, In re the Welfare of.Wash., Super. Ct., Suquamish, 1973.Indians assert that tribal court has jurisdiction over

• means additional material available.

34

state custody proceeding in which non-Indian fosterparents seek to adopt Indian children.•002308Goodman, Irene, In reoUtah, Dist. Juv. Ct., Navajo, 1971.state court refuses to terminate parental rights ofNavajo Indian.• Opinion, unreported.

002381Wisconsin Potowatomles of the Hannahville IndianlCommunity, In re Petition of V. Wilsey, Willlam.Fla., M.D. Fla., Potowatomie, 1974, (C.ool656).Tribe seeks custody of orphan Indian children whowere placed with non-Indian foster parents by statewelfare agency.• Opinion, 377 F.Supp. 1153 (M.D.Fla. 1974).

LANDS

002320The New American State Papers: Indian Affairs.Books, Scholarly Resources, Inc.Cochran, Thomas C., editor, 1972.For volume tilles, see Administration of Indian Af­fairs, number 002320.Available from:Scholarly Resources, Inc.1508 Pennsylvania AvenueWllmington, Delaware 19806

LANDS: VALUATION

002352Miami TrIbe of Oklahoma V. United States.Ind. Cl. Conun. Nos. 67, 124, Ct. CI., Miami Tribe ofOklahoma, 1954, d. 1959, (C.002353).Indian tribe entilled to further proceedings concerningvalue assigned by Commission to ceded lands whichtribe had held by recognized title.Opinions, 2Ind. Cl. Conun. 617 (1954); 4 Ind. Cl. Conun.346,408 (1956); 146 Ct. Cl. 421, 175 F.Supp. 926 (1959) .

LEASING: ALLOTMENTS

002338Lawrence, Edwin E. v. United States.Cal., 9th Cir., d. 1967.Contract made by Indian without Interior Secretary'sapproval to lease trust lands is declared null and void.Opinion, 381 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1967).

LEASING: FEDERAL AUTHORITY

002316Redding, John v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, 1974.Non-Indian lessees attempt to stop strip mining in theirarea, stating B.I.A. approval of tribe's mining contractwas in violation of the National Environmental PolicyAct.*002325!ron, Wallace v. Knowles, Gladys E.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, d. 1964.Grazing lands belonging to competent Indian lessorare not subject to government range controlregulations providing for liquidated damageassessment for overgrazing.Opinion, 234 F.Supp. m (D.Mont. 1964).

002338Lawrence, Edwin E. v. United States.Cal., 9th Cir., d. 1967.Contract made by Indian without Interior Secretary'sapproval to lease trust lands is declared null and void.Opinion, 381 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1967).

002400Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Udall, Stewart.Wash., D.C., D.D.C., Three Affiliated Tribes of FortBerthold, d. 1961.Interior Secretary prohibited from imposing an ar­bitrary compensatory royalty on lessee of mineralrights in favor of allottee who owned adjacentproducing well.Opinion, 192 F.Supp. 626 (D.D.C. 1961).

LEASING: GRAZING

002325!rod, Wallace v. Knowles, Gladys E.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, d. 1964.Grazing lands belonging to competent Indian lessorare not subject to government range controlregulations providing for liquidated damageassessment for overgrazing.Opinion, 234 F.Supp. 327 (D.Mont. 1964).

LEASING: MINERAL RIGHTS

002316Redding, John v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, 1974.

* means additional material available.

Non-Indian lessees attempt to stop strip mining in theirarea, stating B.LA. approval of tribe's mining contractwas in violation of the National Environmental PolicyAct.*002371United States v. Pawhuska, City of.Okla., N.D. Okla., 10th Cir., Osage, 1972, d. 1974.United States claims on behalf of tribe that, by notundertaking to produce oil from tribal mineral leasesfor seventeen years, city unlawfully deprived tribe ofroyalty income.* Opinion, 502 F.2d 821 (10th Cir. 1974).

002395Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States.Ct. Cl., Navajo, d. 1966, (C.OO2396).Terms of lease negotiated by government on tribe'sbehalf implicitly included helium deposits for whichtribe is entitled to additional compensation.Opinion, 176 Ct. Cl. 502, 364 F.2d 320 (1966).

002400Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Udall, Stewart.Wash., D.C., D.D.C., Three Affiliated Tribes of FortBerthold, d. 1961.Interior Secretary prohibited from imposing an ar­bitrary compensatory royalty on lessee of mineralrights in favor of allottee who owned adjacentproducing well.Opinion, 192 F.Supp. 626 (D.D.C. 1961).

PROBATE: APPROVAL OF WILLS

002372Bigheart, Velma Rose v. Pappan, John.Okla., 10th Cir., U.S. Sup. Ct., 1973, .1974.Federal statute restricting inheritance of trustproperty to those of Indian blood is not unconstitutionaland supercedes state law entitling spouse to share inestate regardless of provisions in will.* Opinion, 482 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir. 1973); cert. denied,_U.S._, 40 L.Ed.2d 288 (1974).

PROBATE: FEDERAL REGULATIONS

002372Bigheart, Velma Rose v. Pappan, John.Okla., 10th Cir., U.s. Sup. Ct., 1973, 1974.Federal statute restricting inheritance of trustproperty to those of Indian blood is not unconstitutionaland supercedes state law entitling spouse to share inestate regardless of provisions in will.* Opinion, 482 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir. 1973); cert. denied,_U.S:_, 40 L.Ed.2d 288 (1974).

