History of the Uintah-Ouray Ute lands

The tenth Occasional paper of the University of Utah's American West Center, a history of the changes in the status of Ute Indian lands and the establishment of Indian reservations in northern Utah.

AMERICAN WEST CENTER Occasional Papers · A History of the Uintah-Ouray Ute Lands by Floyd A. O'Neil and Kathryn L. MacKay University of Utah Salt Lake City, Utah INTRODUCTION The history of the people who are called Utes can be interpreted in a number of ways: as an account of the changing conditions of the people's lands and resources; as a history of their civil liberties; as a chronicle of culture loss or the changing of a people's life-ways, or a number of other themes. This work deals primarily with only one of these themes-the changes in the status of Ute lands. It is the story of the struggle by a people to maintain their traditional land base and the concomitant rights inherent in jurisdiction over those lands. As the list of notes at the end of the text demonstrates, this work has drawn on a broad range of materials. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors, who gratefully acknowledge the efforts of all who have contributed to this history. Those who have offered assistance are far, too numerous to mention here, but we must express our gratitude to the Ute Tribe. 1 The lands once held by the Ute Indians in the present-day State of Utah comprised roughly half of the entire state; perhaps even more. (See map. p 16) There were many bands: in the northeastern corner of the state immediately south of the Unita Mountains was a small group of Ute residents known as the Uintah-ats; an additional small band dwelt in Weber Valley and were known as the Weber Utes, or Cumumbahs. The Cumumbahs were closely related to the Shoshoni people, who ranged to the north of that location. Upon the dissolution of the Cumumbahs, some of the people indeed chose to live among the Shoshonis. The largest of the groups who were resident in the present state of Utah were the Tumpanawach. They dwelt in a large community along the Provo River near the present site of Provo, Utah. Not only was this an area of intense yield in terms of fish, fowl, and game, but it afforded a natural egress to additional hunting areas in the Uinta Basin, Spanish Fork Canyon, and Sanpete Valley. In all of these places the Utes hunted regularly. Immediately to the south of the Tumpanawach was a smaller band known as the San Pitch band. Their leader's name was San Pitch at the time of the arrival of the Mormons; hence, they became the San Pitch band. Further to the south and west of this group were the Pah Vant, who were in many of their food gathering, medicinal, and life-style patterns much like the neighboring Southern Paiutes who dwelt immediately to their south. In an area around Moab, Utah was a small band of people called Sheberetch. Not a great deal is known of this band except of its conflict with the whites and its struggle for existence which failed. In the 1870s and 1880s it was scattered and became part of neighboring bands of Utes. In the southeastern corner was a band of Utes called Weeminuche. They are intact today as the Ute Mountain Utes just across the border from Utah in southwest Colorado on the Ute Mountain Ute Reservation. Their principal area of residence is Towaoc. In pre-white contact times, seven identifiable bands of Ute Indians dwelt at least partially in the States of Colorado ap.d New Mexico. That band, which occupied the eastern arc of the Ute residence area, were called Moache. Their land stretched from the Cimmaron country of New Mexico to the area immediately south of Denver and southward to Pagosa Springs. Immediately to the west of this group was a band called Kapota. The central part of their homeland included the environs of the Animas, Piedr,a, Los Pinos, and San Juan rivers. Immediately westward from them in the area of the upper Delores River Valley to the Abajo Mountains in Utah dwelt a group called Weeminuche (mentioned above). The area of Montrose, Colorado was used by the Taviwache as their homeland. Their hunting ground extended to modern-day Silverton, Colorado and to the vicinity of Aspen. Another group of Utes occupied the area of Glenwood Springs, Colorado as a summer residence area. This group was called Parianuche. A band called Yamparika occupied the area of the Yampa 2 River Valley in northeastern Colorado. All of the bands in Colorado continue to exist except for the Parianuche who became a part of the Yamparikas. The Taviwache are now called Uncompahgre, and the Yamparika are called White River Utes. These bands of Utes constitute the Ute nation. They were one people. They traveled to see each other, intermarried, came to each other's aid in time of war, shared religious, social, and ethical beliefs, and thought of themselves as a people, or, in their own words, ''Nuche'' which means ''the people.'' Virtually the entire area of Ute occupation was undisputed. Very occasionally there were Comanche raids from the Wyoming area into northwestern Colorado and into northeastern Utah. There seems to have been some conflict between the Shoshonis to the north and the Utes; but, as the Cumumbah experience indicates, there was usually intermarriage and friendship between these Uto-Aztecan speaking peoples. Occasional warfare occurred between the Weeminuches and the Navajos in the extreme southeasten corner of the state along the San Juan River frontier. Peace with the Southern Paiutes seems to have been regular until post-white-contact times when, from 1830 until roughly 1860, some Utes raided southern Paiute communities to capture their erstwhile friends as slaves to be sold in New Mexico or California; and, on rare occasions, to be sold to the new Mormon settlers. 1 The first known penetration into Ute lands by whites was in 1776 by two Franciscans, Fathers Altanasio Dominguez and Silvestre de Escalante. Acting under orders from the Viceroy of Mexico, and more directly under the Governor of New Mexico, they attempted to discover a route from Santa Fe, New Mexico to Monterey, the newly settled capitol of Alta, California. Most of their journey was made over Ute territory following Indian trails. In the Ute areas in Utah, the Fathers found a remarkably peaceful and friendly people. The travelers visited the Utes at Utah Lake and in the Pah Vant areas and were befriended by both groups. Subsequent to that journey, other expeditions to the Ute areas in Utah were made. In an entry dated September 1, 1805, Joaquin de Real Alencaster, Governor of New Mexico, reported that Manuel Maestas had been to visit the Timpanogos Indians. The purpose of the journey was to recover stolen horses. 2 In 1813 a group of seven men under command of Lagos Garcia traveled for four months and visited the Tumpanawach (Timpanogos) Utes for three days. After violence broke out, the Spaniards retreated. Two forms of trading were carried on-one in slaves and a second in pelts. The total recorded is 109 pelts, and this was stated to be but a few. It is apparent that between 1776 and 1813 enough contact with aggressive people had made the Utes more retaliatory, as well as more alert to the possibilities of trade. The 109 pelts collected by the Arze-Garcia expedition is the first recorded fur trade in the Great Basin. 3 During the decade 1810-1820 a great number of activities began in the 1 3 Rocky Mountains which impinged in Ute territory. There began an intense search for furs in the area of present-day Colorado, a search which initiated many arguments between Spanish officials at Santa Fe and United States citizens who were trapping. One group headed by Chouteau and De Mun from St. Louis were captured and taken to Santa Fe. In their party was a man by the name of Etienne Provost. By the early 1820s Etienne Provost was trapping in the area of the city in Utah which now bears his name. Several of his party were killed by Indians he called Snakes (but were probably Utes) during the winter of 1823-24. The following winter, 1824-25, he spent at the fork of the White and Green Rivers near the present-day hamlet of Ouray, Utah. 4 Also deep into Ute territory in the 1820s was Antoine Robidoux, who was to become the leading figure in the Uinta Basin area in fur trading. A member of a St. Louis family famous in the fur trade, Antoine Robidoux was a person with whom the Utes of Utah dealt for 20 years. s By 1825 a great number of people were entering Utah to gather furs. From the northwest came Peter Skene Ogden and his men of the Hudson's Bay Company into the area at the northern edges of the Ute domains. William Henry Ashley from Missouri came down the Green River in that year and visited the Uinta Basin wnere he found Utes, and also trappers from Santa Fe.6 Jedediah S. Smith crossed Utah from north to south and east to west and continued his north-south journey to Los Angeles. The knowledge of this · route to Los Angeles (the Old Spanish Trail) became a factor of great importance in the changing fortunes of Ute Indians. 1 It is of interest to note that it was on the northern Ute borders where the international forces met in their push for furs: Ogden and his brigade from the Hudson's Bay Company posts in Canada, Ashley's men from St. Louis, and Etienne Provost and his party from the Mexican frontier in northern New Mexico. s During the 1830s the trickle of white adventurers became a stream. The government of the United States was sending men into the West for a variety of reasons-exploration, surveying, and reconnaissance. All were the harbingers of imperialism. Also during the 1830s the fur trade was regularized. A fur trading post was established in Utah's Uinta Basin in the heart of the Ute fur gathering area. The year of its founding was near the end of the great fur trading experience. The fort, Fort Robidoux, existed from 1837 until 1844 when the Utes burned it while Antoine Robidoux was in New Mexico ..9 Another important feature of the 1830s was the use of the Old Spanish Trail from Santa Fe to Los Angeles. Sections of this trail had been opened by le_c;!ediah Smith and others, but about the year 1830, it became a regular trade route for woven cloth from New Mexico and horses and cattle from Los Angeles. The Utes were able to lay tribute on the caravans as they crossed the Green River near the present town of Green River, Utah. The trail gave the 4 Utes the opportunity to become a good deal more prosperous-they not only joined in the fur trade, but they also practiced slave trading, preying upon neighboring tribes, particulary the Paiutes whom they sold as slaves to the Spanish speaking people along the trail. The practice of slave trading lasted for some time-probably ending in the 1860s. The Utes also became involved in the horse trade and were able to raid the ranchos of California to obtain large herds of horses which were sold to the fur traders. As the fur trade declined in the early 1840s, the Ute relationship with the trappers became vexed. In 1844 the Utes burned one of the fur trading posts in Utah and indicated their unwillingness to continue the relationships that had existed. The Utes were near the zenith of their prosperity when the Mexican War and the arrival of more AngloAmericans from the east disrupted their general relationships. 10 The war between the United States and Mexico caused a very rapid infusion of Anglo-American population in the American southwest. Some of that infusion impinged upon the Ute Indians. The armed might the Anglo-Americans introduced in the Mexican War was unknown to the Indians of the region at that time. More disruptive than the armed presence was the coming of the permanent settlers. The Mormons, misfits of the American frontier, began their hegira in Utah in 1846 during the opening stages of the Mexican War and were well established on Ute lands before the War was over. What had been a sacred homeland to the Utes became the sacred home of the "saints" in a very short time after their arrival. After the calamities in the eastern states, the Mormons were determined to make a permanent home in the Rocky Mountains. This they did-and in great part on land claimed and used by the Utes. The Mormon invasion was very large and the expansion from the mother colony at Great Salt Lake City very rapid. The Utes' reaction to the coming of the Mormons was friendly but cautious. In their first substantive encounter, measles spread from the Mormon children to the Indians, and thirty-eight of the Indians died. Competition over the land began very soon after Mormon arrival-first, the grazing area near Draper which led to the killing of some Utes and the capturing of others. A short time later the founding of Provo, Utah, or Fort Utah as it was then called, provoked the Utes into killing the horses and cattle of the Mormons. The Mormons retaliated in February of 1850 and defeated the Indians decisively. Mormon records indicate that 27 of the Indians and one white died in the encounter. The women and children of the deceased-Indians were held captive in Salt lake City until spring.11 Armed conflict returned two years later in a major encounter called the Walker War. A complicated series of issues led to the war, but central for the Utes was the Mormon occupation of their traditional homelands and winter campsite at Provo, Utah. The Indian leader, Wakara (called Walker by the Mormons), led the Utes in a series of raids against the white intruders. 5 Brigham Young instructed the building of forts and posting of guards; he called out the Nauvoo Legion, and the Utes were rather rapidly defeated. By the time the war came, the Mormons vastly outnumbered the Utes. Further, the Mormons had received substantial military training in the Nauvoo Legion and in the Mormon Battalion during the Mexican War. The war against the raiders was quickly won; the peace negotiations between Brigham Young and Wakara were humiliating to the Indians. The power of the Indian leader, Wakara, was broken irretrievably. The land of the Utah Lake region was taken by conquest from the Utes. The ending of the war was not the beginning of peace. The Utes were determined to use, at least jointly, the area which had formerly been theirs exclusively. An uneasy peace continued between the opponents. Garland Hurt, the federal Utah Indian agent, was prompted by the destitute conditions of the Indians, and the demands that they be controlled, to establish three Indian reservafions for the Utes at Corn Creek, Twelve-Mile Creek, and Spanish Fork and one for the Goshutes at Deep Creek. Hurt planned to develop the areas as farms, expanding them into permanent reservations with the consent of the Indians given in treaty. 