Sacajawea's People: The Lemhi Shoshones and the Salmon River Country

Sacajawea’s People

[First Page] [-1], (1)

Lines: 0 to 22 ———

*

468.596pt

——— Normal Page * PgEnds: PageB [-1], (1)

[-2], (2)

Lines: 22 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [-2], (2)

Sacajaweas’ People The Lemhi Shoshones and the Salmon River Country

[-3], (3)

Lines: 24 to 10 ———

3.91325pt

——— Normal Page * PgEnds: PageB [-3], (3)

John W. W. Mann

university of nebraska press lincoln and london

Publication of this volume was assisted by the Charles Redd Center for Western Studies. © 2004 by the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America 䡬 ⬁ Set in Minion by Kim Essman. Designed by Ray Boesche. Printed by Thomson-Shore, Inc. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Mann, John W. W. Sacajawea’s people : the Lemhi Shoshones and the Salmon River country / John W. W. Mann. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 0-8032-3241-1 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Shoshoni Indians—Idaho—Salmon River Region— History. 2. Shoshoni Indians—Idaho—Salmon River Region—Land tenure. 3. Shoshoni Indians—Idaho —Salmon River Region—Government relations. 4. Lemhi Indian Reservation (Idaho)—History. 5. Sacagawea. 6. Lewis and Clark Expedition (1804–1806). I. Title. e99.s4m36 2004 979.6'82004974574–dc22 2004007021

[-4], (4)

Lines: 107 ———

*

208.188

——— Normal P * PgEnds: P [-4], (4)

Contents

[-5], (5)

List of Illustrations Preface Introduction 1 2 3

vii ix xv

———

*

The Lemhi Shoshones and the Salmon River Country

1

Contact, Ethnogenesis, and Exile from the Salmon River Country, 1805–1907

15

16.53023pt

——— Normal Page * PgEnds: PageB [-5], (5)

The Lemhi Committee and the Fight for Annuities

39

Termination and the Indian Claims Commission

59

5

The Lemhi icc Claim, 1962–72

79

6

Returning to the River of No Return, 1907–93

109

7

The Lemhis, Salmon, and Treaty Rights

143

8

Sacajawea’s People

179

Notes Bibliography Index

191 235 247

4

Lines: 193 to 2

[-6], (6)

Lines: 240 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [-6], (6)

Illustrations

[-7], (7)

maps Lemhi aboriginal territory in the Salmon River country Route of Lewis and Clark in the Salmon River country Lemhi country during the treaty period Lemhi country during the reservation period Lemhi Indian Reservation Shoshone territory Lemhi encampments in Salmon, Idaho, 1865–1991

3 21 30 31 32 77 113

———

*

157.1634pt

——— Normal Page * PgEnds: PageB [-7], (7)

photographs Lemhis on parade in Salmon, Idaho, ca. 1929 Early Lemhi camp in the Salmon River country Kid’s Creek Park, 2003

Lines: 242 to 2

139 140 141

[-8], (8)

Lines: 280 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [-8], (8)

Preface

[First Page] [-9], (1)

The idea for this study grew out of a graduate seminar in public history at Washington State University offered by Professor Orlan Svingen in 1995. He organized it around producing a legal-historic report in conjunction with the Lemhi Shoshones’ petition to regain federal recognition from the government. The arguments and counterarguments over ethics, objectivity, and public historians serving as “hired guns” who cater to the interests of their clients rather than to the standards of the academic discipline of history have been so well rehearsed in scholarly literature (as they were in our seminar room) that they do not bear repeating here. 1 I do think it worth pointing out, however, that the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Branch of Acknowledgment and Recognition (bar) resolves petitions for recognition through the same sort of adversarial process that characterizes American courtrooms. Our charge, therefore, was to unearth whatever information we could that related to the bar’s criteria, whether it supported or contradicted the Lemhis’ argument. A good defense attorney always seeks any information the prosecution has that could harm his or her case; so too did the attorneys for the Lemhis want to know about anything that might diminish their chances of regaining recognition. In reviewing the materials our team of researchers culled from the National Archives in Washington dc, the Federal Records Center in Suitland, Maryland (with the help of the Freedom of Information Act), the Pacific Northwest Branch of the National Archives in Seattle, Washington, the Bureau of Indian Affairs Office in Fort Hall, Idaho,

ix

Lines: 0 to 31 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [-9], (1)

the Idaho State Historical Society Archives in Boise, and numerous other repositories and institutions, I was particularly struck by the Lemhi Shoshones’ enduring ties to their homeland in the Salmon River country, which have been manifested in diverse ways. I decided to pursue the topic of Lemhi identity in my dissertation, with an interest in the ways it has been informed by the Lemhis’ connections to their homeland and the ways their identity has intersected with federal Indian policy. After additional research trips to the National Archives and elsewhere, including numerous trips to Moscow, Idaho, to scan through old copies of the Salmon Recorder-Herald, the dissertation, entitled “Returning to the River of No Return: The Lemhi Shoshone and the Salmon River Country, Idaho,” came together, and ended up as the manuscript for this book. “The New Western History,” Donald Worster once wrote, “insists that scholars must perform deliberately and thoughtfully the role of cultural analyst, even to the point of presuming now and then to be a self-appointed moral conscience of their society.”2 I have presumed on occasion to act in that capacity in the chapters that follow. But my interpretation has been informed by my research, and not the other way around. I hope, therefore, that readers find my account compelling, but also well balanced.

[-10], (2)

Lines: 31 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[-10], (2)

In the course of the research and writing it took to get from a graduate seminar in the fall of 1995 to a publishable manuscript, I incurred a debt of gratitude to many people for their guidance and assistance. Chief among them is Orlan Svingen, my mentor during graduate school (and not infrequently after, perhaps to his dismay). Professor Svingen’s encouragement and assistance were a boon during my career as a graduate student and kept me on track throughout. His familiarity with the National Archives in Washington dc proved immensely helpful during my research, and his skill as an editor dramatically improved my writing. He always gave freely of his time, much in demand as it always is, whether we met in his office or My Office Tavern. For these things and many others I am grateful to him. This study could not have been accomplished without the efforts of Lemhi Rod Ariwite, who has been the driving force behind the Fort Lemhi Indian Community Recognition Project, which he directs. Rod took the time to read my work and offer his feedback—

x

preface

rarely have kind words meant so much. So did Snookins Honena, a Lemhi descendant of Chief Tendoy, who lived through many of the events related in this book. I especially appreciate the time he took to attend a conference presentation on the Lemhi Shoshones I gave in Helena, Montana, in October 1997. Afterward Mr. Honena was kind enough to join the panel and field questions from the audience, adding meaning to the session for everyone in the room. More recently Rozina George, a Lemhi historian who, like Snookins Honena, traces her descent through Tendoy, Cameahwait, and Sacajawea, gave the manuscript a close reading and provided a detailed commentary. The insights offered by all of these Lemhi readers have been invaluable. Jed Wilson, a longtime Salmon, Idaho, resident and close friend of the Lemhi community there also deserves special mention. He checked my interpretation against his long memory at several junctures during my work. He also invited me into his home in Utah in the summer of 2003, where he shared his extensive collection of Lemhi objects and images, his stories, and his famous sourdough pancakes made from an old family recipe. Carol Smawley at the Bureau of Indian Affairs also deserves individual thanks. She provided me with access to important bia records at the Federal Records Center in Suitland, Maryland, even as the reading room at the facility was closing in the summer of 1996. Without her help my research there would have been considerably less fruitful and this study decidedly less thorough. The other graduate students in the seminar—Cary Collins, Charles Mutchsler, Shirley Stephens, Krista Undeberg, Neil Barker, Bill Johnson, Ron Pond, Cheyenne Tuller, and Marcia Montgomery—provided constructive criticism of my contributions to the report. Their work, in turn, provided a springboard for my own. Most importantly, these colleagues proved to be the sort of good friends that help make hard work so enjoyable. The other members of my dissertation committee, Professors Richard Hume, John Kicza, and Janice Rutherford, also have my genuine gratitude for their support and contributions. Professor Hume kept me from losing sight of the big picture, while at the same time he scrutinized every detail of my work. Professors Kicza and Rutherford served as mentors throughout my career as a Ph.D. student at wsu.

preface

xi

[-11], (3)

Lines: 39 to 48 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [-11], (3)

My work has benefited tremendously from the close reading each of these committee members provided. I would also like to thank the archivists and library personnel who assisted me in my research. Anne Cummings at the National Archives in Washington dc displayed an astonishing grasp of the records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, as did Joyce Justice at the Pacific Northwest Regional Branch of the National Archives in Seattle. Thomas Jaens at the Idaho State Historical Society archives in Boise, and Gary Domitz and the staff at the Idaho State University archives, went well out of their way to assist me and were extremely helpful. During my research trip to gather images at the Lemhi County Historical Society and Museum in Salmon, Idaho, Hope Benedict, the society’s president, made a special trip to assist me, dropping what she was doing in her time off. Her friendliness was just one among many experiences during my trips there that confirmed my positive regard for the residents of Salmon. Several others offered important feedback and insight. Robert McCarthy, an attorney with Idaho Legal Aid Services who initiated the Lemhi Shoshones’ petition for federal recognition, helped seminar students wrestle with legal issues and jargon. Professor Roderick Sprague of the University of Idaho took the time to attend a seminar and answer students’ questions about Great Basin and Plateau culture groups. Professor Mary Collins in the wsu Department of Anthropology was gracious enough to read chapter 1 of my dissertation, helping to ease my fears of venturing into the largely unfamiliar waters of that field. Jeff Anderson, the chair of the Department of Anthropology at Colby College, reviewed my manuscript and offered very useful suggestions for revision. He also took the time to direct me to sources on ethnogenesis. Much of the research for the public history seminar, and hence for this book, was funded by a $65,000 grant from the Administration for Native Americans for the Fort Lemhi Indian Community Recognition Project. The Claudius O. and Mary W. Johnson Graduate Fellowship and the Pettyjohn Graduate Research Fellowship from the Department of History at Washington State University provided much-appreciated additional financial support for my research and writing.

xii

preface

[-12], (4)

Lines: 48 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[-12], (4)

The staff at University of Nebraska Press has been professional and courteous in all my dealings with them. I would like to express my honest gratitude to the entire institution for bringing this work to a wider audience. Finally, I must thank my parents, Paul and Janet, and my sisters, Genevieve and Elizabeth, who have always been as encouraging and supportive as any son or sibling could hope. All the individuals mentioned above, as well as some who I no doubt forgot to include, contributed in some way to whatever is good about what follows. But they do not share in the faults, which are solely mine. [-13], (5)

Lines: 55 to 60 ———

*

361.95901p

——— Normal Page * PgEnds: PageB [-13], (5)

preface

xiii

[-14], (6)

Lines: 60 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[-14], (6)

Introduction

[First Page] [-15], (1)

In anticipation of the bicentennial celebration of the expedition of Lewis and Clark and the Corps of Discovery, the U.S. Mint issued a $1 coin in 1999 bearing the image of Sacajawea, the Indian woman who accompanied the expedition and contributed to its successful journey to the Pacific Ocean and back. 1 While the coin has been heralded as a sign of long-overdue recognition of the contributions of American Indians by the government, it has also been widely criticized. For some, the image of Sacajawea on the coin validates the conquest of the American West. Sacajawea, they argue, is celebrated because she “complied with the goals of white America,” not because she was an Indian woman. Others suggest that Sacajawea’s contributions to the expedition have been magnified by myth, and that her role in the journey does not merit the acclaim she has received. Still others point to the irony of an American Indian on currency that will be spent disproportionately by non-Indians. Or to the irony of the juxtaposition of the image of Sacajawea, who some claim was essentially a slave, and the word “liberty” that appears above it. 2 While Sacajawea, the most famous Indian woman in American history, is celebrated, most Americans have never even heard of her people, the Lemhi Shoshones. 3 After the Sacajawea coin was unveiled, some Lemhis joined the chorus of criticisms, but for reasons all their own. When Glenna Goodacre, the artist who designed the Vietnam Women’s Memorial in Washington dc, was commissioned to create the Sacajawea dollar, she went to the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, where many of the Lemhi Shoshones now reside, in search of a model,

xv

Lines: 0 to 29 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [-15], (1)

as well as some cultural context for her work. However, rather than finding a teenaged Lemhi to model for the coin, Goodacre selected a twenty-three-year-old Shoshone-Bannock woman from a different tribe or band. The Lemhis voiced their disapproval over the physical appearance of the woman on the coin, whom they said did not resemble them, and over the depiction of Sacajawea carrying her baby in a blanket instead of on a cradleboard, as a Lemhi would have. The U.S. Mint’s decision to use the Hidatsa spelling, Sacagawea, rather than the Shoshone, Sacajawea, was a further disappointment. 4 The Lemhi Shoshones, then, were slighted even when the federal government endeavored with the best of intentions to celebrate one of their contributions to American history. Moreover, the timing of the matter only added insult to injury, because the Lemhis at the time were four years into the long and arduous process of petitioning the government for federal recognition—a politically prickly process that has become even more daunting for petitioners since recognition has increasingly become associated with Indian casinos in the wake of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988. 5 But while the apparent slight of the Lemhis can be dismissed as an accident born of good intentions, it also illustrates larger aspects of their experiences and difficulties with the government during the course of the twentieth century. The issue of Indian identity, as William Hagan has noted, “has been a problem for individuals, tribes, and government administrators since the birth of this nation.”6 Who is Indian, who decides, and how? These questions are particularly perplexing when they involve tribes or groups not officially recognized by the federal government. In fact, it was only with the promulgation of Title 25 Part 83 of the Code of Federal Regulations in 1978 that the government established standards for answering them. The history of the Lemhi Shoshones in the twentieth century, then, points to the difficulties surrounding issues of Indian identity, at both the group and individual level, as well as the shortcomings of the criteria established for tribes or groups seeking federal recognition. Prior to 1907 the Lemhi Shoshones were recognized as a political entity by the federal government, and they engaged in treaty making as such. Thereafter, however, the Lemhis’ identity as a distinct group was obscured by a combination of federal Indian policy, Bureau of Indian Affairs (bia) decisions concerning the Lemhis, and decades of

xvi

introduction

[-16], (2)

Lines: 29 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[-16], (2)

interaction and intermarriage with the other tribes and bands on the Fort Hall Reservation. The Lemhi Shoshones were removed to Fort Hall after their reservation in their traditional homeland in the Salmon River country was liquidated in 1907, and they were subsequently enrolled as members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall after a 1936 Indian Reorganization Act constitution was adopted on that reservation. Consequently, they fail to meet two of the criteria for federal recognition: residence in a particular area with which they are historically associated and membership in no other tribe. 7 Indian communities generally were not organized as tribes—that is, discernable units with clear political authority and organization— prior to contact with non-Indians. The concept of an Indian tribe came about largely because it proved useful to the federal government in negotiating treaties with Indian peoples. It has taken on a separate significance for Indians, however, because of the sovereignty that tribal organization confers as a result of the special relationship between tribes and the government. 8 Defining an Indian tribe, then, can be an ambiguous business with important implications. The current definition employed by the bia’s Branch of Acknowledgment and Recognition (bar), moreover, is not the only one used by a federal agency; indeed, the bia itself employed a less restrictive definition of tribe under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which recognized any tribal corporation that possessed reservation lands. The Census Bureau’s definition of who is Indian, by contrast, is based solely on selfidentification, while the Indian Health Service bases its definition on blood quantum or enrollment in a recognized tribe. Tribes themselves can be far more restrictive in determining who is or is not a member of an Indian tribe. 9 A major shortcoming of bar’s criteria, especially from the Lemhi Shoshones’ perspective, is their emphasis on continuity. As Raymond Fogelson explains, bar “holds implicitly that once Indian tribal identity is lost or surrendered it can never be regained.”10 Despite the assumptions underlying bar’s criteria, however, the hallmark of Indian culture and identity has been continuity, “although their expression has often been hidden from non-Indian view.”11 Historical events—like removal to and enrollment at Fort Hall, or bia administrative decisions or procedure—have masked the continuity of Lemhi identity, but so too have historians. To date, accounts of

introduction

xvii

[-17], (3)

Lines: 35 to 41 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [-17], (3)

Lemhi history have generally closed with the advent of the twentieth century. Brigham Madsen, a leading historian of Shoshone Indians, for example, concludes his monograph on the Lemhis with removal and the death of Chief Tendoy in 1907, offering just a few paragraphs on the twentieth-century Lemhi experience. 12 Likewise, historian David Crowder, a biographer of Tendoy, dismissed the history of the Lemhis during the twentieth century by simply explaining that after removal they “subsequently lost their tribal identity.”13 The popular media also tends to overlook the existence of the Lemhis, though the approach of the Lewis and Clark bicentennial has restored some attention to them. The New York Times ran a front-page article in 1999 on the Lemhis’ efforts to resecure a land base in their Salmon River homeland. A recent book on Sacajawea by Kenneth Thomasma, author of the popular “Amazing Indian Children” series, even includes an introductory message from Rod Ariwite of the Fort Lemhi Indian Community. 14 But other accounts in the popular media continue to marginalize the Lemhis. A recent National Geographic article about Sacajawea, for instance, though it does at least mention the Lemhi Shoshones specifically, casts doubt on their claim to Sacajawea as an ancestor and to the Salmon River country as a homeland. Author Margaret Talbot explains that the Lemhis hope that the Lewis and Clark bicentennial will facilitate “their hopes for federal tribal recognition and a return to the ancestral lands they say were stripped from them.” What she does not bother to mention is that the Indian Claims Commission confirmed their claim that their ancestral lands were stripped from them and awarded a multimillion-dollar settlement. Nor does Talbot mention that the Lemhis once had a reservation in that homeland before they were removed; Talbot simply states that the Lemhis “live on a reservation in Idaho.” Talbot also glosses over the Lemhis’ claim to Sacajawea. While she relates the famous reunion of Sacajawea with her brother Cameahwait in 1805 in her article, she does not mention the moment, documented in the journals and elsewhere, when the Corps of Discovery encountered the Lemhi Shoshones, and Sacajawea indicated her identification of them as her people by sucking her fingers, a sign that these were the people who had raised her. Instead, the article quotes Amy Mossett, a Mandan-Hidatsa and Sacajawea “stand-in,” who speculates that

xviii

introduction

[-18], (4)

Lines: 41 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[-18], (4)

the fact that Sacajawea did not remain among the Lemhi Shoshones “means that Sacagawea had come to feel more like a Hidatsa than a Shoshone.” And like the coin issued by the U.S. Mint, the article uses the Mandan-Hidatsa spelling, Sacagawea, rather than the Shoshone. 15 Taken together, federal Indian policy, accounts of the Lemhis generated by historians, articles like the one in National Geographic, and the gaffe with the Sacajawea coin collectively contribute to what can only be termed cultural theft, dispossessing the Lemhi Shoshones of aspects of their ancestry, cultural heritage, and identity. What follows is an attempt to write the Lemhi Shoshones back into the history of the twentieth century by focusing in particular on their enduring ties to their homeland in the Salmon River country. It is also in part a response to the exhortations of the “New Western” historians to provide a more inclusive history of the West, incorporating heretoforeunheard voices; to consider the West as a place and to try to understand the interplay between humans and their environment in that place; and especially to move beyond the Turnerian paradigm, which precludes a significance for the West and its frontiers in American history after the late nineteenth century. 16 Paradoxically, the erosion of outsiders’ perception of Lemhi distinctiveness over the course of the twentieth century has coincided with the Lemhis’ ongoing effort to assert their cultural identity. The tie to the Salmon River country has been central to Lemhi identity, and they have been continually returning to the “River of No Return,” as the Salmon River is known, both literally and figuratively. Immediately after removal, a group of Lemhis left their new home at Fort Hall and returned to establish a permanent community in the town of Salmon, Idaho. The Lemhi “Indian Village” in Salmon relocated from time to time, but it persisted as a fixture in town through most of the century. Many of the Lemhis who were removed to Fort Hall also continued to return to the Salmon River country annually to visit, hunt and fish in traditional areas, and tend the graves of their ancestors. The Salmon River country, moreover, preoccupied the Lemhis who remained at Fort Hall politically as they sought to gain restitution for the seizure of their lands and the subsequent liquidation of their reservation. In addition, they have struggled to retain use of treaty rights to hunt and fish in areas to which they have been accustomed since time immemo-

introduction

xix

[-19], (5)

Lines: 47 to 52 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [-19], (5)

rial, and ultimately, to once again secure a legitimate land base in their ancestral homeland. Scholars have relied on several factors to measure American Indian identity. “Native American identity is minimally premised, both endogenously and exogenously,” Fogelson argues, “on three prerequisites: blood and descent, land, and community.”17 Anthropologist Greg Campbell in his work on the Lemhi Shoshones relied on several indicators of social identity: “A historical continuity in social heritage, whether factual or imaginary, that is acknowledged by the group members and by members of neighboring groups; a genealogical continuity, usually rooted in kinship and ideologies; political continuity; an association with a specific ‘place’; and shared cultural traditions.”18 This study draws on all these factors but emphasizes land in particular; the Lemhi tie to their homeland in the Salmon River country is the common thread that ties the following chapters together. Land is central to Lemhi identity, and American Indian identity in general, for a host of reasons.“Native American identity was connected to the land, as a site of origination in narratives of ethnogenesis, as a home area where life was lived, and as a final resting place of mortal remains,” Fogelson explains. “Later, Native Americans came to accept Euro-American conceptions of land as a commodity that could be alienated through sale during treaty negotiations and be a source of recompensation through decisions of the Indian Claims Commission,” he continues. “Land lost through conquest or purchase continued to have sentimental value for those who once inhabited the area and their descendants.”19 While the heart of this study focuses on the twentieth-century Lemhi Shoshone experiences, these experiences cannot be understood when divorced from their broader historic context. Chapters 1 and 2 seek to provide that context. The first chapter introduces the Salmon River country and relates the scholarly debates that have emerged over the timing and nature of the earliest peopling of the area. The arguments of archeologists and anthropologists and linguists are juxtaposed here with Lemhi Shoshone oral tradition, which maintains that the Lemhis were created in the Salmon River country rather than migrating there from some other place. Little wonder, then, that the Lemhi Shoshones’ ties to their homeland have remained so strong.

xx

introduction

[-20], (6)

Lines: 52 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[-20], (6)

Chapter 2 spans the nineteenth century, which for the Lemhis began with the arrival of the Corps of Discovery in 1805 and ended in their removal to Fort Hall in 1907. The arrival of Lewis and Clark can be viewed as the inauguration of non-Indian settlement in the Salmon River country, a process that ultimately resulted in the Lemhis’ exile to Fort Hall. Both chapters draw heavily on the work of anthropologist Greg Campbell, who argues that the nineteenth century saw the culmination of a long process of “ethnogenesis” that created the tribal nation historically known as the Lemhi Shoshones. While the term has been in use for some decades, scholarly literature on ethnogenesis is still emerging. 20 Ethnogenesis, as defined by Campbell, refers to the way that “societies emerge and recreate themselves in history through a series of transformative episodes, during which people, cultures and languages of diverse origins join to create new, hybrid and original ethnic constructions.”21 In American Indian Ethnic Renewal (1996), Joane Nagel defined ethnogenesis as “the process whereby new ethnic identities, communities, and cultures are built or rebuilt out of historical social and symbolic systems.”22 Campbell’s work focuses primarily on the nineteenth century. He argues that the Indian peoples living in the Salmon River country began to coalesce into the distinct group known as the Lemhi Shoshones long before the nineteenth century, but this process concluded within the context of, and partly as a result of, increasing non-Indian settlement of the area. But Nagel’s use of the term with reference to the resurgence of Indian identity and communities since the 1960s is also useful in understanding the Lemhi Shoshones’ experience throughout the twentieth century. Just as the changes that the Lemhis faced during the nineteenth century helped to forge a distinct sense of identity, so too did the challenges they confronted during the twentieth century reaffirm their cultural ties. The focus of the next three chapters shifts to Fort Hall, though the Salmon River country remained very much at the forefront of the concerns of the Lemhis there. Chapter 3 relates how the Lemhis organized politically soon after arriving at Fort Hall to pursue unpaid annuity monies offered in compensation for removal. They doggedly pursued their claim through a variety of avenues over the course of the next fifty years, forcing the bia to grapple with the persistence of Lemhi identity. By 1939 officials had compiled a census of Lemhis

introduction

xxi

[-21], (7)

Lines: 59 to 63 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [-21], (7)

and their descendants eligible to receive payment. Slowly, individual per capita shares were distributed. But when it came time to dispense the surplus of the fund, the Lemhis were confronted with ShoshoneBannock designs on it. In the end, the bia ruled that the Lemhis held exclusive rights to the monies. At the same time it refused to allow the Lemhis to exercise those rights because it determined that “it is impossible to make a distribution to the Lemhi Indians because they, as such, are not presently identifiable on the Fort Hall Reservation from other Indians located thereon.”23 The bia’s refusal to recognize the Lemhis despite the 1939 census, however, only strengthened their identity and created confusion about their status at Fort Hall that carried over into the Lemhis’ Indian Claims Commission (icc) case that followed, the subject of chapters 4 and 5. As the controversy over the Lemhi annuity claim began to wind down, one of even greater magnitude began to take shape, as a multilayered Shoshone land claim began to wind its way through the legal proceedings of the icc. Chapter 4 recounts the first stage of these proceedings, which played out against the backdrop of the government’s shift in Indian policy to one of termination, or withdrawal of federal oversight. The Shoshone claim was one of several cases before the icc that became a forum for the now-famous debates between anthropologist Julian Steward and his former student Omer Stewart. These debates over Great Basin sociopolitical organization, first introduced in chapter 1, continued beyond the proceedings of the commission into the academic realm. The icc indicated that it found Omer Stewart’s arguments more convincing when it delivered a 1962 ruling awarding four Indian groups the right to claim compensation for the wrongful seizure of their lands. The Lemhis were one of these groups, and the claim for their aboriginal territory, the focus of chapter 5, eventually resulted in a $4.5 million settlement offer. When it became evident that their homeland and millions of dollars were on the line, many Lemhis organized to oppose the icc award offer, but their efforts were in vain. Ultimately, all tribal members at Fort Hall held stake in all claims as a result of the way the icc act was worded, a fact that remained unclear to many tribal members until it was too late. Nonetheless, when Fort Hall tribal members voted to accept the settlement award for the Lemhi claim, a number of the Lemhi minority sought unsuccessfully

xxii

introduction

[-22], (8)

Lines: 63 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[-22], (8)

to intervene to reverse the decision and gain control over it. In the end, the Lemhis’ minority status at Fort Hall cost them control over monies offered in restitution for their homeland, and as before, the Lemhis would find the federal government unsympathetic to their objections because it failed to distinguish the Lemhis from other Indian peoples at Fort Hall. Political organization associated with the Salmon River country helped to reinforce Lemhi identity at Fort Hall, but more tangible ties to their homeland also sustained that identity. Despite removal in 1907, a community of Lemhis clung fiercely to the landscape of the town of Salmon, Idaho. The Lemhi presence in Salmon, the subject of chapter 6, fluctuated in size as Lemhis from Fort Hall came for stays [-23], (9) of varying duration to visit, tend to ancestral grave sites, and hunt and fish. Lines: 67 to 74 Salmon fishing in particular remained important for Lemhis after removal, whether they were from Salmon or Fort Hall. As anadromous ——— fish runs declined during the course of the second half of the twentieth * 91.95901pt ——— century, however, Indian treaty rights met with increasing opposition Normal Page from state officials, angling enthusiasts, and others. Chapter 7 explores the controversy that emerged over Indian salmon harvesting, with a * PgEnds: PageB particular emphasis on the Lemhi Shoshones’ struggle to retain access to their traditional fishing grounds. Their efforts culminated in [-23], (9) State of Idaho v. Tinno, a 1972 Idaho Supreme Court case involving a Lemhi, Gerald Tinno, who was indicted for violating fishing regulations, though in the end the court upheld his exercise of tribal treaty rights. The final chapter brings the story of the Lemhi Shoshones and the Salmon River country up to the present by focusing on the contemporary Lemhi campaign for land restoration and recognition. The Lewis and Clark bicentennial provides an auspicious occasion for realizing such goals, even though the odds against the Lemhis seem great.

introduction

xxiii

[-24], (10

Lines: 74 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[-24], (10

Sacajawea’s People

[-25], (11)

Lines: 76 to 87 ———

*

468.596pt

——— Normal Page * PgEnds: PageB [-25], (11)

[-26], (12

Lines: 87 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[-26], (12

1

The Lemhi Shoshones and the Salmon River Country The Lemhi . . . declare that they originated in the locality now occupied by them. Robert Lowie, 1906

Understanding Lemhi identity starts with the Salmon River country. The Lemhi Indian people’s aboriginal homeland there is one of the more remote areas in the continental United States. The Bitterroot mountain range, which forms the Continental Divide, and the Beaverhead Mountains border it to the east and north, and the rugged Selway-Bitterroot and Frank Church River of No Return wilderness areas bar easy access from the west and north. Two mountain ranges to the south run parallel to the Bitterroots: the Lemhi and Lost River ranges. The latter boasts Borah Peak, Idaho’s highest point at 12,662 feet. The Salmon River’s nickname—the River of No Return—reflects the isolation of the area. The terrain around the Salmon River canyon is rugged and mountainous—the river falls more than a vertical mile in a 390-mile stretch, and the canyon is over 6,000 feet deep in places, a depth greater than the Grand Canyon and second only to nearby Hells Canyon. There are various accounts of the origin of the moniker River of No Return. It has been attributed to Lewis and Clark; the Salmon River canyon, after all, was the only obstacle that forced the Corps of Discovery to backtrack. Other accounts credit the National Geographic Society for coining the phrase in its 1936 article describing an expedition it cosponsored with the United States Geological Survey. But the name River of No Return probably originated among early settlers of the area because the river was navigable to downstream, but not upstream, traffic. Indeed, even downstream navigation proved challenging. John McKay, a prospector, is credited with the first successful journey down the Salmon in 1871. Thereafter, the Northern Pacific and Midland Pacific railroads sponsored aborted survey expeditions for rail lines that were never built. Finally, in 1901 Harry “Cap”

1

[First Page] [1], (1)

Lines: 0 to 46 ———

2.75pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [1], (1)

Guleke managed to guide a prospector through, winning for himself much local acclaim in the process. 1 When the National Geographic Society later duplicated his feat, it credited him with the first successful trip down the river and modeled the boat it used on the scow that he had designed for his journey. The Society did not come up with the name River of No Return, but its article, together with the 1954 film entitled River of No Return, starring Marilyn Monroe and Robert Mitchum, certainly helped to popularize it. 2 Prior to the arrival of non-Indians, the Lemhi Shoshones had long inhabited the upper reaches of the Salmon River. They named it after the feature most notable to them: the salmon runs that formed the base of their subsistence. 3 When the Corps of Discovery reached the confluence of the Lemhi and Salmon rivers on August 21, 1805, Clark named it Lewis’s River in honor of Lewis being the first non-Indian to see it. But the name never took hold because later inhabitants, like the Lemhis before them, continued to identify the river with its prolific salmon runs. 4 Humans have inhabited the Salmon River country for more than ten thousand years, but the link between the earliest residents and the Lemhi Shoshones of the historical era is the subject of much debate. 5 Scholars have generally agreed that the Lemhis and other Northern Shoshone Indians speak Numic, part of a family of related languages within the Uto-Aztecan group whose speakers expanded into what is now Idaho from some other place. The consensus, however, ends there, as there has been widespread disagreement over when this “Numic expansion”took place, where it started, and how and why it proceeded. David Madsen and David Rhode, editors of a volume of essays that displays the diversity of scholarly opinion on the Numic expansion, have discerned three major categories of models for the spread of Numic speakers. 6 The first of these categories is the “traditionalist” view, which most closely resembles the model put forth by the pioneers of the concept of the Numic expansion, most notably Sydney Lamb. Drawing on Alfred Kroeber’s recognition of the distribution of Numic languages, and employing lexicostatistical methodology, Lamb proposed in 1958 that the Numic peoples expanded to the north and east from the southwestern Great Basin in what is now southern California and Utah approximately one thousand years ago. 7

2

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

[2], (2)

Lines: 46 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [2], (2)

[3], (3)

Lines: 66 to 66 ———

*

24.49051pt ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [3], (3)

Lemhi aboriginal territory in the Salmon River country, according to the determination of the Indian Claims Commission (1962). The inset map, at left, indicates the location of the modern Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area (above) and the Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area (below). Map by Sarah Moore.

Subsequent to Lamb’s articulation of the theory of Numic expansion, traditionalist scholars, including Robert L. Bettinger, Martin A. Baumhoff, David B. Madsen, and Wick Miller, among others, have fine-tuned Lamb’s linguistic work and complemented it with archeological evidence. Their work has supported Lamb’s general hypothesis and they tend to dismiss alternative theories.“Competing hypotheses,” Bettinger maintains in defense of Lamb,“which require fewer assumptions but do not engage the archeological or linguistic evidence in any detail (and frequently avoid specific reference to them altogether) are not presently viable alternatives.”8 The second major group of scholars identified by Rhode and Madsen, which they label the“Basinist”perspective, accepts Lamb’s concept of Numic expansion, but they argue that it occurred at an earlier date. Richard N. Holmer, for example, dates the arrival of the earliest ancestors of the Northern Shoshone in what is now Idaho to at least four thousand years ago. Holmer bases this conclusion on archeological evidence spanning late prehistoric to early historic times. The consistency over time of this “Shoshone assemblage,” he maintains, makes it “clear that the technological tradition practiced by the historical Shoshone has roots in the Great Basin that extend back 4,000 to 5,000 years into prehistory.”9 Donald K. Grayson concurs with Holmer that “the ancestors of modern Numic speakers entered much of the Great Basin as the middle Holocene ended, some 5,000 years ago or soon thereafter,” but his rejection of Lamb’s date is not based on archeology, as is Holmer’s, but rather on Lamb’s own forte, linguistics. Grayson argues that the shortcoming of Lamb’s hypothesis lay in his methodological reliance on lexicostatistics, or glottochronology, 10 which, he notes, “has been rejected by nearly all historical linguists.”Followers of Lamb, Grayson concludes, have overlooked “a simple and undeniable fact. Glottochronology does not work.”11 The third category of scholarship on Numic expansion identified by Rhode and Madsen is the work of those “unconcerned with the point-of-origin squabbles” who focus more on the periphery of the area inhabited by Numic speakers. These “peripheralists,” as they are called, “do not particularly care which of the first two models is the more valid as long as an expansion across much of the Colorado Plateaus in the last thousand years is included.”12

4

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

[4], (4)

Lines: 66 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [4], (4)

Despite the variety of competing models that fit within the general framework of the paradigm first articulated by Lamb, there are also scholars who reject altogether the validity of the theory of a relatively recent Numic expansion to the north and east from the southwestern Great Basin. Deward E. Walker, for example, has argued that Lamb’s linguistic hypothesis is one part of a “three-pronged anthropological research paradigm” that also includes Julian Steward’s ethnographic work and Jesse Jennings’s Desert Culture concept. Together, these views have come to be accepted as orthodoxy, so that scholars studying or theorizing about Numic speakers have been predisposed to emphasize their adaptation to desert environments. But for Walker it is the affinity that Northern Shoshone peoples have had with Plateau culture area groups and the Plains influence on the peoples in the eastern parts of the Plateau and Great Basin that are more striking. 13 For Walker, then, the fact that the Lemhi Shoshones and other “northern Numic groups can be easily grouped with Plateau cultural systems” contradicts the theory that Numic speakers were relatively recent arrivals from the desert south, as proponents of the Lamb hypothesis have insisted. Nor does Walker accept that Holmer’s argument for an earlier arrival of the ancestors of the Lemhi Shoshones reconciles the problem. For one thing, Walker maintains, “the linking of specific tool assemblages with particular ethnographic/linguistic groupings is suspect.” Moreover, he points out that the “effort to employ the Numic-spread concept to interpret Shoshone-Bannock prehistory by use of various tool types is valid only if the Numicspread idea is valid.”14 While Walker concedes that “many archeologists still adhere” to the Lamb thesis, he also notes that alternative models have been proposed. Earl Swanson, Walker explains, was one of the first archeologists to reject Lamb’s paradigm. In 1972 Swanson suggested, in direct contradiction to Lamb, that the Numic peoples spread from the northern Rocky Mountains to the south and west, rather than north and east from the southwestern Great Basin. This scenario, which posits that the Lemhis in historical times occupied the regions closest to the source of their cultural predecessors, instead of relegating them to the margins of the Great Basin culture area, is more consistent with Walker’s view of the Lemhi Shoshones as part of the Plateau cultural systems. 15

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

5

[5], (5)

Lines: 74 to 80 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [5], (5)

While archeologists have been reluctant to abandon the Lamb paradigm, linguists have been far more critical. In 1977 James A. Goss, for example, as Walker explains, criticized scholars for their blind acceptance of the Lamb hypothesis. The Lamb version of the Numic spread, he argued, became a “pet model” for prehistorians, and their commitment to it undermined other competing interpretations and the evidence that supported them. Like Swanson, Goss rejected the Lamb model and its recent arrival hypothesis, and with Swanson argued that Numic speakers appeared in the Great Basin and southern Idaho as long ago as ten thousand years. 16 In sum, there is wide disagreement among prehistorians concerning the origins of the earliest ancestors of the Lemhis and the time of their arrival in the Salmon River country. There is, however, one final view that merits consideration: that of the Lemhi Shoshones themselves. The controversy over the Numic spread is more than a debate among scholars; it has serious legal repercussions as well. “In the past,” Pat Barker and Cynthia Pinto explain, “archeologists have controlled the archeological record through appeals to its scientific importance. In the late 1970s,” they continue, “the appeal to science began to lose its political effectiveness and Native American claims to control of the indigenous past began to prevail in the legislative arena.” This trend, they point out, is well illustrated by a comparison of the provisions of the 1979 Archeological Resources Protection Act and the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 17 The issue of Numic expansion also has political overtones. The Western Shoshones, for instance, “believe that the scientific position is another way for whites to repress the rights of native people,” and therefore “the discipline is now tainted as being politically motivated.” While prehistorians debate over the timing and nature of the Numic expansion, “the Western Shoshone assert that they have always lived within the ethnographic territory that they held at the time of contact,” in accordance with their creation narratives. 18 According to Robert Lowie, an anthropologist who did fieldwork among the Lemhis prior to their removal to Fort Hall in 1907, the same is true with the Lemhi Shoshones. Lemhi oral tradition holds that they originated in the Salmon River country, rather than migrating there from some other place. 19

6

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

[6], (6)

Lines: 80 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [6], (6)

The two most prominent figures in Northern Shoshone mythology are Coyote and his older, wiser brother, Wolf. Coyote, the trickster and father of all Indians,20 is also credited with stealing fire from Crane’s people and bringing it to the Indians, 21 and with introducing obsidian flaking. Wolf is sometimes credited with the creation of the sun, the moon, and animals. Northern Shoshone mythology also includes a number of supernatural beings, including Dzoavits, a race of huge ogres who live in stone houses; Pandzoavits, a giant who lives in the water but hides at the approach of humans; Pabihiano, the water youths; Pagutc, the water buffalo; Paona, the water baby, whom Indians never see but can hear crying at night; and, among others, Nunumbi, a two-foot-tall but stout and strong little boy who hunts in the mountains with a bow and arrow, and to whom sudden deaths are sometimes attributed. In addition, Northern Shoshone mythology includes stories of anthropomorphic cannibals, or Nomorika. These are often portrayed as dwarfs that inhabit the mountains, like Nunumbi, with whom they are often associated, except, Lowie notes, among the Lemhis, who do not consider cannibals to be dwarfs. 22 In the Northern Shoshone creation myth, Coyote was lying under a blanket singing when he felt something on his legs. He peeked through a hole in the blanket and saw that it was a beautiful girl dancing on his legs, but when he removed his blanket she disappeared. The next time Coyote felt the girl on his legs, he jumped up and ran after her, catching up with her at the edge of the sea. She indicated that she lived on an island with her mother and offered to take Coyote there with her. She carried Coyote on her back as she walked across the water but dropped him part way and continued on, assuming that he had drowned. But Coyote swam to the shore and reached the island before the girl; there he saw two wickiups with the girl’s mother sitting outside. She invited Coyote inside one of them. When the girl arrived, she explained to her mother that she had dropped Coyote in the water, but her mother told her that Coyote was inside. The girl cooked some duck eggs for Coyote, but he ate only a few. Coyote noticed that there were quivers hanging in the wickiup, and this frightened him. He went outside and asked his anus for advice. His anus told him to be careful, that the women killed and ate all the men that came to visit them. His anus told him that the women had teeth in their vaginas, and advised him to break them off with

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

7

[7], (7)

Lines: 88 to 92 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [7], (7)

his elkhorn scraper. That night, Coyote lay down next to the girl, and the mother fastened the door with a rope to keep him in. He hoped that the rats would come gnaw the rope while it was dark so he could escape if he needed to, and they did. Feeling more secure, he looked under the girl’s blanket and saw that she did indeed have teeth in her vagina. Coyote escaped and swam back across the sea to the place where he had been lying before, and where he had left his tools. He then went to sleep, and when he awoke he put on his paint and went to the shore where he killed a duck. He returned to the island where the women lived and gave the mother the duck and some eggs. The girl was not there because she was out looking for some people to kill, but she returned later with some ducks of her own. The girl informed her mother that she had not found Coyote; once again the mother indicated to the daughter that he was in the wickiup. She found him handsome in his paint and again cooked eggs for him, and again he ate only a few. That night, the mother again told the girl to lie down by Coyote and she did. Coyote went outside and got his tools. Then he lay down and embraced the girl and broke out the teeth in her vagina with his elkhorn scraper. He did the same to the mother. After intercourse, the women sent Coyote for water. They told him to go to a place far away where they were accustomed to getting water, but he was afraid to go there and so went to a closer place instead. When he came back they told him it was bad water that he had fetched and sent him out again. While Coyote was gone, the women gave birth to great numbers of babies. When Coyote returned with the water, they used it to wash all the babies except two, and these were all the tribes of Indians except the Shoshones, which were left off to the side for Coyote to wash. There would have been nothing but Shoshones had Coyote washed all the babies, but he did not, and he told his children to be brave and to not be afraid of the other Indians, who would always be fighting with them. 23 So, while scholars cite linguistic and archeological evidence in an ongoing debate over the timing, nature, and validity of Lamb’s Numic spread hypothesis, the Lemhi Shoshones offer a very different perspective of their origins and of their arrival in the Salmon River country. Their evidence—traditional creation narratives and

8

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

[8], (8)

Lines: 92 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [8], (8)

mythology—indicate that they are the descendants of Coyote and that the Lemhis have inhabited their aboriginal homeland since creation. For archeologists and other scholars, questions about the ancestral Lemhi Shoshones are matters for scientific inquiry; for the Lemhis, the issue cannot be divorced from their religious beliefs and cultural identity. Many archeologists become frustrated that Indian peoples are not more interested in and supportive of their work. They hold that they are helping Indians preserve their culture and history. But this “Indians as artifacts” tactic, as archeologist Larry Zimmerman has labeled it,“is a much more insidious attack on Indian culture than many realize, in that it divests Indians of their past. The idea that the distant past cannot be known except by archeological methods,” Zimmerman continues, “strips Indian peoples of an important aspect of identity.”24 If questions of the timing and logistics of the Numic expansion have divided scholars, issues of the political and social organization and geographical distribution of the Northern Shoshones and other groups have also been a source of much discord. The debates, now famous, that occurred between Julian Steward and Omer Stewart, opposing expert witnesses before the Indian Claims Commission (icc) during the 1950s, 1960s, and early 1970s, provided the starting point for a great deal of the literature published over recent decades on Great Basin Indian groups. While theoretical differences between Steward and Stewart predated the icc cases, “it was really in the context of the icc proceedings that the divergence flowered into a full-blown debate.” Thereafter, the disagreement “moved from the relative obscurity of the icc proceedings to the literature on the Great Basin culture area.”25 Tribes that brought aboriginal land claims before the commission were required to demonstrate that they had held “exclusive use and occupancy” of those lands. Julian Steward testified on behalf of the government in the Shoshone and other claims because he held that “the Shoshone Indians were not organized by economics, social networks, religion, or politics into any sort of recognizable entity that could hold legal title to territory.” Omer Stewart, on the other hand, testified for the tribes as one of their expert witnesses, arguing “that they had political organization on the ‘band’ level and that these bands had distinct territories with boundaries.”26

