Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 1 of 65
August 31, 1995 MARGARET GREENE, et a1 Appellants, Docket No. Indian 93-1
BRUCE BABBITT, et al., Defendants.
.ranees:
Scott Keep, for the Appellant, Solicitor's Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, Division ,of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC Russell Barsh, for the Defendant, Sarnish Tribal Off ice, 2704 Dundee Place, Anacortes, Washington
Before :
Administrative Law Judge Torbett
EXHIBIT 1
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 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 2 of 65
MARGARET GREENE, et al. Appellants,
Docket No. Indian 93--1
BRUCE BABBITT, et al., Defendants. Appearances: Scott K.eep,for the Appellant, Solicitor's Office, U.S. Department of the Interior, Division of Indian Affairs, Washington, DC Russell Barsh, for the Defendant, Samish Tribal Office, 2704 Dundee Place, Anacortes, Washington Before : Administrative Law Judge Torbett RECOMMENDED DECISION This matter was heard by the undersigned on August 22-30, 1994, in Seattle, Washington. At the conclusion of the hearing, a schedule for the filing of briefs was set which has now been met. These briefs, along with the relevant parts of the entire record, have been considered in reaching a dec'ision in this case. Where appropriate, parts of these briefs may, with or without attribution, be incorporated verbatim into this opinion.
Procedural H i ~ t o r v
This matter has an extensive procedural history, only a part of which needs to be recounted here. In a decision dated February 25, 1992, the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington found that the hearing afforded the Petitioner on their petition for recognition as an Indian tribe under 25 C.F.R. Part 83 did not comport with due process. The Court ordered a new hearing which would have procedures to
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 3 of 65
MARSARET GREENE
2
INDIAN 93-1
meet the constitutional requirements of due pr0cess.l The trial was held under procedures agreed to by the parties with the object of providing a hearing wherein all parties could present any relevant evidence to the issue being tried. The undersigned is of the opinion that both parti'es to this case have now had a fair trial. Any objections to the pretrial procedure or that which was followed at the trial or all e b j e c ~ i o n so t h e r w i s e , includinq the Petitioner's objection to Defendant's motion to amend it's post hearing brief, are now specifically overruled. All the evidence which was presented and not rejected at the trial will be considered as a part of the record of this case. The trial, of course, was not perfect but then what else is?Issue
There is but one issue to be determined in this case, that is should the Samish be recognized as an Indian tribe under the provisions of 25 C . F . R . Part 83. The criterion for recognition contained in the regulation are as follows: (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," or "aboriginal."
* * *
(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. (c) A statement of facts which establishes that the petitioner has maintained tribal political influence or other . authority over its members as an autonomous entity throughout history until the present. (dl 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. {el 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
l~he District Court was affirmed in Greene v. Babbitt, NO. 92-73010 (9th Cir. August 22, 1995).
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 4 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
3
INDIAN 93-1
historically or from historical tribes which combined and functioned as a single autonomous entity.
* * *
(f) The membo,rship of the petitioning group is composed principally of persons who are not members of any other North American Indian tribe. (g) the petitioner is not, nor are its members, the subject of congressional legislation which has expressly terminated or
fezbidden t h e F e s e r a l r e l a ! - i o n s h i ~ . " -
It is agreed by the parties that the Petitioner nust meet all seven (7) criteria and only four ( 4 ) of these are in dispute. They are the criterion governing identification as an Indian entity (criterion a) ; distinct community (criterion b); political authority and in£luence' (criterion c) ; and descendancy from a tribe (criterion el. It should be noted that in the aforementioned decision of the United States District Court for . the Western District of Washington that that Court declined to find the regulations set out above unconstitutional.
Burden and Standard of Proof
The Petitioners have claimed that there should be a presumption that they are an Indian tribe which must be overcome by the Defendant. The undersigned agrees viith the Defendant that it is established that the Petitioners have the burden of proof and are not entitled to any presumptions based on the claim that its members descended from a treaty tribe.2 As to the standard of proof the undersigned agrees with the Defendant's stated position as to this issue and incorporates that part of the Defendant's brief on this issue into this opinion as Appendix A. This part of the Defendant's brief starts in the middle of page 4 1 and continues through the end of page 49. Briefly, the standard of proof is a preponderance of the evidence standard as enunciated in Steadman vs. SEC, 450 U.S. 91 (1981). Alsol the quality of evidence presented must show a "reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts relating to that criterion", The Defendants correctly state that the evidentiary standard which must be met by the petitioners requires minimum quantity and quality measures as to each of the four contested criterion.
2~he Samish were signers of the 1855 Point Elliott Treaty.
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 5 of 65
MARGARET G R E E N E
Summar/ of Evidence
Petitioner's witness, Yvonne Hajda, has a Ph.D. in social anthropology. The topic of her thesis was social organization of Indian culture in lower Columbia River region from 1792-1830. She has been an independent researcher and consultant .on anthropological matters since 1984. She prepared .an anthropological report on Samish as part of the acknowledgement
-.----A
=
{Tr. 7 g 3 - 7 8 7 ) .
In her testimony, Dr. Hajda concluded that the history of Samish activities from treaty time until present day supports the proposition that the Samish have functioned continuously as a community. She said the first generation or two following the treaty thought they would get a reservation of their own, but they never did. (Tr. 815). Some of the Samish moved to the Lummi reservation and others stayed off the reservation. Ibid. The off-reservation Sarnish 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. 821). The village served as a religious center 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 offu with the Samish acting as host. . Ibid. "It was a Samish house." Ibid. The village began breaking up sometime around 1900-1910, but people continued to live there until the 1920s. (Tr. 824). Even after people began moving away, the village was used for ceremonial purposes. Ibid. After the house was lost in the 1920s, the Samish participated as a group in religious activities held at other tribe's smokehouses. (Tr. 835). Dr. Hajda stated that after the break-up of the village, among the places the Samish moved to included the ~winomish reservation, Anacortes and Ship Harbor. (Tr. 025). 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. 020). At Ship Harbor, the Samish conducted religious activities. Ibid.