12 However, after the initial success, the farm effort collapsed. During the Utah War of 1857, Hurt fled the territory. Eventually everything was sold off at Sanpete and Spanish Fork to feed the starving Indians. In 1864 the reservations were sold by an act of Congress-the proceeds to be spent for the "wants and requirements of the Indians.'~ 13 These small Indian reservations had not solved the "Indian problem" .in Utah. By 1861 when a new administration had taken office in Washington, D. C., the Mormons followed the traditional pattern in American frontier settlement by asking that the Indians be removed and placed upon lands -reserved for them at some distant point. When a federal agent suggested that the Uintah Valley could be used for such a purpose, Brigham Young sent an expedition to examine the area and determine if it were suitable for Mormon agrarian settlements. In three weeks the expedition returned reporting the area's lack of suitability-even wondering why God had created the area unless it was to hold the other parts of the world together. Less than a month after the return of the expedition, Abraham Lincoln set aside the Uintah Valley as a reservation. 14 The area was already inhabitated by a small band of Ute Indians known as the Uintah-ats, and the pressure began for the removal to there of all the Utah Utes-but, they were reluctant to go. An uneasy settlement existed during the years of the Civil War. Those years were also years of great difficulty for the Utes because of the dreadful winters of the 1860s. Starvation reached such a point that during the winter of 1864 starving Ute Indians drove off cattle and horses belonging to the Mormon settlers. The characteristics of the new "war" were similar to those- of the Walker War. Raids were conducted by the Utes and defensive measures taken by the Mormons. By 1865 a new leader had risen among the attackers, and the war which ensued is named for him-Black Hawk. The Black Hawk War was the largest military engagement ever fought on Utah soil. During the initial stages of the war, a major peace negotiation was held between the Government of the United States, the Ute Indians, and the Mormon leader, Brigham Young. A delegation of other leading Mormons accompanied ex-Governor Brigham Young to the parley. An energetic U.S. Agent for Utah named 0. H. Irish negotiated on behalf of the Federal Government. Every major Utah Ute Indian Leader was at the negotiation held at Spanish Fork in June 1865. The treaty provided that the Utes give up all lands in Utah Territory except the Uintah Valley, move into it within one year, and be paid $900,000 over the next 60 years. The Indians were to be allowed to take fish at their accustomed places and to gather roots and berdes on unclaimed lands. Other sections provided for schools, supplies, and "allotments." Chief Soweett explained that the Utes " ... did not want to sell their land and go away; they wanted to live around the graves of their fathers.'' However, advised by Brigham Young, all the chiefs and head men except San pitch signed the treaty. 15 Because the Mormons were the major opponents of the Indian people, Irish had assumed that their presence at the meeting was indispensable. While lrish's logic may have been flawless, the reaction in Congress when the treaty reached the Senate was not-the Senate gave the document short shrift. Since the Utah War, the Mountain Meadow Massacre, and the non-participation of the Mormons in the Civil War, the senators were ill-disposed to do anything that favored Mormon interests. The Utes fully supposed that the treaty was a completed negotiation and that the Government of the United States had agreed to give them gifts, homes, cattle, schools, and other items to get them to remove to the Uintah Valley. When the promised goods did not appear, the tempo of the Black Hawk War intensified. During 1866, 1867, and 1868, the war dragged on at an immense cost to the white communities of central Utah. Both sides understood clearly that it was a war to expel the Utes from land for which they had not been compensated. It is not the purpose of this essay to dwell upon the costs of that war, or to measure the blood and treasure expended by each side. Approximately 50 Mormons and more than 300 Indians died in the conflict. An additional number of Indians lost their lives through starvation. Infant mortality was very high, and the suffering the Utes endured during those times is still a subject of their oral traditions. 16 Black Hawk, who led the forces, was able to gather recruits from neighboring bands of Utes in Colorado and eastern Utah and even from the Navajos, who were the traditional enemies of the Utes. Starvation, the lack of supplies, the attrition of an extended conflict when visited by the armed might, and the organization of the Mormons spelled defeat for Black Hawk's 7 forces. With the defeat of Black Hawk, there was a transfer of leadership. The new leader was Tabby-To-Kwana (Child of the Sun). Tabby-To-Kwana led the remnant of the Utes from the central valleys of Utah to the Uintah Basin in 1869. There, starving and helpless, they organized one more raid for cattle on Heber City, Utah. Brigham Young, after viewing the desperation of the Utes, gathered together a herd of cattle and had the herd driven to Uintah Valley to rescue them from their forlorn condition. The first three years at Uintah Valley were times of extreme hardship for the Utes. Very meager amounts of federal assistance reached them. Few of the promises were kept; fewer of the obligations were honored. This failure in Indian administration was partly because the agents were ineffective and uninterested in their charges. A major part of the difficulty was that few things were sent to them by the Indian Administration in Washington D.C. It was a situation which, without amelioration, would probably have produced a third major war with the Utes. In 1871 a man of great personal intregrity and amazing tenacity took over the job of Indian Agent for the Uintah Agency. John J. Critchlow was appointed in November 1870 and took control of the Uintah Agency in 1871. Upon arriving at the Agency, Critchlow found "the employees-some of them utterly depraved and worthless-and the Indians completely discouraged ... '' 17 Critchlow directed his energy toward securing more employees and obtaining housing, fences, lower freight rates, better roads, a sawmill, a flour mill, and irrigation systems. He wanted missionaries and schools, a doctor, and money for all the above. At so remote a spot, the obtaining of these materials was a slow and painful process. Not only was Congress reluctant to vote the funds, but once materials were obtained, they were difficult to move to Uintah. Moving the sawmill from Salt Lake City to Uintah required two arduous summers of hard work. Critchlow is an archetypal example of what the Grant Peace Policy was meant to produce. He was a diligent advocate of the Indian interests. He endeavored manfully to create schools-even pressing his wife into service by founding the first school there. His agricultural and milling pursuits were to remain a hallmark of the reservation for a generation. He complained constantly to Congress for the establishment of churches to be . a Christianizing influence on the Indians. Friends in Congress helped arrange to have trading posts established on the reservation so the Indian people did not have to travel great distances for supplies. When a military post was esta]?lished in the Uintah Basin, he attempted to have it as far from his charges as possible so that the corrupting influence of the soldiers would not be a source of irritation. Critchlow also established herding as a major pursuit of the Indians, reasoning that this economic endeavor was more suited to the Indian temperament than was agriculture. However, Critchlow' s efforts were to be frustrated by the removal of Colorado Utes into Utah. 18 The removal of Colorado Utes into Utah in 1881-82 was preceded by a long 8 history of invasion, conflict, negotiation, and deceit. The Spanish and, after 1820, the Mexican Government had granted lands in the area of Colorado and New Mexico to settlers who would agree to develop the land and protect the frontier. Many of these grants included lands occupied by the Ute people. The Utes had not been consulted. The United States had agreed to respect these land grants under the terms of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) which had ended the war with Mexico and had transferred to the United States the jurisdiction over the lands of the Ute people. In 1849 the officials of the federal government moved quickly to make treaty arrangements with the Utes. James S. Calhoun signed a treaty with the New Mexico and Colorado Utes near Santa Fe on December 13 of that year. 19 Under the terms of that treaty, the Utes agreed to United States supervision of the area. Although it is almost certain that no Utes north of New Mexico knew of the treaty, the United States assumed that all the Ute Indians were made subject to United States control by this document. This treaty was later used as the legal instrument to justify intrusion onto Ute lands. Although no boundaries were specified, the treaty provided that reservations would be established on which the Ute people were to confine themselves and become farmers. An Act of February 27, 1851, extended all the laws then in force regulating trade and intercourse with Indian tribes over the Indian tribes in the territories of New Mexico and Utah. 20 By 1853 three towns (San Luis, San Pedro, and San Acacia) had been founded in the San Luis Valley in southern Colorado by former Mexican citizens. These were the first permanent white settlements in the area. Fort Massachusetts was established north of them in 1852 and was the first U.S. military post in Colorado. (It was replaced by Fort Garland in 1858). 21 As usual the influx of settlers and domesticated livestock destroyed or pushed out the game animals and native plants upon which the Utes depended. Utes began to raid the settlements in what became known as the Ute War of 1854-1855. Led by Tierra Blanco, the Utes were initially successful. Even Ft. Massachusetts was threatened. However, six companies of U.S. troops were sent against them, and the Utes sued for peace. Two treaties were signed at Abiquiu in 1855-one with the Kapotas and one with the Moache. Congress did not ratify either treaty, mainly because the reservation designated to be the permanent home of the Indians (2,000 square miles north of San Juan and east of the Animas River) included land in the San Luis Valley west of the Rio Grande where several white farms were located. 22 Ute lands in New Mexico were thus occupied without treaties. It was the discovery of gold at Pike's Peak in 1859 that brought many whites into Colorado. The white population increased so rapidly that by 1861 Colorado was organized into a territory. A Colorado Indian Agency was established that same year at Conejos. The following year Congress established an agency at Hot Sulphur Springs for the Uintah and Grand River (White River) people. 23 9 Hundreds of prospectors and miners moved into the San Luis Park area which was the center of the Taviwach (Uncompahgr~) hunting grounds. There were several skirmishes between the whites and the Utes. Whites agitated for relocation of all the Colorado Utes onto one reservation to be located on the lands occupied by the Taviwach and Kapota, with headquarters in the San Juan Mountains. In 1863 a major treaty council was held at Conejos with the Utes in order to convince them to move into the Four Corners area and take up farming. The largest group present was from the Taviwach band; as a result, the treaty was negotiated with them. To set the proper mood for negotiations, gifts were lavishly distributed to the Indians, and 500 soldiers were conspicuously present. The Taviwach signed the treaty. One chief noted, "Our Father in Washington has power to do what he wishes; we will obey whatever he commands.'' 24 The Taviwach agreed to give up lands and mineral rights in exchange for livestock, goods, and provisions. The land they gave up-most of western Colorado which included all of the mineral sites thus far discovered and most of the white settlements-they did not even occupy. A provision was also made that "any citizen of the U.S. may mine, without interference or molestation, in any part of the country hereby reserved to said Indians, where gold or other metals or minerals may be found.'' 25 Some of the Utes moved onto the defined reservation; most continued to travel to traditional hunting and gathering grounds as they had always done. The government failed to fulfill any of its obligations to provide supplies and education. In 1865 gold, silver, and coal were discovered in western Colorado. Miners again poured onto Ute lands. They were followed by ranchers and farmers who had heard and read the reports of rich Colorado lands. Conflicts continued between the whites and the Utes. The whites pressured the government for another treaty in which the Utes would give additional land. The Utes themselves expressed dissatisfaction with the 1863 Treaty. A preliminary treaty council was held in 1866. It failed to resolve the issues. However, in 1868 after sending a delegation to Washington D.C., the Utes agreed to a treaty. The March 2, 1868 Treaty (also known as the Kit Carson Treaty) provided that all of the Colorado Utes would be placed on about 1,500,000 acres of land in western Colorado, known as the Confederated Ute Reservation, for their "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation." The rest of their traditional lands were to be ceded. 