United States v. State of Washington

476 F. Supp. 1101
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Washington
DecidedMarch 23, 1979
DocketCiv. No. 9213
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 476 F. Supp. 1101 (United States v. State of Washington) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. State of Washington, 476 F. Supp. 1101 (W.D. Wash. 1979).

Opinion

476 F.Supp. 1101 (1979)

UNITED STATES of America et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
STATE OF WASHINGTON et al., Defendants.

Civ. No. 9213.

United States District Court, W. D. Washington, Tacoma Division.

March 23, 1979.
Motion for Reconsideration Denied April 24, 1979.

*1102 Alan C. Stay, Thomas P. Schlosser and John H. Sennhauser, Evergreen Legal Services, Seattle, Wash., for plaintiffs Duwamish, Samish, Snohomish, Steilacoom and Snoqualmie Tribes.

Stan Pitkin, U.S. Atty., Harry J. McCarthy, Asst. U.S. Atty., Seattle, Wash., George D. Dysart, Asst. Regional Sol., Dept. of the Interior (now with U.S. Dept. of Justice, Portland, Or.), for the United States.

Lewis A. Bell, Bell, Ingram & Rice, Everett, Wash., for Tulalip Tribes.

Mason D. Morisset, Ziontz, Pirtle, Morisset, Ernstoff & Chestnut, Seattle, Wash., for Lummi, Makah, Quileute and Suquamish Tribes.

Slade Gorton, Atty. Gen., James M. Johnson, Sr. Asst. Atty. Gen., Dennis D. Reynolds, Paul D. Solomon, Asst. Attys. Gen., Olympia, Wash., for defendant State of Washington.

FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS OF LAW AND DECREE RE TREATY STATUS OF INTERVENOR DUWAMISH, SAMISH, SNOHOMISH, SNOQUALMIE AND STEILACOOM TRIBES

BOLDT, Senior District Judge.

This matter having come on regularly before the Court, and the Court having considered the Pretrial Order (PTO), the testimony and other evidence admitted and the memoranda and oral arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in addition to those heretofore entered in this case, and on the basis thereof renders the following Decree:

FINDINGS OF FACT

General Findings

1. Article 2 of the Medicine Creek Treaty and Article 4 of the Point Elliott Treaty provided that the tribes and bands which were parties thereto agree to remove to and settle upon the reservations within one year after ratification of said treaties if the means were furnished them. In the years following the ratification of those treaties the United States did not enforce those provisions. A number of tribes or parts of tribes or bands which were parties to the treaties did not remove to the reservations and some Indians who did move later left the reservation, often returning to their native areas. Among the reasons for not removing to or remaining on the reservation were: (1) the reservations were too small or otherwise inadequate for the tribes and bands assigned to them; (2) the tribes or bands were not on friendly terms with others assigned to the reservation or with the people in whose territory the reservation was located; and (3) the reservation was too far from their traditional territory. The United States did not adopt or apply a *1103 policy of requiring the western Washington tribes or bands who were parties to the treaties to remove to or remain on the reservations. (PTO Part 2 ¶ 3)

(2). A number of individual Indian people intermarried with non-Indians, did not accompany their respective tribes to the reservations but took up the habits of non-Indian life, and lived as citizens of the State of Washington in non-Indian communities. (Ex. USA-112; Tr. 10/29/75, 378-379)

(3). During the latter part of the 19th century and early part of the 20th century it was the policy of the United States Government to encourage the breaking up of Indian reservations and destruction of tribal relations and to settle Indians upon their own allotments or homesteads, acculturate and incorporate them into the national life, and deal with them not as nations or tribes or bands but as individual citizens. (PTO Part 2 ¶ 4; Exs. USA-123 through 128; Annual Rept. Comm'r of Ind. Affairs, 1890, p. VI)

(4). This policy was officially changed in the 1930's. (Exs. USA-129 and 130) The Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, 48 Stat. 984, was directed at implementing a policy of organizing and strengthening Indian tribal entities so as to manage their own affairs and to promote their civic and cultural freedom and opportunity and their own economic rehabilitation. By the Indian Reorganization Act, the descendants of the treaty tribes associated with most of the reservations voted to reorganize pursuant to that Act as Indian tribes and political entities under federally-approved constitutions and bylaws having express and implied governmental and proprietary powers and with original inherent sovereign tribal powers preserved to the extent not restricted by federal law. Except for a brief policy in the 1950's of encouraging termination of federal supervision and administration of Indian affairs, the policy of encouraging tribal organization and greater self-management of internal affairs has continued and increased. (PTO Part 2 ¶ 4; Ex. USA-130 pp. 418-421; Tr. 12/6/74, 212-214)

(5). In the period around 1916-1919 the Bureau of Indian Affairs caused an enumeration and enrollment to be made of unattached Indians in western Washington arranged by families and tribes. Special Indian Agent Charles E. Roblin was assigned to make this enumeration and enrollment. He found that a large number of persons claiming enrollment and allotment as Indians were descendants of Indian women who married early non-Indian pioneers and founded families of mixed bloods. He reported that in many cases these applicants and families had never associated or affiliated with any Indian tribe for several decades or even generations. (Ex. USA-112)

(6). Neither Congress nor the Executive Branch has prescribed any standardized definition for either the term "Indian" or "Indian tribe" in terms of the special federal relationships with Indians. (Ex. USA-110, pp. 138-139) The term "Indian" is used in several contexts including biological descent, cultural identity and legal status. (Id.) The term "tribe" is most commonly used in two senses, an ethnological sense and a political sense although it also may be used in a social sense. (Federal Indian Law United States Department of the Interior (1958) p. 454)

(7). As a major aspect of the new federal Indian policy adopted in the 1930's Congress enacted the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934. One of its major purposes was to authorize and facilitate the reorganization and revitalization of Indian tribal political entities. (Ex. T-22; Exs. USA-129 and 130) While existing recognized tribes did not have to accept the Act, and many did not, it did provide a means by which tribes which had lost their political authority and recognition could regain it.

(8). The legislative history of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 shows that in determining who was to be considered an Indian for the purpose of such tribal reorganization Congress rejected the Department of the Interior's recommendation that persons who were not members of recognized tribes then under federal jurisdiction *1104 or their on-reservation descendants could participate in such reorganization if they were of one-fourth or more Indian blood. Instead Congress required that such persons be of one-half or more Indian blood. Representative Howard, the House sponsor and floor leader for the bill, explained during debate that the definition (now 25 U.S.C. § 479) defines who shall be classed as Indians for the purposes of the Act. He said:

"In essence, it recognizes the status quo of the present reservation Indians and further includes all other persons of one-fourth or more Indian blood.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People of Michigan v. Walter Joseph Caswell
Michigan Court of Appeals, 2021
United States v. Washington
593 F.3d 790 (Ninth Circuit, 2010)
Samish Indian Tribe v. State of Washington
394 F.3d 1152 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Greene v. Babbitt
943 F. Supp. 1278 (W.D. Washington, 1996)
Perkins v. Lake County Department of Utilities
860 F. Supp. 1262 (N.D. Ohio, 1994)
United States v. Washington
18 F. Supp. 3d 1123 (W.D. Washington, 1990)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
476 F. Supp. 1101, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-state-of-washington-wawd-1979.