Volume 1, NO.4

NfLL No.010003/1972

September 197

California Indians- Double Genocide

Ii

Iv

I

I

Ignorance makes of a mana fearful animal whoseresponse to alien eyes, skincolor, dress, and customis hostile, whose singleimpulse is to stamp out,to obliterate from sightand consciousness a worldview that contravenes his own.

Almost Ancestors-The First Ctl/i!ornians

OIn 1848, when the Treaty of Guada-lupe-Hildalgo was signed at the con-clusion of the Mexican War andCalifornia became a part of the UnitedStates, about 200,000 Indians occupied90 per cent of the new state. By theturn of the century less than 20,000had survived.

The Spaniards began the initial actof obliteration of the native culturewith their missions and pyramidalsociety (Indians as the peon base andthe conquerors as the aristocracy) asfar back as 1769. Spanish missionswere filled with Indians roundldup without reference to tribe,tongue or personal willingness.What the Spaniards did by this . :::xtransposition was decimate ~t. ··Wthe populations of whole ..,~ ~.;~~:tribes-they learned a..Jl,i; ~W.too late that In- ~ :2:dians who were .-. • ~uprooted, enslavedand stripped of theircultural identity,chose death to life.o The Gold Rushbrought an enormousinflux of Anglo-Saxons who lacked

even a discriminatory pyrarnidialvision for Indians. The settlers calledthe Indians "Diggers," and seeing themas scarcely human began to makeslaves of them, to herd them likecattle to unde~irable lands to let themdie, and most of all to simply extermi-

nate them. Being an Indian-killer w;considered by many settlers to be ~honorable profession.The settler-conquerors are often I'

membered as brave adventurers, Ieoften as ignorant racists. Their ations were not labeled as genocicuntil after the Second World W;when the act of attempting to wilout another culture finally bore on tlcollective conscience. The last SLviving Indians are left with an uimaginable sense of loneliness. Idetity can now be found only in their ovperson; their people, language, atculture are gone.

The Lost TreatiesAfter the Treaty of GuadalupHildalgo, the U.S. Government sethree commissioners to Californianegotiate with the Indians for theland. They started at the top of t

state and when they finished thhad 18 treaties. In them, t

Indians had ceded 75 million acrto the United States, keepil

only 8.5 million for themselv,The Indians were never tc

that the treaties had toratified by the Senate. Th

also did not know tlthe California legislatu

and governor arguvigorously that ttreaties should I'

be ratified, Ithat rather t

Indians shouldbe removed beyo

the bordersthe state. T

stop what they considered to bean illegal and non-existant acceptanceof their portion of the claim, thesettlement was ratified.

Congress appropriated the $29 mil-lion and put it in trust. In 1968 alaw waS passed specifying how themonies were to be distributed, andsince that time the Bureau of IndianAffairs has been in the process ofdetermining who should be eligible topl1fticip.ate in the settlement.

California Indians;;~~ti,;.,!79r~~,:~flJf~~JtI~.J1'lentW~;'d:~(' S~metime'i~i:iiliei.n~h'few Ym~nths;

, .. ' the; Bureaui of ; t~diitn ';Affarrs c. willdistribute) ii/the •.iCalifomhiHndianstheprOeeeds'of the' Califrniaclaimsjudgment. Ii is estimated' that: 'eachCalifornia IIidianwilI receive between$600 and $800" to be' considered afmal compensation for the seizure ofthe ,75 million acres of land. ManyCalifornia Indians feel that their ac-ceptance' of the award (which was theresult of a compromise of the claim)was procured without their beingaware of all the facts and implications.

.. Many resent the roles of some of the• claims attorneys who, the Indians

allege, spent too much time arguingamong themselves, and who seemedintent on a settlement of the claim.

Thus, many California Indians arereluctant to accept this payment. Inaddition to feeling that the award isinadequate payment for land itself,many people feel that they should becompensated for the genocide com-mitted by the State of California andits citizens. In addition, many peoplewould prefer to receive trust landsrather than money, for they do notwish to surrender their claims to theland.

On September 9, 1972, a groupcalling themselves "California Indiansfor a Fair Settlement" will be meetingin Sacramento to aSsess various alter-natives to the settlement of this claim.Many are hopeful of going. back tocourt to try to reopen the claims case.In addition to payment for the deaths,enslavement, and suffering of Cali-fornia Indians' when the land was ta-ken, they want a land base for those

_ remaining survivors. Because they• know the government will argue that

the case cannot be reopened becausethe Indians have been paid for the

lap.d, they hope to join a~ a group anddeposit their claims payments in atrust account either with the govern-ment or in a bank.

There are several reasons why Ia-dians have been joining together inthis effort. Some feel that they haveno right to sell land; that it belongsto everyone. Others have joined be-cau~e they know that California isworth much more than 47 cents anacre. Still others say that this paymentis far too small considering that thereis a risk that California Indians willlose all of their Indian benefits andbecause they believe the governmentmust be made to pay for the sufferingsof their ancestors.

For further information aboutCalifornia Indians for a Fair Settlementwrite to:

Joseph Carrillo915 Capitol Mall, Room 309Sacramento, California 95814

Public Law 280

Law is a continuously evolvingphenomenon, Intrinsically socialIn nature. These characteristicsit shares with the consciousnessof a culture.

In 1953, as part of its general policyto terminate federal services to Indiantribes, Congress passed Public Law 280which purported to give specificstates, including California, civil andcriminal jurisdiction over Indian tribeswithin their boundaries. The intendedpurpose of P.L. 280 was to facilitatethe integration of Indians into thelocal and state structures which sur-rounded them.