35

PROBATE: STATE INHERITANCE LAWS

002372Bigheart, Velma Rose v. Pappan, John.Okla., 10th Cir., U.S. Sup. Ct., 1973, 1974.Federal statute restricting inheritance of trustproperty to those of Indian blood is not unconstitutionaland supercedes state law entitling spouse to share inestate regardless of provisions in will.• Opinion, 482 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir. 1973); cert. denied,_U.S._, 40 L.Ed.2d 288 (1974).

PUBLIC DOMAIN: SURPLUS LANDS

002340Lewis, Gary Carson v. General Services Ad­ministration.Cat, 9th Cir., d. 1967.Indians not entitled to allotments on government landsacquired by eminent domain for military purposes andlater offered for sale to private persons.Opinion, 377 F.2d 499 (9th Cir. 1967).

PUBLIC LAW 280

002388Queets Band of Indians v. Nelson, Jack G.Wash., W.D. Wash., Quinault, Queets Band, 1974.Indian tribe claims authority to register and license itsmotor vehicles for operation on highways on and offreservation exclusive of state regulation.•

PUBLIC LAW 280: RETROCESSION

002306Alexis, Karen and Patricia, In re the Welfare of.Wash., Super. Ct., Suquamish, 1973.Indians assert that tribal court has jurisdiction overstate custody proceeding in which non-Indian fosterparents seek to adopt Indian children.•002388Queets Band of Indians v. Nelson, Jack G.Wash., W.D. Wash., Quinault, Queets Band, 1974.Indian tribe claims authority to register and license itsmotor vehicles for operation on highways on and off~eservation exclusive of state regulation.

• means additional material available.

36

002398Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. Walthill, Village of.Neb., D. Neb., 8th Qr., Omaha Tribe ofNebraska, 1971,d. 1972.Federal government empowered to acceptretrocession of less than all criminal jurisdiction overIndian country offered by state.Opinion,334 F.Supp. 823 (D.Neb. 1971); aff'd, 460 F.2d1327 (8th Cir. 1972).

RESERVATIONS: DIMINISHED BYACTS OF CONGRESS

002328Cook, Donald v. South Dakota.S.D., Sup. Ct., Concow, Redwood, 1973, d. 1974.Indian need not be member of tribe on whose reser­vation he allegedly committed crime to be exemptfrom state jurisdiction; however, state has jurisdictionover all persons on diminished portion of reservationopened to non-Indian settlement.• Opinion, 215 N.W.2d 832 (S.D. 1974).

002337Lafferty, Henry v. South Dakota.S.D., Sup. Ct., O1eyenne River Sioux, d. 1963.State has criminal jurisdiction over that portion ofreservation which was opened to non-Indian settlementby federal statute.Opinion, 125 N.W.2d 171 (S.D. 1963).

002376Wyoming v. Moss, John Pius.Wyo., Dist. Ct., Sup. Ct., Arapahoe, 1969, d. 1970.Lands formerly within reservation which were cededto government are no longer Indian country for pur­pose of criminal jurisdiction.• Opinion, 471 P.2d 333 (Wyo. 1970).

RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:ALLOTMENTS

002399Nicodemus, Julia v. Washington Water Power Com­pany.Idaho, 9th Cir., Coeur d'Alene, d. 1959.Federal statute permits establishment of pUblic utilityeasement across allotment without InteriorSecretary's approval by eminent domain proceeding infederal court.Opinion, 264 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1959).

RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:CREATION OF

002399Nicodemus, Julia v. Washington Water Power Com­pany.Idaho, 9th Cir., Coeur d'Alene, d. 1959.Federal statute pennits establislunent of public utilityeasement across allotment without InteriorSecretary's approval by eminent domain proceeding infederal court.Opinion, 264 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1959).

RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:POWERLINES

002399Nicodemus, Julia v. Washington Water Power Com­pany.Idaho, 9th Cir., Coeur d'Alene, d. 1959.Federal statute pennits establislunent of public utilityeasement across allotment without InteriorSecretary's approval by eminent domain proceeding infederal court.Opinion, 264 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1959).

RIGHTS OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:TRIBAL LAND

002350Maysville, Oklahoma, Town of v. Magnolia PetroleumCo.Okla., 10th Cir., d. 1959.Lack of strict compliance with municipal in­corporation law does not bar town from succeeding totitle in railroad right of way created on former Indianland.Opinion, 272 F.2d 806 (10th Cir. 1959).

SOURCES OF FEDERAL AUTHORITYOVER INDIAN AFFAIRS: TRUSTRELATION

002316Redding, John v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, 1974.Non-Indian lessees attempt to stop strip mining in theirarea, stating B.LA. approval of tribe's mining contractwas in violation of the National Environmental PolicyAct.*

* means additional material available.

SOVEREIGNTY

002315United States v. Truckee-Carson Irrigation District.Nev., D. Nev., Pyramid Lake Paiute, 1974.Suit seeks judicial allocation of Truckee River watersbetween state of Nevada and United states.*

SOVEREIGNTY: SOVEREIGNIMMUNITY; FEDERAL

002338Lawrence, Edwin E. v. United States.CaL, 9th Cir., d. 1967.Contract made by Indian without Interior Secretary'sapproval to lease trust lands is declared null and void.Opinion, 381 F.2d 989 (9th Cir. 1967).