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 6 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
LNDIAN 93-1
~ccordingto Dr. Hajda, the Samish held political meetings during the early part of this century, including a meeting at New Guemes Village where 200 or so people attended, and meetings in 1912 or 1913. (Tr. 828-8291. " (TI here certainly was organization during that time." (Tr. 829-830). She said the Samish also participated as a tribe in meetings of the' Northwest Federation of Indians. (Tr. 829-831). There were numerous meetings of Samish people in 1926-27. Apparently they were in response to l e g i s > z t i o n ? .,c Q ~, about c h a t time pennittins ,,, = c , at Indians to sue the government for not fulfilling treaty rights. (Tr. 832) . Also, during the early part of this century (1900 to mid or late 20s), the Samish met together for Treaty Day celebrations and canoe races. (Tr. -833) . Moving to the time of the Depression, the Samish participated politically by taking a straw poll among its members about whether to support the Indian Reorganization Act. (Tr. 837-838). The Samish also played a roll in the northwestern Washington region during the Depression in preserving the winter dance religion. (Tr. 839) . Moving to the time of World War 11, the witness testified that the war made it difficult to meet because of gas rationing, men being called away for military service'and people leaving the region for war-related employment. (Tr. 840). Nevertheless, "we have oral testimony that people continue(d) 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. 859-860). In 1951, the Samish organized formally by adopting a tribal constitution, Dr. Hajda said. (Tr. 1951) . ~ollowingthe adoption, they pursued such concerns as health, social justice and employment, as well as fishing rights. (Tr. 844). Also during the 1950s, the Samish participated as a tribe in working with other Indian tribes to fight federal termination of Indian benefits. (Tr. 845). She said the Samish also played a formal role during this time as members of Affiliated Tribes of the Northwest, Small Tribes of Western Washington and the National Congress of American Indians. During the 1960s, the Samish participated in economic development activities by obtaining federal grants from the War on Poverty programs. (Tr. 847) .
-
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 7 of 65
MARGARET GrZEENE
From 1970s on, the Samish met together as part of the effort to obtain federal recognition, according to Dr. Hajda's testimony. (Tr. 847-8541. In the last eight to ten years, the Samish have acted collectively as a community by operating a food bank, participating with the city of Ship Harbor and real estate developers in the effort to develop the community, and putting in the Maiden statue (an important symbol of Samish culture and history) at Deception Pass. (Tr. 855-856). The Samish also
idiiiriiiir
-,--_
L-:
L . .
iii
---
L'ciirrrryurb
+:.-;==+2
ucr
==.
uu...scr..
C=-: = h
r r r
Z-
:..;-+=-
..s.rrbr
. 3 1 ~ ? 2 1 :- + h ^
uurrbbcr
&A.
r r r b
-=.-:.-.-v r . . L b y r
(Tr. 858) . Dr. Hajda also concluded that the distinction the government makes that classifies Samish living on the reservation as Sarnish Indians and those living off the reservation a s Indian descendants is not reasonable. "I don't find it reasonable. I've never un'dersrood it." (Tr. 861). For example, "the Cagey family had a white ancestor. Are they Indian descendants? I don't believe they're classified as such by the government. Probably because they're living on the reservation. Therefore they become whole bloods. The Cumshelitsa-Whulhoten 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. I think' one could go on this way. I don't think the distinction is relevant in those terms. It may be a way of classifying people who are really doing other kinds of activities, but to call them descendants, against real Samish, I think is very distinctive." (Tr. 862) . By "distinctiveu the witness apparently means misleading.
In her testimony, Dr. Hajda concluded that the Samish who live on the Swinomish and Lummi reservations have the capacity to . maintain their Sarnish identity, despite their participation in the affairs of the reservations.
"I think that many of them managed to have office or whatever it was at Swinomish or Lumrni, and continued to be Samish and to participate as Samish. It'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. ~ t ' s not either/or. They serve in the armed forces with great pride, many Indian men are proud of this. ~t doesn't seem to make them less Indian to have done so. so I find it difficult to think that it's an either/or choice . . . (P)eople who live on reservations may well maintain another identity, as well. It's not uncommom." (Tr. 867-866).
Dr. Hajda testified that the makeup of the ~ a m i s his similar to that of other Indian tribes in-the Pacific Northwest.
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 8 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
INDIAN 93-1
The diversity of ancestry in the Samish is similar to that (Tr. 876). Also, she said, other tribes in the region are similar to the Sarnish in their level of geographical disbursement. (Tr. 878879). Basically, the Samish are similar to other Indi'an tribes in the region. (Tr. 882). Gaps in historical documents are also to be found in dealing other peoples' histories in the region. {Tr. 8 8 1 - 8 8 2 !, of other Indian tribes in the Pacific Northwest.
