the educational level achieved by the members of the Tribes compares favorably with or slightly excels the levels achieved by American Indians in general. As a group they are intelligent, thrifty, and industrious in developing homes, farms, and ranges. They have attended school, played, worked and associated with the non-Indians with little discriminiation. -The Conederated Tribes are generally able to manage their own affairs. At the same hearing, Mr. Nash, then Commissioner of Indian Affairs, expressed the attitude of his Department that the Colvilles are a very highly cultured group with a business educational level of a very high order. The Colville Reservation is not reserved exclusively for Indian occupancy and life on the reservation is little different from the surrounding areas. The Indians generally make use of all modern conveniences. Non-Indians own land on the reservation and live and work side by side with the Indians. Intermarriage is common between the two races and has been for several past generations, with the abovementioned exception. The land within the reservation boundaries are checker-boarded with alienated land. Much of the Indian-owned land, including tribally owned land and allotments, is presently being leased by non-Indians. Attached hereto and marked exhibit "C," and by this reference made a part hereof, is the latest analysis showing the use and occupancy of tribal lands which verify the above statements and also contains estimates of sources of livelihood. A large percentage of the tribal members are equivalent to their non-Indian neighbors in their ability to compete in everyday affairs. They have every right to be asking if any further genuine purpose can be served by continuation of the communal and trust status under the supervision of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. That is the question that would be answered by the referendum provided for in section 1 of S. 282. The social agencies of the State of Washington and the counties are already handling the responsibility for those persons who are not individually responsible for themselves and their families. The provision of section 6(f), providing for the Federal purchase of tribal forest lands which may be offered for sale, appears to be a practical answer to a complex problem. Conservation of natural resources is vital to the areas and is a major concern to all of the citizens. Consideration must also be given to the present situation, where these resources are privately owned by the Indians, whereby the Federal Government, by its trusteeship responsibilities, must safeguard the right of the Indian owners to secure a fair price for their holdings in the event of a sale. Since conservation measures, which may be imposed as conditions of sale, are restrictions which would seriously limit investment possibilities by private enterprise if the timber assets were to be sold on a bidding basis, Federal purchase would, therefore, appear to be the only method by which both conservation of natural reSources and a fair return to the Indians could be assured. S. 282, by providing for outright Federal purchase of the forest lands for inclusion in the national forest system would result in the Federal Government undertaking the responsibility for future conservation practices and it is assumed in this statement that the conservation factor will not be a cost to the Indians and will not decrease the ultimate price paid to the Indians for the value of the lands and timber. The provision of section 6(b) which reads "The fair market value of the timber assets shall be defined to be the market price that would be realized if the sale of the timber assets were made over a period of 10 years," is interpreted in this statement to mean that there will not actually be any cutting of the timber over a 10-year period, but that the timber will be appraised as to the price that the Indians could expect to receive from their timber assets if they were offered for sale on a normal market over a 10-year period. It is assumed further that a sale on a normal market over a comparatively long period of years would not reflect as much price decrease because of seriously flooded market conditions as would a sale over a shorter period of time. It is assumed also that an appraisal based on a 10-year period would minimize any serious market price fluctuations which might occur in a shorter period. We have attachments here, exhibits A, B, and C that I will turn in. (The exhibits referred to are as follows:) [EXHIBIT A] OMAK, WASH., October 31, 1966. TRIBAL COUNCIL, Colville Confederated Tribes, Nespelem, Wash. GENTLEMEN: In accordance with your instructions we have supervised the tabulation of the Termination Opinion Poll conducted this October. The returned ballots were opened in the presence of a representative of this firm and counted in our presence. Each vote was individually examined by my representative or myself. In my opinion, the results of the opinion poll as counted is correct. The results were: This is to certify that on September 26, 1966, I supervised the mailing of Opinion Polls concerning termination Legislation to 2,523 enrolled members of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. This number represents the total enrolled membership who were twenty-one (21) years of age or over as of midnight, September 26, 1966. Attest: EDDIE PALMANTEER, JR., Enrollment Officer, Colville Confederated Tribes. