As a young man, Hank Adams arrived in Washington State in the 1950s during the height of the federal government’s last major assimilative campaign on Native peoples—a period of forced political and legal termination, relocation to urban areas, and the delegation by the federal government, via Public Law (P.L.) 280, to several states, including Washington, of criminal and some civil jurisdiction over Indian lands and peoples in those states. This gross imposition of state law over Native peoples occurred without tribal consent.
In fact, P.L. 280 was the first major issue to attract Adams’s attention, and from that time forward he kept a vigilant eye on the actions of federal, state, bureaucratic, military, and tribal officials and institutions if he believed their actions might destroy or impinge on the civil, constitutional, treaty, or human rights of Native nations and their citizens.
The selections in this section evidence some of the strategies—letters, congressional testimonies, speeches, and so forth—used by Adams to combat such assaults. In several cases, his actions had a positive effect in ameliorating the potential damage that some of these policies might have caused.
Article
December 1964
“Let Us Not Speak of Termination”
by Hank Adams
ABC—Americans Before Columbus
(A bill to terminate federal supervision and trust status of the Shoalwater Indian Reservation* will, in all probability, be introduced in the coming session of Congress. The Shoalwater Indians are unalterably opposed to proposed termination plans. For several months of the past year, this writer aided them in their opposition and the presentation of their views. This article is based upon my involvement, research, and interpretation of the issues—and although believed to be basically reflective of the Shoalwater’s views, the author assumes responsibility for all statements made. Any statement of a hypothetical, interpretative, or argumentative nature should be attributed solely to the author. H.A.)
In January, the Secretary of the Interior spoke to a national Indian organization. “Let us not speak of termination, until we have terminated poverty” he said, then waited for loud applause to subside.
Had someone from the Shoalwater Reservation of Washington State been there, he might have interrupted, “But, Kind Sir; have you not coupled heaven and hell in a single breath, naming both a goal? Bitters of position may hide in the offerings of sweet wine. We have sought the rose you speak of, only to find it between the jaws of the dragon you would not have us see. We are not blind! Let us slay the dragon, and let the rose grow free.”
For the past four decades, the Shoalwater Indians have been attempting to develop the economic resources of their 334 1/2-acre reservation on the central coast of Washington. They have not only been denied every existing opportunity to do so—but have been denied the right to do so!
Ironically, the long-oppressed desire and efforts for the economic development of their reservation have given force to the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ attempts to terminate federal supervision and trust status of the reservation.
The Bureau plans to have a bill introduced in the coming session of Congress to effect the termination of the Shoalwater Indian Reservation. It will be an updated version of two previous termination bills that were introduced in 1958 and 1960. It is a matter of record that the Shoalwater Indians are opposed to the current plan, as they were to the earlier ones.
The BIA’s position has remained constant and unchanging throughout the past eight years, although the current Agency Superintendent indicates a willingness to listen to the Indians. Therefore, the termination plan can be considered as one concerted effort, and attempts need not be reviewed separately in terms of time.
The Shoalwater Reserve was established by Executive Order of President Andrew Jackson on September 22, 1866. In addition to stating the location of the land tract, it ordered that it be “reserved for Indian purposes, as recommended in the letter of the 18th instant.” A very brief document, the Executive Order stated little more.
The interpretation of this document by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, in essence, is that it only provides Indians with the occupancy rights, and recognizes no Indian claim to land or title. By virtue of this interpretation, the Shoalwaters have not been allowed to establish businesses, nor attempt any development fo the land or natural resources.
On various occasions during the past four decades, Indians living on the Shoalwater reservation have had themselves, or had access to, the financial resources for undertaking land development or establishing business enterprises there. Repeatedly, they were refused this right.
In 1956, however, the Bureau led them to believe that they could secure this right by agreeing to a plan of calculated land division and definite land assignment. They were informed that this was the only way they could. Convincing the people that their long-standing demands would be met, and expressed desires be realized, the BIA secured the signatures of the eleven adults living on or adjacent to the reservation on a so-called Memorandum Agreement.
This signed agreement provided for the land division and land assignment—but it also stated that the signatories agreed to a removal of all their lands from federal trust status!
In truth, the signatures did not represent agreement with the words of the document; but more exactly, expressed approval of the verbal statements fo the Agency Superintendent regarding the results that would be achieved—and satisfaction with his assurances that the “Memorandum of Agreement” would not result in the termination which it was expressly designed to achieve.
When the true nature and meaning of the signed papers was fully understood by the Shoalwaters, they disavowed and repudiated the document. However, it became the basis of the termination bills. The Bureau used the so-called memorandum of Agreement to argue that the Indians favored and wanted termination. With this paper, they secured the endorsement of Governor Rosellini, the local County Commissioners, and various civic and service organizations, for the termination of federal responsibilities, supervision, services, and trust status over the reservation.
In view of the Shoalwaters’ disavowal of this document, the BIA does not—for they can not—use it to support termination plans, but they continue to use the endorsements for termination that were secured by it.
The Bureau justifies their termination plans in terms of the desire of the Shoalwaters to develop their reservation. This aspiration is one of the premises from which they derive their perverted conclusion.
However, they say, “The Executive Order of September 22, 1866, establishing the reservation merely stated” that it be “reserved for Indian purposes.” The brevity and lack of elaboration in the Executive Order has created “a very complicated situation,” they argue.
“Therefore,” concludes the Bureau of Indian Affairs, “The only remedy” is “an effective and amiable assignment program” “with subsequent termination of trust status and of federal supervision and services.” “This would free these Indians to make their own decisions on the type of economic development they desire.”
Essentially, the Bureau’s capsule version of the “complicated situation” is thus:
It appears the land was acquired by the government to provide homes for a number of Indian families then (1866) living in the area, who did not choose to move to the Quinault Reservation. These people were fragments of various Tribes. There is no Shoalwater Tribe, and it is doubtful that there ever was one. The reservation has been occupied at various times by different families, who seemingly moved there and always at will. It should be realized that the original occupants of this land were also allotted on the Quinault Reservation. There is no tribal entity, but the affairs of the reservation are taken care of by the adult resident of the area. Because the Executive Order spoke only that it be reserved for Indian purposes. Indian claim to land or title is not recognized, and it is the belief that only occupancy rights were secured. (Note: End of version attributed to BIA).
