Note by Hunterbear: This is in response to a treaty inquiry on February 11 from a very old friend, a Sioux -- and former student [and UND grad] who took my many-years-taught Federal Indian Law course in the Fall term, 1983. I pass along my response, and his questions, as part of my continuing efforts to provide "education" on Native matters and concerns.
I note that our SNCC list is discussing inquires from students desperately seeking civil rights info -- as Joyce notes so aptly, " . . .the night before a paper is due." I also receive civil rights inquires directly -- as well as many indeed on Native rights and Indian law. I do strongly agree with Joyce and Julian et al. that we should steer students to libraries -- although I do, myself, respond directly and quickly [and as fully as possible] as well. Have to keep my professorial hand in! Best - H >From Hunterbear: Dear Emory: Always very good to hear from you. The treaty that I handed out in class was the Treaty of Fort Laramie [1868] plus some related earlier and subsequent materials. There should be no problem finding a copy of the Treaty on the Net or in any academic library. I have a copy somewhere around here -- but can't locate it. But, it's easily found in many places. All told, there were many, many hundreds of treaties signed between the United States government and the Indian nations, especially in the 19th century [before 1871.] In 1871, Congress ended treaty making with the Indian nations but the treaties then in existence -- more than 400 -- continue with full validity. They are covered, as are all US treaties, by Article 6, Section 2, of the Constitution -- and are thus part of "the supreme law of the land" just as are any US treaties with any nation. [There are also some state treaties -- e.g., New York state.] Native treaties are always under attack, of course, and the fight to maintain them is on-going -- as is the fight to preserve and regain Native sovereignty. A treaty between the U.S. and an Indian nation occupies a far higher status than that of a Congressional statute. Qualitatively, there's no difference between a US/Indian nation treaty and a US/European nation treaty. There are about 5,000 Federal Indian law statutes of one kind or another -- plus a myriad of court [mostly US Supreme Court] rulings, as well as hundreds of Federal Indian regulations! A treaty must be interpreted with the meaning understood by the signatory Indians. This is a very basic rule. It was started as a concept in Justice McLean's concurrence in the historic pro-Indian Cherokee Nation decision, Worcester v Georgia [1832] but became formal doctrine via Jones v Meehan [1899] and Tulee v Washington [1942.] [Recognizing that the language, dated by the times, is sometimes a bit ethnocentric -- Jones and Tulee are nevertheless strongly pro-Indian decisions.] Jones v. Meehan: "It must always be borne in mind that the negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on the part of the U.S., by an enlightened and powerful nation, by representatives skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written language, understanding the modes and forms of creating the various technical estates known to their law, and assisted by an interpreter employed by themselves; that the treaty is drawn up by them and in their own language; that the Indians . . .are a weak and dependent people who have no written language and are wholly unfamiliar with all of the forms of legal expression, and whose only knowledge of the terms on which the treaty is framed is that imparted to them by the interpreter employed by the U.S.; and that the treaty must therefore be construed, not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians." Tulee v. Washington: "It is our responsibility to see that the terms of the treaty are carried out, so far as possible, in accordance with the meaning they were understood to have by the tribal representatives at the council and in a spirit which generously recognizes the full obligations of this nation to protect the interests of a dependent people." Again, Jones v. Meehan: "The manner in which the dead and living chiefs. . .have regarded the reservation is of the utmost importance in determining the proper construction of the treaty." ------ As a result of Jones and Tulee, Native oral history is accepted by the U.S. courts [and most other courts] as legally valid. Oral history was used extensively, vis-a-vis Treaty of Ft Laramie [1868] etc. in the Wounded Knee cases in the mid and late '70s -- and in countless other Native treaty and related cases. Hope this has been of some help, Emory. By all means, keep in touch. Ask any questions you wish -- and I'll always do my best! As Ever - Hunter or John or Anything At All Hunter Gray [Hunterbear] www.hunterbear.org Protected by NaŽshdoŽiŽbaŽiŽ and Ohkwari' ----- Original Message ----- From: To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2003 11:44 AM Subject: Re: Treaty questions Dear Friend Colleague: I have a few questions regarding the treaty you handed out in the Indian Law class you taught at UND. It has been a while, so may be you might not remember. Also I have been on the internet trying to find out how many treaties the U.S. Government broke that they made with the Indians. I know they broke all of them but I was wondering if you the number of treaties. I have not had any luck finding out what I would like. I cannot remember if the treaty was in the Indian Law book, you used in the class, or if it was in the treaty (copy) you handed out in class, but it stated that the Indians or Sioux were never to bear arms again. I would appreciate any assistance you can provide. Thank you and keep up the good fight. My thoughts and prayers are with you, Eldri, and your loved ones. In Peace, Emory _______________________________________________ Leninist-International mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/leninist-international