Since the implementation of P.L.280 in California 19 years ago, reser-vation Indians have had numerousdifficulties with the "benefit" of beingsubject to the jurisdiction of local lawenforcement agencies. Discrimination,brutality, and harrassment have beenall too common when county and stateofficers have exercised jurisdictionupon Indian reservations. In numerousinstances, police and sheriffs fail torespond in time of need, but have beenall too willing and available to arrestIndian people for drunkenness, (actualor suspected), as well as for otherpetty infractions.

As repugnant as these excesses have

been, the extension of the Califomipenal code to reservation lands h,not until recently been a significalthreat to the remnants of Indian cuture and life style. However, recentI'local governments have begun to asert police power jurisdiction to aextent and in a manner which, if UJheld by the federal courtS, will assUIthe destruction of tribal sovereignt

Unlike many western states, Cafornia has very few areas which aJtruly rural, except in the extrerrnorthern part of the state. Particularin southern California, reservatiolwhich may have been geographicalisolated. when established, are nobeing surrounded by urban or concetrated suburban development. As goernment attempts to regulate neland developments in previously UJdeveloped areas, attention is beirdirected to nearby Indian reservtions which, until now, have beelargely ignored. There are severcounties which have begun to a,gressively enforce local building codeand zoning ordinances on Califofornia reservations. Insofar as buildincodes require expensive permits ,well as needlessly expensive and Cllturally biased building specificatiorand materials, the enforcement (such codes can easily render thconstruction of a dwelling or otheimprovements beyond the financi,means of many Indians.

The application of state and loc,ordinances also threatens tribal planfor the economic development of rcservation resources. The enforcemerof zoning laws can severely limit thability of tribal governments to determine how reservation lands are tbe used. In cases where Indian landadjoin non-Indian recreational or otheproperty, the political influence cwealthy non-Indian landowners mawell result in the use of Indian Ianbeing restricted so as to be compatiblwith the maximization of the profitof the white landowners.

Basically the zoning of Indian Iansubjects and subordinates the Indian:whose occupation of particular resevations preceded the Anglo OCClpation of surrou~ding lands, to thdesires and manioulation of norIndian land owne~ and speculator:The result is further economic ancultural disaster for Indian peopleAt the present time the states an

counties are reading P.L. 280 as a defacto termination act, at the very timewhen' Congress and the. Executivebranches of the government are recog-nizing the immorality and destructive-ness of termination and 'are. for' thatreason,abandoning it.

Termination-~~T().Wipe;(jut",

,.','

tions promised in the 18 lost Treawere never created and those reseJtions that were created later \\widely scattered and very smallis important to note that today cabout 6,000 of the 40,000 NaCalifornia Indians live on reservati(Approximately 50,000 other NaiAmericans in California have b,relocated to California from otstates and they do not live on reseJtions, but in urban areas. It setstrange that the funds were remowhen those intended to be the primbeneficiaries of the Johnson O'MaAct. were Indians "so interminEwith the general population ofstate that it was not praticaleconomical for the Department (Bto obtain separate services for the

There is nothing in the languagethe legislative history of the JohnO'Malley Act which has authorithe Bureau of Indian Affairs todemine that the funds are for sclldistricts with large blocks of tax-!Indian land and relatively large D1bers of Indian children.

The attempt by the DepartmentInterior and Bureau of Indian Affto restrict the distribution of J.Ofunds on the above basis has prompa lawsuit by the California Indian Ecation Association, (C.I.E.A.) agathe Secretary of Interior. The case'filed in March 1972 and set fcthe controversy over the IntelDepartment regulations purportto limit permissible J.O.M. bene!aries. The suit is being handby California Indian Legal Serviand a copy of the complaint in 1case is available from the NaticIndian Law Library, (No. oonA hearing on a Motion to Dismissthe defendants is scheduled for e,September. The basis for the motis an alleged lack of standingC.I.E.A. to bring this suit. Further,plifying the standing issue aremembers of C.LE.A. who have fipetitions on their own behalf to invene as plaintiffs in the suit.

Public education of Californiadians has proven to be unsatisfact(intrinsically, and in comparison vIndian education programs in otstates. The consensus is that ifJohnson-O'Malley Act of 1934 wreapplied to California, it could be

. California was the .first state tocontract with the Bureau of IndianAffairs to receive J.O.M. funds. From1934 until the move for terminationin the 1950's cancelled all J.O,M.funding in California, the state re-ceived more than $300,000 a year,which was a percentage of the JohnsonO'Malley appropriation approximatingthe proportion of Indians in Californiato the national Indian population(12%). It was in 1957, when the B.LA.adopted an administrative regulationlimiting Johnson O'Malley funds toschool districts with "large blocks ofnon-taxable ". Iridian oWned property"that •• California:.'l.ost· its funding. Cali-fornia, of course, has very few largeblocks of tax-freeland. The reserva-

federal government. It is this questionof the legal status of terminatedIndians with which the Inter-TribalCouncil is concerned.

California IndianEducation'The Johnson O'Malley Act of 1934acknowledged the federal govern-ment's responsibility as a guardian todeal with the problems which areunique to Indian education. Implicitin the J.O.M. legislation is a concept

....... :that this', fecieral .responsibility cant~stbe metbyproviding the individualf;~t~te~ ~.th·. if ~mmCial inc~ntive to',~undertakeeducation progra~design~

~;\~~~*~~})~nefi~,India~'2f~~re~;r::j,k:

li·;~~'.f:~;; "

~T{::'~-.:'"

)

)

-- .