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

9

[9], (9)

Lines: 100 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [9], (9)

Ultimately, the commission agreed with Stewart and the tribes. In the case of the Lemhis, this meant that it determined that they were a “distinct tribe or identifiable group of Shoshone.” Indeed, in its 1962 opinion the commission expressed the view that the Lemhis were “one of the most cohesive of all the Shoshone groups.” The icc accepted, moreover, that the Lemhis had occupied a specific territory in the Salmon River country, and it found “no evidence of joint use of the Lemhi Tribe’s lands by other Shoshone groups.”27 The commission’s recognition of Lemhi political organization and land tenure translated into a settlement of $4.5 million for the government’s wrongful seizure of over five million acres of the Lemhi Shoshones’ traditional homeland. The sum was awarded to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall in 1971. 28 Nonetheless, the opposing “no bands, no headmen, no territories” view that Steward had expressed before the commission remained persuasive to many in academia throughout subsequent decades. Steward’s ideas were presented to the scholarly community in his principle ethnographic work, the 1938 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups, and his most significant theoretical work, Theory of Culture Change: The Methodology of Multilinear Evolution, first published in 1955. For many anthropologists, the former work was “regarded for decades as the ‘prime resource of information about the distribution and cultural characteristics’ on the indigenous nations of the Great Basin.”29 But Omer Stewart’s interpretation also had its adherents, and the debate between Stewart and Steward continued beyond the icc proceedings into the scholarly realm. 30 Ultimately, in 1974 Omer Stewart “had the final word in the debate. Just a few months after Julian Steward’s death in 1972, he presented ‘The Western Shoshone of Nevada and the U.S. Government, 1863–1950,’ at the Great Basin Anthropological Conference, where he made a point of noting the Shoshones’ tenacious attachment to their land.”31 A recent contribution to the Steward-Stewart debate by Deward Walker is highly critical of Julian Steward. “Although Julian Steward’s ethnographic model of the Great Basin Shoshone has been employed to characterize northern Numic groups,” Walker writes, “it fails to accurately represent them.” Part of the problem with Steward’s interpretation, in Walker’s view, is that he did not conduct any field-

10

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

[10], (10)

Lines: 106 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[10], (10)

work in the northern Great Basin areas, and so was unfamiliar with southern Idaho. This, in part, Walker suggests, predisposed Steward to overemphasize the importance of Desert Culture characteristics among Northern Shoshone peoples and to assume that the areas they inhabited were characterized by a paucity of natural resources. Consequently, Steward assumes, wrongly in Walker’s opinion, that Northern Shoshone political and social organization was necessarily rudimentary. 32 Drawing heavily on the work of Omer Stewart and also Sven Liljeblad, and focusing on the northernmost Numic groups, Walker proposes an alternative ethnographic model for the northern Numic speakers. In contrast to the scarcity of resources depicted by Steward, Walker maintains “that the natural environment and resources in southern Idaho were relatively abundant, were frequently concentrated, and provided for semipermanent villages that aggregated the population into riverine-defined settlement patterns similar to Plateau patterns.”33 The Plateau influence was particularly pronounced among the Lemhi Shoshones, the northernmost of the Northern Shoshone. As Greg Campbell has demonstrated, the political entity or “tribalnation” that came to be known as the Lemhi tribe emerged through a process of ethnogenesis, a “multiethnic fusion” of distinct societies, which culminated during the second half of the nineteenth century. But the process began much earlier, in Campbell’s view, as early as the Numic expansion. 34 Traveling through the Great Basin in small bands that subsisted on insects, roots, nuts, and small game, the Fort Hall Shoshones more closely reflected the Great Basin cultural characteristics that they shared with the Western Shoshones. The Lemhis, in the relatively abundant country to the north, adopted characteristics associated with Plateau culture, and local staples such as deer, mountain sheep, camas, and particularly salmon were at the center of their economy. 35 The groups that amalgamated to form the Lemhi Shoshones were the Agaidikas (Salmoneaters), Tukudekas (Sheepeaters), and Kucundikas (Buffaloeaters). In addition, after the introduction of the horse, some Bannock—Northern Paiute–speaking Indians—who had come from eastern Oregon to Fort Hall joined these groups. 36

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

11

[11], (11)

Lines: 112 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [11], (11)

The Agaidikas inhabited the Lemhi River valley, where the Lemhi Reservation would later be established. While the Agaidikas had frequent contact with their Northern Shoshone relatives to the south, Campbell argues that they were culturally and politically “unique in that their continued political and economic associations with the Salish and Nez Perce (and other Plateau peoples) . . . contributed to a distinct socio-political tribal entity, creating clear sociological distinctions with Agaidika residing elsewhere.” These interactions also contributed to a cultural conservativism among the Agaidikas that set them apart from other Northern Shoshone groups. 37 The Tukudekas hunted mountain sheep and other game in the rugged mountains around the upper Salmon River drainage. Their economy was similar to the Agaidikas’ but “they spent comparatively more time at fishing than in other ways of gathering food; moreover, [they] spent more time at hunting than at fishing.”38 The Tukudekas were probably the“Broken Moccasins”to whom Lewis and Clark made reference,39 but their impoverishment has been overemphasized. According to Sven Liljeblad, the Tukudekas “were much better off than other Shoshone, save the buffalo-hunters,” and “they belonged to the Plateau rather than to the Basin, and they had developed their sort of Plateau culture to a high degree of perfection.”40 Their isolation has also been exaggerated. While they had less frequent contact with other groups than did the Agaidikas, nonetheless, like the Agaidikas, the Tukudekas “because of their geography and interactions with non–Northern Shoshone societies, were more conservative culturally than other Shoshone bands. These societies,” Campbell continues, “maintained their own traditions and distinct spheres of social interaction with other societies.”41 The Fort Hall Shoshones, whom the Lemhis called the Pohogwes, or Sage Brush People, designated both the Agaidikas and Tukudekas as Agaidikas—unifying the two distinct groups as one. While the two peoples distinguished between themselves, they cooperated occasionally in food-procuring activities and they also visited one another. Ultimately, the common designation came to be appropriate, for the Tukudekas were, by about the middle of the nineteenth century, incorporated into the Agaidikas’ sociopolitical system. 42 The introduction of the horse had a tremendous impact on life in the Salmon River country. 43 Lowie reported that the Lemhis had

12

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

[12], (12)

Lines: 120 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[12], (12)

no historical tradition as to when they obtained the horse, but they possessed an established equestrian culture by the time Lewis and Clark arrived. According to Clark, the Lemhis had acquired horses from the Comanches, and he observed Spanish brands, bridle bits, and stirrups in the Lemhi herds. 44 Horses were probably first introduced to the Lemhis sometime in the late seventeenth century via Fort Hall. 45 The mobility afforded by the horse enabled the Lemhi Shoshones to place greater reliance on hunting bison, absent from Idaho since the 1840s. Some Agaidikas, together with a few Tukudekas, began to cross the mountains into present-day Montana, where vast herds ranged. These people came to be known as the Kukundikas, or Buffaloeaters. Others made little use of the horse, preferring to follow their traditional way of life, particularly the more conservative Tukudekas. While the Salmon River country peoples were closely allied with Plateau tribes, they also interacted with visitors from the Fort Hall area who came to fish for salmon and to join in bison-hunting trips. By the mid– nineteenth century, some Paiute-speaking families—Bannocks from the Fort Hall area—became permanent residents, amalgamating with the Kukundikas in the Lemhi Valley. 46 After the introduction of the horse, the Lemhis experienced a higher degree of political organization, as smaller bands of hunters and gatherers joined together under the direction of band chiefs who organized hunting expeditions. In addition to the greater technical demands of the bison hunt, encounters with enemy tribes—Gros Ventre, Blackfeet, and Crows—on the bison grounds necessitated greater organization for defense. 47 While both the Northern Shoshones around Fort Hall and those in the Salmon River country embraced mounted bison hunting, each did so according to the benefits it added to their preexisting economic systems. The increased food supply that came with bison allowed the Fort Hall Shoshones to travel in larger groups, but Liljeblad explained that they “continued to make substantial use of the desert flora and fauna, thus retaining much of the basin-type food gathering as a substratum in their economy.” The Lemhis in the relatively abundant country to the north also readily embraced bison hunting into their economy, but it “was superimposed on a subsistence pattern similar to that of the Plateau Indians, with salmon fishing continuing as their principle source of livelihood.”48 The hunting and gathering practices

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

13

[13], (13)

Lines: 124 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [13], (13)

of the mounted Lemhis, then, differed from those of their relatives to the south around Fort Hall. The Fort Hall Shoshones proceeded from one food-procuring activity to the next in a seasonal migratory cycle as a single band. The Lemhis, by contrast, obtained their fare in smaller groups that focused on a single activity for a longer period of time, so that one group might be hunting bison while another fished for salmon and yet another dug camas. 49 “Rather than leading to the disintegration of the group as a whole,” Sven Liljeblad has argued,“this versatility and liberty in pursuing different food-producing activities resulted in a communal unanimity as nowhere else among the Idaho Shoshoni.”50 On the eve of the arrival of Lewis and Clark in the Salmon River country, the distinct groups that would form the tribe historically known as Lemhis had begun coalescing into a single political entity. In the course of the century after the Corps of Discovery introduced the Lemhis to the non-Indian world, the process would culminate as the Lemhi Shoshones maneuvered to meet the changes that came with the arrival of large numbers of non-Indians into their homeland. Ultimately, the arrival of whites resulted in the removal of the Lemhi tribe from the Salmon River country.

[Last Page

[14], (14)

Lines: 130 ———

226.959

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[14], (14)

14

the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country

2

Contact, Ethnogenesis, and Exile from the Salmon River Country, 1805–1907 Those Indians are mild in their disposition, appear sincere in their friendship, punctual, and decided. Kind with what they have, to spare. . . . The women are held more sacred among them than any nation we have seen and appear to have an equal share in all conversation, which is not the case in any other nation I have seen. William Clark, journal entry of August 21, 1805 They never left willingly. . . . They packed their meager belongings on horses, strapped the ends of their wick-i-up poles to the sides of the horses and they dragged them along. They were very sad and passed thru the valley, crying. The ranchers along the way could hear their crying for some distance before they passed their homes. The ranchers were near tears and some did cry. They were so sorry for them, having to go against their will. I’m still sorry for we had great respect for Chief Tendoy and his tribe. Nora Yearian Whitwell, Lemhi Valley pioneer, recalling in 1965 the Lemhis’ removal to Fort Hall in 1907

The arrival of the Corps of Discovery in the Salmon River country in August 1805 inaugurated the Lemhi Shoshones’ interactions with non-Indian peoples. The first half of the nineteenth century saw limited white encroachment into the Lemhis’ traditional homeland, and while the Lemhis became progressively more familiar with the nonIndian world, their lifestyle remained much the same as it had been before contact. The second half of that century, however, was marked by increasing white settlement in the Lemhi Valley and surrounding regions. This resulted in the depletion of the resources on which the Lemhi Shoshones depended, so that they were forced from their traditional lands, first to a tiny reservation in the valley, and ultimately, out of the Salmon River country altogether with their removal to Fort

15

[First Page] [15], (1)

Lines: 0 to 70 ———

7.5pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [15], (1)

Hall in 1907. The Lemhi Shoshones welcomed white Americans to their valley with the hospitality that they showed the Corps of Discovery. In return, white Americans would force them into exile just over a century later. The Lemhi Shoshone story as it relates to the Lewis and Clark expedition began in the fall of 1800 in the Three Forks area of the Missouri River, where Hidatsa raiders from a Knife River village in what is now North Dakota attacked a Lemhi band that had ventured across the mountains to hunt bison. In the fighting that ensued, a number of the Lemhis were killed and several others were taken prisoner, including Sacajawea, a girl about twelve years old. She was later married or was sold to Toussaint Charbonneau, a trader and interpreter with ties to the North West Company whom Lewis and Clark met at Fort Mandan on the Missouri River in late 1804 and subsequently hired as a member of the expedition. The acquisition of Charbonneau meant that the Corps also gained the services of Sacajawea, a Shoshone speaker. 1 The journey was a momentous one for the young Lemhi Shoshone woman. As the Corps made its way up the Missouri River she became a mother, giving birth to Charbonneau’s son on February 11, 1805. 2 Joining the expedition also meant that Sacajawea would return to her homeland in the Salmon River country for the first time in five years. As the Corps approached the Continental Divide in the late summer of 1805, Lewis recorded in his journal—a moment now famous in American history—that Sacajawea had “recognized the point of a high plain to our right which she informed us was not very distant from the summer retreat of her nation on a river beyond the mountains which runs to the west.”3 A scouting party of three men under Lewis was dispatched ahead of the main body of the expedition to make contact with the Lemhi Shoshones to obtain the horses they desperately needed and guidance in finding a route over the mountains. 4 On August 11, three days after Sacajawea had recognized familiar terrain, Lewis was “overjoyed” to record that he had “discovered an Indian on horseback” and deduced “from his dress that he was of a different nation from any that we had yet seen, and was satisfied of his being a Sosone” (Lewis’s spelling for Shoshone). 5 But actual contact with the Lemhi Shoshones proved more elusive. The Indian mounted on an “elegant” horse fled the scouting party

16

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

[16], (2)

Lines: 70 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [16], (2)

when the distance between them closed to within a mile. As the party followed the Indian trail over Lemhi Pass a few days later, on August 13, a group of two Lemhi Shoshone women and one man also fled as Lewis and his men tried to approach them. The scouting party was, after all, advancing from the direction of enemy territory, and the Lemhis had recently endured a punishing Atsina raid and so had good cause to be cautious. 6 But later that day, as the party explored the descent into the Lemhi Valley, they again encountered a group of Lemhi women; one fled while two others remained, apparently resigned to their fate. Lewis distributed some gifts and managed to convey that he wanted them to lead him to the main encampment. As the party followed the women, they came upon a band of some sixty mounted Lemhis under the leadership of Cameahwait. Seeing that the strangers intended no harm, the Lemhis welcomed them warmly with embraces until Lewis grew “heartily tired of the national hug.” After smoking a pipe, the distribution of more gifts, two speeches by Cameahwait, and discussions in which Lewis assured the Lemhis of his good intentions, the party was led to the main camp along the east bank of the Lemhi River, some seven miles from the present-day town of Tendoy, Idaho. 7 As Clark and the main body of the Corps labored to bring the boats up the Beaverhead River, Lewis spent a full day at the Lemhi camp. There, he worked at gaining geographical information from Cameahwait and also endeavored to convince the Lemhis to follow him back over Lemhi Pass with their horses to meet Clark and help to bring the expedition and its equipment back to the Lemhi River. 8 In terms of the first goal, gaining an understanding of the lay of the land and the route to the Pacific, Lewis was confronted with both hopeful and discouraging news. The Lemhis had only meager rations for themselves but shared food, including some salmon, with Lewis and his men, a clear indication to Lewis that he was on the right track to the ocean. 9 Moreover, Cameahwait informed him that the Lemhi River joined another, larger river about a half a day’s walk away. 10 The “unwelcome information” that Cameahwait imparted was that the larger river, the Salmon, “was confined between inaccessible mountains, was very rapid and rocky insomuch that it was impossible for us to pass either by land or water.” Nonetheless, Lewis “still hoped

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

17

[17], (3)

Lines: 78 to 85 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [17], (3)

that this account had been exaggerated with a view to detain us among them.”11 In the event that Cameahwait’s report was accurate, however, the acquisition of horses became even more critical. On this front, too, Lewis had reason for both optimism and pessimism. George Drouillard, a hunter and interpreter on the expedition who was in Lewis’s advance party, reported that the Lemhi Shoshones possessed around four hundred good horses and mules. Cameahwait, meanwhile, was receptive to the idea of crossing the mountains to rendezvous with the main body of the expedition and ferry them back. But many Lemhis were more cautious and suspicious. They feared that the whole proposal was nothing but a ruse, that Lewis and his men were in collusion with their enemies to draw them into a trap. But in the end, Lewis was able to induce a sufficient number of Lemhis to agree to accompany him, promising the potential of supplying them with something that they wanted as desperately as the expedition needed horses: the firearms and ammunition that would help to offset the balance of power with the Hidatsas, Blackfeet, and other tribes that had been raiding the Lemhis. These tribes had access to firearms from Canadian traders. The Lemhi trading network had also provided the Lemhis with nonIndian goods, as they obtained Spanish trading materials through middlemen, but the Spanish borderlands policy restricted trade in weapons. 12 Lewis’s scouting party and a party of Lemhis departed on the morning of August 15 for a fork in the Beaverhead River they had previously deemed Shoshoni Cove, where the rendezvous with the main body of the expedition was to take place. But hauling the boatloads of equipment up the river was arduous work, and Cameahwait’s band and Lewis’s party passed a few tension-filled days waiting for the reunion. 13 Finally, on the seventeenth, the main body of the expedition, including Sacajawea, arrived. 14 At the sight of the Shoshones, she sucked her fingers, a sign indicating that these were the people who had nurtured her as an infant. Amidst the celebration of the meeting, one of the Lemhi women in Lewis’s group recognized Sacajawea—they had both been captured in the same Hidatsa raid years earlier but she had managed to escape. Now both had returned to their own people. Then, in one of the more remarkable coincidences imaginable, Sacajawea recognized Cameahwait as her brother, and the two had an emotional reunion. It

18

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

[18], (4)

Lines: 85 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [18], (4)

was not the first time, as historian James Ronda points out, that “the stars had danced for Lewis and Clark.”15 The reunion of the Corps of Discovery was short-lived. After unloading the canoes, Lewis and Clark devised a plan to continue their expedition to the Pacific. It called for Clark, Charbonneau, Sacajawea, and eleven men to cross back to the Lemhi camp in the Lemhi Valley. Charbonneau and Sacajawea would remain there to supervise the ferrying of the expedition’s baggage from that end, while the others joined Clark in reconnoitering the Salmon River country in order to confirm for themselves how formidable the water routes were. Meanwhile, Lewis would remain with the main body of the expedition, at what came to be known as Camp Fortunate, overseeing the transportation operation from there. In the six days he spent at Camp Fortunate, “Lewis discovered and recorded a vast store of information about Shoshoni life.” Ultimately, everybody would reconvene on the Lemhi River. 16 By August 23 Clark had traveled some fifty miles beyond the confluence of the Lemhi and Salmon rivers and found that the reports that it was not navigable were indeed accurate. When he got to a point the horses could not pass, he left his party behind and proceeded on. What he found was a stretch of river that was “almost one continued rapid, five very considerable rapids the passage of either with canoes is entirely impossible, as water is confined between huge rocks and the current beating from one against another for some distance below.”17 In addition, Clark’s Lemhi guide—Old Toby 18—informed him that the section of river he had seen “was small and trifling in comparison to the rocks and rapids below.”19 Meanwhile, Clark had learned from Cameahwait that there was a less direct but more feasible route that led over the mountains from the north fork of the Salmon River across Lost Trail Pass to the Bitterroot Valley, from which the expedition could take the Lolo Trail to Nez Perce country, where there was a navigable water passage to the Pacific. Old Toby would guide the Corps along this route. On August 24 Clark wrote to Lewis explaining the situation. 20 The same day, Lewis departed Camp Fortunate, the movement of the supplies from Shoshoni Cove to the village in the Lemhi Valley being complete. But the Lemhis had postponed their bison hunt to assist the Corps, and by now they were very short of food, causing

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

19

[19], (5)

Lines: 88 to 96 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [19], (5)

many to become anxious if not alarmed. Cameahwait was under a great deal of pressure to depart for the bison ranges, and only threats and entreaties from Lewis prevented his decision to go. 21 Finally, at the end of August the move over Lemhi Pass was complete, with the Corps of Discovery and its gear reassembled at the Lemhi village. There, trading commenced that would provide the expedition with the horses it required to take the Nez Perce trail that Old Toby knew. The Lemhis obviously understood how desperately the Corps needed their horses, and they drove hard bargains. In the end, Ronda explains, “Lewis and Clark had paid dearly for castoffs of the Shoshoni herd. The Shoshonis had proven to be better Yankee traders than the Americans.”22 During the month of August 1805 the Lemhis had made critical contributions to the success of the Corps of Discovery. Sacajawea served the expedition as an interpreter, but more importantly her very presence afforded the Corps a more welcome reception among the Lemhis than it otherwise would have had. The Lemhis provided the expedition with the horses that it so desperately needed, imparted information about the geography of the area, and even offered a guide, Old Toby, to help the expedition navigate its way across the Beaverhead Mountains to the Bitterroot Valley, from whence it could cross the Bitterroots over Lolo Pass to the Lolo Trail and descend into Nez Perce country in the Clearwater River drainage, with its passable route to the Columbia River watershed and the Pacific. In the decades following the Lewis and Clark expedition, the Lemhis remained relatively isolated from contact with non-Indians. Raids by the Blackfeet and other enemy tribes were of much greater concern than white incursions into the remote Salmon River country. But the fur trade era did bring a non-Indian presence to the region. The North West Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company, among others, sent trapping expeditions into the Salmon River country beginning in the 1820s and continuing into the early 1830s. 23 The fur-trapping expeditions, however, were not disruptive to the Lemhis’ way of life; trappers remained in the region for brief periods of time and they “operated in parties that approximated [the Lemhis’] own migratory bands, both in organization and in subsistence through hunting rather than farming.” Moreover, the parties brought “access to useful white tools and supplies during the fur trade era,” and “the

20

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

[20], (6)

Lines: 96 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [20], (6)

Route of Lewis and Clark in the Salmon River country. Map by Sarah Moore.

[21], (7)

Lines: 114 to 1

* ———

499.5pt Pg

——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX

[21], (7)

Lemhi Shoshoni made out relatively well for a generation or two after white contact.”24 By the mid–nineteenth century, however, more permanent nonIndian settlements began to penetrate the Lemhis’ homeland. In November 1850 John Owen, a Pennsylvanian who had emigrated over the Oregon Trail to Fort Hall, two hundred miles to the south of Lemhi Pass on the Snake River Plain, purchased a Catholic mission in the Bitterroot Valley where he established a trading post frequented by the Lemhis. 25 Located between Fort Owen to the north and Fort Hall to the south, the Lemhis’ relative isolation from sustained, direct contact with non-Indians ended in June 1855, when a contingent of twentyseven Mormon missionaries, under the leadership of Thomas S. Smith and dispatched by Brigham Young, president of the Church of Latterday Saints, arrived to colonize the Lemhi Valley. The endeavor began auspiciously. When the missionaries arrived they were greeted by Shoo-woo-koo, a headman among the Salmon River peoples, also known among French-Canadian trappers in the area who regarded him as a horse and cattle thief as “Le Grand Coquin,” or “the Great Rogue.” He offered them the use of the land for farming and encouraged them to settle in the valley. Moreover, the missionaries soon realized that the summer salmon runs attracted a number of other tribes, who came to trade and join in the bounty of the harvest; the Lemhi Valley, they believed, held great potential for converting Indians to the Mormon faith and for introducing them to the principles of civilization, which was their charge from Brigham Young. 26 Unwittingly, however, the Mormon missionaries had inserted themselves into a power struggle between competing headmen of the multiethnic Salmon River peoples. The primary leader was “Foul Hand,” or Qai-tan-an. Under Foul Hand was “Snag,” or Naw-ro-yawn, a relative of Cameahwait, and the war leader under him, another relative of Sacajawea, was Tendoy. Shoo-woo-koo, a Bannock, was vying for political power with this group, and his alliance with the Mormons was a calculated move designed to help him achieve his purpose. 27 In addition, in attempting to aid and minister to multiple and competing tribes, the Mormon missionaries became embroiled in a feud between the Nez Perces to the west and the Lemhi groups. 28

22

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

[22], (8)

Lines: 114 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [22], (8)

Oblivious to the political dynamics of the situation, the missionaries set about building their settlement. The site they chose was just a few miles from the camp on the Lemhi River that Lewis and Clark had visited, roughly two miles from the present-day town of Tendoy, Idaho, and about twenty miles above the confluence of the Lemhi and Salmon rivers. They erected a mud-walled fort with a log palisade, and then they constructed sixteen cabins inside, though this number eventually doubled as the number of missionaries grew. By 1857 their number had swelled to one hundred. The settlement also included a blacksmith shop, a sawmill, a well, irrigation works, and a corral for ponies and cattle. The missionaries took language classes in Shoshone and Paiute—their leadership included an interpreter, George Washington Hill—and they managed to baptize a number of Indians into the Mormon church, although without teaching them the finer points of doctrine. 29 The colonists had set out with provisions that they expected would last a year, even accounting for sharing with the tribes they hoped to convert; the strategy was to be a boon, rather than a burden, to the potential converts, to feed them rather than be fed by them. They expected to have a viable agricultural community established by the time their supplies ran out. But raising crops proved more difficult than constructing a settlement. The Mormon’s first planting, in 1855, was put in the ground too late, and swarms of grasshoppers devoured the seedlings that managed to sprout. The farming failure combined with the depletion of supplies caused by sharing with converts and other Indians meant that the colonists were forced to send parties back to Utah Territory for seed and supplies in the fall and again in winter. The missionaries planted again in the spring of 1856, but once again the crops were destroyed by a swarm of grasshoppers. Another relief expedition had to be dispatched for more seed and supplies in late June, though later in the year the colonists did manage to harvest a crop. 30 In April 1857 Brigham Young and a large entourage of church officials and their families—142 people total—left the Salt Lake Valley for the Salmon River mission. The group remained five days, and, despite the early agricultural failures, Young was duly impressed by the progress the missionaries had made. He took the unprecedented step of allowing them to take Indian wives to foster good relations

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

23

[23], (9)

Lines: 122 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [23], (9)

with the Lemhis, and three Mormon men did so. 31 In the end, Young “left for Salt Lake City encouraged that his most northerly branch was succeeding beyond all hopes.”32 But relations between the Mormons and the Lemhis deteriorated after Young’s departure, ultimately resulting in the missionaries being driven from the Lemhi Valley. While some Lemhis favored the alliance with the Mormons for practical and political reasons, others resented their use of the valley—their cutting of timber, pasturing of cattle, and particularly their shipment of eight wagonloads of smoked salmon to Utah Territory. The Lemhis had allowed that the missionaries could hunt and fish for their own subsistence, but they had explicitly forbade the use of the valley’s resources for sale or profit. The steady increase in the number of colonists also increasingly alarmed some Lemhis. In addition, trappers and mountain men in the Bitterrroot Valley spread anti-Mormon sentiments among the tribes and encouraged the Lemhis to raid the mission. The anti-Mormon sentiments were only exacerbated by news of the “Utah Expedition,” a federal army sent to replace Young as governor of Utah Territory and to ensure that federal dominion was maintained there. Finally, Shoo-woo-koo’s faction resented the Mormon friendship with the Nez Perces. 33 The event that actually precipitated the Mormon withdrawal, however, came on February 25, 1858, when two hundred Lemhis attacked the mission and made off with its herd of cattle and ponies, killing two missionaries and wounding several others in the process. In the aftermath, Smith convened a meeting to decide what to do, and a contingent was sent to Utah to obtain advice from Brigham Young. Meanwhile, some Lemhis who remained friendly with the missionaries tried to make amends and returned the stock that had not already been traded or butchered. When Young learned of the violence at the Lemhi mission, he ordered the missionaries to return to Utah, and sent supplies and militia to enable their departure. 34 While the Salmon River mission lasted less than three years, the name that they conferred on their fort—Limhi, for a Nephite king in the Book of Mormon—remained. The word Lemhi, which came to be applied to the valley, its river, and the people that inhabited it, was derived from Limhi. 35 But the mission left a far greater legacy than merely its name, for as anthropologist Gregory Campbell argues, the Salmon River mission “held significant sociological consequences

24

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

[24], (10)

Lines: 126 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[24], (10)

for the Tukudeka, Agaidika, Kucundika, and Bannock residing in the Salmon River Valley.”36 Prior to their interactions with the Mormon missionaries, Campbell explains, the Lemhi Valley “community consisted of affiliated, but semi-independent societies,” but “the emergence of a semipermanent indigenous community around the Mormon settlement created greater sense of territorial ownership and established further a core home base.” In addition, the material goods, foodstuffs, and protection from enemies that the mission offered better allowed the Lemhis “to maintain their sociopolitical autonomy.” Thus, Campbell concludes, “it is through the missionization process, in conjunction with surrounding political economic events, which forced the Mormon’s retreat from the territory, that these semi-independent societies merged into a unified socio-political body—the ‘Lemhi Shoshone.’ ” This process of “ethnic fusion” continued over the course of the century. 37 Ultimately, it was Snag who emerged as the principal leader of the Lemhis; Shoo-woo-koo’s bid for primary leadership failed. Although Shoo-woo-koo was the first to use the missionaries for his own ends, in the final analysis Snag proved more politically astute. He converted to the Mormon faith and established himself as an agent for peace, advising the missionaries of tensions between Shoo-woo-koo’s faction and the Nez Perces, brokering truces, and preventing raids. In these ways he neutralized Shoo-woo-koo’s attempt to gain leadership and established himself as the primary headman of the Lemhis. 38 Indeed, when Brigham Young visited the mission, it was Snag, not Shoowoo-koo, whom he recognized as head chief and held council with. When the Mormons later abandoned the fort, Smith acknowledged Snag’s position and friendship by giving him one thousand bushels of wheat. 39 Snag’s leadership, however, was short-lived. In the summer of 1862 a prospector named John White discovered gold to the north, in Grasshopper Creek in present-day Montana, sparking a rush of miners to the area and giving rise to the community of Bannack. By the winter, the town had a population of some five hundred miners, and several lodges of Lemhis were camped nearby. In early 1863 Snag, Tendoy, and several other Lemhis rode to Grasshopper Creek, where Snag stopped to bathe. While they were bathing, a group of white

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

25

[25], (11)

Lines: 132 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [25], (11)

men, including well-known road agent Buck Stinson, came across the Lemhis, whereupon Stinson opened fire, mortally wounding Snag. He later boasted that he had no reason for the killing other than “to add another notch to his gun.”40 In accordance with the victim’s dying wish, the Lemhis selected Tendoy, who had promised to maintain good relations with whites, rather than Snag’s more violent son, Peggi, as their principal leader the day following Snag’s death. 41 By designating Tendoy as his successor, Snag showed foresight and a keen understanding of the sort of leadership that was necessary for the Lemhis to persevere in a world that would require increasing interaction with non-Indians. In the decade after the failure of the Mormon mission, most of the traditional Tukudekas, or Sheepeaters, consolidated with the Lemhis, prompting even greater political organization. Simultaneously, the increasing interaction with whites required that the Lemhis establish themselves under a new kind of leader—one who was capable of negotiating with whites. Indeed, anthropologist Julian Steward has gone so far as to argue that the Lemhis “welded into a single band only at the instigation of the Government.”42 Tendoy’s first action as chief demonstrated the wisdom of Snag’s decision, and it set the tone for his leadership, which lasted to his death in 1907. First, he traveled to Bannack, where he addressed some of the town leaders in front of the general store. He reminded them that as war chief under his uncle, he had maintained peace with the miners and the town. Tendoy expressed a desire to continue friendly relations, but he indicated that the murder of Snag represented a challenge. If it was war with the Lemhis that the miners wanted, then they, the Lemhis, were not afraid to bring it to them. Having received apologies and assurances from the people of Bannack that the actions of Stinson and his cohorts did not reflect the attitudes of the majority of the mining camp, Tendoy returned to his own camp, where he managed to quell the desires of those Lemhis bent on revenge by pointing out the certain disaster that war with the whites would bring. Thereafter, he skillfully organized an extended bison hunt to the east that helped to settle the angry feelings of many Lemhis. 43 The Mormon abandonment of Fort Limhi had given the Lemhis a brief reprieve from non-Indian presence in the Salmon River country. In 1866, however, miners from Montana crossed the Bitterroots and

26

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

[26], (12)

Lines: 138 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[26], (12)

in July discovered gold in what came to be known as Napias Creek— from the Shoshone word for money—only seventeen miles west of the present-day town of Salmon, Idaho. A mining district was quickly organized, thousands of claims were filed, and a town was organized to accommodate the influx of prospectors. In a compromise between Civil War veterans, one end of the town was named Leesburg and the other end Grantsville, although custom eventually favored the former. In 1867 merchant George L. Shoup, later the last territorial governor of Idaho, the state’s first governor, and a U.S. congressman, laid out the town of Salmon, Idaho, which emerged as a supply center for the miners. The town, in turn, also lured ranchers and farmers into the Lemhi Valley, and their settlements encroached on the Lemhi Shoshones’ homeland. 44 Meanwhile, the federal government began to enter into treaty negotiations with the tribes in the region. In 1863 President Abraham Lincoln appointed Utah superintendent James Doty to head a special peace commission charged with negotiating treaties on behalf of the federal government that would ensure peace between Indians and non-Indians. Between July 2 and October 14 Doty’s commission concluded five treaties with different bands of Shoshones. The last of these was concluded at Soda Springs, Idaho Territory. Although the Lemhis were away on their fall bison hunt, Doty had met with them the previous May and considered them parties to the treaty. Chief Tendoy subsequently “sent word” to Doty, accepting the terms of the treaty and asking that the Lemhis be considered as signatories. 45 The U.S. Senate ratified the treaties the following year, with an amendment concerning the cession of Mexican territory, but government officials failed to gather all Indian signatories to approve the amendment. 46 The absence of the Lemhi Shoshones from the negotiations helps explain Tendoy’s willingness to consent to its terms. Because of the non-Indian presence in the region, the Lemhis were experiencing a decline in the availability of the resources they depended on. Indeed, Thomas F. Meagher, the acting governor of Montana Territory, reported that the Lemhis were in a condition of “misery, filth, and dire want.”47 They missed the negotiations because they desperately needed food and thus were willing to agree to the treaty in return for the economic assistance it promised. 48

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

27

[27], (13)

Lines: 144 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [27], (13)

Five years later, the federal government resumed treaty negotiations with Indian peoples in Idaho. In May 1868 Gen. Christopher Augur met with Shoshone and Bannock Indians at Fort Bridger, Utah Territory. The resulting treaty, concluded on July 3, provided for the rights of signatories to hunt on unoccupied lands in the United States, created a reservation for the Eastern Shoshones at Wind River, Wyoming, and specified that a reservation would be laid out for the Bannocks (Fort Hall Shoshones and Bannocks) in the Port Neuf River drainage. President Andrew Johnson signed the treaty in February of the following year. 49 Although historically the Lemhis have not been considered signatories to the Fort Bridger Treaty, Lemhi subchief Tay-to-ba attended the negotiations and his signature appears on the document. Because the Lemhis are currently enrolled members of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall, the rights outlined in the Fort Bridger Treaty extend to them. Tay-to-ba’s participation, however, raises the possibility that the Lemhis hold a separate claim to the provisions of the treaty. 50 In September 1868, nearly three months after the signing of the Fort Bridger Treaty, the Lemhis concluded a treaty at Virginia City, Montana Territory. Signed by Tendoy and eleven Lemhi subchiefs, as well as by ten non-Indian officials, it provided for the creation of two townships for the Lemhis’ use along the north fork of the Salmon River and it promised yearly annuities from the government. In return, the Lemhis were to surrender their claim to lands outside the reserve. 51 The Lemhi Shoshones, facing depletion of the fish and game they had traditionally relied on, were eager for government assistance, but the treaty was never ratified by the Senate. The Virginia City Treaty was a missed opportunity, for in 1871 Congress ended the treaty-making system in a clause added to the Indian appropriation act of that year. While the move was consistent with reform measures advocated by humanitarians who wanted to see Indians made wards of the federal government, and ultimately individual citizens, it was actually precipitated by conflict between the Senate and the House of Representatives. The latter was left out of treaty negotiations, but it was expected to vote appropriations to fund the treaty stipulations. 52 For the Lemhis, as for other tribes, this shift in policy created pressure to abandon their traditional homelands and to relocate onto existing reservations elsewhere.

28

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

[28], (14)

Lines: 151 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[28], (14)

In August 1873 a commission of three government officials met with Chief Tendoy in an effort to persuade the Lemhis to remove two hundred miles to the south to the Fort Hall Reservation. Despite the hardships that the Lemhis were experiencing in the Salmon River country, Tendoy refused to relocate his people, and he asked instead that the reservation promised them in 1868 finally be established. 53 In the spring of the following year, agent Harrison Fuller was dispatched by the Indian Affairs commissioner to Idaho to effect the removal of the Lemhis to Fort Hall, but Tendoy and the Lemhis continued their adamant refusal to comply. 54 Meanwhile, George Shoup, who represented Idaho Territory in the House of Representatives at the time, lobbied Idaho congressional delegate John Hailey on behalf of the Lemhi Shoshones, asking that a reservation be created for them in the Salmon River country. 55 Largely as a result of Shoup’s efforts, a reservation was finally established for the Lemhis by executive order of President Ulysses S. Grant on February 12, 1875. It comprised approximately one hundred square miles and was located along the Lemhi River. The geography and limited size of the reservation, however, were hardly adequate to achieve the government’s desired goal: to transform the seven hundred Lemhis who occupied it into selfsufficient yeoman farmers. 56 Despite tensions, such as those caused by the placement of fish traps that blocked salmon runs at the mouth of the Lemhi River, Tendoy and the Lemhis managed to foster good relations with the white residents of the area. 57 Conflicts between Indians and non-Indians in Idaho in the late 1870s, however, tested these bonds of friendship. In each of the conflicts—the Nez Perce War of 1877, the Bannock War of 1878, and the Sheepeater War of 1879—Tendoy demonstrated his political acumen and cultivated goodwill among the residents of Salmon and the surrounding ranches and farms by keeping the Lemhis out of the hostilities. When news reached Salmon City that the fleeing Nez Perces were approaching the area with Gen. Oliver O. Howard in hot pursuit, the citizens of the Salmon River country grew alarmed. George Shoup took charge of the construction of fortifications and formed a volunteer military organization. Concerned that the Lemhis might turn against the non-Indians in the valley, Shoup and others approached Tendoy to secure his assurance of their neutrality. The fears of the

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

29

[29], (15)

Lines: 159 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [29], (15)

Lemhi country during the treaty period. Map by Sarah Moore.

[30], (16)

Lines: 188 ———

*

499.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[30], (16)

[31], (17)

Lines: 188 to 2 ———

9.8515pt P ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX Lemhi country during the reservation period. Map by Sarah Moore.

[31], (17)

white residents, it turned out, were well founded; Nez Perce leaders had invited the Lemhi Shoshones to join them, and some of the younger Lemhis were initially interested. But as the Nez Perces entered the valley, Tendoy persuaded the Lemhis not to join forces with them against the valley’s non-Indian inhabitants. In fact, a number of Lemhis, including Tendoy, offered their services to the Salmon volunteers. After the immediate danger was past, Tendoy diffused tensions by organizing a hunting expedition across the mountains to Montana. 58 Tendoy’s show of good faith during the Nez Perce War was quickly forgotten when hostilities broke out again in the spring of 1878. White settlers grazing their livestock at Camas Prairie near presentday Dubois, Idaho, where Northern Shoshone groups had gathered to harvest camas since prehistoric times, precipitated the Bannock War. The area in dispute had been set aside for the Shoshones and

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

31

Lemhi Indian Reservation. Map by Sarah Moore.

[32], (18)

Lines: 201 ———

*

499.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[32], (18)

Bannocks under the provisions of the Fort Bridger Treaty, and when a band of Bannocks from Fort Hall under Buffalo Horn arrived in May of 1878 they demanded that the white herders vacate the area. When the situation escalated to the point of violence, Tendoy dissuaded those Lemhis eager to join the hostilities—even shooting and killing a Lemhi subchief, Bannock John, who was hot to fight—and oversaw the tribe’s return from Camas Prairie to the reservation. Meanwhile, the newspaper in Salmon had reported that the Lemhis were planning to rise up and slaughter whites in the valley, causing the panicked citizens to retreat to the barricade in town. Again, Tendoy promised that the Lemhis would remain peaceful and offered the volunteer military Lemhi assistance. As he had done in the past, Tendoy distanced the Lemhi Shoshones from “hostiles” by organizing an expedition to the Montana bison grounds. 59 The last of Idaho’s Indian wars was the so-called Sheepeater War of 1879. This conflict involved the death of five Chinese miners, killed in the Salmon River country in the winter of 1878. Suspicion immediately fell on the area’s Indians, specifically the Sheepeaters around the Middle Fork of the Salmon River and refugees from the Bannock War supposed to be wintering with them. General Howard dispatched a punitive expedition to capture and place into custody those guilty of crimes in the Bannock War. 60 Historian Brigham Madsen summarized the Sheepeater conflict as “four months of comic opera warfare consisting mostly of soldiers learning just how rugged the country was.”61 Finally, in October, fifty-one harried Indians armed with eight firearms surrendered, bringing the Sheepeater War to a close. While the conflict never represented a real threat to the white residents of the Salmon River country, tensions nonetheless rose, but once again the Lemhi Shoshones had remained peaceful. 62 Against the backdrop of the Nez Perce, Bannock, and Sheepeater wars, pressure continued to mount for the removal of the Lemhis to Fort Hall, but the Lemhis continued to resist these efforts. In 1880 the federal government launched a more formal effort to realize their removal to the south. The Indian commissioner invited leaders from the Lemhi Agency and Fort Hall to Washington dc. The delegation arrived on May 1. After much prodding from authorities in the nation’s capital, on May 14 Tendoy and the other attending leaders signed

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

33

[33], (19)

Lines: 201 to 2 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [33], (19)

a preliminary agreement providing for, among other things, the removal of the Lemhis to Fort Hall. For relinquishing their reservation the Lemhis were to receive $4,000 annually for twenty years. The Fort Hall signatories agreed to accept the Lemhi Shoshones on their reservation, and ceded portions of it to the government in return for annual payments of $6,000 for a twenty-year period. Upon their return to the Salmon River country, however, the Lemhi leaders confronted strong opposition to removal from other Lemhis. As a result, the agreement was not finalized until 1889, when an amendment was added stipulating that the portion of the agreement concerning the Lemhis would not be binding without the consent of a majority of the adult male population on the Lemhi River reservation established in 1875. 63 Throughout the remainder of century, the Lemhis continued to fiercely resist government efforts to remove them to Fort Hall. 64 As white settlement increased and traditional Lemhi resources deteriorated, the Lemhis became increasingly reliant on government rations. Nonetheless, they refused to leave the Salmon River country. In the early years of the twentieth century, the agency began requiring the Lemhis to undertake farming activities or other work in order to receive their rations, a policy that was consistent with the federal government’s goal of promoting assimilation. By 1905, when the agency implemented a policy whereby all able men and their families were removed from the ration roles, only 14 percent of the Lemhis were still receiving rations. 65 Under these circumstances, Idaho senator Fred Dubois proposed in 1905 that a final effort be made to persuade the Lemhis to move. He also suggested that, in the event that they refused, the Fort Hall Reservation be allotted among the Shoshones and Bannocks living there. Inspector James McLaughlin arrived at the Lemhi Agency on December 28 to present what many viewed as the final proposal to the Lemhis. At the meeting Chief Tendoy reportedly reversed his longstanding opposition to removal and made a persuasive speech in favor of relocation to Fort Hall. McLaughlin reported that a majority of 86 out of the 137 adult males attending the meeting voted in favor of removing to Fort Hall. He accounted for the decision by referring to the hardships that the Lemhis faced on their tiny reservation and

34

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

[34], (20)

Lines: 205 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[34], (20)

to the eloquence of Tendoy’s speech. President Theodore Roosevelt approved the agreement on January 27, 1906. 66 Opposition to the removal agreement, on the part of Indians and non-Indians alike, surfaced immediately. Dubois was accused of promoting removal to further his political career by releasing the Lemhi Shoshones’ land to Salmon area residents. Citizens in the Salmon area, however, criticized him for overemphasizing the value of the land. Meanwhile, non-Indian residents in the Fort Hall area complained about the Lemhis receiving valuable land there. Other residents in the Fort Hall area, by contrast, noted that the Fort Hall Reservation had been reduced in size by half since the 1880 agreement had been concluded, leaving only poor lands on which the Lemhis could settle. Still others charged that the Lemhis had been coerced into signing the agreement. The Lemhis themselves, including Tendoy, also expressed dissatisfaction with the agreement. 67 Chief Tendoy never made the trip south to Fort Hall. He died in early May 1907. The events surrounding his death are not entirely clear. Most accounts have him falling off his horse into a stream while drunk and dying of exposure after his son Toopompey, or Black Hair, abandoned him, assuming he would catch up. 68 Charles W. Snook, a longtime resident of the Salmon area who knew Tendoy and purchased the portion of the reservation at the mouth of Agency Creek where Tendoy had lived, insisted that Tendoy’s son murdered him by hitting him on the head with a rock after an argument over alcohol. 69 Local citizens and friends as far away as Montana contributed funds for the erection of a monument in the Lemhi Valley in tribute to the skillful and patient leadership of the chief. 70 A week before his death, Tendoy had made a final effort to reverse the removal decision. The previous winter, the government had delayed the removal until spring. After Tendoy’s death, other Lemhi leaders took up where he had left off, working to see that the delay became permanent. They approached Murdock McPherson, a Salmon businessman whom they credited with securing the delay. The Lemhis hoped he could intervene again, but their final effort to resist removal was in vain. 71 Beginning in April, the Lemhi Shoshones began the arduous trip south, burdened with the belongings they had not been forced to leave behind. Many delayed their departure in order to witness the

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

35

[35], (21)

Lines: 210 to 2 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [35], (21)

erection of the monument to Tendoy by the citizens of Salmon. In all, 474 Lemhis removed to Fort Hall. “They never left willingly. . . . They packed their belongings on horses, strapped the ends of their wicki-up poles to the sides of their horses and they dragged them along,” a Lemhi Valley woman who witnessed the event later recalled. “They were very sad and passed thru the valley, crying. The ranchers along the way could hear their crying for some distance before they passed their homes. The ranchers were near tears and some did cry. They were so sorry for them, having to go against their will.”72 The majority arrived at Fort Hall in June, destitute, exhausted, and forlorn. 73 Some Lemhis died on the difficult trek, and all were devastated at having to leave their ancestral homeland, an area filled with sacred meaning and the graves of their ancestors. Many Lemhis now refer to their removal as the “Lemhi Trail of Tears.”74 For removing, the Lemhis had been promised prompt and fair recompense for the improvements they would have to leave behind in addition to annuity payments for the reservation itself. Many Lemhis expressed doubts that these monies would be forthcoming, and events soon confirmed their suspicions. Agent August Duclos reported in September that a survey of improvements would not be finished on schedule, postponing payment until the next year. As late as January 1913 the government still retained ownership of the 435-acre reservation. 75 Nor had the annuity payments appropriated by Congress between 1907 and 1910 been entirely disbursed. This latter failure on the part of the government proved a major point of contention between government officials and the Lemhis at Fort Hall in the decades to come. During the nineteenth century the Indian peoples of the Salmon River country fused to form the distinct tribe historically known as the Lemhi Shoshones. Over the course of the century after contact with the Corps of Discovery, the Lemhis proved remarkably adept at meeting the challenges posed by the increasing presence of non-Indians in their remote homeland in the Salmon River country, and they forged friendships with the white community that emerged there. Nonetheless, the changes associated with non-Indian settlement had serious negative repercussions for the Lemhis. The resources on which they relied were depleted so that they became dependent on the inadequate

36

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

[36], (22)

Lines: 217 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[36], (22)

provisions provided on the tiny reservation that they were granted. Still, the Lemhis clung tenaciously to the homeland that was so central to their identity. In the end, though, the reservation was liquidated, and the Lemhi Shoshones were forced into exile at Fort Hall. But the Lemhis refused to accept the loss of their ancestral homeland, nor would they forget the manner in which it was seized.