Dr. Kajda testified that the fluctuation in Samish membership roles between 1920s and 1950s-1970s is not meaningful. (Tr. 870-871). In her testimony, Dr. Hajda also provided examples of Samish leaders: During the era of the New Guemes village, the Whulholten brothers provided economic leadership by running a fishery. (Tr. 823). Billy Edwards served as a Sanish spiritual leader during this era. (Tr. 823-824). While Samish were living at the Ship Harbor community, Charlie Edwards served as a kind of labor boss in rounding up Samish people to work at the local canneries. (Tr. 827). Sas Kavanaugh played a leadership role in organizing Samish meetings around 1912-13. (Tr. 830). During the Depression era, Don McDowell served a leadership role for the Samish, including helping people fill out forms for governmental assistance. (Tr. 837). Following World War 11, Alfred Edwards emerged as a Samish leader, serving as president of the new Samish organization. (Tr. 843). With the establishment of a formal Samish council, it has taken a leadership role, including the mobilization of resources. (Tr. 860). Petitioners' witness, Dr. William Sturtevant testified that he did not think the government methods of evaluating the petition for recognition were proper. Dr. Sturtevant is curator of North American ethnology in the department of anthropology at the Smithsonian Institution. He has been with the ~mithsonian since 1956. Dr. Sturtevant has conducted extensive field research with American Indian tribes, most extensively with the Seminole in Florida. (Tr. 31-33). Dr. Sturtevant testified to problems he sees with the government's research methods. "I think most of it would have trouble passing muster in a Ph.D. orals exam. How did you get to these results. Or a preliminary, before you go out to do the research on which your Ph.D. is based, how do you propose to get these results . . . I think most of these things would have difficulty in passing that
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 9 of 65
MARrJARET GREENE
8
INDIAN 93-1
t kind of standard . . . (I) fs kind of sloppy and unprofessional research . . . . " (Tr. 111) .
( I . . . I'm not saying that everything that's in the record (from the government) should be thrown out and discounted. It depends. But certainly it seems to me less thorough, less professional, less believable, in the Samish case, than exPert witnesses and evidence from the other side, the Samish side." {Tr. zI.2) .
He indicated that the government's researchers did not spend enough time in the field with the Samish to overcome their (the Samish) natural bias against the government. Because of the bias, Dr. Sturtevant said, the government's researchers should have spent more time wlth the Samish than the petitioner's researchers did, rather than the other way around. (Tr. 142143) . He indicated that the government relied too much on telephone research. T r 6 Dr. Sturtevant's opinion is that face-to-face research is more accurate, because you get a better reading of the person's responsiveness to the questions by also seeing their facial expressions. ( r 6 Also, he said, people are more likely to be perfunctory in telephone interviews and not give the whole story. (Tr. 116-117). Dr. Sturtevant also indicated that the government's procedures are flawed because they relied too much on direct questions. He said beginning with general questions before working in the direct questions is a more accurate procedure. This is because direct questions tend to produce biased responses, he said. (Tr. 42-44). Dr. Sturtevant also testified about the role of political ..leadership in an Indian tribe not recognized by the federal government.
".. . (T)heref going to be much skimpier formal documentation, I s think, for an unrecognized group than for a recognized group. People aren't going to sign papers by virtue of their political office, because the outside world doesn't recognize that they have any political office. (Tr. 84) .
Dr. Sturtevant wouldn't expect to find a formal tribal council and there probably will be disagreement on who is chief. (Tr. 83 . (He said the notion of formal leaders was a concept forced on the Indians by the white man in any event). (Tr. 8 2 83). Leaders will be found, but they may lead fox different purposes, he said. (Tr. 85) .
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 10 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
9
INDIAN 93-1
Regarding the meaning of silence in political si'tuations, in Indian culture a person's abstaining from voting is more likely to mean they really vote "no", D r . Sturtevant said. (Tr. 92-93). Dr. Sturtevant also testified about the role of genealogy and kinship in determining cultural identity. He indicated that he puts as much emphasis on people's oral understanciings about who they're related to than on formal documentation of ~ ~ ~ ~ d l i n e s .
.
T
"(I)tls really necessary to work back and forth between living people and what they can tell you and the old documents, and to check one against the other. And often they supplement each other, they give hints and direct bits of information that you can then better interpret by looking at the other source of information." (Tr. 103) . The reasons include problems with the accuracy and completeness of the records, especially the accurate use of Indian names, Dr. Sturtevant said. (Tr. 98, 102-103). Also, people may have a shared understanding that they belong to the same clan by descending from a common ancestor, but it can't be traced back far enough to prove genealogically, he said. (Tr. 100-101). Dr. Sturtevant discounted characteriza.tions about a culture based solely on bloodlines. "I think one should be careful about making generalizations purely on the basis of blood. Partly because there's a tendency in this society and maybe many societies to overemphasize the importance of biology. It's what we call racism . . . I think there's a risk to assuming that just because they do or they don't have Indian ancestry, then they must be otherwise." (Tr. '105) . He noted that in many modern Indian communities, there's ancestry than the official usually a higher degree of non-~ndian records say. (Tr. 105) . He also said that social relations play the predominant factor in shaping a person's cultural identity, as opposed to ancestry. (Tr. 109-110).
'
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 Indian people of northwest Washington and British Columbia, including the ~ a m i s h Some of the research was basis of his Ph.D. dissertation. completed in 1951.
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 11 of 65
MARGARET GREENE 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. 1'65-167). "(T)he 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.It (Tr. 165). "(Tlhis advantage of marrying out, not only did it start exchanges, but there were political advantages. If you had inlaws somewhere else, you're less Iikely to be attacked by those people. (Tr. 166) . 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. Suttles said. (Tr. 179-182). Intermarriage with whites dropped off after more white women came into the area and exyressed 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 netwdrk that extended pretty much indefinitely . . . Samish had ties with the Swinomish and Skagit, Skagit had ties with the Snonomish, the ~nonomishhad ties with the Duwasmish, (and) so on . . . It was a kind of social continuum through marriage, a biological continuum because of kinship relations. But each of the units that was in that had a real identity, real existence. (Tr. 202) . "Sometimes people have said, well now, you're saying this was 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 can't 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. 2021. According to Dr. Suttles, evidence that the ~alish people did not act as a homogenous tribe, but instead as a network of related specific tribes, include the existence of property rights among the tribes (Tr. 203); the hosting of intergroup gatherings (dances and potlaches) where one tribewas considered hosts and, the other(s) guests (Tr. 199); and the existence of separate languages. (Tr. 161) .