TRIBES AND TERRITORIESOF CALIFORNIA INDIANS

did not even contend that their clientshad title (even though conclusiveevidence of the established Indiancommunities stands close by the HotSp~gs. to this day in the form ofadobe cOttages, now modernized toaccoDlodate tourists; a sign over onereads "built by the Indians in 1830").Instead the'attorneys asserted that theIndians had merely a "usufructuaryright under Guadalupe Hidalgo", theright of "use and occupancy", and thatthe indians and their ancestors had"remained in continuous, open, notor-ious adverse possession". This wasnot the law; the Indians owned titlesto their communities or rancherias inWarner Valley and the attorneysshould have claimed title.

Further the attorneys for the Indiansdid not cite any of the controllingdecisions of the Supreme Court whichrecognized the effect of Spanish and

(

Mexican law in preserving and pro-tecting Indian title, and giving effect.to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgoin perpetuating and protecting thoseproperty rights.

The Supreme Court of the UnitedStates having been inadequately ad-vised by counsel for the Indians, err-oneously held that "If these Indianshad any claims founded on the actionof the Mexican Government theyabandoned them by not presentingthem to the commission for consider-ation ...." pursuant to the Act ofMarch 1851 which established theCalifornia Land Claims Commissionbut of which the Indians had neverbeen informed. Still the Act estab-lishing the California Land ClaimsCommission had no application what- Usoever to Indian titles, for these hadalready been the subject of a specialAct of Congress in which the 18

200 .11••ISO100soo

single most effective measure to im-prove the quality of education forIndian children in that state.

If it could have been said at one timethat the State of California agreed tothe withdrawal of I.O.M. funds, that isno longer the case. Both the Californialegislature and Department of Educa-tiOI! wish the BIA to reinstate I.O.M.funding. Calif9rnia Indians neveraSsented to the withdrawal in thefll"Stplace; and they, too, urge rein~statement.

: ~.:..'-,~,.::_~- ~>"!.~. ;~.L;~. ~.,,;-:: ;0~,:-;\ ,'9.:~f~:'·" -:::-_,~:-·t.::;:i I' ")'j{~.-:,t..;:., .. "':- ,r.•:;The.~AgUa;:caIiente,Band ;an,djnanyother?,Ban.dso(,:Southern· CaliforniaIndians had used since time immem-orial ~.areanow;~o~as'Warner'sValley. For generations the Indiansregarded the, hot springs there', assacred and made pilgrimages to themfrom far and near.

A gentleman muned Harvey claimedtitle to the Warner Ranch landspursuant to a patent from the U.S.Government to I. I. Warner on Ianu-ary 16, 1880, and brought action tooutst the Indians. Harvey won in thelower courts and the case eventuallyreached the Supreme Court of theUnited States on appeal (Barker V.Harvey, 181 U.S. 480 45 L. Ed. 9631901).

The Indians, without an attorney oftheir own choosing, were forced torely upon counsel selected by thegovernment for. them. The SupremeCourt of the United States reliedupon the attorney employed by theBureau of Indian Affairs, and thegovernment attorney, to present theIndians' case, but examination otthe brief in the Suprme Court revealsa patent failure to assert the truelegal position of the Indians and thecase was lost by default.

Even the most supedicial researchinto the Spanish and Mexican lawconcerninS! Indian land tenure would'lave reve'iIed that the Indians held.itle to established communities andrancherias. Attorneys for the Indians

6

--_..

treaties were negotiated. Had theattorneys been diligent in protecting

Athe interests of the Indians, they\.ftould have immediately petitioned

the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates for a rehearing for this andother reasons, but no such petitionwas ever filed.

The genOCide of the California Indianpeople and the theft of their landcannot be undone. The, deciinationthat occurred in the 19th centurymight be viewed as the ruthless actsof conquerors-irrational, without mo-tive or considerable premeditation-and therefore not reflective on theconsciousness of the society which

Opermitted it. This is not true oflaw as it has been applied to Cali-fornia Indians.

Law is a more accurate reflector ofthe conscience of American societythan any other activity, because itmust ultimately rely on support fromthe culture as a whole. Unlike therules of morality, law is surroundedby and intertwined with customs andrites which reveal attitudes and beliefshidden by the bare rule. It is thereforeall the more despicable that the geno-cide has continued to occur through-out the 20th century.

The law has been used to removefrom th~ California Indians land andmost of the remnants of their culture.In some instances it has been becauseIndians were not informed of theirrights or their need to petition; inother instances they have been poorlyrepresented; and in still others theCongress has made laws which, al-though may have been intended tobenefit Indians, were in fact instrumen-tal in furthering the cycle of destruc-tion.o It may be possible to somewhatmitigate the hardship and degradationstill endured by the surviving Cali-fomia natives. There can be no justi-

Degana',vidah...Quetza!ccat!UniversityP.O. Box 409Davis, California 95616Telephone: (916) 758-0470

Bruce R. Greene, Executive DirecCalifornia Indian Legal Services2527 Dwight WayBerkeley, California 94704Telephone (415) 845-6171

ClLS also has branch offices in Bish.Escondido, Eureka and Ukiah.

Deganawidah-QuetzalcoatlUniversityDescendants of Native Americansthe United States number apprcmately 7 to 8 million persons. Th<people share racial and cultural Vallwhich they have maintained in spitepersistent efforts to assimilate th(into the dominant society.

the Office of Economic OpportunThe primary objective of the projis to obtain land for landless CaIifoIIndians, and to help existing resertions with their land problems,cluding boundary disputes, clouetitles, rights of way and others.