002354Motah, Lee v. United States.Okla., 10th Cir., Comanche, d. 1968.Federal court has no jurisdiction over dispute con­cerning tribal election because no federal question wasinvolved and because government had not consented tosuit.Opinion, 402 F.2d 1 (10th Cir. 1968).

SOVEREIGNTY: SOVEREIGNIMMUNITY; TRIBAL

002342Loncassion, Lorraine v. LeeJdty, Willis.N.M., D.N.M., Zuni, d. 1971.Federal court has jurisdiction under Indian CivilRights Act to determine Indian's damage claimagainst police officer and tribe.Opinion, 334 F.Supp. 370 (D.N.M. 1971).

002345Maryland Casualty Co. v. Citizens National Bank ofWest Hollywood.Fla., 5th Cir., Seminole Tribe of Florida, d. 1966.Indian tribe's revolving credit fund is immune fromgarnishment to satisfy money judgement obtained byconstruction company against tribe.Opinion, 361 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1966).

002389Heim, Myrtle Sandaine v. Nicholson, Narcisse, Jr.Wash., E.D. Wash., Colville, d. 1971.Federal court assertedly has no jurisdiction over suitby Indian against United States in which she seeksreinstatement as tribal member.*

37

Opinion, 192 F.Supp. 179 (D.Kan. 1960); aff'd, 365 U.S.568 (1961).

002335Kills Crow, Arnold v. United States.S.D., 8th Cir., d. 1971.Indian indicted under Major Crimes Act is not entitledto jury instruction on lesser included offense of simpleassault.Opinion, 451 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1971).

002372Bigheart, Velma Rose v. Pappan, John.Okla., 10th Cir., U.S. Sup. Ct., i973, i974.Federal statute restricting inheritance of trustproperty to those of Indian blood is not unconstitutionaland supercedes state law entitling spouse to share inestate regardless of provisions in will.• Opinion, 482 F.2d 1066 (10th Cir. 1973); cert. denied,_U.S. ---. 40 L.Ed2d 288 (1974).

002379"Approaches to Settlement of Indian Title Claims: TheAlaskan Model."Article, University of British Columbia Law Review(Canada), 8:321.Lysyk, Kenneth, 1973.21 pgs.

002397Navajo Tribe v. National Labor Relations Board.Wash., D.C., D.C. Cir., Navajo, d. 1961.National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction tohold union representation election in mining plantlocated on reservation although tribal governmentobjected to it.Opinion, 288F.2d 162 (D.C. Cir.1961); cert. denied, 366U.S. 928 (1961).

STATUTES: CONSTRUCTIONFAVORABLE TO INDIANS

002345Maryland Casualty Co. v. Citizens National Bank ofWest Hollywood.Fla., 5th Cir., Seminole Tribe of Florida, d. 1966.Indian tribe's revolving credit fund is immune fromgarnishment to satisfy money judgement obtained byconstruction company against tribe.Opinion, 361 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1966).

002398Omaha Tribe of Nebraska v. Walthill, Village of.Neb., D. Neb., 8th Cir., Omaha Tribe of Nebraska, 1971,d. 1972.

• means additional material available.

Federal government empowered to acceptretrocession of less than all criminal jurisdiction overIndian country offered by state.Opinion, 334 F.Supp. 823 (D.Neb. 1971); aff'd, 460 F.2d1327 (8th Cir. 1972).

STATUTES: STATE

002363Seneca Nation of Indians v. New York.N.Y., W.D.N.Y., Seneca, 1974.Tribe contends that New York laws cannot be used toappropriate tribal lands for highway purposes..•

SUBMERGED LANDS AND WETLANDS

002356Mole Lake Band v. United States.Ct. Cl., Chippewa, d. 1956.Where reservation included lands which previouslyhad been granted to state, government remainedobligated to Indians to secure to them the enjoymentand proceeds from those lands.Opinion, 134 Ct. Cl. 478, 139 F.Supp. 938 (1956); cert.denied, 352 U.S. 892 (1956).

SUBMERGED LANDS AND WETLANDS:RIVERBEDS

002392Morgan, Adrian v. Colorado River Indian Tribe.Ariz., Ct. App., Sup. Ct., Colorado River Indian Tribe,d. 1968.Tribe's sovereign immunity protects it from suit instate court for wrongful death which occurred attribally owned enterprise.Opinion, 7 Ariz. App. 92, 436 P.2d 484 (Ariz. App. 1968);vacated, 103 Ariz. 425, 443 P.2d 421 (Ariz. 1968).

TAXATION: ESTATE ANDINHERITANCE

002393Nash, Juanita v. Wiseman, Earl.Okla., W.D. Okla., Pottawatomie, d. 1963.Trust property inherited by noncompetent Indian is notsubject to federal estate taxation upon her death, andclaim by restricted Indians for tax refund is not barredby statute of limitations.Opinion, 227 F .supp. 552 (W.D.Okla. 1963).

39

I

,I,. !

TAXATION: IMMUNITY, EXEMPTION

002317United States v. Critzer, Amy T.N.C., 4th Cir., Eastern Cherokee, 1974.Indian challenges federal taxation of income frombusiness activities on reservation.•

002321Bissonette, Hobart v. Board of County Commissionersof Shannon County, South Dakota.S.D., Cir. Ct., Sup. Ct., Oglala Sioux, 1972, d. 1973.Indians challenge state taxation of their personalproperly owned and used within reservation.•

002326Industrial Uranium Co. v. State Tax Commission.Ariz., Sup. Ct., Navajo, d. 1963.State may levy privilege tax on mining operation onreservation because such taxation does not interferewith tribal self-government Or rights protected bytreaty or federal statute.Opinion, 95 Ariz. 130,387 P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1963).

