OCR Text |
Show of Indiana in the United States before a subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, 71st Congress, session 2, page 2552). They left the respiration the following spring and returned to their natire haunts where a separate reservation on which they now reside was created for then. See Executive orders of January 4, 1885, December 22, 1898, May 14, 1900, June 2, 1911, May 29, 1912, July 18, 1915. See also Commissioner's Annual Report of 1881, page 5.1^ The Narajos never resided on the Colorado River Reservation. The original plan of collecting and colonizing Indians of the Colorado River and its tributaries on that reservation did not embrace the KaraJos. A reservation was created for them pursuant to the provi-sions of the treaty of June 1, 1868 (15 Stat. 667), and this reservation has since been enlarged from time to time by various Executive orders. The reservations ao set aside for the Yumas, the Hualapais and the Navajos hare uniformly been regarded administratively and by Congress as separate and distinct from eaoh other. The tribes occupying one of the reservations have not been recognized as having any rights whatsoever in the lands of the other reservations. The language of the aot of 1865 and the Executive orders issued pursuant thereto to the effect that the reservation was set aside for Indians of the Colorado River and its tributaries obviously was not intended to vest all Indians coming within that descriptive phraseology with immediate rights in the reservation lands. The language ueed merely defines the class of Indians eligible for collection and colonisation on the reservation and removal to and oontlnued residence on the reservation necessarily were conditions essential to the acquisition of rights on the reservation. Clearly there was no-intent to create or vest rights in Indians such as the Yumas, the Hualapais and the Navajos who refused to locate on the Colorado River Reservation, obtained reservations elsewhere and received allotments or cither benefits there. Now to permit such Indians to receive tribal benefits on the Colorado River Reservation would be in direct contravention of the rule long recognized by this Department and recently approved by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appealn in u»nrii«r v. Pnitud Statesf 52 Fed. (Zd) 715, that no Indian is entitled to receive dual tribal benefits. While the decision in the M«nHi«r case and departmental decisions recognising the rule had to do with allotments made to Indians as members of different tribes or on different reservations, the reasons for the rule apply with equal force to other tribal benefits such as land assignments, etc. As well stated in 19 L. D. at page 350 - and this statement was quoted with approval by the court in the Mf>r"11tr case - |
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. |