The Bureau’s interpretation of the situation consists of both fiction and fact. Bureau personnel have asserted that, technically, any Indian in the United States could assume the same rights on the Shoalwater reservation. It has even been stated that by virtue of its authority, the Bureau could lease the entire reservation to non-Indian, if the revenue was placed in the US Treasury under the name of the, supposedly, non-existent Shoalwater Tribe.
Apparently, the BIA can read anything they want to into the words, “Indian purposes,” except economic development of their reservation. Fighting poverty might be an Indian purpose; but developing his economic resources—never!
Departing from the Bureau’s attitude and arguments, we acquire a different perspective.
It is my belief and contention that the “letter of the 18th instant,” referred to in the Executive Order of September 22, 1866, is an integral part of that document. In examining it (actually several documents and a map), “Indian purposes takes on fuller meaning and the intent of the Executive Order becomes exceedingly clear!”
Especially relevant is the letter from Supt. W. W. Waterman, dated June 1, 1866, and the letter from Giles Ford, Indian Agent, dated May 2, 1866. The significant portions in the Superintendent’s letter read:
“These Indians said to consist of some 30 or 40 families have always lived upon the Beach and subsist upon fish, clams, oysters, and sea animals. They are unwilling to abandon their former habits of life and turn their attention to agriculture. They desire a place upon the shore where they can fix their homes, without being exposed to be supplanted and driven off by white men.”
“This tract which they have selected is a Sand beach yielding some grass for the pasturing of their horses but of little value for cultivation, and it is my judgement that reserving it for the use of the Indians would work no injury to white men, but would have a tendency to promote peace between them and the Indians and would secure the contentment and well-being of the latter, I therefore leave respectfully to recommend that the tract of land selected by Mr. Ford and designated upon the enclosed map be reserved for the use of the Indians.” Mr. Ford wrote as follows:
“I have visited Shoalwater Bay and examined the spot that the Indians wish reserved for them. It is peculiarly adapted for a home for them; begin situated in close proximity to good fishing, hunting, and grazing grounds. And I would recommend that it be immediately reserved for sale.”
It seems quite clear that “Indian purposes” meant considerably more than the strict interpretation that has been applied by the BIA. Unquestionably, Indian purposes included that of securing an adequate and sufficient livelihood from the resources available.
The Shoalwaters have been restricted in their “subsistence upon fish, clams, oysters, and sea animals,” however. And they have been restricted from “securing the contentment and well-being” offered by their home.
What of the Bureau’s argument that there are no Shoalwater Indians?
First, it might be realized that those were real Indians referred to in the previously quoted letters. “Reserved for Indian purposes” was not an abstraction arising from the fact that Indians exist, but related directly to a definite group of Indians.
Aboriginally, and in the mid-19th century, there were seldom large Indian populations or high concentrations of Indians in a single locality, in Western Washington. Generally, small bands, clans, or families were scattered along the rivers, beaches, other waterways, or along the forests and prairies. Some comprised political units by themselves, and others belonged to larger tribal complexes. Factors of language, geography, and self-determination, etc., figured in this determination.
Under the treaties, executive orders, and establishment of reservations, the government attempted to concentrate, centralize, and consolidate the Indians of this area wherever possible. Bounties, gifts, intimidations, and inducements were used to accomplish this, and these practices continued in some cases until some time after the General Allotment Act of 1887.
On the basis of documents of the Washington Territory Superintendency from 1853 to 1873, the existence of a district band, or bands, of Indians of Shoalwater Bay, who disassociated themselves from the Quinaults to the North, the Chehalis and Cowlitz Indians to the East, and the Chinook to the South and Southeast, can be established.
It can also be argued, quite validly, that this band, or bands, were a group, or groups, of the above named tribes who had intermarried, which was customary for this particular area.
For reasons stated in the previously quoted letters, it is understandable why the Indians did not want to be moved. A significant reason that figured in their selection of site, and staying was that their dead were “buried” there. The reservation encompasses their cemetery.
What of the Bureau’s arguments that the Shoalwaters are allotted on the Quinault Reservation, and that the reservation has been occupied by different families from time to time?
Actually, the claimants to Shoalwater are enrolled members of the Quinault Tribe, and own or have interests in lands on the Quinault Reservation. However, a number of families have steadily resided on or near the Shoalwater Reservation. (My use of the words “Shoalwaters” and “Shoalwater Indians” refer to those who have sustained residence or claims upon this reservation, rather than to their Tribal membership.) The primary factor in movements away from there has been economics and the lack of means for livelihood.
Tribal membership is a crucial consideration for the Shoalwaters, and greatly influences the BIA’s attitude. The federal law restricting dual-benefits, or membership in more than one tribe, seemingly presents major difficulties.
To be allowed to develop their reservation, it would be demanded that they establish a formal tribal organization and enrollment. Consequently, they would be obligated under law to surrender their membership in the Quinault Tribe. The point consistently overlooked is that their Quinault membership and claims to Shoalwater are not mutually exclusive issues.
The fact is that if claim to Shoalwater were surrendered and complete reliance placed upon Quinault membership, these people could not find residence or sustenance upon the 149,000-acre Quinault Reservation! It has been attempted in the past, and found unworkable. At present, the Quinault Reservation does not provide an adequate livelihood for the 200 families now living on it. It would be difficult to get a residential assignment and to establish a home there. It would be considered an unwelcome intrusion to draw upon already-strained resources.
On the other hand, to surrender Quinault membership and create a recognized tribe would overburden the 334 1/2-acre Shoalwater Reservation to the point where the right to develop the resources could not be implemented. For a dozen or more families to rely solely upon this tract might satisfy current residential needs, but would preclude economic development. Also, it would sacrifice and deprive their heir’s potential and rightful opportunities on the Quinault Reservation, as it advances economically.