002341Lyngstad, Leonard v. Roy, Anna.N.D., Sup. Ct., Chippewa, d. 1961.Off-reservation land purchased by Indian withproceeds from sale of crops raised on trust land is notexempt from state taxes.Opinion, III N.W.2d 699 (N.D. 1961).

002373United States v. State Tax Commission.Miss., 5th Cir., Mississippi Band of Choctaw, 1974.Government claims that state sales tax is not ap­plicable to on-reservation housing developmentprogram sponsored by tribe .•002375Hunt, Emmett v. O'Cheskey, Fred L.N.M., Ct. App., Sup. Ct., Laguna, d. 1973.State may not tax gross receipts on income of Indiansresiding on reservation when income and grossreceipts are derived solely from on-reservation ac­tivities.Opinion, 85 N.M. 381,512 P.2d 954 (N.M. App. 1973);cert. quashed,85N.M. 388, 512P.2d 961 (N.M. 1973).

002393Nash, Juanita v. Wiseman, Earl.Okla., W.D. Okla., Pottawatomie, d. 1963.Trust property inherited by noncompetent Indian is notsubject to federal estate taxation upon her death, and

* means additional material available.

40

claim by restricted Indians for tax refund is not barredby statute of limitations.Opinion, 227 F.Supp. 552 (W.D.Okla. 1963).

TAXATION: INCOME, FEDERAL

002317United States v. Critzer, Amy T.N.C., 4th Cir., Eastern Cherokee, 1974.Indian challenges federal taxation of income frombusiness activities on reservation.•

TAXATION: INCOME, STATE

002375Hunt, Emmett v. O'Cheskey, Fred L.N.M., Ct. App., Sup. Ct., Laguna, d. 1973.State may not tax gross receipts on income of Indiansresiding on reservation when income and grossreceipts are derived solely from on-reservation ac­tivities.Opinion, 85 N.M. 381,512 P.2d 954 (N.M. App. 1973);cert. quashed, 85N.M. 388, 512P.2d 961 (N.M. 1973).

TAXATION: LICENSE TAX

002326Industrial Uranium Co. v. State Tax Commission.Ariz., Sup. Ct., Navajo, d. 1963.State may levy privilege tax on mining operation onreservation because such taxation does not interferewith tribal self-government or rights protected bytreaty or federal statute.Opinion, 95 Ariz. 130, 387 P.2d 1013 (Ariz. 1963).

TAXATION: PERSONAL PROPERTY

002321Bissonette, Hobart v. Board of County Commissionersof Shannon County, South Dakota.S.D., Cir. Ct., Sup. Ct., Oglala Sioux,1972, d. 1973.Indians challenge state taxation of their personalproperty owned and used within reservation.•

TAXATION: REAL PROPERTY

002341Lyngstad, Leonard v. Roy, Anna.N.D., Sup. Ct., Chippewa, d. 1961.Off.reservation land purchased by Indian

proceeds from sale of crops raised on trust land is notexempt from state taxes.Opinion, 111 N.W.2d 699 (N.D. 1961).

TERMINATION: CONTINUINGFEDERAL OBLIGATIONS

002383Smith, Ellerick v. United States.CaI., N.D. Cal., 1974.Indians claim relief from failure of government of­ficials to fulfill their obligations under CaliforniaRancheria Act prior to tennination of reservation.•

002384Daniels, Cynthia v. Morton, Rogers C.B.CaI., N.D. Cal., California Indians, 1974.Indians seek to enjoin interference with water serviceto their property located on rancheria.•

TERMINATION: RESERVATIONS

002312Dtmcan, Ambrose, Jr. v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Cal., N.D. Cal., Porno, Covelo, 1974, (C.OO2197).Indians allege that termination of their reservationviolated due process standards which resulted in lossof valuable federal services.•

TIMBER: CLAIMS AGAINST UNITEDSTATES

002356Mole Lake Band v. United States.Ct. Cl., O1ippewa, d. 1956.Where reservation included lands which previouslyhad been granted to state, government remainedobligated to Indians to secure to them the enjoymentand proceeds from those lands.Opinion, 134 Ct. Cl. 478, 139 F.Supp. 938 (1956); cert.denied, 352 U.s. 892 (1956).

TRADERS

002318Indian Arts and Crafts, In the Matter of.James L. Houston Co., In the Matter of.Krupp, Herman d.b.a. Oceanic Trading Co., In theMatter of.

• means additional material available.

Lange, Heinz d.b.a. Northwest Arts and Crafts, In theMatter of.Leonard F. Porter, Inc., In the Matter of.Western Novelty Co., In the Matter of.Federal Trade Commission, Alaska Natives, 1974.Federal Trade Commission sues marketers of arts andcrafts for misrepresenting that their products arehand-made by Alaska Natives.•

TREATIES WITH UNITED STATES

002310"On Teaching Indian History: Legal Jurisdiction inChippewa Treaties."Article, Ethnohistory, 19:209.Keller, Robert H., Jr., Summer 1972.10 pgs.

002343McCoy, Frank, In reoN.C., E.D.N.C., Eastern Cherokee, d. 1964.State acquired criminal jurisdiction over Indian bandand its lands when band refused to accompany tribe tonew reservation which had been established by federaltreaty.Opinion, 233 F.SUpp. 409 (E.D.N.C.l964).

