www.wordsasweapons.com > Western
Shoshone > Newcomb article/loophole
Inspiring social change through print, spoken word, and live performance.
"It is my opinion, and I think history
will show, that only dictators and tyrants
have and will take control of land that does not belong to them."
- Carrie Dann, Western Shoshone elder
Western Shoshone crisis: Is the U.S. a nation of arbitrary laws?
by: Steven Newcomb / Indigenous Research Coordinator / D-Q University at Sycuan
In January, as reported in Indian Country Today, the Indigenous
Law Institute issued a report on behalf of the Western Shoshone National Council,
documenting that the Indian Claims Commission (ICC) never filed a final report
with Congress in the Western Shoshone case, docket 326-K. Despite a final report
being mandated by Congress in the 1946 Indian Claims Commission Act, the ICC
was not able to file such a report in the Western Shoshone case because the
case was still on appeal to the Court of Claims when the ICC went out of existence
in September of 1978.
Since the ICC no longer exists, no final report will ever be submitted to Congress
in the Western Shoshone case. This is extremely important because according
to the Court of Claims, finality in any given case consists of three ingredients:
1. the ICCs final report to Congress upon completion of the case; 2. the
Congressional appropriation of the monies owed to the Indians in question; 3.
the distribution to the Indians of the monies appropriated. The Ninth Circuit
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court both agreed with the Court of Claims:
the ICCs final report to Congress is legally mandated by the ICC Act.
Not long after completing our report, I forwarded a copy to the office of Mr.
Robert Abbey, State Director, Bureau of Land Management in the State of Nevada.
Mr. Abbey is the person who has headed up a number of actions against the Western
Shoshone. Some of the actions he has personally overseen include last years
confiscation (what the Western Shoshones call theft) of cattle belonging to
Chief Raymond Yowell and Mr. Myron Tybo, the confiscation of cattle belonging
to Mary and Carrie Dann, and, most recently, the forced removal of Western Shoshone
horses from Western Shoshone lands adjacent to the Dann ranch.
Just the other day I had the opportunity to briefly interview Mr. Abbey by telephone
about the Indigenous Law Institute Report. When I asked Mr. Abbey what he makes
of our report, he responded, "I dont make anything of it." He
said that our report had been sent on to the Solicitors Office in the
Department of the Interior, but that he hadnt heard anything back. When
I asked him if he had specifically requested a legal opinion from the Solicitors
office, Mr. Abbey said that he hadnt. He also made it clear that he does
not intend to request any opinion from the Solicitors office.
When I challenged Mr. Abbey about the main point of the ILI report, which is
that finality has not been reached in the Western Shoshone case, Mr. Abbey told
me, "I believe that finality has been reached in this case." Given
his admission that he would not be requesting a legal opinion from the Solicitors
office, I asked him if his position on finality was based on his own personal
opinion, or on solid legal advice. He said that it was his own personal opinion.
I then said, "Why dont you request a finding from the Solicitors
office so that youll know whether or not your opinion is correct?"
He made it abundantly clear that he had no intention of doing so, but that I
could request a legal opinion from the Solicitors office.
I then asked him how in the world he could believe that finality had been reached
in the Western Shoshone case when the Court of Claims, the Ninth Circuit Court
of Appeals, and even the Supreme Court were so clear on this point: an ICC final
report to Congress is one of the three ingredients of finality. "How can
finality have been reached when there is no final report to Congress?,"
I asked. Mr. Abbeys only response was, "Speak to our attorneys."
On Feb. 25, Congressman Jim Gibbons of Nevada introduced H.R. 884, which if
passed, would distribute some $138 million dollars to the Western Shoshone Indians,
supposedly for lands that were taken from them by gradual encroachment. I recently
put in a call to Congressman Gibbons office and spoke to Ms. Sandra Keil,
his point person on the bill.
I explained to Ms. Keil that finality has not been reached in the Western Shoshone
case, pursuant to the Indian Claims Commission Act, and that, therefore, there
is no valid statutory basis for H.R. 884, or for any such bill that would distribute
the monies sitting in Docket 326-K. Her response was fascinating: "Thats
the beautiful thing about being a congressperson," she said. "You
can introduce a bill, and as long as it passes both houses of Congress, and
is signed off on by the President, the bill supercedes everything that preceded
it."
What Ms. Keil fails to realize is that you cannot supercede the Indian Claims
Commission Act and at the same time have the Act serve as the basis for the
payment. In other words, if the ICC Act is the statutory basis for a monetary
distribution in the first place, how can you supercede the ICC Act and still
have it serve as the basis for a monetary distribution to the Western Shoshones?
It is unfortunate that the terms of the Indian Claims Commission Act, specifically
the statutory requirement that the ICC file a final report with Congress, is
of no interest to Congressman Gibbons staff person. Lets hope Congressman
Gibbons himself has more interest in following the letter of the law.
The United States claims to be a nation of laws. But in light of my conversations
with Mr. Abbey and Congressman Gibbons staff person, what is this principle,
other than an empty slogan? Clearly, if such conversations and decades of federal
actions toward the Western Shoshone are any indication, the United States is
a nation of laws only so long as the laws do not get in the way of what the
United States wants to do.
Given the willingness of the federal government to utterly disregard the terms
of the ICC Act, and the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley (which, according to the
U.S. Constitution, is the supreme law of the land), it is evident that the U.S.
wants to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws it is a nation of.
Steven Newcomb, Shawnee and Lenape, is director of the Indigenous Law Institute,
and Indigenous Research Coordinator at D-Q University at Sycuan on the reservation
of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation. He is a columnist for Indian Country
Today.
Back to
wordsasweapons home page