reservation boundary markers is an "event" that resulted in a change of possession, so under the pending bill the thief wins and the innocent victim loses just because one is white and the other is Indian. - Furthermore, to add injury to insult, Section 6(b) of the bill would bar the tribe from any recovery for its loss because the event which caused it was not subject to the 1790 Trade and Intercourse Act. I cannot state positively that either of the examples I have mentioned in fact ever took place. I can state at this time that neither you, as members of this Committee, nor anyone else, including the sponsors of S. 2084, can say positively that they didn't. My point is that the proposed legislation decides every case in favor of the non-Indian interests and against the Indian tribe involved, regardless of the facts, regardless of the equities and regardless of the legal rights of the parties. Speaking for the Seneca people, I don't think the United States Congress should adopt such a rule and I don't think the United States Constitution would allow it to stand. Thank you. Enclosed is a copy of the testimony of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe The Ancient Indian Land Claim Settlement Act is unconstitutional and We urge the defeat of this blatant violation of a right to exist!! Sincerely, Pat McLaughlin PM: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF THE STANDING ROCK SIOUX TRIBE The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North and South Dakota, although not directly effected by the proposed legislation would like to offer this testimony for the record in opposition to the Ancient Indian Land Claim Settlement Act. We testify as a means of supporting our brothers and sisters in New York, South Carolina and for that matter all indigenous people of the world who would be so clearly wronged by this most unfair piece of legislation. "Equal Justice Under Law" are the word:: inscribed into marble on the top of the Supreme Court. The introduction of this legislation might suggest that an asterisk be added to this maxim indicating that Indians are excepted from this guiding principle of jurisprudence. Can any reader of this testimony ever recall a piece of legislation that would not just legislatively deny equal justice under the law but one that would retroactively amend past acts so as to destroy the basis for the plaintiffs case and in effect deny access to the law? (Ironically and hypocritically, the sponsors of these bills would surely describe themselves as "law and order" representatives) Indians are being told they ginply will not be granted due process because they are Indian. : That there is any debate whatsoever on the constitutionality of the legislation is truly astounding. if the denial Due Process and Equal Protection is not unconstitutional than nothing could be. The legislation is unfair. During the 1960's and early 1970's when militant Indians were damonstrating in what non-Indian authorities referred to as a lawless manner they were told if they had a grievance they should state that grievance in court and work within the system. Now that tribes are following "thát advice they arë told that the rules will, once again, be changed in the middle of the game and that they will be denied access to those same courts or alternatively are told, are told they can only seek monetary compensation first at the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior and secondly on appeal to Court of Claims. The compensation can only be monetary and not at today's fair market prices but at a value reduced by 95%. Tes-imony No land will be returned to the tribes. It is difficult to believe that the word "settlement" could appear in any part of this bill, much less the title. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe is, also bothered with the proponents of this bilis constant usage of the word "ancient" to.de~ scribe the claims of the Tribes and the fraudulent transactions which violated the Indian Non-Intercourse Act. They use this word to in pugn the Indians claims and to dismiss them as somehow being frivolous because the cause of action was not recent. This rather petty attempt to dismiss the validity of the Tribes claims is an irresponsible action by elected officials which can only lead to further the ignorance, and therefore the hostility, of their non-Indian constitutuents. These officials know full well how valid the claims are or they would not have introduced such terminationist legislation. The only thing ancient about this entire issue are the thousands of years the Indians lived on the lands in question prior to the rather recent times in which they were fraudulently taken. One questions whether Congressman Lee feels the uncontrollable urge to use the work ancient as a prefix whenever he discusses the U.S. Consitution. We are also perterbed to only hear the again constant reference to the great "damage" these pending suits are causing the non-Indian residents and little discussion of the very real damage caused upon the Indian people whose land base was stolen and who now, in part due to that theft, experience rampant unemployment and numerous other socio-economic maladies unequaled by any other group of people in the United States. The present day "innocent" Indians whose ancestors were the victims of fraud suffer great damage and are in need of a land base. It is worthy of observation that the non-Indian officials and local leaders who oppose the Tribes are demonstrating the same greed and lack of compassion as did their ancestors. This damage which in great part is really the non-Indian residents fear that they will someday be found homeless is not really founded. In the various settlements in Maine, Rhode Island, the pending settlement in Connecticut and the Cayuga Settlement from the previous Congress (which Congressman Lee killed) nobody was thrown out of their Jestimony Page Three hone or their individually held lands. In those negotiated settlements the Indians have been noble and compassionate and have refused to do the non-Indians what non-Indians have done to them. The testimony of others will adequately address the legal aspects of the pending legislation and the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will defer to those more familiar with the various nuances of the law on these issues. In conclusion it would appear that even if this politically expedient legislation did become law and was shoved down the tribes throats that it would not resolve the issue at all. The tribes would doubtless challenge the constitutionality of the Act and the litigation would go on for years. The only finality can be when the Tribes are parties to a negotiated settlement. |