For further information about Cland the Land Project write to the ClCentral Office:

It is the consensus of the NatjAmerican community that its cultuheritage may be preserved and <hanced through educational Opportlities at an ethnic university. To tend, the nation'slirst Americandian-ehicano University was foundin 1971. It is located in north-centCalifornia on land seized by Chicarand Indians after it had been ab,doned by the United States Army. T640 acre campus called Deganawid,Quetzalcoatl University, in memcof leading ligures in Iroquois aAztec history, welcomed its ficlass in July of 1971. The D-(curriculum consists of agriculturliberal arts and vocational offerinlit emphasizes studies in Native Amiican history and contemporary cultu

Prospective students and interestpersons may write for further inf.mation about D-QU to DirectorStudent Services:

fication for Indians livlng as "squat-ters" when the very instrument~lityby which their lands were stolen fromdiem-the federal government-owns44% of California, of which 14%· isvacant. The Indians realistically needbut a fraction of 1%. Similarly, thereis no justification for the multiplicityof land problems now afflicting reser-vations, rancherias and allotmentswhen the means are at hand, at arelatively small cost, to remedy suchproblems.

Land is critical to Indian culturalsurvival. It is religiously sacred toIndians and for many it can providea dignified, secure home. For some itcan increase economic self-sufficiencyand help provide a more adequatestandard of living. The alternativeto constructive action is continuinggenocide.•. injustice, festering bitter-ness and the final death of the firstCalifornians.

California IndianLegal ServicesCalifornia Indian Legal Services pro-vides legal assistance and advice toIndians throughout the state. TheNative American Rights Fund wasoriginally a pilot project of CILS, andthe Fund continues to have a closeworking relationship with the CaE-fomia program.

CILS recently established the Cali-fornia Rural Indian Land Consolida-tion Project, with the assistance of

"There Is Dot much that Ismore imPortant for humanbeings than their relationswith each other, and It Isthese which laws are designedto e~ress." '

;~",!i',L~": . OweD Barfield

Continuing Genocide

~H:8-":"·, ;",.

j

8arona Group of Capitan Band of Missionladians

Barona Reservation

Native Tribes AndGroups Of CaliforniaIn 1770(approximate totalpopulation -300,000)

o

o

u

Cahto TribeLaytonville Reservation

Los Coyotes Band of Mission ladiansLos Coyotes Reservation

ManzanIta Band of MissIon IndiansManzanita Reservation

Pomo-Patwln TribeMiddletown Rancheria

Pala Band of MissIon ladiansPala Reservation

Mesa Grande Band of Mission ladiansMesa Grande Reservation

Mission Creek Band of Mission ladiansMission Creek Reservation

t.a Pasta Band of Mission IndiansLa Pasta Reservation

Morongo Band of Mission ladiansMorongo Reservation

Pauma Band of MissIon IndiansPauma Reservation

Pechaaga Band of MissIon IndiansPechanga Reservation

. La Jolla Band of Mission IndiansLa Jolla Reservation

Cahuilla Band of MissIon ladiansRamona Reservation

San Lu!seno Band of MissIon IndiansRincon Reservation

Yuki, Pitt River, Uttle Lake, Koakow, Wylackl,Pomo, NomaIackl aud Wlatua Tribes

Round Valley Reservation

Tache TribeSanta Rosa Rancheria

San Pascual Band of Mission IndiansSan Pascual Reservation

San Manuel Band [of MissIon IndiansISan Manuel Reservation

Santa Rosa Band of Mission IndiansSanta Rosa Reservation

Santa Ysabel Band of Mission ladiansSanta Ysabel Reservation

Santa Ynez Band of Mission ladiansSanta Ynez Reservation

Pitt Rivcr-Paiute TribeXL Reservation

Paiute, Maldu, Pitt River and Washoe TribesSusanville Rancheria

Soboba Band of Mission ladiansSoboba Reservation

CahII Dehe Band of Wlatua ladiansColusa Rancheria

Pitts TrfbeBig Bend Rancheria

Wlatua TribeCortina RancheriaRumsey )Uncheria

Quechan TribeFort Yuma Reservation

Augustlae Band of Mission IndiansAugustine Reservation

Mono TribeCold Springs RancheriaBig Sandy Reservation (Auberry)

Nomalackl-WaUackl TribeGrindstone Creek Rancheria

Paiute TribeCedarville RancheriaFort Bidwell ReservationFort Independence Reservation

MoJave TribeFort MoJave Reservation

Palute-Shoshone TribesBig Pine ReservationBishop ReservationLone Pine Reservation

YurokTribeHoopa Extension ReservationHoopa Valley ReservationTrimdad Reservation

Cnyapalpe Band of MissIon ladiansCuyapaipe Reservation

MissIon Band of Indians of Campo CommunityCampo Reservation

Cabazon Band of MissIon ladiansCabazon Reservation

Cahuilla Band of MissIon IndiansCahuilla Reservation

Maldu TribeBerry Creek RancheriaEnterprise RancheriaMooretown RancheriaNevada City RancheriaAuburn Rancheria (mixed)Greenville RancheriaStrawberry Valley Reservation

VleJas, Barona and non-reservation ladiansCapitan Grande Reservation

Me-Wuk TribeJacksw"1 RaucheriaSheep Ranch RancheriaBuena Vista RancheriaCortina RancheriaShingle SpringsChicken Ranch

InaJa-Cosmit TribeInaja-Cosmit Reservation

YumaHalchidhomaKohuanaMohave

WlatuaWintuNomlakiPatwin

MalduN"ISCnan' ,

Kern RiverTubatulabalBankalachi

SerranoKitanemuk (Tejon)Alliklik

Mohineyam(Vanyume)Serrano

GabrielfDoFernandenoGabrielinoNicoleno

Lulseao-CahulllaJuanenoLuisenoCupenoCahuilla

TolowaHupaWhIIkutMattoleWaDaId

r:.s,;dSlakyoneKato'Bear River:.'/',;;"\,f.,,:,,"

Y~kJ" iWJ,yot"