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 12 of 65
MAR5ARET GREENE
11
INDIAN 93-1
Dr. Suttles also testified about differences between the Sarnish and ~oowhahatribes: They spoke different languages. (Tr. 205). The Samish 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. 213). White settlers tried to force the concept onto them, he said. (Tr. 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 Salibh Indians from other people.in northwestern Washington today. He said the differences include preservation of traditional c.eremonies,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). According to Dr. Suttles, Charlie Edwards' family and Annie .Lyonsf family did not own the only important economic sites for Samish people as a whole. (Tr. 249-251). Dr. Suttles also testified about why some Samish families moved to the reservation in 19th century and others did not"I can only say from my gene.ral knowledge that it seemed likely that people moved onto reservations when they had relatives there who were well-established, where they felt they were going to be at home. And those who did not move on were those who felt less at home. (Tr. 251) .
Petitioners1. witness, Ms. Mary Hansen, a Samish, testified about whether the Samish have acted continuously as a community during her lifetime. Ms. Hansen recalled meetings of Sarnish 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 (Tr. 1032-33). The Samish also held formal political meetings and social gatherings during the war years. (Tr. 1033).
11, Ms. Hansen said.
~oving up to the 1950s. Ms. Hansen was involved in * t h e Samish establishing a formal tribal organization in 1951. Ibid. She said the formal council was in response to passaqe of the
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 13 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
12
INDIAN 93-1
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. 1037-39). She said correspondence was sent to the samish membership to keep them apprised of the activities of the council. (Tr. 1039-40). Samish regularly were together at Also in the 1 9 5 0 ~ ~ 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. In the 1960s, the Samish made an unsuccessful effort to take over the extinct Ozette reservation. (Tr. 1040). obtaining a land base is an important issue for the Samish and a Samish land' acquisition committee was formed two years ago. (Tr. 1041) . Ms. Hansen testified that in the 1970s the Samish, by obtaining federal funding, established an office in Anacortes. Ibid, Also by virtue of obtaining federal funding or other sources of aid during the decade, the Samish attempted to set up a canning operation and conducted classes. (Tr. 1042). Cultural preservation, including preservation of sacred objects, became a priority of the Samish in the 1970s. (Tr. 1043). According to Ms. Hansen, Samish group activities from the 1980s on have included operation of a food bank (Tr. 1051-52), a seniors nutrition program (Tr. 1052-53), a preschool (Tr. 1052), speaking to other groups in the community (Tr. 1051), holding gatherings at the Maiden of Deception Pass bid), and trying to establish a cultural center museum at Ship Harbor (Tr. 1057). 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 o federal benefits to Indians, including the closing f of a local hospital. (Tr. 1038) . Ms. Hansen testified that Cheryl Wheeler's analysis of the Samish's historical tribal council minutes is basically consistent with her recollections of the meetings. (Tr. 1059) .
13
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 14 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
13
INDIAN 93-1
Obtaining federal recognition is important, but it's not the sole concern of the Samish, Ms. Hansen testified.
l t I think federal recognition is the key to all these other doors that are out there. Without that we're losing programs because the state follows federal guidelines. We're not included in some state programs because we're not federally recognized. No, we have great ambitions for economic development, training for our children, our grandchildren ac chis poinc. NO, we see a continuation of the tribe. We have a very proud heritage, and we certainly aren't going to turn it into garbage." (Tr. 1060).
It would appear to -theundersigned that this testimony is an affirmative answer to counsel inquiries as to whether the Samish have other concerns outside of federal recognition. That is, they were not just meeting solely for the purposes of obtaining . federal recognition as the Defendants contend. .. .. : . . ._:. ... . . . .. . The Defendants witness, Holly Reckord, is chief of :the. Branch of Acknowledgement and Research of Indian Tribes for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.
.
,
.
.
.
. .
seven mandatory criteria that a Ms. ~eckord'described petitioner must meet under federal regulations to be recognized as a tribe. These criteria have been previously.set out in this opinion, According to Ms. Reckord, in deciding whether the standards are met or not, the branch does not use the "preponderance of the evidence standard," as meant in the legal sense. "I think we're mostly coming at it from the point of view of anthropologists, genealogists and historians." (Tr. 2 7 3 ) . 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 bury their father-in-law there who is not a member of the group. Who do 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.
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 15 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
*I... think what we are looking for in our regulations, and I 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 are doing things together. They are perhaps marrying each other, they are burying each other, they meet together. And also informal kinds of social rela'tionships. They seem to know each other, they gossip about each other, they know what their relatives are doing, they know how they're related . . . n r l-.L e ~ v * f r ae they can shew us chat sh~-;:s
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. 276-283). In his testimony, Dr. Paredes concluded that kinship ties play an important role in maintaining Indian communities. '#InIndian 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 important basis for the integration of that community, and for deciding who belongs and who doesn't belong." (Tr. 298299) . Outmarriage, that is the marriage between people of Indian descent and those of no Indian descent, serves to weaken kinship ties between Indians, Dr. Paredes 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 . . . (w)heras inmarriage reinforces your 'existing kin ties . . . ' (Tr. 300-301). I 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).
/ '
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 16 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
15
INDIAN 93-1"
Ms. ~atriciaSimmons is an employee of the Branch of Tribal Relations for the Bureau o f Indian Affairs.
MS. Simmons testified for the Defendants th-at,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 such, she said. (Tr. 348).