002397Navajo Tribe V. National Labor Relations Board.Wash., D.C., D.C. Cir., Navajo, d. 1961.National Labor Relations Board has jurisdiction tohold union representation election in mining plantlocated on reservation although tribal governmentobjected to it.Opinion, 288 F.2d 162 (D.C. Cir.1961); cert. denied, 366U.S. 928 (1961).

TREATIES WITH UNITED STATES:ABROGATION

002399Nicodemus, Julia V. Washington Water Power Com­pany.Idaho, 9th Cir., Coeur d'Alene, d. 1959.Federal statute permits establishment of public utilityeasement across allotment without Interiorsecretary's approval by eminent domain proceeding infederal court.Opinion, 264 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1959).

41

TREATIES WITH UNITED STATES:CLAIMS AGAINST FEDERALGOVERNMENT UNDER

002352Miamt Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States.Ind. Cl. Conun. Nos. 67, 124, Ct. Cl., Miami Tribe ofOklahoma, 1954, d. 1959, (C.002353).Indian tribe entitled to further proceedings concerningvalue assigned by Conunission to ceded lands whichtribe had held by recognized title.Opinions, 2Ind. Cl. Conun. 617 (1954); 4 Ind. Cl. Conun.346,408 (1956); 146 Ct. Cl. 421, 175 F.SUpp. 926 (1959).

002356Mole Lake Band v. United States.Ct. Cl., O1ippewa, d. 1956.Where reservation included lands which previouslyhad been granted to state, government remainedobligated to Indians to secure to them the enjoymentand proceeds from those lands.Opinion, 134 Ct. Cl. 478, 139 F.Supp. 938 (1956); cert.denied, 352 U.S. 892 (1956).

TREATIES WITH UNITED STATES:STATUS OF

002390"Does the Peace Treaty Between the United States ofAmerica and the Q-ow Tribe of 1851 Take PrecedenceOver Wyoming Game and Fish Laws When Applied toRegistered Members of the Crow Tribe in the State ofWyoming."Opinion, Deputy County and Prosecuting Attorney,Sheridan County, Wyoming.Rasmussen, H.W., February 26, 1973.6 pgs.

TRESPASS TO INDIAN LAND

002371United States v. Pawhuska, City of.Okla., N.D. Okla., 10th Cir., Osage, 1972, d. 1974.United States claims on behalf of tribe that, by notundertaking to produce oil from tribal mineral leasesfor seventeen years, city unlawfully deprived tribe ofroyalty income.* Opinion, 502 F.2d 821 (10th Cir. 1974).

* means additional material available.

42

TRIBAL COURTS: JURISDICTION

002306Alexis, Karen and Patricia, In re the Welfare of.Wash., SUper. Ct., Suquamish, 1973.Indians assert that tribal court has jurisdiction overstate custody proceeding in which non-Indian fosterparents seek to adopt Indian children.

*

TRIBAL LAW: ELECTIONS

002354Motah, Lee v. United States.Okla., loth Cir., Comanche, d. 1968.Federal court has no jurisdiction over dispute con­cerning tribal election because no federal question wasinvolved and because government had not consented tosuit.Opinion, 402 F.2d 1 (loth Cir. 1968).

002367United States v. San Carlos Apache Tribe.Ariz., D. Ariz., San Carlos Apache, 1974.Federal court orders new tribal elections to be heldunder conditions consistent with principle of dueprocess and equal protection.*002368Wachacha, Mose v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians,Inc.N.C., W.D.N.C., Eastern Band of Cherokee, 1974.Indians seek reapportionment of representation ontribal council and contend that two duly elected of­ficials are being denied their seats on council.*

TRIBAL LAW: STATUS OF VIS A VISSTATE COURTS

002349Martinez, Mary v. Southern Ute Tribe.Colo., Sup. Ct., Southern Ute, d. 1962.State court accepts jurisdiction over suit by Indian inwhich membership rights are asserted against tribe.Opinion, 374 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1962).

002381Wisconsin Potowatomies of the Hannahville IndianCommunity, In re Petition of v. Wilsey, William.Fla., M.D. Fla., Potowatomie, 1974, (C.OOl656).Tribe seeks custody of orphan Indian children whowere placed with non-Indian foster parents by statewelfare agency.* Opinion, 377 F.Supp. 1153 (M.D. Fla. 1974).

TRIBAL LAW: TRIBAL CODES

002330Navajo Tribal Code.Books, Equity Publishing Corporation.The Navajo Tribe, 1970.Available from:Equity Publishing CorporationOrford, New Hampshire 03777

002360Blackfeet Tribal Law and Order Code.Book.Blackfeet Tribe, 1973.150 pgs.Available from:Blackfeet Tribal Business CouncilBlackfeet Tribal OfficeBrowning, Montana 59417

TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP

002328Cook, Donald v. South Dakota.S.D., Sup. Ct., Concow, Redwood, 1973, d. 1974.Indian need not be member of tribe on whose reser­vation he allegedly commited crime to be exempt fromstate jurisdiction; however, state has jurisdiction overall persons on diminished portim of reservationopened to non-Indian settlement.·Opinion, 215 N.W.2d 832 (S.D. 1974).