26 The Utes were as reluctant to sign this treaty as they had been the Treaty of 1863, but they did sign. An Indian interpreter quoted Chief Ouray as saying that the U tes signed the treaty only with the understanding that the ''Government should strike out all that relates to mills, machinery, farming, schools, and going onto a reservation .... ' '27 The Utes were opposed to settling down in one place. Tradition had taught them that to remain in one place 10 meant death. In July 1868, 2,000 Utes and all the principal chiefs gathered at Denver to protest their removal to the reservation. The protest failed. 28 Two new agencies were established-one of which was at Los Pinos and came to be called the Uncompahgre Agency. The Taviwach who were there assumed that name. The other agency was at White River, and the no:rthern Colorado Utes assumed that name. Another agency for the Utes was opened in Denver in early 1871. It served the Utes who made Denver their base as they continued to hunt buffalo in their traditional lands. Officials decided it was less expensive to let the Utes go off the reservation to hunt than to retain them to be farmers on their reservation. 29 Non-Ute settlers and speculators continued to encroach on Ute lands. In 1870 the Little Giant Lode was discovered on the Los Animas River, and miners came into the San Juan area. The Utes put up resistance to these intruders. Chief Ouray and others. convinced the Indian agent to investigate the trespassing. The miners, however, scoffed at his warnings. 30 The Colorado legislature sent a memorial to President Ulysses S. Grant dated January 26, 1872. It stated that the Ute Reservation was far in excess of Ute needs, and since valuable discoveries of gold and silver had been found, the government should treat with the Utes to reduce the size of their reservation. 31 By the Act of April 23, 1872, Congress authorized such negotiation. 32 A commission was appointed, and conferences were held with the Utes. The Utes, however, refused to give up any land. Their attitude was expressed by Ouray: "We do not want to sell a foot of our land-that is the opinion of all." 33 With the failure of the negotiations of 1872, the Government was forced to fulfill the obligations of the 1868 Treaty and keep trespassing miners off the Ute lands. This stirred turmoil among the miners, and it was soon decided to suspend the expulsion orders and permit the mining development to proceed. 34 Negotiations were begun again with the Utes. The Indians were determined to give up only the mineral lands. Ouray explained: ''The mountains with the mines we will sell, but those where the mines are not in we will not sell; ... the whites can go and take the gold and come out again. We do not want them to build houses there.'' 35 Felix Brunot, the sole U.S. negotiator, demanded that all of the San Juan district be ceded. The negotiations continued for several days without resolution. Only after Brunot offered to find his lost son and to pay him a salary of $1,000 a year for 10 years, did Ouray sign the agreement. 36 Other Utes followed his example. The Brunot Agreement secured the whole San Juan district (about 4 million acres) for the miners and drove a wedge in between the northern and southern halves of the Confederated Ute Reservation. It also provided for the removal of the Utes from New Mexico onto the southern half. 37 Within the San Juan district wa~ Uncompahgre Park. It contained rich land and hot mineral springs which were sacred to the Utes. The agreement had 11 retained the entire Park as Ute land, including any part found to extend south of the boundary as described in the agreement. However, the area was choice farmland, and whites moved onto the southern part. Ute efforts to dislodge the trespassers proved futile. By Executive Order, November 22, 1875, President Grant added a small strip of land to the northern border of the reservation as compensation for the loss. 38 Several surveys were conducted on the reservation. The Utes were concerned, as these surveys usually resulted in reduction of their lands.After a particularly fraudulent survey aroused the U tes to vigorous protest, a four-mile square tract of land containing the hot springs in the Uncompahgre Park was also added to the reservation by Executive Order on August 17, 1876. 39 This action only increased tensions between whites and Utes. Many petitions were sent arguing that whites be allowed to remain in Uncompahgre Park. By 1878 there were 300 whites unlawfully occupying 40,000 acres of land in the Los Pinos Agency area.40 Uncompahgre leaders eventually signed an agreement to sell the four-mile square tract of land for $10,000, but the agreement was never ratified. 41 In 1877 Congress acted to remove all Southern Ute People in northern New Mexico to southwest Colorado to be controlled from an agency at Ignacio, as required by a provision in the Brunot Agreement. 42 In 1878 a commission was sent to negotiate with the Utes to remove them all to the area of the White River Agency. The leaders of the Southern Ute bands protested being moved but finally signed an agreement in which they gave up 1,894,400 acres of land and agreed to settle on a reservation located at -the headwaters of the Peidra, San Juan, Blanco, Navajo, and Chama Rivers. The agreement was ratified and funds were appropriated to remove the Southern Utes to the area. 43 That year the White River Utes were appointed a new agent-. a determined reformer named Nathan Meeker, who was foolish enough to use coercion on the Utes to get them to farm. In September 1879 an outbreak occurred in which Meeker and some of his staff were killed and his family captured and outraged. The U.S. Army was called in. The first group was defeated and surrounded; a second detachment had to be sent. To prevent a hopeless encounter with the reinforced army, the leader of the Uncompahgre, Ouray, intervened. This so-called Meeker Massacre finally gave the Colorado citizenry the leverage needed to force the Utes, even those not involved in the incident, to give up all of their land. 44 An agreement was negotiated in Washington by Secretary of the Interior Charles Schurz and a delegation of Ute leaders. The agreement provided for the Utes to sell their reservation in exchange for allotments of land in severalty and certain annuities. The Southern Utes were to settle on the La Plata River, and the Uncompahgre were to settle on the Grand River in Colorado if sufficient agricultural lands were available there or, otherwise, on lands in Utah. The White River Utes were to move onto the Uintah Reservation in 12 Utah. 45 The Uintah Utes were not consulted in this arrangement. President Hayes appointed a commission to secure the necessary three-fourths approval of the male Utes to the agreement. Several councils were held. Many Utes refused to sign. Otto Mears, one of the commissioners, began bribing the Utes. He paid each Indian who signed $2, which altogether cost him $2,800. 46 Although charges were later brought against him by Indian Commissioner Man penny, Mears was not only exonerated, but also the money was repaid him from the Federal Treasury. 47 Part of the congressional debate over the 1880 Agreement was concerning the system of allotment of lands in severalty to individual Indians. 48 During this debate the four major reasons for allotment were presented: (a) the' Indians had too much land which they did not use for worthy purposes, i.e. farming and mining; allotment would make it possible for "surplus" land to be made available to whites who would use it "properly"; (b) by giving the Indian a permanent home and personal property, he would finally be forced to become "civilized" and assimilate into the dominant white culture; (c) by breaking up tribal land holdings and forcing individual Indians to manage their own affairs, the wardship relationship of the Indians to the federal government would be "terminated" and the "Indian problem" settled once and for all; (d) by giving the Indians title to individual lands, these lands would somehow be less vulnerable to white encroachment. There was some opposition to allotment legislation. Some questionep the acceptance of the policy by the Indians, the supposed protection it offered from white intruders, and the assumption that it would automatically result in "civilization" of the Indians. However, this opposition was overwhelmed by proponents of allotment-proponents who included humanitarian "friends of the Indians'' groups. The Ute Bill of 1880, which ratified the 1880 Agreement, was one of several laws which included allotment provisions for certain tribes. 49 In 1887 the "allotment policy was extended to all Indian groups (except in Oklahoma) by the General Allotment or Dawes Act. 50 Otto Mears was given the job of inspecting the lands near the Grand River as to their suitability for settlement by the Uncompahgres. He judged that they were not suitable. Therefore, lands in Utah adjacent to the Grand River were designated the new home of the Uncompahgres. 51 Under military escort the protesting White River and Uncompahgre Utes were moved off their Colorado lands into Utah-the White Rivers to join the Uintahs on the Uintah Reservation and the Uncompahgres to the southeast of them. The transfer to the Uintah Reservation of a recently rebellious group, who looked with contempt upon the Utes who were farming under his guidance, caused Critchlow to react negatively to the White River Utes. Soon after the arrival of the Colorado people, the abrasiveness between them and Critchlow resulted in the latter's release. The Ouray Agency was established for the Uncompahgres on the east side 13 of the Green River about two miles above its junction with the White River. A military post, Fort Thornburgh, was also founded near the Ouray agency to control the Utes. 52 The military reserve took much of the desirable bottom and hay land in the immediate vicinity of the agency. That the military had taken so much land is a clue that there was very little good land to be had. The Uncompahgres had been moved from lush, green mountain parks in Colorado to a bleak and dry wasteland in Utah. The Ute Commission (J. J. Russell, Otto Mears, and Thomas McMorris) assigned to select land for the Uncompahgres under the terms of the 1880 Agreement, explored the country in the valleys of the White and Green Rivers. They selected for the Uncompahgres lands in the valley of the Green River. The Ute Commission recommended that: Until the Indians can be made somewhat familiar with their new relations, it is . . . of vital importance to maintain the exterior boundary limits of the lands upon which they dwell as a reservation, and within which white men may not be allowed to locate. This protection may be secured by legislation or possibly by executive order. For years to come these Indians should certainly have the aid of the government in protecting them from collision with white men. 54 A reservation was so established for the Uncompahgres by Executive Order, January 5, 1882 55 -a procedure which did not require further negotiations with the Indians. No individual allotments of land were made. The few white settlers who occupied lands near the agency were paid for the lands and improvements and then removed. 56 There were problems of land tenure almost immediately. Chief Sappavonaro and other chiefs and headmen had settled themselves and their people upon lands found to be a part of the Uintah Reservation. Agent W. H. Berry requested that the Executive Order be amended to include the lands in the Uncompahgre Reservation. 57 The order was not so amended. This group of Uncompahgres moved east into Colorado. When D. C. Oakes made his survey of the Uncompahgre Reservation in 1884, he met with the Utes who were settled along the White River below the mouth of Douglas Creek. Oakes explained to them that the eastern boundary of the reservation was the Utah-Colorado border, and they were 15 miles east of that boundary. 58 The Indians continued, however, to occupy the land. The reluctance of the Uncompahgres to give up these lands in western Colorado finally resulted in tragedy. 59 In the summer of 1887 their leader, Colorow, moved his camp further into Colorado for the annual hunt. The game warden of northwestern Colorado organized a posse which rode into the Ute camp and attempted to arrest the indians. In the confusion which followed, a Ute was shot and the Ute goods were confiscated. Other encounters between white posses and Utes ended similarly. Several Indians 14 were killed or wounded. The word spread throughout the area that the Utes were on the warpath, killing and burning everything in sight. Finally, Utah Utes and soldiers from the newly established Ft. Duchesne60 went into Colorado and escorted Colorow's group back to Utah. Despite this incident, many Uncompahgres continued to make yearly hunting trips into their Colorado homeland. As in Colorado, it was the discovery of mineral deposits in Utah which forced the Utes to lose more land. The mineral was gilsonite. Although the presence of gilsonite was well known in the 1860-l 870s, it was not until the 1880s that two promoters, Sam Gilson and Bert Seaboldt, publicized the materials and found uses for it. In January 1886 Seaboldt filed the first recorded gilsonite claims-all of them in the Carbon Vein, which was located on the Uintah Indian Reservation. He organized a group to begin commercial mining. 61 The Utes protested the trespass of miners on their reservation. Agent T. A. Byrnes saw no reason not to remove the gilsonite lands from the reservation: " ... such lands are not, nor have they been, used or occupied by the Indians, for the reason that they are not fit for agricultural or grazing purposes." 62 James Randlett, the commanding officer at Ft. Duchesne, agreed that the: ... detachment by sale will occasion no inconvenience to the tribes. If the Gilsonite enterprise proves a success, the Indians will see how profits are made from industry and will also to some extent find at the mines a market for their own products .... It will be very agreeable to the isolated garrison to have a settlement near it. 63 i On May 24, 1888, Congress removed a triangular "strip" of about 7 ,000 acres from the eastern end of the Uintah Reservation, providing a payment of $20 per acre to the Indians. 