The Defendant's witnesses, Laura Wilbur, Chester Cayou, Barbara James and Susan Wilbur are people of Samish descent who are members of Swinomish tribe, live on the tribe's reservation and participate in tribal government. All four testified that they are not aware of any incidents of discrimination in Swinomish tribal affairs against tribal members of Samish descent. (Tr. 510 (Laura Wilbur), 530 (Cayou), 548 (James), and 777 (Susan Wilbur) . According to Laura Wilbur, Ms. James and Susan Wilbur, Swinomish tribal government officials include people of Samish descent. (Tr. 510-511, 548, 777). Laura Wilbur provided an example of Samish not being discriminated against: the Swinomish reservation community approved $450 for the funeral of Alfred Edwards, a Samish leader. This was the same amount as everyone else got, she said. (Trsil-512) . During cross examination, Mr. .Barsh moved to disqualify Cayou as a witness because he couldn't remember preparing an affidavit regarding the case. (Tr. 542). Also during cross examination, Ms. James said she attended a ..gathering of Samish people at the Maiden at ~eceptionPass and admitted that Samish were considered the hosts for the gathering. (Tr. 556-557). She testified that she participates in Indian smokehouse dancing ceremonies and said Indians would typically be reluctant to give much information about the activity to outsiders. (Tr. 558-559). Ms. James also said that the samish sit as a group in smokehouse activities. (Tr. 559-5601 Ms. Lynn McMillion is a genealogist for the Branch of Acknowledgement and Research of Bureau of Indian Affairs. She testified concerning the branch's review of documents presented by the Samish to show that they descended from a historical tribe. The issue of descendency is not disputed in this case with the exception of the Noowhaha.
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 17 of 65
MARGARET GREZNE
Ms.
16
INDIAN 93-1
Juriy 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. (Tr. 765). The - Defendant's chief witness, Dr. George 110th is a cultural . . a i i i i i r s p o i s g.i s i w i i. i.i ihe 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 claimimg Indian descent seeking federal recognition as tribes. (Tr. 569). In his testimony, Dr. Roth concluded that the people of Sarnish descent living at the Swinomish reservation, like the people residing at the reservation who descend from other tribes, have been fully integrated into reservation life such that they no longer exist as a separate community of their own. "(0)ur basic conclusion was that over a period of time, the reservation became increasingly a real social unit unto itself, as opposed to simply a p.1ace where a variefy of people with a variety of connections were living," Dr. Roth said.. (Tr. 592593) -
.
He said evidence for the conclusion includes ~ a m i s h leaders' participation in the reservation's official business, as reflected by their signatures on documents. The documents include a 1917 letter to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs regarding whether male Indians are subject to the draft (Tr. . 594); a 1926 petition to the agency responsible for the reservation asking that'dances not be allowed at the reservation's public hall due to liquor problems (Tr. 595) ; and documents pertaining to the organization of the Swinomish reservation community under the Indian Reorganization Act (Tr. 596-597) . Other evidence is the p h . ~ . dissertation of ~ a t a l i eRoberts 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 Swinornish reservation evolved into a community of its own. There are a number of informal and semi-formal social institutions and clubs and things which have grown up starting around 1920, and continuing to the present, so that the tribe has become socially
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 18 of 65
MARSARET GREENE integrated as well as politically integrated," he said.
599-600).
(Tr.
Dr. Roth indicated that the people of Sarnish descent living unn on the L r r i reservation are integrated into that reservation. He said evidence shows that Samrnish people have consistently served in the L r r i tribal government since 1959. (Tr. 624-625). unn
Dr. Roth concluded that the peopie of Samish descent living off reservation do not have a high enough degree of social connectedness to be considered a community on their own. They are lacking in kin ties and geographical proximity, as well as lacking in other types of social ties such as common clubs or churches or informal visiting, he said. (Tr, 616) . Samish living off reservation "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," he said. Ibid. Dr. Roth did not elaborate why participation in the organization should not be considered a valid form of social interaction. Dr. Roth also concluded that the Samish living off reservation do not have significant contact with Samish living on reservation, with the exception of participation in the organization. (Tr. 619-620) . Under cross examination, Dr. Roth indicated that a specific level of proof is not used by the branch to determine how much interaction must be shown to meet the criteria for recognition. Instead, the branch uses an evolving standard based on "professional judgmentIt.
. information that's available to us on the various kinds of social
contact or social relations that we, I guess, if you will, come to an agreement that this is significant kind of evidence. It's the sort of thing that's laid out in the regs. And again, if it's a very, very strong case, then'^ think the thinking doesn't really go too much beyond that. Enough is really kind of a threshold question, how much is just enough contact. to be okay, versus not quite enough contact to be okay. And I'm afraid we just go on our - - I'd say we would go on our professional judgment, within this strong and weak end of the scale. I suspect we have to some extent evolved - - have kind of an evolving standard as we work on cases that are, if you will, somewhat towards the middle.lt (Tr. 665-666). Dr. Roth concluded that, regarding the criterium that tribal leaders must exercise political leadership, little evidence has
"Our procedure, of course, is to pull together all the
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 19 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
10
INDIAN 93-1
been presented to prove or disprove that the Samish meet this standard. (Tr. 632). Dr. Roth testified that a formal organization that included Samish people was created in 1926 to pursue legal claims against the federal government. (Tr. 601). The creation of the organization should not be considered a formalization of the Samish tribe; he concluded. "(W)e looked very closely at this group in an attempt to determine what it was, and what it means in the process of trying to determine what's going on with the Samish ... The minutes are almost entirely concerned with the mechanics of pursuing the claims . . . (T)he people that were enrolled in it were . . . quite a varied combination of people. It included reservation Samish, as well as the descendants of these pioneer families . . . The oral history . . . indicated that it was a joint organization with the Swinomish, which also suggests that it was for a limited purpose. They had a single secretary, a single treasurer. Our conclusion was that this was - - - because of the diversity of the enrollment, that this was not in itself a formalization of the Samish tribe, but an organization which brought together a number of people with varying degrees of background, and varying degrees of social connection with each other, to help pursue the claim . . . . " ( T r . 6 0 3 ) . In response to a question from the undersigned, Dr. Roth said there is no set number regarding how many individuals it takes to make up a tribe. (Tr. 752). He said there has to be proof of desecendency back to a historical tribe. (Tr. 753). The undersigned asked Dr. Roth whether the purpose of the criteria should be taken as a way of showing that a group of . people asking for recognition have continuously maintained their intention of being an Indian tribe. While not agreeing to this analysis outright, the witness did not appear able to dispute this proposition. (Tr. 754-755). Discueaion and Conclusions The opinions rendered in the District Court decision and the United States Court of Appeals decision affirming that District Court both state in essence that a policy decision based on a governmental investigation does not give due process to the Petitioners in their efforts to obtain federal as an Indian Tribe- These courts insist that something more is needed and that the Administrative Procedure Act is an appropriate mechanism to afford the Petitioners due process in this particular case. To the undersigned the right to due process
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 20 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
means a right to a hearing where the parties are allowed to present evidence which pertains to the issues and to confront and cross-examine the witnesses. To the undersigned it follows that the parties so entitled are entitled to a due process decision, that is, a decision based on the weight of the evidence adduced at the hearing. On this basis, the recognition regulations themselves and
not their hisCory and aeveiopment are of paramount significance.