[37], (23)

Lines: 223 to 2 ———

*

429.45901p

——— Normal Page * PgEnds: PageB [37], (23)

contact, ethnogenesis, and exile

37

[38], (24)

Lines: 224 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[38], (24)

3

The Lemhi Committee and the Fight for Annuities The 500 descendants of the Lemhi Indians on Fort Hall Reservation, this week had reminded Uncle Sam that he still owed them $4,000 on a past due agreement. . . . . . . The children of the treaty-bound Lemhis feel that because they and their fathers lived up to the agreement, the balance of the payment is due them. Salmon (Idaho) Recorder-Herald, September 23, 1948

[First Page] [39], (1)

Lines: 0 to 59

The Lemhis’tie to the Salmon River country remained strong throughout the twentieth century, despite their removal to Fort Hall in 1907. Indeed, some never left the area, opting instead to try to make a life in their ancestral homeland. Others returned to the Salmon area after a brief stay at Fort Hall. The Lemhis who did settle at Fort Hall, for their part, returned regularly to the Salmon River country to hunt, fish, and harvest in the accustomed places, to visit, and to tend to the graves of their ancestors. The half-dozen families that never left Salmon formed the core of a community that fluctuated in size from season to season and year to year but nonetheless maintained a tenacious and permanent Lemhi presence in their traditional homeland. 1 Meanwhile, at Fort Hall, the Salmon River country preoccupied the Lemhis politically. When the government failed to deliver the full amount of annuities promised in the removal agreement, the Lemhis organized a committee charged with the task of securing the unpaid funds. The creation of the Indian Claims Commission (icc) in 1946 then set the stage for controversies of great magnitude for Indian peoples seeking settlement of unpaid aboriginal claims. Resolving their annuity claims and pursuing an icc claim would create ragged administrative difficulties that revolved around the identity of the Lemhi Shoshones, a minority people at the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. 2 The Lemhis who moved to Fort Hall found that they had the last choice of lands for settlement and eventual allotment. The reserva-

39

———

0.75pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [39], (1)

tion had been diminished greatly during the years since the removal agreement was concluded in 1880, and consequently, they were left with lands that others had passed over. Adding to the Lemhis’ dissatisfaction with their new home was the disparity in annuity payments between them and the Shoshone-Bannocks. When distributed per capita, each $4,000 installment of the $80,000 total sum promised the Lemhis in 1880 provided for individual payments of $8.20. The ShoBans, by contrast, received $36 each annually. In order to diminish the disparity, Fort Hall superintendent A. F. Caldwell recommended that the Lemhis receive more than one year’s annuity payment at a time. 3 Acts of 1907 and 1908 appropriated only one installment, but acts of 1909 and 1910 appropriated nine installments each, bringing Lemhi annuity payments to double those of the Sho-Bans, but only for two years. 4 During the early years at Fort Hall, the Lemhis enjoyed a measure of the political autonomy that they had had on their own reservation. Plans for future allotment at Fort Hall, and the need to accurately distribute Lemhi annuities, required that the superintendent maintain an up-to-date list of Lemhi tribal members. To that end, a twelveperson council of Lemhis, elected by Lemhis, was formed to determine whether applicants for enrollment and annuity payments were truly of Lemhi heritage. 5 After the Lemhi annuity payments had been made, however, Fort Hall superintendent Evan Estep saw no reason to continue the practice of enumerating Lemhi tribal members separately from other Indians on the reservation. His assessment received the support of the commissioner on October 26, 1911, and thereafter the Lemhis were counted as Shoshone-Bannocks. 6 Although bia officials increasingly chose to view all Indian people at Fort Hall as part of a homogenous group, the Lemhi Shoshones continued to enjoy some political authority at Fort Hall between 1911 and 1920. The Indian business council, which the government viewed as the primary decision-making body on the reservation, included three Lemhis among its twelve members. The council was most active between 1911 and 1913, when Fort Hall lands were being allotted to individual Indians. 7 In 1920, however, a new council was formed. Fort Hall superintendent Wesley Aschemeier wanted to abandon the traditional practice of having council members appointed by recognized chiefs and adopt

40

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

[40], (2)

Lines: 59 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [40], (2)

a more democratic method for determining the composition of the body. The new system did not inspire enthusiasm, and voter turnout was so low that two elections failed. The influence of traditional leaders, Aschemeier surmised, had kept people from the polling places. Finally, after a third election, a council was established, even though only 230 of an eligible voting population of roughly 1,300 participated in the contest in which it was created. The new council did not include any Lemhis. 8 Despite their lack of political representation on the business council, the Lemhis continued to look to traditional forms of leadership. Anthropologist Robert Lowie, who did fieldwork at the Lemhi Agency just prior to removal, reported that Toopompey “was generally recognized as Tendoy’s heir apparent, though there were several other sons.”9 Despite the objections of some of his brothers, Toopompey emerged, at the age of forty, as the primary chief of the Lemhis after his father died, although this position meant less in the political context of Fort Hall than it had at the Lemhi Reservation. Toopompey’s younger half brother Wince,10 or George Wince Tendoy, was also recognized as a leader among his people. While Wince did not serve on the business council, as Toopompey did, he was renowned for his eloquence and his commitment to issues of importance to the Lemhis. Superintendent Estep recognized both brothers as Lemhi leaders. 11 Toopompey died tragically in early 1929, whereupon Wince became the principal Lemhi chief. 12 Toopompey, together with several other Lemhis, had traveled off the reservation to trade buckskin gloves they had fashioned from deer hides. The trading session was facilitated by the consumption of alcohol provided by Ace Nelson, the man that the Lemhis had arranged to trade the gloves with. Toopompey was found dead in his house the following morning, January 5. The exact cause of death remains unclear—speculation in newspaper articles suggested that the Lemhi leader had been poisoned, but Toopompey’s family would not consent to an autopsy to determine how he had died. Like his father before him, Toopompey died under circumstances clouded by alcohol. 13 The following year, the Tendoy family suffered the loss of another son, and the Lemhis lost yet another leader. Toopompey’s older brother George, also known as Chief Tendoy, was on his way to visit the Lemhi Valley, having stopped over in Dillon, Montana, to make

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

41

[41], (3)

Lines: 65 to 71 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [41], (3)

arrangements to have the entire Lemhi tribe travel there for the county fair. While camped at the Russel ranch, a favorite stopover of his, the Salmon Recorder-Herald reported, Tendoy suffered “a severe beating administered by six Mexicans who camped at the same place.”Another article explained that the “dark skinned murderers” had attacked Tendoy as he was “attempting to defend the women of his family from criminal assault.” After the incident, the women wrapped Tendoy in a blanket and headed by wagon toward Fort Hall, 135 miles away, but he had died by the time they arrived. 14 One of the Lemhis’ main concerns that Toopompey and Wince sought to address during the tribe’s first decades at Fort Hall was the issue of annuity payments. Some per capita shares had not been distributed to individuals who could not be found or who were deceased. Several thousand dollars of the $80,000 promised to the Lemhis had been held back from distribution to cover unforeseeable contingencies. For the Lemhis, these unpaid annuities were a constant negative reminder of the agreement they had reluctantly accepted. They had fulfilled their part of the bargain, and they expected the government to do the same. In 1912 Toopompey and Wince began exerting pressure on bia officials to distribute fourteen per capita shares that remained in government coffers, but by 1915 twelve of the payments remained outstanding because the individuals eligible to receive them were either deceased or missing. The assistant secretary of the Interior Department attempted to resolve the situation by canceling the payments and returning the monies to the Lemhis’ account with the Treasury Department. But this was not the end of the matter; rather, it was just the beginning of a long struggle to hold the government to its promise. 15 The government’s tendency to view all Indian people at Fort Hall as part of one homogenous group was strengthened in 1936, when the tribes at Fort Hall elected to adopt a constitution under the Indian Reorganization Act (ira) of 1934. Although the ira was designed to put an end to government efforts to eradicate tribal culture, and to allow Indian participation in decisions concerning their affairs, it had the opposite effect for the Lemhis. The constitution was by no means overwhelmingly accepted at Fort Hall; only 30 percent of the eligible voters on the reservation approved it. With its ratification on April 30, the Tribal Business Council of the Shoshone-Bannock

42

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

[42], (4)

Lines: 71 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [42], (4)

Tribes of Fort Hall became the official decision-making body for all Indian people on the reservation, regardless of band or tribe. The constitution also provided for regulations governing enrollment, and new tribal rolls were prepared. In order to participate in decisions at Fort Hall, it became necessary for the Lemhis to enroll as members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, thus losing a measure of their Lemhi identity. The ira, which aimed at preserving tribal cultures, served to mask the Lemhi Shoshones’ separate identity, making it appear from the outside that all tribal people at Fort Hall constituted a single, unified entity. Nonetheless, the Lemhis continued to organize separately to pursue their interests. 16 During the 1930s the Lemhis stepped up the pressure on the government to release the remaining sum owed to them from the removal agreement; they had still not received all the annuity money they were due, despite repeated inquiries about the fund. 17 After a Fort Hall delegation had inquired in 1936 about the Lemhi fund on a trip to Washington dc, they received a report on July 1 that included a brief history of the fund and its administration. They learned that $4,449.40 remained. The commissioner intended to determine what part of the sum was accounted for by unpaid individual shares. The remainder “would belong to the [Lemhi] tribe and could be made available for expenditure by Congressional legislation.”18 Accordingly, the commissioner asked F. A. Gross, superintendent at Fort Hall, to submit the per capita rolls and applications for payment. 19 Gross proved diligent in his efforts to see the matter resolved. Over the next few years, he kept the Indian Office (as the bia was sometimes known) and the Treasury Department busy responding to his constant inquiries as he attempted to sort out the details and distribute the payments. 20 By 1939 a census of 469 “Lemhi Indians Enrolled and Entitled to Final Payment”21 was compiled, and some per capita payments were made. Gross’s insistence in his efforts to settle the matter resulted largely from pressures from the Lemhis to see that the annuities were finally paid. “Numerous inquiries are coming to the Superintendent from the Lemhi Indians regarding this matter,” he urged the commissioner in one of his letters, “and the Superintendent would like to be able to make some kind of satisfactory reply from time to time.”22

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

43

[43], (5)

Lines: 75 to 81 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [43], (5)

In the process of determining the status of the Lemhi fund, Gross identified what would later become a central question. This concerned the surplus—that is, the portion of the fund not accounted for by individual payments. “Would the tribal portion be available for only those Indians or the benefit of those Indians and descendants thereof,” Gross asked the commissioner, “or would it be available to the entire reservation as it now stands, including the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, as well as the Lemhies [sic].”23 In addition to pressuring Superintendent Gross, Lemhi leaders also took the matter of the unpaid annuities up with the Tribal Business Council. After discussion of the issue at a meeting on April 18, 1938, the council resolved to have the chairman, Willie George, draft a letter to the commissioner requesting that the funds be distributed. Before writing the letter, George decided “to discuss the matter with some of the leading Lemhi Indians and accordingly a considerable number appeared at Fort Hall” for the meeting, he reported. George informed the commissioner in his letter that “the Indians of the Lemhi band are very much in need of this money” and promised that the council would “do all we can to cooperate with the Superintendent and with the Indian Office in furnishing the information that will be needed to make payment possible.” Wince Tendoy and Frank Wahtomy, who had emerged alongside Tendoy as a champion of Lemhi interests, were both signatories to the chairman’s letter. 24 During the late 1930s or early 1940s the Lemhis formed a committee, consisting only of Lemhis, whose purpose was to secure final distribution of the annuity monies. In 1941 the Lemhi Committee consisted of the following six individuals: Edward Matsaw (grandson of Tayto-ba, the Lemhi subchief who was a signatory to the Fort Bridger Treaty in 1868), Horace Johnson, Charley Evening, Benjamin Ariwite, Papitsy Shay, and Frank Wahtomy. 25 It met at Buffalo Lodge, or at private residences on the reservation. With the exception of Matsaw, none of its members spoke English, so a young Lemhi woman, Lily Wenee Marshall, acted as translator during meetings. 26 The Lemhi Committee could address specific concerns, thereby furnishing the Lemhis with an avenue for action separate from the tribal council. In addition to pressing the government to release the remainder of the fund, the Lemhi Committee also facilitated the distribution pro-

44

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

[44], (6)

Lines: 81 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [44], (6)

cess, verifying the authenticity of individuals or their heirs entitled to receive outstanding shares. 27 The Lemhi Committee continued to exert pressure on the tribal council, and at its request George LaVatta, a bia field agent from Portland who represented the tribes at Fort Hall on a fall 1941 trip to Washington dc, inquired once again about the Lemhi funds. LaVatta learned from the fiscal division of the Portland Area Office that they amounted to $5,328.20. 28 In December the Indian commissioner once again sent a letter asking the Fort Hall superintendent, C. L. Graves, to look into the matter. It was possible to distribute the money per capita without further legislation, but the commissioner explained that “the Office does not favor per capita payments.” The other option not requiring legislation was to give the money to the Lemhis “for relief purposes.” This latter possibility, however, required the Lemhis to be“sufficiently identified,” and they needed approval through a council resolution. The commissioner asked Graves to “submit a report” on the Lemhis “giving . . . as complete information as possible as to the number of Indians, their situation and needs, and whether they comprise a community or are scattered throughout the reservation.”29 Meanwhile, the Tribal Business Council also continued to lobby on the Lemhis’ behalf. In September 1941 it had already passed the requested resolution, forwarded to the commissioner’s office by the chairman, in support of the Lemhis’ effort to secure their annuity fund. The resolution urged a rapid conclusion of the matter because the Lemhis who were removed to Fort Hall “are becoming few and some are old and indigent and in need of some sort of assistance.”30 The pressure exerted by the Lemhi Committee resulted in some progress toward distributing per capita payments to eligible individuals. Hearings were held in January 1947 to determine the heirs of Lemhis entitled to payment. The Office of Indian Affairs’ probate division verified the hearing reports and forwarded them to the Fort Hall superintendent for payment on April 11. 31 This process, however, was painfully slow. The twenty-year period during which the Lemhis were to receive a total of $80,000 had long since elapsed. The difficulty involved in determining which individuals were entitled to unpaid shares, and then going through the process necessary for distribution, promised to further delay any decision

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

45

[45], (7)

Lines: 86 to 95 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [45], (7)

concerning the disposition of the surplus. Of particular difficulty were individuals determined to be eligible for payment who were subsequently found to be deceased. Payment could not be made to the heirs until the estate was probated and approved by the commissioner’s office. Because many Lemhis did not live at Fort Hall, or spent a good part of the year in Salmon or elsewhere, superintendents had difficulty locating eligible individuals or their heirs and obtaining the necessary signatures. In some instances, despite repeated admonitions and promptings, superintendents were slow and inefficient in preparing the paperwork. Several claims were misfiled by the bia and temporarily lost. In short, determining who was entitled to unpaid shares and making payments to them was complicated and time consuming. Ultimately, the final applications for shares known to be due were not submitted until September 1958. 32 The money itself occupied a secondary role, for the entire sum amounted to just a few thousand dollars. Rather, the Lemhis continued to fight for the money as a matter of principle. Some of the Lemhis who had lived through the removal to Fort Hall had died; many of the others were now elderly. The younger Lemhis were anxious to see their elders get what had been promised to them. It appeared to the Lemhis as if the government was reneging on part of its agreement now that many of them were enrolled Shoshone-Bannocks. On March 28, 1947, Lemhis at Fort Hall met at Buffalo Lodge to discuss strategy and to make plans for obtaining the remaining funds. Elections were held to renew the Lemhi Committee. Roy Tendoy was elected president, with Charlie Evening as vice president. Elected committee members included Benjamin Ariwite, Frank Wahtomy, Jim Marshall, Sam Nevada, and Lin Fisher. At the meeting they decided to request that the Tribal Business Council draft a letter asking that the Lemhi money finally be paid. The Lemhis recommended that only those who had received partial payment in the past be eligible to receive the funds, thereby simplifying the logistics of distribution. The business council discussed the proposal at its April 8 regular council meeting and passed a resolution authorizing the secretary to write a letter to Sen. Glen Taylor pressing the Lemhi claims. 33 The letter, signed by Tribal Business Council chairman LaSalle Pocatello, outlined the recent Lemhi Committee elections and detailed the request that the committee had made on behalf of the Lemhis at

46

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

[46], (8)

Lines: 95 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [46], (8)

Fort Hall. Pocatello noted that many of the Lemhis who had been removed to Fort Hall were elderly, and he urged a rapid response. 34 Senator Taylor’s office received the letter and forwarded it to the Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs on April 18. Taylor received the commissioner’s response on May 1. The remaining funds, it explained, resulted from errors on the original payment rolls. These rolls included the names of apparently nonexistent people, those of individuals who had not removed to Fort Hall, and individuals who were deceased when the money was allocated. The rolls also included people who were otherwise not entitled to share in the payments “for some reason not explained.” Part of the surplus resulted from a portion of each payment that had been withheld due to questionable, and [47], (9) still unresolved, eligibility. Over the past thirty years, occasional distributions had been made when individual claims had been confirmed, Lines: 101 to 1 but the inaccuracy of the original rolls continued to block distribu——— tion. Had the rolls been valid, the commissioner explained, each of the 13.5pt PgV individuals entitled to a share would have received a proportionally ——— larger one, and the remaining surplus, if apportioned among all those Normal Page who had been recognized as eligible in 1909 and 1910, would amount to * PgEnds: Eject less than $7 per person. Nonetheless, Senator Taylor understood that the commissioner was considering “making a determination of the [47], (9) right of the few remaining enrollees who were not paid, and when this has been done authorization will be made to distribute the residue.”35 The Lemhis remained dissatisfied with the responses to their inquiries about the funds, but they continued and expanded their efforts to see the matter justly resolved. Late in 1948 they retained an attorney from Pocatello to help them pursue their claim, and the issue attracted attention back in the Salmon River country. “The 500 descendants of the Lemhi Indians,” the Salmon Recorder-Herald reported in September of that year, “this week had reminded Uncle Sam that he still owed them $4,000 on a past due agreement.” The article went on to explain that “the children of the treaty-bound Lemhis feel that because they and their fathers lived up to the agreement, the balance of the payment is due them.” The Recorder-Herald noted that the Lemhis had hired an attorney, and suggested that in part the reason was that “they can remember promises unkept by whites in dealing with the natives in the region.” The article concluded with reference to “one ironic twist”

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

47

to the story. “Most of the Lemhis pressing for the settlement,” the Recorder-Herald pointed out, “will hardly live long enough to enjoy the benefits if they succeed.”36 On April 13, 1949, Alfred Cordon, the Lemhis’ attorney, wrote to the Office of Indian Affairs in Chicago, explaining that a “considerable number of Lemhi Indians, mostly descendants of those who moved from Lemhi to Fort Hall . . . have come to my office and engaged my services to assist them in securing the balance of the money due from the United States.” His letter followed an earlier one in March that had gone unanswered. Cordon complained that a September 17, 1948, letter had received a reply, but it provided only background information about the removal agreement instead of addressing the questions contained therein. In the April 13 letter Cordon once again asked the commissioner’s office to send the relevant information to him. 37 The commissioner answered, explaining that the data that Cordon had requested could not be provided because the census rolls from Fort Hall did not distinguish between the Lemhis and other tribes. Cordon was directed to Superintendent Leslie Towle. 38 Meanwhile, the Lemhis continued to pursue the matter through the tribal council. On a trip to Washington dc in February 1949, George LaVatta again acted on behalf of the Lemhis, making further inquiries about the money that was owed them. Assistant commissioner of Indian Affairs John Provinse responded to these questions in a February 17 letter that was, in effect, a summary of what had already occurred. Disbursements had been made per capita, based on four rolls, each corresponding to one of the four acts passed. Some eligible persons who had not received their per capita payments had been paid through claims they had submitted—the most recent of which had been settled in July 1948. Through the combination of per capita distribution and the subsequent settlement of claims, a total of $76,696.75 had been distributed as of February 1949. Provinse estimated that the remaining balance, $3,303.25, comprised approximately $1,000 in unpaid claims and $2,000 in surplus. He described the latter as “unencumbered and available for expenditure for the benefit of the Indians.” This, however, contradicted previous information in Provinse’s letter. Provinse admitted having an inexact understanding of how much of the balance was “unencumbered” and how much was owed to individuals eligible

48

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

[48], (10)

Lines: 104 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[48], (10)

for payment. It was apparent to Provinse that “there are some individual Indians or their heirs who have not received their shares,” but “it is not possible to make an exact statement or list of the individuals who have not received their shares.” The records at his disposal, Provinse explained, provided him with only a list of those paid. Compiling a list of those eligible for payment, he insisted, “will involve considerable research and analysis.” Regardless of the accuracy of the estimate of the fund amount that was earmarked for per capita distribution, the balance remained unavailable to the Lemhis as a group until this “considerable research and analysis” had been accomplished. 39 More hopeful news came at a special council meeting on June 26, 1951, when George LaVatta reported that he had learned that once the Lemhis decided what to do with the money the superintendent would inform the commissioner, who would then attempt to get it released to them. Council member Kesley Edmo, who was not a Lemhi, asked why the money would go only to the Lemhis rather than to all tribal members. Edmo was informed that it represented what remained of the annuities promised the Lemhis when they were removed to Fort Hall in 1907. For the time being, the issue was settled. 40 But in questioning the Lemhis’ exclusive rights to the fund, Edmo was expressing a belief shared by other Shoshone-Bannocks: that because the Lemhis had enrolled as Shoshone-Bannocks, Lemhis and non-Lemhis alike should share the money. Moreover, because the Lemhis had been informed that their request for the fund needed to be codified in a council resolution, they recognized that they were dependent on the Shoshone-Bannocks in their effort to secure it. They were at the mercy of the Tribal Business Council. The Lemhis were only too aware of this dependency and of the Shoshone-Bannock designs on the fund. “I told my uncle,” Lemhi Lois Navo recalled, “I don’t think the Shoshone are going to let you have the money, and he got kinda mad.”41 Nonetheless, they remained intent on securing the fund for themselves. The Lemhis met, as instructed, to decide how they could best use the funds if they were received in a lump-sum payment. They transmitted their decision to the Tribal Business Council in a letter signed by Frank Wahtomy, Andrew Honena, Charley Evening, Tom Compton, and Jim Marshall. “We the Lemhi Indians have had a meeting, discussed the Lemhi Tribe money,”the letter stated. They informed the tribal council

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

49

[49], (11)

Lines: 118 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [49], (11)

of their decision that the “money be spent for holidays or feasts only by the said party.”42 The letter was read at the Tribal Business Council’s regular meeting on November 13, 1951. Afterward, a council member asked Frank Wahtomy, who was representing the Lemhis, whether they intended to share the money with all the Indian people on the reservation or keep it for their own uses. Although the letter made it quite clear that the Lemhis had decided to use the money in celebration of Lemhi heritage, the council expressed some uncertainty as to whether this was really their final decision. Wahtomy’s response indicated that pressure had been exerted on the Lemhis to agree to share their removal fund among all tribal members, Lemhis and non-Lemhis alike. Wahtomy reported, contrary to the decision outlined in the letter from the Lemhi Committee, that it would be deposited in the tribal account for the use of all enrolled tribal members at Fort Hall. He went on, however, to note that this decision was not what the Lemhis had wanted, and he regretfully stated that they had no choice in the final decision about the use of the money. 43 In a meeting in the Gibson District of the reservation, held on the afternoon of December 7 at Ed Boise’s residence, non-Lemhi tribal members continued to pursue their designs on the Lemhi annuity money. Willamette LaVatta made a motion, and Leonard Edmo seconded it: the Lemhi fund should be transferred to the ShoshoneBannock Tribes for the use of all enrolled members for celebrations. The motion carried. 44 On the same day the tribal council adopted Resolution 211 to that effect. The minutes from the Gibson District meeting provide no indication that members of the Lemhi Committee, signatories of the letter spelling out the Lemhis’ position, or any Lemhis at all participated in the discussion or voted on the motion. 45 In part, Resolution 211 reads: Whereas, the subject of Lemhi money was discussed by the Fort Hall Business Council and Lemhi Indians. Whereas, the Lemhi Indians had a meeting and agreed that since they sold their land and moved to the Fort Hall Reservation and had same benefits as the Fort Hall Indians, therefore be it resolved . . . that this Lemhi money . . . be deposited in a special account with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Inc., for celebration and recreational purposes.

50

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

[50], (12)

Lines: 124 ———

0.25pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[50], (12)

According to the resolution, the remaining balance in the removal fund was $3,072.00. 46 By the end of January 1952, the bia had finally determined the status of the Lemhi fund. Of the $80,000 appropriated, the figures showed $72,596.60 had been distributed in per capita payments, $2,003.20 had been paid in claims to those listed on the original rolls, and $1,992.15 was distributed in claims to those who were paid on the 1911 roll but not on previous ones. Of the remaining balance of $3,303.25, $41 was due in unpaid shares to five individuals or their heirs who had been listed on the original roll, and $260 was due to three Lemhis or their heirs who had been paid on the 1911 roll but not on previous ones. With this $301.70 deducted from the total, there remained an unencumbered balance of $3,001.55. 47 Just as the commissioner’s office was sorting out the final details that would have finally freed up the remainder of the Lemhi fund for distribution, several developments conspired to prevent the muchawaited conclusion to the matter. The Tribal Business Council forwarded Resolution 211 to the bia area office in Portland, where area director E. Morgan Pryse approved it on January 31. Included with that document was a copy of a 1941 letter from field representative Louis Balsam to E. J. Diehl, extension agent at Fort Hall. Balsam had indicated that the money could be used in one lump sum for the benefit of all Lemhi Indians provided that, as a group, they agree on a specific use and codify that decision in a council resolution. In February, Pryse recounted these developments and observed that perhaps Balsam had been giving the Lemhis false hopes. “We do not interpret [the Office of Indian Affairs’ position],” Pryse wrote, “in the same manner as that given in Superintendent Balsam’s letter. The Office appears to indicate the necessity for legislation before such funds may be transferred as requested in the resolution.” Pryse concluded his report with an inquiry as to whether any such legislation had been initiated. 48 The matter was directed to the bia’s fiscal unit. An accountant with the unit, James P. Edwards, sent acting chief A. J. S. Eccleston a report on the Lemhi fund, including the analysis completed in January, a synopsis of the correspondence regarding the fund, and the February 7, 1952, letter from Pryse. Edwards informed Eccleston that the recent determination of the status of the fund allowed for a final decision

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

51

[51], (13)

Lines: 160 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [51], (13)

about the distribution of the available balance. He asked Eccleston to determine whether proper procedure demanded that the fund be distributed per capita or allowed for the money to be used for the benefit of the group. If per capita distribution were necessary, then who exactly would receive the payments? Or if the money were to be given in one lump sum to the Lemhis, what sort of authorization would be required? Although Edwards expressed the opinion that per capita distribution would not “be of sufficient benefit to the Indians as individuals to justify the expense and work of such a distribution,” he also found communal use problematic. The problem stemmed from Resolution 211, which specified that the funds be used for all enrolled members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. “There appears to be some doubt as to the right of the Fort Hall Business Council to speak for the Lemhi group,” Edwards explained, “and of the legitimacy of the use of the balance as suggested in this resolution.” The appropriation acts, he went on to note, required that the money be used for the benefit of the Indians removed from the Lemhi Reservation. 49 Ultimately, the bia decided that the undistributed balance of the fund could not be dispensed to the Lemhis, either per capita or in a lump sum. Pryse learned of the commissioner’s decision in July. “Our view is that [the remainder of the Lemhi fund],” the commissioner explained, “should be placed in the surplus fund of the Treasury and action will be taken accordingly.”50 A copy of the letter, which included the recent analysis of the fund, was also sent to Fort Hall superintendent Earl Woodridge. 51 The Lemhis challenged the decision, and the bia offered various justifications for it in response. Foremost among the factors that prevented the Lemhis from receiving payment, however, was probably the passage of Resolution 211. Before the area director or superintendent had been advised of the commissioner’s decision, the law firm of Wilkinson, Boyden, and Cragun had learned of it in a telephone conversation with Edwards of the bia’s fiscal section. At the time, the firm represented the Fort Hall tribes in their claims before the Indian Claims Commission. Florence Ingawanup, the tribal secretary, had asked the firm to look into the matter of the Lemhi fund controversy. Edwards had informed the firm that “it is impossible to make a distribution to Lemhi Indians because they, as such, are not presently identifiable on the Fort Hall Reservation

52

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

[52], (14)

Lines: 166 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[52], (14)

from other Indians located thereon.” Edwards also advised the firm of the recent analysis of the fund, and on July 9 John Cragun submitted a written request to the commissioner and the fiscal section asking for the analysis and other information relevant to the fund. 52 If the Tribal Business Council had passed a resolution requesting the funds for use only by the Lemhis, as the Lemhi Committee had asked, rather than including all Indian people on the reservation, these doubts about Lemhi identifiability might not have been raised. The Indian Office and the Fort Hall superintendents, had, after all, completed the 1939 census of Lemhis enrolled and eligible for payment, and the Lemhis clearly had a political decision-making body in the Lemhi Committee. In his response to Cragun, the commissioner explained that a decision in the matter of the Lemhi fund had already been forwarded to the area director and Fort Hall superintendent, but he did offer a more thorough explanation for it. The monies in question were appropriated funds, not tribal trust funds; as such they could only be distributed in accordance with the criteria set forth in the appropriation acts. These acts would allow for the per capita distribution of the surplus. The commissioner, echoing Edwards’s assessment, argued that per capita distribution would involve a prohibitive amount of time and effort. This is not surprising considering the difficulty in distributing per capita shares to those who had previously been determined eligible. Further, the Indian Office explained, distributing the fund would be imprudent because claims previously refused could subsequently be found to have merit and require payment. It was pointed out that $2,669 of the $3,001.55 surplus consisted of shares of individuals stricken from the rolls. Finally, the commissioner did not consider a lump-sum distribution as a viable option. Although the acts provided for such payment, with either presidential authorization or through congressional legislation, they also stipulated that such an expenditure be for the exclusive benefit of the Lemhis. The request to distribute the fund in a lump sum, as outlined in Resolution 211, could not be granted because “it is not believed that the Business Council has any right, jurisdiction or control with respect to this fund.”53 Accordingly, the Indian commissioner turned his attention to paying claims to those who were eligible, thereby closing out the account. The Indian Office exerted pressure on the area director in Portland and the

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

53

[53], (15)

Lines: 172 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [53], (15)

superintendent at Fort Hall to complete the paperwork to conclude the matter. The Lemhis and Shoshone-Bannocks at Fort Hall, however, refused to let the matter end. After being informed by Fort Hall superintendent Peru Farver that the money would be returned to the surplus fund of the Treasury, the council passed a motion on February 8, 1954, directing attorney John Boyden to ascertain whether the decision was final. 54 A summer meeting between the tribal attorney and acting commissioner W. Barton Greenwood verified that distribution of the surplus fund could not legally proceed without legislation or presidential authorization because the appropriation acts stipulated that the money be used for the benefit of the Lemhis. Later that fall, the Lemhis’ attorney Robert Barker countered that “the only limitation placed upon the monies appropriated . . . was that it was ‘to be used by the Secretary of the interior for the benefit of the Indians in such manner as the President may direct.’ ” Barker informed the bia “that the Lemhi had previously met and agreed to a release of the funds for the use and benefit for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Inc.” Accordingly, he argued that the disposition of the funds as requested in Resolution 211 was consistent with the appropriation acts, and that presidential approval could be attained if necessary. Finally, Barker addressed the bia’s previous claims that legislation would be needed to distribute the surplus, asking that the matter be reconsidered. “In the event you persist in the view that legislation is necessary,” he wrote, “would you advise us as whether or not the Bureau would support [such] legislation.”55 The response from the commissioner’s office assured the attorneys that “the entire file on this case has been reviewed because of your interest in the matter.” Neither the firm’s letter nor its research, however, had persuaded the Indian commissioner, who continued to maintain that the distribution of the surplus, as requested in Resolution 211, “would be in direct contravention to the purpose of the legislation.” Furthermore, the commissioner continued, the ShoshoneBannocks had already been compensated for their part in the original agreement—an amount totaling $120,000. 56 “Since it is factually impracticable to use the money as authorized,” the commissioner concluded, “it will be returned to the surplus fund of the Treasury as

54

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

[54], (16)

Lines: 176 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[54], (16)

required under 31 U.S.C. 715.”57 The commissioner’s response failed to address the possibility of congressional action, so on December 10 Barker called to inquire about the matter. A. P. Niskala, chief of the accounting unit, informed him that the bia did not favor such a move, but he referred him to Barton Greenwood for a more definitive answer. 58 Apparently, nothing came of further inquiries. At its annual meeting on May 17, 1955, Wilford Broncho, chairman of the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council, explained that the unobligated balance of the Lemhi fund had been placed in the surplus fund of the Treasury and was not available for the use of the tribes. 59 Barker added the unpaid annuities to accounting claims filed before the icc along with the Fort Hall land claims. This brought an end to Lemhi ownership of the funds, because the Indian Claims Commission Act stipulated in Section 10 that while claims could be brought before the commission by “any member of an Indian tribe, band, or other identifiable group of Indians as representative of all its members,” it also specified that “whenever any tribal organization exists, recognized by the Secretary of the Interior as having the authority to represent such tribe, band, or group, such organization shall be accorded the exclusive privilege of representing such Indians” unless fraud could be demonstrated on the part of that tribal organization. 60 Therefore, the fact that the Lemhis had enrolled as members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall meant that once the Lemhi annuity monies were included in an icc claim, they fell under the jurisdiction of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The accounting claims were later severed and assigned docket number 326-C, which was subsequently consolidated with other accounting claims. These claims did not receive a hearing until the 1970s, when they were transferred to the U.S. Court of Claims. Finally, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes accepted a settlement offer for the claims in 1982. 61 By 1957 the Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs had transferred the surplus of the Lemhi fund to the surplus fund of the Treasury, and it was preparing to do the same with the outstanding shares owed to individuals. In an October 5 letter, Fort Hall superintendent Frell Owl asked the commissioner to keep the account open a while longer, as there were a few Lemhis still seeking their shares. 62 Ten days later the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held two

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

55

[55], (17)

Lines: 182 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [55], (17)

days of hearings at Fort Hall to investigate the economic conditions on the reservation. Most questions addressed to committee members concerned either economic problems or the shift in federal Indian policy to termination. The only Lemhi to testify before the committee was Frank Wahtomy, longtime officer of the Lemhi Committee. Wahtomy discussed conditions at Fort Hall, but mainly to criticize the tribal council for underemphasizing the poverty there by taking the committee to selected parts of the reservation on its tour. Further, he argued that council members were using tribal funds for their own benefit. Wahtomy’s main concern, however, was the Lemhi fund. His interpreter informed the committee that Wahtomy “said he was Lemhi here at Fort Hall, and he wants to know, did he get paid in full for his reservation, or does that Government still owe him money for that reservation.” Not surprisingly, the committee members knew nothing of the matter. 63 Wahtomy certainly was aware of the decision to return Lemhi monies to the surplus fund of the Treasury, for he was one of the leaders of the Lemhi Committee and had been present at the annual meeting where Wilford Broncho had announced the bia’s final decision. He may also have known that the matter had been included in the claims before the icc. That Wahtomy brought the matter before the House committee members indicates the importance of the issue to the Lemhis. Here was a final attempt to see the matter justly resolved before the Lemhis who had endured the removal process, as Wahtomy had, were all dead. If the bia was unwilling to ask Congress to initiate legislation on the matter, at least Wahtomy could bring it before members of Congress himself. He died in May of the following year. 64 Nonetheless, the Lemhi Committee was successful, to an extent. The pressure it exerted prompted the bia and Fort Hall superintendents to direct their attention to a fund seemingly forgotten by government officials. As a result, long-overdue individual claims were paid. The final applications for shares owed, amounting to $190.20, were finally submitted in September of 1958. 65 But the Lemhi Committee never secured the surplus from the fund because members reluctantly agreed, or were forced, to share the money with the other tribes at Fort Hall. The spirit of Resolution 211 subsumed the Lemhis and their rights to the removal funds, but bia opposition to Resolution 211 upheld distinct Lemhi rights to the annuity monies, even

56

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

[56], (18)

Lines: 188 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[56], (18)

though it simultaneously denied that those rights could be exercised. More importantly, the Lemhi Committee reinforced Lemhi identity by refusing to abandon its claim on the annuities. The committee used political devices, it relied on Lemhi leadership to speak for the group, and it symbolized the cultural ties that continued to bind the Lemhi Shoshones together as a distinct group of people living as a minority on a multitribal reservation. In assigning the Lemhis exclusive rights to their annuity fund, the bia created uncertainty among tribal members regarding the status of the Lemhis in relation to other tribes at Fort Hall. This uncertainty was particularly evident in the subsequent Fort Hall claims filed before the icc. In 1962, ten years after the bia’s final decision regarding the Lemhi [57], (19) annuity fund, the icc ruled that the Lemhi Shoshones, along with three other groups, were entitled to compensation for lands over which Lines: 192 to 1 they had maintained exclusive use and occupancy—lands that the government had wrongfully taken. Because the Lemhis had enrolled at ——— Fort Hall, the icc appointed the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes as the legal * 199.95901p ——— representatives for the Lemhis in their claim, but the repercussions Normal Page of this were not widely understood on the reservation, even among council members, and tribal members remained uncertain about who * PgEnds: PageB held jurisdiction over the multilayered claim. Would the Lemhis hold exclusive rights to their land claim as they had in the case of their [57], (19) annuity fund, or would it belong to all Sho-Ban tribal members?

the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities

57

[58], (20)

Lines: 195 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[58], (20)

4

Termination and the Indian Claims Commission The Commission further finds that the United States acquired the Indian title to the lands of the Lemhi Tribe without payment of compensation on February 12, 1875, the date that the Lemhi reserve was established by executive order of the President. Indian Claims Commission, October 1962

[First Page] [59], (1)

By the end of World War II, the Lemhis had spent the better part of four decades at the Fort Hall Reservation. Some had intermarried with the Shoshone-Bannocks there and had been enrolled as tribal members. Despite the forces of assimilation, however, the Lemhis remained a distinct group, and they were viewed as such by their fellow tribal members. According to the program for the “Days of Old Fort Hall Indian Celebration” in July 1952, for example, which was put together by a committee of tribal members, the reservation contained three tribes: Shoshone, Bannock, and Lemhi. 1 Outside observers also noted the distinction. Mary Lou Skinner, a Public Health Service nurse, spent two years at Fort Hall conducting a study of health conditions on the reservation during the late 1950s. She wrote, after an interview with Dr. Sven Liljeblad, an anthropologist who also spent a good deal of time on the reservation, that the Lemhis “have a higher level of organization than the rest of the Indians at the Agency. They are not part of the rest and are not considered by the rest to be as much a part of Agency Indians as the other group.”2 The Lemhis’ tie to the Salmon River country to the north remained strong; indeed, it was central to their sense of identity. Nor had the Lemhis been entirely removed from the area. A group of them maintained year-round residency in the town of Salmon. Many Lemhis at Fort Hall returned to the Salmon area to hunt and fish or to visit; some spent much of each year living there among relatives. A wide range of other factors also helped to sustain Lemhi identity on the cultural and political landscape at Fort Hall despite the counter-