64 Approval of this loss of land by the adult male Indians was secured in September through "much proselyting." 6s Two hundred twenty-eight voted in favor; no one voted against. Because the strip was a part of federal lands, but off the Indian and military reserves, it was not controlled by officials at Whiterocks or Ft. Duchesne, nor by state, territorial, local, or country authorities. This seemingly lawless territory ''became the location of a tough class of squatters-men and women without means of existing except gambling, selling whiskey to Indians, and prostitution." 66 Indian agents and military commanders came to regret strip's existence. It remained a wide-open area until it was sold by the government in May 1906 at $1.25 per acre. In 1888 a gilsonite vein, the Cowboy, was found just north of the White River and west of the Utah-Colorado border on the Uncompahgre Reservation. The cowboys who found it located claims on it. Between the summers of 1888 and 1890 other veins were discovered both north and south 15 of the White River. Cowboys, merchants, and farmers from Vernal and nearby towns located claims upon them. 67 With the strip having been removed from the Uintah Reservation as a precedent, many mining men felt that a similar arrangement could be made for changing boundary lines to remove the White River gilsonite lands from the Uncompahgre Reservation. Four of the first locators on the Cowboy Vein persuaded Congress to pass a bill restoring to the public domain a 12-rnile strip containing the Cowboy and Bonanza Veins. 68 George W. Gordon was sent by the Interior Department in June to inspect the area. In his report of July 31, he described the area as containing only second or third-rate pasture land, barren mountains, hills, and alkaline patches. The report gave support to the rationale that the lands could be removed since "the Indians do not, and probably never will, need the lands embraced therein or make any use of them whatsoever.'' 69 Despite Congressional passage of the bill, President Benjamin Harrison vetoed the "Change in the Uncompahgre Reservation Boundaries" explaining that it was a ''private and not a public end that is to be promoted, and to take these lands in this manner is calculated to excite [the Indians'] distrust and fears and possibly to create serious trouble.'' 10 The miners continued prospecting. Time and again troops from Fort Duchesne were directed by the Indian agent to remove trespassers from the reservation. 71 The Culmer-Seaboldt Vein system located in the northwestern section of the reservation was discovered prior to 1889. However, work on the Culmer Vein, on which was located the Pariette Mine, was not extensive until after 1894. In that year the Assyrian Asphalt Company of Chicago was organized and succeeded in persuading federal authorities to make a jog of one mile to the east in the western boundary of the Uncompahgre Reservation. 72 This left the Parriette Mine outside the reservation and available for exploration. During the year 1890-1894, seven bills "to change the boundaries of the Uncompahgre Reservation" were introduced to Congress. Finally, in August of 1894, an Indian Appropriations Act was passed which contained a section authorizing the President to appoint a commission of three persons to begin alloting land in severalty to the Uncompahgre Indians, after which the remainder of lands on that reservation would be open to entry under the homestead and mineral laws of the United States. 73 The Indians were to pay $1.25 per acre for the lands so allotted them from the fund in the U.S. Treasury realized from the sale of their lands in Colorado. The consent of the Indians to those procedures was to be secured ''if possible.'' However, opinions were given that consent was not needed. 74 The Uncompahgres were angered; they refused to accept the allotments, or to pay the $1.25 per acre required of them. As Senator Shoup of the Committee on Indian Affairs noted in his May 1894 report: 16 ft- .....J ,-----, ____ ,, I I -Homelands Food- Gathering Lands -- • Hunting Lands Present S.tate Boundaries ~ R-4~. I .,,~ 18 In the 12 or 14 years which have elapsed since the removal of the bands from their aboriginal seat in Colorado, a new generation has come into the active management of tribal affairs, and to many of the band the treaty of 1880 is only a tradition, while occupancy of the Utah Reservation is a present fact. It is obviously quite natural, however unreasonable, that the Indians should feel themselves entitled to hold the existing reservation and should object to making payment for the fraction of that reservation which they will be allowed to retain. 75 The means to alter the Uncompahgre Reservation were found in the 1880 Agreement which provided that lands be allotted in severalty. 76 The allotments not made then were to be made now. As Indian Commissioner Browning later noted, ''the United States got the benefit of all the lands purchased from the Ute Indians by the Agreement of 1880." 77 The Indians' title to their lands was not secured as required by the 1880 Agreement and 1887 General Allotment Act. Justification for altering the Uncompahgre Reservation was based on the grounds that the Indians not only did not need the land, but that they, in fact, had no real claim to the land. Officials began strengthening the argument made earlier that: The Uncompahgre Reservation, created by Executive Order of January 5, 1882, was not intended to be set apart as a permanent reservation for the Uncompahgres, but simply for the purpose of withholding from white settlement or occupation, or other appropriation, a sufficient quantity of land to make allotments to said Indians. 78 This argument was in contradiction to the recognition of Uncompahgre rights to their reservation in the Act of March 1887, which granted a right-of-way through the Uintah and Uncompahgre Reservations on the Utah Midland Railway Company. 79 The act provided that the Indians were to be compensated for the right-of-way and forinaterials. S.S. Scott, T.A. Byrnes, ind William S. Davis, the three commissioners assigned to "allot in severalty to the Uncompahgre Indians with their reservation ... according to the Treaty of 1880,'' 80 held their first council with the Uncompahgre in January 1895. Byrnes reported that the Indians protested: ... they never agreed to come to this country, but were promised that they should remain in Colorado and be settled on the Grand River near the mouth of the Gunnison, where they were promised they should be given horses and farms and helped to live like the whites. They said that they ·never agreed to pay $1.25 an acre for lands they were to receive in exchange for the reservation in Colorado, and they never heard of such agreement until now .... 1Q [They] asked me to have the commission write to Washington and tell them this was wrong and ask Washington to have them treated right.81 The efforts of the commission to make allotments and secure consent failed. The commission was relieved from duty February 4, 1896. 82 The Dawes or General Allotment Act of 1887 envisioned the allotment to Indians of individual tracts of reservation land for use as farms. Most of the Uncompahgre Reservation land was not agricultural. 83 Even that area originally selected by the Ute commission of 1881 (see p. 14) did not contain sufficient agricultural land. Therefore, the Indian Service decided to assign to some Uncompahgres lands north along the Duchesne River - within the Uintah Reservation. The consent of the Uintah and White River Utes was supposed not to be difficult to obtain. However, a more experienced observer, Agent Randlett, noted: .. .it should not prove surprising if the Uintah Reservation Indians plead that the Government respect their legal right to be consulted in this matter and not to establish a precedent for arbitrarily violating justice and equity in disposing of their legal possessions. 84 An agreement to relinquish lands on the Uintah Reservation for Ute allotment of lands to the Uncompahgre was not signed until January 8, 1898. 8 ~ On June 7, 1897, Congress passed an act requiring all allotments in severalty to be made by April 1, 1898 and providing that all lands not allotted to be opened to settlement.86 There was no provision to negotiate nor to obtain consent of the Uncompahgres. Ironically, a provision of the act reserved title to the United States of all lands containing "gilsonite, asphalt, or other like substances.'' The gilsonite interests were dismayed at the reserving of mineral lands to the United States. The federal authorities seem to have been undecided as to the best method of disposing of the gilsonite lands. It was not until· March 3, 1903, that Congress finally adopted a compromise plan for opening to claim the sections on the Uncompahgre Reservation containing asphalt, gilsonite, eiaterite, and other like substances. 87 With the announcement of the new allotment program came some protests. Agent Randlett contended that the Allotment Act (June 7, 1897): .. .is the result of--four years' discussion in Congress, originating through the schemes of parties seeking possession of the valuable asphaltum deposits found upon the reservation. It is regretted by all interested in the welfare of these Indians that this result was reached without making provisions for locating these Indians upon homesteads, as promised in the treaty made with them in 1880; and it is hoped that the matter will be reconsidered by Congress separated from the interests of the rich asphaltum sharks, whose schemes have brought nothing good to themselves and only fruited 20 in unrest and anguish for these wretchedly poor, long-neglected, legal wards of the Government. 88 Tension mounted. Another allotting commission was assigned (J. Jefferys, R Griffin, H.P. Myton). This commission reported that after several councils, the Uncompahgres requested that a delegation (Chavenaux, McCook, Eggleston, and Charley Galonta) be allowed to go to Washington to negotiate: The Indians gave as a reason for desiring the delegation that the lines of their reservation have been established by a man who said he came from Washington [Oakes] and now these lines were taken away; that they had signed many papers, but Washington says now they were not good. But if their chiefs and headmen could stand face-to-face with the secretary and hear the words spoken, and he said for them to do so, they would take allotment. 89 The situation came almost to a breaking point in November of 1897 when 25 game wardens and deputy wardens killed two Indians and wounded two others who were on the annual hunts in the White River area of Colorado. The Utes began dances on Diamond Mountain and retaliated with raids on sheep and intimidation of outlying ranchers. Troops were sent out from Fort Duchesne. The Utes returned to the reservation. Later an investigation was made into the incident. The wardens were cleared of blame. 90 Despite continued Ute protest, allotments were made in pursuance of the 1897 Act - 232 of them on lands purchased from the Uintah and White River Utes. 91 These allotments were not approved. Nevertheless, the reservation was thrown open to settlement. Eight-three of those allotments were approved by Congress in 1899. 92 The rest of the Uncompahgre allotments were not approved until 1905. 93 The Uncompahgre Reservation had been opened to settlement before the provisions of the 1880 Agreement had been fulfilled. The right of occupancy secured to the Uncompahgre by Executive Order, until the Government should carry out and complete the promises and stipulations contained in the 1880 agreement, was ignored. Mining interests also pressured for opening the Uintah Reservation. Illegal mining explorations had continued there for many years. In 1893 J. T. McConnell and William Perry had secured from the Utes a lease for 5,000 acres of asphalt bearing lands around the Uintah River. 94 The lease which had been turned over to the American Asphalt Company was later cancelled when the leasees failed to meet certain terms. 95 Others had applied for permits to negotiate mining leases from the Utah. However, action on the applications had been tabled ''in deference to persistent efforts to induce the Indians to take individual allotments and cede a considerable portion of their land for public entry." 96 21 In 1897 the Utes agreed to a lease of abut 640 acres north of the Strawberry River to Utah citizens, Hathenbruck and Rhoades, but the Secretary of the Interior did not approve it. Hathenbruck, and Rhoades later assigned their interest in the lease to the Rhoades Mining and Milling Company of Utah, which attempted to renegotiate. Also competing for the lease was a New Jersey Company, the Florence Mining Company. In .1901 the latter Company signed an agreement with the Uintah Reser~_ation Utes to lease the lands. 98 The Raven Mining Company of Illinois secured an agreement with the Utes in 1898 to lease for ten years that part of the reservation lying south of the Strawberry River. In 1902 this company was granted by act of Congress the privilege of locating 100 claims on the Uintah Reservation. 99 In addition to mining interests, there were also farmers and ranchers who had trespassed for many years on the Uintah Reservation and who had worked to control and take over the Ute lands. Whites had begun settling in the Uintah Basin a few years before the White River and Uncompahgre Utes were moved onto the Uintah Reservation. Mormons had been sent by their church to the Ashley Valley just east of the Uintah Reservation in 1877 .100 Contemporaneous with the establishment of villages and farms in the Ashley Valley (1877-79), had been the formation of large cattle ranches in Ashley and the Strawberry River area. For many years cattlemen. from Heber and Provo had annually brought their cattle into the western end of the Uintah Basin to graze upon Indian lands. 