These regulations now have the force of law, and as they are clear in their meaning, there is no need to even consult the regulatory history. Stated plainly, if the Petitioners have by a simple preponderance of the reliable, probative and material evidence made a case which taken as a whole tends to show the truth of the Petitioners allegations, then they are entitled to recognition. Under this standard, there is no question that there is a preponderance of evidence to support the Petitioners as to each and every element contained in the recognition regulations. Further, there is no question that the quality of the evidence demonstrates that it i s reasonable and believable that the Samish have continually existed as an Indian tribe up until this very day. The quality of proof supports the Petitioner as to each element contained in the recognition regulations. Before commenting further on the proof it should be stated that it is the opinion of the undersigned that all of the witnesses were truthful. Each witnesses testified credibly and each is entitled to be believed under oath. Chester Cayou had some difficulty with his recollection but this is not a reason to discount his testimony in its entirety.
. haven't been resolved. The only contentious matters are those of
conflicting interpretations. For instance, Dr. Hadja and Dr. Roth draw different conclusions based essentially on the same facts. The Petitioners insist that since Dr. Hadja had a better opportunity for observing the tribe and examining the evidence that she should be believed as opposed to Dr. Roth, Specific expert anthropological conclusions supported by the record are evidence. Where Dr. Hadja and Dr. Roth or the other witnesses draw anthropological or other expert conclusions which are in conflict, the undersigned has in his finding of fact resolved the conflict or made a judgment as to which conclusion is the most believable. Dr. Hadja and Dr. Roth are not the ultimate finders of fact. Their conclusions or that of the other witnesses that the Petitioners ultimately meet or do not meet the criteria of the
There are no conflicts in the testimony as to the facts that
.
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 21 of 65
MARGARET GREENE recognition regulations are legal conclusions and are not entitled to any weight in this type of proceeding. Now, having considered the testimony set out above the undersigned is of the opinion that the testimony of the Petitioners' witnesses is accurate and factual. The undersigned accepts this testimony and the expert conclusions of the Petitioners' witnesses as the facts o f this case, Further, the undersigned makes the additional findings of fact which are included and set out in Appendix B to this opinion. These findings of fact support the positive finding for the Petitioners as to each of the contested criteria. It would serve no purpose to re-summarize the testimony of the Petitioners' witnesses. This testimony firmly supports the petitioners' position and needs no explznation. However, it is incumbent on the undersigned to considered some of the Defendant's testimony and their conclusions which are necessarily rejected by the undersigned's decision. Dr. Roth testified for the Defendants in principle opposition to the position taken by Petitioners. His testimony did not seriously controvert the factual basis of the Petitioner's petition. His conclusions, however, based on these facts were radically different. He testified that the Samish who lived on the established reservations such as the Swinomish and the Lummi had integrated into those reservations and become a part of those tribes. His basis in part for this testimony is that the Samish leaders participated in official reservation business. Further, he refers to the Ph.D. dissertation of Natalie Roberts. He stated that her primary thesis is that the Swinomish - Reservation evolved into a community of its own and that the Indians who were there had become socially and politically integrated. This was around 1920, according to Dr. Roth. Dr. Roth seems to contradict himself in that the evidence is practically unrebutted that the Samish continued to survive as a tribe even by Dr. Rothls standards up until the 1930's. In another contradiction as to the evidence that the reservation Samish have merged with the Lummi, Dr. Roth testifies that the Samish consistently served in the Lummi tribal government since 1959. This is true but this was well after 1951 when the Samish formally reorganized and it can hardly be disputed that the Samish were not a tribe from that point onDr. Suttles testimony negates the Natalie Roberts dissertation. It shows that many ~ a m i s h families, like the Edwards family and others, still maintained their distinct
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 22 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
INDIAN 93-1
identity as Samish even though they participated in reservation affairs. Speaking generally, the heart of the Defendant's case is their assertion that the true Indian Reservation Samish have integrated with other Indian tribes and that other NoriReservation Samish are simply Indian descendants and are not Indian enough to be considered part of an Indian community. The undersigned specifically rejects this position as not being supported by the evidence. 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. There is no anthropological reason why the Samish who lived on reservations which were admittedly made up of many different tribes could not participate in the reservation activities and still maintain their Sarnish identity. The individuals who testified at the hearing who said that even though they had Samish blood that they considered themselves Swinornish spoke only for themselves. This is in opposition to the numerous members of the Samish tribe who live on reservations who consider themselves still to be Samish. There is sufficient evidence in the record to show the continuation of the Sarnish tribal functions between 1935 and 1951. This period is probably the most seriously contestedThere is oral history of meetings during that time and there is documentary evidence. Mary Hansonfs testimony supports the proposition that the tribe continued to exist as a tribal entity during this period of time. 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 £*om one generation were often followed in succeeding generations by their children and grandchildren. They continued to maintain influence with the tribe throughout 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. There are other leaders such as Sas ~avanaugh and Don McDowell who demonstrated tribal leadership at certain times during the tribe's history. Dr. Roth questions the Samish existence, stating that the Samish organized only for specific purposes; that is, to pursue claims such as government benefits or fishing rights. It is this showing up for specific purposes that convinces the undersigned that the tribe continues to exist. Whenever there was any reason for the Samish to demonstrate their existence, they immediately rose to the occasion. When there was ever an issue before it,