59

Lines: 0 to 51 ———

4.5pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [59], (1)

vailing forces of assimilation at work there. Lemhi children were raised with a clear sense of the importance of their heritage, even in cases of mixed marriage between Lemhis and non-Lemhi tribal members. Ritual life also served to set the Lemhis apart in cases. For instance, in addition to participating in rituals associated with sacred sites in the Salmon River country, Lemhis at Fort Hall also held their own Sun Dances. 3 The appearance of a series of articles on Lemhi Shoshone medicinal practices in a reservation publication in 1957 clearly reflected the persistence of Lemhi identity; it also probably reinforced that identity. 4 Mary Lou Skinner’s observation that the Lemhis were not considered “as much a part” of the Fort Hall Indian community points to yet another factor that served to distinguish the Lemhis from other groups: discrimination. Many Lemhis felt that they had not been and would never be welcomed among other tribal members at Fort Hall. 5 The struggle to secure the unpaid annuity monies during the 1940s and 1950s also fostered a sense of Lemhi identity. The government, which increasingly came to view all the tribes at Fort Hall as a single entity after the Lemhis had settled there, had seemingly forgotten about its obligation to them, but the Lemhi Committee, through its persistence, forced the government to address the unpaid annuities. Meanwhile, Lemhi efforts to secure the monies were also hindered by the Sho-Bans, who expected that they would share in the Lemhi fund since the Lemhis had enrolled as tribal members. Despite these circumstances, which conspired to blur Lemhi separateness, the Lemhis strove to maintain their political and cultural autonomy. The creation of the icc in 1946 and the filing of Fort Hall claims, including one for the seizure of the Lemhi Shoshones’ traditional homeland, together with a subsequent shift in federal Indian policy, posed even greater challenges to the Lemhis’ efforts to assert their distinctiveness. 6 The years after World War II were marked by a decisive shift in federal Indian policy, and tribal peoples, including those at Fort Hall, braced themselves for what appeared to be an ominous change in direction. Policies implemented under former commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier, which promoted the preservation of traditional Indian cultures, met growing opposition and were rolled back. By 1946 Commissioner Collier and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes no longer dominated Indian policy, and many politicians called for a return to

60

termination and the indian claims commission

[60], (2)

Lines: 51 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [60], (2)

assimilating Indian people into mainstream American culture. The experiences of American Indians in the war, they argued, had furthered the assimilation process. Preserving tribal cultures seemed unrealistic in an era focused on unity and consensus and when many were fearful of the spread of communism. Traditional Indian culture, moreover, threatened those preoccupied with the red scare. 7 Economic forces were at work as well. Conservative congressmen sought to end Native American “wardship” in an effort to relieve the government of considerable cost and responsibility. The bia was targeted in an effort to decrease runaway federal bureaucracy; its eventual elimination was the ultimate goal. During the war, the increased federal presence and expenditure in the American West had created an economic boom, and mining, timber, farming, ranching, and manufacturing interests demanded that Indian lands be opened to the public, creating opportunity and expanding the tax base. 8 Assortments of terms were used to describe this emerging policy. The Bureau of Indian Affairs initially described it as “liquidation” but later adopted the less threatening term “readjustment”; others referred to it as emancipation or freedom from paternalism. Eventually, however, the efforts to withdraw federal responsibility over American Indians became known as termination. The term characterized federal Indian policy between World War II and the Nixon administration. 9 Although no legal basis for termination existed until the 1950s, plans to implement the policy began soon after the war. On February 8, 1947, The Senate Civil Service Committee summoned assistant commissioner of Indian Affairs William Zimmerman. Zimmerman had become acting commissioner in 1947, after William Brophy, Collier’s replacement, became too ill to fulfill his responsibilities. Committee chairman Sen. Arthur Watkins (r-ut) asked Zimmerman to prepare a list of Indian tribes, in order of readiness for withdrawal of federal supervision. The result became known as the Zimmerman Plan, and it served as the blueprint for termination. The plan divided all Indian tribes into three groups: those deemed ready for immediate withdrawal of federal oversight, those who could be released from government wardship gradually over a ten-year period, and those that required more than ten years before they could be expected to function without federal supervision. Specific criteria determined which group a particular tribe fell into, such as its economic status, its degree of

termination and the indian claims commission

61

[61], (3)

Lines: 55 to 61 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [61], (3)

assimilation, and its willingness to forego federal supervision. Another consideration was the willingness of various states to accept the responsibilities that termination required. 10 Zimmerman later insisted that he never intended for his list to represent a termination plan. He claimed that what he advocated was a form of withdrawal formulated earlier by Collier, in which tribes would become autonomous, self-governing corporations who would retain their reservations and traditional cultures. Whether this was the case, terminationists later used his testimony to validate their policies. 11 Terminationists expected that the icc would serve as one of their primary tools in implementing the Zimmerman Plan. 12 Envisioned before the advent of termination, the icc had been suggested as early as 1908 by commissioner of Indian Affairs Francis Leupp and had been part of Collier’s Indian Reorganization Act of 1934 until Congress struck it for its costliness. Promoters wanted the icc to provide an efficient arena for settling long-standing Indian claims against the government in a more timely and just manner than the U.S. Court of Claims offered. Collier and Ickes promoted the icc, but attempts to establish it between 1935 and 1945 were repeatedly thwarted by Congress. By 1946, however, the movement to settle American Indian grievances against the government had gained momentum, fueled in part by the notion that Indians, many of whom had served in the war effort, deserved a fair deal. The Indian Claims Commission Act finally passed, and President Harry Truman signed it into law on August 13, 1946. 13 In response to the passage of the Indian Claims Commission Act, the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council called a special meeting on September 13. Ernest L. Wilkinson, a partner of Wilkinson, Boyden, and Cragun, a Washington dc law firm prominent in Indian law, appeared at the meeting to discuss the firm’s contract with the tribes and their prospects before the icc. Lemhi Committee officers Frank Wahtomy and Edward Matsaw, who also served on the council, represented the Lemhis at the meeting. 14 Wilkinson, Boyden, and Cragun had brought a claim on behalf of the Northwestern Bands of Shoshones before the Court of Claims, losing in a 3–2 ruling, and then before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1945, where the appeal was defeated in a 5–4 decision. The claim was a test case for further land claims for the Fort Hall tribes, and in

62

termination and the indian claims commission

[62], (4)

Lines: 61 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [62], (4)

response to its defeat the firm turned its attention to the creation of the Indian Claims Commission. Wilkinson in particular was instrumental in the passage of the act, having largely written the bill that appeared before Congress. The Fort Hall claims, Wilkinson explained to tribal members, had a much better chance of success before the icc, which required exclusive use and occupancy, rather than treaty rights, as the basis for land claims. Wilkinson also explained that the firm’s ten-year contract with the tribes was a month from expiration, and he asked that it be renewed so that the claims could be pursued before the icc. A motion passed to renew the contract. 15 Initially established for ten years, the icc consisted of three members, a chief and two associate commissioners, who heard claims brought against the government by any identifiable group of Indians residing in the United States (including Alaska). The law allowed for a variety of cases to be heard, but most of the 617 claims finally considered involved lands the government had wrongfully taken, or cases where inadequate compensation had been provided for Indian lands. Because the vast number of cases slowed its progress, the icc later expanded to include five commissioners, and its mandate was extended five times, giving it a life of thirty-two years. 16 In August 1951 Wilkinson, Boyden, and Cragun filed a case before the icc that included the claims of the Fort Hall tribes. The claim listed five petitioners, based on historic treaties concluded by a special peace commission between July 2 and October 14, 1863. The 1863 commission consisted of James Duane Doty, superintendent of Indian Affairs and later governor of Utah Territory, Luther Mann, Indian agent in Utah Territory, and Henry Martin, former superintendent of Indian Affairs in Utah Territory. The five petitioners, or “Doty groups,” were represented in the claim, both individually and along with other related groups, as the Shoshone Nation. Although the Doty treaties did not directly involve the Lemhis or their Salmon River homeland, they were included as petitioners in the larger Shoshone claim, as were the lands they occupied in aboriginal times. 17 Because Section 10 of the Indian Claims Commission Act stipulated that tribes organized under the Indian Reorganization Act (ira) could pursue claims only through the tribal governments established by their ira constitutions, jurisdiction over the Lemhi claim fell to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation. 18 Tribal members and the Tribal Business Council,

termination and the indian claims commission

63

[63], (5)

Lines: 67 to 71 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [63], (5)

however, were not aware of this fact, nor did they have a concrete understanding of how the various award settlements, should they be offered, would be allocated. Meanwhile, termination became official after President Dwight Eisenhower took office in 1953, with the passage of House Concurrent Resolution (hcr) 108 on August 1. hcr 108 was guided through Congress by western terminationists, particularly Senator Watkins (rut). Its stated purpose was to end Native Americans’ status as wards of the government, to work toward the eventual elimination of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and to bring American Indian rights and responsibilities in line with mainstream America. Termination was to proceed as rapidly as possible, and certain tribes—the Klamath in Oregon and the Menominee in Wisconsin—were singled out for immediate action. 19 Fifteen days after hcr 108 was adopted, on August 15, Congress passed three pieces of legislation that promoted termination. Public Law 280 provided five states with jurisdiction over the criminal and civil cases on Indian lands in their boundaries, and it allowed other states to adopt the same authority. 20 Two other pieces of legislation dealt with outdated regulations, and they were less controversial. Public Law 277 reversed a ban of alcohol on reservations, allowing for its sale. Public Law 281 allowed American Indians the right of unrestricted sale of livestock and the right to sell a variety of goods previously prohibited, including farm implements, firearms, and clothing. 21 These laws were consistent with the goal of ending the government’s paternalistic relationship with American Indians, and they also helped to justify the abandonment of responsibility toward them under the pretense of allowing them their freedom. The icc was born, although perhaps of good intentions, at the wrong time. Created to address wrongs committed against American Indians by the government, and supported by those who championed Indian rights, the icc also appealed to terminationists and was ultimately co-opted by them. Indeed, Arthur Watkins, the “godfather of the termination policy,” eventually served as a commissioner. 22 For terminationists, the icc was a step toward withdrawing government involvement in American Indian affairs. It would hasten the transition away from federal supervision with lump-sum settlements to tribes that would justify a clean break from government responsibility.

64

termination and the indian claims commission

[64], (6)

Lines: 71 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [64], (6)

The policy of termination met with criticism from the beginning, and in the face of growing opposition, the drive to divest the government from its traditional role as trustee was slowed. Fred Seaton, who was appointed secretary of the interior in 1956, denounced the policy for having been pursued despite strong American Indian opposition. During the years that Watkins and the terminationists vigorously implemented their policies, they succeeded in terminating only about 3 percent of the recognized Indian population and alienating 3 percent of the total Indian lands. 23 Although these figures seem insignificant, they certainly were not for the 11,466 Native Americans of the 109 tribes and bands that lost 1,362,155 acres of land by 1968. 24 Nor was the policy inconsequential for tribes that were not terminated. As Francis Paul Prucha has pointed out, the effects of termination were experienced not only by those tribes who were directly targeted. The psychological effects of termination were widespread and significant: “fear of termination filled the air. . . .’Termination’ became a hated word, and all government proposals on Indian matters were scrutinized with a new alertness, lest they be secret steps toward federal withdrawal.”25 As the goal of outright termination waned in the mid-1950s, the government implemented programs aimed at improving health and education and promoting economic development on reservations. These programs, like the icc, won support from both those in favor and those opposed to termination. For terminationists, they were a step toward decreasing the role of the bia and ultimately washing the government’s hands of the Indian business. Opponents of termination were also in support of these initiatives, as they held the potential to improve conditions on reservations. 26 In 1954 the findings concerning the readiness of Indians for withdrawal of government supervision appeared in a report to the House of Representatives resulting from an investigation of the bia undertaken by the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. The committee determined that the tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation could not be ready for full management of their own affairs in less than fifteen years. They were assigned to Zimmerman’s third group. 27 One of the obstacles the committees detected at Fort Hall was an unwillingness to cooperate. The Tribal Business Council reacted unfavorably when approached about the prospect of gradual termination. 28 Further, the

termination and the indian claims commission

65

[65], (7)

Lines: 79 to 84 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [65], (7)

economic situation at Fort Hall was not conducive to rapid progress toward termination, as later studies and programs would verify. Several studies and programs aimed at improving health, education, and the economy were conducted at Fort Hall. As a part of the transfer of health services on reservations from the bia to the Public Health Service under the Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1955, three reservations, including Fort Hall, were selected for a special study of human behavior. Mary Lou Skinner undertook her two-year behavioral overview of Fort Hall in 1956 and 1957 in an effort to improve health practices and conditions there. 29 To gain a better understanding of land use and economic problems on the reservation, the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs’ special Indian subcommittee held hearings at Fort Hall in mid-October 1957. In conjunction with these hearings, the Tribal Business Council prepared a report, “The Fort Hall Story,” detailing the history and specific problems at Fort Hall. The bia’s William Zimmerman wrote “The Fort Hall Story: An Interpretation” to address the issues raised at the hearings and to offer some solutions. The bia contracted with the University of Idaho to undertake another study, the “Socioeconomic Analysis of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation.” The final product, entitled Economy and Conditions of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, was published in 1964. It was the culmination of several studies conducted by senior staff members at the university that focused on education, agriculture, business and finance, sociology, wildlife and game management, and range management and forestry. Norman Nybroten, professor of economics in the university’s College of Business Administration, was the research coordinator and editor of the final product. These studies and programs revealed the Fort Hall tribes’ lack of readiness for a withdrawal of federal supervision, and they also exposed the opposition to and fear of termination that pervaded the reservation. In “The Fort Hall Story,” the Tribal Business Council condemned termination and blamed it for of some of the problems that were occurring on the reservation, in particular the decimation of cattle herds that resulted from Public Law 281, and the shift in power from the reservation to the area office level. It predicted that continuation of the policy would be “disastrous,” and the report urged Congress

66

termination and the indian claims commission

[66], (8)

Lines: 84 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [66], (8)

to “enact a new statement of policy, which will give assurance to the Indians that they will be treated decently and justly.”30 The issue of termination was addressed at the hearings as well. Edward Boyer, a tribal member from a family active in Fort Hall politics, stated before the subcommittee, “It appears you gentlemen came out here to see how much damage has been done to the Indian people under the present Government policies to terminate at the earliest possible time.”31 Boyer argued that termination legislation had created economic problems on the reservation and weakened the tribal government by the transfer of power from the reservation to the area office level. Further, Boyer quoted President Eisenhower in pointing out that the policy had been formulated without Indian participation or consent. 32 Rep. George Shuford (d-nc) denied the allegations and responded that to his knowledge “there is no program in the Congress or any legislation in the Congress dealing with the termination of the Indians here . . . and it has not even been discussed.” He dismissed Boyer’s concerns as “not well founded.”33 John Taylor, consultant on Indian affairs, echoed Shuford in an attempt to further allay the fear of termination at Fort Hall. 34 When the subject came up again, however, Rep. Edwin Thomson (r-wy) acknowledged the goals of government policy. He admitted that, although there were no current plans for termination at Fort Hall, “there is a general implication that sometime in the indefinite future that might happen. I think we are working toward that, and I think it behooves this reservation and the people on it to have that in mind.”35 The issue of termination remained very much at the forefront of tribal members’ minds, and fears of the repercussions of withdrawal of federal support and responsibility provided the backdrop against which the icc claims process unfolded. “In Indian thinking at Fort Hall,” Zimmerman wrote in 1959 in “The Fort Hall Story: An Interpretation,”“the word ‘program’ is believed to conceal Bureau determination to terminate federal protection and responsibility.”36 But while the programs raised fears among American Indians at Fort Hall, they also demonstrated to government officials that conditions there were not conducive to a rapid divestment of government responsibility. The University of Idaho study revealed serious economic problems on the Fort Hall Reservation. Despite possessing significant natural resources, it suffered from high unemployment and low wages, as well

termination and the indian claims commission

67

[67], (9)

Lines: 92 to 97 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [67], (9)

as inadequate housing and associated health and sanitation problems. The study pinpointed heirship problems, resulting from the allotment of reservation lands, as one of the major causes of these problems. A good deal of productive land was tied up due to subdivision of ownership and consequently remained idle or was leased to non-Indians. Factionalization, based on degree of Indian blood, band association, degree of acculturation, and locality, also contributed to a lack of economic progress. In addition, such progress was hindered by hostility based on racial tensions between Indian people and non-Indians in neighboring communities. The report also enumerated widespread lack of faith in tribal leadership as a factor contributing to reservation problems. 37 Tribal members, then, were suspicious of the icc and fearful that the pursuit of the claims was tantamount to acquiescence to termination. Yet economic conditions on the reservation served as a countervailing pressure in favor of the claims and the monetary windfall they promised. Factionalism, mistrust of tribal leadership, and uncertainty as to the ownership of the various claims only added to this tension. Tribal attorneys Ernest Wilkinson and John Boyden appeared at a general Tribal Business Council meeting on February 23, 1952, to update the tribes on the status of the claim filed the previous August. The claim, Wilkinson explained, had been filed alternately on behalf of the Shoshone Nation as well as on behalf of the five individual Doty groups. The claim for lands wrongfully taken by the government was valued at the time of filing at $28 million. 38 But a final decision on the claim would take time. Land claims before the icc were heard in three stages: title, value-liability, and offsets. The title stage required extensive research in archives and in the field by expert anthropologists and historians to provide evidence that the claimants had held exclusive use and occupancy of the lands in question. In the event the commission ruled in favor of a tribe’s title claim, it issued an interlocutory judgment, moving it to the next stage of litigation. With government liability established, the second stage determined the fair market value of the Indian lands at the time they were taken. This stage also required the research and testimony of experts, and successful claims were transferred to the final stage through another interlocutory judgment. In the final stage the allowable offsets to be deducted from the settlement were determined, and

68

termination and the indian claims commission

[68], (10)

Lines: 97 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[68], (10)

final judgment was made. Allowable offsets were gratuitous expenditures made by the government to the tribe subsequent to the taking of the lands. Offsets were allowable only if the government had no obligation to make the payments and the tribe had no obligation to repay them. Expenditures for the benefit of a tribe were allowable, while those made to individuals were not. The amount of research necessary in each of these stages meant that it often took an extensive period to complete the process. 39 The questions that tribal members posed to Wilkinson and Boyden at the February 23 meeting reflected their suspicions of the icc. Lemhi Walter Wahtomy, noting that the map showing the claim area included the reservation, asked if accepting an award meant relocation and dissolution of the reservation—a calamity that the Lemhis remembered only too well. Wilkinson assured him that the reservation would remain intact, but its value would be offset from the sum of the final award. Another major concern was that accepting a settlement might affect hunting and fishing treaty rights on the lands in the claim areas. The lawyers promised that those rights would not be altered because of the claims before the commission. In response to other questions, tribal members were told that the icc had the authority to provide compensation for lands wrongfully taken, but was not authorized to return those lands. Finally, the attorneys explained that the Tribal Business Council would make the decision about the distribution of any award settlements, and that the decision would be subject to congressional approval. 40 Wilkinson, Boyden, Cragun, and Barker 41 submitted a semiannual report to the tribes at Fort Hall on March 30, 1953. The status of the litigation was reported at a special Tribal Business Council meeting on April 6, and again at the annual meeting at Sho-Nock Center on May 27, which attorney John Boyden attended. The firm reported that it had contracted with former government archivist John E. Martin to do research for the case at the National Archives in Washington dc, and that he had amassed forty-six hundred pages of material, which, along with other documents, would serve as the basis of evidence. Boyden also informed tribal members that the firm had been negotiating with anthropology experts who would support the tribes’ claims. The firm promised a later report detailing the candidates and the negotiations once they had proceeded further. 42

termination and the indian claims commission

69

[69], (11)

Lines: 103 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [69], (11)

From the beginning, the lawyers had urged the tribes involved to join together in their claims, splitting any judgments awarded evenly to avoid logistical complications. Although the tribes had filed one large claim, no decision had been reached concerning the division of the potential awards. Consequently, the division of the expenses incurred in pursuing the claim proved complicated. For ethical reasons, the tribes needed to hire the experts directly rather than have the lawyers make the arrangements and advance the costs. The cost of hiring experts, which was estimated at $4,000 for the Shoshone claims, and the difficulty in dividing that cost among the petitioners, hindered the progress of the Fort Hall claims. This delay was common among claims before the icc, and coupled with the large number of those filed just before the deadline, resulted in the need to extend the life of the commission. Before the Fort Hall claims were brought before the icc, six years were spent conducting research, making arrangements with expert witnesses, and lobbying for the extension of the commission. In March 1956 a delegation from Fort Hall traveled to Washington dc to lobby for the extension of the icc and to investigate the status of the Fort Hall claims. They were told that it would take approximately five to ten years for the litigation to be completed. 43 By 1957 the icc was prepared to hear the arguments of the parties involved in the Shoshone claim, and attorney Robert Barker appeared at a special meeting of the Tribal Business Council on January 10 to brief the tribes on the first hearing, scheduled for August. The division of potential award settlements remained a major concern, particularly among the Lemhis. The bia’s refusal to allow the Shoshone-Bannocks to share in the Lemhi annuity fund created confusion as to whether the Lemhis would be treated as a distinct group or as enrolled ShoshoneBannocks in the Fort Hall icc claims. At the meeting, both Oliver Sonnip and Lemhi Annie Nagashoah asked Barker whether the Lemhis were included in the claim. Barker assured them that they were, and he explained that the Lemhis, the Northwest Shoshones, the Pocatello Group, and the Bannocks under Tyhee were all included in the claim as the Mixed Band of Shoshones and Bannocks. 44 In addition to worries about inclusion, the Lemhis were also concerned about whether they would receive fair treatment. The minutes from the meeting note that “the question was asked if we win the claims would the Lemhi’s [sic] receive the same amount of money

70

termination and the indian claims commission

[70], (12)

Lines: 109 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[70], (12)

as the Fort Hall Indians.” Barker admitted that a decision regarding the division of award money still needed to be reached, but he recommended that the tribes wait until after the icc’s initial ruling. He explained that it was possible that the icc would divide the claims, so it made no sense for the tribes to go through the process before the commission made a ruling. Apparently, some doubt lingered among the Lemhis. The minutes record that tribal member “Frank Parker said that the Lemhi’s [sic] who sold their lands and moved here afterward will be treated fairly here.”45 The subject of Lemhi claims appeared on council meeting agendas three times after the January 10 claims meeting, although the minutes do not clearly indicate whether the reference was to the annuity fund, or to ongoing Lemhi concerns about their status with regard to the icc claim, or both. At the time, the Fort Hall superintendent was busy filing the last of the claims for outstanding shares from the annuity fund owed to individuals, so it is possible that these were the claims referred to on the agendas. But mention of legal advice from Pocatello attorney B. W. Davis regarding hunting and fishing rights in conjunction with Lemhi claims in the minutes from two of the meetings raises the greater likelihood that it was the icc claims that were at issue. The Lemhis still returned regularly to the Salmon River country to hunt, fish, and harvest in traditional places, and their use of these resources, still central to their economy, was being criticized at the time. The Lemhis may have been concerned that accepting a settlement from the icc would alienate their treaty rights in these areas. The ShoshoneBannocks had expressed similar concerns about treaty rights at the January 10 claims meeting. 46 The Lemhis were not alone in fearing that the icc was a veiled instrument of terminationists. At the January claims meeting the relationship between the icc and termination was clearly one of the main concerns of tribal members. Barker had been asked outright if accepting an award from the icc would result in termination. He answered by explaining that tribes were designated for termination based on readiness. Accepting an award from the icc did not directly lead to termination, but he admitted that having the money could bring a tribe closer to readiness. 47 In preparation for the hearings before the icc, the Tribal Business Council had approved and hired Omer Stewart, chairman of the

termination and the indian claims commission

71

[71], (13)

Lines: 113 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [71], (13)

Department of Anthropology at the University of Colorado, as its principal expert witness. The government, meanwhile, would be represented by its own experts, including the noted anthropologist Julian Steward, and lawyers from the Department of Justice in Washington dc. 48 The Fort Hall claim, then, became one of several Great Basin icc cases—Shoshones, Paiutes, and Utes—in which the now famous Stewart-Steward debates over Great Basin sociopolitical organization unfolded. 49 Steward and Stewart first became acquainted during the early 1930s, when Omer Stewart worked as a cook for Julian Steward during a summer excavation before enrolling at the University of Utah the following fall. After taking a few classes from Steward, Omer Stewart switched the focus of his studies from law to anthropology, and in 1933 enrolled in the graduate program at the University of California, Berkeley, where he studied under Robert Lowie and Alfred Kroeber, Steward’s mentor. Like Steward, Stewart focused his research on the Great Basin, but his findings led him to very different conclusions than Steward’s, so that Julian Steward charged that his former student had “broken ranks, thus committing an unforgivable heresy.” This divergence between Steward and Stewart would emerge as a full-blown debate in their work as expert witnesses before the icc, and it would continue beyond the proceedings into the academic realm. 50 Julian Steward’s newly developed methodology of multilinear evolution and his developing theory of culture change made him a natural as an expert witness for the Department of Justice in the Great Basin icc claims. In 1952 he accepted a research professorship at the University of Illinois and there began to prepare evidence on behalf of the government. Steward maintained that due to the exigencies of living in a desert environment, Great Basin tribes had no political or social organization above the family level. While these families gathered together in villages during certain parts of the year, their composition changed too frequently to allow for greater cohesion or organization. 51 Before the icc, “attorneys for the government used Steward’s interpretations to demonstrate that the Shoshonean Indians were not organized by economics, social networks, religion, or politics into any sort of recognizable entity that could hold legal title to territory,” thereby weakening the Shoshone claims. 52

72

termination and the indian claims commission

[72], (14)

Lines: 119 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[72], (14)

Omer Stewart, in contrast to Steward, did not rely greatly on theory. Instead, “his work was largely nontheoretical and heavily empirical. Whereas Steward concentrated on ecological and evolutionary theory, Stewart focused on the lived experiences of his informants and the logical extension of those lived experiences in terms of concepts of groupness and land tenure.” Stewart’s fieldwork led him to the conclusion that Great Basin Indians “had political organization on the ‘band’ level and that these bands had distinct territories with boundaries.”53 He made this argument as an expert witness on behalf of numerous tribes before the icc throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and into the 1970s. Ultimately, the icc ruled in favor of the tribes in every case in which Steward and Stewart were legal opponents. 54 The first preliminary hearings of Fort Hall claims were held in Denver on August 28–30, 1957, before commissioners Edgar White from Texas, William Holt from Nebraska, and Louis O’Marr from Wyoming. Attorney John D. Sullivan from Minnesota represented the government and Dr. Francis Murphy from the University of California, Berkeley, served as its expert witness in anthropology. Omer Stewart appeared in the same capacity for the Fort Hall tribes. Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker had requested that the Fort Hall tribes send two representatives to the hearings, so they sent former council chairman LaSalle Pocatello and John Pokibro. The council also arranged to have anthropologist Leslie Fishman, from the University of Colorado, attend the hearings as a consultant. 55 Pocatello and Pokibro reported back to the tribes at a September 24 special council meeting. They informed tribal members that a second set of preliminary hearings would take place the following year in Washington dc, at which the commission would consider the testimony of other expert witnesses. In the Washington hearings, anthropologist Dr. E. Adamson Hoebel, chairman of the Department of Anthropology at the University of Minnesota and president of the American Anthropological Association, served as expert witness for the tribes, while Julian Steward was the witness for the government. 56 Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker filed the Petitioners’ Proposed Finding of Fact and Brief with the icc on February 16, 1961. The tribes were notified at the March 14, 1961, regular meeting of the Tribal Business Council. The firm advised them that the government would probably file its own proposed findings within six months and that an

termination and the indian claims commission

73

[73], (15)

Lines: 125 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [73], (15)

oral argument would follow before the commission delivered a ruling on the validity of the title claims. 57 In the Proposed Finding of Fact, the firm sought to demonstrate that the “Shoshone was a tribe, band, or other identifiable group of Indians and constituted a land-owning entity at the time of its dispossession by the defendant.” The Shoshones had been recognized as such, the firm argued, by early traders and explorers, by government officials, by other tribes, and by anthropologists. Moreover, the Shoshones had identified themselves as a distinct tribe or nation from the earliest times. Further, they argued that the Shoshones had held exclusive use and occupancy of the lands they were claiming at the time of dispossession and prior to it. The Petitioners’ Proposed Finding of Fact clearly described the boundaries of the lands the Shoshones were claiming and included a map showing those boundaries. The petitioners based their arguments on the documentation obtained through research at the National Archives and elsewhere, as well as on the testimony given by their own and the governments’ expert witnesses at the preliminary hearings. 58 By August the government had filed its own brief refuting the Shoshone claims. On August 18 Barker sent Omer Stewart the government’s Requested Findings of Fact, Objections to Petitioners’ Proposed Findings of Fact, and the government’s brief, asking for his opinion of their arguments. Barker informed Stewart that the firm hoped to file its response by September 18. In his response, Stewart evaluated the government’s arguments, noting weaknesses and inaccuracies. He pointed out that in refuting the Shoshone claims, Sullivan, the attorney for the defense, relied largely on the argument that “there was no organization known as the ‘Shoshone Nation’ primarily because there were within the area of the Shoshone a group of Indians known as Bannock who spoke a different language.” To counter the government’s claim that the existence of the Bannocks within the Shoshone Nation undermined the claim of exclusive use and occupancy of the lands the Shoshone were claiming, Stewart likened the Bannocks to the Jewish population in the United States:“The Bannock living among the Shoshone were like the Jews living in the United States where they became full American citizens and yet retained a speaking knowledge of Hebrew and because of their traditional unity and separateness in the past frequently retained a larger amount of

74

termination and the indian claims commission

[74], (16)

Lines: 131 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[74], (16)

intermarriage and cultural identity, even though they are fully recognized as American citizens. The Bannock were like that in that they became fully Shoshonian in their culture.”59 Stewart maintained that a similar parallel could be drawn in reference to Italian or Chinese Americans, and he assured Barker that, in light of the anthropological and historical evidence, and the record of the official government treaties and reports supporting their position, “I cannot see how Sullivan really hopes to prevail.” He characterized the attempt to undermine their case based on the Bannock presence as an “assertion [made] in desperation.”60 Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker’s response to the government’s arguments was filed on September 19, as planned. The government’s assertion that the Bannocks undermined the Shoshones’ exclusive use and occupancy of claimed lands was addressed, as were the government’s criticisms of the alternate pleading of the Doty groups’ claims on behalf of both particular groups and the Shoshone Nation. The firm also charged that the government had imposed criteria not required by the icc, that is, “white man’s property concepts are required of claimant Indians” beyond the demonstration of exclusive use and occupancy. 61 The icc rendered its decision on the Shoshone claims on October 16, 1962. The commission explained that “linguistically the Bannacks spoke a different language,” but nonetheless the commission concluded that within the claimed area there were four identifiable tribes or groups of Indians that had held exclusive use and occupancy of lands wrongfully taken by the government. These groups, the commission ruled, were entitled to compensation for those lands. The four groups were “the Shoshone Tribe, the Lemhi Tribe, the Goshute Tribe or identifiable group, and the identifiable group known as the Western Shoshone.”62 The “Shoshone Tribe” included the Shoshone Tribe of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming and the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation. The Confederated Tribes of the Goshute Reservation were the petitioners identified as claimants for the Goshute Tribe or identifiable group, and the Temoak Bands of Western Shoshone Indians, Nevada, were awarded the right to pursue legal action on behalf of the descendants of the Western Shoshone identifiable group. The commission also determined that “the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho, has the

termination and the indian claims commission

75

[75], (17)

Lines: 135 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [75], (17)

right to maintain this action for and on behalf of the descendants of the land-using Lemhi Tribe.”63 The Lemhi claim to aboriginal lands in the Salmon River country was the second largest of the Fort Hall claims, amounting to over five million acres. The Lemhis were to receive compensation for the lands based on their fair market value at the time they were taken. The commission found that “the United States acquired the Indian title to the lands of the Lemhi tribe without payment or compensation on February 12, 1875, the date that the Lemhi Reserve was established by Executive Order of the President.”64 The icc’s ruling meant that the Lemhis would receive an award settlement as compensation for the loss of their homeland in the Salmon River country. In 1967, moreover, the icc severed the Lemhi claim from petition number 326 and assigned it docket number 326-i, captioned Lemhi Tribe, Represented by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho v. the United States of America. 65 But the decision represented only the first installment of a three-stage process. Before payment could be made, the commission needed to determine the value of the lands in question on the basis of the testimony and evidence submitted by another round of experts. With a value established, the government would then determine the value of offsets to be deducted from the award sum. Only then could the award payment be made. Meanwhile, there were also questions about the claim that needed to be worked out at Fort Hall. While the icc had previously awarded the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes there the right to represent the Lemhis in their claim, tribal and council members remained unclear as to who held jurisdiction over the claim, and no decision had yet been reached concerning the distribution of any future settlement awards. This confusion resulted in part from the bia’s decision concerning the Lemhi annuity funds. Because the bureau had determined that the annuities could only be used to benefit the Lemhis, many tribal members assumed that the same would be true with their icc claim. Despite more than five decades of intermarriage and assimilation at Fort Hall, the Lemhis remained a distinct group, even though the bia’s decision concerning the annuity surplus assumed that they were not. Lemhi efforts to secure the monies had contributed to their identity as a distinct group, but those efforts had also raised uncertainty as

76

termination and the indian claims commission

[76], (18)

Lines: 141 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[76], (18)

[77], (19)

Lines: 160 to 1 ———

12.31052pt

——— Normal Page * PgEnds: PageB Shoshone territory, based on Commissioner James Doty’s estimation of the area covered by the treaties he concluded in 1863. Omer Stewart, the Shoshones’ expert witness, drew on Doty’s map, among other sources, in defining the boundaries of Shoshone territory in testimony before the Indian Claims Commission in 1957. Map by Sarah Moore.

[77], (19)

to their status relative to other groups at Fort Hall. The bia refused to allow the Sho-Bans to share in the Lemhi annuity monies because the Lemhis held exclusive rights to the fund, while at the same time it determined that the annuities could not be released to the Lemhis because it took the position that they could not be distinguished from other tribal members. The resulting confusion carried over to the icc claims and would galvanize the Lemhis politically once again as they sought to assert their ownership over their claim. Ultimately, many Lemhis came to oppose the icc claim for a variety of reasons; not least among them was a lingering bitterness over the seizure of their aboriginal homeland and exile to Fort Hall.

termination and the indian claims commission

77

[78], (20)

Lines: 161 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[78], (20)

5

The Lemhi icc Claim, 1962–72 The belief the natives have is that we are so related to the mother earth, and that’s why we, like myself, I would reject that offer of four and a half million. . . . As I think about our little ones, where are they going to go? Our little ones, our babies, where are they going to go if we sell out? That’s my own thinking. Udale Tendoy, 1971 [First Page]

Attorney Robert Barker telephoned Tribal Business Council chairman Edward Boyer on October 25, 1962, with the news of the icc’s favorable decision, and Boyer announced it to the Fort Hall tribes at a special council meeting that day. The claim was one of the largest awarded by the icc, involving fifty to sixty million acres. It followed that a large monetary recovery could be expected. Barker cautioned, however, that the next stage in the process would be even more time consuming and costly for the tribes than the first. 1 By the end of March 1963 the General Council of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes had passed Resolution 1667, authorizing the Tribal Business Council to enter into negotiations with the experts recommended by Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker. The resolution also authorized the council to use tribal funds “to obtain the services of competent historians, general valuation consultants, possibly timber consultants and mineral consultants and other expert witnesses necessary to conduct such valuation” for the Shoshone and Lemhi claims. In addition, Resolution 1667 requested the tribal attorneys and the tribal council to cooperate with the Wind River Shoshones in selecting and financing witnesses for the Shoshone claim. 2 On September 30, 1964, Barker attended a special council meeting to discuss appraisal options with tribal members. He explained that the tribes could choose between two general approaches or appraisal options, one considerably more expensive than the other. For the Lemhi claim, for example, a detailed appraisal would cost $64,750, while the less detailed “quick and dirty approach” would cost only $26,500. The virtue of the more expensive option, Barker pointed out, was that it would be more detailed and therefore would be likely to

79

[79], (1)

Lines: 0 to 50 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [79], (1)

produce a larger settlement than the less expensive route. In addition, a more detailed appraisal would be more difficult for the government to refute. The disparity in cost, Barker rationalized, would not be so intimidating when compared to the size of the claims. A few cents’ difference in accepted appraised value, he explained, could translate into hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of difference in the award settlement. Barker realized that the budget was an issue, and he maintained that he was not trying to advocate one alternative over the other but merely advising the tribes of their options. 3 Funding was indeed an issue in the second stage of land claims, and not only at Fort Hall. In response to widespread hindrance to claims caused by the expense of hiring expert witnesses, a bill was introduced in Congress in 1963 to establish a revolving fund from which tribes could draw loans to pay the expenses incurred in undertaking appraisals. Arthur Watkins, who was no longer in the Senate and served as chief commissioner of the icc, lobbied in support of the bill. Watkins lamented the fact that “there is almost a complete stoppage now of hearings which require the testimony of expert witnesses . . . mostly because of no funds.” The bill was passed, establishing a revolving fund of $900,000. Tribes could draw loans at 5 percent interest in order to hire expert witnesses to complete the appraisal process. 4 Loans were to be repaid from monies received in the settlement of claims, and Watkins estimated that the revolving fund would shorten the life of the icc by five years. Because of the high cost of appraisals and the fact that over six hundred claims were still pending, the sum of money provided proved to be inadequate, prompting subsequent augmentation of the fund. 5 At the September 30, 1964, special council meeting, Barker proposed several strategies for facilitating the appraisal process for the Fort Hall claims, including the possibility of receiving a loan from the revolving fund. He advised that the Lemhi and Shoshone claims be pursued first because they were the largest. To reduce costs, he suggested conducting the appraisals for these lands in concert. This would be possible because the claims involved lands that, though geographically distinct, were also in fairly close proximity. Although the two claims differed in terms of the historic date at which their value was to be determined, 6 Barker maintained that the difference would not present a significant problem. 7

80

the lemhi icc claim

[80], (2)

Lines: 50 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [80], (2)

Another strategy that might be pursued, Barker suggested, was to delay the Lemhi claim until a settlement was reached in the Shoshone claim. The Lemhi appraisal could then be financed with a loan from the Shoshone award. Similarly, the Wind River Shoshones had offered to loan the Fort Hall Shoshones the money needed to cover their portion of the appraisal cost. The Wind River Shoshones preferred the more expensive appraisal option, which was estimated at $149,000 for the entire thirty-eight million acres covered by the claim. The Wind River Shoshones proposed that they undertake the appraisal of those lands for which they were entitled to compensation, and then loan the Fort Hall Shoshones the money they needed to complete the project at 4 percent interest, the rate their money was currently drawing in the U.S. Treasury. The loan and interest were to be repaid once the claim was settled. Barker approved of these arrangements, noting that the interest was less than would be charged in the event a government loan was secured. He also pointed out that the Wind River loan would provide for a more rapid settlement of the claim. He asked the council to review the options with tribal members and decide on a course of action as soon as possible. 8 The decision reached by tribal members clearly indicated the uncertainty about the status of the Lemhi claim. Fort Hall superintendent John Pappan attended a special council meeting on October 26 and announced that the applications for loans from the $900,000 revolving fund were available from the bia’s Portland Area Office. Tribal members had already decided to pursue the Wind River loan to finance the Shoshone claim, and a motion passed authorizing Pappan to contact Barker and to report back to the tribes on the status of the loan. Pappan advised tribal members that if they intended to finance the appraisals for the other claims with a loan from the revolving fund, then they should submit an application quickly. Council member Mary Matte suggested that an application should be submitted to obtain a loan that would enable the tribes to pursue the more detailed appraisal option. Chairman Layton Littlejohn then suggested that an application be submitted for a loan of $65,000 to cover the $64,700 cost for the more detailed appraisal for the Lemhi claim. Pappan suggested, in response, that the tribes submit an application for a loan of $100,750, which would cover the cost of the appraisal for all of the Fort Hall claims excepting the Shoshone land

the lemhi icc claim

81

[81], (3)

Lines: 56 to 60 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [81], (3)

claim. Pappan recommended that the tribes stipulate, in their application, that preference be given to the Lemhi claim in the event that the full amount was not granted. Council member Alan Tindore made a motion to that effect, but before it could be seconded council member Kesley Edmo raised the issue of the status of the Lemhi claim. Edmo first asked about a sum of $8,000 that had already been given to the Lemhis, presumably referring to their share of the expenses incurred in the first stage of the claims. Edmo continued, asking whether only Lemhis would be eligible to share in the award from the Lemhi claim, or was it to be divided among all Indian people at Fort Hall? Pappan answered that the Lemhi were considered part of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, but Edmo was unconvinced, noting that “some people don’t have the same rights to past claims,” probably referring to the exclusive Lemhi rights to the Lemhi annuity fund. Council member Matte then seconded the motion and suggested that it be amended to stipulate that the Lemhis would be responsible for repaying the Shoshone-Bannocks for the loan from their settlement award, in the event only Lemhis shared in it. The amended motion passed, with four voting in favor and council member Joseph Thorpe abstaining. It became Resolution 1917. 9 Resolution 1917 reflected the uncertainty of tribal members about who was entitled to share in the Lemhi claim. This doubt stemmed in part from the bia’s refusal to release the Lemhi annuity fund to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Because the Lemhis held exclusive rights to the annuity fund, it was assumed by many tribal members, Lemhis and non-Lemhis alike, that the same would be true of the Lemhi claim before the icc. The Indian Claims Commission Act, however, specified that the Lemhis, as enrolled Shoshone-Bannocks, had to be represented by that tribe in their claim. It was up to all enrolled tribal members to decide whether the award would go to the Lemhi minority or be shared by all. Tribal leaders and attorneys met in Salt Lake City on February 19, 1965, to finalize the financing arrangements for the appraisal on the Shoshone claim. The Fort Hall and Wind River Shoshones also needed to reach an agreement about the division of the claim because the offsets—portions of the judgment award deducted by the government for expenses incurred—for the two reservations were

82

the lemhi icc claim

[82], (4)

Lines: 60 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [82], (4)

to be determined separately. An agreement stipulating an even division of the award settlement, and codifying the Wind River appraisal loan offer, was brought before the Fort Hall tribes for ratification at a March 22 general meeting. A resolution ratifying the agreement passed, fifty-nine in favor and three opposed, 10 and the bia approved it on December 2. 11 On May 15, 1965, the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council passed another resolution that superseded Resolution 1917. Resolution 2048 stipulated that the Lemhis, should their claim be considered separately, reimburse the Shoshone-Bannocks not only for the loan taken on their behalf for the appraisal, but for all costs incurred in pursuit of the Lemhi claim. The resolution also differed in the amount of money requested from the revolving fund. The estimate for the appraisal cost for the Lemhi claim had decreased since the previous year by $5,000 to $60,000, and the total loan requested in Resolution 2048 was for $96,000. Resolution 2048, like Resolution 1917, asked that the Lemhi claim receive preference if the entire amount requested was not granted. The application form was completed the same day and submitted to the bia’s Branch of Credit and Financing. 12 Because potential award settlements from the icc were to be divided among only enrolled tribal members, enrollment requirements became a contested issue after the Fort Hall claims were filed. Article 2 of the 1935 tribal constitution defined tribal members as “all persons with Indian blood whose names appear on the official census role of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes as of January 1, 1935 . . . [and] all children born to any member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.” The constitution stipulated that parental residency be a requirement for enrollment. 13 By 1952, when tribal attorney John Boyden attended a special council meeting to inform tribal members about the Fort Hall claims recently filed with the icc, the enrollment requirements established in the tribal constitution remained largely intact. 14 Boyden noted the absence of any blood degree requirements, and cautioned “that when and if the claim money goes through, they will have trouble in deciding who will receive this money.” He explained that in other cases, tribes had established blood degree requirements in an effort to more clearly define tribal membership before claims awards were made. In response to his advice, the council vowed to revise the requirements with the claims in mind. 15

the lemhi icc claim

83

[83], (5)

Lines: 64 to 70 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [83], (5)

Despite various efforts to amend the enrollment requirements, however, the matter remained unresolved when the icc made its 1962 ruling. The promise of large award settlements made the need to finalize the requirements more urgent, but controversy surrounding proposed changes slowed any resolution. Blood degree enrollment requirements were divisive for several reasons. One factor was the relationship between enrollment requirements and tribal claims. This relationship changed over the course of litigation. After Boyden suggested that a blood degree requirement would simplify determining who was eligible to share in a future settlement in 1952, tribal members attempted to institute a restrictive blood degree requirement of onehalf. 16 Approximately 60 percent of tribal members were full-blood, and about four out of five had at least three-quarters Indian blood. 17 The majority of tribal members, then, stood to gain by limiting the requirements. After the icc’s initial ruling in the claims in 1962, however, population counts, both historic and contemporary, were considered as a means of dividing the Shoshone claim between the Wind River and Fort Hall tribes. Fort Hall then stood to benefit by relaxing the requirements in order to bolster the number of enrolled members. Once the decision to divide the Shoshone claim equally had been reached, the issue again became one of dividing an awarded amount among tribal members. Adding to the controversy was the tension between full- and mixed-bloods, and the concern over ramifications of blood degree requirements for future generations. The residency requirement was also a point of contention, particularly for the Lemhis. Some Lemhis resided permanently in the Salmon area, and many others divided their time between Salmon and Fort Hall. These Lemhis feared that a residency requirement for enrollment would exclude them from sharing in the award settlement. Meanwhile, the inclusion of some Lemhis living in Salmon on the membership rolls, despite the enrollment requirement, created additional controversy. By 1965 the council again moved to resolve the increasingly urgent issue of enrollment requirements. At a June 19 special meeting, council members, in response to pressure from tribal members to alter the residency and blood degree requirements, passed a motion directing the council to convene in each district on the reservation to discuss proposed changes. They proposed eliminating the residency

