Free Response to Motion [Dispositive] - District Court of Federal Claims - federal

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 1 of 43

I"i-clir\red i n rqspolisc! to r e c o t t ~ m c n d e t l C j.r\d i ~ i gby A r J ~ ~ t i ~ ~ i a ~ : ~ - aLta. w dtrdy'c, j vc D a v i d L . TorbeLt, Au:.jusL 3 1 , 1 3 9 5 .

SAMISH TRIBAL urqlcl~i P.O. Box 217
'hcortes, YA
98221

Approved:

HUV (1 0 1995'

EXHIBIT 2
In Support of Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss on TPA & IHS Samish v. U.S., No. 02-1383L

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 2 of 43

EVALUATION OF THE SRMISH TR1BA.L ORGANIZATION. UNDER 25 CFR 8 3 INTRODUCTION

This decision of the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs (ASIA1 is an evaluation of the Samish Tribal Organization (ST01 under the It also includes acknowledgment regulations (25 CFR 83). supplementary findings concerning the history and status of the petitioner, the historical Samish tribe, and the Federal acknowledgment process. This determination is made under the acknowledgment. regulations which became effective in 1978. Revised acknowledgment regulations became effective March 20, 1994 ( 5 9 FK 9 2 8 0 3 . P e t i t i o n e i - s U I ~ U ~ L . active consideration at the time the revised regulations became effective in 1994 were given the option to be considered under the revised regulations or the previous regulations. The Samish requested to be considered under the 1978 regulations.
< .

In accordance with sections 83.9 and 83.10 of the this determination will become effective in publication in the Federal Resister unless the interior requests that the Assistant Secretary reconsider her decision.
ADMINISTRATIVE H I S T O R Y
A

1978 regulations, .60 days of its

Secretary of the - Indian Affairs

final determination LO decline to acknowledge the Samish Tribal Organization as a tribe was published in the Federal Recrister February 5, 1987 (52 FR 3709). The Secretary declined a request for reconsideration and the determination became effective May 6, 1987. In - a 1992 decision i n Greene v. United States, the court vacated the 1987 determination on the grounds that a formal hearing had not been given to the petitioner . The court.ordered that a new hearing be held which conformed to the requirements for a formal adjudication under the Adminstrative procedures Act. Under instructions from the court, proceedings before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) of the Department of Interior's Off ice of Hearings and Appeals began in 1992. A formal hearing before the ALJ was held in Seattle, Washington, from August 22 to August 30, 1994. The court's instructions required the ALJ tomake a recommended decision to the ASIA whether the ST0 should be acknowledged to exist as an Indian tribe.

The ALJ issued a recommended decision to acknowledge the ~ a m i s h Tribal Organization. This recommended decision, which was dated August 31, 1995, was received by the ASIA on September 11, 1995. The parties and amicus curiae had 30 days from the receipt of the
1

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 3 of 43

decision by the A S I A , or until October 11, 1995, to submit comments on the ALJ's recommended decision. The procedures established by the c0ur.t provided that a final determination be issued by t\e ASIA within 30 days of receipt of comment.

This decision is based on weighings of evidence and findings of fact by the ALJ in his recommended decision to acknowledge the Samish. Only those findings of fact by the ALJ which are specifically referred to and accepted here form the basis of this decision. Some findings of fact by the ALJ have been rejected as clearly erroneous and contr.ary to evidence and testimony in the record. All findings of fact by the ALJ which are inconsistent
.-.;bh

..,-,.

i-h; . ;; ; 2 ;-

r e p r 2 r C Z Z 7 e < e , - t ~c.~l r-L 1LG ~ . ? L + l -l

- -G L _- - ~ Ac U t C- c- CL_I

~ s ~ e c i f i c a _ l l _or ) y

not. This decision makes some supplementary findings of fact which are based on the ALJ's findings and our review of the record.' The ALJ's recommended decision interprets some of the provisions of the acknowledgment regulations in a way that departs from precedents or does not rely upon an analysis of precedents. In ALJ' s this decision, the Government has rejected the interpretations which are contrary to established practice and interpretation of the regulations in previous acknowledgment decisions . 'She l L I J ' s decision upholds the acknowledgment regulations.. The .4LJ's decision also agreed with the Government's position as to the standard of proof to be met in presenting and evaluating evidence that the petitioner was a tribe under the criteria in 25 CFR 83.7. The ALJ incorporated that portion of the Government's brief dealing with standards of proof into his dec-isionand used the Government's standard in making his decision (recommended decision 3).
MEMBERSHIP OF THE SAMISH T R I B A L ORGANIZATION

In order to evaluate the character of a petitioning group, the acknowledgment findings require a complete list of the petitioner's members. In this case, there are two lists. The member.ship list used for the 1987 administrative decision under 25 CFR 83 will be referred to here as the 1986 list. A second list was compiled by the Government in 1994, based on several lists provided by the ST0 in response to a discovery request for an updated membership list, and on hearing testimony by the ST0 Secretary which explained thelists. This membership list will be referred to as the 1994 list. We have reviewed also and considered the evidence and arguments submitted by the Swinomish Tribal Community, Tulalip Tribes, and the Upper Skagit Indian Tribe.

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 4 of 43

Based on a review of the evidence used by the ALJ to support his findings, it is clear that the ALJ relied on the 1986 list for purposes of defining the STO. We defer to this decision. This finding, therefore, also uses the 1986 list, For tribes acknowledged under 25.CFR 83, the acknowledgment roll becomes the base roll of the newly acknowledged tribe. The 1986 list will be used as the base roll of the STO, subject to wexitication that individuals consent to be listed as members. This roll cannot: be modified to such an extent that the validity of the acknowledgment decision becomes questionable. However, individuals may be added to the roll who are politically and socially part of the tribe and meet its membership requirements. Evaluation under 25 CER Part 83
INTRODUCTION

.