It seems frightfully unreasonable that the medicine of termination should be prescribed for the Shoalwater when all the evidence indicates that the infirmities and afflictions are actually those of the bureaucratic physician.
The original termination plan called for the 334 1/2-acre reservation to be divided into eleven approximately equal portions. The current plan will be updated to include the heirs of several of the previous number, now deceased. Subsequently, trust status and federal supervision and services would be terminated. Individual landholder, the Bureau argues, would then be able to sell or develop their land as they desired.
A resource inventory and analysis of this small tract of land would reveal that the economic potential exists primarily in the location and physical features of the reservation.
It is located on the north shore of an ocean harbor, centrally located between growing tourist centers about ten miles away. Two major highways cross, or are adjacent to it. On the south side, where one highway runs and where the present houses are, there is a half-mile stretch of beach and tidelands, additional to the 334 1/2-acre but assumed to be part of the reservation. The land runs on a level plane for several hundred yards, then rises abruptly into a high bluff. In the lowland, virgin and second-growth alder is abundant, with evergreens growing elsewhere. A tribally-owned reservoir provides the reservation with a fresh-water supply.
In the semi-natural state, Shoalwater is undeniably beautiful, and has tremendous landscaping possibilities—in addition to those for business enterprises.
However, to divide it would be to destroy it, and its value. Only in its entirety, does it comprise an economic unit. Its developmental potential exists only in its remaining intact.
It must be remembered that its total acreage is only slightly greater than two 160-acre allotments, or two similar homestead tracts. In fact, we can draw significant parallel between Shoalwater and the denial fo the Hopkins-Dukes application for homesteads in Colorado by the Secretary of the Interior. Supposedly, economic considerations prevailed in that case where 160-acres would not support one man. Yet, Shoalwater would be parceled out among a dozen, or more.
The Bureau argues that individual owners, with land out of trust, would be able to secure loans or mortgages upon their land to finance businesses. However, they have repeatedly pointed out that the value of Shoalwater is very small in its unimproved state. One point argues against the other. Realistically, loans and mortgages that might be secured would be insignificant to business development—and if too large would undoubtedly lead to the loss of the land. Nearly-applied taxes would increase, or pose, the same threat.
Granting the Shoalwaters the freedom to use and utilize their land, only by granting the individuals the freedom to lose their land, as provided by the termination plan, would have disastrous and cruel effects upon the entire community—if the latter should be exercised, intentionally or otherwise. Each segment is a vitally important key tract, which must be considered and integrated fully into considerations of the whole reservation as a single unit. It must remain intact!
Justification for termination will be attempted on the basis of the Shoalwater’s enrollment and allotments on the Quinault Reservation 100 miles to the north. Restricting real benefits on the Shoalwater rather than risk a technical existence of dual-benefits—the BIA has denied these people any benefits.
It should be noted that no more than five of the 800 persons on the Quinault Reservation are living on their own allotments. They are living on tribal or private land in two different villages. The BIA would not restrict economic development there—although the fact is that feasibility dictates that it would not occur on individual allotments, but on lands secured elsewhere on the reservation, with few exceptions!
Furthermore, had it been permitted, certain Shoalwaters have had timber money from their Quinault allotments, with which they could have established businesses on the Shoalwater and been in on the ground floor of a thriving and still-growing tourist business! Sadly, they were not. This story has been communicated many times over the years. Where willingness to listen has existed, willingness to be responsive to the desires and aspirations of these people has not.
Earlier this year, communication was made with the Washington State Congressional delegation. In several instances the Shoalwater’s letters were referred to the BIA for comment and reports of background material.
In a classic example of problem solving, the Portland Area Office of the BIA informed one Senator that he could expect complaints from that quarter, cautioned him that there would be more—and for all intents and purposes—advised him he should lend them a dear ear.
At a time when the Bureau of Indian Affairs is emphasizing programs “designed to promote maximum Indian economic self-sufficiency”…and has set up a Division of Economic Development for this purpose—we can critically question whether termination is the only alternative for the Shoalwater Reservation.
Actually, it offers no alternative—but presents a cruel hoax. These people have long sought the economic development of their reservation! Their claim to land rights goes unrecognized, except when final termination is being contrived. They are recognized as a de facto tribal government when a highway right-of-way is needed, when a resolution is needed to expend funds for the non-existent “Shoalwater Tribe”—but not when economic development is possible and sought!
The nature of true alternative is not in inconsistency, but in the existence of true choices. Inconsistency does not provide freedom of choice—however great the inconsistency!
Yet, above all, Shoalwater is their home. Even those forced away by economic pressures consider it their home, above all houses built elsewhere. Now, their home is threatened.
They have endured forty years of unrealized dreams. Termination will destroy that dream, divide their home, and bury their hope. Ironically, this is their fourth decade as citizens of the United States. Is this the price that must be paid? Is it a fair price—a heritage, a home, a heart?
Can Shoalwater be preserved? Against what has become the strongest nation on earth in less than 200 years? Shoalwater can not survive against strength and unquestioned power. But should this power be guided by justice, equity, purpose, and understanding—then Shoalwater finds no threat, no opposition. These people will find new promise and new opportunity.
Full hearing must be accorded these people. True alternative must be considered. If the “complicated situation” must be clarified by Congress, a distinction must be made between the complications on the reservation and those existing in the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Necessarily, a program must be devised that will best serve the interests of everyone involved. Full observance and recognition should be given to the rights of the present occupants and homeowners of the reservation. The Shoalwaters must be given every latitude for the realistic development of reservation resources.
Such a program might give recognition to a community government, to handle the affairs of the reservation. The land should remain intact, and this would probably be best insured by retaining the land and tidelands under tribal ownership. The community government would be obligated to respect current residential assignments, and authorized to grant new ones which might be necessary. Under this type arrangement, economic and resource development could proceed in coordinated and orderly fashion. Regarding the reservation as a single economic unit, and integrating planning to that consideration, individual Indian investments could be encouraged, and cooperative or corporate business enterprises undertaken. This would be under the jurisdiction of the community government. There should be no termination of trust status or federal responsibilities, in any event!