84

the lemhi icc claim

[84], (6)

Lines: 70 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [84], (6)

requirement and reaching a consensus on blood degree. Tribal members were to select among three options: one-quarter, one-eighth, or one-sixteenth degree Indian blood. The council allowed that enrolled members living off the reservation would be notified and provided with absentee ballots in the event the proposed changes were brought to a referendum. 18 By September the council resolved to hold the referendum on the changes in the upcoming election of associate judges. The proposed changes, however, remained controversial. A member of an Enrollment Committee appointed by the council reported that the committee had found that many tribal members were concerned that the blood degree requirements would discriminate against their children. Eliminating the residency requirement also remained a point of contention. Indeed, the committee expressed concern about the number of enrolled members whose parents had not been residents at the time of their birth. One committee member even suggested the possibility of striking such members from the rolls, and wondered whether the committee had the authority to do so. The Lemhis in Salmon fell into this category, and they were specifically mentioned. Council member Alan Tindore offered a motion, later seconded, that amounted to a compromise: children of enrolled members born off the reservation would be eligible for enrollment provided their parents had never declared legal residency outside the reservation. The motion, however, did not carry. While it would have benefited some of the Lemhis in Salmon, it still would have left some excluded from membership. 19 Ultimately, the planned referendum was not held, and the issue of enrollment requirements remained unresolved for the next few years. As a result, the Lemhis were left with lingering fears. They had demonstrated their ability to bring pressure to bear on the tribal council at Fort Hall, but as a minority on the reservation they remained powerless to stop the potential residency requirement for enrollment. The Lemhis’ continuing ties to the Salmon River country, ironically, now threatened to exclude them from an award for the seizure of those lands. The application for the loan for appraisal expenses for the Lemhi claim was conditionally approved on September 17, 1965. The conditions included minor alterations to the application for purposes of clarification, and agreement to certain stipulations regarding the

the lemhi icc claim

85

[85], (7)

Lines: 74 to 80 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [85], (7)

use of the money loaned. Among the stipulations outlined in the commitment order sent to the tribes was a clause ordering “that it shall be understood that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ obligation to repay any amounts loaned for use in connection with the Lemhi claim under Docket No. 326 will be on the basis of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ participation in any judgment awarded on the Lemhi claim in Docket No. 326.” This meant that the Sho-Bans would only be responsible for repaying the loan if tribal members voted to share equally in the Lemhi claim. If, however, the award were divided among only tribal members of Lemhi descent, then only those members would be responsible for the loan. The Fort Hall tribes had sixty days to pass a resolution accepting the conditions and to forward it to the superintendent. A resolution adopting the wording specified by the bia was drafted. Resolution 2167 was passed by the council on October 26 and received by the bia’s Branch of Credit on November 22. Council chairman Herbert LeClair signed the commitment order in acceptance on November 16. 20 Meanwhile, Charles O’Boyle, a geological engineer from Denver who had previously testified as an expert before the icc, was selected to conduct the mineral appraisal work for the Lemhi claim. As O’Boyle set to work on his report of the mineral value of the land covered in the Lemhi claim, Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker began to compile a list of icc decisions regarding the value of similar lands in other cases. The firm planned to use the precedent set in other cases together with the opinion of valuation consultants to determine the fair market value of the surface rights to the land in the Lemhi claim. 21 While the appraisal for the Lemhi claim was being prepared, the government offered a compromise settlement of the Shoshone claim. Barker met with bia officials on August 14, 1967, to discuss the proposed settlement. The government proposed an award of $15.7 million for a total of 38 million acres. If accepted, $500,000 of the total would be paid to the Fort Hall tribes for reservation lands previously ceded. Barker suggested that the remaining $15.2 million would be divided equally between the Fort Hall and Wind River Shoshones, with $821,000 of the Wind River award set aside for the Northwestern Bands of Shoshone at Washakie, in Box Elder County, Utah. 22 Barker informed the tribes of the award offer on August 15, and scheduled

86

the lemhi icc claim

[86], (8)

Lines: 80 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T [86], (8)

meetings at Fort Hall, Washakie, and Wind River for August 25, 26, and 29, respectively, to discuss the offer with the tribes. 23 On August 17, the icc severed the Lemhi claim from petition number 326 and assigned it docket number 326-i. The commission also ordered that no further pleadings were needed in the case. Consequently, the General Services Administration, at the request of the U.S. attorney general, began to compile the records necessary for determining the allowable offsets for the Lemhi claim. 24 By the end of 1967, then, the Lemhi claim stood alone. As the Lemhi’s lawyers and experts calculated the value of their claim, the government determined the amount that it would deduct from that sum. A significant final offer was certain. The matter of who would share in that award should it be accepted, however, was far less clear to tribal members at Fort Hall. As planned, Barker attended a special council meeting on August 25 to discuss the government’s settlement offer in the Shoshone claim. He told tribal members that if they voted in favor of accepting the settlement, Congress could approve the award before adjourning. Tribal members raised the same concerns that had been expressed previously. Many feared that accepting the settlement would lead the tribes a step closer to termination. Another worry was that accepting the settlement would involve relinquishing hunting and fishing rights in the area covered by the claim. Barker assured tribal members that hunting and fishing rights would not be altered if the tribes accepted the settlement. He admitted once again that money was one of the factors considered in Zimmerman’s termination classifications, but he argued that there was no direct relationship between the settlement of claims and termination. Tribal members spoke both in favor and in opposition to the settlement offer in the afternoon session of the meeting. Council member Kesley Edmo told them that $16 million might seem like a lot of money, but he reminded them that they had to split the award with the Wind River Shoshones. He warned that other tribes had been dissatisfied after accepting their settlements because it was necessary to make concessions to get the money. Individual per capita payments, he cautioned, would be smaller than tribal members anticipated. Tribal member Teola Truchot took a different position. She spoke in favor of the settlement, arguing that it was “a good settlement, that we have

the lemhi icc claim

87

[87], (9)

Lines: 85 to 90 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [87], (9)

been waiting for a long, long time and we should go ahead and agree to settle it.”25 The matter went to a vote. Of the 161 eligible voters present at the beginning of the afternoon session, 71 were in favor of accepting the settlement, and none opposed it. Barker then urged all tribal members to vote one way or the other, noting that it would take at least 100 voters to achieve a quorum. Another vote was held, and 88 voted in favor of the resolution to accept the settlement while 20 were against it. This gave Barker the 100 total votes that he had asked for, but for council member Edward Boyer, 108 votes did not adequately represent the sentiments of all tribal members at Fort Hall. Indeed, it was Boyer’s contention that a special general meeting required 150 votes for a quorum, like an annual meeting, rather than the 100 needed for a called meeting. Boyer suggested holding a referendum on the matter, instead of making a decision at a single meeting. Barker replied that the vote had been a valid action. In response, Boyer argued that it was not, that a quorum had not been reached, and he predicted, moreover, that termination legislation would accompany acceptance of the settlement. Another council member, Joseph Thorpe, agreed with Boyer, stating that he would not sign off on the vote because a quorum had not been reached. Lemhi tribal member Cora George then charged that only “breeds” favored accepting the settlement because they did not consider the future. “A true Indian,” she argued, “would never do this. A termination clause will be included in this.” Despite the opposition to the vote, Barker urged that “in regard to the business we’ve just transacted, the chairman, acting on behalf of the Tribe, and others as representatives of the Tribe, should sign the necessary papers.” He asked that council members stay after the meeting “to finish the transaction of this business.”26 Thorpe and Boyer continued to refuse to authorize the vote. Aside from maintaining that no quorum had been reached, Boyer argued that noneligible members had participated in the vote. At a later hearing before the icc in Washington dc, however, Boyer conditionally signed the stipulation for compromise and entry of final judgment, which was issued on February 18, 1968. It was Boyer’s understanding that his signature would be valid only if an icc investigation of the August 25 meeting determined that a legitimate quorum had been

88

the lemhi icc claim

[88], (10)

Lines: 90 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[88], (10)

reached. The icc found the vote valid, but Boyer did not consider its investigation adequate. He was particularly angered over the commission’s acceptance of the statement of tribal attorney Reed Bowen in support of the proceedings, because Bowen had not been in attendance. Boyer believed that he had been betrayed when his signature was held as valid, and he contended that tribal attorneys had pushed the settlement through the commission without proper approval. He later sought redress through the American Indian Civil Liberties Trust, but to no avail. 27 The distribution of the $15.7 million Shoshone claim award settlement was held up because of a dispute over its division. The dispute was over the amount of the award to be allocated to the Northwestern Bands of Shoshone at Washakie. Negotiations continued for several years. During that time, the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council submitted several resolutions to their legislators asking that their portions be released to them. The resolutions included plans for the use of the funds, as required by Congress before it would introduce legislation to discharge the monies. The Sho-Bans proposed to distribute 75 percent of the award per capita, and use the remaining 25 percent to construct a legal and rehabilitation center on the reservation. The act releasing the award to the tribes was finally passed on December 18, 1971, after the Lemhi claim had been settled. Public Law 92-206 allocated $1,375,000 to the Northwestern Bands of Shoshone at Washakie, the remainder of the award, less the $500,000 set aside for the Fort Hall tribes, was divided evenly between the Wind River and Fort Hall tribes. The law allowed for the distribution of 75 percent of the Fort Hall award on a per capita basis, with the remainder to be used for any purpose authorized by the tribal council and approved by the interior secretary. 28 With the Shoshone claim settled and payment of an award pending only an agreement among the petitioners on the division of the sum, the issue of enrollment requirements at Fort Hall grew still more urgent. The referendum considered earlier in 1965 was finally held in August 1969. Tribal members were presented with three blood degree requirements from which to choose: one-half, one-quarter, and oneeighth. The referendum was held on August 15 and the tribes selected the one-quarter degree blood option, with 286 members voting in favor of it. The one-half degree option carried 182 votes, and 6 members

the lemhi icc claim

89

[89], (11)

Lines: 96 to 10 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [89], (11)

cast void ballots. The business council passed an ordinance enacting the blood degree requirement for enrollment on August 22. Ordinance s14-69, however, did not alter the residency or any other of the existing requirements, so the possibility remained that the Lemhis in Salmon would be excluded from sharing in the settlement of their claim. Fort Hall superintendent W. A. Mehojah approved the ordinance on August 25, and the commissioner of Indian Affairs Louis Bruce authorized it on November 14. 29 If the Lemhis feared that residency requirements would exclude many of them from participating in their icc claim, they translated those fears into action when they lobbied the Tribal Business Council to make an exception in their case. Eventually, their efforts paid off. On September 22, 1970, the Tribal Business Council passed an ordinance reaffirming the one-quarter degree blood requirement and clarifying other enrollment requirements. In response to Lemhi pressure, the council amended the ordinance on September 30 to include sections outlining residency requirements. Section 505 of Ordinance s8-70, as amended, stipulated that “the Salmon, Idaho settlement, for purposes of enrollment for the distribution of claims money, shall be considered an extension of the Fort Hall Reservation, and that in the event the subject parties meet the other requirements under the constitution and one of the parents was resident of the Salmon, Idaho settlement at the time of birth of the child, that said child shall be considered entitled for enrollment.” Superintendent Mehojah recommended approval of the ordinance and forwarded it to the Portland Area Office. 30 Ordinance s8-70 was the first step in the Lemhis’ effort to assert control over their claim. It assured that all Lemhis would share in their icc award, despite opposition on the part of some non-Lemhi tribal members to the inclusion of Salmon residents on the membership rolls. Meanwhile, the appraisal of the lands included in the Lemhi claim slowed over the issue of mineral valuation. Charles O’Boyle, the mineral valuation expert for the Lemhis, determined that the mineral value of the Lemhi lands in 1875 amounted to $1.5 million. Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker contended that the Lemhis were also entitled to compensation for the value of minerals removed from the claim area prior to 1875. The government, however, took the position that the Lemhis were not entitled to compensation for either the minerals

90

the lemhi icc claim

[90], (12)

Lines: 100 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[90], (12)

removed from the area prior to 1875, or for the value of the minerals contained in the area in 1875. Although there were ten mining districts in the area as of 1875, the government argued that they were potential as opposed to producing. The value of the minerals, the government asserted, was only speculative, and so it could not be included in the appraised value of the lands. The dispute threatened to divert the proceedings of the claim through the court system for resolution. 31 While the tribal attorneys and government argued over the value of the lands included in the Lemhi claim, the General Services Administration (gsa) was busy compiling a report on the offsets to be deducted from the final award. The figure for offsets, like that of the value of the lands covered in the claim, became a point of contention. When completed in 1968, the seventy-two-page gsa report provided a yearby-year breakdown of expenses incurred by the government on behalf of the Lemhis from three categories, listing everything from payment to blacksmiths to fuel for heating the reservation buildings. It established the total allowable offsets at $522,750.79. This figure consisted of $202,446.70 disbursed under the unratified treaty of September 4, 1868; $223,916.60 expended under nontreaty appropriations for “Indians of the Lemhi Agency, Idaho”; and another $96,378.49 dispensed under nontreaty appropriations for “Lemhi Agency Idaho.”32 Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker, having reviewed the gsa list of items claimed as offsets, conceded only $186,000 as allowable deductions from the final award settlement. 33 The dispute over the accurate appraisals of the lands, however, delayed any determination of the award sum from which the offsets were to be deducted. In order to facilitate a resolution of the Lemhi claim, Barker entered into negotiations with the government to reach a compromise settlement. He made an initial offer to the attorney general on October 20, 1970, which was subsequently modified on November 27 and again on December 7. On December 17 the assistant attorney general, Shiro Kashiwa, agreed, with conditions, to a final judgment award of $4.5 million after offset deductions. The conditions were that the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in a council resolution approve the settlement offer, and that the secretary of the interior approve the resolution approving the settlement. Kashiwa also stipulated that representatives of the tribe appear at a hearing before the icc to testify that Fort Hall tribal members had accepted the settlement. 34

the lemhi icc claim

91

[91], (13)

Lines: 106 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [91], (13)

As Barker was working to negotiate a settlement of the Lemhi claim, federal Indian policy was undergoing a transformation from an emphasis on termination to one of “self-determination,” in which Indian people would enjoy greater participation in their own affairs. Although the policy of self-determination emerged during the Kennedy administration and continued under Lyndon Johnson, it was Richard Nixon who formally endorsed self-determination and repudiated termination. In a special message to Congress on July 8, 1970, Nixon called for a repeal of House Concurrent Resolution 108, which had enunciated the policy of termination in 1953. He promised to improve education, health programs, and economic conditions on reservations, and he called for legislation allowing tribal governments to contract for services previously provided and controlled by the bia. Nixon also asked that an Indian trust council be established by Congress to improve Indian peoples’ ability to protect their land and water interests in courts. 35 An early indication that the Nixon administration was serious about its commitment to reversing termination came in 1970, with the restoration of Blue Lake to the Taos Indians of the Taos Pueblo in New Mexico. Blue Lake is important to the Taos Indians as a religious site and source of water. President Theodore Roosevelt had incorporated it into the Carson National Forest in 1906, and the Taos Indians had been fighting for its restoration ever since. In 1965 the Taos rejected an award from the icc for a separate injustice, demanding that the lake be returned to them. Despite strong opposition from a coalition formed by the Forest Service, conservationists, and Sen. Clinton P. Anderson (d-nm), the Nixon administration pushed a restoration bill through Congress in late 1970. The measure was carefully worded to allay fears that it would set precedent for restoration of other Indian lands. 36 The Lemhis noted the event with interest. Robert Barker sent the Fort Hall tribes a report on the settlement offer on January 18, 1971. In it, he urged the tribes to accept the $4.5 million offer, which worked out to about ninety cents per acre. He reasoned that if sixty cents per acre, the amount the firm had settled on in their appraisal research, were assigned to the surface value of the land, then $1,686,000 would be left as compensation for the mineral value, after the $186,000 in allowable offsets had been deducted. The $1,686,000 figure for mineral value covered O’Boyle’s figure of

92

the lemhi icc claim

[92], (14)

Lines: 114 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[92], (14)

$1.5 million, leaving $186,000 for the value of the minerals extracted prior to the date of taking. Barker advised tribal members that a trial would not likely produce a larger settlement. Moreover, he warned that further litigation would take three to five years, and it would be costly. Barker concluded the report by outlining the steps necessary to accept the settlement, beginning with a general council meeting and vote of tribal members. The meeting was scheduled for January 30. 37 As Barker prepared to bring the settlement offer for the Lemhi claim before tribal members for a vote, Lemhi opposition began to coalesce, for a variety of reasons. Some had assumed that their icc claim concerned their annuity monies, not their aboriginal homeland. But the annuity claims, which had so preoccupied the Lemhis since 1912, had been included in a separate docket, number 326-c. For these Lemhis, as well as others who did understand the nature of the claim, accepting an award was tantamount to selling their homeland. Many preferred to see those lands, or some of them, restored to them so they could return to the Lemhi Valley. Other Lemhis were in favor of the claim but feared that as a minority at Fort Hall, they would have little recourse when the time came to decide how the settlement monies would be spent. In accordance with Section 10 of the Indian Claims Commission Act, the icc had decided that the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall would represent the Lemhis in their claim. These Lemhis, who favored the icc claim but opposed the fact that it was being prosecuted by the Sho-Ban Tribes, hoped to overturn that decision so that the Lemhis could represent themselves. Finally, some Lemhis opposed the settlement offer because they believed that $4.5 million was insufficient payment for their lands. As the claim progressed toward settlement, these Lemhi groups joined in an effort to intervene and reverse the increasingly imminent conclusion of the litigation. A week before the January 30 meeting, a group of Lemhis approached council chairman Kesley Edmo and informed him that they wanted to file a separate claim in which they could represent themselves rather than being represented by the Sho-Bans. The group told Edmo that they were not interested in selling the land; instead they wanted it returned to them. Edmo, a non-Lemhi, informed them that it would not be possible for the group to file its own claim. He explained that they had already relinquished the lands, and now

the lemhi icc claim

93

[93], (15)

Lines: 118 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [93], (15)

they could only hope to receive compensation for them. Moreover, he argued that their plan was impractical; it would be too difficult to identify which tribal members were Lemhis, since the tribe had lived and intermarried at Fort Hall for so many years. 38 Former council members Edward Boyer and Joseph Thorpe, who had opposed the acceptance of the award settlement of the Shoshone claim, now joined the Lemhis in their effort to block the settlement of the Lemhi claim. They conscripted the aid of Boyer’s daughter, LaNada (Means) Boyer. 39 After graduating from college, LaNada Boyer had become active in the American Indian Movement and participated in the 1970 aim occupation of Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay. She then returned to Fort Hall, where she became known for her opposition to established tribal leadership and for her activism. Eventually, she succeeded in gaining a position on the Tribal Business Council. 40 The Boyers, Thorpe, and others supported the Lemhis in part because of their opposition to the current members of the Tribal Business Council. In a letter to LaNada Boyer concerning efforts to fund and establish a Shoshone-Bannock Legal Research Project, Boyer, Thorpe, and other signatories charged that “the Tribal Business Council members” were “substituting their dictatorship for the previous dictatorship of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The big talk of the Nixon administration that the power will be assumed by the Indian people themselves,” the letter continued, “will mean that the power previously held by the bia will now be assumed by a handful of tribal officials without any restraint unless we are able to obtain the necessary instruments to curtail the rampant injustices which prevail.”41 The legal research project would eventually aid the Lemhis in their efforts to scuttle the acceptance of the award settlement. 42 LaNada Boyer visited the offices of Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker in Washington dc to inquire about the Fort Hall claims. Afterwards, she returned to Fort Hall, where she circulated two draft resolutions around the reservation before the January meeting; one of the resolutions dealt with the Shoshone claim, the other outlined the reasons why some Lemhis opposed the settlement offer. The resolution regarding the Lemhi claim proposed that the settlement be rejected until it adequately provided for the full value of the lands. The mineral value, the resolution maintained, had been underestimated and the appraisal

94

the lemhi icc claim

[94], (16)

Lines: 122 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[94], (16)

had failed to account for the value of furs taken by trappers prior to 1875. It further asked“that the United States prove title, ownership, and other aspects used for evidence conflicting with the contents of the proposed settlement.” Finally, in response to Lemhi concerns about being a minority on the reservation, the resolution demanded that Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker negotiate a plan for the distribution of any settlement that all concerned parties would agree to before collecting their fee. 43 The meeting was well publicized, both on and off the reservation. Announcements were posted on the reservation, and they appeared in newspapers, on television, and over the radio in Blackfoot, Pocatello, Idaho Falls, and Salmon. 44 The Salmon Recorder-Herald ran an article about the meeting that reported, “A delegation from the tribes visited the Salmon office of the Bureau of Land Management recently and other places in Lemhi County seeking information.” The article urged the Lemhis in Salmon to attend the meeting, noting that the announcement warned, “If there are not enough tribal members present, the Indian Claims Commission may not accept the action of the meeting.”45 A special meeting of those opposed to the settlement was held before the January 30 general meeting. Meanwhile, Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker attorneys Robert Barker and Jerry Straus met separately with council members on the morning of the meeting. Barker reviewed the settlement offer with council members and provided them with draft resolutions containing the wording necessary to accept the settlement. The attorneys and council members then discussed the division of the Lemhi award. Barker later reported that “it was agreed that it has always been the intention of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes that all of their claims, no matter which tribe or group, should be treated as common tribal ownership.”46 At best, this statement reflected a total lack of awareness of how tribal and council members viewed the claims; at worst, it amounted to an outright lie. While the attorneys had advised tribal members from the beginning to share evenly in all the claims, the Tribal Business Council’s application for a loan to finance the appraisal of the Lemhi claim, which specified that the Lemhis repay the Sho-Bans for costs incurred in the event that only Lemhis shared in the award,

the lemhi icc claim

95

[95], (17)

Lines: 128 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [95], (17)

clearly demonstrated that tribal and council members had not committed to that course—the application stands in direct contradiction to Barker’s statement. Moreover, prior to the January 30 meeting no formal agreement regarding the ownership of the various claims had been reached. The general meeting commenced at ten o’clock in the morning at Buffalo Lodge. After a call to order by Chairman Kesley Edmo and an invocation by Lee Bear, president of the Native American Church, Barker reviewed the government’s settlement offer. Lemhi opponents of the settlement immediately voiced their disapproval. Sophronia Shay Poog questioned Barker about the firm’s determination of the mineral value of the land. Poog cited a report published by the Idaho Historical Society written by Ernest Oberbillig, who had appeared before the icc as an expert, which placed a higher value on the minerals in the Salmon area than the award settlement offered. In response, Barker explained that the icc based the valuation on the 1875 value of the lands, and it refused to consider discoveries or technologies that emerged subsequent to that date in its determination. Poog nonetheless maintained her position that the settlement offer provided insufficient compensation for the mineral value of the land. Even if adequate compensation for the minerals were offered, Poog continued, the Lemhis were not interested in selling their lands. 47 Udale Tendoy, the great-great grandson of Chief Tendoy, then expressed his opposition to the settlement. Tendoy sat with other descendants of the chief at a table that held a peace pipe and an American flag that had been given to Chief Tendoy by the State of Idaho in recognition of his efforts to preserve peace in the Lemhi Valley in the years before removal. Tendoy recounted the injustices that the Lemhis had suffered at the hands of non-Indians and asked if the flag his ancestors had been given stood for justice. He then offered, according to Fort Hall superintendent Mehojah,“a very compassionate, eloquent and moving plea strongly in protest of the proposed 4,500,000 settlement.”48 Tendoy argued that the money would not solve the Lemhis’ problems and that what they needed was the land for their children. He contended that accepting the settlement amounted to selling the land, and he maintained that what the Lemhis really wanted was the land returned to them. Other Lemhis echoed his sentiments. Some of those opposed to the settlement offer wanted to return to the Salmon

96

the lemhi icc claim

[96], (18)

Lines: 134 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[96], (18)

area, or at least regain ownership of land in the area and lease it until they could return. 49 Straus responded that although he would like to see the land returned to the Lemhis, it was not possible nor was any such action within the powers of the icc. The Lemhis doubted his assessment by citing the Blue Lake case. The Taos case, Straus explained, was an exception, and Congress had carefully worded the act restoring Blue Lake in order to avoid setting a precedent for the return of other lands to Indians such as the Lemhis. He pointed out that Blue Lake held special religious significance for the Taos, and that the survival of their culture depended on use of the area. This argument, however, failed to convince the Lemhis that Blue Lake was any different than their own predicament. Poog answered Straus by arguing that the Lemhis returned to their homeland regularly to hunt and fish. She contended that the Lemhis had never truly left their homeland and added that several families still lived in the area. She also made reference to the forty acres that had been set aside to preserve the Lemhi burial ground near Salmon. The Salmon River country, Poog’s comments indicate, remained central to the Lemhis’ identity, just as Blue Lake did to the Taos. Alvin Buckskin, a Lemhi who voted in favor of the settlement, later noted that the Lemhi tie to the Salmon River country amounted to a sense of ownership that explained, in large part, their opposition to the settlement. The lawyers’ explanation that the icc could compensate the Lemhis for their lands but could not restore them to the Lemhis fell on deaf ears, for many Lemhis refused to accept that they had really relinquished the lands; they continued to maintain a real sense of ownership of the Salmon River country. In their eyes, accepting the settlement amounted to selling their homeland. 50 Not all Lemhis opposed the settlement, however. Daniel Evening told those in attendance at the meeting that his father had opposed removal to Fort Hall, but he had been outvoted. In agreeing to move, Evening argued, the Lemhis had given up their lands. Cora George, who had initially been opposed to accepting the settlement, made the same argument. George argued that her ancestors had voted to move and that the Lemhis’ destiny was at Fort Hall. The Lemhis who favored accepting the award settlement were united in their desire to see their

the lemhi icc claim

97

[97], (19)

Lines: 138 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [97], (19)

elders receive some compensation for the hardships of removal before they were all dead. 51 After four hours of discussion and comments both in favor and opposed to the settlement, Chairman Edmo called for a standing vote of all enrolled tribal members on the matter, Lemhis and non-Lemhis alike. The award settlement was accepted 207 to 52. Tribal members then voted on a resolution for all tribal members to share equally in all Fort Hall claims—including the $4.5 million Lemhi claim. The resolution passed, but with only 113 members voting, all in favor. The meeting was well attended relative to other general meetings at Fort Hall. Of the approximately 2,800 enrolled tribal members,52 Chairman Edmo later estimated that there were over 600 present at peak attendance, while Superintendent Mehojah placed the figure at 500. Importantly, neither Edmo nor Mehojah specified how many of the tribal members present were of Lemhi descent. Minutes of the meeting indicate that many tribal members did not vote. Mehojah commented on the number of nonvoters as well in his report to the area director, in which he wrote that “as in true Indian balloting, there were perhaps many who did not vote at all.” He offered no explanation for why so many tribal members chose to boycott the vote, but his report recommended “favorable consideration and approval of the resolutions enacted” at the meeting. 53 Despite Mehojah’s assessment of the meeting, Lemhis opposing the settlement questioned the validity of the vote as it was taking place. During the standing vote in favor of accepting the settlement, Lemhi Walter Nevada approached the microphone and charged that whites and noneligible Indian voters were participating. Tribal attorney Reed Bowen, in response, reminded attendees that only enrolled tribal members were eligible to vote, and Chairman Edmo asked afterward whether all who voted were enrolled tribal members. He received a resounding “yes” in response, and later testified that he knew all the individuals in question to be eligible and legitimate voters. 54 The proposed settlement was approved for the Office of the Secretary of the Interior by acting associate commissioner of Indian Affairs E. F. Suarez on February 22, but hearings were scheduled for March 3 in Washington dc to determine whether the vote accepting it had been valid. Lemhis Alvin Buckskin, Cora George, Daniel Evening, and Raymond George testified at the hearing that the vote to accept the

98

the lemhi icc claim

[98], (20)

Lines: 145 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[98], (20)

settlement had been legitimate and accurately represented the will of the majority at Fort Hall. The Lemhis who had opposed the settlement, according to the testimony of Barker and Raymond George, were invited by the council to attend the hearing at the expense of the tribes, but they refused. 55 The Lemhi opposition refused to attend because they had determined that doing so would undermine their purpose. They feared that they would be tricked into signing an agreement in favor of the settlement, just as Boyer believed he had been duped into authorizing the vote accepting the Shoshone settlement at the earlier hearings in Washington for that claim. This fear was amplified by the fact that many of the Lemhis who opposed the settlement did not speak English; as Shoshone speakers, they feared that the language barrier and the difficulties of translation would increase the potential for misunderstanding. 56 In addition, before the hearings the Lemhis opposing the settlement had contracted the services of the firm of Hansen, Hansen, and Hopkins, in Idaho Falls, to represent them in their effort to overturn the vote accepting the settlement and to gain control of the claim for themselves. 57 Even their appearance at the hearings as members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, they reasoned, would undermine their efforts because it would give the impression that they recognized the legitimacy of the Sho-Bans’ assertion over their claim. Some Lemhis had challenged the vote on the grounds that there had been procedural irregularities; for others the problem was that the vote had ever taken place at all. As tribal member Angela Butterfield testified in later hearings, the Lemhi opposition “felt that if they did [attend the hearings in Washington] they might jeopardize their position in the matter.”58 Council chairman Kesley Edmo also testified at the hearing. Edmo addressed charges that appeared in an article in a local newspaper a few days after the meeting. The article expressed doubt about the validity of the vote, alleging that noneligible voters had participated, and also questioned the eligibility, integrity, and ability of the vote counters. Edmo contended that only enrolled tribal members had voted, and he denied the charges leveled against the vote counters. Three of the four vote counters, Lorraine, Laura, and Zelma Edmo, were related to Edmo, the fourth was Lemhi Emily Tendoy. In response to allegations that there were “little kids” tallying the votes, Edmo explained that

the lemhi icc claim

99

[99], (21)

Lines: 150 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [99], (21)

all four were enrolled tribal members over the age of twenty-one. He insisted that each of the four counted only enrolled tribal members during the vote, and that they had not counted anyone, as instructed, whom they did not recognize. 59 John Sullivan, the attorney for the government, focused his line of questioning on the relationship between the Lemhis and the Shoshone-Bannocks. In his cross-examination of Edmo, he inquired about the composition of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. Edmo responded that“they are all one tribe, and they speak the same language.” Sullivan followed up by asking whether all tribal members were Lemhi descendants, and Edmo had to admit that they were not. “No,” he replied,“they were not descendants of them [the Lemhis]. At that time they more or less lived around different parts of the country.” Sullivan pursued the same matter in his examination of Buckskin, asking him to “briefly review the membership of [the Shoshone-Bannock] Tribe.” Buckskin responded that “there is a so-called Shoshone-Bannock Tribe and Lemhi Tribe. They are all intermarried now. And they are all just one Tribe now.”60 Not surprisingly, in light of the fact that the Lemhi opposition boycotted the hearings, the commission found the testimony convincing, and it found that the vote accepting the settlement was valid. The motion for entry of final judgment was granted on March 8. The final award was reported to Congress on March 10, and the funds were appropriated May 25. 61 Despite the commission’s finding, LaNada Boyer and a group of Lemhis continued to oppose the settlement. They wrote to the icc, members of Congress, state officials, and the Department of the Interior demanding that the land be restored to the Lemhis in lieu of the cash settlement award. 62 Meanwhile, Hansen, Hansen, and Hopkins had notified the icc in a February 25 letter that the firm had been retained by members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to file an objection to the January 30 vote accepting the settlement. 63 While Section 10 of the Indian Claims Commission Act specified that claims had to be pursued through existing tribal organizations, it allowed for exceptions in cases where “fraud, collusion, or laches on the part of such organization” could be demonstrated to the commission. 64 Accordingly, Thomas E. Cook, an attorney with Hansen, Hansen, and Hopkins, contended in his letter to the icc that, according to his clients, regular voting procedure had not been followed at the meeting,

100

the lemhi icc claim

[100], (22

Lines: 156 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[100], (22

and noneligible voters had been counted. Hopkins argued that the settlement would not have been accepted if only valid votes had been counted. Cook also informed the commission that his clients objected to the icc’s ruling that the Sho-Bans were the legal representative of the Lemhi tribe. 65 The firm sent the same letter, signed this time by partner C. Timothy Hopkins, to the icc on April 6. 66 In response to these efforts to remove the Sho-Bans as the legal representatives of the Lemhis, the assistant area director in Portland sent the commissioner of Indian Affairs a memorandum on April 13 arguing that “the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation are the full legal successors in interest to the Lemhi group and as such they should be considered the total owners of the Lemhi claims judgment award in Docket no. 326-i.” The assistant director reviewed the creation of the Lemhi Reservation and the subsequent removal to Fort Hall, reasoning that the events justified that all Indian peoples at Fort Hall had become a single tribal entity. He also addressed the uncertainty surrounding the enrollment eligibility of the children born to enrolled Lemhis living in Salmon that resulted from the residency requirement established in the 1934 tribal constitution. Although he noted that “there may be a few persons born prior to 1935 who might not have been included the 1935 base roll,” the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes had determined that the Lemhis in Salmon should be included as tribal members,67 and the tribes estimated that “virtually all of the children of the original group are carried on the proposed ShoshoneBannock membership rolls as tribal members.”68 On June 8, Lee Andrews, an attorney from Washington dc, filed a petition in intervention to reverse the acceptance of the Lemhi settlement award on behalf of tribal members Udale Tendoy, Arthur Tendoy, Edward Boyer, Joseph Thorpe, Russell Pokibro, Mary Galloway, and Zelthia Towersap, the group that had initially retained Hansen, Hansen, and Hopkins. 69 Andrews informed the icc that they sought designation as the legal representatives of the Lemhi tribe in their claim before the commission, thereby removing the control from the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. The petition contended that the January 30 vote had not been valid because the Tribal Council had practiced fraud and collusion in counting the votes. 70 Barker wrote to council chairman Kesley Edmo on June 15, informing him that Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker had filed a motion

the lemhi icc claim

101

[101], (23)

Lines: 162 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [101], (23)

on behalf of the Sho-Ban Tribes, as representatives of the Lemhis, to deny the motion to intervene. The motion asked that the icc dismiss the petition in intervention on the grounds that the January 30 vote had been valid, and because the award settlement funds had been appropriated, thereby extinguishing the claim. 71 The commission issued an order on June 22 calling for hearings on the merits of the charges in the petition in intervention. These were scheduled to begin at the U.S. District Courthouse in Pocatello, Idaho, on June 29 before commissioners John Vance and Brantley Blue. The day before the commission ordered the hearings, Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker submitted a memorandum in support of their earlier motion to deny the motion to intervene. 72 The Lemhis opposed to the settlement did not wait idly by for the Pocatello hearings to commence. On June 5 Arthur Tendoy wrote to Commissioner John Vance, with copies circulated to Idaho senators Frank Church and Len Jordan and to Rep. Orval Hansen. He explained to Vance that he was writing on “behalf of my people,” who were “greatly concerned about the Lemhi Claims Settlement.” The settlement, Tendoy charged, had been “imposed on us by the tribal council through improper procedure which is contrary to the tribal by-laws.” Moreover, Tendoy alleged that the vote had been taken“without letting us fully understand the matter that was voted on. We were made to believe,” he continued, “that the old timers had surrendered the lands for the sum of $80,000. There was no mentioning of the Lemhi Land Claims of 5,002,000 acres which was awarded to the Indians by the Indian Claims Court and that the title to the land was pending.” While Tendoy noted that the Shoshone-Bannock Legal Research Project had filed an appeal for the Lemhis, he also informed the commissioner that he had learned “that the land transaction could be stopped if we write to the U.S. Senators and Congressman.” Tendoy had learned from a friend of his in Dillon, Montana, who happened to know Vance, that the commissioner was “very interested” in the case, and Tendoy hoped that his letter would help convince Vance to “make every effort through your office that we be given a fair consideration with much understanding concerning the appeal.” In his response, Commissioner Vance assured Tendoy that he had informed members of the commission of his concerns, and he made reference to the impending hearings in Pocatello. 73

102

the lemhi icc claim

[102], (24

Lines: 168 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[102], (24

At the request of Lee Andrews, C. Timothy Hopkins of Hansen, Hansen, and Hopkins represented the plaintiffs at the hearings. John Echohawk, an attorney in training with the Native American Rights Fund, assisted him. Robert Barker represented the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. He questioned the commission’s jurisdiction in holding the hearings at the outset. The opponents of the settlement, he reminded Commissioners Vance and Blue, had had an opportunity to express their opinions at the Washington dc hearings but had refused to attend. The commission had entered a judgment that had been paid; once the commission had certified the case to Congress, Barker maintained, it lost jurisdiction over the case. He asked the commission to dismiss the petition to intervene without further delay because “a very, very small minority of the tribe are frustrating the clear and demonstrated desire of the majority and the constituted leadership of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes.” Commissioner Blue refused to cancel the hearings and to dismiss the petition and explained to Barker that the commissioners had decided that the gravity of the charges leveled by opponents of the settlement vote required a fair and open hearing. 74 A total of nineteen tribal members testified at the hearings—ten for the Lemhi plaintiffs, nine for the defendants. The Fort Hall Tribal Business Council passed a resolution authorizing the expenditure of ten dollars a day and ten cents per mile travel expenses for twenty tribal members to attend the hearings. Of these, nine testified for the defendant while none testified for the plaintiff. Apparently, the tribal council had not extended the offer to finance opponents of the settlement, as it had for the Washington dc hearings, and the ten tribal members who testified for the plaintiff appeared at their own expense. 75 The Lemhis opposed to the settlement testified at the hearings that the vote accepting the settlement award should be dismissed for a variety of reasons. They argued that there had been procedural violations because ineligible voters had participated. The petitioners contended that only enrolled tribal members living on the reservation were eligible to vote, yet, they alleged, both tribal members living off the reservation and nontribal members had participated. Moreover, they suggested that people waiting in line for lunch during the vote may have been counted as voters when they were not. Finally, the Lemhis contended that the vote had been expedited. Lemhis opposed to the

the lemhi icc claim

103

[103], (25)

Lines: 176 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [103], (25)

settlement had asked at the meeting for more time to consider the offer before voting on it, but the vote had occurred over their objections. 76 Lemhi Josephine Pokibro testified that she had voted in favor of the settlement without fully understanding the matter. She maintained that she would have voted against the settlement if she had been given more time. “I am one of the Lemhis,” she told the commissioners,“and I never should have voted for [accepting the settlement award].” She expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of the award settlement, with the way the vote was carried out, and because she wanted the land returned rather than receive compensation for it. 77 Several other Lemhis also testified that the vote had been taken before a clear understanding of what was being voted on had been established. Part of the confusion, some tribal members explained, resulted from difficulties in translation—the legal wording used by attorneys explaining the settlement offer did not smoothly translate into terms easily understood by non-English speakers. Russell Pokibro testified that he had been informed that the purpose of the meeting was just to discuss the offer, and that a vote would not be held because a quorum had not been reached. Some Lemhis suggested that procedural irregularities were not entirely the result of misunderstanding. Walter Nevada testified that the chairman and other council members ignored the comments of individuals opposed to the settlement and the vote. Likewise, Katy Tendoy charged that the council members “were in control. They didn’t give anyone else a chance to—the people that were at the table weren’t given a chance to really voice their opinions.” Later in her testimony Tendoy explained that “it was all just one way; they were doing all the talking, and they did not listen to us, so that’s how they won.” The Lemhis opposed to the settlement, in sum, maintained that it had only been accepted because of fraudulence on the part of the council. Had the vote been limited to eligible tribal members and if the matter at hand had been more fully understood, they argued, the outcome would have been different. 78 Barker, meanwhile, sought to demonstrate that the meeting had been conducted according to proper procedure. The Sho-Bans admitted that nonresident enrolled members had participated, and Barker told commissioners that this was standard procedure in claims votes and that the secretary of the interior would not approve a vote from

104

the lemhi icc claim

[104], (26

Lines: 180 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[104], (26

which enrolled tribal members living off the reservation were excluded. The Sho-Bans in favor of the settlement continued to maintain, as they had at the hearings in Washington dc, that only tribal members had been counted during the vote. The procedure followed at the meeting, the defendants demonstrated, had been consistent with that observed at all meetings since the tribal constitution had been adopted. Barker denied that either his firm or the bia had exerted pressure on tribal members to vote before they were ready. The vote in favor of the settlement, he contended, accurately represented the will of the majority of Sho-Ban tribal members. 79 Barker tried to get Joseph Thorpe to admit as much during his testimony at the hearings. Thorpe’s response revealed a distinction that Barker had continually glossed over. Thorpe, still disgruntled over the vote to accept the Shoshone claim that he had opposed, had opted not to attend the January 30 meeting, but he explained to Barker that he had sought to intervene afterward when a group of Lemhis approached him and asked for his help. Barker asked Thorpe to at least concede that the position of the Lemhis opposed to the settlement did not represent the “will of the majority of the people at that meeting,” whereupon Thorpe responded that “it’s the will of the Lemhi people that we are questioning the legality of the meeting that was held at Buffalo Lodge.” Thorpe made it clear that the will of the majority of Sho-Bans did not translate into the will of the majority of Lemhis. 80 In his closing remarks, Hopkins returned to the Lemhis’ tie to the Salmon River country. Commissioners and attorneys had repeatedly reminded Lemhis who testified at the hearings that the commission did not have the authority to restore lands; it could only provide compensation for them. But Hopkins argued that the issue was not so simple for the Lemhis: It has been suggested that the alternative of certain of those people, among whom the Intervenors fall, would prefer to keep the lands. I think that does not quite state their point. I think in part they feel that there may be other ways which are not in the province of this Commission, they recognize, which that land might be treated which could better serve their ends as Native Americans than can the payment of incredible amounts of money and if, too, for whatever purpose they can be made a part of this record and be understood by this Commission,

the lemhi icc claim

105

[105], (27)

Lines: 184 to 2 ———

2.25pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [105], (27)

although your jurisdiction is limited, this hearing will have had its purpose and there would have been value for their coming here, irrespective of your ruling. 81

The icc rendered its decision on August 5, concluding that the applicants for intervention had not satisfactorily demonstrated that the council had practiced fraud or collusion on January 30. Nor had they satisfactorily established that proper voting procedure had not been observed. The commission also determined that it no longer had jurisdiction over the claim because, according to Section 22 of the Indian Claims Commission Act, once a report had been filed with Congress entitling a claimant to compensation, that report held the status of a final judgment in the Court of Claims. On the basis of these conclusions, the commission ordered that the petition in intervention be dismissed. 82 On June 1, 1971, the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council passed a resolution governing the distribution of the settlement award, as Congress required before it would release the monies. The council planned to distribute 75 percent of the total $4.5 million award, less the $450,000 attorneys fees awarded to Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker, per capita among all tribal members at Fort Hall, as it had done with the $7.5 million the Fort Hall tribes received from the Shoshone claim. The remaining 25 percent of the Lemhi settlement award ($1,012,500) was set aside for the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes to acquire Fort Hall lands that had been fractionalized through heirship. Congress passed an act transferring the Lemhi award money to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, authorized on September 29, 1972. 83 The Lemhis had been forced to accept a settlement that many of them opposed. Lemhi opposition to the settlement had been based on their wish to see their icc claim result in the establishment of a land base in the Salmon River country. The decision to use award funds to acquire Fort Hall lands, then, was a final collective slap in the face of the Lemhi people. Perhaps in an awkward effort to appease the Lemhis, the council passed a resolution on July 7, at the behest of the Lemhi community in Salmon, asking that a forty-acre tract of land near the old Lemhi Agency be given to the Lemhi community there. In 1907 the secretary of the interior had set the land aside as an Indian burial ground, and the resolution proposed that the Lemhi community in Salmon

106

the lemhi icc claim

[106], (28

Lines: 215 ———

1.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[106], (28

use the burial ground “for homesite purposes.”84 The willingness of the Lemhi community in Salmon to reside at a cemetery most likely resulted from a combination of desperation and a desire to protect the site from vandalism. The tract, containing the monument erected over Tendoy’s grave, was not given to the Lemhis; instead, it remained under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management (blm). In 1985, after decades of deterioration due to cattle grazing, off-road vehicles, vandalism, and dumping, the blm, with the help of Lemhi descendants, developed a cultural resource management plan to preserve the Lemhi burial ground. 85 Although Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker had argued that the Lemhis were a distinct group in pursuing the claim, they refused to admit that the Lemhis had retained that identity, and they ignored the wishes of many Lemhis when a settlement was offered. The tribal attorneys, commissioners, and non-Lemhi tribal members were unsympathetic to the Lemhis’ desire to forego the cash settlement in favor of pursuing restoration of a land base in the Salmon area, nor were they moved by the Lemhis’ arguments that the offer was insufficient. Barker had contended that the Lemhis who were opposed to the settlement “merely wanted to substitute the will of a few dissenters for the will of the majority.”86 Barker and his colleagues had relied upon extensive research and testimony by experts in making their argument before the icc that in 1875 the Lemhis had been a distinct group or tribe. When an award settlement had been offered, and their fees were pending, the attorneys were willing to trust their own judgment, and the assertions of Fort Hall tribal members who stood to gain millions of dollars, in arguing that the Lemhis no longer retained their identity. The icc ruled against the “few dissenters” and sided with the Fort Hall majority. Once again, the Lemhis were denied access to and control over funds offered in compensation for the seizure of their aboriginal homeland, but this time the stakes were much higher. Resolution 4431, the “sharing resolution” of January 30, 1971, reflects the uncertainty of the status of the Lemhis in relation to other Indian people at Fort Hall; it points to a distinction that tribal members recognized, but attorneys and icc commissioners failed to comprehend, or chose to overlook. The resolution portrayed the Lemhis as having been amalgamated into the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall, noting that they had removed to Fort Hall, where they settled, intermarried,

the lemhi icc claim

107

[107], (29)

Lines: 231 to 2 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [107], (29)

and enrolled. The Lemhis are twice referred to in the resolution as “descendants of members of the former Lemhi Tribe.”But the painstaking efforts taken in the sharing resolution to depict the Lemhis as ShoBans only reveals the strength of a separate Lemhi identity. In noting, for example, that all claims were to be shared equally among all tribal members at Fort Hall “regardless of band, tribe, or group derivation,” the resolution specified parenthetically that this included the “Lemhi Tribe.” Indeed, the resolution specifically mentioned the Lemhis as being included as constituent members five separate times, indicating that Lemhi status continued to be debatable and problematic. 87 The Lemhis were enrolled members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, but they remained Lemhi Shoshones first. Lemhi political organization at Fort Hall and the bia administrative actions (or lack thereof) that precipitated and sustained that organization reinforced Lemhi identity. Shared history remained relevant as it was constantly revisited, preserving a sense, on the part of the Lemhis and those who knew them, that the Lemhi Shoshones constituted a distinct community, or tribe. That government officials, lawyers, and non-Lemhi tribal members would not always recognize this fact did not make it any less true; to the contrary, it only served to set the Lemhis further apart. Moreover, if political controversies kept alive a shared past in the Salmon River country, more recent and tangible ties to their homeland there also maintained that sense of identity.