The acknowledgment regulations require that a petitioner must meet all seven criteria set forth in section 83.7 to be acknowledged. This decision begins with a statement of the three criteria which have not been in dispute. Separate evaluations under each of the four disputed criteria are then presented. Each evaluation describes the main findings by the ALJ which form the basis for the evaluation. In addition, each evaluation indicates the findings of the ALJ which have been rejected and the supplementary findings which have been adopted in relation to the criteria. Appended to t.he decision are additional and more detailed findings by the ALJ which also form the basis for this determination.
CRITERIA FOR ACKNOWLEDGMENT

To be acknowledged a petitioner must meet all of the criteria for acknowledgment in 25 CFR 83.7 of the applicable 1978 regulations. These are:
83.7 (a) A statement of facts establishing that the petitioner has been identified from historical times until the present on a substantially continuous basis, as "American Indian," o r "aboriginal. "
;

83.7 (b) Evidence that a substantial portion of the petitioning group inhabits a specific area or lives in a community viewed as American Indian and distinct from other populations in the area, and that its members are descendants of an Indian tribe which historically inhabited a specific area.
83.7(c) A statement of facts which establishes that the petitioner has maintained tribal political influence or other

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 5 of 43

authority over its members as an autonomous entity throughout history until the present. 83.7(d) A copy of the group's present governing document, or in the absence of a written document, a statement describing in full the.membership criteria and the procedures through which the group currently governs its affairs and its members. 83.7(e! A list of all known current members of the group and a copy of each available former list of members based on the tribe's own defined criteria. The membership must consist of individuals who have established, using evidence acceptable to the Secretary, descendancy from a tribe which existed historically or from historical tribes which combined and functioned as a single
autonsrn=us entity,

,

83.7(f) The membership of the petitioning group is composed principally of persons who are not members of any other North .American Indian tribe.' 83.7 (g) The petitioner is not, nor . are its memhers, the subject o congressional legislation which has expressly terminated f or forbidden the Federal relationship.
CRITERIA NOT IN DISPUTE

In the 1987 determination, vacated by the court, the Samish Tribal Organization was found to meet the criteria in 83.7 (dl , (f1 and (g) . Both parties accepted that those criteria were met by the STO. Consequently, they were not at issue in the proceedings before the ALJ. We find for purposes of this decision that the ST0 meets the criteria ln 83 - 7(d), (f) and (g).
CRITERION A

--

EXTERNAL IDENTIFICATION

The ALJ' s decision'found that." [t] hese findings of fact support the positive finding for the Petitioners as to each of the contested criteria (emphasis added) " (recommended decision 21) . Although there was little evidence that there were external identifications of the ST0 for substantial periods of time, we defer to this finding. The ALJ was apparently persuaded that there had been substantially continuous external identification of the petitioner as an Indian entity and, therefore, that the ST0 meets the criterion in 83 - 7 (a). We do not, however, find the ALJts finding 130 to be relevant to criterion (a) because it deals with the identification of individuals, while criterion (a) requires external identification of the arouDfs Indian identity. This finding is therefore .rejected.

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 6 of 43

Summarv evaluation

The Samish were parries to the 1855 Treaty of Point Elliot. The Samish village at Samish Island was replaced in 1875 by a village established at New Guemes. This was maintained until around 190s. The Samish from, or associated with, this village moved to the Swinomish and Lummi Peservations . This movement began before 1900 and continued into the 1920's. After 1905, some Samish from this village became part of a small Indian settlement at Ship Harbor, which was largely Samish. This settlement persisted until approximately 1930. Some other ~ a m i s hfamilies, descendants of marriages with non-Indians, did not move to the reservations. rl?e reservation families continued to be somewhat distinct as a Samish community even after moving to the reservat-ions, notwithstanding their social and political part-icipation in the communities which emerged on those reservations. From the late 19th century to the present, the nonreservation families continued in significant contact with the reservation families, beyond simply being in the same organization, even thou6h they had married nonIndians and lived elsewhere. A portion of these reservation and non-reservation families comprise the ST0 today.
Based on these findings, we conclude that the ST0 meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(b).
F i n d i n q s bv the ALJ which have been acce~ted

The administrative law judge found in part:
A

certain number of reservation and off reservation Samish intended to rsmain Samish. This core have in accordance with the regulations preserved the integrity of the Samish tribe (Recommended decision 2 2 ) . There is significant evidence in the record which supports the proposition that certain off reservation Samish continued to be a part of the Samish community (Recommended decision 21). The Cumshelitsha-Whulhoten (sic) family does not live on a reservation, but they.have continued to participate with the families that are not classified as being Indian descendants throughout.. . . . (Recommended decision 6) .

Additional finding's by the ALJ relevant to this criterion are cited in the sections of adopted findings included at the end of this decision.

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 7 of 43

Fddit ional f indinss These supplemental findings of fact are based on the ALJ's findings concerning the existence of community. They are also based on his interpretation of the requirement for autonomy under the Ii n i \ ~ ~nnrli i 4 i n r.11i~rlar!! ainn ( u e ~ P rliclrr~uui I 11nctel~ I criterion 83.7 (c) below) .
1. ' ' e J l percent ok the l Y b b S'I'O members who are enrolled in a Ih recognized tribe also participate socially and politically in those reservation communities. Members have filled offices and held leadership roles in organizing the tribal governments under the Indian Reorganization Act.

2. The ST0 maintained a 1/8 Samish blood degree membership requirement until 1974, when isa;;e bet;;ezi4 to lineal descendancy. it was changed aisod degr== -+,-os -,o:Ptiz-~ --,-.=, . ..".. reservation family lines in the 1970's. This conflict is evidence that the ST0 had made significant distinctions between members and non-members and that membership had been based on more than descendancy alone.

--

-------;:A-

= i i , ?

G J C L I-&&.,.. U..U

3. Members of the non-reservation family lines were identified on f the 1920 Federal census and on employment registers o the Ship Harbor canneries in the 1920's as Indian or part-Indian. This evidence supports a finding that they were socially distinct from non-Indians.

Seographical dispersion o a group's membership does not f foreclose tribal existence, but neither does concentration in a broadly defined geographical area provide evidence for it. While a concentration of many members within, for example, a 50-mile radius creates an opportunity for these individuals t interact on o a regular basis, it, is not evidence that such interaction has occurred.
4.

Findinas bv the ALJ which have been reiected
1. The ALJ's findings concerning intermarriage, genealogy and blood degree from his summary of evidence, p. 9, and findings 15463 and 191-2 in Appendix B of the recommended decision are specifically rejected.

We affirm the interpretation of the regulations, based on past decisions, that where the members of a petitioner have only distant genealogical relationships with each other, this does not provide any evidence for the existence of community. The absence of marriages among a group's members over many generations, while not necessarily evidence that a.community does not exist, makes it likely that there were no social ties among members based on kinship, unless the contrary can be established using other

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 8 of 43

evidence. A relationship as distant as second or fifth cousin . between two individuals is far too distant to presume, on genealogical evidence alone, that a significant social tie exists between them. Such a genealogical relationship may provide the basis for actual social ties or relationships characteristic of a community, but they cannot be presumed to exist without direct evidence.
2. he Department testified that certain portions of the membership "with a few exceptions, had little or no knowledge of or contact with others in the group, particularly if you filter out the possible participation in meetings of the organization." The ALJfs comment on this testimony implied that participation in the organization should be considered a valid form of social interaction to show that a community exists. This comment is s p e c i i i t a l l j r rejected ireco-zo,nded decision I?!. We affirm that a tribe is more than a voluntary association (see also discussion of voluntary organizations under criterion c).

.

.

CRITERI0N.C

--

POLITICAL INFLUENCE.

-

.