The true spirit of the Executive Order on September 22, 1866, should prevail, tempered by the Indian aspirations of 1964, and natured by their deeds.
These are, of course, only suggestions thrown from a distance. Even these, nevertheless, are ideas to keep us from speaking or effecting termination.
Let us terminate poverty. Period! Let us not speak of termination. Period! These are two separate considerations—not two phrases to be hung on a single comma and single meaning. But perhaps the message intended for Indian people was, “Let us not speak!” Period.
Letter
May 14, 1974
Survival of American Indians Association
Dennis Banks & Russell Means
American Indian Movement
Attention: Ken Tilsen
US District Court
St. Paul, Minnesota 55103
Dear Dennis, Russell, & Ken:
Enclosed is a copy of a letter I wrote to Sen. Sam Ervin, with first intentions of preparing a summary cover statement for publications or public release. I’ve not had a moment to complete those plans. Also, I had planned to ask Vine Deloria to edit it down and then request some Eastern organization to print it in a full-page fund-raising ad for Wounded Knee Legal Defense/Offense Committee (WKLD/OC). Didn’t do that either.
Am sending the bulk of my Wounded Knee & related politics file to you. Some things should be useful. But an attorney or legal researcher should read the whole thing, to synthesize interrelated matters for possible use. You probably have copies of much of it.
You might note the General Accounting Office (GAO) report to Senator Jackson on Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. I’m certain that he did not make it public—the level of federal expenditures ($2000-plus per capita; $11,000-almost per family) on the Pine Ridge (PR) doesn’t seem quite consistent with the severity of poverty that was universally recognized and reported (even acknowledged by Dick Wilson) during news coverage of Wounded Knee. Also, if you don’t already have it, the GAO Report does confirm the Interior-BIA assistance to the PR Agency Realty Officer in his unlawful acquisition of other Indians’ allotments; failure to return title; failure even to re-transact purchase by paying an additional $26,000 to allottees to meet ‘fair price’ standards and allow the BIA to approve the conveyances; but, nonetheless, holding onto the land, taking steady promotions from the supervising BIA employer and benefactor, and enjoying the protection of Interior—which ‘forgot’ the matter, closed its files, and refused external examination of its investigation.
If you keep the files I’m forwarding somewhat intact, I can explain them once I’m able to break away from here and final phases of treaty rights fishing matters that need to be approved by the federal court by June 1.
The “Jackson Connection” is primarily established through the actions of his staff representative Gereau—particularly one memorandum written for Jackson as result of my own letter to Jackson. But also the Executive Session that Jackson had with Attorney General Kleindienst and Ralph Erickson—which I think must be taken in context with the content of other Justice Department statements in the same time period from Wounded Knee to the White House, as well as with the Gereau representations at Pine Ridge and in memoranda. (Abourezk was in Colorado, not in DC, when the Executive Session occurred. It’s my understanding that Abourezk had Gereau thrown off Indian Affairs Committee work in the early part of May 1973, because of his various actions and statements.)
The full eighty-five pages of the Minneapolis Field Office FBI Report on civil rights violations is not together, since I only copied selected sections. The Hurd-Clayton statements and letters were reported in its body, one as a final action in the report, and the other as an enclosure. The consistency of BIA and FBI statements (background of each interview) are so precisely slanted against a phantom “criminal element” on Pine Ridge Reservation—that it demonstrates to myself that both Bureaus were using an identical prejudice and justifying language for their decisions, which has precluded any fair investigations or lawful protections for most Oglala community people for many years. (Another reason for not copying the whole report was that everyone of nearly a dozen or more FBI interviews of officials and offenders were the same—to effect a pre-determined conclusion and result.) The file relates a constancy of attitudes at least back to early 1970…
The files I’m forwarding have been copied on both sides of paper to cut down bulk—though making more difficult reading, and causing a few items to be mixed. Shouldn’t be too confusing though.
Please read the letter to Ervin in its entirety. It is somewhat confusing in parts. Incidentally, I include the part about Carlton Stoiber, both because I can verify it through witnesses and because I think the adequacy of his Indian investigations, particularly in South Dakota, has frequently been influenced by the political result sought or intended to be maintained.
How is the trial going? Did hope to fly over there last week, but got tied down—then it took me some time to sort this stuff out to take or, as now, send.
Am sending this file also to Abbie Mann in LA.
Wish there was some way to get better coverage on issues & events on your trials and activities.
Incidentally, I have not sent a copy to Judge Fred Nichol as indicated. Thought I better wait until hearing from you, or allow yourselves to give him a copy if useful to your purposes.
Hank Adams
Letter
April 19, 1974
US Senator Sam Ervin, Chairman
Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights
New Senate Offices Building
Washington, DC 20510
Re: Administration of the Justice Department
Dear Senator Ervin:
Various hearings on Justice Department operations and appointments have demonstrated congressional unwillingness either to provide for basic qualitative reforms in its agencies or to insulate their operations from abusive political control and manipulation by successive Administrations—and powerful members of Congress.
My central concern arises from the apparent fact that the US Government has determined that there shall be ‘no system of justice’ for American Indian people and our tribal communities. This is evidenced most fully by the political prosecution of Indians involved in the 1973 Wounded Knee incident, as viewed in context with prevailing patterns of federal actions involving Indians. I shall present some facts and pose some questions pertinent to the practices of the Justice Department and relationships with other governmental units:
1. What remedy do community Indian people have when Secretary of the Interior Rogers Morton persistently joins with or directs the Justice Department and US Attorneys in the deliberate misprision and willful concealment of felony criminal actions by tribal government officials and employees?