101 In July 1881 Agent Critchlow reported to the Indian Commission that he had consulted with the Indians regarding their complaints of stock crossing the western area of the Uintah Reservation: '' ... they are willing to allow these herds to pass unmolested provided a moderate tax per head be imposed.'' Critchlow recommended the tax be ten cents per head and that someone be assigned the job of policing the boundaries and collecting the tax. 102 The JOO was not created, and for the next several years there was continued trespass and continued Indian protest. Agent Kinney reported in 1886 that "for years past, the whites (Mormons) have herded their cattle upon this land, and I learn, in the number of several hundred head .... To keep these white people off would require some diligent person constantly upon the land.'' 103 A council was held with the Indians in May of that year, and Special Agent Williams Parsons, who had been sent to investigate the situation at Uintah, reported the statements made. That by Big Tom was typical: The whole watershed belongs to us... we are different tribes, but we stay here together; we think it best, but we don't want white men on our land. White people try to take our lands - Mormons try to get it ... but we want our reservation just the same as we were first told from Washington. Strangers have their cattle ranging on our lands; we don't like this. It makes trouble to let strangers feed their sheep and cattle on our lands - I refer to the head of deep creek [sic] which runs into the Uintah. 104 Another council was held by the Utes in March of 1887 to protest the trespass and to demand that the ,cattlemen pay for the privilege. They made an agreement with one, Thomas Schofield, who agreed to pay. 105 Official disapproval of this action provoked another council held in July at which the Indians again complained that: ... they had been overrun with this Mormon cattle for years past, that their grass was getting short and the pasturage ruined, that what little cattle they had was being stolen, or lost, or strayed among the Mormon cattle - and that for all this, they had been receiving no pay ... former agents did not protect them. 106 The Utes agreed to fix the grazing fee at one dollar per head for each cattle for one year. However, according to Agent Byrnes only Schofield again agreed to pay. Byrnes reported: These cattlemen have given me more trouble than all my Indians or business of both Agencies [Uintah and Ouray] for years they have controlled this reservation and most of its affairs. They have pastured their cattle for years on this reservation and swindled these Indians at every opportunity. 107 Byrnes eventually collected some money from the trespassing cattlemen. However, cattle continued to trespass on the reservation. Late in 1889 William Johnston was sent to inspect the Uintah and Uncompahgre Reservations. While at Uintah he met with Ute leaders who protested, among other things, the sheep grazing illegally along the Strawberry River and the stock being grazed east of the Strawberry, "eating up our best range." 10s In September 1890 the White River and Uintah Utes held another council to complain about the stock trespassing. They decided that all cattle were to be ordered off the reservation, and that in the future no cattle were to be allowed to pasture on their land. The agent explained the action: '' ... they would rather have peace than money from the grazing.'' 109 However, the stock owners protested and the agent complained that: The task of keeping the reservation clear of sheep and cattle is one of very great difficulty, accustomed as they have been to run on these grazing lands for many years. Sheep especially are held just around the border and can move on and off again any day. My men have caught and fined a number of sheepmen, but there are so many that escape, that they will run the risk.110 Leasing the Strawberry Valley was decided as the solution to the problem. The Indian Office agreed with Agent Waugh that the area was worthless to the Utes who had not acquired ''stock enough to consume the pasture and that trouble, expense, and annoyance would continue in trying to keep trespassers off." 111 Legislation had been recently passed which stated that lands occupied by Indians "who have bought and paid for the same ... may be leased." 112 The Indian Office interpreted the Acts of May 5, 1864, and June 1880, which had established the Uintah Reservation for the ''permanent settlement and exclusive occupation" of Utah Utes and for the home of the White River Utes who had given up lands in Colorado, as meaning that the Uintah Reservation belonged to the Utes "as though they had bought and paid for it.'~ 113 Therefore, land in the Uintah Reservation could be leased with the consent of the Utes. Agent Waugh advertised that the southwestern portion of the Uintah Reservation was available for a 2-5 year lease for grazing cattle. In the meantime, he reported that: ... ever since an active move has been made to rent [the Strawberry Valley] .. .it has been apparent that the sheep and cattle men have thought that they would occupy said lands at their pleasure, calculating on immunity from molestation because of the expectation of renting. 114 The lease was granted to Charles F. Homer of New York for $7,100. 115 Homer had trouble himself with other stock owners trespassing on the leased area. The matter was finally taken to court where Homer's right to lease the land from Indians, who as owners of the land had a right to make the lease, was upheld. ur The Homer lease expired on June 1, 1898. Homer had already sold and transferred his interests to the Colorado-based Strawberry Valley Cattle Company. The company renewed the lease at that time and again on June 17, 1899. 117 The Indian agent also began leasing land for sheep grazing without Ute permission. This action led to more than one altercation. 118 In 1902 Agent Myton reported that on the three leased areas were 120,000 sheep and 400 cattle. 119 Farmers also wanted Uintah Reservation land. They had begun illegally diverting water from the Strawberry Valley streams as early as 1879. The Strawberry Canal begun that year was eventually controlled by the Strawberry Canal Company, which was incorporated in 1883 with 50 stockholders, most of whom were farmers dependent on the illegally obtained water. 120 In 18-88 Joseph C. McDonald dug a one-and-one-half-mile ditch which diverted water from Hobble Creek. The Willow Creek Ditch was begun in 1890 and later was controlled by the Willow Creek Canal Company, which was incorporated in 1892. All of these canals diverted water from the tributaries of the upper Strawberry River, carried the water into Daniel's Creek, and, thence, down that creek to irrigate lands in Wasatch County. A bill was introduced into Congress in 1892 which would have granted the right to divert the water from the Uintah Reservation to and through the ditches. The bill did not pass, but whites continued to illegally divert the water. They waited for legislation removing lands from the Utes to confirm their rights to use of the water and rights-of-way of their canals. By Act of March 1, 1899, the Secretary of the Interior was authorized to grant rights-of-way for the construction and maintenance of ''dams, ditches, and canals on or through the Uintah Indian Reservation ... for the purpose of diverting and appropriating the waters of the streams ... for useful purposes. n Under this act the water rights of the Indians were to be protected! 23 The government constructed a number of canals for the use of the Indians. Most canals built by whites diverting water off the Reservation, including those on the Strawberry and Duchesne Rivers, continued to operate without authority. 124 Miners, ranchers, and farmers, pushed for the allotment of lands within the Uintah Reservation and the opening of surplus land to their control. The commission authorized in 1894 to allot lands to the Uncompahgres was also authorized to: ... negotiate and treat with the Indian properly residing upon the Uintah Indian Reservation ... for the relinquishment to the United States of the interest of said Indians in all lands within said reservation not needed for allotment in severalty to said Indians, and if possible, procure the consent of said Indians of allotments in severalty of lands within said reservation. 125 However, the commission had spent its time trying to induce the Uncompahgres to take allotments and had not met with the Uintah Reservation U tes. Pressure mounted for the terms of the 1894 law to be fulfilled and a commission to be assigned to allot lands on the Uintah Reservation. Indian Commissioner Browning protested that: The Uintah Reservation is admirably adapted to Indian usage, and it seems to me that it should be kept intact for their use and occupation until it is ascertained beyond question that there is a surplus over and above the present and prospective wants of the Indians thereon and in that region of country, when such portions as are really not needed might be disposed of for white settlement. I do not think we should be in a hurry to encroach upon it simply because it happens to be attractive to white home seekers. 126 Councils were held by their agent with the Uintah Reservation Utes. He reported their continued opposition to allotment. 127 The White Rivers were particularly adamant; the agent finally requested that some of the more ''incendiary'' of them be removed from the reservation. 128 In June 1898 an act was passed which authorized the appointment of a commission to allot lands in severalty to the Uintah Reservation Indians and to obtain "by the consent of a majority of the adult male Indians ... all the lands within said reservation not allotted or needed for allotment as aforesaid." 129 The consent was not forthcoming. A delegation of White Rivers and Uintah Utes went to Washington D. C. in November of that year to emphasize their refusal to give up more land: Our land is small, and we do not want to sell it to _anyone. We do 25 not want any commission sent there; we are opposed to that. We have no more land that we want ourselves for our own use. 130 The Uncompahgre allotting commission (R. Griffin and E.R. Harper) concluded their work in January 1899. After holding councils and meetings with "individual and influential" Uintah and White River Utes, the commission reported: The Indians were unanimous and determined in their opposition to making cession to the government of any of their lands and to allowing an Uintah or White River Indian to take and hold an allotment in severalty on said reservation. m A group of White Rivers led by Sowawick even attempted to return to Colorado: We have put our hand on that land, and it belongs to us; our relatives are all buried there. Washington agreed to buy the land from us; but they never paid us for it, and it is still ours. 132 Late in 1899 a bill was introduced in the Senate to set aside part of the Uintah Reservation (north of the Duchesne River and east of Lake Fork) for the Indians and to open the ''residue'' to entry and settlement. The bill was an attempt to take the land without negotiation. It did not pass. In December of 1901 another bill was introduced in the Senate to set aside certain lands within the Uintah Indian Reservation for the use of the Indians and to sell or dispose of the "residue" of lands. Because of this bill and the many applications for leasing the lands (see page 22), hearings were held in the Senate on the Leasing of Indian Lands.133 Indian Commissioner Jones commented about the negotiations with the Uintah Reservation Utes which had failed to secure land for white entry: ... there is a sort of feeling among the ignorant Indians that they do not want to lose any of their land. That is all there is to it; and I think before you can get them to agree to open the reservation, you have got to use some arbitrary means to open the land. 134 The Utah Congressional delegation was particularly eager that those arbitrary means to open the reservation be found. Representative George Sutherland argued during the hearings that the Indians were not rightful owners of the reservation; therefore, negotiations and consent were not required in order to take the lands. He rationalized that a treaty had never been made with the Utah Utes; that since the Uintah Reservation was created by the President and Congress it could be dismantled the same way without the approval of the Indians; that the Uintah Valley Reservation belongea no more to the Uintahs than it did to any other Indians of the state; and that the federal government had the power to restore the reservation to the public "C Q) I r- ___ _J ---------- ---- > ~ Q) "' Q) a:: ?7 domain without Indian consent as it had done in 1864 to the Utah Indian Reservations at Corn Creek, San Pete, Spanish Fork, and Deep Creek.135 Utah Senator Rawlins, who had participated in the futile efforts to negotiate with the Utes, further maintained that the only obligation the government ever incurred in moving the Utes from Colorado to Utah was to provide them homes, which allotment would do. 136 In May of 1902 Congress granted authority to the Secretary of the Interior to allot land of the Unitah Reservation to the Uintahs and White Rivers and to open the rest of the lands to entry and settlement. 137 The proceeds of the sale of these lands were to be used for the benefit of the Indians. The allotments for the Uintahs and White Rivers were to be 80 acres-half the acreage originally allotted to the Uncompahgres. The allotting and subsequent opening of the reservation were to be done only with the consent of the majority of the adult male Uintah and White River Utes. However, no appropriation was provided for the purpose of carrying out the act. In another law enacted that year, authority was granted to assign the rest of the allotments to the U ncompahgres in 80-acre plots on the Uintah Reservation, and to set aside a small amount of grazing lana. for joint use by all three bands. The grazing lands were later defined by an Act of March 3, 1903, to be not more than 250,000 acres confined to lands south of the Strawberry River. 13 9 On January 5, 1903, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Lone Wolf vs. Hitchcock that Congress had plenary authority over Indian relations and had the power to pass laws abrogating treaty stipulations. 