Summary Discussion The historical Samish tribe as it existed off -reservation until after 1900 was centered on a distinct settlement and had wellestablished traditional leaders.. The next generation of tradit-ional leaders, such as Charlie Edwards and Tommy Bob, moved to ;.he cese cva!. iolls. 'They were in£iuential among the Samish, and more- generally on the reservations, as spiri.tual.an6 cultural 'leaders as well as leaders in pursuing hunting and fishing rights. They remained active until as late as the 1940's. Charlie Edwards, perhaps the most in£luential person, survived until 1948. .Contemporarywith them were other, off-reservation leaders. These, especially Sarsfield Kavanaugh, most active from around 1912 to the late 1920ds,and Donald McDowell, active from the 1930's to around 1950, were particularly important "in dealing with non-~ndian institutions on behalf of the Samish. After 1951 a formal council was established which has been demonstrated to have had significant support of, and contact with, the ST0 membership. The council pursued goals which reflected significant interests and concerns of the membership. Internal conflicts in the 1970's demonstrated the involvement of a broad spectrum of the ST0 membership in its political processes. We conclude that the ST0 meets the requirements of criterion 83 -7(c) . Findinas bv the ALJ which have been acce~ted

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 9 of 43

The existence of a community with leadership before the end of the off-reservation New Guemes settlement in 1.905 was not contested in the 1987 determination and is accepted here.
T h e ALJ has presented several findings concerning political leadership and influence after 1905. These findings are adopted here,.

The ALJ concluded:
There is sufficient evidence in the zecord to show the continuation of the Samish tribal functions between 1935 and 1951. . . . There is oral history of meetings during that t.ime and there is documentary evidence. Mary Hanson's (sic] testimony supports the proposition that the tribe continued to L' exist as a tribal entity during - Ll l L s'i;$riod .-J: -:..= -st Recommended decision 21.
+ + m a L

There are other important reasons to believe that the Samish continued to exist as a tribe during this critical period of time. There is a continuity of leadership. These leaders who emerged from one generation were often'followed in succeeding generations by their children and grandchildren. They continued to maintain influence with the tribe throughaut the history of the tribe. The Edwards family in particular have been leaders since almost the turn of the century and are still leaders in the tribal movement. here are other leaders such as Sas Kavanaugh and Don McDowell who demonstrated tribal .?~-t.sin times during the tribe's history. 'Leadership at Recommended declsion 21.
. .

Although this discussion by the ALJ refers to 1935-51 explicitly, the individuals referenced and the statements made in that discussion constitute a finding of tribal political leadership for a much longer period, from the early 1900is until the present. (see also the portions of the ALJ1s summary of evidence and supplementary findings of fact appended to this decision). Further, the statements and findings of fact constitute a finding of tribal political leadership which included the nonreservation families. This is a finding that-therelationship between leaders and followers is based on more than s i m ~ l y that the leaders are the leaders of a voluntary organization. The ALJ found that the formal organization created. in 1951 was a revitalization of an existing tribe not a newly created organization. Discussion of Crite.rion 83.7 tc) The most cclturally distinct and socially cohesive portion of the peti. oner's membership i t the 31 percent that are enrolled with recognized tribes. In the 1987 final determination on the STOi the activities of chis portion of the ST0 membership was not included

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 10 of 43

as evidence for the evaluation under criterion 83.7 (c) because they h.istorically have participated socially and politically in the. recognized tribes, The ALJ specifically included the activity of the members of recognized tribes in evaluating the STO. For the reasons set forth below, we find that the political participation of the petitionert s members who are also enrolled in a recognized tribe is valid evidence Eor meeting criterion 83.7(c) in this case. In ~ddition, their social cohesion and social and cultural .distinction from nonIndians is valid evidence for demonstrating that the ST0 meets the requirements under 83.7 (b) for demonstrating the existence of a community.
autonomous^ Criterion 83.7(c) requires the demonstration of politicai inciuence withiz ths ---: trcLsLlv..s..r > - --=. -:--: t-inn define "autonomous" in part as a group having . The r e n u l ~means s . its own of making tribal decisions independent of the control of anv other Indian crovernina ent.ityu (emphasis added) (03.1(i)) of the 1978 regulations) . The provisions of the regulations concerning autonomy, and the related language, of 83.3(d) excluding acknowledgment of "splinter groups" from recognized tribes, reflects the intent of the regulations that they not be used to break up an already recognized tribe. "Autonomy" is defined only in relation to the governing body of a recognized tribe, not in relation to non-Indian political bodies.

--

,-+-,-.I;--

d

la.

.

The ALJ found that being "socially and politically integratedt'into rnol-her !ndian cornmu~~icy nok incompatible with "maintaining a is distinct Samish identity." While maintenance of distinct tribal identities within a reservation is extremely common, the ALJ- argues further that, "It is often necessary and always proper for people to participate in activities which control their immediate environment. However, in doing so, an individual's political affiliation is not changed because he or she associates with others of another political party (recommended decision 2 2 1 . "

The ALJ's findings, however, could be interpreted to mean chat if a petitioning group is internally cohesive and is exercising political influence within itself, the involvement of its members in another Indian political system (one which is part of a recognized tribe) would not violate the requirement under 83.7(c) that a group be politically autonomous. The ALJ1s decislon is rejected to the extent that it conflicts with the requirement for autonomous political process under the regulations.
However, in the present case, the political participation of a minority portion of a petitioner in a recognized tribe does not violate the bar to autonomy under 83.7(c) nor the prohibition in section 83.3 (dl against recognizing "splinter groups" because a minority of the petitioner's membership is involved. Where, as in the present case, most of the petitioning group is not maintaining

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 11 of 43

a political relationship with a recognized tribe, and the petitioner is maintaining internal political processes independent of a recognized tribe, the autonomy of these processes is not violated by the additional political affiliation of a minority of its members.
The ALJ's discussion concerning Samish political participation in the reservations states in part that "to be a member of a tribe is a political hffiliation and it is essentially a matter of intention on the part of the individual tribal member (recommended decisinn 2 2 ) . His use of "intention" here is in the context of his finding that this political participation was of necessity and was therefore not an indication that political af filiation with the Samish had been abandoned. The Department continues to affirm its m s i t i o n c h a t an "intent" to be part of the political process of a -tribe which is not carried out or acted upon is not VSiiG- E-;iaeiice for the existence of political influence within a tribe under the meaning of the regulations.
a

..