MiwokYaid CostaDoanHuclmom YokutsWappo Modoc

Shasta Moao-BaiuaOckKoaomlha PaviotsoOkwaauchu Owens Valley PaiuteAchomawl (Pitt River) Mono Lake PaiuteAtsagewl Monache"

- Paaamlat ShoshoneY.... (Koso)Yahl Ute-Cliemehuevl~ Qemeh~vi

Chlmarlko Kawaiisu (Tehachapi)

PomoWashoEsseIea

SaIIaaaAntonianoMiguelenoPlayano

ChumashObispenoPurisimenoYnezenoBarbarenoVenturenoEmigdianoCuyamaIsland

YlIIIIlIIlDieguenoKamia

Known Tribes AndReservations InCalifornia In 1972(approximate totalpopulation -40,000)Agua Caliente Baud

Agua Caliente Reservation

Pitt River TribeAltur'as Rancherialikely ReservationLookout Rancheria

8

J

Sycuan Band of Mission Indianso Sycuan ReservationTorres-Martinez Band of Mission Indians

Torres-Martinez Reservation

Tole River TribeTule River Reservation

Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk IndiansTuolumne Rancheria

Twenty-NIne Palms Band of (MissIon] InclfansTwenty-N'me Palms Reservation

VIeJas Groupof;,Capltan Grande Band ofMission Indians:

, Viejas Reseryation,-I.: . ,i];\:(~~~':,,;,rF;iJ~,

Pomo TribeSulphur Bank RancheriaBig Valley.(Mission) ReservationCache Creek ReservationLower Lake ReservationRobinson ReservationScotts Valley (Sugar Bowl) ReServationUpper Lake *1'Coyote Valley ReservationGuidiville ReservationHopland .ReservationManchester-Point Arena ReservationPinoleville ReservationPotter Valley ReservationRedwood Valley ReservationOoverdale ReservationDry Creek ReservationGraton Reservation

O Lytton ReservationMark West ReservationStewart's Point Reservation

National Indian LawLibrary Tribal IndexThe National Indian Law Library isin-the process of compiling a TribalIndex which will list all tribes knownin the United States since its discovery.It will also include native villages ofAlaska and all reservations existing to-day.

The Index will be used in conjunc-tion with the Indian Claims Commis-sion Reports and the regular holdingsof the National Indian Law Library.Anyone wishing information aboutany tribe will be able to look up thetribe in the index and find a listingof all cases in which that particulartribe has been involved.

Persons interested in this project,who either may have informationabout little known tribes or who wouldlike to purchase a copy of the National

_ Indian Law Library Tribal Indexl)should write directly to:

Diana Lim, Research AssociateNative American Rights FundNational Indian Law Library

-_ ..

1506 BroadwayBoulder, Colorado 80302Telephone (303) 447-8760

ext. '48

National Indian LawLibrary HoldingsThe following is a list of recentacquisitions now available through theNational Indian Law Library. Togetherwith the lists in the first and secondissues of Announcements, they com-prise a current listing of all Libraryholdings. We will continue to up-datethis list in subsequent issues of ,An-nouncements.

The Library will soon have accessto an'Off-set press to be used inprinting the complete catalogue ofdocuments available in each case andthe subject index. We have alreadybeen receiving requests for theseitems. The document catalogue willbe ready near the end of October, andthe subject index later this year. Ifyou are interested in receiVIng eitherof these documents, please fill outthe Subscription and Catalogue re-quest form on the last page of thisissue.

The recently acquired case materials are dividedunder very general subject headings pendingpublication of our comprehensive Subject Cata-logue. The number in the upper left hand corneris the Library acquisition number and should beuSed in ordering materials. The line directlybelow the title gives the state, court(s), tribe(s).and daters) when applicable. The court, exceptwhere shown as a Federal Court, tribal court oradministrative agency, is a court of the stateindicatedat the beginning ofthe line. The courtslisted are not meant to be a history of the case,but only refer to the documents in the libraryfiles. The date is that of the earliest documentin the case in ourfiles. The date preceded by theleIter "d" indicates the date on which the casewas settled or decided. If no date preceded bythe letter "d" indicates the date on which thethe letter "d" is shown, then the case is un-decided, on appeal in another court, or thedecision is unreported and we have no record ofit. If only a date preceded by the letter "d"is shown, then all of the litigation in our fileoccurred during the year of the decision. Thesymbol (C-) indicates a connected or con-solidated case.

Although the Library has made every effort tomake our files as complete and accurate aspo~ible, there may be errors which we rely uponyou to help us correct.

1005 Acquisition NumberWisconsin v. Richard Gurnoe.Wisc., Cir. Ct., Sup. Ct., Chippewa, 1970, d.1972" I" .. , .. ·····1'State Courts Tribe Dates

(C. l006).-Connected or consolidated case

ADMIMSTRAnON OF INDIAN AFFAIR~

001297Freeman, Enola E. v. Morton, Rogen C. BWash., D.C., DD.C., 1972.Action challenging B.I.A.. interpretationstatutes concerning Indian preference asplying only to initial hiring.001332Thompson, Mae v. Hickel, Walter J.N.M., D.N.M., Navajo, 1970.Action contesting Dept. of Int. regulationhibiting general assistance grants supplemerstate welfare to reservation Indians.001496Begay, SaUy John v. Graham, John O.Ariz., Super. Ct., Navajo, 1969.Action contesting denial of state welfare bfits to family because family's resourcesceeded allowable maximum.001497Smith, Joe v. Finch, Robert H.Ariz., D. Ariz., Navajo, 1969.Action contesting administrative decisionnying Social Security Disability Insurance bfits to Indian.001505Burcell, William v. Armstrong, Ellis.Cal., E. D. Cal., 1972.Suit alleging federal flood relief progranadministered that allottee's property nnreaably susceptible to flood, thus reducinEvalue and endangering life.