140 The Supreme Court declared constitutional a law passed by Congress which had provided for allotments, a common grazing area, and the opening of the reservation to settlement on a specific date despite the lack of Indian consent. Apparently supported by the Lone Wolf decision, Congress felt more assured to use arbitrary means to secure land from the Uintah Reservation Utes. Congress passed an Act March 3, 1903, which appropriated funds to carry out the provisions of the Act of May 1902. 141 Under the Act, surveys of the reservation were to be made, and an inspector was to be sent to obtain the consent of the Uintah and White River Utes to allotment of their lands as directed by the May 1902 Act. However, the Act further provided that if their consent could not be obtained by June 1, 1903, then the Secretary of Interior would cause the land to be allotted without their consent. The Utah Congressional delegation in the person of George Sutherland objected to the appropriation of funds under the March 3, 1903 Act to survey the reservation boundaries. He explain~d the need for a survey was only to convince the Indians that a fraud was not being perpetrated upon them: They have alleged that the line was not in fact laid out at all ... and that the white people of Utah have since claimed the line was wherever they chose and have maintained it, and because of that fact white persons have encroached very materially upon their 29 reservations. 143 Sutherland's objections were rejected; the survey was made of the Uintah Reservation (the Brown and Brown survey). In the spring of 1903, Indian Inspector Jam es McLaughlin held a council with the White Rivers and Uintahs to explain the plans to open their lands to white settlers and to secure their consent. McLaughlin informed the men gathered for the council that: ... until quite recently, the policy of our Government has been that Indians had unquestioned right to all lands of their respective reservations; but a recent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States is that Indians have no right to any part of their reservations except what they may require for allotments in severalty or can make proper use of. 144 However, McLaughlin also threatened them that the Indian Office was ''very anxious that you consent to the provisions of this Act so that you may get the best of your reservation lands for yourself." 145 The Utes were not to be intimidated. Chief Happy Jack, a White River leader, explained: After the white people come in here they will say, 'We took your land, now we will take your water and your house. So you get off this land; go to some other country and find some other place!' This is the reason we feel bad over this business. The land where the white man's towns are belonged to us at one time. These Indians do not understand what they mean. You are just like a storm from the mountains when the flood is coming down the stream, and we can't get help or stop it. 146 A total of 280 male adults belonged to the White River and Uintah bands. McLaughlin was able to get only 82 signatures of Utes giving their consent to the opening of their reservation. Several of these may have been bribed or were school-aged children! 47 Officials moved forward to allot lands to the Utes without their consent. By an Act of April 21, 1904, Congress extended the time for the opening of unallotted lands to public entry on the Uintah Reservation to March 10, 1905.148 During the Congressional debate on the provisions of the April 21, 1904 Act, the Lone Wolf vs. Hitchcock decision was discussed. Also discussed was the theory that possession did not convey title to land. The ages-old debate had been articulated on the one side in the 16th century by the Spanish priest, Francisco de Vitoria, that the Indians were the true owners of their lands. On the other side, the Swiss jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, had articulated the theory in the 17th century that man had an obligation to cultivate the earth, and the man who did not do so, had no right to the land. Vattel's theory seems to have been favored by the 1904 United States congressmen who intended that: ... hereafter no Indian reservations could be opened to settlement 30 except on some plan by which the government would not be obligated to pay the Indian for his right therein, but upon some terms by which the land would be disposed of by the government and the proceeds paid to the Indians.149 On July 1, 1904, the Interior Department authorized that agent to proceed with the allotting lands to the Uncompahgres on the Uintah Reservation. There were efforts made by Utah elected officials to have cancelled the 83 allotments made previously to the Uncompahgres on their reservation and to have them given allotments instead on the Uintah Reservation. 150 In councils held with the Uncompahgres, they stated that "they had been moved so many times and land taken from them so often that they would never give their consent to any further change.'' 151 Congress did not grant the authority to change the allotments. On November 16, 1904, the Department authorized the agent to begin the work of allotting lands to the Wpite Rivers and Uintahs, but only after surveys of the Uintah Reservation were completed. In December, Agent C.G. Hall reported on the difficulties attended to the allotment process. The weather was "becoming extremely rigid," and the "vast majority" of the allotments needed field work to determine whether the soil, particularly under the surface, was suitable for agriculture and, therefore, acceptable for allotment !52 The Utes also continued in their opposition. For these reasons the Interior Department again requested that Congress delay the opening. 153 In the debates which followed this request, Representative Howell of Utah protested the extension of time as involving ''the loss of practically one year to the settlers and homemakers. " 154 However, the House passed an amendment to the Indian appropriations bill which extended the opening to September 1, 1905.155 The amendment provided that the reservation lands would be restored to the public domain by Presidential proclamation, ''which shall lay down such rules and regulations for their opening, the idea being to have such rules and regulations as were prescribed, for instance, in the Rosebud Reservation opening .... '' The Senate considered this amendment along with amendments affecting other Indian groups in a debate centering around the question of the protection of Indian allotments from alienation.156 The Senate then rejected the House amendment and passed, instead, S6867 as a substitute amendment. This Senate version differed from that of the House in two major respects. The Senate version dropped the language "to restore to the public domain" and substituted ''disposed of under the general provisions of the homestead and town-site laws." This change emphasized that the reservation would be opened under specific rules and regulations. The Senate version also dropped the language of the House amendment referring to the opening under the Acts of May 27, 1902, March 3, 1903, and April 21, 1904, and substituted language that the opening was to be only under the authority of this 1905 Act. These changes probably reflected the 31 concern some Senators were expressing about the protection of Indian rights and lands. Certainly they reflected an attitude different than that reflected in the House bill. The Senate version became law in March. 157 This Act also repealed that part of the 1903 Act which had provided for a grazing reserve in the Strawberry Valley. A grazing reserve was selected, instead, in the Deep Creek area. A commission (W. H. Code, C. G. Hall, C. S. Carter) was appointed April 3, 1905, to allot lands to the Uintahs and White Rivers. Since many of the Utes continued to refuse to choose allotments, land was allotted without their taking part in what they were given. A total of 103 ,265 acres was allotted in a period of less than two months. These allotments were approved by the Interior Department (not Congress) July 18, 1905. 158 Later observers commented that the Indians were actually allotted "some of the most worthless land on the reservation, while some of the very best land was opened to entry ... ?' 159 Some of the better allotments were isolated tracts along the several streams. These tracts were to prove especially vulnerable to later acquisition by whites. Pursuant to the requirements of the March 1905 Act, a Presidential Proclamation of July 14, 1905, set the date for entry on the unreserved and unallotted lands of the Uintah Reservation for August 28, 1905. 160 The rules and regulations prescribed for entry provided for the registration of applicants and a drawing for the order of entry. Only after 60 days was the land to be entered under the general provisions of the homestead laws. A Presidential Proclamation of the same day set aside 101,000 acres of Ute lands as an addition to the Uintah National Forest which had been created in 1897. 161 Other Presidential Proclamations reserved for the Utes resource, agricultural, and reservoir lands, including part of the Strawberry Valley. 162 Presidential Proclamations also reserved lands for town sites. 163 The announcement of the opening started a land rush. Stories were told of fabulous wealth in minerals and natural resources. Several hundred people located farms on the lands-many for speculation, ''although there existed some doubt as to the suitability of the soil and climate and the adequacy of the water s-upply for cultivated agriculture .... '' 164 But the land bubble burst. Ironically, much of the land that whites were so eager to take away from the Utes proved to be as barren as whites had first evaluated it in 1860. The mining and ranching interests fared better, but by 1912 many of the new settlers were so poverty stricken that they had to plead that Congress grant a moratorium on land payment. 16 5 The opening of the Uintah Reservation provoked the last insurrection of the Utes. 166 After their requests to be removed from the Uintah area to their own territory in Colorado were not met, from 300 to 600 of the White Rivers gathered at what is now called Bridgerland with their horses, wagons, and supplies. They did not want whites moving onto their lands. They decided that they would leave the area and form a league with the Sioux, the Crow, and all 32 northern tribes to bring force against the federal government. The group began moving toward South Dakota. Legal considerations made it difficult to go after the Ute people with an armed force. However, the Governor of Wyoming was finally able to convince the federal government to send troops against them. When the forces of the U.S. Army converged upon the Ute group, they saw the hopelessness of their situation, and after a parley with the military, they agreed to be escorted to Fort Meade, South Dakota. There the Ute People were di_smayed to find that the Sioux were not only unwilling to enter into an alliance, but they had no hunting lands to share. The Utes were settled on a portion of the Cheyenne River Sioux Reservation; they remained for two years. Some worked for the railroads, and others found jobs in Rapid City. In 1908 the Ute people were escorted ·back to Utah. The effect of the allotment policy on the Ute economic activities was disastrous. Being assigned to a piece of land meant fencing the land, keeping the cattle from roaming, daily tending of the fields-concepts alien to Ute tradition. The lack of understanding and the limited guidance and assistance by government officials produced resentment. The issue of water rights particularly caused much resentment. The first detailed examination of agricultural lands and water resources of the Uintah-Ouray Reservation had been conducted by Cyrus C. Babb in 1902 in anticipation of the opening of the reservation as a result of the government's legal obligation to protect the water rights of the Utes. 167 Babb's conclusions were that the area of the reservation was arid, and extensive irrigation systems needed to be developed before the land could be useful agriculturally. He also warned that protection and enforcement of Indian water rights was difficult, and evidence existed that the Indians were, and would in the future be, deprived of what rights justly belonged to them. Babb suggested that it was better to allot the Indians on adjoining sections on large tracts rather than on "detached areas-the whites being allowed to take up intermediate sections. " 168 Under the provisions of the Presidential Proclamation of 1905, lands in the Strawberry Valley had been reserved to the Utes for irrigation purposes. The lands were soon lost. In 1903 authority had been granted the United States Reclamation Service to operate engineering parties in the Uintah Reservation to examine the hydrographic possibilities of the Strawberry Valley Reclamation Project, which was approved by the Secretary of the Interior late in 1905. This project needed a reservoir site in the Strawberry Valley. The Reclamation Service requested that the Ute people sell at $1.25 per acre the 56,000 acres which had been reserved to them. 169 The Ute people refused. The land was a grazing area, and fees paid by stockmen for the use of the land were still an important source of income for the Utes. A bill was introduced in the Senate which would have extinguished the rights of the Utes to lands upon payment of the $1.25 per acre. The bill was not enacted. The Reclamation Service invoked the right of "eminent domain." The land was taken, and $71,000 was paid for it into the tribal 33 fund. 170 In the meantime, the Uintah Indian Irrigation Project was begun in the eastern section of the reservation where most of the allotments had been assigned. 171 The plan to build irrigation systems was rejected by the Utes but enthusiastically supported by white settlers who surrounded them and would, therefore, benefit from the systems. The Bureau of Indian Affairs was also enthusiastic about the project hoping that it would facilitate family farming on the Ute allotments. The project eventually covered 80,000 acres, most of the allotted lands, and contained 22 canal systems which diverted water from most of the streams in the Uintah Basin. A program was initiated to level, clear, plow, and fence the Indian allotments to get them into cultivation. Tribal funds were used for this purpose. By 1908 over $330,000 had been spent on the irrigation project; less than $7 ,000 had been paid to Indian laborers. 