The Glacier reporter. [volume] (Browning, Mont.) 1953-current, 1955-03-18
American Indians

stated that the Indian bills be-
5 fore Congress had two co-ordi-
. mated aims:
: First, Withdrawal Of federal
responsibility for Indian az.
fairs whenever practicable;
and second, termination OF the
subsection of Indians to fed
eraI laws. applicable TO Indians
as SUCH"
Ten termination bills were in
troduced; five were passed and
signed by the President. These
bills were withdrawal and term
ination bills in more than one
sense-withdrawe from the Re-
organization Act of 1884, with
drawel of federal trust from In
dian properties placed on local
tax rolls, abolition of tribal con-
| situations and corporations franz
, ed under the 1884 Act, and alb
/ rogation of federal-Indian treaties
with an enforced NATURALIZATION
of Indian properties.
AT LEAST FOUR OF THE
bills that passed were accepted
by the Indians concerned and
. drawn after consultation with
tribal attorneys. Nevertheless,
some features must not be re-
garded as precedentS for future
legislation. The Acts applicable
to the Unitah-Ourays and the
Klamaths broke up the tribes and
the Unitah- Ourays bill discrimin-
ates between the ''full-bloods" and
t the "mixed-bloods" Regulations
: concerning tribal rolls for dis
: tribution of assets do not ade-
I quately protect individual rights.
Y Maintenance of tribal integrity
l. under state laws is uncertain.
e However, all the bills passed
: either had received approval OF
l. the tribe affected, or no objec
: tons have been filed by the In
S QlanS concerned.
Tribes such as the FIsfheads
Of Montana who appeared and
objected were able to defeat
termination legislation.
J. During hearings and discuss.
: ions on the floor of Congress the
e proposition was established that
i termination legislation should
+ not be enacted without consent
= of the Indians themselves.
IN JULY, 1858, PROPONENTS
of Indian termination saw their
first victory when H.R. 1868 pass
ed almost without hearings or
discussion from the floor. Signed
by President Eisenhower. it be-
came PL. 280. an act which en-
powers any state mo exceptions)
to impose on tribes its own civil
and criminal codes and enforce
ment machinery and thus to wipe
out the tribal codes and tribal
authorities of self-protection.
Although President Eisen-
hover denounced the bill be-
cause Of its failure TO require
even full consultation in order
TO ascertain the wishes and
desires Of the Indians" he ex-
pressed the hope at the time he
signed the bill that il would be
amended "at the earliest date to
provide that the Indians affect.
ed would consult before state
law and order could be extend
ed over their homelands."
During the second session no
such bill was offered by the ad-
ministration, and bills requiring
consent IS. 1925, HR. 1893, S.
2038 or even consultation Is.
1897, H.R. 9506) received scant
consideration and failed to get
out of committee.
THE SO-CALLED "COMPE-
tency bill' which would have
forced sale of Jointly held Indian
land was defeated as in earlier
Congresses; it has little chance
of passing the Bath. Also defeated
was legislation to dispose of all
tribal funds by forming a per
capita distribution and to liquid
ate all Indian tribes and the In
dian Bureau within three years.
Transfer of responsibility for
extension work on Indian reser-
yations was shelved, largely be-
cause many tribes feared that
they might suffer discriminatory
treatment. But the 83rd Congress
did transfer Indian hospitals and
medical facilities to the Public