. - -

Additional findinss concernina crit.erion c These supplemental findings of fact are made based on the ALJ's findings concerning political influence and the interpretation, presented above, of the requirement for autonomy under the regulations.
I.
c!ie.t~lbers enrolled

The ALJ found that the political partFcipation in the ST0 of on reservations is valid evidence for political influence within the Samish. He also found that a community exists and that leadership in a broad sense exists. In the light of these findings by the ALJ, conflicts within the s ~ o the 1970's over in control of the ST0 and over what the blood degree requirement should be for membership have the character of political conflicts between interest groups or subdivisions within the STO. While these conflicts tended to follow reservation-nonreservation lines, portions of the n6n-reservation Cubshelitsha line sided with the reservation Indians. Relatively large numbers of individuals of were involved. This series of conflicts shows the mobiliza.~ion political interests of large sections of the membership over a They are thus good evidence of internal sustained period. political processes which support a demonstration of meeting criterion 03.7 ( c ).
2. Because the ALJ f.ound that the political participation in the ST0 of members ehrolled on reservations is valid evidence for

political in£luence within the Samish, some of the political issues raised by such individuals within the ST0 during the period between 1951 to present are entitled to some weight as evidence of political processes. These issues include fishing rights, whether to have a blood degree requirement for membership, cultural

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 12 of 43

preservation, obtaining a land base and rejecting per capita payment of the Samish claims award. Findinqs bv the ALJ which .have been reiected The ALJ's findings concerning.politica1 influence are rejected to the extent that they do not differentiate clearly between a social club or voluntary organization and a tribe. A tribe is significantly more than a voluntary organization and the ALJ's findings are rejected to the extent they imply otherwise.
1.

To be a tribe there must be more social contact between members, and distinction from non-members, than exists in a club. Precedents in previous acknowledgment decisions as well as in court dezlsiczs a.?d Federal Law underlyina the acknowledgment process have consistently made this distinction. These precedents were cited in the Department's brief but were not commented on or analyzed in the ALJ's recommended decision.
A

voluntary organization consists of otherwise unconnected individuals who join an organization for l.imited purposes. Mere common participation in a voluntary organization does not in and of itself demonstrate that the members of a petitioner have the kind of social and political links with each other to form a social and political community within the meaning of the acknowledgment regulations. The petitioner's witness William Sturtevant supported this view, Cest.iJ:yir?-y ! h t "One can contrast it (a com~nunity] with more :a temporary groupings of . .. . interest groups, groups of people that are meeting together, talking to each other for a limited purpose. Social cl'ubs or professional society meetings or employees of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, or employees of the Smithsonian, in a sense those are communities, but not really what either anthropologists or the BAR definition appl-ies,as I understand it [Tr. 4 0 1 . "
2. The ALJ found that organizing for specific purposes such as government benefits or fishing rights was conclusive evidence that the tribe continued to exist and had' political influence over it.smembers (recommended decision 21). We reject the ALJ8s conclusion he.re and elsewherein his decision to the extent that the ALJ has found that the creation of an organization for specific purposes in itself demonstrates political influence or internal tribal political processes under the regulations. consistent with the regulations and their intent, as. we.11 as previous acknowledgment decisions, there must be evidence that these purposes reflect the needs and desires of the membership which have been communicated to the lea-dership.

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 13 of 43

A voluntary organization can represent, or claim to represent, the

interests of a large body of individuals without the individuals represented having significant interest in, or even knowledge about, what the council is doing. Such interest and knowledge is crucial to distinguish between a voluntary organization and a tribe.
3. The & J ' s summary of evidence (recommended decision 21) cites the STO's opening of an office, holding classes, running cultural programs and a museum and obtaining Federal grants. Operation of programs and obtaining grants are not in themselves evidence of political influence within the meaning of the regulations.

CRITERION E

--

ANCESTRY FROM THE HISTORICAL TRIBE

Introduction The ST0 membership consists of individuals with ancestry from the historical Samish tribe and f rorn other, non-samish Indian f-amilies which historically became i n ~ o r p o r ~ t e d into'the Samish tribe. This decision makes supplementary findings, based on the ALJ8s f indin.gs, concerning the status 0.f several family lines with ancestry from the Noowhaha tribe but not from the Samish tribe. A supplementary finding has also been made concerning a family line whose ancestry as Samish had not been clearly established-

Additional findina concernina the Noowhaha
The ALJ found that the Samish tribe as it existed in 1926 was a tribal political unit. .The Noowhaha in the present ST0 are descendants of specffic Noowhaha families--Blackinton, Wooten and Barkhousen--which were members in 1926. Under the.precedents for interpreting the acknowledgment regulations, when individual families from other tribes have become incorporated historically into a tribe, their ancestry qualifies as ancestry from the historical tribe. Therefore ancestry from the Blackinton, Wooten, and Barkhousen family. lines qualifies as descent from the historical-Samish tribe. Reiected findinq concernina the Noowhaha The ALJ's finding that the Noowhaha and the Samish combined in pretreaty times is rejected (recommended decision 22). A review of the specific findings of fact in the recommended decision (findings 63 and 671, the testimony of the plaintiff's witnesses, and their writings, which form part of the administrative record of this these individuals meant that the case, reveals that by llcotnbined" two tribes formed an alliance in pre-treaty times (cited in Def. Brief 149). The Department has never objected to this characteri-

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 14 of 43

zation of the relationship between the two tribes in pre-treaty times. ow ever, a political alliance does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(e) for descent from a historical tribe or from tribes which "combined into a sinqle autondmous political unitM (emphasis added)

.

In addition, the Federal district court in ynited States v . Washinston, No. 9213, Subproceeding 89-3 ( W . D. Wash) (Shellfish) held that the present Upper Skagit Tribe is the successor to the historical Noowhaha. The district court made specific findings concerning the incorporation of Noowhaha into the Upper Skagit . These findings are consistent with the Department's previous findings concerning the Noowhaha which were that many Noowhaha joined the Upper Skagit Tribe and that the Upper Skagit-had been .considered to represent the Noowhaha in the past, although some
;{oowhaha
'--; :; Latt1A.AA.L.2

--

--..-A I I a n V

C U

+-

CV

1-L-

V . . L I L Y . . . A Y L ~

-"I..; 3 - m f

eh

-.-r,;-.;-!

T.::mmi --

Pe~ervaEir\n~

(ASIA 1982a, 1982b, 1987). The Department reaffirms that the present Upper Skagit Tribe is the successor to the historical Noowhaha. Previously, the Indian Claims Conunission, in its March 11, 1958, opinion concerning the claim of the Samish in Docket 261, rejected the Samish's contention there was a merger between the Samish and the Noowhaha tribe at the time of the Point Elliott treaty of 1855 (Indian Claims Commission 1958). Additional Findina concernins Quacadum Wood familv
Based utl the ALJ' s supplementary finding number 198, we conclude that the Quacadum-Wood family line, classified by the Department as only of Snohomish Indian ancestry in previous decisions, also had Sarnish ancestry.