172 Under the Act of April 30, 1908, authority was granted the Secretary of the Interior to lease any irrigable allotment with the consent of the allottee. 173 At the same time the Ute people were permitted to sell allotments as soon as they were ready for farming. Out of 80,000 acres within the irrigation project, about 25 ,000 acres were sold to non-Utes. Many acres in the Uintah Basin were irrigated by private companies, the largest being the Dry Gulch Irrigation Company. Water was drawn off at the heads of rivers in reservoirs and dams were built. As a result, the water table of the lands just south of the Uintah Mountains, where the Ute people pastured their cattle, dropped. Water flowed onto Indian allotments, destroying crops and eroding large areas. 174 The private irrigation companies also drew off water higher up the rivers, leaving the Indian lands short of water. Strict rationing had to be practiced, which caused ill feelings. The United States, in behalf of the Utes, finally had to obtain an injunction in the Federal Court restraining the various companies from interfering with the Indians in the prior use of waters of the Lake Fork, Whiterocks, and Uintah Rivers. 175 The Act of June 21, 1906, which had authorized the Uintah Irrigation Project, had created an anomalous situation. The title to the water rested in the Secretary of the Interior, yet appropriation of water could only be made in conformity to the laws of the State of Utah with irrigation systems constructed and held and operated under such laws. The Utah law governing water appropriations stated that when an appropriator abandoned or ceased to use water for a period of five years, the water right ceased and, thereupon, such water reverted to the public and could be again appropriated.176 Kneale, appointed agent in 1914, was assigned by the Indian Office to save the "prior water rights" of the Indians, which were being challenged by white settlers with the argument that since the Indians 34 were not using the water, it should be taken from them. Kneale decided to buy 95 ,000 acres under cultivation. Most of the Utes were uncooperative. He then decided to take an alternative course. With Indian Office support, he began an advertising campaign to get non-Utes to either lease land or to buy land from the Indians. The campaign was so successful that the agent could barely handle all applicants. About 30,000 acres were thus leased or sold. The consequence was damage to the resources of the Uintah Basin in general and to the Indians in particular. Most of the acreage was used for cattle; this resulted in over-grazing and subsequent erosion. 177 It was not until 1923 that the Indian Office officially refused recognition of any jurisdiction of the state over Indian water rights. Even then the "Winters Doctrine'' 178 was not vigorously applied in Utah; the Indian Office felt that ''the state laws of irrigation would be followed in order to avoid criticism by white land owners." 119 A 1932 report listed the lands held by the Utes and the Indian Service for the Utes as follows: 261,400 acres Tribal lands - grazing, timber reserves 20,683 acres School, agency, and other reserves 84.318 acres Individual allotments 366,401 acres 180 Non-Utes had taken over all of the Strawberry Valley. Thirty-two of the 1,358 allotments (a total of 28, 709 acres) had been fee-patented and sold to non-Utes. Land sales, homesteading, and leasing resulted in a checkerboard condition as between the Ute lands and those taken by settlers and purchasers. Ute rights to water had not been rigorously protected. Even the grazing reserve had been threatened. In 1915 authority had been granted to lease the reserve - an idea especially welcomed among sheep owners holding grazing permits in the adjacent National Forest. 181 Eventually, non-Utes petitioned to have 250,000 acres within the reserve thrown open for settlement. The argument was familiar: "This tract is more valuable as farming land than as grazing land ... and the Indians are not using it." 182 The bills introduced in Congress to take the land were not passed. In the 1930s there was a change in United States Indian policy. The Indian Reorganization Act passed in 1934 prohibited further individual allotment of land and provided for the acquisition of additional tribal lands.183 Under this Act the Bureau of Indian Affairs began to encourage the Ute Tribal Business Committee to use tribal funds to buy land. The Indian Office also moved to fulfill their responsibility for administering for the benefit of the Indian lands which had not been entered upon or sold to whites. In 1937 the Commissioner of Indian Affairs authorized the Superintendent of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation to administer the unsold lands and issue permits for their use. This authority and the Indian right of jurisdiction over the land were challenged in 1945 by Paul S. Hanson who provoked a test case by driving j 35 sheep onto unsold, open Indian tribal lands in the southern part of the Uintah Reservation. 184 The court ruled against Hanson and in favor of the United States as trustee of the lands of the Uintah and Whit·e River Utes. The court ruled that the 1902 law and subsequent laws allotting lands to the Uintah Reservation Utes did not extinguish their beneficial title to the rest of the reservation. There were also concerns for land of the Uncompahgre Reservation. When these lands had been thrown open for entry of the white man, most of the Indians were left on the lands. Many continued through the following years bewildered by the action of white men who had invaded the boundaries of the reservation originally established for the Utes. Some removed themselves to the plots of land allotted them. Some remained to eke out a living as best they could. 185 Except for the mineral claims and homesteads, much of the land in the Uncompahgre Reservation was not entered. The Utes competed with non-Utes for use of these lands as grazing areas. Some officials suggested that a grazing reserve be created for the Utes out of the Uncompahgre Reservation. However, officials were also eager not to "open the entire Uncompahgre land matter." 186 Therefore, efforts to obtain the grazing reserve were not based upon the grounds that the land had belonged to the Uncompahgres. After the $1,000 per capita payment had been made in 1931 following the settlement of the Ute claim for Uintah Forest lands, 187 the Uncompahgres were urged to invest their money in cattle and sheep. Competition with whites became more acute. Several white cattlemen agitated to have some 2,000,000 acres withdrawn from entry and established as a grazing unit under an association in which the Indians were to be represented. Bills proposing this grazing unit were introduced into Congress. In June 1934 the Taylor Grazing Act was passed to abolish unrestricted grazing on public domain lands. 188 It authorized the establishment of grazing districts and the issuing of permits to graze livestock on them. The Department of the Interior had already approved the establishment as a grazing reserve of all vacant and unentered lands within the Uncompahgre Reservation - about 2,500,000 acres. At the same time, efforts were made to establish part of the area as a permanent reserve for the exclusive use and benefit of the Utes. Local stockmen, landowners, officials and representatives from the Indian Service (no Utes were in attendance) made an agreement on July 10, 1935, to support a proposed bill to establish such a permanent grazing reserve. The bill proposed to ''extend the boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation" to include an additional 726,000 acres - 380,000 of which were within the Uncompahgre Reservation. The bill failed of enactment as did other similar bills. 189 However, the Indian Service, in anticipation of favorable Congressional action, proceeded to acquire, using tribal funds, privately owned lands within the Uncompahgre Reservation. This purchase program was completed in 36 1942. Approximately 31,000 acres had been purchased for nearly $200,000. With this acquisition, substantially all the lands within the proposed Indian reserve were Indian allotments, Indian tribal lands, or public domain. Accordingly, the Indian Service prepared to administer the lands. 190 However, legislation establishing the Indian reserve still had not been enacted. In the meantime, the United States Grazing Service designated the proposed reserve as Unit G and issued licenses for grazing privileges to some six non-Indian users. A controversy ensued. In 1943 a proposal was made which provided for the issuance by the Grazing Service, without charge, of a 10-year grazing permit to the Uintah and Ouray Ute Tribe for use of the public lands within Unit G and for the control of lands in Unit G by the Indian Service. The Indian Service agreed to issue permits to the six non-Indian livestock operators. The Utes agreed to the proposal; the six white users did not. 191 Litigation followed. The matter was finally resolved by legislation which extended the boundaries of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation to include what was known as the Hill Creek Extension. 192 The boundary line was so convoluted - to avoid mineral lands and white-owned land - as to require four pages of text to describe it. Under the Act, however, tribal funds were still to be used to purchase privately-owned and state-owned lands, including water rights within the boundary. The present boundary of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation has remained essentially as it was described in 1948, with some additional area acquired through purchase and transfer of title. 17 I. Floyd A. O'Neil, "A History of the Ute Indians of Utah Until 1890, "unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1973, Chapter I. 2. Joseph H. Hill, "Spanish and Mexican Exploration and Trade Northwest from New Mexico into the Great Basin," Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 3 No. 1(January1930), pp. 16-17. 3. Ibid., p. 19. 4. LeRoy R. Hafen, "Etienne Provost, Mountain Man and Utah Pioneer," Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 2 (Spring, 1968), pp. 101-102. 5. David J. Weber, The Taos Trappers: The Fur Trade in the Far Southwest 1540-1846. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1970. pp. 73ff., 84ff., 18lff. 6. Dale L. Morgan, Jedeiah Smith and the Opening of the West. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1953. Chap'ter 8. 7. Ibid . . David E. Miller, "Peter Skene Ogden's Journal of His Expedition to Utah, 1825," Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 20 No. 2 (April, 1952), pp. 178-180. 9. Weber, pp. 214-127. 10. Ibid. 11. Hubert Howe Bancroft. History of Utah, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1964. p. 278. 12. Floyd A. O'Neil, "A History of the Ute Indians of Utah Until 1890, "unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1973, pp. 42-44. 13. Ibid. 14. Ibid. 15. "Proceedings" Unratified Treaty Files. National Archives Record Group 75. 16. Floyd A. O'Neil, "A History of the Ute Indians of Utah Until 1890, "unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1973, Chapter 4. 17. John J. Critchlow, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, September 21, 1871, Letters Received. 18. Floyd A. O'Neil, "A History of the Ute Indians of Utah Until 1890," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Utah, 1973, Chapter 5. 19. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 9, 984. 21. Gregory C. Thompson, Southern Ute Lands, 1848-1899, The Creation of a Reservation, Center of Southwest Studies, Ft. Lewis College, Durango, Colorado, Occasional Paper No. 1, 1972, p3. 22. Omer C. Stewart, "Tribal Distributions in The Great Basin," In D' Azevedo, Warren, et. al. (eds.) The Current Status of Anthropological Research in The Great Basin, 1964 Reno: Desert Research Institute, University of Nevada, 1966. 23. James Warren Covington, "Relationships Between the Ute Indians and the U.S. Government, 1848-1890, "unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Oklahoma, 1949, p. 42. 24. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report, 1863, p. 266. 25. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 13, 673. 26. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 15, 619. 27. John Lawrence, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, October 16, 1868, Letters Received. 28. Edward M. McCook, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, July 18, 1868, Letters Received. 29. William S. Godfroy, to Govenor McCook, January 28, 1870, Letters Received. 30. C.I.A. Annual Report, 1870, pp. 627-629. 31. Session Laws of The State of Colorado, Memorial of January 26, 1872. 32. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 17, 55. 33. Board of Indian Commissioners, Annual Report, 1872, p. 94. 34. Leroy R. Hafen, "Historical Summary of the Ute and the San Juan Mining Region," in Ute Indians II, New York: Gar am Publishing Inc., 1974, p. 32-57. 35. C.I.A. Annual Report, 1873, p. 106-107. 36. Sidney Jocknick, Early Days on the Western Slope of Colorado, Denver: Carson-Harper Co., 1913, p. 358-359. 37. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 18, 36. 38. Executive Order, November 22, 1875, Executive Orders Relating to Indian Reservation, 1855-1912, Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1912, p. 66. 39. Executive Order, August 17, 1876, Ibid., p 67. 40. C.I.A. Annual Report, 1878, p. 298. 41. U.S. Congress, Senate, Mining Camps on the Ute Indian Reservation, Senate Executive Document 29, 46th Congress, 2nd Session, 1880, p. 93-97. 42. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 19, 288. 43. U.S. Congress, House, Message frnm The President of the United States Transmitting the Department of the Commission Appointed to Make Certain Negotiations with the Indians of Colorado, House Executive Document 84, 45th Congress 3rd Session, p. 2-4; U.S. Statutes at large, Vol. 20, 48; U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 20, 316. 