108

the lemhi icc claim

[Last Page

[108], (30

Lines: 235 ———

186.459

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[108], (30

6

Returning to the River of No Return, 1907–93 The land where their camp was located had been given as a life estate for the remaining stragglers of the once mighty Lemhi tribes, and without clear title there was no way the government would help them. They were told to go to Fort Hall Reservation where they would find plans to assist in housing. But the proud Lemhis refused, saying they’d rather live in a one-room shack in their homeland than in a castle at a place that would forever be foreign to them. Salmon (Idaho) Recorder-Herald, 1989

[First Page] [109], (1)

Lines: 0 to 54

On Monday, May 24, 1993, a group of Lemhi elders and youths gathered on a rocky hilltop above the town of Tendoy in the Lemhi Valley to honor an esteemed ancestor and leader by replacing the cedar pole marking his gravesite. 1 The man who had placed the first cedar pole around 1820 had charged his descendants with the task of maintaining the site by replacing it every third generation. After a ceremonial sprinkling of tobacco on the grave, Rachael Wahtomy, the great-great granddaughter of the man who initiated the tradition, fulfilled her family obligation by touching the new pole adorned with gifts as it was set in the rocks. Walter Nevada, who had been born in the Lemhi Valley some eighty years earlier, making him the eldest Lemhi to participate in the ceremony, also had the honor of touching the pole. The ceremony closed with a traditional song and a prayer in honor of the ancestor’s spirit. 2 The pole had last been replaced around the turn of the twentieth century, but the Lemhis had tended to other sacred burial grounds on a regular basis ever since removal; indeed, tribal members visited the nearby Tendoy Cemetery later that evening before holding a barbeque at Salmon Hot Springs. The ceremony at the unnamed leader’s gravesite was unique, however, in that it was the first year since removal in 1907 that the Lemhis could claim no permanent presence in the Salmon area. Former Salmon residents were among the tribal members attending the ceremony, among them Alfred and Lois Navo,

109

———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [109], (1)

the last residents of the “Indian Village” that had been located just south of town until, as the Salmon Recorder-Herald reported, it had been “recently leveled in order to create Kid’s Creek Fishing Park.” The Navos, who had relocated to Fort Hall in 1991, gathered with the others at the site of the former village the morning after the ceremonies and told stories of the families that had lived there. While the Lemhis were for the first time no longer a part of the Salmon community, they nonetheless passed on their Salmon River country heritage to a new generation. “Although none of the Lemhi Indians now live in the Lemhi Valley,” the Recorder-Herald intoned, “their roots run deeply here and they have never forgotten the past that links them to the area. Members of the Lemhi tribe will continue to journey back to the land of their ancestors—to honor their forefathers and to revitalize and pass on their native heritage to their children.”3 The persistence of the Lemhi community in Salmon provides a clear indication of the importance of the Lemhis’ tie to the Salmon River country, and it underscores the region’s centrality to Lemhi identity. But the longevity of the Lemhi presence in Salmon is also a testament to the strength of the relationships forged between the Indian and non-Indian communities. Prior to removal, Chief Tendoy had established a precedent of amity and cooperation between the Lemhi Shoshones and non-Indian residents of the Salmon River country. During the decades that followed, Lemhi leaders, including Tendoy’s descendants, maintained a spirit of community with Salmon civic leaders. As the generations passed, however, the ties that had bound the Lemhis to the non-Indian community began to unravel, as the memories of the early days in the valley faded. The frontier heritage of Salmon—from Lewis and Clark, to the Nez Perce War, to the Lemhi Indian Reservation—remained a point of pride for non-Indian residents, but its physical reminder, the ramshackle village south of town, was increasingly considered an eyesore. The Lemhi tie to their homeland remained strong, but they ultimately lost the foothold in the community of Salmon to which they had clung so tenaciously for nearly a century after removal to Fort Hall. The location of the Indian village, or encampment, or Indian camp, as it was alternately known by locals, shifted over the years as the town expanded, forcing the Lemhis to relocate. The first Indian camp was in what is now the heart of town, where Main Street crosses the Salmon

110

returning to the river of no return

[110], (2)

Lines: 54 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[110], (2)

River at Island Park. The camp relocated to the high “bar” near Jessie Creek northwest of town in 1890. 4 There, six families clung to the camp on the bar, refusing to remove to Fort Hall; others returned after a short stay at Fort Hall to join them, rejecting the arid Snake River Plain in favor of their traditional homeland in the mountains. 5 Early photographs of the camp on the bar show a scattering of wickiups amidst the greasewood. 6 In addition to the camp on the bar, some Lemhis established another camp in 1910 along the Salmon River, east of Island Park at the end of River Street. By 1927, however, the Lemhis were pushed out of this location as well. 7 When construction of Brooklyn School displaced the camp on the bar around 1911, the Lemhis had to move yet again. Some remained on the bar, in a camp farther to the northeast, although the older Lemhis were increasingly reluctant to live there because of their memories of relatives who had died in the camp. 8 In 1934 the Shoup family allowed the Lemhis to relocate to land belonging to the estate of U.S. senator George Shoup (r-id). Another non-Indian friend of the Lemhis electrified the camp and provided it with a radio. But this settlement was also short-lived. The site was selected in 1938 as the location for the new Salmon High School. A newspaper article detailing the move of the “Indian camp of patched tents and wickiups built of discarded lumber and twigs” explained that “Will Shoup, the son of Senator Shoup, has given them permission to move onto other land of the Shoup estate on U.S. 93, south of town. They can live there until progress catches up with them again.” The article noted the Lemhis’ persistent refusal to relinquish their foothold in the town of Salmon. “The old Indians who remember when they ruled the valley cling to their birthplace,” it explained. “They visit the reservation at Fort Hall, where they are supposed to stay, but they come stubbornly back, bringing their children and grandchildren.”9 The new camp to the south of town, at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Warm Springs Creek, now called Kid’s Creek, and U.S. Highway 93, remained until 1958, when the Shoups sold the land. By then, many local residents considered the camp an eyesore and feared that its location along the highway would discourage tourism. 10 But once again, the Lemhis benefited from timely aid from another Salmon pioneer family. Howard Sims, a mining operator, rancher, and onetime state senator, and his wife, Marjorie, donated a one-acre plot

returning to the river of no return

111

[111], (3)

Lines: 58 to 62 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [111], (3)

to the Lemhis as a life estate—Sims died in a plane crash in 1971, but his will specified that the Lemhis could remain on the land as long as they wanted. The new camp was just across the street, at the southwest quadrant of the creek and highway, where Kid’s Creek Park is now located. 11 In addition to the villages in Salmon, the Lemhis also established camps in the Lemhi Valley and in other parts of the Salmon River country that held importance for them. A 1913 photograph from a pioneer Salmon family, the Pollards, shows family members and friends posing with Lemhis in front of wickiups on the Lemhi River, six years after removal. 12 A camp at Williams Lake made local news in 1917 when Lemhis there caught a red fox with freak markings and took the pelt to a local store for public display. 13 Against the backdrop of the 1907 removal, the Lemhis returned to tend ancestral graves and to hunt, fish, and gather in traditional places, but they also returned simply to visit their homeland and their relatives who still resided in it. In 1921 Wince Tendoy and Almo Navo, both descendants of Chief Tendoy, traveled by train from Fort Hall to Salmon with George Matcha, a former tribal policeman at the Lemhi Agency. The primary purpose of the trip was to place objects on Chief Tendoy’s grave, but the Lemhis also used the occasion, the Salmon Recorder-Herald reported, to make “a visit to their old white and Indian friends in Salmon.”14 After his marriage in Dillon, Montana, in August 1930, Lemhi Harry Ponzo took his bride to the Lemhi Valley for a honeymoon of fishing and camping. 15 The Ponzos probably visited the encampment of Lemhis from Fort Hall who were in the valley “visiting old haunts along the Lemhi.”16 In 1938 four Lemhi former residents of Salmon—Don Ingup, Edward Nappo, Jack Quanda, and Elmer Navo—accompanied Fort Hall leader Willie George and Superintendent F. A. Gross on a trip to Salmon. Gross undertook the trip to gather information about the Lemhi Agency School, presumably in conjunction with efforts to sort out the Lemhi annuity issue. The Lemhis, meanwhile, took advantage of the occasion to catch up with their old teacher, Laura Murphy, and others. The local paper noted that they “thoroughly enjoyed contacting old friends and visiting points of interest.”17 Lemhis also established seasonal encampments at ranches in the Salmon River country. Dorothy Pyeatt Baker recalled that the Lemhis

112

returning to the river of no return

[112], (4)

Lines: 62 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[112], (4)

Lemhi encampments in Salmon, Idaho, 1865–1991. Map by Sarah Moore.

[113], (5)

Lines: 77 to 77 ———

*

499.5pt Pg ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [113], (5)

“depended on the pioneer families for friendship and protection. Many of them worked in the hayfields, bringing their families, horses and household goods with them every summer.”18 Likewise, Jed Wilson, born in 1930 and raised on a ranch sixty miles southwest of Salmon on the site of an old Lemhi village, remembered the annual summer arrival of Lemhis from Fort Hall to camp on his family’s property. From the reservation, they would cross the lava beds to Howe, Idaho, on the Little Lost River, and follow it until they could cross to the drainage of the Pahsimeroi River, which they followed to its confluence with the Salmon River at Ellis, Idaho, some forty miles southwest of Salmon. 19 On their return trip to Fort Hall, the Lemhis sometimes opted to travel over the Continental Divide near Teepee Mountain into the Medicine Lodge Creek area before traveling south through the towns of Dell and Lima and over Monida Pass, although this route became less popular after Tendoy’s son was murdered while using it in 1930. 20 The Wilsons offered their services as guides and outfitters to sportsmen, as their cattle ranch evolved into a dude ranch that catered to the likes of Zane Grey and Ernest Hemingway, but it was the Lemhis and their history that enamored Jed. He became an avid collector of Lemhi artifacts, as well as a champion, in later life, of the Lemhi community in Salmon. 21 The Lemhi population in Salmon as well as in surrounding areas, then, fluctuated as Lemhis from Fort Hall came to visit on a temporary or seasonal basis; some Lemhis divided their time between Fort Hall and Salmon. The presence of Fort Hall Lemhis in the Salmon River country meant extra legwork for bia officials at the Fort Hall Reservation. In 1936, for instance, Superintendent Gross traveled north to contact Lemhis“residing in Salmon, Idaho, in connection with general supervision and administration of their affairs.”22 Inquiries from Lemhis in Salmon also generated work for the superintendent. In 1934 F. A. McCall, attorney for the heirs of Lemhi Barney Sharkey living in Salmon, wrote to Gross about an allotment at Fort Hall they believed had been issued to their grandmother, Milley Sharkey. Gross could not find her name on the allotment roles, but he indicated that he was making inquiries with Fort Hall Lemhis who had lived in Salmon. In a later letter to Gross, William Sharkey explained that he and his brother were planning to move to Fort Hall, and he asked the superintendent if they could receive allotments or

114

returning to the river of no return

[114], (6)

Lines: 77 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[114], (6)

work there. Gross replied that the practice of issuing allotments had long since ceased, but he did apprise them of work opportunities on the reservation. 23 At times, Gross relied on Salmon residents for help in carrying out administrative responsibilities concerning Fort Hall Lemhis living in Salmon. In 1938, for example, Gross wrote to Salmon resident R. B. Cavaness, enclosing two checks for Glenn Tyler, a Lemhi who, Gross learned from Lemhis at Fort Hall, was “living at Salmon and will not be back for some time.” Gross asked Cavaness to deliver one check, representing the balance of his credit at the Fort Hall bia office, to Tyler. The other, he explained, was to be endorsed and returned as payment to Mission George, who had advanced Tyler money for haying work he had never performed the previous year. 24 Mary Lou Skinner, the Public Health Service nurse who conducted a behavioral study at Fort Hall in the late 1950s, concluded that “even today most of them [the Lemhis] live a fair share of the year at Salmon City.”25 Consequently, the Fort Hall unit of the Public Health Service’s Division of Indian Health (dih) established a contract with the Steele Memorial Hospital in Salmon to administer to the medical needs of the Lemhis there. 26 Many Lemhis in Salmon, however, avoided nonIndian medicinal practices. Skinner reported in 1956, for example, that a Lemhi family from Salmon came to the welfare office at Fort Hall for some information. She observed some lumps on the neck and head of the family’s matriarch and offered to have a doctor examine her. But the woman’s family refused, explaining that they were afraid that the doctor would spoil the traditional Lemhi treatment already being administered to her. 27 The episode evidently peaked Skinner’s interest because she subsequently began printing excerpts of anthropologist Julian Steward’s writings on Lemhi medicinal practices in The Tevope, a Fort Hall newsletter. 28 Some of the Lemhis in Salmon, on the other hand, did seek medical services there, but dih funding requirements created difficulties. In 1966 a Salmon doctor, M. J. Moore, complained to the Portland area acting tribal affairs officer, James Dawes, that the dih often failed to authorize payment for hospital bills for Lemhis he had treated. County commissioners, meanwhile, also expressed anger at having to cover the expenses that the dih would not. In response, Dawes explained that the dih would not cover expenses for Indians who lived

returning to the river of no return

115

[115], (7)

Lines: 81 to 87 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [115], (7)

in Salmon on privately owned, taxable land, though it would cover Lemhis who resided at Fort Hall and visited Salmon on a temporary basis, provided they did not leave the reservation for more than a year at a time. The Lemhis, for their part, Dawes reported, had no complaints about access to health care, nor did any approach him requesting dih coverage. The county often covered their expenses, if reluctantly, and in any event, the Lemhis had learned that they could gain access to medical care at Fort Hall if they required it. According to the director of the Fort Hall Service Unit, Dr. Droge, Lemhis living in Salmon circumvented the residency requirement for medical benefits by expressing their intentions to remain at Fort Hall permanently, only to return to Salmon after receiving treatment. 29 If Lemhis who resided in Salmon permanently did not qualify for subsidized health care, they also had to forgo the property tax exemptions enjoyed by Lemhis living on the Fort Hall Reservation. In 1962 Bertha Ariwite, who owned a house in Salmon, wrote to Fort Hall superintendent Charles Spencer seeking an exemption on taxes. In response, Spencer advised her to take the matter up with the county assessor in Salmon, but he also warned that federal law and the bia clearly specified that only Indians living on reservations were eligible for such exemptions. 30 In the early 1960s the bia contracted with the University of Idaho to conduct a study of Fort Hall, which appeared in published form as Economy and Conditions of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. The research coordinator and editor of the report, Norman Nybroten, traveled to Salmon to gather information about the Lemhi community there, and he included a separate section in the report that dealt with the Lemhis in Salmon. In speculating about the reasons for the Lemhis’ persistence in remaining in Salmon, Nybroten concluded that it was uncertain whether the Lemhis “chose Salmon rather than Fort Hall because they disliked Fort Hall, because they disagreed with the majority or rule at Fort Hall, or because they liked the Valley of the Lemhi.” Based on interviews with Salmon residents, both Indian and non-Indian, Nybroten estimated that the Lemhi population in town numbered somewhere between sixty and one hundred, dispersed in three separate areas: the Indian village on Highway 93 south of town, the bar on the west end of town, and at sites near the meatpacking plant south of Salmon where a number of Lemhis worked. 31

116

returning to the river of no return

[116], (8)

Lines: 87 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[116], (8)

The precise size of the Lemhi community in Salmon, however, had always remained uncertain as Fort Hall Lemhis came and went. In 1948 the Salmon Recorder-Herald reported that the population of the Lemhi Indian village “is constantly varying due to some of its residents regularly moving to and from Fort Hall.”32 In 1966, a few years after Nybroten’s visit, acting tribal affairs officer James Dawes traveled from Portland to Salmon to collect information on the Lemhi community there, and he noted the same tendency. “The exact number of Indians living in and around the town of Salmon . . . is not known,” he reported. “There is considerable migration in and out of the village— which accounts for the fluctuation in the number of the group and the lack of more specific knowledge by the town authorities regarding the number of Indians living in their community.” Despite this ebb and flow, however, Dawes concluded “practically all of the group live in Salmon most of the year, with a few going down to Fort Hall for brief periods.” In Dawes’s estimation, the Lemhi population in Salmon was between 45 and 60, with 35 to 40 living in the village and 15 to 20 living in other parts of town. Local doctor M. J. Moore provided Dawes with a larger estimate of over one hundred. 33 To the dismay and sometimes consternation of bia officials at Fort Hall, the Lemhis on the reservation made regular visits, of varying duration, to the Salmon River country for a variety of purposes. The Lemhi Indian village in Salmon was essentially a satellite of the reservation, two hundred miles to the north, which created a number of logistical and administrative problems for Fort Hall superintendents. Not least of these, as noted previously, was the issue of residency requirements for tribal enrollment regulations. Ultimately, as the Fort Hall icc claims proceeded toward resolution, the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council and the superintendent were forced to concede that “the Salmon, Idaho settlement . . . shall be considered an extension of the Fort Hall Reservation.”34 One of the primary concerns of Lemhis in both Salmon and Fort Hall during the twentieth century was preserving and maintaining the sacred sites where their ancestors were buried. Their efforts posed yet another administrative challenge to bia officials at Fort Hall and local officials in Salmon. In June 1989, more than eight decades after removal to Fort Hall, thirty-six youths gathered at dawn on the reservation and began a

returning to the river of no return

117

[117], (9)

Lines: 93 to 99 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [117], (9)

thirty-six-hour run. They jogged north toward the Salmon River country, retracing in reverse the two-hundred-mile Lemhi “trail of tears” route their ancestors had followed in 1907. Their ultimate destination was Chief Tendoy’s gravesite, which was scheduled to be dedicated as a national historic monument on June 16. Tribal members, including descendants of Tendoy and a Lemhi who had lived through removal, 35 gathered on the morning of the dedication to hold a pipe and prayer ceremony, using one of Tendoy’s pipes. The Lemhis invited Salmon residents to attend the ceremony. Afterward, the Lemhis hosted a salmon and buffalo barbeque for the entire community at the Hayden Creek Grange Hall, a building that had served as a boardinghouse for students on the Lemhi Reservation. The festivities continued into the night at the high school in Salmon, where an honor dance and memorial giveaway commemorated the Lemhis’ ancestors. 36 The protection of Tendoy’s grave as a historic monument was the culmination of a process dating back to removal. After Tendoy’s death in 1907, the superintendent of the Lemhi Agency, at the behest of the Lemhis and Salmon residents, requested that a forty-acre site including the graves of Tendoy and other Lemhis be withdrawn from the public domain and set aside as an Indian burial ground. A decree from the secretary of the interior later that year directed the Bureau of Land Management to withdraw the tract, and Salmon residents erected a monument in Tendoy’s honor near his grave. 37 Over the years, Lemhis regularly maintained the site and gathered there to hold ceremonies in veneration of their ancestors. 38 In 1921, for instance, Wince Tendoy, accompanied by Almo Navo and George Matcha, the Salmon Recorder-Herald reported, traveled from Fort Hall to Salmon “for the express purpose of decorating the grave of his father,” Chief Tendoy. The article noted that Wince “had come on a similar mission” five years earlier. 39 Lemhi County officials and members of the local historical society also worked to preserve the site. In 1969, for example, Lemhi County, working in conjunction with the blm, constructed a road to improve access to it and requested authorization from bia officials at Fort Hall for the historical society to provide cleanup, maintenance, and repairs. Superintendent Mehojah replied favorably, and society members cleared refuse from the area and installed a protective chain-link fence around it the following year. 40

118

returning to the river of no return

[118], (10

Lines: 99 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[118], (10

Nonetheless, the burial ground deteriorated over the decades due to off-road vehicles, cattle grazing, dumping, and vandalism. Burial sites were looted, and the remains disinterred and scattered in and around the cemetery. 41 Indeed, desecration of Lemhi burial sites had become so commonplace that Lemhis insisted on staying after funeral services at the Salmon cemetery to ensure that the remains of relatives were interred without any interference. 42 In order to establish a permanent foothold in the Salmon River country and to better protect the Tendoy Cemetery from vandalism and other harm, members of the Lemhi community in Salmon approached the Fort Hall superintendent in 1971, hoping to secure title to the forty-acre tract so that the Lemhis could occupy it. Superintendent Mehojah in turn broached the subject with the Portland Area Office, which suggested legislative transfer of the land to tribal members of Lemhi descent. After further consideration and research, the assistant area director, A. W. Galbraith, concluded “it would be desirable to request legislation to make the 40-acre tract available for use and occupancy by the Lemhi group now residing at Salmon, Idaho.” Galbraith suggested that a Fort Hall Tribal Business Council resolution supporting title transfer to the Lemhis would be the best way to initiate the legislative process, and on July 7 the council passed a resolution to that effect, asking that the land be transferred “in trust to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes for use and benefit of tribal members and their families of Lemhi descent who on date of enactment were in residence in or near Salmon, Idaho.”43 By August 18 the area director’s office had prepared a draft bill to convey title to the Lemhi community and forwarded it to the Fort Hall tribes for comment. 44 Ultimately, however, the Lemhis failed to obtain title to the cemetery, and it remained under the jurisdiction of the blm. A decade later, the blm, bia, and Fort Hall tribes once again turned their attention to the administration and protection of the site. The rekindling of interest was precipitated when a blm realty officer in Salmon discovered that a man named John Davis had moved a trailer there and taken up residency. After some inquiry, blm officials learned that Lemhi residents in Salmon had arranged to have him act as a caretaker for the cemetery. One of the Lemhis, Rose Ann Abrahamson, had traveled with Davis to Fort Hall to discuss the matter with council

returning to the river of no return

119

[119], (11)

Lines: 105 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [119], (11)

members, and both left that meeting under the impression that Davis had tribal authorization to occupy the site. 45 After further inquiry, however, blm officials learned that the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council had not given such formal authorization to Davis and that it had no intention of doing so. In addition, the bureau found Davis’s occupancy of the area problematic for other reasons. The site lacked sanitary facilities, and the wooden outhouse Davis had set up next to a ditch posed a health hazard. Moreover, Davis had accumulated piles of refuse, wood, and tires around the trailer. Finally, the bureau doubted Davis’s efficacy as a deterrent to vandals since the location of the trailer did not provide a direct line of sight to the graves. Consequently, bureau officials notified Davis that he would have to vacate and clean up the area his trailer occupied. When blm officials informed the Lemhis in Salmon of the decision, however, they met with criticism of their administration of the cemetery, which had prompted the Lemhis’ arrangement with Davis in the first place. The blm, the Lemhis complained, had failed to protect the graves from desecration through vandalism and cattle grazing. 46 In response to the Lemhis’ complaints, the blm contacted the Fort Hall tribes and set up a meeting “to explore the development of a formal Memorandum of Understanding on authority and management of the 40-acre cemetery.”47 In the discussions that followed, the Fort Hall tribes once again expressed an interest in securing title to the cemetery. The blm suggested three possibilities for transferring the title to the tribes. It could be done through executive order, or under the Recreation and Public Purposes Act, or finally, the tribes could gain temporary ownership through a lease or permit arrangement. Regardless of the option the tribes chose to pursue, the bureau assured the bia that it would offer assistance and support. In addition, the blm drafted a cooperative agreement outlining how the Idaho State Office of the blm and Portland Area Office of the bia in the interim could collaboratively administer the forty-acre Tendoy Cemetery, as well as twenty-five adjacent acres that also contained burial sites. 48 The blm sent the draft cooperative agreement to Fort Hall on July 16, 1981, but bia officials in Portland proved uninterested in getting involved in the administration of the cemetery. On December 17 Stephanie Brady of the blm telephoned Don Hettervik at the bia at Fort Hall to inquire about the Portland Area Office’s response to the

120

returning to the river of no return

[120], (12

Lines: 110 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[120], (12

proposed cooperative agreement and learned that it had been “very negative.” The area office, Hettervik reported, was reluctant to get involved until title to the tract had been transferred. He predicted they would get around to sending their opinion on the proposed agreement early the next year. 49 The bia, however, remained indifferent to blm efforts to establish joint administration. After Brady sent a final follow-up letter to the Portland Area Office in May 1982, the issue of the Tendoy Cemetery was dropped until 1984, when a 104year-old grandson of Tendoy visited the gravesite and, appalled at its condition, complained to the blm yet again about its lack of attention to the area. 50 By April 1985 the blm announced, in radio and newspaper news releases, that it was preparing a cultural resources management plan to maintain and preserve the cemetery, and it asked for public input. The bureau completed a draft of the plan by November. 51 In preparing the final plan, it turned to Lemhi descendants, who volunteered to provide the blm with a better understanding of the historic and religious significance of the area, as well as with more precise information concerning the location of graves, and to Dr. Deward Walker, an anthropologist at the University of Colorado. 52 The blm completed the plan and released it in 1988. It recommended increasing the size of the forty-acre tract because of graves nearby,53 and it identified ways to improve signage, fencing, and access such that the site could be administered in a manner consistent with a place considered to be sacred. The Salmon Recorder-Herald reported that the “Tendoy cemetery has great historical and sentimental value for many tribal members. It is a concrete reminder of their reservation and traditional home before 1907, when some 474 were forced to move to Fort Hall. Some tribal members still return to the Lemhi Valley to visit the lands the tribe occupied before 1907. The cemetery is now a central feature of a larger historical memory of a way of life for tribal members extending back for as much as 8,000 years.”54 If the Lemhis were persistent in protecting the Tendoy Cemetery and other locations where their ancestors were buried as a “historical memory of a way of life for tribal members,” they were just as persistent about preserving that way of life to the extent they were able. The Lemhis were no longer masters of the Lemhi Valley or the Salmon River country, but that did not mean they would surrender

returning to the river of no return

121

[121], (13)

Lines: 115 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [121], (13)

their homeland entirely and readily accept a life at Fort Hall. As one article in the Recorder-Herald put it, “the proud Lemhis” simply refused to relocate to Fort Hall because they would “rather live in a one-room shack in their homeland than in a castle at a place that would forever be foreign to them.”55 And the dwellings in the Indian village were indeed shacks. Norman Nybroten, who visited Salmon in conjunction with a University of Idaho study of conditions on the Fort Hall Reservation, reported that the Lemhis in the village were “living in substandard shacks rivaling the worst I have seen anywhere.”56 James Dawes, a bia officer from Portland who in 1966 visited the Lemhi village located on the Sims land donation, described it as a collection of “seven or eight dilapidated wooden shacks, obviously self-constructed, most of which have electricity but no running water.” The interiors, he observed, “are dark, crowded, and have only makeshift furnishings.”57 William Studebaker, a Salmon resident, recalled that “there were about a dozen one or two room homes. The walls were low, six or seven feet, with mill board or tar paper siding. One gable end was doored and the door generally faced east. There were windows, but no picture windows. The roofs, through which stove pipes protruded, were slightly pitched. The homes were laid out along paths leading to the creek.”58 The creek, Dawes learned from a local doctor who had tested it, was contaminated, and while the Lemhis used it for bathing and washing clothes or soaking hides to prepare them for tanning, they had to rely on drinking water from elsewhere—frequently a nearby gas station with outdoor faucets. 59 Winter was particularly difficult for the Lemhis in Salmon. On a 1963 trip there for his study of Fort Hall, Nybroten learned from Lemhis living in the village “that their worst economic problem was that there was too little winter employment and that some of the families lived well in the summer but not in the winter.”60 Nonetheless, many of the Lemhis remained in Salmon. Local doctor M. J. Moore informed Dawes that poor conditions—crowded living quarters, poor heating, and an inadequate diet—during winter contributed to health problems, particularly upper respiratory conditions. 61 Similarly, earlier annual reports from the Salmon school district noted that sickness sometimes prevented Lemhi children from attending school in winter, and they suggested that unsanitary conditions in the village probably

122

returning to the river of no return

[122], (14

Lines: 119 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[122], (14

contributed to the frequency of their illnesses. Children who were not home sick during winter, the reports also indicated, frequently came to school hungry. 62 The village’s location at the intersection of a creek and a highway made it susceptible to flooding during winter. A flood in February 1957, for example, left it under two feet of water. National Guardsmen evacuated the twenty-five residents and relocated them into an exhibit hall at the Lemhi County Fairgrounds. 63 In January 1969 rain and melting snow flooded Warm Springs Creek again, submerging the village in three and a half feet of water, forcing another evacuation. In this instance residents were taken to a local hotel. 64 The camp flooded again in January 1974 and yet again in February 1986, but the Lemhis remained. 65 The fact that they did left some Salmon residents astonished. The Salmon school superintendent, for example, noted in his 1951–52 annual report that “Health, home, sanitary and living conditions [in the Indian village] are pathetic. It is amazing that these people are able to exist and get through the severe winters common to this area.”66 Occasional fires also posed a hazard to the Lemhis and forced them to rebuild. In 1954, for instance, a fire destroyed two homes in the village, including one of recent construction. Firefighters deduced that sparks from one house ignited the fire in the other. Because the village had no telephones, the fires damaged the homes beyond repair before the fire department could be alerted at 4:30 a.m. 67 Another home in the village was destroyed by fire in 1985, although this time the cause was arson, apparently motivated by a domestic dispute. 68 The Lemhis in Salmon turned to a variety of resources and occupations to make ends meet. The manufacture and sale of traditional bead and hide work was a mainstay. Deer hides were soaked in the creek and then hung on a pole and scraped, before being cured, smoked, and then fashioned into gloves or moccasins. They were sold in local stores or, on occasion, traded for more hides; the Lemhis often traveled southwest to Challis, Idaho, to trade for hides. The traditional crafts were also sold to tourists, and the Lemhis quickly learned that posing with non-Indians for photographs was an effective means of luring in customers. 69 In some cases, the Lemhis contracted as a group to fulfill an order for an out-of-town buyer. In 1948, for example, the RecorderHerald reported that “Indians at the Lemhi encampment, southeast

returning to the river of no return

123

[123], (15)

Lines: 123 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [123], (15)

of Salmon . . . had just about completed an order of gloves for a California man.” Charles Griffith of Monterey supplied the Lemhis with twenty hides in an arrangement whereby he would receive some fiftyeight pairs of gloves in return. The deal had been made in January and by March 18 the Lemhis had already completed fifty-two pairs. 70 The Lemhis also worked for wages at a local meatpacking plant and in potato-processing warehouses. Several Lemhi women worked at Steele Memorial Hospital, some as practical nurses and others as nurse’s aides. The Lemhis also obtained seasonal work on local ranches and farms or for the U.S. Forest Service, and others found employment doing odd jobs around town. 71 In addition, some Lemhis, like Willie George, a leader in the Lemhi community in Salmon, took advantage of their knowledge of the Salmon River country by hiring themselves out as outfitters and guides. 72 Nybroten reported that the non-Indian community in Salmon viewed the Lemhis as “an accepted and very much respected labor force.”Likewise, based on his interviews with locals, Dawes provided a similar characterization of the Lemhis as “good workers,” although both noted that alcohol consumption sometimes rendered some Lemhis less reliable than they usually were. 73 Hunting, fishing, and harvesting traditional resources in the Salmon River country remained important for Lemhis in Salmon as well as at Fort Hall. Hunting provided meat, while it also supplied the hides the Lemhis used to fashion gloves and other objects for sale. 74 Salmon runs in the Salmon River and its tributaries, including the Lemhi River, drew the Lemhis from Salmon as well as those residing at Fort Hall. Indeed, Lemhis Jessie Tyler and Cora George remembered in 1970 that Lemhis at Fort Hall made the trip north to traditional fishing areas for the salmon runs every year subsequent to their 1907 removal. 75 In addition to meat, the Salmon River country also offered a bounty of other foods. Each spring, the Lemhis from Fort Hall joined those from the Indian village in Salmon to harvest bitterroot, the first crop of the year. Timing was important because the root itself is only good during a one-week window in late May or early June, just before or as the pale pink blossoms of the high-altitude flower begin to bud. Traditionally, the Lemhis used an elk antler or forked stick, and later used tire irons, as a “burrow” to pry the root from the ground. After collecting the roots, they scraped off the outer red skin to reveal the

124

returning to the river of no return

[124], (16

Lines: 129 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[124], (16

white meat, some of which was cooked and eaten immediately while the rest would be dried in the sun and stored for later use in stews. 76 An article in the Recorder-Herald described bitterroot as the equivalent of “white man’s macaroni.”77 The plant grew abundantly in the immediate vicinity of Salmon—a 1953 article heralded the commencement of the harvest when the first party of harvesters was observed on the bar. 78 But as the valley developed and became more populated bitterroot grew scarcer. By 1973 Lemhis traveled to the Perreau Creek area southwest of Salmon because bitterroot could no longer be easily found in town. Despite the decreasing abundance of the plant, however, it remained possible for two Indian women featured in a Recorder-Herald article that year to fill a plastic bag in about an hour. The article lamented that bitterroot gathering was “a diminishing practice,” but it also reported that several other groups had already collected the root from the Perreau Creek area. 79 Camas gathered at the Camas Prairie to the southeast of Salmon near present-day Dubois, Idaho, also remained an important staple. 80 In addition to camas and bitterroot, the Lemhis gathered a variety of other foodstuffs to supplement their diet. Sarvis berries, gooseberries, raspberries, and other tame berries were gathered on ranches in the Lemhi Valley. 81 In September the Lemhis gathered chokecherries, which they pounded to a pulp, formed into patties, and dried in the sun for later consumption. The patties could be kept indefinitely and eaten after they were soaked in water. 82 They also made a pudding from the chokecherries. 83 The Salmon River country yielded a number of plants that the Lemhis used for medicinal purposes. During his fieldwork at the Lemhi Reservation just prior to the 1907 removal, anthropologist Robert Lowie recorded that the Lemhis prepared a “decoction of sagebrush leaves” to treat colds and other minor illnesses. 84 Jed Wilson, a Salmon resident who befriended a number of Lemhis during the second half of the twentieth century, observed the same practice and noted in addition that the remedy was packed around wounds. The Lemhis also used a high-altitude lichen, sometimes gathered during the bitterroot harvest, as a cure for venereal disease or, brewed into a tea, to restore strength to the elderly. The leaves and bark of chaparral bushes were also brewed as a tea and administered to cancer patients. 85

returning to the river of no return

125

[125], (17)

Lines: 136 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [125], (17)

Reliance on traditional resources and employment in various jobs helped the Lemhis maintain a presence in their homeland. But the maintenance of good relations with the non-Indian community fostered prior to removal by Tendoy and others was of central importance to the persistence of the Lemhi community in Salmon. Chief Tendoy cultivated close friendships with many of Salmon’s leading citizens, especially George Shoup. Indeed, Shoup repeatedly used his influence in the U.S. Senate to aid the Lemhis in their efforts to resist removal to Fort Hall during the late nineteenth century. 86 Shoup died a few years before Tendoy, in 1904, but the bond between the Shoup family and the Lemhis remained, evidenced by the Shoup family allowing the Lemhis to reside on lands they owned in town. Murdock McPherson, another Salmon merchant, also emerged after Shoup’s death as a champion of the Lemhis. 87 It was McPherson whom the Lemhis turned to in their final efforts to see the removal agreement overturned. 88 As removal approached, Tendoy recognized that if the Lemhis were going to retain any presence in the Salmon River country, they would have to maintain good relations with the non-Indian community, and he instructed his son Wince to cultivate those he had initiated. In the years after removal, Wince made a point of honoring his father’s wish when he returned to tend his grave or visit the area. 89 During the first decades after removal, a succession of Salmon residents stepped forward to fulfill the role of “father” to the Indians that Shoup and McPherson had performed earlier. A 1938 article detailing the uprooting of the Lemhi encampment explained that “the responsibilities of the ‘white father’ have been assumed by some white man, usually sons of pioneers. Recently,” the article elaborated, citing the community’s concern for its Indian population, “the whites have had to help with provisions because the Indians’ income is derived from the sale of beaded buckskin gloves and the market is overstocked.” The article also reported that a “white friend” had recently electrified the encampment, and it concluded with the observation that the Lemhis “scrape together a bare existence, beg a little now and then. They are tolerated by a few, cared for like children by a few, and always pushed further back out of the way.”90 But the Lemhis refused to be pushed entirely out of the way. Wellknown members of the community in Salmon passed away over the decades, but succeeding generations forged new friendships and

126

returning to the river of no return

[126], (18

Lines: 143 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[126], (18

formed new ties between the Indian and non-Indian communities that lasted throughout most of the twentieth century. In 1932 George Quanda, who, according to the Recorder-Herald “was one of the best known local Indians and was well liked by his white friends,” passed away at his home in Salmon. But his wife, Ada, and son, Judy, remained in Salmon, where Judy began making a name for himself later that year when he killed a black bear within sight of town while hunting up Jessie Creek. 91 Like Quanda, Joe Nappo also left a wife and son when he died at his home in the Indian village on the bar in 1938. Nappo too had many close non-Indian friends, and his obituary recorded that “many of the old timers around here were well acquainted with him.”92 In 1950 the Indian village lost a renowned leader when Elmer Charles Navo died at his home there. The Recorder-Herald lamented that “with his passing, another link between the past and present had been broken, and an outstanding career of leadership closed in the Lemhi and Salmon River country.” Navo had been born and educated at the Lemhi Reservation and, the article explained, had “spent a lifetime in bettering the relationships between the whiteman and his Indian tribesmen.” He had toured with Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show as well as other western road shows, and he had acted in movies such as The Covered Wagon and Northwest Passage. Together with Jack Quanda, he had successfully navigated the Salmon River, duplicating Harry “Cap” Guleke’s 1901 feat. Navo was a respected authority on Lemhi customs and culture and had worked to preserve them among his own people in addition to sharing that knowledge with non-Indians. “At the time of his death,” the article continued, “he served as chief counsellor and advisor among his people of the Salmon village.” But he had “proved his ability of leadership through his intelligent [sic] and understanding of both the white and the Redman” early in life. Navo was well known throughout the Salmon River country, where he was “highly respected and regarded as a good friend and beneficial influence over the Indian village by his white friends.” Navo, dressed in traditional garb, lay in state at his home in the village from the time of his death on Sunday, January 22, until Friday, while the Lemhi community mourned his death and performed traditional rituals. On January 27 the larger community, Indians and non-Indians alike, grieved over his death during a Christian ceremony at a local

returning to the river of no return

127

[127], (19)

Lines: 147 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [127], (19)

funeral home before the final tribal rites were administered at the burial later that day. 93 Despite the loss of intermediaries between the Indian and nonIndian communities like Navo, however, Salmon residents remained supportive of the residents of the Indian village. Annual reports from the Lemhi County school district during the 1950s, for example, acknowledged the community’s sympathy for the Lemhis. The report for the 1949–50 school year related how the Lemhis were “well liked by the community as a whole and the people do whatever is possible in the line of securing employment for this group.” The annual report two years later noted similarly that “the non-Indian people of this area have taken a great deal of interest in these people and help them whenever and wherever possible,” although it also characterized “the everyday living” of the Lemhis as “filled with poverty, superstition and mistrust of all non-Indians except the older residents of Salmon.” The report for 1952–53 boasted that “the people of this community and the school staff are to be commended for their attitude toward the Indian people in this area.”94 The elderly Lemhis who were well known by locals continued to pass away. Just a few months after Elmer Navo’s death, the Indian village suffered another loss when Edward Nappo died. Nappo had been born on the Lemhi Reservation and removed to Fort Hall. In 1937, after his marriage to Eula Warren at Fort Hall, he returned to Salmon and became well known in the area. 95 Four years later the Recorder-Herald reported the loss of yet another member of “Tendoy’s Band.” Jim Marshall, like Nappo, had been born in the Lemhi Valley and removed to Fort Hall but shortly thereafter returned to Salmon, where he lived the better part of his life. Marshall had maintained a close relationship with Fred Carl, a Salmon resident he had befriended in his youth. Marshall had gone to Fort Hall for medical treatment for a lingering illness, the article explained, where he died “before he was able to return to more familiar scenes.”96 In 1958 the Indian village in Salmon was forced to relocate yet again when the Shoup family sold the plot of land on which it was located. It was at this point that Howard Sims, the descendant of another pioneer family sympathetic to the Lemhis, and his wife, Marjorie, donated an acre of land just across the street for the Lemhis to use in perpetuity. 97 This was the location of the village that Norman Nybroten visited in