A. Interior’s auditing section sand FBI Special Agents have repeatedly furnished the Secretary’s Office and Justice Department units with concrete evidence and proof of such felony crimes. US Attorneys routinely follow Interior officials’ requests and rulings against prosecutions on crimes ranging from probable murders to embezzlement or unlawful conversions of large amounts of tribal and federal funds to personal use. Facts and investigative results are resolutely withheld from the complaining Indian individuals and tribal memberships….
2. What is the fundamental difference between the infamous conspiracy and actions through agents by which Tony Boyle effected the murders of members of the Jack Yablonsky family and the process by which US Senator Henry M. Jackson (March 19, 1973, Executive Session) and White House and Interior officials (Brad Patterson, John Whitaker, Marvin Franklin; March 16, 1973) gave insistent instruction and direction to the US Attorney General’s Office (Richard Kleindienst and Ralph Erickson) which, in being accepted and followed at all Departmental levels, carried through to the unpunished killing of at least four Indians and the shooting and injury of others in South Dakota during the remainder of 1973?
A. Economic and political control, as exercised by tribal and federal officials on too many Indian Reservations, has been transformed into a corrupt ‘unionism’ with vices as intolerable as any which have marred the grand history of the American labor movement. The Pine Ridge Reservation has been among the worst, with its system of goon squads and political protection rackets, and has allowed the people of that Indian nation to become oppressed and imprisoned in their home communities—in a sense constituting a veritable ‘American gulag archipelago,’ localizing there but linked with Indian communities elsewhere. The national government fosters and funds this ‘corrupt unionism’ and protects it from either internal or external challenge and reform—operating by deliberate design of federal officials participant in its system or those finding useful purpose in its continued operation, and relying upon the indifference of most Congressional and Executive officials for its perpetuation.
•••
3. Do political manipulations or unlawful abuses of the Justice Department and its subordinate units cease to be objectionable, and derive sanction to continue, when the politics and attitudes of the Executive and Congressional branches of the government coincide or join in general agreement that some particular target population, however vaguely defined or haphazardly identified, is to be victimized by their powers or by deliberate denial of protections?
A. On the first day of Wounded Knee, the Senate Judiciary Committee questioned Patrick Gray about political use of the FBI in the 1972 presidential campaign. Mr. Gray advised that the FBI did respond to White House and Deputy AG Ralph Erickson’s requests for reports between September 1 and 11, 1972. Indian activists who had complained of police and court abuses on the Pine Ridge Reservation were identified as a problem of “sufficient magnitude” for capitalizing on in giving the “President maximum support during the campaign trips.”
•••
4. In matter unrelated to federal criminal investigations, the Justice Department and other federal agencies have acted deliberately to deny protections to the legal rights of Indians; to injure and discredit Indian individuals and organizations or to diminish their impact, influence and effectiveness among Indian people generally and upon public policy or decisions of general government officials and units; and to mislead the public about the nature of these federal activities and motivations for them. Who can Indians look to for protections?
A. Mr. Carlton Stoiber, a senior Civil Rights Division attorney in the Justice Department and the person responsible for supervising investigation of complaints about criminal actions and civil rights violations against community Indian people on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation in 1973 and 1974, has exercised the unauthorized and unlawful liberty of showing FBI and Justice Department files relating to myself to private citizens, having nothing to do with government or any investigative processes, and who have merely been in his office in Washington, DC, on their own personal business.
•••
5. Although the Constitution provides clear process for dealing with presidential culpability in the commission of crimes, and Members of Congress stand liable for criminal breaches of laws passed by that body, what process protects Indian people if Congress as a unit engages in collective criminality? If such “collective criminality” has been operative, it may be seen in the genesis of Wounded Knee. It can be seen in the transformation of laws to situationally create “no system of justice for American Indians.” It can lead to the systematic maladministration of programs, laws, and tribal governments, to label and punish populations of Indian people as a dangerous, “criminal element,” as was done on the Pine Ridge Reservation before there existed an AIM. And, when an AIM comes into being and acts or responds to pleas from their people, it permits extension of the punitive actions and provides for indiscriminate punishment to be initiated by the general white society as a threatening lesson to all other Indians.
A. Although the Indian people being prosecuted as result of Wounded Knee 1973 claim that the 1868 Treaty between the Sioux Nations and the United States constitutes the foundation of their defense, the material relevancy of the Treaty is challenged by federal prosecutors, and has not yet been allowed or admitted by the Court. The foundations of the offenses and conspiracy charged against them has origin, in the essential elements, with laws governing Indians since 1834 and 1885—the latter being enacted for direct purpose of “implementing” provision of the 1868 Sioux Treaty.
•••
6. What prospects are there for positive change or qualitative reform in the federal governmental units which have continuously abused their powers to control the affairs and the future of Indian people?
The Wounded Knee confrontation and preceding Trail of Broken Treaties Caravan can not be explained away simply by enlarging the numbers of Indian people who federal officials choose to categorize as “criminal elements” who must not be listened to or responded to in any way, and who—being “all tarred by the same brush,” in the words of a vindictive White House aide—are deserving only of punishment and extreme deprivations. Nor can intolerable situations encompassing or devouring the lives of Indian men, women and children, and daily destroying Indian communities, be resolved or made more tolerable merely by carrying out scores of political persecutions of Indian people in South Dakota or adjacent states.
As you know, June 2, 1974, will mark but the 50th Anniversary of the Indian Citizenship Act passed by Congress on June 2, 1924! Truly the present conditions and treatment of most Indian people would seem more understandable had that US Citizenship never been conferred or imposed; and perhaps partially explains why many Indian people shall never conceptually, psychologically, nor spiritually accept or reconcile themselves to it. After nearly two centuries of American nationhood, the enforced US law does accord greater protection to psychiatrists’ files and to the private papers of political parties and personages than it does, in practice, to Indian people who must rely for protection upon laws which remain unenforced and which are systematically disregarded or trampled upon—from the Constitution; through the Treaties; on down through the 1968 Indian Bill of Rights, which your office labored for nearly a decade to place on the law books. For what purpose, if application was to be denied?