44. Marshall Sprague, "The Bloody End of Meeker's Utopia," American Heritage, Vol. 8, October 1952. 45. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 21, 199. 46. Jocknick, p. 216; Wilson Rockwell, The Utes: a Forgotten People, Denver: Sage Books, 1956, p. 170-171. 47. Jocknick, p. 217 48. Congressional Record 10; 2058-66, April 2, 1880. 49. U.S. Statutes at large, Vol. 21, 199. 50. U.S. Statutes at large, Vol. 24, 388. 51. C.l.A. Annual Report, 1881, p. 388. 52. Thomas G. Alexander and Leonard J. Arrington, "The Utah Military Frontier,1872-1912: Forts Cameron, Thornburgh and Duchesne," Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 32, Fall 1964, p. 340-341. Fort Thornburgh was soon moved 35 miles from the agency in the mouth of Ashby Creek Canyon. The military reservation itself eventually encompassed 21,851 acres. The army abandoned the post on July 22, 1884. 53. C.I.A. Annual Report, 1881, p. 387. 54. C.l.A. Annual Report, 1881, p. 383. 55. Executive Order, January 5, 1882. Executive Orders Relating to Indian Reservations, p. 1704. 56. W. H. Berry, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, January 28, 1882, Letters Received. 39 57. Ibid. 58. D. C. Oakes, to Feller, Secretary of Interior, January 24, 1815, Letters Received. 59. Rockwell, p. 182-187; George Burnett, to J.D.C. Atkins, September 11, 1887, Letters Received; H.L. Muldrow, acting Secretary of Interior, to Secretary of War, March 13, 1887, Letters Received. 60. Fort Duchesne was established in August 1886 "to discipline and control" the Indians; after several disturbances among the Ute bands and between Utes and whites, provoked an investigation by the War Department. On September 1, 1887, President Grover Cleveland officially set aside, for the Fort, 6 square miles of land on the Uintah Reservation. The two reservations, Uintah and Uncompahgre, were incorporated under one agency located at the Fort. Sub-agencies continued at Whiterocks and Ouray. Executive Order, September l, 1887; Alexander and Arrington, p. 343-345. 61. Newell C. Remington, "A History of the Gilsonite Industry, "unpublished Master's thesis, University of Utah, 1959, p. 44. 62. Byrnes, to J.D.C. Atkins, February 18, 1888, Letters Received. 63. Randlett, to Byrnes, February 18, 1888, Letters Received. 64. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 25, 157. 65. Remington, p. 45. 66. Byrnes, to Atkins, August 18, 1888. Letters Received. 67. Remington, p. 108-109. 68. G.C. Hewett, petition to Secretary of Interior, March 23, 1889, Letters Rceived. 69. G.W. Gordon to Commissioner, August 6, 1889, letters received. U.S. Congress, House, To Change the Boundaries of the Uncompahgre Reservation, House Report 2967, 51st Congress, 1st Session, August 14, 1890, p. 3. 70. Messages and Papers of the President, Vol. IV, p. 87-88., Washington D.C.: GPO; 1896. 71. Waugh, telegram to.Morgan, May 21, 1890; Byrnes to Morgan, June 30, 1890, Letters Received. 72. Remington, p. 76; W.B. Dougall, Part of the West Boundary of the Uncompahgre Reservation, Map #412, March 29, 1898, National Archives. 73. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 28, 286. 74. U.S. Congress, House, Uncompahgre Indians, House Report 660, 53rd Congress, 2nd Sessions, April 4, 1894, p. 3. 75. U.S. Congress, Senate, In the Senate of the United States, Senate Report 450, 53rd Congress, 2nd Session, May 29, 1894, p. 76. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 21, 199; U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 24, 338. 77. U.S. Congress, House, Appropriation for Conducting Negotiations with Certain Indians, House Executive Document 248, 54th Congress, !st Session, February 18, 1896. 78. U.S. Congress, House, Changing the Boundary of the Uncompahgre Reservation, House Report 3395, 5lst Congress. 2nd Session, December 16, 1890, p. 3. 79. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 24, 548. 80. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 28, 339. 81. U.S. Congress, House, Uncompahgre Indian Reservation, House Document 191, 54th Congress, 1st Session, February 1, 1896, p. 5. 82. U.S. Congress, Senate, Uintah Indian Reservation, Senate Document 32, 55th Congress, 1st Session, April 15, 1897, p. 3. 83. House Document 248, p. 3. 84. C.l.A. Annual Report, 1897, p. 286. 85. U.S. Congress, Senate, Agreement with Uintah and White River Ute Indians, Senate Document 89, 55th Congress 2nd Session, January 22, 1898. 86. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 30, 87. 87. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 32, 998. 88. C.l.A. Annual Report, 1897, p. 286. 89. James Jeffreys, et. all, telegram to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, October 5, 1897, Letters Received. 90. Rockwell, p. 188-193. 91. C.l.A. Annual Report, 1898, p. 294. 92. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 30, 940. 93. Porter J. Preston and Charles A. Engle, "Report of Advisors on Irrigation on Indian Reservation," June 8, 1928, U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearing ... Survey of Conditions of Indians in the United States, 72nd Congress, 1st Session, pt. 6, January 21, 1930, p. 2587. (Preston, Engle Report). 94. "Mining Lease," February 2, 1893, Letters Received. 95. Randlett to Glendenning, April 14, 1896, Letters Received. 96. U.S. Congress, Senate, Indian Lands, Uintah Reservation, Utah, Senate Document 154, 57th Congress, 1st Session, January 28, 1902, p. 13. 97. "Mining Lease," November 10, 1898, Letters Received; C.l.A. Annual Report, 1899, p. 57. 98. Senate Document 154, p. 7. 99. U.S. Statutes at large, Vol. 30, 263. 100. D.U.P. Builders of Uintah: A Centennial History of Uintah County, 1872-1947, Springville, Utah: Art City Publishing Co., 1947, p. 10-16. 101. Remington, p. 21. 102. Critchlow, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, July 23, 1881. Letters Received. 103. J.B. Kinney, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, February 23, 1886, Letters Received. 104. William Parsons, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, May 29, 1886, Letters Received. 105. H. L. Muldrow, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, April 8, 1887, Letters Received. 106. Byrnes, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 8, 1887, Letters Received. 107. Ibid. 108. William Johnson, to Secretary of Interior, January 2, 1890, Letters Received. 109. Waugh, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, October 6, 1890,Letters Received. 110. Waugh, to Morgan, August 25, 1891, Letters Received. 111. Commissioner, to Waugh, March 1, 1892, Letters Sent. 41 112. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 26, 795. 113. Commissioner, to Waugh, March 1, 1892, Letters Received. 114. Waugh, to Morgan, July 27, 1892, Letters Received. 115. Waugh, to Morgan, December 14, 1892, Letters Received. 116. Strawberry Valley Cattle Co. V. Chipman, Supreme Court of Utah, June 3, 1896, 45 Pac 348; 13 Utah, 454. 117. Jones, to visiting Delegation of Indians from the Uintah Reservation, November 26, 1898, Letters Received; Myton to Hacking and French, July 10, 1899. Letters Received. 118. Elihu Root, to Secretary of Interior, December 6, 1899, Letters Received. 119. C.l.A. Annual Report 1902, p. 83. 120. U.S. Congress, House, Surveys and Examination of Uintah Indian Reservation, House Document 671, 57th Congress, 1st Session, June 19, 1902, p. 24 (Cyrus Babb Report). See also Myton, to Reed Smoot, December 5, 1904, Letters Received. 121. Ibid. 122. Myton, to Reed Smoot, December 5, 1904, Letters Received. 123. U.S. Statutes at large, Vol. 30, 941. 124. Cyrus Babb Report, p. 27. 125. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 28, 337. 126. House Document 248, p. 5. 127. Willil}m Beck, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, September 1, 1897, Letters Received. 128. Beck, to Commissioner, September 14, 1847, Letters Received. 129. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 36, 429. 130. Sasanuckit, et at., Statement, November 24, 1898, Letters Received. 131. Ross Griffin, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, January 7, 1899, Letters Received. 132. H. P. Myton, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, February 19, 1899, Letters Received. 133. U.S. Congrss, Senate, Leasing of Indian Lands, Senate Document 212, 57th Congress, 1st Session, February 22, 1902. 134. Ibid, P. 3. 135. Ibid, p. 111-118. 136. Ibid., p. 119. 136. Ibid., p. 119. 137. U.S. Statutes at large, Vol. 32, 263. 138. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 32, 800. 139. U.S. Statutes at Large, 140. 187 U.S. Reports, 553-68. 141. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 32, 997. 42 142. Congressional Record, 36, 1388, January 28, 1903. 143. Ibid. 144. Minutes of Councils, May 18 to 23, 1903, p. 3, Letters Received. 145. Ibid., p. 4. 146. U.S. Congress, House, Grant of Lands for Use of Certain Indians, House Document 33, 58th Congress, lst Session, May 30, 1903, p. 4. 147. Floyd A. O'Neil, "The Reluctant Suzerainty. The Uintah-Ouray Reservation," Utah History Quarterly, Vol. 39, Spring 1971, p. 140. 148. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 33, 207. 149. Congressional Record, 38, 2828-29, March 4, 1904. 150. U.S. Congress, Senate, Opening of the Uintah Indian Reservation in Utah, Senate Document 159, 56th Congress, 3rd Session, February 15, 1905. 151. Ibid., p. 4. 152. C. G. Hall to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, December 14, 1904, in Congressional Record, 39, 1184-5, January 21, 1905. 153. Ibid., 1181. 154. Ibid. 155. Ibid., 1183. 156. Congressional Record, 39, 3517-3522, February 27, 1905; U.S. Congress, Senate, Indian Appropriations Bill, Senate Report 4240, 58th Congress, 3rd Session, February 20, 1905. 158. Prestion, Engle Report, p. 2587. 159. Ibid., p. 2621. 160. U.S. Statutes at large, Vol. 34, 3119. 161. U.S. Statutes at large, Vol. 34, 3116. 162. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 34, 3141;3143: 163. U.S. Statutes at large, Vol. 34, 3139; 3143: 164. George T. Blanche and Clyde El Stewart, Utilization of lrrigatable Land in the Reservation Area of Uintah Basin, Utah, Utah Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 303, Logan, Utah 1943, p. 7. 165. U.S. Congress, House, Extension of Time for Payments on Homesteads, Uintah Indian Reservation, Report 943, 62nd Congress, 2nd Session, July 8, 1912. 166. Floyd A. O'Neil, "An Anguished Odyssey, the Flight of the Utes, 1905-08," Utah Historical Quarterly, Vol. 36, Fall 1968, p. 315-27. 167. Cyrus Babb Report, p. 3. 168. Ibid, p. 47-48. 169. Reclamation Service, Annual Report, 1909-10, p. 268-9. 170. U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 36, 285. 43 171. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 34, 375. 172. Coulsen and Geneva Wright, "Indian-White Relations in the Uintah Basin," Utah Humanities Review, Vol. 2, October 1945, p. 334. 173. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 35, 95. 174. Wright, p. 333. 175. United States of America vs. Dry Gulch Irrigation Company, et al, Decree, U.S. District Court of Utah, Docket no. 4418; United States of America vs. Cedarview Irrigation Company, et. al., Decree, U.S. District Court of Utah, Docket no. 4427. 176. The Compiled laws of the State of Utah, 1907, 1908, Chapter 2, Sections 1288 x 18, 1288 x 20, 1288 x 23, 1288 x 32. 177. Gottfried Otto Lang, "The Ute Development Program: a study in Culture Change in an Underdeveloped Area within the United States," unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell U. 1959; Albert H. Kneale, Indian Agent, Caldwell, Idaho: 1950. 178. "Winters vs. U.S.," 207 U.S. 564. 179. H.L. Scott, Report, October 31, 1927, p. 4 in M. McDowell, to Secretary of Interior, December 23, 1927, Letters Received. 180. A. C. Monahan, A. C. Cooley, H. M. Tidwell, Report on Uintah and Ouray Jurisdiction, July 20, 1932, p. 5, Letters Received. 181. Kneal, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, November 2, 1922, Letters Received. 182. Don C. Colton, to Hubert Work, December 6, 1923, Letters Received. 183. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 48, 984. 184. Paul S. Hanson vs. United States of America, U.S. Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, no. 3208, August 17, 1945, Transcript of Record, p. 25. 185. Monahan, Report, p. 10. 186. Memorandum Relating to the proposed withdrawal of certain lands for the Uncompahgre Ute Indians, February 15, 1930, p. 12-13, Letters Received. 187. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 46, 1092. 188. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 48, 1269. 189. HR 9156, 74th Congress, 2nd Session. See also U.S. Congress, House, To Define the Exterior Boundacy of the Ute Indian Reservation in the State of Utah, Report 2399, 74th Congress, 2nd Session, April 13, 1936. 190. Office of the Solicitor, Memorandum, p. 6, Letters Received. 191. Secretary of Interior, Order, February 11, 1943, Letters Received. 192. U.S. Statutes at Large, Vol. 62, 72. AA OCCASIONAL PAPERS OF THE AMERICAN WEST CENTER UNIVERSITY OF UTAH Knowlton, Clark S., Dennis Lothrop, et al. Summary of Response to the Minority Education Inquiry. Occasional Paper no. 1, 1972. Out of print. Sloan, Mary Ellen. Indians in an Urban Setting. Salt Lake County, Utah [1972]. Occasional Paper no. 2, 1973. Mayer, Vincent, et al. Toward a History of the Spanish-Speaking People of Utah. A Report of Research of the Mexican-American Documentation Project. Occasional paper no. 3, 1973. Knowlton, Clark, ed. Social Accomodation in Utah. Occasional Paper no. 4, 1975. Hunt, Stephen Michael Christopher. Native American Adjustment to the City: The Salt Lake County Case. Occasional Paper no. 5, 1976. Tyler, S. Lyman. An Essay on the Historiography of the Indians of the Americas. Occasional Paper no. 6, 1977. Second issue. Tyler, S. Lyman. Source Materials for Comparative Studies of the Indians of the Americas. Occasional Paper no. 7, 1977. Sturgis, Cynthia, ed. Historic Preservation. A Utah Case Study. Ocassional Paper no.8, 1978. Sylvester, John S. and Gregory C. Thompson, editors. Ethnic Oral History. Occasional Paper no. 9. Revised 1978.