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 27th day of September 1966. My Commission expires April 5, 1970. CERTIFICATION KENNETH W. STANGER, JR., Notary Public. OCTOBER 25, 1966. This is to certify that I, Colleen Manuel, sent the following tribal members opinion polls after the certification made by Mr. Eddie Palmanteer, Jr.: Lois F. Hart: Did not receive an opinion poll, had wrong birthdate on the roll, sent an opinion poll on October 3, 1966. Josephine Reeder: Did not receive an opinion poll, birthdate left off the roll, sent an opinion poll on October 4, 1966. Joanne C. Kensler: Did not receive an opinion poll, had wrong birthdate on the roll, came to the office for an opinion poll on October 10, 1966. COLLEEN MANUEL, Recording Secretary, Colville Business Council. [EXHIBIT B] DECEMBER 16, 1966. Hon. ROBERT L. BENNETT, U.S. Department of the Interior, DEAR COMMISSIONER BENNETT: It was our pleasure to be present at the recent conference of Indian leaders held in Spokane at which you spoke to the gathering. We have reviewed the contents of that speech and are encouraged that you may be interested in learning of certain viewpoints held by this governing body. In recent months frequent reference has been made to ideas of an approach to termination of federal supervision over the property and affairs of the Colville Tribes involving incorporation of the tribal owned assets. Ideas of a corporate approach to termination are not new to our tribal membership. These ideas have been subjects of discussion beginning with the introduction of terminal legislation in the year 1961. It has been our observation that the tribal members generally are adamantly opposed to any form of incorporation of the tribal owned assets before actual division of the assets is made between withdrawing and remaining members of the Tribes. We are aware that the corporate approach is being viewed in some quarters as applicable to all tribal situations. However, the reasons usually given to justify that approach do not appear to apply to the Colville situation. If you will recall, this council called to your attention the results of a recently conducted opinion poll. The poll verified that the tribal members have very definite opinions concerning whether or not it is desirable to retain ownership of the tribal property in communal status. Significantly, a large majority of the adult members who responded to the poll favor distribution of the assets. This poll substantiated the previous estimate by the tribal council of over-all tribal sentiment and its contention that a large majority is generally opposed to a corporate approach to the termination issue. An earlier poll concerning a specific proposed development venture by incorporation showed nearly unanimous tribal opposition to the venture. In any consideration of the future of the Colville Tribes, the question of future property rights of the individual tribal members in the tribal estate is all important. This council stands firm on the position that all enrolled tribal members are entitled to rights of equal value with one another in any distribution of the tribal assets. To advocate and uphold a contrary position would be to defend an injustice of a most serious nature. Recent statements appearing in the public press causes it to be necessary for this council to comment on a delicate subject directly related to the question of individual property rights in the tribal estate. The tribal membership is composed of various bands of Indians, most who are native to the area and some who were brought to the Reservation as displaced persons. History bears out the fact that, to the present day, they have never become one homogenous group and, therefore, do not have the characteristics of a true tribe of Indians. This circumstance is largely explained by the early tendency of the Indians who were native to the area to assimilate themselves into the culture and society developed by a mixture of the races. While the Indians who were brought here from other areas certainly have also adopted the ways of civilization, they have been less inclined to integrate by marriage with the white race. Thus, the tribal enrollment of today shows that most members who are enrolled as Indians of full blood degree are descendants of the bands of displaced Indians. Regrettably, it is from the leaders of this group that we often hear and read suggestions that tribal rights should be conferred in proportion to a member's degree of Indian blood. While we do not think that this opinion is held unanimously by members within that group, nevertheless, it is causing much bitterness among the Indians who are native to the area. They regard the suggestion of measuring tribal rights by blood degree as a direct unjustified attack on their prior rights of inheritance and is suggestive of penalizing them for the natural integration that has taken place. It is natural that they retaliate by quesing that the foreign bands of Indians should have any rights at all in a property distribution. We cannot too strongly emphasize that it is, to say the least, very unwise to call in question the equal rights of the tribal members. We have observed that the membership as a whole appears to take equal rights for granted unless the issue is raised for purpose of political agitation. Regarding suggestions of incorporation of the tribal owned assets as a method of termination, we find a direct conflict between the all important factor of future equal rights and benefits for the tribal members and any purpose which incorporation of the assets would be intended to serve. We presume that the primary purpose would be to maintain the Indian land base in Indian ownership. Aside from the fact that this purpose would not serve the interests of the