The following portions of finding 198 are accepted.
The Snohomish portion of the Tribe's membership consists of only one family line, descendants of Mary Quacadum Wood. In 1926, however, her [Mary Quacadum wood's] daughter applied for membership in the Samish Tribe, and claimed that Mary Wood was Samish (TR:437; Exhibit D-7). Furthermore Dr. Hajda testified that Mary Wood's line "have been associated for a long time with the Samish," at least since the 1920s (TR:811). The balance of this finding is rejected. Evaluation under the Criterion

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 15 of 43

The 1986 membership of the ST0 consisted of 6 1 percent who have Indian a-ncestry from the Samish tribe and 19 percent who have ancestry from Noowhaha families which historically became incorporated into the Samish tribe. The remaining members had Indian ancestry from other tribes. Thus, 80 percent of the 1986 me+ers were descendants of the historical Samish tribe. We conklude, therefol-e, that the STO meets the requirements of c'riterion 83.7 (el.
SUMMARY EVALUATION OF THE ST0 UNDER 2 5 CFR 0 3

The Samish Tribal Organization meets the requirements of each of the seven criteria in section 83.7 of the 1978 acknowledgment regulations. .i-i-.,ereforr: tn . e STG mee'is i;;ke A u + *A acknowledged as a tribe.
.. ..
LU

---

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 16 of 43

~dditidnalFindinqe and Rejected Findinse

These additional findings form part of this decision.
The Historical Distributiono_fh The Swinomish Tribe intervened in U.S. v. Washinston as the successor to its four constituent band, Samish, Swinomish, Lower Skagit and Kikiallus. The court ruled in its favor, finding that "The intervenor Swinornish Indian Tribal Community is the presentday entity which, with respect to the matters that are the subject of this litigation, is a political successor in interest to certain i--ibzs - - A h = n A e -..- grolcps of Indians which were parties to the 'A " 12 Treaty of Point ~lliott, Stat. 927 (459 F. Supp. 1020 i 1 9 7 8 i i . The Samish are one of four constituent tribes of the Swinornish Tribal Community, a recognized tribe (Upchurch 1936). The Samish, who maintained a village off-reservation during the 19th century, abandoned that village around the .turn of -the century. Some had moved to the Swinomish Reservation befork that time, and others moved early in the 20th century- A few remained of £-reservationat Ship Harbor until as late as 1930. Most of the Samish, including some historically incorporated Noowhaha families, went to the A smaller number went to the Lummi Swinomish Reservation. Reservation. A major component of the Samish at Lummi, the Cagey family, originally had gone to the ~winomish reservation and par.ticipated in chat reservationes .government. Only Later did the Cageys move to the Lummi Reservation.. A few families who descended from the Samish married non-Indians at an early date and did not go either to New Guemes or to any reservation, he descendants of the latter represent the majority of the 1986 ST0 membership. The leadership of the historic Samish tribe almost exclusively went to the Swinomish reservation. The leadership of the ST0 has historically included some of thes-e leaders and individuals. descended from thase families, particularly the Edwards and Whulholten families. The primary S T 0 family lines from the reservations since 1951 have consisted of the Cagey, Whulholten, Underwood (Canadian Reserve members) and Tom (of Noowhaha descent) lines and part of the Edwards line. Most of the descendants of the Samish families who became part of the Swinomish and Lummi Reservations and those who joined Canadian Reserves identify as Sarnish. However, they are.not members of the ST0 and have not appeared on any lists of members of the ST0 compiled from 1951 to the.present. The present-day membership includes only past of the Edwards descendants, a key family in the Samish leadership. Descendants of

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 17 of 43

the leaders from the Edwards family who are not members o the STO, f but identify as Samish, are prominent today in the 'Swinornish ~ribe's governing body. There are few living descendants of the Whulholten leadership line, and almost none are in the STO. ~ e v e x a l reservation Samish family lines, which had individuals listed as members in 1926, now have no, or almost no, representation in the STO. These are the George, Paul, Stone and Jefferson families, which are part of the Lummi and Swinornish tribes.

The ALd's

findings are rejected to the extent that they conclude that members of recognized tribes who are of samish a n e e s ; ~ ~ and who have a Samish identity are members of the STO. The ALJ states that the four Swinomish reservation members of "Samish ancestry" who testified stated that they considered themselves Swinornish. The ALJ further states that these are "in opposition to the numerous members of the Sarnish tribe who live on reservations who consider themselves still to be Samish."

This contradicts the evidence in the record of this case as well as the testimony. The Sarnish individuals from ~winornishwho testified clearly identified themselves as Samish but not members of STO. Further, the plaintiff has admitted that there are such individuals, holding only that certain reservation families remained distinct. Further, the ALJ's overall finding of tribal continuityis flawed .because it does not recognize that there are reservation Indians who .are of Samish descent and identify as samish but are not members of the STO. There is no statement or analysis of this significant point ih the ALJ's recommended decision. Previous F.edera1 Recoanition of the Samish The Samish have not been federally recognized as a separate and distinct tribe since the early 1900ts, when the core of the tribe moved to the reservations. .The court in Greene xejected the contention that the Samish petitioner was a recognized tribe until the 1970's in its decision of February 25, 1992. The court stated that "The evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the JeEerldanes, is not sufficient to establish that the BIA treated the Samish as a recognized tribe" (Order, p. 12) . The testimony of the long-time S T 0 Secretary Mary Hansen at the hearing concerning the Samish clearly identified them as unrecognized in the 1950's (TR 1038). The ILLJ'S supplementary finding 110 is rejected, as are all other findings to the extent that they imply that the samish petitioner was a recognized tribe until the 1970's.

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 18 of 43

p a t u r e and Pumose-ofthe aovernmentlsresearch
A

petitioner for acknowledgment under 25 CFR 83 has the burden to demonstrate through credible research that it meets all oE the criteria in 83.7. Under section 83.6 (d), "The Department sha-11not be responsible for the actual research on 'behalf of the petitioner. "

The role of the Government' s researchers who prepare recommended findings for the Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs is that of evaluators who review the petitioner's research. The Government is not the primary researcher, though it may do supplementary research where necessary to complete its evaluation (see 25 CFR 83.9(a)). The Department's findings are thus based on research materials submii;ted by t h e 4 -mar e*afi+=a,4 ---eqr¶l *lat-ed ' = c "Urr-" ,,.k..w-- its own research.
nnr; r
&JGLIL&V..~'.

c~~n,i:

U Y

l-------

The comments and findings of the ALJ concerning this Department's research and the role of that research under 2 5 CFR 83 are based on an apparent misunderstanding of the role of this Department in the administrative process of acknowledgment: . The ALJ's discussion, summary of evidence, and findings on these subjects are rejected as not an accurate description of the nature and purpose of the Department's research. The rejected findings specifically include those where the Department's research i s discussed on pages 7-8, 13, and 17 of the ALJ's discussion of evidence.

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 19 of 43

Ac-cepted ALJ Findings on Nature of the ST0

.