CIVIL RIGHTS

001302WUber, Ullian v. Board of Educadon of J.School District No. 8-Wis., W.D. WiS., Menominee, 1972.Action charging school officials. with discrnating against Indian students in enrollmentcurriculum.001490FerreU, Derryl v. Kerr, Henry W.Cal., N.D. Cal., 1972.Action by Indian prisoners charging violaof 14th Amendments rights in parole polic'001504Duro, Raphael v. VaDey Center Union SciDistrict.Cal., S.D. Cal., Rincon Band, 1972.Action to prevent school officials. frompending Indian male students for violatiolschool hail' length regulations.001508California v. Carrillo, Joe.Cal., lust. Ct., 1972.Suit alleging unconstitutional discriminain composition of master panel of jurondetriment of Indians and Meixcan American:001513Shepard, Grover Lee v. Justice Court, COlof Inyo, Southern Inyo Judicial District.Cal., Super. Ct., 1972.Suit alleging denial of equal protection in sprosecution for public drunkenness.001520San Diego Unified School District v. AttolGeneral of the State of California.Cal., U.S. Sup. Ct., 1971.State action to desegregate de facto raimbalance in school district.

HUNTING AND FISHING RIGHTS

001321Cvuf~ei'iiLed Tribes of die Uilliidllii IudReservadon v. Malson, H. G.Ore., D. Ore., 9th Cir., Walla Walla, CaytUmatilla, 1960, d.l963..Action to ascertain extent of off·reservatfiShing rights given Indians in treaty.

001322Confederated Taiba of the Umatilla Reserva-tion v. Malson, H. G.Ore., D. Ore., Walla Walla, Cayuse, Umatilla,1966, d.l%7.Action to ascertain extent of off-reservationhunting rights given Indians in treaty.001333OrganJzed Village of Kake v. Egan, William A.Alaska, D.Alaska, U.s. Sup. Ct., 1959, d.l%2(C.1334, 1299)..' .Action to prevent enforcement of state fishingregulations against, Alaskan Indians.001334 ,;)Augoon Commnnfty AssocIation v. Egan~ WO-llam A. " . ;', 'Alaska, D. Alaska, U.S. Sup. Ct., 1959, d.l%2(C.I333, 1299). ."Action to prevent enforcement of state fIShingregulations against Alaskan Indians.

. 001500 " .', ..,,.'1M,';,;"'.•,·!. •Minnesot8'~. CIllfk¥~ :; ... ,Z

Minn., Probate Ct;fDist; Ct.;'Minn. Chippewa.:",~ Prosecution of Indian~gwiranteed hunting rights, " by treaty, for: on-~rv:ation violation of state

game laws. . c'" • ': 001509 ' . ". ": r ',r\

U~:~::~t~=er972.Al,'tion .to determine 'state's authority to regulateoff-reservation possession of crabs for COIll:

, mercial purpose by ~dian. .

JURlSDICllON

001301Sonth Dakota v. Molas&, Joe.S.D., Sup. Ct;, Sioux, 1971, d.I972.State prosecution of Indian for forgery COIll:mitted in Indian country.001303WaDDeka, Panline v. CampbeD, David.Ariz., Super. Ct., Navajo, 1971.Action to prohibit application of state financialresponsibility regulations to on-reservation ac-cidents involving Indians.001305WhIte Monataln Apache Taibe v. SheRey,MeMnT.Ariz., Sup. Ct., White Mountain Apaches,d. 1971.Action challenging state court authority toenforce contract between tribal and non-Indiancompanies.001329UnIted States ell: reL TDdon louis Condon v.Erikson, Don R.S.D., D. S.D., Cheyenne River Sioux, d. 1972.Suit claiming state .lacked jurisdiction overcrime committed by Indian in portion of reser-vation opened to white settlement by Act ofCongress.001336KDls Plenty, Percy v. UnIted States.S.D., 8th Cir., Rosebud Sioux, 1972.Appeal by Indian acquitted of driving whileintoxicated by tribal court and then con\ictedof involuntary manslaughter arising fmm sameHo~f,fft in federal court.

Davis, Arnold, In the Matter of the AppUcationfor a Writ of Habeas Cor:pns.Davis, Arnold v. Warden, Nevada State PrlsIon.Nev., Dist. Ct., Sup. Ct., Pyramid Lake, 1970.Habeas corpJIS proceedings claiming state courtlacked jurisdiction over Indian and reservationwhere offense occurred.001501iYuakah indian Tribe v. Washingion.Wash., Super. Ct., Sup. Ct., u.s. Sup. Ct.,Makah, 1966, d.I970.Action to declare reservation and roads onreservation outside of state jurisdiction.

10

001506Montana v. Redneck, Leonard.Mont., Just. Ct., Crow, 1972.Criminal prosecution for traffic violation; of-fense allegedly comitted off-reservation, butapprehension and summons issued on highwaywithin reservation.001521Whyte, Clifford Becher v. DistrIct Court ofMontezuma Conatry.Colo., Sup. Ct., U.S. Sup. Ct., Ute MountainTribe, d.1959.Action to determine whether state court ortribal court has jurisdiction to grant divorcebetween enrolled Indians married on reser-vation.

PROBATE

001304CrowC;'Nettie S. v. Eastern Band of Cherokeeindians, In~ ".N.C., W.D.N.C., Eastern Band of Cherokees,1972.Action to set aside tribal assignment of part ofIndian's inherited lands to another heir.001493 :.: " .•..•...Aleen, DoRy Cnsker v. Secretary of the interior.Mont., D. Mont., 9th Cir., 1970. .'Action contesting wilI of Indian's deceasedhusband.