TRIBAL MEMBERSHIP:QUALIFICATIONS

002347Martinez, Mary v. Southern Ute Tribe of Southern UteReservation.Colo., D.Colo., 10th Cir., U.S. Sup. Ct., Southern Ute,1957, d. 1958.Federal court does not have jurisdiction over suit byIndian against tribe which excluded her from reser­vation and denied her membership rights.Opinions, 151 F .Supp. 476 (D.Colo. 1957); aff'd, 249 F.2d915 (lOth Cir. 1957); cert. denied, 356 U.S. 960 (1958);reh. denied, 357 U.S. 924 (1958).

002348Martinez, Mary v. Southern Ute Tribe.Colo., 10th Cir., Southern Ute, d 1960.Federal court refuses to accept jurisdiction over suitby Indian who seeks declaration of tribal membershiprights.

• means additional material available.

Opinion, 273 F.2d 731 (10th Cir. 1960); cert. denied, 363U.S. 847 (1960).

002349Martinez, Mary v. Southern Ute Tribe.Colo., Sup. Ct., Southern Ute, d. 1962.State court accepts jurisdiction over suit by Indian inwhich membership rights are asserted against tribe.Opinion, 374 P.2d 691 (Colo. 1962).

TRIBAL PROPERTY: LANDS

002316Redding, John v. Morton, Rogers C.B.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, 1974.Non-Indians lessees attempt to stop strip mining intheir area, stating B.LA. approval of tribe's miningcontract was in violation of the National En­vironmental Policy Act.•

TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND POWERS

002336Kain, Ruben v. Wilson, Frank.S.D., Sup. Ct., Oglala Sioux, d. 1968.State court has no jurisdiction over civil action broughtby non-Indian against tribal Indian for wrongful useand possession of fee land located in Indian country.Opinion, 83 S.D. 477, 161N.W.2d 704 (S.D. 1968).

002365"Indian American Legal Rights, Duties andRemedies."Transcript of proceedings, Indian Conference ofMontana, University of Montana.Tri-state Tribes, Inc., May, 1972.107 pgs.Available from:Tri-State Tribes, Inc.Suite 228208 No. 29th StreetBillings, Montana 59101

TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND POWERS:BASIS FOR

002321Bissonette, Hobart v. Board of County Commissionersof Shannon County, South Dakota.S.D., Cir. Ct., Sup. Ct., Oglala Sioux, 1972, d.1973.Indians challenge state taxation of their personalproperty owned and used within reservation.•

43

A duoJ

J

II

iiII

Ji.1

002358CalHornJa v. Hickox, Delmar Ralph.CaL, Humboldt County ct., Karok, 1974.Indian asserts aboriginal right to hung and fish off­reservation free from state control.•

002362United States v. Rosebear, Robert Gene.Minn., D. Minn., 8th Cir., Chippewa, 1973, d. 1974,(C.OO2554).Indians are citizens within terms of Selective ServiceAct and thus are subject to being drafted into thearmed forces.·Opinions, 353 F.Supp. 121 (D.Minn. 1973); 500 F.2d1102 (8th Cir. 1974).

002397Navajo Tribe v. National Labor Relations Board.Wash., D.C., D.C. Cir., Navajo, d. 1961.National Labor Relations Board has jUrisdiction tohold union representation election in mining plantlocated on reservation although tribal governmentobjected to it.Opinion, 288 F.2d 162 (D.C. Cir.1961); cert. denied, 366U.S. 928 (1961).

TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND POWERS:LICENSING AND REGULATION

002388Queets Band of Indians v. Nelson, Jack G.Wash., W.D. Wash., Quinault, Queets Bnad, 1974.Indian tribe claims authority to register and license itsmotor vehicles for operation on highways on and offreservation exclusive of state regulation.•

TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY AND POWERS:WAIVER

002342Loncassion, Lorraine v. Leekity, Willis.N.M., D.N.M., Zuni, d. 1971.Federal court has jurisdiction under Indian CivilRights Act to determine Indian's damage claimagainst police officer and tribe.Opinion, 334 F.SUpp. 370 (D.N.M. 1971).

002345Maryland Casualty Co. v. Citizens National Bank ofWest Hollywood.Fla .• 5th dr., Seminole Tribe of Florida, d. 1966.

• means additional material available.

44

Indian tribe's revolving credit fund is imI.:-une fromgarnishment to satisfy money judgement ob4.'ned byconstruction company against tribe.Opinion, 361 F.2d 517 (5th Cir. 1966).

TRUST AND RESTRICTED LANDS:CONVEYANCE

002303Hood, Percy v. United States.Wash., 9th Cir., Lummi, d. 1958. .Land which passed out of Indian ownership prior topassage of statute for reclamation project authorizingliens to insure recovery of costs of project was notconsidered Indian land subject to lien.Opinion, 256 F.2d 522 (9th Cir. 1958).

TRUST RELATION

002317United States v. Critzer, Amy T.N.C., 4th Cir., Eastern Cherokee, 1974.Indian challenges federal taxation of income frombusiness activities on reservation.•002335Kills Crow, Arnold v. United States.S.D., 8th dr., d. 1971.Indian indicted under Major Crimes Act is not entitledto jury instruction on lesser included offense of simpleassault.Opinion, 451 F.2d 323 (8th Cir. 1971).

02344Mann, Keith v. United States.Ariz., 9th Cir., Navajo, d. 1968.Trust status of Indian cannot be relied upon to avoidstatute of limitations provision in Federal Tort ClaimsAct.Opinion, 399 F.2d 672 (9th Cir. 1968).