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 23 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
INDIAN 93-1
leaders appeared and the tribe immediately took action. To the undersigned's mind, this is conclusive evidence that the tribe continued to exist and to have political influence and authority with its members. ~ The ~ o o w h a h atribe and the Samish were at one time difierent tribes. Dr. Suttles and Dr. Hadja testified that the two tribes had combined probably around 1850 and that they had been one tribe since that time. This conclusion of Dr. Suttles and Dr. Hadja is controverted by the Defendants but the undersigned is convinced that the conclusions drawn by these two witnesses are sound. The undersigned observes that the Samish-never had a reservation. They did manage to maintain separate living areas for a good many years until these were lost to white encroachment. Then they were required to live either on the reservations of other tribes or to live independently on nonIndian lands. Those who lived on non-Indian land apparently intermarried with non-Indians considerably more than those who lived on reservation land. The Defendants argue that these circumstances led to a disintegration of the tribe at least in so far as the recognition regulations were concerned. To be a member of a tribe is a political affiliation and it is essentially a matter of intention on the. part of the individual tribal member. It is not a matter of blood nor is it necessarily a matter of living in the same immediate area. 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. The evidence in this case clearly demonstrates that a certain number of reservation and off reservation Samish intended to remain Samish and are Samish. This is their choice. This core of people have in accordance with the recognition regulations preserved the integrity of the Samish tribe. Because of them, the Samish should be recognized formerly as an ~ n d i a n tribe.
h he record in this case reflects different spellings of the names of certain tribes. The undersigned has tried to consistently use an identical spelling for each tribe.
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 24 of 65
MARGARET GREENE
This decision constitutes a recommendation to the Assistant cretary for Indian Affairs that the Petitioners be formerly cognized by the federal government as the Samish Indian Tribe.
-- Thvid Torbetf
Administrative Law Judge
Distribution: Scott Keep, Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, Room 6456, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington D.C. 20240 (Certified Mail Return Requested) Russel Lawrence Barsh and Rachael Paschal, E s q . , Samish Indian Tribe, 2704 Dundee Place, Anacortes, WA 98221 (Certified Mail Return Requested) Associate Solicitor, Division of Indian Affairs, Office of the Solicitor, U.S. Department of the Interior, Room 6456, 1849 C. Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240 James H. Jones, Jr., Bell 98206
&
Ingram, P.O. Box 1769,Everett, WA
Snoqualrnie Indian Tribe, C/o Andy de Los Angeles, P.O. Box 280, 3946 Tolt Avenue, Carnation, WA 98014 Mitch R. Dailey, Wettrick, Toulouse -'810 Third Ave., Seattle, WA 98104.
&
Howe, 658 Central Building,
Richard Dauphinais, Native American Rights Fund, 1712 N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036 Arlinda F. Locklear, 3809 Jefferson Pike, P.O. Box 605, Jefferson, MD 21755 Timothy Brazill, Brazill & Bennett, Morrison Opera Place, 47 South Meridian Street, Suite 305, P.o. Box 856, ~ndianapolis,IN 46206 Herbert M. Whitish, Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe, Old Tokeland Road, P.O. Box 130, Tokeland, WA 98590
Mary Gay Sprague, Arnold Washington, DC 20036,
&
Porter, 1200 New Hampshire Ave., NW,
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 25 of 65
MARGARET GRSENE
24
INDIAN 93 -1
Barer, 1191 Second A v e . , suite
Kerry ~ a d c l i f f e ,Garvey, Shubext 1800, Seattle, WA 98101
&
R. Anthony Xogers, Esq., General Litigation Section, Environment and Natural Resources Division, , U.S. Department of Justice, P.O. Box 663, Washington, DC 20044-0663
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 26 of 65
APPENDIX B 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.
1; Ms, S i m m o n s , a n employee of t h e Bureau n f I n G i a n A f f a i r s for 30 years, testified that she began preparing lists of Indian -tribes "with whom we had dealings" in 1966 (TR:347, TR:349). Her preliminary list was "based on a review of the files" in her office, and was circulated among staff for comment (TR:347-348). "It was never intended to be a list of federally recognized tribes as such,'"she recalled; "it may have evolved into that," however, under Congressional pressure to make clearer distinctions between recognized and non-recognized tribes ( T R : 348). By 1969, she had restricted her list to "those groups who had a formal organization approved by the Department" (TR:349350, TR:357) .
2. Ms. Simmons exp-lained that, initially, "we just listed everybody that there was a file records section for" in the Bureau's Washington, D .C. offices (TR:351, TR:36) . The draft was then sent to Area Offices and Agency Superintendents to identify which of the groups listed had a 14formal relationship" with them. This was the basis on which groups Mere then classified as Federally-recognized or not, but she admitted that records of . Area and Agency comments have been lost (T~:351-352) Subsequently, her revised list was "generally" consulted to determine groups' legal status, although paradoxically she conceded that she had no authority to make such decisions (TR.:353,TR:363).