128

returning to the river of no return

[128], (20

Lines: 151 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[128], (20

1963 in conjunction with his study of the economy and conditions at Fort Hall. Nybroten was struck by the degree to which the Lemhi community was integrated into the larger non-Indian one. “One of the most obvious conditions at Salmon in contrast to communities neighboring the Fort Hall Reservation,” he wrote, “is how the Indians have become part of the community. It appears that the individual Indian at Salmon is quite well known in the community and that he knows this.”98 Nybroten surmised that the familiarity of the Indian and nonIndian communities in Salmon contributed to the success of Lemhi children in school because identification as individuals helped to prevent discrimination and stereotyping that many American Indians experienced. “If the Indians go to Blackfoot or Pocatello” for school, he wrote, “they are just another damned Indian. Here they are all known so it makes a lot of difference in acceptance.”99 Another factor in the success of Lemhi children in school in Salmon was the influence of their parents. Nybroten reported that “parents were generally very cooperative and mothers would frequently sit with the child during his first day or two in school.”100 The transition to attending school could be especially difficult for Indian children; some Lemhis only spoke Shoshone in the home, so many children entered public school as either Shoshone speakers or as children with limited English proficiency. 101 In some cases when a mother did not attend the first days of school with her child, the child would sneak away and hide. 102 Annual reports from the Lemhi County school district confirm Nybroten’s positive assessment of the Lemhis’ interest in education. During the 1950s the reports consistently lauded the parents’ efforts to see that their children attended school regularly. 103 Newspaper articles provide further evidence that the Lemhis were accepted, and succeeded, in school. In 1961, for example, Audrey Sawyer, a thirteenyear-old Lemhi sixth grader, was featured in a front-page article in the Recorder-Herald when she received a letter from the White House thanking her for a sketch of President John F. Kennedy she had drawn in school. In 1969 fifteen-year-old high school sophomore Rose Ann George was selected as the mascot for the high school basketball team. The paper ran a front-page photograph showing her in the costume of the Salmon “Savages.” Later articles listed the accolades George

returning to the river of no return

129

[129], (21)

Lines: 159 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [129], (21)

attained as a student, including national recognition for yearbook design, art and speech awards, and scholarships for college. 104 Nybroten also believed that the familiarity and acceptance that characterized the community of Salmon served as a deterrent to crime, because they fostered an atmosphere of accountability and responsibility. Hence, he expected to find less crime among Indians at Salmon compared to Fort Hall. “Law violations by the Indians near Salmon, according to enforcement officials,” he reported, “are not any more frequent than among non-Indians.” Nybroten was further informed that when the police were called out on a matter involving the Indian community, it tended to involve either alcohol or domestic abuse. 105 In rare cases, crimes committed by members of the Lemhi community in Salmon did create a local stir. In 1953, for example, the Recorder-Herald ran a front-page story about a knife fight that had occurred in the village. The altercation, resulting from a quarrel between brothers-in-law, left one man hospitalized with stab wounds. Police discovered the assailant hiding in a haystack near the village. Then, in 1957, the arrest of a fifteen-year-old Lemhi boy living with his mother on the bar brought an end to a two-month search for a prowler who had been breaking into houses in town. The boy, who had not previously been in trouble with the police, was sent to the state industrial school at Saint Anthony. 106 Lemhis in the village, however, sometimes policed themselves, perhaps recognizing that disturbances involving the authorities could undermine the sense of community that they had built up with the non-Indians in Salmon over the years. Irene Ariwite, a resident of the village, filed a complaint in 1963 against the individual arrested in the prowler case five years earlier, for being drunk and disorderly in a public place. Ariwite filed another complaint in 1969, this time against one of the participants in the 1953 knife fight, for disturbing the peace. The man was sentenced to leave the area for a year or face six months in jail. In lodging her complaints, Ariwite sent a clear message that individuals who were repeatedly involved in trouble were not welcome in the Indian village or by the Lemhi community in Salmon. 107 If the Indian community in Salmon occasionally ran afoul of the law just as the non-Indian community did, the Lemhis also found that the authorities, particularly local sheriffs, could be counted on for assistance, and in some cases more. In 1938 descendants of Chief

130

returning to the river of no return

[130], (22

Lines: 164 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[130], (22

Tendoy approached Sheriff F. J. Stroud to ask that he look into treaty rights the Tendoy family believed they held as a result of a treaty concluded between Tendoy and the federal government. In his letter to Congressman Compton White inquiring about the matter, Stroud expressed hope that the Tendoy family might indeed possess such rights, but the bia turned up no such treaty. 108 When Lemhis in the Indian village secured an order to produce fifty-eight pairs of buckskin gloves for a California man in 1948, it was Sheriff Bob Isley who acted as the agent between the Lemhis and the purchaser. 109 But of all the local authorities, and indeed even all the individuals in the Salmon River country who took an interest in the Lemhi Shoshones and their welfare, Jed Wilson stands out as one of their greatest non-Indian champions. After his youth on a ranch in the area, where he became fascinated with the Lemhis both past and present, Wilson lived in Salmon during the school year with his mother and siblings. In town, he sought to befriend the residents of the Indian village, but he found that “these people were much different than the ones that came to the Three Forks Ranch,” where he grew up, and he “was hurt to the core when he was met by open hostility.” Nonetheless, Wilson gradually won the trust and respect of the residents of the village, in large part due to his persistent interest in Lemhi history and culture. In addition to collecting and trading for artifacts, Wilson took an interest in contributing to a project initiated by Tull Dunlap, a longtime non-Indian resident of Salmon who was compiling a Shoshone dictionary. Once it became clear that Wilson was truly interested in preserving their language and culture, the Lemhis opened up to him. After graduating from Ricks College in Rexburg, Idaho, in 1950, Wilson married and returned to the Salmon River country, where he bought a ranch. He continued visiting his friends in the village and eventually Lemhis from both Salmon and Fort Hall began to visit him to view his artifact collection, trade for items, and exchange stories. 110 Wilson returned to Salmon the same year that Elmer Navo passed away. Navo’s death certainly left a void in leadership for the Lemhi community in Salmon, but a new generation of leaders gradually emerged to fill it. During a visit to the village in 1966, James Dawes, acting tribal affairs officer from the Portland Area Office, identified Joe Pat Sawyer, Dasso Nappo, and Wilford George as individuals who had assumed leadership responsibility there. But Dawes’s assessment of

returning to the river of no return

131

[131], (23)

Lines: 171 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [131], (23)

relations between the Indian and non-Indian communities in Salmon stood in stark contrast to the views Nybroten had expressed just a few years earlier. While Nybroten had been struck by the degree to which the Lemhis were integrated into the larger community, Dawes reported that they were “certainly not integrated into the community of Salmon, which seems to just ‘tolerate’ this group of Indians who have been living a more or less isolated existence in their midst for approximately fifty years now.”111 Maybe Dawes’s stay in Salmon had been too short to form an accurate understanding of the situation in Salmon, or perhaps his outsider bia status colored his perception. Just three years later, however, in 1969, Ethel Kimball, a columnist for the Salmon Recorder-Herald, offered an assessment of the Lemhis’ place in the community that was very similar to Nybroten’s. The Lemhis’ “relationship with the whites,” Kimball wrote, “maintains the rather unique characteristics of pioneer days. Mingling freely on equal terms, their children attend white schools.” The men and women, Kimball continued, worked in various capacities in the community, while others “still plying their ancient crafts of beautiful hand-made leather and bead work, sell their creations in Salmon City stores to residents and tourists alike. . . . There are no racist problems in Salmon City.” Kimball allowed, however, that some elements in town viewed the village as a blot on the landscape. 112 Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in between these widely diverging accounts. Some residents may have resented the dilapidated village at the edge of town but tolerated it as a remnant of the past. The Lemhis for their part may have been wary of non-Indians with whom they had not gained a familiarity over the years. But there were longtime residents of Salmon who had developed real concern for the welfare of the Lemhi community there. Such was the case with Jed Wilson. In his capacity as deputy sheriff and later chief of police in Salmon, Wilson, known as Dit-a-conitivo, or Lawman, to the Lemhis, took it upon himself to look out for them while at the same time cultivating his lifelong interest in Lemhi culture. Lemhis from Fort Hall traveled to Salmon to renew their driver’s licenses, knowing they could count on Wilson to treat them with respect. He accompanied Lemhis during the traditional bitterroot harvest in the spring. When elderly Lemhis in the village

132

returning to the river of no return

[132], (24

Lines: 175 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[132], (24

were ill, Wilson looked after them and offered to take them to the hospital. He turned a blind eye to and on occasion even participated in traditional gambling games in the village. Wilson delivered wood to elderly Lemhis in the village for heating and made improvements to their houses. At one point he chaired a committee organized to secure better housing for the Lemhis in the village, but the community showed little support; he found “nothing but closed doors to bang his head against.”113 Wilson had many friends in the Lemhi village in Salmon, but he formed a special bond with Fannie Pandoah Silver, who was born in 1897 on the Lemhi Indian Reservation. After removal, she traveled regularly with her family from Fort Hall to visit Salmon. Following her marriage to Toenip Silver at Fort Hall, the couple relocated to Salmon permanently, where they lived in the Indian village. Fannie’s skill in traditional crafts made her a natural friend of Wilson. By the time of Toenip’s death in 1972, Silver and Wilson had formed a close bond; Wilson was given the honor of driving the lead car to the funeral, and thereafter Fannie always referred to him as her son. Wilson looked after Silver’s health, took care of her money—which she had previously kept rolled up under a rug—and tended to her one-room house in the village. 114 Wilson also befriended Wilford George, the most influential and best-known Lemhi leader in the decades after Elmer Navo’s death. Wilford, or Willie George Jr., was the son of Emma Tendoy, Chief Tendoy’s granddaughter, and Willie George Sr., a well-known Shoshone leader at Fort Hall. After growing up at Fort Hall, George served in the U.S. Navy during World War II, where he earned the Bronze Star medal for valor. He then served in the U.S. Army from 1946 to 1949 before moving to Salmon and buying a house with his wife, Camille Navo George, in 1955. 115 Like Elmer Navo, George was proud of his Lemhi heritage and sought to both preserve traditional culture among his people and foster a greater understanding of it among non-Indians. His daughter, Rose Ann Abrahamson, recalled after his death that George “was willing to go out among the white people and say: ‘Here I am; glad to meet you. I’m a Lemhi Indian. I’m the grandson of Chief Tendoy, the son of Willie George, a descendant of Sacajawea.’ ” George, his daughter also remembered, was “so proud he was from the Lemhi area, that his people were from here.” Before moving to Salmon, he

returning to the river of no return

133

[133], (25)

Lines: 181 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [133], (25)

would travel to town from Fort Hall for the Salmon River Days festival during the summers. His family camped in town at Island Park and participated in the parades and other events. George worked as a packer and guide in the primitive areas around Salmon for income, and also because the occupation allowed him to visit places that were important to the Lemhis—grave sites, rock paintings, battle sites, and old village sites. 116 Wilson also befriended Willie George Sr. and his second wife, Cora Pegoga George, a cousin of Fannie Silver. Willie George Sr., or Running Bear, was a Shoshone from the Boise area born in 1888. He won the title of world champion bronc rider at Madison Square Garden, traveled with Buffalo Bill and other traveling western shows, and was a stunt man and acted in movies, where he worked with celebrities such as Will Rogers and Tom Mix. George was one of the first members of the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council, and he used his leadership position to promote the preservation of Idaho’s Indian heritage. The Wilsons first met the Georges when they invited them to dinner one night. They hit it off immediately when Cora George recognized a pair of buckskin gloves hanging on the parlor wall as her own work; she had made them for her father, who had traded them to Wilson’s father for a horse. After viewing Wilson’s extensive collection of Indian artifacts, George decided to give him a Jefferson Peace and Friendship Medallion for safekeeping. 117 It had been given to Cameahwait by Lewis and Clark and had been passed down through the generations. 118 Over the decades, Wilson increasingly noted with regret that the younger Lemhis were not as determined to remain in Salmon as their parents’ generation had been. “As the older ones keep dying off,” he once observed, “the younger ones are moving out.”119 Even so, the Lemhis retained a presence in Salmon through the 1980s, despite the loss of the elderly Lemhis who had been born on the Lemhi Agency, and the non-Indian friends who had helped them. In 1970 Hattie Honena Ariwite, who was about ninety years old, died at her home in the village, but four of her children continued to live in homes there. Ariwite had moved from Fort Hall to Salmon in 1948 with her husband, Ben, and remained after his death the following year. 120 A few months later Howard Sims, the owner of the land the village stood on, died in a plane crash. The Lemhis retained permission to occupy Sims’s land, but they had lost yet another trusted friend in the community. 121

134

returning to the river of no return

[134], (26

Lines: 185 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[134], (26

Despite the loss of longtime Salmon residents, both Indian and non-Indian, the village remained. In 1972 anthropologists Wick Miller of the University of Utah and Sven Liljeblad of Idaho State University came to Salmon to interview members of the Lemhi community. Miller and Liljeblad were collecting information for their studies on the Shoshone and Bannock languages. They found all but one of the nine homes occupied. The total Lemhi population in Salmon by that time, however, amounted to only twenty-seven, including individuals who resided outside the village. 122 Over the course of the decade the Lemhi community continued to diminish, as the Lemhis either died or moved back to Fort Hall for health reasons, employment opportunities, and perhaps because of the uncertainty involving the settlement award from the Lemhi icc claim. In 1973 Zuni White Bear Navo, a resident of the village since 1940 and renowned storyteller, died at Steele Memorial Hospital in Salmon. Her son Alfred and his wife, Lois, were the last occupants of the village, remaining through the 1980s, when some homes there burned, and others that had been abandoned were torn down. 123 In 1981 Willie George Jr. died of alcoholism, just as his great-greatgrandfather Chief Tendoy had. The Recorder-Herald declared, as it had when Elmer Navo died in 1950, that “a link between the Indian and white man has been broken.” Daughter Rose Ann Abrahamson, who still lived in town, said, “We’ve all lost something here in Salmon; the Indian people have all moved out of Salmon, but he kept coming back to keep the ties between his Indian people and the white people. . . . He tried to set an image for himself here,” she continued, “that special something that made people remember him, all the way from Salmon to Blackfoot. He was one of the Indian people who wanted to stay here where his ancestors were.” Abrahamson also described how times had changed in the Salmon River country. Her father had always told her stories about the kindness of old-timers in the Pahsimeroi Valley, who helped Indians with jobs and let them camp on their property. “But now all you see is ‘no trespassing’ and ‘keep off property’ signs,” she explained. Abrahamson noted, however, that her father had always said that the people in Salmon“were the kindest and most cooperative. That you could never find people like those in Salmon anywhere else.” She vowed to remain in Salmon and to carry on her father’s efforts to bring the Lemhis and non-Indian residents of town together. 124

returning to the river of no return

135

[135], (27)

Lines: 192 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [135], (27)

True to her word, Abrahamson organized an Indian feast and powwow in honor of her father in conjunction with the Salmon River Days celebration in the summer of 1981. The festivities were also to honor “the elderly Indian people who once lived in the Salmon and Lemhi Valleys and their old-time white counterparts,” the RecorderHerald reported. “This will be a return of the Lemhi Indians to their homeland,” Abrahamson explained. “There are a few of them left. A lot of them are getting old and sick. Before they pass from this earth we want to give them a reunion with their homeland,” she continued. “We want them to be able to say: When I went back to my homeland here is what the white people did for me while I was there. They fed me, roomed me, treated me with courtesy,”Abrahamson concluded. 125 Lemhis from Fort Hall traveled to Salmon for the event, which was held over the Fourth of July weekend. They set up tepees on Island Park, where Willie George used to camp during Salmon River Days, for their powwow. The feast on Friday was a success; some twentyfive hundred people came to sample the buffalo and other traditional Indian foods. Indeed, Salmon River Days in general was a sensation, drawing the largest crowd ever to the annual event. Fannie Silver, who had since moved to Fort Hall, returned for the event and had the honor of serving as parade marshal, and the Fort Hall entry won the open division of the Salmon River Days parade. 126 But if the celebration was a success, it was also a reminder that the Lemhi Indian community in Salmon, a fixture since the advent of the town, was fast becoming a thing of the past. Only a few Lemhis remained in Salmon, and the Indian village was nearly deserted. 127 Moreover, attitudes were changing. Looking back in 1996, Jed Wilson mused over the changes.“The old native white people liked the Indians but now these [new] people are all moved in and have different ideas,” he observed. 128 “Eyesores” such as the remnants of the Indian village caused increasing concern among city officials, who adopted stronger ordinances in 1983 forcing property owners to clean up areas deemed a nuisance. 129 But if attitudes were changing and the village was a less-welcome feature on the local landscape than it had once been, there remained a pervasive pride in the region’s American Indian history and heritage. It was evidenced in abundance when in August 1985 Salmon celebrated the 180th anniversary of the Lewis and Clark expedition.

136

returning to the river of no return

[136], (28

Lines: 198 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[136], (28

The Salmon Valley Chamber of Commerce sponsored a three-day Sacajawea powwow that drew participants from twenty-five different tribes. “It was a weekend,” the Recorder-Herald boasted, “when the Indian reigned supreme again in Salmon.” Highlights of the festivities included a reenactment of the arrival of the Corps of Discovery in the Lemhi Valley, an honor dance performed by descendants of Sacajawea, traditional Indian games and contests, a parade, and a feast featuring traditional Lemhi Shoshone foods such as buffalo, salmon, steelhead, bitterroot (harvested east of town by Lois Navo), and a chokecherry pudding similar to the one the Lemhis had served to Lewis and Clark. Emma Pohipe Dann, a Lemhi elder and an authority on Lemhi Shoshone customs, traditions, and religion, acted as the grand marshal of the parade, riding in the back of a pickup truck holding an eagle feather. The powwow was so popular, the RecorderHerald reported, that the Chamber of Commerce hoped to make it an annual event. 130 But while Salmon residents celebrated their region’s history, inviting the Lemhis from Fort Hall to join them in doing so, they did not mourn the loss of a permanent Lemhi Shoshone presence in the town of Salmon. Against the backdrop of Salmon’s nostalgic celebration of its Lemhi heritage, the village came down. In 1985, about a month before the Sacajawea powwow, a domestic dispute there culminated in a fire that destroyed one of the dwellings. 131 Two years later town officials leveled much of the village, leaving only a few buildings remaining. 132 Nonetheless, Alfred and Lois Navo stayed on in their home in what was left of the village until late in 1991, when the last remains of the Indian camp were finally cleared away so that the site could be converted into a fishing pond and park for children. 133 For nearly a century the Lemhi Shoshones had refused to accept the removal agreement that they had been pressured into signing. Some Lemhis never went to Fort Hall. For those who did, the Salmon River country often beckoned them back. Many returned, whether on a temporary or seasonal basis, or for good. Prior to removal the Lemhis had forged strong friendships with the non-Indian population in Salmon, and this sense of community was maintained and renewed by subsequent generations. The good relations between the Indian and nonIndian communities in Salmon were essential to the persistence of the

returning to the river of no return

137

[137], (29)

Lines: 204 to 2 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [137], (29)

Lemhi community there. Non-Indians provided land for the Indian village, they employed the Lemhis and helped them find work, they sold Lemhi crafts in their stores, they offered aid and assistance in numerous ways. In sum, they were friends and neighbors. Over the years, however, neighbors move and are replaced, friends lose touch, people die, memories fade, and attitudes change. But the longevity of the Lemhi presence in Salmon was not only a product of a welcoming non-Indian community; it also resulted from the Lemhis’ sheer determination to remain in their homeland. For generations the Lemhis lived in the Salmon River country, and after removal in 1907 traditional hunting, fishing, and gathering practices helped them make a living just as they had before. Life in the Indian village was not always easy, but the Lemhis living there preferred hardship to exile. The village is gone now, underwater, and there is no Lemhi community to speak of in Salmon. But the Lemhis continue to return to their homeland to hunt, fish, and harvest, to tend to the graves of their ancestors, and to visit. Some Lemhis hope to return again on a permanent basis, for their homeland and identity are intertwined. The Lemhis cannot be removed from the Salmon River country any more than the Salmon River country can be taken out of the Lemhis; the two are inseparable. As long as there are Lemhi Shoshones, they will continue returning to the River of No Return.

138

returning to the river of no return

[Last Page

[138], (30

Lines: 210 ———

213.459

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[138], (30

Lemhis on parade in Salmon, Idaho, ca. 1929. Photograph courtesy of the Lemhi County Historical Society and Museum.

[Last Page]

[139], (31)

Lines: 245 to 2

499.5pt Pg

———

——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX

[139], (31)

Early Lemhi camp in the Salmon River country. Photograph courtesy of the Lemhi County Historical Society and Museum.

[Last Page

[140], (32

Lines: 245

499.5pt

———

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[140], (32

Kid’s Creek Park, 2003, the site of the last Indian village in Salmon. Photograph by author.

[Last Page]

[141], (33)

Lines: 245 to 2

499.5pt Pg

———

——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX

[141], (33)

[Last Page

[142], (34

Lines: 245 ———

499.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[142], (34

7

The Lemhis, Salmon, and Treaty Rights Shoshone-Bannock Indians entered into the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 in the most solemn good faith and under its terms millions of acres of land were turned over to the white man’s government. If the white man and his government now are truly dissatisfied with the Treaty and entertain plans to renounce it, as a matter of simple justice they should also entertain plans to refund the lands to us which they acquired through the Treaty. . . . Governor Don Samuelson of the State of Idaho and his officials have taken the position that the white man’s word “fish” is not in the Fort Bridger Treaty and that only the white man’s word “hunt” appears therein; therefore, on this 100th anniversary of the Fort Bridger Treaty it is illegal for us to now take fish. . . . Indian hunting and the taking of fish and game animals is very little. But our Treaty is very big. Joseph Thorpe Jr., Chairman, Fort Hall Tribal Business Council, 1968

[First Page] [143], (1)

Lines: 0 to 48 ———

4.5pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [143], (1)

On July 14, 1968, Gerald Tinno, a Lemhi descendant and enrolled member of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, ascended the Yankee Fork River hoping to catch some salmon to store away against the coming winter months. Near Eightmile Creek, up the Yankee Fork Road from Sunbeam, Idaho, Tinno succeeded in spearing a chinook salmon with his “straight-point” fishing spear. But the fish never made it to his freezer; both it and the tool he used to take it were confiscated by a game warden who charged Tinno with violating Idaho state fishing regulations. 1 Thus began Idaho’s legal challenge to the Lemhis’ longstanding use of traditional fishing grounds. As enrolled members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall, the Lemhis enjoy hunting and fishing rights provided for in the Fort Bridger Treaty, concluded on July 3, 1868, roughly a century before Tinno speared the chinook near Eightmile Creek. Because the treaty, negotiated by Gen. Christopher Augur at Fort Bridger in Utah Terri-

143

tory, guaranteed signatories “the right to hunt on unoccupied lands of the United States,”2 the crux of the Tinno case revolved around whether the right to hunt, by definition, implied the right to fish; the Shoshone word for hunting subsumed the two pursuits. Like many Lemhis, Tinno had been raised with a familiarity of the Salmon River and its tributaries. His grandmother, a longtime resident of Salmon, showed him where to fish when he was young and instructed him in the traditional techniques used to harvest salmon. Every year after removal to Fort Hall, Lemhis like Tinno had made the long trek north to the Salmon River country to take fish in the same manner and at the same places that their ancestors had before them. 3 Indeed, the method employed by Tinno would not have been unfamiliar to his Lemhi ancestors. The “straight point” he used was a spear or pole with a detachable hook connected to it with line to retrieve both the hook and the fish snagged with it. The earliest non-Indians to encounter the Lemhi Shoshones noted the use of the very same practice, among others. 4 When the Corps of Discovery stayed among the Lemhis in August 1805 after reuniting Sacajawea with her people, Captains Lewis and Clark, as always, diligently recorded their observations of the Salmon River country and the people inhabiting it. On August 21 Clark documented the Lemhi technique of spearing salmon in his diary: Their method of taking fish with a gig or bone is with a long pole, about a foot from one end is a strong string attached to the pole, this string is a little more than a foot long and is tied to the middle of a bone from 4 to 6 inches long, one end sharp and the other with a hole to fasten on the end of the pole with a [barb] to the large end, the[y] fasten this bone on one end & with the other, feel for the fish & turn and strike them so hard that the bone passes through and catches on the opposite side, slips off the end of the pole and hold the center of the bone. 5

A half century later, in 1855, Mormon missionaries established a mission, which they named Fort Limhi, 6 near the present-day town of Tendoy, Idaho, some twenty miles southeast of Salmon. Settling among the Lemhis, the missionaries remained in the Lemhi Valley until abandoning the mission in 1858. While there, they kept a journal chronicling the daily life at the mission. During their three years of

144

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[144], (2)

Lines: 48 ———

1.25pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[144], (2)

settlement, some of the missionaries joined the Lemhis in taking fish with spears. George W. Hill, for example, who had developed sufficient mastery of Shoshone to act as an interpreter, was invited to join them during fishing excursions. He managed to snag salmon during the summer of 1855 by “means of large hooks tied to a pole . . . the hook . . . pull[ed] off the pole as soon as jerked into a fish [but] was still held to a cord that fasten[ed] it to the pole.”7 In 1906, just prior to removal to Fort Hall, anthropologist Robert Lowie described Lemhi fishing practices observed during his fieldwork at the Lemhi Agency. They remained the same as one hundred years earlier, with slight concessions to recent technology. Lowie described Lemhi harpoons or spears as “a long pole with a bone gig about two and a half inches long, to which a small strong line was attached near the middle, connecting it with the shaft about two feet from the point.” The shaft, ten feet long, was placed in a small hole in the front end of the head, which detached when it struck a fish. By Lowie’s time, the Lemhis used an iron nail in addition to bone for the gig. 8 Tinno’s fishing method, in sum, drew on traditions that dated back for generations to the earliest contact with non-Indians and before. But if Tinno, in harvesting salmon in the place and manner that he did, represented only a link in a long chain, so too did the nonIndian challenge to his right to do so. Controversy between Lemhis and non-Indians over access to salmon runs began with the first white settlements in the Lemhi Valley and only increased over time. The Lemhis initially welcomed the Mormon missionaries among them in 1855 and allowed them to use the resources of the area, provided that they did so only to meet subsistence needs. 9 The Mormons, however, ignored this limitation, sending eight wagonloads of dried salmon to Salt Lake City in 1857. This failure to respect the Lemhis’ efforts to manage and conserve their vital resources was one factor in the decision to drive them from the valley in 1858. 10 But the Mormon abandonment of Fort Limhi gave the Lemhis only a brief reprieve from non-Indian encroachment onto their lands and resources. Trouble resumed in 1862 when Thomas McGarvey, for a time the only non-Indian settler in the Salmon River country, constructed the first of a series of commercial fish traps, or weirs, on the Lemhi River. The traps seriously limited the number of salmon returning to traditional fishing areas, raising tensions between the

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

145

[145], (3)

Lines: 84 to 92 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [145], (3)

Lemhis and the non-Indian settlers drawn to the region in 1866 after the discovery of gold in Napias Creek seventeen miles west of the present-day town of Salmon, Idaho. 11 Once the Lemhis entered into treaty negotiations in 1868 to secure a reservation and, at the behest of agents, began to take up farming, the problem of non-Indian depletion of Lemhi resources became more acute. In 1870 Lemhi Indian agent A. J. Simmons wrote that the Lemhis were “bordering on starvation,” in part because weirs constructed by non-Indians prevented salmon from reaching their fishing grounds on the Lemhi River. 12 In his 1873 annual report, Lemhi Indian agent John C. Rainsford complained that the tribe was only able to harvest one-third of its usual catch of salmon, that is, ten thousand pounds of dried fish rather than thirty thousand. Together with an invasion of grasshoppers that devastated the Lemhis’ crops and inadequate annuity provisions, this shortcoming amounted to a disaster that left the Lemhis in desperate straits. Government officials tried to persuade them to remove to Fort Hall two hundred miles to the south, but Tendoy and his people were adamant about remaining in the Salmon River country. 13 Amidst this turmoil President Grant designated a tiny reservation for the Lemhis in the Lemhi Valley with the issuance of an executive order in 1875. Meanwhile, access to salmon runs on the Lemhi River remained a point of contention. Harrison Fuller, the Indian agent who succeeded Rainsford, forced the removal of some of the weirs on the Lemhi, but for his troubles he was sacked in 1877, charged with corruption by disgruntled settlers. 14 In August 1877 the controversy over Fuller was overshadowed by the Nez Perce War. Non-Indians feared it would ignite hostilities in the Lemhi Valley. Area farmers and ranchers retreated to the safety of Salmon, while rumors circulated that some Lemhis were eager to ally themselves with the Nez Perces. Under these circumstances, the controversy over the weirs took on additional gravity. Fearing that the Lemhis would use the chaos as an opportunity to destroy the weirs and precipitate a conflict with McGarvey in the process, a group of Salmon residents offered him $400 to remove the fish traps, but he refused. Throughout the swirl of rumors, however, Tendoy and the Lemhis remained neutral. 15

146

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[146], (4)

Lines: 92 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[146], (4)

Tensions remained high for the next few years, with the Bannock War, Sheepeater War, and controversy over the weirs on the Lemhi River all threatening to create a rift between the Indians and nonIndians in the Salmon River country. Complicating matters further, Fuller’s replacement, C. N. Stowers, practiced the corruption that Fuller had been accused of, adding to the Lemhis’ dissatisfaction. When the army dispatched Capt. Ed Ball to maintain the peace in the Lemhi Valley in 1878, the Lemhis complained to him during his visit to the agency that Stowers had charged them for their rations. The Lemhis also expressed their dissatisfaction to Ball about the presence of weirs on the Lemhi River. Stowers’ replacement, John A. Wright, who arrived in July 1878, proved more scrupulous, requesting an investigation of Stowers’s actions and trying to get the weirs removed. Despite his efforts, however, they still remained in place at the end of the year. Finally, nature succeeded where the Lemhis and their agents had failed when a summer flood washed the weirs down the stream the following July. 16 With the last of Idaho’s Indian wars over, the non-Indian population in the Salmon River country became more entrenched, and the Lemhi majority so feared by settlers during the late 1870s became a minority that Salmon residents no longer viewed as a threat to their safety and stability. As agents struggled to transform the Lemhis from mounted hunters into “civilized” farmers, non-Indian residents began asserting fuller control over the Salmon River country and its resources. Now it was Lemhi hunting and fish weirs that provoked complaints. In 1886 a deputy sheriff destroyed a weir in the Lemhi River when the Lemhis did not immediately respond to complaints about it. The Lemhis rebuilt the weir, but their agent forced them to remove it three years later when a Lemhi Valley rancher protested. 17 While the Lemhis were no longer masters of the Salmon River country, its resources, particularly salmon, remained important to their economy during the remainder of the reservation period and beyond. After removal to Fort Hall in 1907, the Lemhis returned each year to harvest salmon in their usual and accustomed places. When the tribes and bands at the Fort Hall Indian Reservation elected in 1936 to adopt a constitution under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, the Lemhis enrolled as members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, and

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

147

[147], (5)

Lines: 100 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [147], (5)

the provisions of the Fort Bridger Treaty, including the right to hunt on unoccupied lands, were thereby extended to them. In addition to the Lemhis’ claim to the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 through the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall, however, they may also hold a separate, independent right to its provisions, even though they have not been historically considered signatories. The Lemhi subchief Tay-to-ba attended the July 1868 negotiations and his signature appears on the document. 18 In 1954 George Tendoy, last surviving son of Chief Tendoy, asserted yet another Lemhi claim to the Fort Bridger Treaty, and in addition he suggested that Lemhi hunting and fishing rights had been guaranteed in a completely separate document. Together with family members and an interpreter, Tendoy approached Idaho assistant attorney general J. Clinton Peterson and informed him that Chief Tendoy, under the name Wu-Ny-Pitz, had also been a signatory to the Fort Bridger Treaty. The name Wu-Ny-Pitz does indeed appear on the treaty, but aside from his son’s word, there is no reference to Tendoy using that name. It seems doubtful, moreover, that Tendoy was the Wu-Ny-Pitz who signed the 1868 treaty because the name also appears on one of the five Doty treaties of 1863, also negotiated at Fort Bridger, and Tendoy is known not to have been in attendance. In testimony given in the Tinno case, anthropologist Dr. Sven Liljeblad stated that he believed that the individual known as Wu-Ny-Pitz who signed the 1868 treaty was Waunapitsi, chief of a small band of Indians who lived in the Cache Valley near Bear Lake, north of the present-day Utah border. 19 But George Tendoy also explained to Peterson that he had once had in his possession a document “containing a gold seal” that had been given to Chief Tendoy by a “one-armed general” in appreciation for his service to the United States. According to Tendoy, the document guaranteed Chief Tendoy and all his descendants hunting and fishing rights independent of those provided for in the Fort Bridger Treaty. 20 The one-armed general, presumably Gen. O. O. Howard, visited Salmon during the Sheepeater War of 1879, and the reference to service to the United States could have been tied to Chief Tendoy’s skill in keeping the Lemhis neutral during the Nez Perce War of 1877, the Bannock War of 1878, and the Sheepeater War. In each conflict, Salmon residents feared that the Lemhis would turn against them

148

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[148], (6)

Lines: 105 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[148], (6)

despite Tendoy’s assurances to the contrary. During the Nez Perce and Bannock wars, Tendoy, sensing the tension among the settlers in Salmon, alleviated fears by organizing bison-hunting excursions in present-day Montana. In recognition of his peaceful ways, the citizens erected a monument to him after his death. 21 Whether the military also recognized Tendoy for his services in keeping the peace with a guarantee of hunting and fishing rights, as George Tendoy claimed, remains a mystery. Tendoy told Peterson that the document had been stolen from him at a convention in Utah. Peterson forwarded an account of Tendoy’s story to the treaty division of the bia, but the bureau found no record of any such document. 22 Meanwhile, George Tendoy’s account found its way into the newspaper. Ken Spiekerman recounted the story in the August 23, 1954, edition of the Boise Statesman, where he framed a question that remained a point of contention until the Tinno decision in 1972: were fishing rights implied by hunting rights granted in treaties? 23 George Tendoy’s 1954 inquiry was not the first time a Tendoy family member had claimed an independent right to hunt and fish in the Salmon River country. In 1938 F. J. Stroud, the Lemhi County sheriff, wrote to Idaho congressman Compton White inquiring about treaty rights on behalf of Chief Tendoy’s descendants. Stroud explained that according to Tendoy family oral tradition, Chief Tendoy had secured treaty rights for his descendants to hunt and fish in the Salmon River country when he signed the 1880 removal agreement. “I feel that the Tendoys should have some recognition,” Stroud wrote White, “for it was through the old Chief ’s friendship that the early settlers of Lemhi County were saved from massacre at the hands of Chief Joseph.” Despite Tendoy’s friendship, Stroud explained, his descendants living in Salmon, including one elderly son, were left to live off “what little help they get from relief and what gloves they are able to make and sell.”24 White forwarded Stroud’s letter to the bia commissioner’s office, requesting “a statement giving the information desired as to the treaty between the Indians and the Government . . . with special reference to the rights of the Tendoy family.” In response, assistant commissioner of Indian Affairs William Zimmerman Jr. explained that the 1880 removal agreement included no guarantee that the Tendoy fam-

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

149

[149], (7)

Lines: 112 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [149], (7)

ily would retain hunting and fishing privileges, nor did the office’s research reveal any other treaty reserving those rights. 25 Meanwhile, as the Lemhis returned to the Salmon River country to fish during the decades after removal, they noticed that the onceprolific runs were still diminishing, as they had been since the reservation period. Commercial fishing posed an early threat to the runs, as “technical efficiency had already intersected harvestable potential” by the late nineteenth century. Washington and Oregon responded to declining runs by limiting harvest seasons, beginning in 1877 and 1878, respectively. Subsequent regulations banned seines, fish wheels, and traps. States also sought to preserve the runs through hatchery production; Oregon began its hatchery program as early as the 1870s. 26 The threat of overfishing had largely been curbed through regulation by the 1930s, but by then a new threat to the stability of anadromous fish populations had emerged: habitat degradation. Diverting or siphoning river channels for irrigation left spawning beds dry, and soil erosion from agriculture, lumber harvests, gold dredging, and the like buried them. Pollution—animal wastes, pesticides, and herbicides, among others—also degraded salmon habitat. The construction of small or temporary dams for mining, irrigation, or timber harvests, and eventually the construction of power-generating dams blocked tributaries, destroying fish runs altogether in some cases. 27 From the 1930s to the 1970s—the “era of dam building” in the Pacific Northwest—the federal government constructed a complex of dams on the Columbia and Lower Snake rivers that provided flood control, hydroelectric power, and irrigation water. It even allowed Idaho, a landlocked state, to claim a seaport in Lewiston when the stern-wheeler Portland steamed into town in 1975 during a festive celebration of the opening of the “Northwest Passage.” But if the dams made the Columbia and Lower Snake a lifeline for human commerce, they blocked the lifeline for the salmon, turning their migration routes into death traps. Running the gauntlet of dams between the ocean and the Salmon River country doubled the migration time for returning salmon, provided they found their way though the maze of fish ladders at all, from about twenty-two days to fifty-four. For salmon, which do not eat after the metamorphosis they undergo before spawning, the delay meant the difference between reaching spawning beds and dying before reproducing. For smolts just beginning their life’s journey, the

150

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[150], (8)

Lines: 119 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[150], (8)

dams posed an even greater hazard. The rivers that had flushed their ancestors to the ocean were replaced by a series of slack water pools, creating a delay that, as with adults returning to spawn, could be fatal. The trip through dam turbines can kill smolts or daze them enough to make them easier prey for the many predators feasting on the migrating fish. Spillways designed to decrease turbine mortality also threatened smolts with increased nitrogen supersaturation or bacterial kidney disease. In addition to all of this, reservoirs created by dams flooded shallow spawning beds. 28 Dams, in sum, transformed the Columbia and the Lower Snake, the gateway to the Salmon River country for anadromous fish, into what historian Keith Petersen has called a “River of Life, Channel of Death.” The Snake River system accounts for roughly 50 percent of the Columbia River’s chinook and steelhead salmon populations. Scientists estimate that the Columbia River once had an annual return migration of 16 million adult fish. By the 1990s the runs had diminished to less than 2.5 million, and all but some 300,000 of those had been born in hatcheries. Many factors account for the declining runs, but as Petersen notes, “by the 1990s fishery biologists had ably demonstrated that federal dams accounted for more than 95 percent of salmon losses on the Snake/Columbia system.” Petersen explains further, however, that the dams did not take anywhere near 95 percent of the blame. 29 A disproportionate amount of the blame was directed at Indian fish harvests, despite the fact that the Lemhi Shoshones and other tribes had been dependent on harvesting salmon to meet their subsistence needs for centuries. In her study of Indians, dams, and the Columbia River, Roberta Ulrich reveals the irony of making Indians the scapegoats for declining numbers of salmon: “White people put seventeen dams between salmon and their Columbia and Snake River spawning grounds. White people took river water to irrigate their farms and returned it laden with fish-killing fertilizers and pesticides. White people, mostly, logged the forests, grazed cattle on the plains, and built riverside factories, sending silt and pollution into the rivers. White fishermen in the Pacific Ocean caught more than half the Columbia River salmon. So when the river’s salmon runs hit a twenty-year low in 1980, white fishermen and white governments naturally blamed the Indians.” In this instance, Ulrich is referring to

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

151

[151], (9)

Lines: 124 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [151], (9)

a scandal that came to be known as “Salmonscam,” when fisheries officials in 1981–82 staged a costly sting operation on Columbia River Indians charged with “stealing” forty thousand fish on Indian fishing grounds between the Bonneville and McNary dams. The operation was conducted in conjunction with an effort to evict them from inlieu sites on the river—tiny parcels of land offered to Indian peoples when dams flooded their traditional village and fishing locations. After the eighteen-month operation, officials admitted that the fish loss on that stretch of the river had been about the same as the previous year, resulting largely from fluorides spilled from an aluminum plant upriver from the Dalles Dam. The fish that did not die or become disoriented from exposure to the fluorides were not poached by Indians, but spawned and died in streams between the dams. 30 This episode is emblematic of a larger trend that began long before the 1980s. Dismayed by the decline of lucrative and prized anadromous fish runs, outdoor-sports enthusiasts and state and federal officials naturally searched for a place to lay blame. Indians were likely targets. Indian peoples, after all, enjoyed access to anadromous fish runs through treaty rights not shared by non-Indian fishermen, commercial or recreational. More importantly, Indian interests in the fisheries, though inseparable from their cultures, did not at least initially have the same political clout as interests that contributed a greater share in sustaining the regional and national economies. Hydroelectric dams, agriculture, commercial fishing, and recreational anglers have been economic mainstays, while tribes have not. Most of the culpability was focused on Indian commercial fisheries on the Columbia, but tribes who harvested salmon on a smaller scale from upriver tributaries strictly for subsistence, like the Lemhi Shoshones, were not exempt from criticism and hostility. When the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs’ special Indian subcommittee held hearings at Fort Hall in 1957 to investigate conditions on the reservation, Kenneth Reynolds, president of the Southeastern Idaho Rod and Gun Club, used the forum to convey the concerns of outdoor-sports enthusiasts. While Reynolds did not question the treaty rights of Idaho Indians, he argued that the manner in which they harvested fish and game was counterproductive to conservation efforts. One area of particular concern, he told the subcommittee, was the vicinity around Salmon, Idaho, where Indian

152

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[152], (10

Lines: 128 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[152], (10

spearfishing was damaging spawning beds in protected salmon-run areas that had been closed to fishing. 31 By April of 1958 the Idaho Wildlife Federation had allied with southeast Idaho sportsmen’s groups. They blamed diminishing fish and game resources on off-reservation Indian hunting and fishing, and they urged Congress to enter into negotiations with the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall to purchase their treaty rights. “We firmly believe that a just compensation given to these tribal members . . . in return for their out-of-season hunting and fishing rights will help them to attain their goals,” the alliance maintained. “We also believe the greatest majority of the members of this tribe are in favor of this type of agreement, provided that they do not lose the right to hunt and fish in season the same as other citizens of the state.”32 In 1959 rumors circulated at Fort Hall that Lemhi tribal members who had traveled to Salmon to fish had returned with salmon to sell on the reservation. Tribal Business Council members discussed the story at a July 15 meeting. In response to the rumors, and to the outdoor enthusiasts’ suggestions from the previous year that off-reservation treaty rights should be eliminated with compensation, the tribal council moved to regulate tribal members in order to counter criticisms of abuses. Council members also considered creating a permit system for off-reservation hunting and fishing. After discussion, the matter was tabled and referred to the Law and Order Committee. 33 That committee reported back in April of 1960 that it favored the permit system. The committee also requested permission from the council to meet with state and federal game officials to discuss treaty hunting and fishing rights. The committee suggested issuing yearly permits for off-reservation hunting and fishing. In adherence to a recent state court decision, permits would only be available to enrolled tribal members living on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Identification cards would be issued with permits to help state game officials determine whether individual Indians possessed authorization from the tribal council to hunt and fish off the reservation. 34 Despite the move to regulate tribal members’ off-reservation hunting and fishing practices, controversy over the Lemhi Shoshones’ use of traditional fishing areas, and over Idaho Indians’ hunting and fishing practices in general, resumed later that year. On November 6,

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

153

[153], (11)

Lines: 132 to 1 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [153], (11)