What may not pass without punishment against white properties and privacy in the dead of night, can readily pass as approved actions against Indian people and properties at any time. As in the weeks of February 1973 before Wounded Knee, no questions of impropriety are raised from any official quarter—nor from the commercial American free press—when federal armed forces occupy and control Indian communities and populations; nor when the full force of the United States stands ready to kill hundreds of Indians in daylight or dark by general order on the first passable or politically acceptable excuse.
When White House officials having daily responsibility for coordinating administration of Indian Affairs make class distinctions among Indian people, and characterize “dissidents” as being “psychotic, bestial, savage and sick”—what can the families in the reservation communities—who have been administratively classified and programmatically treated as being “criminal population” expect from the government of the United States?
Is there anyone in the Congress who Indian people may look to for better attitudes and some chances for corrections and changes? When Senator Henry M. Jackson, for instance, wrote on May 9, 1973, that “the job ahead for all of us who are interested in the underlying causes of Wounded Knee is to launch the kind of effort that will seek to resolve or overcome such issues,” one might initially hope that this most powerful US Senator has advanced from his negative positions in conference with the US Attorney General at an earlier date. Instead, subsequent internal memoranda in his office demonstrates his approval of wholesale prosecutions by the Government—and accepts endorsements or approves the worst governmental abuses in the reservation community. Such endorsements and abuses have become license for unpunished killings and murders of Indian people at Pine Ridge, in one extreme—and only offers a promise of worse things to come.
If things do not improve, and continue to worsen by federal design, I fully anticipate that “Wounded Knee” shall become “necessary” again—and will occur even if all Indian persons presently indicted, or at trial, are committed to the nation’s prison for years. As the killing of Indians continues, without adequate investigations or any consequences attaching, other events similar to Wounded Knee become more inevitable; and inevitably a different and more tragic result threatens for both Indian people and others. Personally, I reject all notion that violence will work for anyone. However, I recognize an existing basic commitment on the part of many Indian people of all ages—both before and after Wounded Knee—that efforts must be made to end the violence and injury done against Indian communities and our most defenseless members, perennially and perpetually. Of course, not all Indian communities suffer the same injuries or the same level of governmental abuses. Among the most severely oppressed—those for whom ‘no system of justice’ is the imposed rule over their lives—can anyone expect that they shall be satisfied to celebrate this Nation’s Second Century of Independence and to proclaim that they surrendered their last defense and hope for justice with their last major victory in the Custer Battle in 1876? As one noted author has indicated, ‘There are more chapters in the Indian history to be written.’
Senator Ervin, I address you with the knowledge that you have spent major amounts of time on this issue of civil and criminal justice for Indian people. Further I recognize that, although your Judiciary Subcommittee has jurisdiction over some of the issues and situations I have referred to in this letter, that your remaining time in the Senate may largely be obligated by other major concerns and activities assigned you. Nonetheless, I am hopeful that you shall be able to find some time to examine the general failure of the Justice Department and the Department of the Interior to encourage, advance or aid the implementation of the 1968 Indian Bill of Rights—or more precisely their deliberate actions in subverting its purposes and provision, together with other civil and legal rights of Indian people, on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota. Otherwise, I urge your service in interesting your colleagues remaining in the Senate in these issues of vital importance to Indian people.
Please accept our sincerest appreciation for your notable accomplishments in the Senate, and our kindest best wishes for your future.
Most Respectfully yours,
Hank Adams, SAIA
Testimonial
Hearings Before the Committee on the Judiciary. US Senate. Ninety-Third Congress, First Session. On the Nomination of Louis Patrick Gray III, of Connecticut, to be Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation (February 28, March 1, 6, 7, 8, 12, 20, 21, and 22, 1976)
Testimony of Hank Adams, National Director, Survival of American Indians Association
“Statement in Opposition to the Senate Confirmation of Mr. L. Patrick Gray III to be Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation”
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Judiciary Committee, I respectfully request that my statements be received into the record of these hearings. I request opportunity to address the Committee partially to respond to FBI Acting Director Gray’s personal attack against my motives, integrity and character by his testimony regarding my recent arrest by his agency. More importantly and purposefully, I want to point out certain deficiencies in the operational policies and practices of the FBI relating to American Indian people and federal criminal statutes under the enforcement or investigative jurisdictions of the FBI.
I oppose confirmation of Mr. L. Patrick Gray’s nomination to become FBI Director because I believe his demonstrated disinterest and failure in eliminating discriminatory and negligent investigative and enforcement practices from his agency’s operations has been harmful to the American Indian community and has denied many Indians the benefit and protections of laws within FBI jurisdictions.
Various other levels and divisions of the US Justice Department and the Department of the Interior may well warrant the blame for the inequities and injuries which draw my concern, at least in greater measure than the FBI. However, I believe that Mr. Gray and the FBI have frequently betrayed whatever independence and good conscience that may be allowed them by statute and organizationally within the Justice Department—and as frequently have not been controlled by the obligations and responsibilities imposed upon them by law.
I call your attention to Wounded Knee, South Dakota. If Justice and the FBI might be inclined to invoke the same situation as refutation to my charges—as within hours they may regard it as basis for reputation and their future pride—I believe it provides essential proof to my complaints.
The FBI has gained its present high visibility at Wounded Knee for reasons arising from the fact that the Justice Department and its FBI choose to be invisible to Oglalla Sioux Indians—seeking to preserve their personal liberties and lives—on the Pine Ridge Reservation for months preceding the takeover and occupation of that small town.
My time of this writing, the federal government has announced a 6 p.m., March 8, 1973, deadline for Indians at Wounded Knee to surrender or face police and military action to “arrest” them. The United States has claimed that it “has gone as far as it could go” to negotiate a settlement, but could not meet an “impossible demand” that the Department of the Interior suspend two of its BIA officials, Aberdeen Area Office Director Wyman Balby and Agency Superintendent or Police Chief Stanley Lyman, and remove tribal chairman Richard Wilson from his office in the Oglalla Sioux government.