. draft of the list she prepared in 1966, which includes the Samish Tribe on page 14 (TR:355, Exhibit P-3). She recalled that the
Samish had been taken off her 1969 list because the Bureau's Portland Area advised her that they were "recognized for claims purposes only," but she had no record of this (TR:355, TR:358359, Exhibit P-4). On further questioning she conceded that she had no personal knowledge of the legal status of the groups she had listed under the Portland Area, and had relied upon the comments, now lost, which were made by the Portland Area (TR:367368).
7. In 1978, the Defendants adopted standard procedures and criteria for reviewing the legal status of non-Federallyrecognized groups, set out, as amended, in 25 C.F.R. Part 83. The Tribe submitted a petition for consideration under these regulations in 1979, which was denied in 1987. 52 Fed.Reg. 3709.
3.
Under cross-examination, Ms. Simmons identified an early
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 27 of 65
The Tribe subsequently challenged the denial on constitutional Due Process grounds, resulting in this remand. 8 , Petitions for Federal acknowledgment are processed by the Branch of ~cknowledgmentand Research (BAR), in the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Ms. Reckord, who is currently chief of the Branch, described in detail the procedures her staff follows in evaluating the evidence contained in petitions (TR:261-264). She also summarized the seven criteria for Federal acknowledqment of an Indian tribe contained in 25 C.F.R. 83.7 (TR:264-268): Since Ms. Reckord began working at BAR after its final administrative determination against the Samish Indian Tribe, however, she has no direct knowledge of the research methods actually utilized by Dr. Roth and other BAR staff members to study the Samish, hence her testimony is of very limited probative value. 14. The parties also called a number of Indian witnesses. Defendants called four members of the Swinomish tribe's governing body, or senate --Laura Wilbur, Chester Cayou, Sr., Barbara Jean James, and Susan Day Wilbur--as well as the Swinomish tribal enrollment clerk, Judy Flores- Mr. Cayou's credibility was strained by his denial of having ever made the affidavit previously submitted by Defendants as the foundation for his testimony (TR:542-543) and his insistence that he had never served on the Samish Tribe's fish committee (TR:539-540), contradicted by the minutes of the committee (~xhibit P-31, added to the hearing record by leave of the A L J , 'TR:S40) . 15. The Tribe called Ms. Hansen, who had served on its council and as its secretary since the 1950s. Mrs. Hansen is the greatgranddaughter of Cubshelitsa, sister of Whulholten, one of the leaders of the Samish village on Guemes Island a century ago, and daughter of Don McDowell, Samish Tribal leader in the 1930s; she granddaughter, was given the name Cubshelitsa by WhulholtenrsMary Ann Cladoosby (TR:1028-1029; also TR:805, TR:825, TR:837). 21. Dr. Sturtevant is the curator of North American ethnology at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington, D.c., with which he has been affiliated in various capacities since 1956 (TR:31). He has conducted anthropological fieldwork among Indian tribes in various regions of the United States including the ~eminolesof Florida, the Senecas of New York, and the Porno in ~alifornia,as well as field research in Mexico and Burma (TR:32-34). By his Own calculation, he has visited communities belonging to every American Indian cultural region except the Plateau (~R:34) He has also conducted historical research using a variety of print and graphic materials (TR:37-38).
22. Dr. Sturtevant has been the general editor of the . Smithsonian lnstitutionrs encyclopedic Handbook of North American Indians, which is being written by leading anthropologists and historians under the sponsorship of an Act of Congress,
Case 1:02-cv-01383-MMS
Document 60-2
Filed 05/02/2007
Page 28 of 65
summarizing existing knowledge of Indian cultures and history .(TR:35-36). His editorial role includes selecting experts to prepare various chapters, and evaluating their work professionally (TR:37). 23. Dr. Sturtevant was also invited, by the Government defendants, to participate in a workshop in January 1992, to advise them on reforming their procedures for determining whether particular groups are Indian tribes under 25 C.F.R. Part 83 (TR:58) .
2 4 . Dr. Suttles is professor emeritus at Portland State University in Portland, Oregon, where he began teaching anthropology and linguistics in 1966 (TR:154), Since he began his studies, before the Second World War, his research has focussed on the Coast Salish peoples of northern Washington and southern British Columbia, including Semiahmoo, ~ u m m i ,Samish, Saanich, Songhees, Sooke, Nooksack, Swinomish, ~ k a g i t , Katzie, Cowichan, Chilliwack and Musqueam (TR:154-156). Dr. Sturtevant regards him as the primary expert on the culture and society of Coast Salish Indians, and on that basis had arranged for him to edit the volume of the Handbook o f North A m e r i c a n I n d i a n s devoted to the Northwest Coast (TR:39).
25. Dr. Suttles explained that he had studied several different Coast Salish languages and dialects and understood "about threequarters" of what he heard, although he did not regard himself as fluent (TR:160) . He is presently working on a grammar, for the British Columbia Museum (TR:160-161).
.
2 6 . Dr. Suttles began interviewing Samish elders in 1947, and in 1951 was asked by the attorneys representing a number of tribes in the area to testify on their behalf before the Indian Claims Commission; among the Samish he knew at that time were charlie and Alfred Edwards, Tommy Bob, Annie Lyons, and Mary Hansen .'(TR:157; TR:222). He testified that he had remained in contact "off and on" with Samish people (TR:158) .
2 7 . In addition to his experience with Coast Salish peoples like the Samish, Dr. Suttles referred to research he had conducted with Indians further north along the Pacific Coast such as the Tsimshian, Kwakiutl, Bella Coola and Cloquallum, as well as the Northern Paiutes in Nevada, and the Okinawans i n Japan (TR:158-
159) .
28. Dr. Hajda, an independent researcher, completed her doctorate in anthropology at the University of Washington in 1984. Her thesis, on the social organization of low
United States Free Forms
Canada Free Forms
United Kingdom Free Forms
Australia Free Forms