TAXATION

001058Your Food Stores, Inc., v. Village of Espanola,New Menco.N.M., Sup. Ct., Santa Clara, d.l%1.Action contesting annexation and subsequenttaxation of Indian land by municipal corp-oration.001326Moore, Frederick J. v.Johnson, Ernest H.Maine, Super. Ct., Passamaquoddy, 1971.Action by Indian to declare on-reservationsales transaction non-taxable.001327State Tall: Commfssion v. Rocky Monataln HallWyo., State Admin. Proceeding, Arapaho,Shoshone.Action to prevent state from imposing tax onIndians or their businesses on Indian reservation.001328Applebee, MbmIe, In re.Minn., Dist. Ct., Chippewa, 1972.Proceedin~ to enforce property tax againstIndian reSiding on reservation.001331Colombe, Thomas J. v. Todd Conaty.S.D., Cir. Ct., Rosebud Sioux, d.l%5.Action by enrolled Indian who was refusedabatement of state personal property tax whileliving on reservation.001502Makah indian Tribe v. CIanam Conaty.Wash., Super. Ct., Sup. Ct., Makah, 1965,d.l%8.Action to prohibit state taxation of Indian-owned business on reservation.001503Makah indIan Tribe v. Tall: Commfssion of theState of WashIngton.Wash., U.S. Sup. Ct., Makah, 1%8, d.I970.Action to restram state fmm taxing cigarettessold to Indians on reservation.001507WDson, Robert S. v. Montana.Mont., Dist. Ct., Crew, 1972.Suit challenging levy of state income taxagainst salary of Indian earned wholly withinreservation from job in tribal commodity pro-gram.

TERMINATION

001298 ~Albers, Lucme J. v. Morton, Rogers C. B.Cal., E.D. Cal., 1972.Action claiming Indians were illegally depriVedof allotments by termination of rancheria with-out Indians knowledge or consent.

TRESPASS, INDIAN LAND

001342Baker, Constance Frye v. CaUfornla.Cal., Super. Ct., Hoopa Ext. Res., 1972.Action by Indian allotment holders claimingcounty and state trespassed in building andmaintaining a road crossing Indian land.001344Orcntt, Harvey v. Conaty of Humboldt.Cal., Super. Ct., 1972.Action by Indian allotment holder claimingcounty trespassed in locating a road acrosshis land.001345Pauma Band of Mission Indians v. Conaty ofSan Diego.Cal., S.D. Cal., Pauma Band of Mission Indians,1972.Trespass action against state and county forbuilding and maintaining a highway acrossIndian reservation.001346Inaja Band of Mission Indians v. Conaty ofSan Diego•.Cal., S.D. Cal., Inaja Band of Mission Indians,1972.Trespass action against county for constructingand maintaining road within Indian reservation.001511Baker, Constance Frye v. CaUfornla.Cal., D. Cal., Hoopa Extension Reservation("'1972. \....Action in trespass against state for buildingroad across tribal land and asking for U.S.representation in the action.

TRIBAL MEMBERSIllP

001340LaramIe, Jnae Karen v. Nicholson, NarcIsse, Jr.Wash., 9th Cir., Colville Confederated Tribes,1972.Action by Indian minors seeking adoption intotribe and tribal dividends fmm date of adoptionapplication.001499Thompson, AUce M. v. Tonasket, MeLWash., 9th Cir;, Colville, 1972.Action brought by Indian for re-enrolIment intribe and for tribal dividends lost.

TRUST OBLIGATIONS

001087Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Commonwealth ofMassachnsetts.Mass., Super. Ct., Passamaquoddy, (C.1495).Suit alleging breach of treaty and trust obli-gations arising fmm treaty made between stateand tribe.001298Albers, LueWe J. v. MortoD, Rogen C. B.Cal., E.D. Cal., 1972.Action claiming Indians were illegally d~prived of allotments by termination of ranchenawithout Indians knowledge or consent.001495Iuillt Tribal Council of me PassaiiUiijiiGddyTribe v. Secretary of the Interior. ('-Maine, D. Maine, Passamaquoddy, 1972.(C. 1087).

)

~uit seeking order for Dept. of Justice toA rep~esent tribe in its claims against state of\ ~ ~alDe although no formal treaty exists between

. tribe and federal government.

WATER RIGHTS

001347Los Coyotes Band of Mission Indians v. VistaIrrigation District. 'Cal., S.D. CaI., Los Coyotes Band of MissionIndians, 1972.Action claiming violation of Indian band's waterrights in use of groundwater.001348Pala Band of Mission Indians v. EscondidoMutual Water Company.Cal., S.D. Cal., Pala Band of Mission Indians,1972.Suit arising from construction of dam and

,reservoir.on tribal land resulting in loss ofwater to tribe.' . ,001349Capitan Grande Band of MissIon Indians v.

,Helix irrigation District.Cal., S.D. Cal., Capitan Grande Band of MissionIndians, 1972.