I. Findings Decision
'

from the

Summary of Evidence

in t h e Recommended

Introduction The following portions of the summary of evidence in the ALJ's decision (recommended decision 4-18) arc accepted and form part of the basis for this decision. Those.portions not cited here or earlier in this decision are rejected as contrary to testimony and evidence in the record or contrary to established practice and interpretation of the regulations in previous acknowledgment decisions. Excerpt She [Yvonne HajdaJ said the first generation or two following the treaty thought they [the SamishJ would get a reservation of their own, but they never did. -(Tr.. 815). S.ome of the Samish moved to the Lummi reservation and others stayed off the reservation. Ibid. The off -reservation Samish continued to interact with those on the reservation by supporting each other, including pooling income and food. (Tr. 819-820). The off-reservation Samish tried to continue with their traditional Indian lifestyle of hunting and gathering, but this was made increasingly difficult because of white encroachment on what had been their lands. (Tr. 818). Moving up to sometime around the turn.of the century, Dr. Hajda testified that the Samish had an off-reservation village on Guemes Island (New Guemes Village). (Tr. 021). The village served as a religious centex for the Samish, because it was the only place in the area where whites did not interfere with the holding of winter dances. (Tr. 822) . The village also "served as a kind of refuge, refugee camp . .. for Indians from other areas who were being driven off" with the Samish acting as host. Ibid. "It was a Samish house. Ibid. The balance of this finding is rejected. Dr. Hajda stated that after the break-up of the village, among the places the Samish moved to included the Swinomish reservation, Anacortes and Ship Harbor. (Tr. 825). Some Samish lived at Ship Harbor seasonally and some lived there year-round. (Tr. 827) . Ship Harbor had two canneries that. made substantial employment of Samish people. (Tr. 825-826) . The Samish cannery employees formed two baseball teams. (Tr. 820). At Ship Harbor, the Samish conducted religious activities. Ibid. According to Dr. Hajda, the Samish held poli-tical meetings during the early part of this century, including a meeting at New
18

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 20 of 43

Guemes Village where 200 or so people attended, and meetings in 1912 or 1913. (Tr. 028-8291 . " (TIhere certainly was organization (Tr. 029-8301 . She said the Samish also during .that time. partizipated as a tribe in meetings of the Northwest Federation of Indians. (Tr. 829-8311 . There were numerous meetings of Samish people in 1926-27. Apparently they were in response to legislation pass.ed at about that time permitting Indians to sue the government for'not fulfilling treaty rights. (Tr. 832). Moving to the time of the Depression, the Samish participated politically by tak.ing a straw poll among its m ~ m b e r sabout whether to support the Indian Reorganization Act. (Tr. 837-8381. The Samish also played a roll (sic). in the northwestern Washington region during the Depression in preserving the winter dance
;

\ A i .

n . 3 n: 0 2 3 1 .

Moving to the time of World War 11, the witness testified that the war made it difficult t o meet because of gas rationing, men being called away for-military service and people leaving the region for war-related employment. (Tr. 8401 . Nevertheless, "we have oral testimony that people continued)-to meet and to discuss the things that they had been discussing. Providing people.with what needed to be provided, giving help to people, the usual - (those) kinds of things. Concerned with fishing and land rights. The same things that had been there all along." (Tr. 841). She said there is also a written letter that provides evidence that a Samish council meeting was held in 1942. (Tr. 859-0601.
'

In 1 9 5 1 , the ~arnishorganized Formally by adopting a tribal constitution, Dr. Hajda said. (Tr. 1951) (sic)'. Following the adoption, they pursued such concerns as health, social justice and employment, as well as fishing rights. (Tr. 844). Also during the L950s, the Samish participated as a tribe in working with other benefits. (Tr. Indian tribes to fight federal termination of ~nciian
845) .

The Cunshelitsa-Whulhoten (sic) family does not live o n a reservation, but they have continued to participate with the families that are not classified as being Indian descendants throughout - - - from the beginning. (Tr. 862) . In her testimony, Dr. Hajda concluded that the Samish who live on the Swinomish and Lummi reservations have the capacity to maintain their Samish identity, despite their participation in the affairs of the reservations.
"I think that many of them managed to have of£.iceor whatever it was at Swinomish or Lummi, and continued to be Samish and to

The correct reference is page 842 of the transcript.

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 21 of 43

participate as Samish. I t 4 s not an unusual thing. If you look at the united States in general, I know of a great many Indian men who vote as United States citizens. It4s not either/or. They serve in the armed forces with great pride, many Indian men are proud of this. It doesn't seem to make them less Indian to have done so. SO I find it difficult to think that i t f s an either/or choice (P)eople who live on reservations may well maintain another identity, as well. It's not uncommom." (Tr. 8 6 7 - 8 6 6 1 .

...

In her testimony, Dr. Hajda also provided examples of Samish leaders : During the era of the New Guemes village, the Whulholten brochers pr-ot-ided ccone;;.,ic iez&ershii? h y-:--: n m 3 fishery. (Tr. , . -.. ; I..L..= 823) . Billy Edwards served as a Sarnish spiritual leader during While Samish were living at the Ship this era. (Tr. 8 2 3 - 8 2 4 1 . Harbor community, Charlie Edwards served as a kind of labor boss in rounding up Samish people to work at the.local canneries. (Tr. 8271. Sas Kavanaugh played a leadership role in organizing Samish meetings around 1912-13. (Tr. 830) . During the ~epressionera, Don McDowell served a leadership role for the Samish, including helping people fill out forms for governmental assistance. (Tr. 8 3 7 ) . Following world War 1 1 , Alfred Edwards emerged as a ~arnishleader, serving as president of the new Samish organization. (Tr. 8 4 3 ) . With the establishment of a formal Samish council, it has taken a leadership role, including the mobilization of resources. (Tr.
860).

-

Petitioners' witness, Dr. Wayne Suttles is a professor emeritus of anthropology and linguistics at Portland State University. (He retired in 1984.) Dr. Suttles has conducted extensive field research with the Coast Samish [sic) [Salishl Indian people of northwest W-ashington and British Columbia, including the Samish. Some of the research was basis of his Ph.D. dissertation completed in 1951. Dr. Suttles testified about Salish and Samish historical culture, including intermarriage among tribes and with white settlers. He said the Salish people, including the Samish, had a tradition against marrying close relatives (up to fourth cousins). (Tr. 165). The tradition included marrying outside one's tribe for economic and security reasons. (Tr. 165-1671. "(Tlhe reasons for this are that a marriage started a series of exchanges of foods and foods for wealth, and shared access of .resources between.the families marrying." (Tr. 165). "(Tlhis advantage of marrying out, not only did it start exchanges, but there were political advantages. If you had inlaws somewhere else, youfre less likely to be attacked by those people." (Tr. 1661,