I urge this Committee to examine the FBI’s experience in the maintenance or removal of Indian tribal governments. I appeal to this Committee for immediate examination of the FBI’s relationship to the Oglalla Sioux people over the past five months—as well as those of other authorities and officials in the Justice and Interior Departments.
During the week of November 20, 1972, the United States Attorney and the FBI Office in Rapid City, South Dakota, refused to receive or act upon complaints and requests for assistance against actions of Chairman Richard Wilson and other Oglalla tribal authorities which were lodged by several tribal members, including tribal council Vice-Chairman David Long and Russell Means. They claimed violations of their legal and civil rights as well as continuing threats against their lives and personal safety. They and other tribal members were convinced by the Justice Department’s attitudes and inaction that additional requests or complaints would be futile. Both Interior and Justice agencies refused to investigate complaints of violations of Title 18 of the US Code by tribal officials which were presented from a number of sources.
In my opinion, the deprivation of basic constitutional and human rights on the Pine Ridge Reservation is obvious. This Committee should be particularly concerned by the refusal of the Justice Department to give attention to such matters, inasmuch as these elementary rights were extended to Indian tribal members for protection against abuses of tribal governing authority only five years ago—after a near decade of persistent and conscientious work by the Honorable Senator Sam Ervin of this Committee in bringing about their enactment.
On November 22, 1972, I wrote separately to the President of the United States and to the Honorable Julia Butler Hansen, US Representative, to express my concern—upon learning that the Bureau of Indian Affairs was funneling generous amounts of new funds into the Pine Ridge Reservation to effect enforcement of these rights deprivations and denials and to equip Chairman Wilson with all the armed manpower he required to enforce his personal and court directed dictates, BIA Area Director Wyman Babby appeared to be the chief advocate of the increased spending for these purposes. Also in mid-November, Directory Babby had cut off disaster relief funds to Indians in Rapid City from a $120,000 BIA allocation for victims of the flooding in that City. My complaint to the President did not find routing to the Justice Department, but to Interior which merely affirmed that Pine Ridge and other reservations were being provided such funds. (Oddly, the President is requesting $800,000 in new funds in Fiscal Year 1974 for Interior to commit toward the “implementation” of the 1968 “Indian Bill of Rights.” Federal actions on the Pine Ridge Reservation have been nothing less than a mockery of that measure.)
Mrs. Hansen responded to my letter and the general Indian situation by initiating requests by the House Appropriations Committee to its Surveys and Investigations Staff to undertake an exhaustive inquiry into such matters. The FBI on January 31, 1973, seized various of the materials that I was acting to provide that investigative unit of the House at the time I was arrested. Those documents remain in the possession of the FBI—as do keys to my apartment, a typewriter belonging to my organization (SAIA), and apparently (2) movie films belonging to organizations in the State of Washington and which are both produced between 1968 and 1971, one by myself.
Mr. Chairman: I respectfully request that this portion of my statement be accepted by the Committee at this time and that I be permitted to complete an additional statement for entry in the record relating more fully my reasons for opposing the confirmation of Mr. Gray to be FBI Director.
I would likely have completed my prepared statement on a more timely basis, or by now, but as I’ve indicated previously, Mr. Gray has my typewriter. There are a number of incidents which have occurred in my relationships and contacts with the FBI, which I think would be helpful to the deliberations of this Committee and the Senate in this matter.
I sincerely appreciate your every consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
Hank Adams,
SAIA
Testimonial
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. US Senate, Ninety-Fourth Congress, Second Session on S. 2801 “A bill to repeal the act terminating federal supervision over the property and members of the confederated tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon (March 30 and 31, 1976)*
Statement of Hank Adams, National Director, Survival of American Indians Association
Mr. Adams. My name is Hank Adams and I am National Director of Survival of American Indians Association presently on leave and working with the task force for the American Indian Policy Review Commission.
Senator Hatfield. Could you speak a little louder, Mr. Adams? Just put the microphone right up close.
Mr. Adams. In reviewing S. 2801, I again regard it necessary to point out an issue which I emphasized in an early February 1976 letter to Congressman AuCoin—which I believe weighs against inclusion of Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission’s proposed amendments to S. 2801.
This issue relates to Indian persons, who except for their termination as Siletz Indians, are presently members of, or eligible for membership in other Indian treaty tribes which have never been terminated.
Under the provisions of this bill, those persons are classified as members of the Siletz tribes, if their names appeared on the final Siletz termination rolls.
In my prior work with Indian persons in Oregon and Washington as national director of Survival of American Indians Association, I have been involved with terminated Siletz Indians who have attempted enrollment in other tribes for which they possess membership entitlements.
Particularly, I have worked with Siletz Indians who are eligible for membership in the Quinault, Chehalis, Nisqually, and Muckleshoot tribes—and under the Medicine Creek, Quinault and Point Elliott Treaties, each of which vest immemorial fishing treaty rights in these tribes and their members.
Now, in the past, these Washington tribes have acted affirmatively to enroll, or otherwise to adopt, these terminated Siletz Indians into their tribal membership on the basis that they were also bloodline Quinaults, Chehalis, Muckleshoot, or Nisqually Indians.
However, the Bureau of Indian Affairs has refused to recognize these Indians’ status as tribal members or Indian persons, because of their Siletz termination status.
If the neutrality of this bill is abandoned, and the proposed Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission amendment might be adopted, I can anticipate an explosion of new litigation which would involve treaty tribes of Washington State against the State of Oregon—and very likely the State of Washington against individual Indians, whose membership in other tribes would no longer be blocked in any manner by their former status as terminated Siletz Indians.
Under the proposed amendment and perhaps under the present language, Washington State could readily challenge the treaty rights of ever mixed-blood Quinault, Chehalis, Nisqually, Muckleshoot and other Washington Indian tribal member—who choose their membership in those tribes, but who also were once terminated Siletz Indians.
And that would be the end of my statement.
Senator Hatfield. Thank you very much, Mr. Adams. I don’t think I have any questions of either one for you. I appreciate your being here very much and your contribution to our hearing.