; Suit arising from construction on tribal land of, dam and reservoir resulting in loss of water totribe.001510Rincon Band of Mission Indians v. Vista Irriga-tion District.Cal., D. Cal., Rincon Band of Mission Indians,La JoUa Band of Mission Indians, 1972.Action by tribes to recover damages from andprevent further diversion and appropriation ofriver water in violation of paramount waterrights.o MISCELLANEOUS001300Mobo 00 Corporation v. Local Boundary Com.mission.Alaska, Super. Ct., 1972"Action by oil companies to prevent incorpora-tion of borough on Alaska North Slope therebysubjecting oil property to taxation.001324California Indian Education Association v.Morton, Rogers C. B.Cal., E.D. CaL, 1972.Action to declare illegal regulations stipulatingJOM funds go only to school districts WIth largeblocks of non-taxable Indian property or largenumbers of Indian children.001325DOIon, Phoebe WUson v. Ander Land Company.Mont., D. Mont., Crow, 1971, d.I972.Action by Indian to recover land lost in allegedlyfraudulent transaction.001330Cherokee Nation v. State of Oklahoma.Okla., 10th Cir., Cherokee, Choctaw~ Chicksaw,d.I972.Action by tribe claiming title to riverbed con·.taining oil and gas deposits.001337Rosebud Sioux Tribe v. Kneip, Richard (Honor.able).S.D., D,5.D., Rosebud Sioux, 1972.Action seeking to ascertain meaning of certainacts of Congress defining boundaries of reser-vation.001491Walker River Paiute Tribe of Nevada v. South.ern P:c!fic T:~pcrt:t:!G::: Cc.

U Nev., D. Nev.., Walker River Paiute Tribe, 1972.Action arising from construction and mainten·ance 01 railway on tribal lands in violati()n offederal regulations and from breach of contractwith tribe,

-- .

001492Lake, Kee v. Peabody Coal Company.Ariz., D. Ariz., Navajo, 1972.Action by Indians based on Indian Civil RightsAct and breach of contract to. recover damagesfor sudace rights and property involved in BlackMesa mining operation.001494Grayson, Toche v. Tulsa Scottish Rite Chari-table And Education Foundation.Okla., Dist. Ct., Creek, 1962, d.I963.Action arising from alleged unlawful holdingand possession of lands inherited by Indians.

Steering CommitteeOf The NativeAmerican Rights FundCharles Lohah, Chairman, (Osage)DaVid Risllng, Jr., Vice-Chairman, (Hoopa)La Nada MeanS, Executive Committee,

(Shoshone.Bannock)Alfonso Ortiz, Executive Committee,

(San Juan Pueblo)WendeD Chino, (Mescalero Apache)Fred Gabourle, (Seneca)Leo Haven, (Navajo)PbUip Martin, (MissIssippi Choctaw)Francis McKInley, (Navajo-Ute)John Stevens, (Passamaquoddy)Richard TrudeD, (Sioux)

Native AmericanRights Fund StaffDirector

David H. GetchesDeputy Director

John E. Echohawk (Pawnee)Staff Attorneys

L. Graeme Bell, IIIJoseph J. BrecherThomas W. Fredericks (Mandan)Daniel H. IsraelYvonne T. Knle:ht (Ponca)Douglas R. Nash (Nez Perce)Robert S. PelcygerThomas L. SmithsonCharles F. WUklnson

Of CounselReId Peyto!! Ch!!mbe~Vine Deloria, Jr. (Standing Rock Sioux)Thomas N. Tureen

Assistant to the DirectorJoan L. Carpenter

Legal SecretariesPerl M. Bateman (Oglala Sioux)Connie M. Benoist (Cheyenne River SGaU L. Benoist (Cheyenne River SiouxJanice C. Bray (Kiowa)Mayredean C. Palmer (Kiowa)Susan P. RobersonFrieda Wagner (Pomo-Concow)Patricia Wright

MaintenanceKen GarryVic Hart

ReceptionistsNorma A. Cuny (Oglala Sioux)Sylvia C. Sweeney (Ottawa-Chippewa)

RecordsBernadine Quintana (Oglala Sioux)

ReproductionRonald FundingslandDavid Wray

BookeeperSusan Rosseter Hart

Law ClerksRichard L. KaJar

(UCLA Clinical Pmgram)Victor Palmer (Kiowa)Barbara J. Walkingstick (Cherokee)Barbara L. Webb (Tlinget)

National Indian Law LibraryLibrarian

Melody K. MacKenzie (Hawaiian)Legal Advisor

Joseph R. MembrinoResearch Associates

Peter S. HrobskyDiana Urn (Acoma Pueblo)

SecretaryEUeen Lente (Laguna Pueblo)

New Staff Of TheNative AmericanRights FundStaff Attorney

Douglas R. Nash. Mr. Nash is aPerce Indian and a graduate ofUniversity of New Mexico Schof Law, and past Executive Dire<of the American Indian Law Stud<Association. Prior to joining the Fhe worked with the Indian Civil RilTask Force for the U.S. Departrrof Interior. Mr. Nash will be wodwith the Fund in the areas of hunand fishing and other treaty right:Native Americans.

Legal Advisor, National Indian )Library

Joseph R. Membrino. Mr. MembJis a graduate of Boston College )School and a member of the Conmcut Bar. Until joining the Fundwas a staff attorney with WatertLegal Aid and Reference Societ~Waterbury, Connecticut. His wwith the Library involves preparalof a general index to the Libraholdings.

oooo

publicc

;r·

5·:

,)p'.'."

Announcementsand CatalogueRequest Form

f'

~'."

.. paJsanbaJ uO/JoaJJOO ssaJPPvi,',i , 1:) \~;.

~::.'r,,;·::;L:~~~'!ft;:,t,) ;~:\~,~~r,t)~i', ,

f,;'):{,; ~'9 "->;~« /~:?;:

>'-{ .1:~~:t:f~?;

..••.................•......•...•......•..

expand its work and to cbver the costof the publication of this newslett~r.Contributions to the Fund and tothe Library are tax deductible. Acoupon is provided below for yourconvenience.

Enclosed is my contribution toassist the Native AmericanRights Fund in the assertionand protection of Indian rightsand the orderly development ofthe body of law affecting In-

~. __ ~~aI!s; _ cc.:: :~