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 22 of 43

The Salish Indians also intermarried with white settlers when they showed up in the early part of the 19th century and recognized them as in-laws, Dr. Scttles said. (TK. 179-182). Intermarriage with whites dropped off after more white women came into the area and expressed prejudice against Indian women and white settlers married to them, he said. (Tr. 236). Even with the intermarriage among tribes, specific tribal identity was maintained, Dr. Suttles said. (Tr. 202). The various tribes "were part of a social network that extended pretty much indefinitely . . . Samish had ties with the Swinomish and Skagit, ~kagit had ties with the Snonomish, the Snonomish had ties with the ~uwasmish, (and) sa on . . . It was a kind of social continuum through marriage, a ' o i o i o g i t a l eonz izuzz kbscazse ~f kinship relations. But each of the units that was in that had a real identity, real existence." (Tr. 2 0 2 ) . "Sometimes people have said, well now, you're saying this w a s a continuum. Doesn't that mean that these local groups, tribes, whatever you call them, don't really exist? And I say no, this is not this kind of homogeneous continuum where you can8t find any units within it. It is a network, and -.-- well to use a metaphor, I think we can say that each of these local groups was a knot in the network. The network wouldn' t exist without knots." (Tr. 202) . According to Dr. Suttles, evidence that the Salish people did not act as a homogenous tribe, but instead as a network of related :?p~.~cif i.r: tribes, includethe existence of property rights among the tribes (Tr. 203); the hosting of intergroup gatherings (dances and potlaches) where one tribe w a s considered hosts and the other(s) guests (Tr. 199); and the existence of separate languages. (Tr.
161).

Dr. Suttles also testified about differences between the Samish and Noowhaha tribes: They spoke different languages. (Tr. 205) . The Samish [sic] considered to be of higher status than Noowhaha. (Tr. 212) . Dr. Suttles also testified about the role of leaders in Salish culture. The Salish did not have head chiefs, he said. (Tr. 2i3) . White settlers tried, force the concept onto them, he said. (Tr. to 213-214) . While there were.no head chiefs, people took leadership roles by virtue of wealth, including ownership of property useful for hunting and fishing, and skills. (Tr. 214216) . Dr. Suttles also testified about what distinguishes contemporary Coast Salish Indians from other people in northwestern Washington today. He said the differences include preservation of traditional ceremonies, including the winter dance (Tr. 223); participation in the Shaker Indian church [Tr. 223) ; pride about Indian. ancestry (Tr. 224); and the wide recognition of kinship ties. (Tr. 224).

-

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 23 of 43

Pet.itionersN witness, Ms. Mary Hansen, a ~ a m i s h ,testified abou-t whether the Samish have acted continuously as a community during her lifetime. Ms. Hansen recalled meetings of Samish people during the 1930s. (Tr. 1029). Also during the 30s, the Samish people looked after one another by providing food and other support to the needy. (Tr. 1032). This looking after one another continued during World War 11, Ms. Hansen said. (Tr. 1032-33). The Samish also held formal political meetings and social gatherings during the war years. (Tr. 1033j. Moving up to the 1950s, Ms. Hansen was involved in -theSamish establishing a formal tribal organization in 1951. Ibid. She said the formal council was in response to passage of the Indian Claims Act, but other concerns, including concerns about sick and hungry members of the community, were also brought up in organization meetings. (Tr. 1034) . Samish were also concerned about fishing rights during this time and the possible termination of federal benefits to Indians, including closing a local hospital. (Tr. 103739). She said correspondence was sent to the Samish membership to keep them apprised of the activities of the council. (Tr. 1039-40). Also in the 1 9 5 0 ~ ~ Samish regularly were together at funerals, which were important occasions for exchanging information and getting caught up on each other. (Tr. 1036) . Also in that decade, the Samish council provided $75 to Mrs. Lyons, a tribe member, after her house burned down. Ibid. Sarnish made an unsuccessful effort to take In the 1960s;tbe over the extinct Ozette reservation. (Tr. 1040). obtaining a land base is an important issue for the Samish and a ~amish' land. acquisition committee was formed two years ago. (Tr. 1041). Regarding activities on the Lummi and Swinomish reservations over the years, the Samish have held gatherings as Samish, Ms. Hansen said. (Tr. 1055-56). Ms. Hansen also testified about Samish leaders. She said Mr. Cagey, Albert Edwards and Sas Kavanaugh were leaders during the 1930s. (Tr, 1030). According to her testimony, during the 1950s, Wayne Kavanaugh, Alfred Edwards and herself were among the people on the Intertribal Council, which was fighting against the termination of federal benefits to Indians, including the closing of a local hospital. (Tr. 1038) . Obtaining federal recognition is important, but it's not the sole concern of the Samish, Ms. Hansen testified.

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 24 of 43

The Defendants (sic) witness, Holly Reckord, is chief of the Branch of Acknowledgement and Research of Indian ~ r i b e s(sic) for the Bureau of Indian Affairs. According to Ms. Reckord, the.criteria regarding exercising of political authority does not mean legal authority. "We're not looking for a governmental kind of political authority. We're basically looking for people making decisions and having them stick. For example, the group owns a cemetery. somebody wants to
burv their fzther-in-law there who is not a member of the group.

who'd0 they go to, who makes the decision, does the decision stick. That would be the kind of political activity that we're really looking for., , (Tr. 275) . She said that proof of interaction is the key to meeting 'criterion number two.
I think what we are looking for in our regulations, and the way we have applied them, is for interaction ... (Petitioners) can show this in any number of ways. They can show this by showing us that they arc: doing things together. They are perhaps marrying each other, they are burying each other, they meet together. And also informal kinds of social relationships. They seem to know each other, they gossip about each other, they know what their relatives are doing, they know how theyere related . . . Whatever they can show us that shows they have continued to interact, and that they are in some way separate from the surrounding community. " (Tr. 266-267).

-

The Defendant's witness, Dr. James Paredes, is professor of anthropology at Florida State University. He has conducted extensive study of American Indians while as a professor and as a. graduate student, including Chippewa, Oneida, Poarch Creek and the Machis Lower Alabama Creek Indian. He helped prepare a history of Poarch Creek to support its case for federal recognition. He also was on an Association of American Indian Affairs committee to develop a program to help unrecognized Indian groups seek federal recognition. (Tr. 276-2031 . In his testimony, Dr. Paredes concluded that kinship ties play an important role in maintaining Indian communities. "In Indian communities, kinship is especially important, given that for so many, quote, 'traditional Indian cultures,' the political, religious and economic life was predicated upon various kinds of kinship structures . . . American Indians, by virtue of being insulated, in increasingly insular communities, with prolonged patterns of intermarriage, kinship . . . continues to be an

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 25 of 43

important basis for the integration .of that community, and for deciding who belongs and who doesn' t belong. " (Tr. 298-2'99). outmarriage, that is the marriage between people of Indian descent and those of no Indian descent, serves to weaken kinship . ties between Indians, Dr. ~aredes'concluded. "outmarriage, in the case of Indian communities, obviously has occurred since the days of Jon Rolfe and Pocahontas ... But in any kind of small isolated community, marriage tends to be a very effective glue in keeping people obligated to each other . . . At the simplest level, outmarriage means that one has their primary, secondary and tertiary kinship loyalties divided between two kinds of communities . . . (wlheras inmarriage reinforces your existing kin .. ,.... . . . . -. : ~ r 300-301).