002356Mole Lake Band v. United States.ct. Cl., Cllippewa, d. 1956.Where reservation included lands which previouslyhad been granted to state, government remainedobligated to Indians to secure to them the enjoymentand proceeds from those lands.Opinion, 134 ct. Cl. 478, 139 F.Supp. 938 (1956); cert.denied, 352 U.S. 892 (1956).

002365"Indian American Legal Rights, Duties andRemedies."Transcript of proceedings, Indian Conference ofMontana, University of Montana.

I!I

Tri-State Tribes, Inc., May, 1972.107 pgs.Available from:Tri-State Tribes, Inc.Suite 228208 No. 29th StreetBillings, Montana 59101

002399Nicodemus, Julia v. Washington Water Power Com­pany.Idaho, 9th Cir., Coeur d'Alene, d. 1959.Federal statute pennits establishment of public utilityeasement across allotment without InteriorSecretary's approval by eminent domain proceeding infederal court.Opinion, 264 F.2d 614 (9th Cir. 1959).

TRUST RELATION: BREACH, CLAIMSAGAINST FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

002312Duncan, Ambrose, Jr. v. Morton, Rogers C.B.caL, N.D.Cal., Pomo, Covelo, 1974, (C.OO2197).Indians allege that termination of their reservationviolated due process standards which resulted in lossof valuable federal services.•002374Hydaburg Cooperative Association v. Morton, RogersC.B.Alas., D. Alas., Alaska Natives, 1974.Alaska village challenges modification of federalcontract resulting in discontinuance of governmentsponsored cannery operation upon which villageeconomy depends,•002383Smith, EIlerick v. United States.CaL, N.D. CaL, 1974.Indians claim relief from failure of government of­ficials to fulfill their obligations under CaliforniaRancheria Act prior to tennination of reservation.•002384Daniels, Cynthia v. Morton, Rogers C.B.CaL, N.D. CaL, California Indians, 1974.Indians seek to enjoin interference with water serviceto their property located on rancheria.•

• means additional material available.

002395Navajo Tribe of Indians v. United States.Ct. ct., Navajo, d. 1966, (C.002396).Terms of lease negotiated by government on tribe'sbehalf implicitly included helium deposits for whichtribe is entiUed to additional compensation.Opinion, 176 Ct. Cl. 502,364 F.2d 320 (1966).

UNCONSCIONABLE DEALINGS: CLAIMSAGAINST UNITED STATES

002353Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States.Ind. CL Comm. Nos. 251, 124-A, Ct. Cl., Miami Tribe ofIndiana, Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, 1958, d. 1960,(C.002352).Tribe awarded additional compensation for landcession and for annuity payments which were com­muted without tribe's consent.Opinions, 6 Ind. Cl. COrDIn. 513, 552 (1958); 150 Ct. Cl.725, 281 F.2d 202 (1960); cert. denied, 366 U.S. 924(1961).

URBAN INDIANS

002332"Questions and Answers on Federal GovernmentIndian Affairs."Report, Bureau of Indian Affairs.Office of Management and Budget, June 5, 1974.96 pgs.

VOTING

002367United States v. San Carlos Apache Tribe.Ariz., D. Ariz., San Carlos Apache, 1974.Federal court orders new tribal elections to be heldunder conditions consistent with principle of dueprocess and equal protection.•

002368Wachcha, Mose v. Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians,Inc.N.C., W.D.N.C., Eastern Band of Cherokee, 1974.Indians seek reapportionment of representation ontribal council and contend that two duly elected of­ficials are being denied their seats on council.•

45

., ""...

1

~ FtatlztTtd trio

WATER RIGHTS WATER RIGHTS: RESERVED RIGHTS

002314Report of Environmental Factors by the Departmentof the Interior and the La Jolla, Rincon, San Pasqual,Pauma and Pala Bands of Mission Indians SubmittedIn Support of Interior's Recapture Recommendationand the Indian Bands' Application for a Non-PowerUcense.Report to the Federal Power Conunission.Secretary of the Interior, La Jolla, Rincon, SanPasqual, Pawna and Pala Bands of Mission Indians,1974, (C.OOl261).289 pgs.

002315United States v. Truckee-Carson IrrIgation District.Nev., D. Nev., Pyramid Lake Paiute, 1974.Suit seeks judicial allocation of Truckee River watersbetween state of Nevada and United States.•

002309Winters Doctrine Rights In the Missouri River Basin.Paper.Veeder, William H., 1965.32 pgs.

WELFARE

002332"Questions and Answers on Federal GovernmentIndian Mfairs."Report, Bureau of Indian Mfairs.Office of Management and Budget, June 5, 1974.96 pgs.

• means additional material available.

Mlllti:ftotlwtd hlrd

• means additional material available.

46

,_ .. ~, .......... -,"",--

-~ '.