large tribal majority, an examination of the use of the land base by Indians at this time shows minimal Indian use in comparison to the enrolled membership and even in comparison to the total Indian reservation residents. We find that fewer than one-third of the Indian families still living on the Reservation earn all or part of their livelihood by use of tribal grazing lands with less than one-sixth of the residents known to earn their living exclusively in this manner. Only about one-fourth of those engaged in ranching are one-half or more degree of Indian blood which brings into serious doubt the argument that the Indians with the higher degree of Indian blood are the most dependent on the tribal assets for a livelihood. Since employment by the timber industry is not related to ownership of tribal property, it is quite obvious that the greater portion of the tribal membership living on the Reservation, do, in fact, depend on sources of income unrelated to the Tribe or its assets. In many cases the per capita payments made from tribal income help to supplement personal income but they do not sustain individuals or families. Most families are sustained by gainful employment, with the exception being welfare recipients, the number which is comparable to the number of other citizens of the area in this category. We do not have knowledge of any service provided by the Bureau of Indian Affairs which can be said to contribute directly to the sustenance of the tribal members. Almost all services and functions of the Bureau are in connection with the trusteeship status of the property owned individually and collectively by the Indians. A further consideration in the matter of dependency on tribal property is the number of persons who reside on tribal owned property. We find only about three per cent of the reservation residents in this category. Therefore, it is the judgment of this council that there is very little, if any, justification for maintaining the Indian land base as it exists today. In our opinion, the time has come for a legislative approach which recognizes that a concept of individual and family rights should supersede any concept of continued existence of the present tribal status in order to better fit today's circumstances. Our legislative position, however, supports the idea that those who are so motivated may elect for reasons of their own, to retain for themselves a portion of the tribal assets in communal ownership. We expect that, in any final accounting, the number who so elect will be a small segment of the Tribes. We consider a corporate approach to termination for the Colville Tribes to be impractical and unjust in its' probable outcome. In the event of incorporation of the assets for the purpose of retaining Indian ownership, at the outset rules and regulations would have to be adopted restricting sale or transfer of stock of the corporation. The value of the assets would be established by the worth of the assets within and to the corporation. The value of an individual tribal member's share would undoubtedly be considerably less by this method than by sale of the unincorporated assets. It almost goes without saying that it would be impossible to obtain approval from the tribal membership for the purpose and operation of any such corporation since individual interest would thereafter be evidenced by shares in the corporation which would, in effect, severely limit both the value and negotiability of any interest they might have. The value of their interest could also be risked by business ventures of the corporation. Therefore, to suggest that, through articles of incorporation, members may withdraw or liquidate devalued shares as rules and regulations might allow, as a means of property division, is to suggest the creation of an intolerable situation of serious inequities. The strife and bitterness that would result from such a scheme would be immeasurable. In our position of responsibility we have not yet heard any plausible reasons which begin to justify allowing such a situation to develop. With the above considerations in mind, combined with the fact that at least three-fourths of the tribal membership does not even live on the reservation, we have heretofore recommended terminal legislation which we believe offers some security to the persons now making actual use of the assets and at the same time provides equitable property rights for other members. We are confident that this position is supported within the Tribes by members of all blood degrees and who belong to a wide variety of occupations. Having carefully considered our particular tribal situation, it is the intention of this body to continue to support terminal legislation identical to S. 1413, as amended, and passed by the U.S. Senate of the last Congress. We consider its' passage long overdue and would appreciate the support of your department in this endeavor. A copy of council action by resolution on December 16, 1966, requesting action on the proposed legislation is attached hereto. Very truly yours, NARCISSE NICHOLSON, Jr., Chairman, Colville Business Council, Colville Confederated Tribes. Of the total irrigated lands the Indian farmers and ranchers irrigated 77 acres of grain, 1,879 acres of hay and tame pastures and 67 acres of orchard and gardens. Exclusive of range permits, Indian farmers lease approximately 16,700 acres of trust land for spring-fall grazing in conjunction with their farming operations. Branch of Land Operations technicians prepare conservation stipulations on approximately 160 tracts of leased land each year and an average of two com |