..

LAG^

-c

Dr. Paredes also concluded that keeping a common locality plays an important role in maintaining Indian communities, as well as other kinds of communities.. (Tr. 297-298). Ms. Patricia Simmons is an employee df the Branch of Tribal Relations for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
?Is. Sirnmorls testified for the ~efendants that, starting in the mid 1960s, the branch prepared lists of Indian tribal organizations that the federal government has had dealings with. (Tr. 347). They were not intended to be lists of federally recognized tribes as she said. !Tr . 3 4 8 ) .
i t ,

Ms. Judy Flores is enrollment clerk for the

Swinomish

tribe.

She testified that, of Swinomish tribal members, 421 people, . or about 72 percent of the tribe, live 'either on the reservation or in towns close by. (T-r.765) . The Defendant's chief witness, Dr. George Roth is a cultural anthropologist with the Branch of Acknowledgement and Research of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. His qualifications as an expert include a Ph.D. degree in cultural anthropology with his dissertation based on a study of the Colorado River Indian and Chemehuevi Valley reservations. During his 16-year tenure with the branch, he has been the lead researcher on 13 petitions- from groups .of people claiming Indian descent seeking federal recognition as tribes. (Tr. 569).

" (0)ur basic conclusion [concerning the Swinomish Reservation] was that over a period of time, the reservation became increasingly a real social unit unto itself, as opposed to simply a place where a variety of people with a variety of connections were living," Dr. Roth said. (Tr. 592-593).

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 26 of 43

Other evidence is the Ph.D. dissertation of Natalie Roberts at the University of Washington based on field study at 'the Swinomish reservation, Dr. Roth said.
"Her primary thesis is that over a period of time, the Swinomish reservation evolved into a community of its own. There are .a number of informal and sernc-formal social institutions and clubs and things which have grown up starting around 1920, and cbntinuing to the present, so that the tribe has become socially integrated as well as politically integrated," he said. (Tr. 599600).

Dr. Roth indicated that the people of Samish descent living sn t h e L u m m i reservation are integrated into that reservation. He said evidence shows that Samrnish isicj people have consistently served in the Lummi tribal government since 1959. (Tr. 6 2 4 - 6 2 5 1 .

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 27 of 43

11, Factual Findinge from Appendix B of the ICLJrs ~ e c i s i o n

Appendix B of the ALJ's decision contains additional findings fact. The appendix states that "The findings set out below which' are adopted principally from the Petitioners brief with modifications constitute additional Findings of Fact in this case and are incorporated by reference into this opinion." The following portions of the appendix are accepted and form part of the basis for this decision, Those portions not cited here or earlier in this decision are rejected as contrary to testimony and evidence in the record or contrary to established practice and interpretation of che regulailsns iw g r r v i ~ u szcknowledament decisions. Subject he.adings have been added and findings reorganized under them for clarity. The numbers are those appearing in the ALJfs decision. The numbers in the ALJ's decision were not consecutive, reflecting the latter's selection from the petitioner's proposed findings. Each numbered finding is complete here unless a notation is'made that part of the language has been rejected. Findinas re Traditional Cult.ure.and 19th Centurv ~istorv
44. In his direct testimony, Dr. Suttles provided an c,vervie*c:.>E the aboriqinal Coast. Salish peoples, who included the Samish. He referred to the Salish family of languages, which were mainly spoken by peoples who inhabited the Pacific Coast o f Washington State near Grays Harbor, as well as the coastlines of Puget Sound and Georgia Strait, generally near the present-day cities of Seattle and Vancouver, Canada (TR:161). Samish was one o these Salish languages, and was spoken by the people living in f the southeast quadrant of the San Juan Islands, and mainland to the east of the Islands (TR:162).
45. Dr.. Suttles succinctly described Coast Salish social organization in the following terms:

The social units were, small to large, the family [andl the household. The house itself occupied during the winter was a large wooden structure made of posts and beams holding wall planks tied to them, and with roof planks laid upon them. Each house was divided into a number of sections, and each section was occupied by a family. Some heirarchy [sic], but sharing a lot with other members of the household.
(TR:162-163). Villages consisted of one of more houses, and villages themselves were often grouped into larger linguistic and territorial divisions, which were usually referred to as "tribes"

Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS

Document 60-3

Filed 05/02/2007

Page 28 of 43

(TR:163). There was an upper class or elite in each house, as well as slaves, who were typically the descendants of war captives (TR:164).
46. Unlike Indians in most other parts of North America, Coast ~ a l i s hreckoned descent from important ancestors on both their mother's side and father's side, with the result that all kinship grouos overlapped (TR:163-164). A single family would typically have roots in more than one village or geographic area (TR:164, T2:166). By custom, "you had to marry somebody you weren't closely related to, or [at] least people didn't know you were closely related," and closeness in this instance meant the fourci-ldegree sr fifth dssesndins genernc-zn {TR; 165) . T!?Es a ' C ideal thing was to seek some non-relative.of a family of about equal status in some other place. And maybe even the more distant the betterv (TR:165). Marriages were generally arranged, especially among high-status families (TR:165).
-._.

~ ~

47. on^-distance marriages served an economic function, because each marriage resulted in a series of exchanges of wealth, enabling houses to share in the resources harvested over a very large geographic area (TR:16S-166, TR:169-170). They also served a political function since "If you had in-laws somewhere else, you're less likely to be attacked by those peoples," which was a distinct advantage in a region where raids and fighting were quite common (TR:166). Dr. Suttles noted that his study of che Lummi revealed that, collective~ly,they had managed to .arr;lrge {carriages with alt q f the tribes surrounding them (TR:166). Differences of language were not an obstacle to this kind of strategic intermarriage, and several languages might be spoken in the same house (TR:190).

53. According to Dr. Suttles, there was no f-ormalsystem of chiefs or principal leaders among the aboriginal Coast Salish. Every family had its own leader, and the wealthier men in the village were particularly important and influential because they could give feasts (TR:213 -215). There were also special-purpose leaders, whose influence was based on the ownership of some expensive technology8 (such as a deer net or fish weir) or on
54. In the 1820~3,the Hudsons Bay Company trie.d to encourage some men to assume a more formal role as chiefs; in-the 1850~~ similarly, U.S. officials tried to identify.a small number of "head chiefs" for treaty purposes (TR:214). These efforts did not displace aboriginal patterns of fl