OCR Text |
Show have long been officially known as the Colorado River Indian Tribes and have funds in the Treasury under that name. However, aside from the considerations in this case which lead me to this conclusion, it should be noted that frequently the Executive orders creating reservations expressly give the Secretary of the Interior discretion as to what Indians to locate on the reservation, and that this fact has not caused any difficulties in the organization of the Indians residing on those reservations. These cases are even stronger than the instant case, since the 1865 act does not expressly give any authority to the Secretary. Tour attention is called particularly to the organization of the Northern Cheyenne Tribe of the Tongue River Reservation and the organization of the Shoshone-Paiute Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation. The Executive order of November 26, 1884, creating the Northern Cheyenne Reservation stated that it was for the use and occupation of the Northern Cheyenne Indians "and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to locate thereon." However, the Northern Cheyenne Constitution provides for a tribal organization with membership of those whose names appear on a certain census roll, the same as in the proposed Colorado River Constitution. Similarly, the Duck Valley Reservation was enlarged by the Executive order of May 4, 1886, for the use and occupation of the Paddy Caps Band of Pi-Utes "and such other Indians as the Secretary of the Interior may see fit to settle thereon.11 Here, again, the constitution provides for a tribal organization with membership of those on a definite census roll. Other examples where the Indian occupants of the reservation were left vague when the reservation was created are the Executive order of July 6, 1875, creating the Fort Belknap Reservation, and the Executive order of July 2, 187S, creating the Blaokfeet Reservation. In short, it is my opinion that in the organization of Indian tribes which have had exclusive possession of their reservations for a long period of years, any initial vagueness in the designation of beneficiaries in the creation of the reservation can now be disregarded in the drafting of a constitution unless there is at the present time some actual controversy as to whom the reservation belongs. Tour attention is called to a minor matter in the proposed letter submitting comments on the proposed constitution to the constitutional committee. The first point, dealing with the preamble, is now unneo-essary since it appears to have been so revised that the suggested name of the Indians corresponds to the name which they themselves originally proposed. U Solioitor. |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : California exhibits. |