NARF Priorities •

NARF Steering Committee

John Clifford, Rosebud Sioux,Educator, Native AmericanStudies; South Milwaukp,,",Wisconsin

Val Cordova, Taos Pueblo,University of New MexicoDepartment of Education;Albuquerque, New Mexico

Curtis L. Custalow, Sr., Mat­taponi, Chief, Mattaponi Tribe;West Point, Virginia

Janet McCloud, Tulalip, Member,Tulalip Tribe; residing at Yelm,Washington

Leroy Logan, Osage, Rancher;Hominy, Oklahoma

Lucille Dawson, Narragansett,Secretary, Coalition of EasternNative Americans; Shohola,Pennsylvania

Rodney Lewis, Pima-Marico"''',Director, Gila River Legalvices; Sacaton, Arizona

Leo J. LaClair, Muckleshoot,Executive Director, Small Tribesof Western Washington; Seattle,Washington

Martha Grass, Ponca, Director,American Indian Referral Cen­ter; Marland, Oklahoma

David Risling, Jr., Hoopa,Coordinator, Native AmericanStudies, University of California;Davis, California

John Stevens, Passamaquoddy,State Commissioner of IndianAffairs; Augusta, Maine

Director

John E. Echohawk, Pawn'Deputy Director

Thomas W. Fredericks, Mandan

Shoshone­Fort HallBlackfoot,

Jacob Adams, Inupiat Eskimo,Vice President, Arctic SlopeNative Association; Barrow,Alaska

HUMAN RIGHTS: NARF isconcerned with securing for In­dians their rights to an educationwhich complements their culture,to adequate health care, and toequitable treatment for Indianprisoners.

TRIBAL RESOURCES: Theseefforts concentrate on protectingIndian lands, water, minerals,and other na tural resources fromabuse.

The Steering Committee of theNative American Rights Fund hasdecided to concentrate NARF'slegal resources on these problemareas:

ACCOUNTABILITY: Indians arecontrolled by more laws thanother Americans. NARF works tomake certain that governments­federal, state, local, and tribal ­are accountable for proper en­forcement.

TRIBAL EXISTENCE: Enablingtribes to continue to practice theirreligion and Indian ways,protecting their original treatyrights, as well as insuring theirindependence on reservations.

LaNada Boyer,Bannock, Resident,Indian Reservation;Idaho

INDIAN LAW DEVELOPMENT:NARF is joining efforts withothers working in Indian law toinsure an orderly development ofthis complex body of law and isworking to increase other Indianlegal resources.

(Continued from page 14.)

Accordingly, after the initialruling by the Superior Courtwhich upheld the establishment ofthe North Slope Borough, theState of Alaska, NARF, ASNAattorney Fred Paul, and theBorough itself moved for anaward of attorney fees and otherlitigation expenses. These totalledmore than $150,000. After con­sidering the motion the SuperiorCourt awarded only $20,000 for1417 hours of legal work eventhough the prevailing rate inAlaska was then $42 per hour. Thehourly average under the awardwas $14.

The original award of fees andcosts was uph~ld by the SupremeCourt, which also awarded anadditional $1,500 to partially coverthe cost of the appeal (NARF'sout of pocket expenses during theappeal process alone were morethan $11,000). Of the total awardNARF received $14,524.

NARF will continue to seekattorney fees in other casesbecause the Steering Committeebelieves that if the trusteeSecretary, the states, and thecorporate interests find that theymust bear the expense of suchlitigation, then they will not bequick to repudiate their trustresponsibilities and other com­mitments to Native Americanpeople.

47

Announcements is published quarterly by the Native American Rights Fund, Inc.,1506 Broadway, Boulder, Colorado 80302; Joan C. Ueberrnan, Editor; Diana limGarry, NIIL Supplement; Wesley WJ.1dcat, printing; Annie Echohawk, cir­culation. Third class postage paid at Boulder, Colorado. All rights reserved.Subscription rates: libraries and non-Indian organizations, $10 per year; Indiantribes, organizations and individuals, no charge. Attorneys and other individualsby contribution.

A Note To Our Readers: Pleaseaccept our apology for the absence of thepublication of Announcements during1974. It was a year full of many suc­cesses fot' our clients. fiowever, ourresources, both human and financial,were more limited this year than in thepast, and as we struggled to meet ourcommitments to our clients we wereforced to temporarily stop publication.

To all of you who wrote to us askingfor us to continue, we are grateful foryour encouragement. Weare nowresuming publication and we are lookingforward to sharing our thoughts withyou again.

All graphics from Eskimo Prints,1971 and Ans of the Eskimo: Prints,1975. Courtesy of Barre Publishers,Barre, Massachusetts.

Native American Rights Fund1506 Broadway ,

Boulder, Colorado 80302Telephone (303) 4.47·8760

1712 N Street, N.W.Washington, D.C. 20036

Telephone (202) 785·4166

NARF is a non-profit. charitable organization incor­

porated in 1971 under the Jaws of the District of Colum··

bia .. NARF is exempt from federal income tax under the

provisions of Section 5OICc)(3) of the Internal Revenue

Code, and contributions to NARF are tax deductible The

Internal Revenue Service has luled that NARF is not a

"private foundation" as defined in Section 509(a) of the

Internal Revenue Code

SUBSCRIPTION REQUEST

Please send me the 1975 issues ofAnnouncements_Name

(please print>Organization _

(if applicable)Address

(number and street>

(city) (state) (zip)Please indicate subscriptioncategory:

Library ...........•.................. [Non-Indian Organization •...•.•........ [• Payment Enclosed

Amount $. _• Please Bill _

Indian Tribe ...........••.•..••.•..... [Indian Organization..............•..... [Indian Individual [

• No ChargeAttorney [Other Individual. 'C• Contribution Enclosed

Amount $. _

3nlYA 3~ll

6SS·0N JlwJadopeJo/oo 'JaPlnOS

OIVd3~V.lSOd 'sn'fiJO JIIOJduON

GO£OB OpeJOIOJ 'Japln08AeMpeOJ8 90S ~

AJeJq!1 Mel UelPUI leuOneNpun:::l Sl1l6!H ueopawy a"!leN