Essay
Indian Self-Rule: First-Hand Accounts of Indian-White Relations from Roosevelt to Reagan
Kenneth R. Philp, ed. (Salt Lake City, UT: Howe Brothers, 1986)
From the section “Activism and Red Power”
The central promises of the Indian Reorganization Act, as stated by John Collier in 1934, were complete economic independence and self-determination for Indian tribes. A half century later, Indian people remain far removed from either goal. One of the basic reasons is that we have never been talking about self-determination, but about self-administration.
As I look back at John Collier’s writing, I find that his intent in the Indian Reorganization Act was to provide a mechanism for indirect administration of federal policies and programs. In the last fifty years, an unbelievable number of different policy proposals and policy objectives have been “self” hyphenated. The goal of termination was self-sufficiency. It sounded similar to John Collier’s self-rule. In the last month, one of the members of the Indian Affairs Committee stated that he was going to continue his fight against Indian treaties because they violated his concepts for self-fulfillment. In recent years I have almost come to believe that it does not matter what the particulars of details of a policy are so long as you do not divest the Indian leadership of their capacity for self-congratulations.
How far have we fallen from that day in 1830 when Blackhawk was taken prisoner in chains to Washington, DC, to see President Andrew Jackson? Blackhawk told Jackson, “Even in chains, sir, I am your equal.” Indians have fallen very far from that day. If there would be a return to the introspective capacities that Indian people possess in analyzing problems, there also would be a return to some measure of respect. That is really essential to have before you ever achieve self-rule, self-government, and something other than self-administration.
When you realize what the good guys have done to Indian people, then you cannot accept the way things are now and how things are moving toward the future. President Dwight D. Eisenhower has been held accountable for carrying out the termination policy, but termination was well under way before Eisenhower entered office. In 1949, the Interior Department met with its created organ, the National Congress of American Indians, to ask it to take the lead in planning termination. The NCAI, at that time, did not object to this request. The lawyers for the NCAI helped write up some of the termination bills.
The Menominee first wrote a termination bill in 1947. They consented to it at a rapid hearing schedule in 1954, when some two dozen tribes and several states were subject to termination. At that point, lawyers led the Menominee toward termination. They did not object until later when there were slight modifications in that termination bill.
I have read in a number of publications that termination ended in 1958. Termination was going strong in the 1960s under Philleo Nash, James Officer, Stewart Udall, and President John F. Kennedy. Another hated policy is the Relocation-Vocational Training Act. Relocation started in 1948 under President Harry S. Truman. It was expanded into a national program in 1950 and received its first statutory authority in 1956.
When James Officer’s task force went around the country and met with Indians, it found out how much this program was hated. So the task force decided that the name of the program should be changed to Employment Assistance. Today, you can hear Indian leaders condemn the relocation policy of the 1950s under Dwight Eisenhower. But in the 1964 Democratic platform, it was proudly proclaimed that the Kennedy and Johnson administrations had doubled the enrollment in the program. Indian leaders did not object because it was call Employment Assistance. Commissioner Philleo Nash, the champion of many Indians, had the authority to stop Menominee termination when he came into office in 1961. But he did not do that until 1964 when a majority of Menominee submitted a petition against this policy to the government of the United States. In 1962 and 1963, both Philleo Nash and James Officer threatened to administratively terminate tribes in the state of Washington. And the Congress of the United States threatened to terminate every tribe that submitted a claims judgement distribution bill in 1965. It took some behind the scenes maneuvering to stop termination from being re-instituted more aggressively than it had been carried out in the 1950s.
Congressional termination ended in March 1965, when Melvin Laird, a conservative Republican from Wisconsin, and Congresswoman Julie Butler Hansen made strong floor speeches in the House of Representatives. They condemned this policy, not only for the Menominee, but for all Indians. They also worked behind the scenes to prevent the Senate from re-instituting this policy.
In 1966, Interior Secretary Stewart Udall and Commissioner Robert Bennett threatened termination in a confrontation with the NCAI at Santa Fe. It took two more years before Lyndon Johnson issued a presidential message against termination. Beyond that, Indian tribes such as the Colville supported termination.
President Richard M. Nixon proclaimed the policy of self-determination on July 8, 1970. Most of the measures that were proposed in the Nixon message grew out of the work that had already been underway through the National Council on Indian Opportunity and various Indian organizations. The good guys in the BIA created the National Tribal Chairmen’s Association (NTCA). They decided that the NTCA would have ten people on its board of directors. The three members of the executive board were supposed to be the voice of the Indian people. Now that is not self-determination when you are talking about several hundred tribes.
The Nixon administration had already committed itself in favor of the Indian Financing Act and the Self-Determination Act. So, why did they need the NTCA? One reason was that they were trying to consolidate a force against commitment to urban Indians. The Nixon administration also used the NTCA to demand an assault on the eight hundred Indians who had occupied the BIA building.
The NTCA requested a police action to “take those people out” of the BIA building. They meant to kill them, because members of the American Indian Movement and other activists were in there. Some of the good guys such as Ernie Stevens, Sandy McNabb, LaDonna Harris, and Louis Bruce were even talking about assaulting the building.
John Collier’s philosophy was that all power flows to organization. He had a philosophy that the common people, the unwashed people, should look to the experts and enlist their help and assistance. One of the most scandalous things that the experts have done for Indian people in the twentieth century is the claims policy. At first, the NCAI was organized to make the IRA applicable to all tribes, even those who had rejected it. It also had a second goal: to get behind the passage of an Indian Claims Commission Act that Collier had been pushing. On October 30, 1978, the Indian Claims Commission, in its final report, stated that its problem had been a matter of giving the Indian his due while at the same time serving federal relations.
The discussion of Red Power surfaced in the 1930s when John Collier used it to subjugate Indian people. Red Power as a form of activism, was not something that the National Indian Youth Council originated in the 1960s. Every generation of Indian people has fought valiantly against what has been happening to them.