Chairman ABOUREZK. This is the part that has been troubling me for a long time. The Government got into telling the Indians who their elected leaders were a long-time ago. They upset the balance of the system. It really is a serious question as to who does represent the tribes and how they are selected. It has bothered me tremendously. Mr. TATE. Senator, you might note this. A Federal district court in Washington, D.C., has already ruled on a very similar situation. The Creek Nation: That their old constitution is in full force and effect and directed that their nation was to go back under the constitution and be operated by it. That is the old constitution. The same April 24, 1906, law applied to the five tribes in eastern Oklahoma. Chairman ABOUREZK. I appreciate very much your appearance and the points that you have brought up today. If you have anything additional that you want to submit the record is open. Mr. TATE. Thank you very much for letting us appear. Mr. SAM. May I make additional comment. Chairman ABOUREZK. Certainly. Mr. SAM. We were put in an awkward position when we came here by the sudden change that the Interior Department took on the bill. We would like to make it clear that we are not here to undermine tribal authority at all in conjunction with any bureaucrats here in D.C. who might have similar objections to the passage of this bill. We would just like to make that distinction that we should not be confused as people who are here to delay the bill or that type of reasoning. Thank you. Chairman ABOUREZK. Thank you. The hearings are adjourned. [Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the committee stood in adjournment.] [Subsequent to the hearing the following material was received:] 93-643 77-11 June 8, 1977 Sen. James Abourezk Chairman, Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs Second and D Streets, S.W. Dear Senator Abourezk: This letter is in reference to the recent Senate Hearings on S.660. Jimmy Sam and I were pleased that we were allowed to state the Chickasaw and Choctaw People's case. We felt that the committee should recognize that if Senate Bill 660 were enacted the effect would be to allow the principal Chiefs of these two nations to individually exercise the inherent powers of self-government without the consent of those people governed or their legislative bodies. Any decision that involves the disposal of the basic assets of the tribe must be the decision of the assembled people or their legislative body and not the sole decision of the executive head, particularly one who has been influenced by the government bureaucrats. The influence and policy of the BIA since 1906 when Congress debated and enacted the "Five Tribes Act" 34 Stat. 137 (April 26, 1906) is outlined in great detail in Harjo v. Kleppe. The opinion and order of this case are now enclosed and submitted for your consideration. Pages 25-38 are of particular importance, since they outline the legislative history of the "Five Tribes Act". At page 35 the court concluded that the Bureau of Indian Affairs' attitude concerning this legislation can only be characterized as bureaucratic imperialism, manifesting itself in deliberate attempts to frustrate, debilitate and generally prevent the tribal governments from functioning-a matter expressly preserved by §28 of the 1906 Act. The Chickasaw Nation has a legal history similiar to that of the Creek Nation. There is no logical reason why the decision in the Harjo case would not apply equally to our tribal government. It is, however, apparent that the BIA intends to continue the bureaucratic imperialistic attitude until ordered to desist. The official Bureau policy is currently to refer all requests from citizens of the Chickasaw Nation back to the Governor as the primary party that the BIA recognizes as the spokesman for the Chickasaw people. This effectively and absolutely denies the sovereign self-government rights of our people. The Chickasaw people I represent declare that we are still a sovereign tribe and that they have not in the past nor do they intend in the future to work for the BIA as the Chickasaw Governors have done. The Chickasaw people want to have the right to determine what should be done with their land. This right is ours under natural and constitutional law. The Chickasaw Nation wants the magnificent estate of the Arkansas Riverbed maintained in perpetuity for our own interests, because it is one of the last major assets we have. Under the Constitution of 1867, the Executive branch of our government is functional only as a custodian of the peoples property; only the legislative branch or the people assembled have plenary powers to dispose of commonly held property. It is crucial that your committee be cognizant of the fact, that while the executive position is a transitory position, the peoples' rights are permanant and do not change. To endorse S. 660 would equal a legislative endorsement of one man's dictates and no more. In this instance, Overton James has no authority to speak for the tribal members. If the authority problem did not exist, the people of the Chickasaw community groups I represent would nevertheless be opposed to S.660. The BIA surveys of this area were not fair nor were they at-armslength as the Bureau of Indian Affairs contends. First, the area that was included as a part of the riverbed was only that area which was non-controversial. The appraisal excluded thousands of acres of land because of this analysis. All land was abandoned where the BIA would have been contesting riparian owners. It is an example of the Bureau shouting "trust responsibility" from one side of its mouth, while overtly shunting its duty by expediently sidestepping controversy out of the other side of its mouth. A careful examination of the appraisals reveals a complete lack of competent legal guidance in the determination of the Indian boundaries in the riverbed. This lack of provision of basic legal parameters completely undermines the competence of the appraisals. They are, therefore, completely incompetent to present to your committee. Consider this: how can lands and minerals be appraised when the boundaries to the lands are either unknown or in dispute? It is utter folly to call this type of work a "fair and arms length analysis". Secondly, the appraisals themselves did not account for the enormous wealth in the mineral resources of the riverbed. Our testimony on May 25, regarding lands in Sec. 24, Township 10 North, Range 25 East, clearly pointed out one example of the absolute absurdity of the appraisals. We thank you for allowing us to present our side to this story and we hope that your committee will seriously consider the statements that we have made, and then refuse to take action on this bill. Sincerely, Charles & Late Charles G. Tate Representing: Carter County Chickasaw Tribal Council |