1960, Gene Shumate, owner and manager of krxk, a radio station in Rexburg, Idaho, aired an editorial that was extremely critical of Indian hunting and fishing practices. Although Shumate did not question the treaty rights of Idaho Indians, he contended that their hunting and fishing practices played a significant role in the depletion of salmon runs and big game populations. Shumate used the Lemhi River as an example. Although he acknowledged that dam construction had contributed to the diminution of salmon runs on the Salmon River and its tributaries, he argued that “another cause is the indiscriminate taking of salmon in the spawning beds by Indians.” He cited a 1959 report that alleged that “on the Lemhi River . . . in one night alone Indians caught 100 salmon from the spawning beds . . . using clubs, spears, nets, and any other method desired.” Non-Indians, Shumate pointed out, limited their harvest according to regulations designed to conserve resources, such as limitations of season and technique. By contrast, he argued, Indians harvested without considering the implications for future generations. Shumate suggested that Idaho’s Indians and game officials meet to devise measures to improve conservation. 35 On November 13 another editorial appeared in the Idaho Falls Post Register. It criticized Indian treaty rights and suggested that they be altered or nullified. In response the National Congress of American Indians (ncai) passed a resolution in defense of Idaho Indians. “The Indian people of Idaho,” it read in part,“have for many years been subjected to unfair criticisms in exercising their treaty-recognized rights to hunt and fish.” The ncai resolution called for an investigation into the matter to be followed by a report issued to member tribes. 36 The Idaho Fish and Game Department also decided to investigate the matter, and it issued its preliminary report on April 5, 1961. Fish and game officials undertook the investigation because they were “seriously concerned” about the effects of Indian big-game hunting near the Fort Hall Reservation. “They were even more concerned,” the report detailed, “with Indian salmon fishing during spawning periods in the Lemhi, Yankee Fork, and East Fork Rivers, which are tributaries of the Salmon River and contribute materially to the spring chinook runs.” The investigators learned through interviews with both Indians and non-Indians that the Indians fishing in these areas were from Fort Hall and the town of Salmon. Tribal members and outdoor-sports enthusiasts alike agreed that most of the Indians who took salmon from

154

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[154], (12

Lines: 140 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[154], (12

the tributaries of the Salmon River harvested only what their families would use. A few Indians, investigators agreed, harvested excessively. William Reynolds, for example, who was questioned by the investigators, maintained that he had witnessed Indians from Fort Hall returning repeatedly during the spawning season from the Salmon area with carloads of up to one hundred salmon. Others alleged that Indians took non-Indian friends “party fishing,” and in the event they encountered a game warden, claimed the fish they caught to prevent poaching charges from being proffered against their non-Indian friends. The investigators urged further study of the matter. 37 In response to these accusations, Fort Hall tribal members explained that whites and Indians viewed hunting and fishing in very different ways. What was sport for whites was a food source for Indians. Individuals accused of excessive harvest were often, in actuality, bringing salmon to relatives or friends who could not, for various reasons, make the two-hundred-mile trip north to the Salmon area. Further, the Indians were well aware of the fragility of the spawning beds, and they employed time-tested traditional fishing methods that ensured future productivity, taking only the males from the spawning beds. From generation to generation, the Lemhis had passed down fishing traditions employing the same methods, visiting the same places, and using the same instruments, although perhaps fashioned out of steel or iron instead of bone or wood. 38 Controversy over the Lemhis’ rights to traditional hunting and fishing areas also became an issue at the Fort Hall Reservation. In 1961, for instance, the Tribal Business Council refused to certify Frank Parker as a council member due to a variety of accusations leveled against him. One of the charges concerned the Lemhis’ right to fish in the Salmon area. Specifically, Parker was accused of meeting with game wardens in the Salmon area and informing them that he was chairman of the Tribal Business Council and that the council did not want tribal members fishing there. 39 Council member Mary Matte proffered the charges against Parker, reminding council members during an August 8, 1961, regular meeting that “the Council has never given orders like that.” Once she informed members that a game warden from the Salmon area was willing to come down to Fort Hall to verify her story, Parker apologized, but he continued to be active in tribal affairs. 40

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

155

[155], (13)

Lines: 144 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [155], (13)

Parker’s attack on the Lemhis’ access to traditional fishing areas is something of a mystery, and certainly other non-Lemhi tribal members, who sometimes accompanied Lemhis on their fishing trips to the Salmon River country, did not share his sentiments. According to Lemhi Cora George, who was born on the Lemhi Reservation, the Indian people at Fort Hall had not fished in the Salmon or its tributaries prior to Lemhi removal. “The people that lived down here [on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation],” she stated, “didn’t know them places where [the Lemhis] went.”41 Whatever Parker’s motives were for claiming that the Fort Hall tribal council opposed tribal members fishing near Salmon, he was telling the game wardens and many area residents exactly what they wanted to hear. The Salmon River country’s anadromous fish runs figure prominently in the area’s history and had provided a boon to the regional economy. As the runs diminished, many residents took an increasingly negative view of Indian off-reservation treaty rights. The Lemhis, like the salmon, played a central part in the region’s history. Unlike the salmon, however, the return of the Lemhi Shoshones did not produce a financial windfall. As Ethel Kimball, a columnist for the Salmon Recorder-Herald, wrote in a piece for the newspaper’s 1961 Diamond Jubilee Edition, “white men have degraded the once proud reputation of the Indian, and yet have continued to hold in esteem a fish that provided livelihood for this vanishing American.”42 The following year Kimball wrote another article that reflected the mercurial attitudes of Salmon, Idaho, residents toward the Lemhi salmon fishers. In that article she expressed the sentiments of many Salmon residents in a piece criticizing Indian off-reservation treaty rights. By insisting on harvesting despite hard winters or small salmon runs, Indians had provoked anger among non-Indians, which, Kimball warned, threatened to degenerate into “another shooting war if the Indians don’t wake up enough to realize what they are doing.” While she conceded historical mistreatment of Indians, Kimball charged them with “indiscriminate slaughter,” which amounted to “getting even in a pretty stupid manner.” Citing Lewis and Clark’s accounts of starvation among Indian people, Kimball argued that game had been scarce before the advent of non-Indian management techniques. She then concluded that the “game herds the Indians have been increasingly desecrating actually belong to the white man. And don’t let anyone

156

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[156], (14

Lines: 150 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[156], (14

tell you the white man stole them from the Indian to begin with.” The main thrust of Kimball’s argument was that treaty rights were wrong. Indians had gained access to technological innovations and modern roads that did not exist when the treaties were signed; they had also gained a voice in the democratic process and so no longer deserved “special privileges which we can never have.” For Kimball, the reasonable solution was to extinguish treaty rights by purchasing them. Unfortunately, from her point of view, that solution had “already been offered—and the Indians won’t even talk about it.”43 In the next week’s article, Kimball continued in the same vein, encouraged by the fact that “everyone that has commented on the article has agreed with me.” She reported that businessmen and sportsmen from various Idaho towns had contributed money to sponsor a newspaper advertisement publicizing Indian “depredations.” She also reported that Oregon was experiencing similar problems with Indian hunting and fishing, and that its state legislature was considering legislation to abrogate treaty rights with compensation. In Idaho, Kimball focused in particular on the Nez Perces, alleging that they practiced “party hunting” with non-Indians. 44 A letter to the editor in the same edition from Mrs. B. H. Richardson, however, took exception to the previous week’s piece. Richardson began by pointing out the difference between non-Indians hunting for sport and Indians hunting for food. She claimed that the collection of fees provided one of the main reasons for opposition to off-reservation treaty rights. It was not that there was real concern for the number of animals killed, so long as state licensing fees accrued. Richardson questioned Kimball’s claim that game herds “belonged” to the white man. She also took offense to a negative reference to an unnamed Indian in Kimball’s article,45 before concluding by expressing the “hope that we are not going to be so narrow and selfish as to take” treaty rights away from the Indians in addition to other past abuses. 46 In her next column, Kimball responded to Richardson’s criticisms, allowing that “most of our local Indians fish with rod and reel, and get their meat during season.” On the other hand, she argued, “a minority does not.” Kimball claimed to have no knowledge of the particular individual referenced by Richardson, insisting that she had not intentionally referred to a specific person or incident. In reply to

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

157

[157], (15)

Lines: 154 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [157], (15)

Richardson’s rejoinder that game did not “belong” to anybody, Kimball admitted to a poor choice of wording. Finally, Kimball concluded by writing that “Mrs. Richardson said she is proud to call Indians her friends—and rightly so.” She added that she would “go one step further. I personally know two wonderful boys with Indian blood in them whom I am proud to call my sons!”47 Richardson’s critique of Kimball’s article elicited still another letter. Mrs. Frank Stoddard wrote to endorse Richardson’s point of view; for her, the material needs of Indian people entirely justified treaty rights to hunt and fish. While Stoddard wrote from California, she displayed a familiarity with the Lemhi community in Salmon. “You won’t find any electricity at the Indian village,” she wrote, “or even a well for water.” Stoddard angrily suggested that “instead of you sportsmen learning to shoot better, why don’t you use your misguided efforts to figure out a way for the Indian children to have fresh milk and vitamins?”48 But Kimball’s opinions also drew support. Harold Fraker, in a letter that appeared the same week, found Kimball’s criticism of the “special privileges” enjoyed by Indians compelling. “I don’t know what can be done about it,” he wrote,“but it seems to me one citizen shouldn’t have any more privileges than another, especially the Indians. It’s my understanding the Government gives them their living and has granted them full citizenship and regardless of any treaties they should be treated the same as other people.”49 The following week, Kimball began her column by noting that she had had “good intentions of dropping the Indian issue,” but letters she had received convinced her to revisit it a final time. She quoted heavily from Pierre Pulling, the author of “Pierre’s Lookout,” a column syndicated in Idaho newspapers. In a recent installment that Pulling had sent to her, Kimball explained, he charged that “Idaho’s biggest game problem is the Indians,” identifying the Nez Perces and the Shoshone-Bannocks as the primary“legal law violation abcesses [sic].” In Pulling, Kimball found yet another fellow advocate who favored the abrogation of treaty rights, though she did not indicate whether he suggested tribes should be compensated. 50 Meanwhile at Fort Hall, discussions of proper identification for tribal members hunting and fishing off the reservation continued in December 1962, when officials from the Idaho and Oregon bureaus of

158

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[158], (16

Lines: 160 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[158], (16

fisheries and wildlife met with tribal council members as part of an itinerary that was to include all Indian reservations in the jurisdiction of the Portland Area Office. Council member Herbert LeClair reassured the officials that state fish and game officers regularly checked tribal members for proper identification when they traveled to the Salmon area to fish. Council members explained that accusations leveled against them frequently stemmed from misunderstandings, and they expressed their own concerns over threats to their treaty rights. 51 Some non-Indians in the communities surrounding Fort Hall advocated abrogating treaty rights, but as in Salmon, some supported the tribes’ rights to hunt and fish off the reservation. In 1963 a group of 282 non-Indian residents living near Fort Hall signed a petition circulated by local resident William R. Marley criticizing the treaty rights of Fort Hall tribal members. The tribes answered by passing a resolution closing the reservation to outside hunting and fishing. The tribes also passed another petition reversing the closure with exceptions, however, when a delegation from Pocatello presented the council with a statement of support and confidence signed by 1,341 area residents. Signatories to the Marley petition and chairman of the Idaho Fish and Game Department William Reynolds remained excluded from hunting and fishing at Fort Hall. 52 The statement of confidence, which the delegation circulated to Idaho’s congressmen, senators, and governor, addressed three main points. First, the signatories rejected charges that the ShoshoneBannocks “have seriously or unreasonably depleted fish and game resources within the State of Idaho.” They also recognized the offreservation hunting and fishing rights granted in the Fort Bridger and other treaties and stated that those rights should not be changed or restricted. Finally, the signatories acknowledged that the Sho-Bans “will in the future and have in the past followed conservation practices which will preserve the fish and game for future generations.”53 According to Fort Hall superintendent Charles Spencer, the statement produced “a new ‘high’ in public relations between the Tribe and the surrounding community.”54 Looking back five years later, Joseph Thorpe, the tribal council chairman, expressed bitterness toward the federal government for its failure to defend the Shoshone-Bannocks’ treaty rights:

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

159

[159], (17)

Lines: 168 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [159], (17)

In 1960 and the forepart of 1961, Shoshone-Bannock people were the targets of a conspiracy laid out by leaders of some of the local sportsmen’s groups and some State Fish and Game officials. On this matter we received no assistance from the Federal Government, which, we think, should have made an effort to charge and try some of the participants. As it turned out, we were able to prove to a sufficient number of people the fact that we were being framed, the terms of our Treaty, and the whole situation to bring the matter to a close. The close of the matter, however, was not entirely satisfactory because it came about with offers on the part of those whites involved to “buy from the Indians their rights to hunt and fish.” A large segment of our people here have been unable to adjust to the white way of putting a money value on everything. 55

Likewise, hostility toward treaty rights in Salmon temporarily subsided as residents struggled to better comprehend the reasons for the decline in runs. As the controversy over the Marley petition raged at Fort Hall, the Salmon Valley Chamber of Commerce launched “an all out effort to seek the source of the trouble,” calling on other towns and organizations to cooperate in identifying the factors responsible for the decline in fish numbers. An article in the Recorder-Herald speculated that five major categories of factors could be identified preliminarily: dams, Japanese commercial fishing, commercial fishing by Indians on the Columbia, radioactive and other wastes, and a lack of hatcheries. 56 By 1965 many area residents had settled on the Indian fisheries on the Columbia River as the primary scapegoat. Two photographs of Lemhis fishing in the Yankee Fork accompanied a June 1965 article in the Recorder-Herald detailing the threat to salmon runs posed by Indian fisheries on the Columbia. “Idaho’s Indian fishery problem is a minor one compared to that on the Columbia River,” one caption explained, “where the situation is described by Oregon fisheries officials as ‘almost untenable.’ ” “Idaho Fish and Game Department officials,” another caption elaborated, “report the Idaho Indian has not hurt the salmon resource to any considerable extent. Indian fishing on the Columbia, however, has reached the crisis point with officials involved seeking a solution to save the salmon runs.”57

160

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[160], (18

Lines: 183 ———

12.0pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[160], (18

In August 1965 the Recorder-Herald featured a story about the economic downturn the town of Salmon was experiencing due to the closure of the state’s sports fisheries in an effort to preserve the runs. Once again, blame was placed on the Columbia River Indian fisheries. At a four-hour community meeting with Idaho, Washington, and Oregon fisheries officials, area residents reacted angrily toward regulations that prevented anglers in the Salmon River country from harvesting fish in proportion to the numbers the region’s streams produced; Idaho, they argued, was not getting its fair share of salmon because of downstream harvesting. Lemhi fishing rights also came under attack. Ted Bjorn, an official for Idaho Fish and Game in Boise formerly stationed in Salmon, told the crowd that “in effect we have made an Indian sanctuary out of the Yankee Fork. It is a problem.”58 Later that month, the chamber of commerce threatened to refuse compliance with any potential closure of the Salmon River drainage sports fishery for the following year unless fishing was also banned on the lower Columbia. A few weeks later, the chamber warned that local groups hoped to block the Wild Rivers bill under consideration in Congress unless the inviolability of Idaho sports fisheries was assured. By early September the chamber was advocating a commercial fishing ban on the Columbia. The Recorder-Herald ran similar stories through the following months, lamenting the plight of Salmon River country residents who faced a fishing closure, and condemning downriver interests that failed to take Idaho’s fisheries into proper account. 59 The sports fishery closure of 1965 marked a nadir for Salmon River country anglers, but 1968 brought good news all around. In June the Recorder-Herald proclaimed the arrival of the spring chinook run up the Lemhi River, with 130 counted compared to only 46 at the same time the previous year. Another front-page article announced two other developments that heartened outdoor-sports enthusiasts in Salmon. John R. Wordsworth, the director of the Idaho Fish and Game Department, informed the Salmon Valley Chamber of Commerce that the governors of Idaho, Oregon, and Washington had concluded an agreement whereby Idaho would finally gain a voice in the Columbia River compact, the body regulating access to the Columbia River drainage’s anadromous fish runs. Wordsworth also informed the chamber of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that allowed states to regulate Indian fishing. 60 In Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

161

[161], (19)

Lines: 220 to 2 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [161], (19)

(1968) the court held that states had the right to “regulate the time and manner of off-reservation treaty fishing if necessary to conserve the resource.”61 Emboldened by the recent decision, Idaho game officials prepared to test it in the waters of their own state. The decision could not have come at a worse time for the Lemhis and other tribes at Fort Hall, who were preparing to celebrate the one hundredth anniversary of the Fort Bridger Treaty. In a letter to the Smithsonian Institution’s Center for the Study of Man requesting assistance, tribal chairman Joseph Thorpe Jr. explained that shortly after the decision, “Idaho Fish and Game Department personnel began harassing people from Fort Hall Reservation who were spearing salmon, taking their names, telling them the streams were closed, telling them to leave and threatening them with arrest [if] they returned.” The tribes had been forced to retain an attorney to protect their treaty rights. To underscore the importance of the treaty to the Sho-Bans, Thorpe differentiated Indian and non-Indian cultural viewpoints on hunting and fishing. For Indians, harvesting fish and game was an important source of food, more so since termination-era policies had diminished the reservation’s cattle herds. 62 White hunters and fishermen, by contrast, were mainly “fun-loving sportsmen” in Thorpe’s view. He explained that the Fort Hall tribes had “entered into the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 in the most solemn good faith and under its terms millions of acres of land were turned over to the white man’s government. If the white man and his government now are truly dissatisfied with the Treaty and entertain plans to renounce it,” he suggested, “as a matter of simple justice they should also entertain plans to refund the lands to us which they acquired through the Treaty.” Thorpe expressed frustration over the position taken by Idaho governor Don Samuelson and others, who maintained that the Fort Bridger Treaty specified only that the tribes could hunt on offreservation land, inferring that the treaty had not granted the tribes fishing rights as well. The tribes, Thorpe countered, had been fishing at off-reservation sites for the last one hundred years without objection, just as they had since time immemorial. The only difference was the occasional use of nylon cord instead of sinew and the replacement of bone hooks with steel ones. Thorpe warned that “Indian hunting and the taking of fish and game animals is very little. But our Treaty is very big.”63

162

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[162], (20

Lines: 224 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[162], (20

The summer of 1968 marked the first time that Idaho state fish and game officials had ever prevented the Lemhis from spearing salmon in their usual and accustomed places. Four tribal members were arrested. Others had their equipment confiscated and were ordered to leave. Ultimately, the prosecution of Gerald Tinno, a Lemhi enrolled at Fort Hall, emerged as the test case for Shoshone-Bannock off-reservation treaty rights in Idaho. 64 Dale Baird, a conservation officer for the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, detained Tinno on July 14, 1968, about eight miles up the Yankee Fork River, a tributary of the Salmon River. Baird confiscated Tinno’s straight point and the chinook salmon he had harpooned with it, and charged him with illegally spearing salmon and fishing out of season. On July 16 Arthur A. Wright, justice of the peace of Custer County, Idaho, heard Baird’s complaints and issued a warrant for Tinno’s arrest. Wright heard the case on August 30. James Bennett, the attorney for the state, filed a brief, which included the opinion from Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, on behalf of Custer County and the State of Idaho. Louis Racine, Tinno’s attorney, entered a plea of not guilty. The court convened for judgment on November 16, when Wright delivered a guilty judgment on both counts. At his sentencing on November 18, Wright fined Tinno $75 plus $5 court costs. The court received Tinno’s notice of appeal November 22 and released him on his own recognizance on December 2. The venue was changed from Custer to Bingham County, where district judge Arnold T. Beebe heard the appeal at Blackfoot, Idaho, beginning on April 1, 1970. 65 The defense called Dr. Sven Liljeblad, a professor of anthropology at Idaho State University in Pocatello, as its first witness. Liljeblad had been studying the Shoshones, and particularly the Bannock languages at Fort Hall, since the early 1940s. Racine used Liljeblad’s testimony to establish that Indian signatories to the Fort Bridger Treaty of 1868 had understood that the provision assuring their continued right to hunt on unoccupied lands of the United States meant that they could fish on those lands as well. 66 Establishing this fact was central to Tinno’s case because of the doctrine of “reserved rights”established by United States v. Winnans in 1905. The reserved rights doctrine “requires that a treaty be interpreted from the perspective of Indians who were bargaining for the continued exercise of those rights ‘previously exercised.’ ”67

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

163

[163], (21)

Lines: 228 to 2 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [163], (21)

From the witness stand Liljeblad explained that the root word for hunting in Shoshone, “tygi,” was used for procurement of all wild foods, whether animal, fish, or plant. Hence, the Shoshone phrase “tyhya’ja tygi hund’oi”would mean“I’m going hunting for deer,”while the phrase “penggwi tygi hund’oi” would mean “I’m going hunting for fish,” and the phrase “jamba tygi hund’oi” would mean “I’m going hunting for wild carrot.” The conclusion that can be reached from this is that Shoshones differentiated between different sorts of food, obviously, but they did not necessarily make a linguistic distinction between the various methods of obtaining them. Therefore, from the perspective of the Shoshones, Lemhi Shoshones, and Bannocks living on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, a treaty that guaranteed their right to “hunt” also ensured their right to “fish.”68 If the Indian signatories to the 1868 Fort Bridger Treaty understood it to reserve fishing rights, Racine also introduced proof suggesting that the non-Indians negotiators had the same understanding. Gen. Christopher C. Augur, the general who concluded the treaty for the Unites States, kept notes at Fort Bridger, which Racine submitted for evidence as exhibit B. Augur’s treaty notes indicated that he explained to the Sho-Bans that they would retain the right to hunt, but he also warned that with time “the game will become scarce, and you will not find sufficient to support your people. You will then have to live in some other way than by hunting and fishing.”69 In his cross examination of Liljeblad, Jones sought to establish that while salmon was an important staple for the Lemhi Shoshones, it was less so for other Northern Shoshone groups who lived in areas to the south of the Salmon River country where salmon were less abundant. Jones then questioned Liljeblad about the Indian signatories to the treaty and the specific bands or groups they represented. Jones hoped to demonstrate that the signatories to Fort Bridger were not accustomed to fishing in the Salmon River country, while the Lemhis, who were, were not signatories to the treaty, even thought its provisions had been extended to them when they enrolled at Fort Hall after the adoption of a constitution in 1936 under the Indian Reorganization Act. If Jones could make this argument, the court might rule that hunting rights guaranteed in Fort Bridger included the Lemhis but not

164

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[164], (22

Lines: 234 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[164], (22

their aboriginal territory. 70 In his responses to Jones’s line of questioning, however, Liljeblad explained that the Lemhis and other Northern Shoshone groups shared resources; the Lemhis traveled south to gather camas with other Shoshone and Bannock groups, and they welcomed other tribes and bands to their valley during salmon runs. Moreover, Liljeblad doubted that particular signatories to Fort Bridger could be clearly linked to particular tribes and bands per se. Further, he suggested that the Lemhis were represented at Fort Bridger by Taggee, a relative of Tendoy, and by Tay-to-ba, a Lemhi subchief. 71 Testimony offered the following day by Arthur Tendoy, Chief Tendoy’s grandson on his father’s side, corroborated Liljeblad’s claim that Tay-to-ba represented the Lemhis at Fort Bridger. Arthur’s maternal grandfather, Leon Engamaia, was Tay-to-ba’s son, and Tendoy told the court that Engamaia had told him that Chief Tendoy had sent Tay-to-ba to the Fort Bridger negotiations as his representative. 72 After Liljeblad’s testimony, the defense called Lemhis Jessie Tyler, age sixty-four, and Cora George, sixty-seven. Both women had been born at the Lemhi Agency prior to removal. Tyler, who spoke through an interpreter, confirmed Liljeblad’s assessment that the Shoshones used the same word for hunting as they did for fishing. The main thrust of Tyler’s testimony, however, as well as George’s, concerned the Lemhi Shoshones’ salmon-fishing techniques and traditions. They identified a number of rivers and streams in the Salmon River country, including the Yankee Fork, where the Lemhis had customarily fished prior to removal, and both testified that the Lemhis had returned to those places every year after 1907. Both described the traditional use of a harpoon, or straight point, like the one confiscated from Tinno. Finally, the testimony given by Tyler, George, and other Lemhis who subsequently took the stand was meant to counter the possibility of a guilty verdict for Tinno based on the Puyallup v. Department of Game decision that authorized states to regulate Indian off-reservation treaty rights for conservation purposes. The Lemhis’ testimony was meant to demonstrate that their fishing practices were not counterproductive to conservation measures: they harvested salmon on and around spawning beds because that was when the condition of the fish was best for eating; they learned from an early age to differentiate between male and female salmon; they only harvested males and only after they had fertilized the nests; and

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

165

[165], (23)

Lines: 240 to 2 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [165], (23)

the Lemhis harvested salmon for themselves and sometimes for family or friends who could not make the trip north, but only for subsistence, never for commercial purposes. 73 The second day of the trial, April 2, began with Dr. Earl Swanson, an archeologist and chair of the department of anthropology and director of the museum at Idaho State University, taking the stand for the defense. Swanson, an expert on prehistoric human environments, and on the Northern Shoshones in Idaho in particular, explained that the archeological record indicated that salmon had been a staple for the Northern Shoshones in Idaho for eight thousand years. Excavations from the earliest sites revealed remnants of harpoons much like the one Tinno used. Northern Shoshone fishing practices remained much the same as they had eight thousand years ago, leaving the court to infer from his testimony that off-reservation Indian fishing was not the cause of the twentieth-century decline in salmon runs. 74 Acting Fort Hall superintendent Owen L. King followed on the stand briefly to confirm the authenticity of a diary of Fort Hall superintendents for the years 1869–75. Entries in the diary made frequent references to non-Lemhi Indians on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation making trips to harvest salmon years before the Lemhis had been removed to Fort Hall. Salmon might not have been as important to them as it was to the Lemhis, but they relied on it nonetheless. The defense then called Lemhis Arthur Tendoy, Russell Pokibro, Dasso Nappo, and, finally, Gerald Tinno before resting its case. Tinno recounted his youth in the Salmon River country, where his parents and grandparents showed him where and how to fish for salmon, before describing the circumstances leading to his arrest. During testimony and in the findings of fact and conclusions submitted to the court, the State of Idaho sought to establish Tinno’s guilt on the basis of the fact that the Fort Bridger Treaty did not specifically mention fishing in the rights it reserved to the signatories. Further, the state contended that even if the right to hunt implied a right to fish, “the indians [sic] signatory to the Bridger Treaty made no, and could have no, claim to possession, occupancy, or use of the Salmon River area involved.” Finally, the state held that, “even should it be determined that the indians [sic] signatory to the Bridger Treaty reserved fishing rights exercised by the defendant, such rights are subject to

166

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[166], (24

Lines: 246 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[166], (24

State conservation laws and regulation which are necessary for the preservation of the natural resources.”75 Judge Beebe, however, ruled in favor of Tinno’s argument that the “supremacy clause” of the U.S. Constitution meant that the state could not interfere with rights reserved in a federal treaty such as the ratified Fort Bridger Treaty. Beebe found convincing the defendant’s contention that there was a tacit understanding between the Indian and non-Indian signatories that the treaty reserved fishing rights. Moreover, the Salmon River country, Beebe believed, was included in the lands specified in the treaty. “There is no evidence the State has given any consideration to the treaty right of the defendant in its regulations,” the judge explained. “The application of its regulations to the defendant are not shown to be necessary and nondiscriminatory as respects defendant’s treaty rights. The defendant is not guilty,” Judge Beebe concluded. 76 The state appealed its case to the Idaho Supreme Court, but that court dismissed the charges against Tinno on June 8, 1972. In his supplementary opinion, Chief Justice Henry F. McQuade criticized the state’s effort to deny off-reservation treaty rights to fish based on the wording of the Fort Bridger Treaty. 77 “The State’s attempt to deny that [fishing] right under the treaty, because of differences in translation between the English language and the Indian dialects, casts a history-lengthened shadow of shame on this case. Indian treaties have been tainted with enough dishonor,” Judge McQuade lectured. “This treaty must be interpreted as the Indian signatories understood it.” McQuade also supported the district court’s rejection of the state’s argument that hunting and fishing rights reserved in the Fort Bridger Treaty were limited to those lands ceded by signatory tribes. “A ceded lands restriction,” he maintained, “would be inconsistent with the language and spirit of the Fort Bridger Treaty.” Finally, in rejecting the state’s argument that Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game gave the state the right to regulate tribal fishing, the court cited State of Idaho v. Arthur, a 1953 Idaho Supreme Court decision confirming Nez Perce off-reservation hunting rights. “Nothing in Puyallup requires deviation from Arthur in deciding this case,” McQuade explained. “To uphold the treaty fishing rights while subjecting its exercise to the full scope of Fish and Game Department regulations,” he admonished, “would be a transparent hypocrisy.”78

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

167

[167], (25)

Lines: 253 to 2 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [167], (25)

The Tinno case played out against the backdrop of the Lemhi claim before the Indian Claims Commission. Tinno was arrested in 1968, the year after the icc severed the Lemhi claim from the larger Shoshone petition. The federal government was busy calculating the 1875 value of the Lemhis’ aboriginal homeland while Idaho courts considered whether treaty rights applied to those lands. The Idaho Supreme Court heard Tinno’s case the year after the hearings on the failed Lemhi petition to intervene in the icc claim, and issued its ruling in favor of Tinno just months before Congress released the $4.5 million Lemhi award money to the Sho-Bans. Removal to Fort Hall in 1907 had been a tragedy for the Lemhi people, but it was proving to be a windfall for the Sho-Bans. The fact that the Lemhis had enrolled at Fort Hall gave the Sho-Bans ultimate control over the Lemhi icc claim. While Judge McQuade’s rejection of the state’s ceded-lands-restriction argument meant that Sho-Ban treaty rights extended to the Salmon River country, irrespective of Lemhi enrollment at Fort Hall, it is difficult to imagine the Sho-Bans exercising those rights without the Lemhis at Fort Hall. As Cora George testified during the trial, the Sho-Bans were unfamiliar with the Salmon River country; they needed the Lemhis—the Salmoneaters—to show them how and where to fish for salmon. After the Tinno decision, the Sho-Bans assumed the same proprietary rights over fishing that they had with the Lemhi icc claim. In asserting control over the Lemhis’ aboriginal land claim, the Sho-Bans robbed the Lemhis of their patrimony; in protecting treaty rights to fish in the Salmon River country, the Sho-Bans defended it. The Idaho Supreme Court decision in the Tinno case confirming Shoshone-Bannock off-reservation fishing rights was one in a string of court decisions favorable to Indian treaty rights. While the Puyallup decision allowed for the regulation of tribal fishing for conservation purposes, it also specified that those regulations could not discriminate against Indians. Building on the Puyallup decision, Robert C. Belloni, a U.S. District Court judge in Oregon, required in his July 8, 1969, ruling in United States v. Oregon that states regulate their fisheries in a manner that ensured that Indian fishers could harvest a fair share of the runs. Then, five years later, George Boldt, a U.S. District Court judge in Seattle, delivered his famous decision defining a fair share for

168

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[168], (26

Lines: 258 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[168], (26

Indians as one-half. The following year, in 1975, Belloni extended the Boldt decision to Oregon and the Columbia. 79 Against the backdrop of Tinno, the Belloni and Boldt decisions, and others favoring tribes, anadromous fish runs continued to dwindle, particularly after the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed the series of four dams—Ice Harbor, Lower Monumental, Little Goose, and Lower Granite—on the Lower Snake River in 1975. Oregon dragged its feet in complying with the Belloni decision, and Washington exploded when the Boldt decision was delivered. “Non-Indian fishermen,” Roberta Ulrich explains, “erupted with anger, confusion, and retaliation. . . . Armed confrontations occurred on Puget Sound, and state law enforcement officials regularly clubbed and arrested Indian fishermen.” Meanwhile, the State of Washington appealed the decision, and “led by its aggressively anti-Indian attorney general, Slade Gordon, engaged in a series of maneuvers, including a statewide ballot measure, to avoid complying.” The situation was not much better in Oregon along the Columbia, where Indian fishers were denied access to the river, found their equipment vandalized, and also faced outright violence. Non-Indian fishermen protested the decision with placards reading “Save the salmon; can an Indian.” The Supreme Court’s 1979 decision to uphold the Boldt decision, together with a 1981 federal court ruling that included hatchery-reared fish in the “50 percent of the catch” ratio that Indians were entitled to, sparked another wave of outrage among non-Indian commercial and recreational fishermen. 80 These tensions, though less pronounced, followed the tributaries of the Columbia-Snake system up to the Salmon River country. The Shoshone-Bannocks responded on the one hand by policing themselves—the tribal council, for example, implemented a restriction of four salmon per season per family in 1975 81—and by cooperating with state officials in a genuine effort to preserve runs. On the other hand, they fiercely defended their treaty rights against all perceived threats. Another crisis for Idaho’s anadromous fish runs emerged in 1977. In May, drought conditions and irrigation demands left portions of the Lemhi River dry, thereby preventing salmon and steelhead smolts reared at a hatchery in Hayden Creek on the former Lemhi Reservation from reaching the Salmon River. Dry stretches blocked access to spawning grounds for chinook salmon on the upper reaches of the

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

169

[169], (27)

Lines: 263 to 2 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [169], (27)

Lemhi River. In order to save the runs, state and local officials began ferrying the smolts that were trapped in pools in the Lemhi to the Salmon River so they could continue their downstream migration. Meanwhile, officials placed a weir at the mouth of the Lemhi River to trap chinooks migrating upstream so that they could be transported past the dry sections to their spawning grounds upstream. Officials also urged irrigators to limit their intake to help raise water levels. 82 As the crisis continued into June, Mel Reingold, a fishery biologist with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, met with the Salmon Valley Chamber of Commerce to advise them of the difficulties that the chinook run faced. Reingold explained that because of low water conditions the runs were considerably smaller than the department had anticipated, and he warned that Indian fisheries on the upper Salmon River and its tributaries posed a serious threat to the runs. The Recorder-Herald reported that Reingold told chamber members “that the Indian fishery on the upper Salmon has moved in and is ‘searching for every salmon on the spawning grounds.’ ” State fish and game officials had counted one hundred Indians—presumably Lemhis— on the tributaries, harvesting day and night. Reingold alleged that “one family group had 18 salmon and another 10 although not a lot of salmon have shown up on the spawning grounds to date.” Reingold warned that “if we can’t get the Indians off the tributaries I think we are going to lose the resource.” He told chamber members that he had approached the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council and asked them to consider regulating off-reservation fishing to preserve the runs. The council promised to consider the request and report back on June 30. 83 In an effort to preserve the runs and also to encourage the Fort Hall tribal council to suspend off-reservation salmon fishing, the chamber reversed an earlier decision to request an extension of the chinook salmon–fishing season from the Idaho Department of Fish and Game—the chamber understood that it could not ask the tribes to suspend fishing while it tried to extend the season for non-Indian anglers. Not all chamber members were pleased with the decision. “We sure hate to get cut off early and late,” one chamber member and outdoor-sports enthusiast groused. “If we could fish early when the run arrives like before there would be no squawk. We can see them go by and wonder why we are discriminated against,” he complained.

170

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[170], (28

Lines: 268 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[170], (28

“We had to let those fish go by for the Indians. When are we going to get a fair share?”84 On July 14 the Recorder-Herald reported that the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council had agreed to suspend Indian fishing for chinooks on the upper Salmon and its tributaries after Joseph Greenley, director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, met with the council to inform them of the peril the runs faced. In a later statement, Greeley complimented the council, noting that they “showed tremendous courage and concern for the status of this year’s chinook run” in promising to assist in enforcement of the emergency closure. 85 After agreeing to cooperate with the Department of Fish and Game to preserve the chinook run, however, the tribal council believed that Greeley had overstepped his bounds in carrying out the closure. He issued a legal notice that appeared in Idaho newspapers depicting the closure as pursuant to Idaho regulations. In response, the tribal council passed a resolution affirming the closure but asserting the exclusive right to regulate off-reservation hunting and fishing by tribal members. “The State of Idaho,” the resolution stated in part, “has . . . misstated and misrepresented the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe and the State Fish and Game Department as being partners in the regulation and management of the Tribes’ Treaty Rights, which is totally refuted by this Tribe.” The Recorder-Herald explained that “the ShoshoneBannock business council is set up as its own fish and game commission and has the only legal right to any regulation of a treaty.” Tribal members feared that state officials were exploiting their voluntary closure to erode treaty rights by expanding the state’s regulatory powers. “What started off as a goodwill move by the Tribe,” a tribal spokesman detailed, “has turned into an attempt to usurp a Tribal Right.” The resolution reminded all parties that tribal members were only subject to citation by tribal game wardens; citations issued to tribal members by state game wardens would be considered a treaty violation. 86 The Sho-Bans and state fish and game officials butted heads again in 1979, when the state unilaterally closed fisheries to protect the chinook run. The Sho-Bans had already considered a suspension of the Indian fishery for the year when chinook counts at Lower Granite Dam were only one-tenth of the number in 1978, and tribal officials had been negotiating a closure with fish and game officials in Boise. But then in June state officials unilaterally and inexplicably contacted

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

171

[171], (29)

Lines: 272 to 2 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [171], (29)

the Department of the Interior, which subsequently issued an order closing Idaho’s rivers to Indian fishing. State officials offered the tribes twenty-five hundred salmon as compensation for the loss of the season, a compromise Tribal Business Council chairman Gilbert Teton characterized as “just another attempt to buy off Indian treaties with beads and trinkets.” When tribal members threatened to ignore the ban, the state responded with a promise to call out the National Guard, swat teams, and any state or federal officials necessary to deal with violators. 87 Tribal members were outraged. Sho-Ban council member Kesley Edmo threatened to “take my goddamned gun and go fishing.” Tribal leaders complained of “being made scapegoats for non-Indian mismanagement of the fish, construction of dams along the Columbia, and failure to police the action of . . . commercial fishermen near the mouth of the Columbia . . . the main reasons for the low salmon runs.” The state’s lack of diplomacy, coming just two years after its 1977 gaffe, shocked the tribal council and prompted it to demand a meeting with the governor and interior secretary. Council members could not understand why the State of Idaho chose to treat them like “little kids who they felt would make the wrong decision.” When it was clear that the requested meeting was not forthcoming, the council demanded that one between the tribe, state and federal officials, and the governor scheduled for Boise be relocated to Fort Hall, where a similar meeting had previously been canceled. The officials apparently chose not to take the request seriously, but when the meeting convened in Boise and the Sho-Bans were not present, the governor and federal and state officials caught the first flight to Pocatello and then drove out to the reservation. 88 The gesture helped to mend the rift between the state and the ShoBans, and after council members criticized officials for their failure to deal in good faith, they voluntarily closed the Indian fishery for the year. Astoundingly, in light of past squabbles, on July 18, only a month later, the tribal council and state fish and game officials ratified an agreement for joint enforcement of off-reservation hunting and fishing. The agreement was initiated by the Sho-Bans because the tribal game wardens could not police all off-reservation hunting and fishing areas. The state was more than happy to cooperate and agreed to comply with the council’s stipulation that tribal members caught

172

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[172], (30

Lines: 278 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[172], (30

violating tribal ordinances would be subject to trial in tribal courts but not in state courts. 89 Slowly, Idaho fish and game officials, like their counterparts in Washington, Oregon, and elsewhere, began to recognize that court decisions favorable to Indian treaty rights, like the Tinno decision, meant that they would have to cooperate with tribes. “The Belloni and Boldt rulings,” Ulrich explains, “had another, more far-reaching effect than violence. They brought belated and reluctant admission that the Indians must have a say in management of the fisheries on the Columbia and elsewhere in the Northwest.”90 As the Sho-Bans and the State of Idaho began to cooperate in managing the state’s fisheries, both sides realized that they had common interests, as well as a common enemy in downstream interests, Indian and non-Indian alike, who, they believed, failed to account for upstream fish runs in their fishery regulation. In 1985 Kesley Edmo, the council member who had threatened just a few years earlier to “take my goddamned gun and go fishing,” sat down with attorney general Jim Jones and Jerry Conley, the director of the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, and announced plans for a cooperative “effort to insure better management practices of anadromous fish runs by downstream interests—Oregon, Washington, and Indian tribes.” Tribal and state representatives announced that they intended to draft a memorandum of understanding outlining the agreement to share data, cooperate in legal proceedings, and restore habitat. Jones and Conley issued a statement praising the Sho-Bans that stood in stark contrast to the battles waged between the state and tribes over Idaho’s anadromous fisheries just a few years earlier:“The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes have made a strong commitment to proper management and conservation practices with respect to the salmon and steelhead runs. They have exercised restraint in their fishing practices and have strived toward the establishment of proper escapement goals so that the runs can be enhanced and improved. They are impacted as greatly as other Idaho fishermen when proper management and fishing practices are not observed by downstream fishing interests.”91 The Lemhis and Sho-Bans demonstrated their commitment to conservation a few years later in their efforts to save the Snake River sockeye salmon run from extinction. The southernmost sockeye run

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

173

[173], (31)

Lines: 282 to 2 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [173], (31)

in North America, the Snake River run had once been prolific— commercial fishermen on the Columbia had harvested over one million Snake River sockeye annually in the late nineteenth century. Unlike most salmon species, which spawn in shallow gravel beds in streams, the Snake River sockeye spawn in the gravel beds of high mountain lakes, where the young remain for up to two years or more after hatching and then migrate to the Pacific to live for two years before returning to spawn at their birthplace. No other North American salmon species makes such an arduous journey. Returning to spawn, the Snake River sockeye swims over nine hundred miles, ascending more than sixty-five hundred feet. 92 Early commercial fishing took a heavy toll on the sockeye runs; by the late nineteenth century Idahoans had noticed a dramatic decline in sockeye numbers. Habitat loss and dams obstructing access to spawning grounds combined to render the runs virtually extinct during the twentieth century. Because sockeye salmon rarely take a hook— commercial fishermen harvested them with gaffs or nets—they were unpopular with sports fishermen, who pressured the Idaho Fish and Game Department to stock the lakes where sockeye spawned with “game” fish. The department complied during the 1950s and 1960s, poisoning lakes throughout the Salmon River country with taxophene before introducing trout and other species preferred by angling enthusiasts. To ensure that the sockeye would not make a comeback, the department blocked all entrances to the lakes. At the headwaters of the Salmon River, a single lake, Redfish Lake, so named for the distinctive bright red color that sockeye assume before spawning, escaped the extermination efforts of the fish and game department. There, the sockeye clung tenuously to its final spawning grounds, despite the fact that Sunbeam Dam may have completely blocked access to the lake between 1910 and 1934, when it was destroyed. But the completion of the four Snake River dams in 1975 was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.” By 1989 only two adult sockeye salmon returned to Redfish Lake. The following year none returned. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes petitioned the National Marine Fisheries Service (nmfs) to get the Snake River sockeye listed as an endangered species. 93 The Sho-Bans and Lemhis did not wait idly by for the federal government to take action. Together with the Idaho Department of Fish and Game, the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes inaugurated a program to

174

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[174], (32

Lines: 288 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[174], (32

preserve the species. With funding from the Bonneville Power Administration (bpa), the agency that oversees the hydroelectric power generated by federal dams on the Lower Snake and Columbia rivers, state and tribal fish biologists began trapping juvenile sockeye migrating out of the lake as well as the few returning adults in order to perpetuate the species through a hatchery program. Eight dams block the juvenile sockeye migration route to the Pacific, slowing the water-current speed from its natural seven to eight miles per hour to only one mile per hour. A trip that had previously taken smolts ten days or less increased to two months or more, wreaking havoc with the timing of the chemical changes the smolts undergo to enable them to live in the Pacific. Smolts that succeeded in running the gauntlet of slack water pools, turbines, predators, and disease frequently died at the mouth of the Columbia because they had failed to make the proper chemical adjustment. Fish biologists estimated only one in five hundred smolts would survive to return and spawn in Redfish Lake. In 1991 four returned. The following year, the bpa counted fourteen crossing Lower Granite Dam, a figure 72 percent below the ten-year average. Only one succeeded in returning to spawn in Redfish Lake. 94 The salmon crisis of the 1970s that precipitated first conflict and then cooperation between Idaho and the Sho-Bans gave way to relatively healthy runs in the late 1980s, but the 1990s brought a return to 1970s levels, and the Sho-Ban petition to list the sockeye as an endangered species threatened to re-ignite controversy. “The issue of endangered species for salmon,” Idaho Fish and Game biologist Steve Petit predicted, “could make the spotted owl controversy look like a pillow fight.”95 Nonetheless, the National Marine Fisheries Service declared the Snake River sockeye endangered in 1991, despite objections from opponents who argued that it was an impure species. True Snake River sockeye, the opposition argued, could not possibly have survived the years when Sunbeam Dam blocked their migration route. The sockeye in Redfish Lake, they suggested, must therefore be a hybrid between sockeye salmon and kokanee, a close relative of the sockeye that does not run to the ocean. But the nmfs demurred because of the fact that kokanee and sockeye spawn at different times of the year. Subsequent dna research conducted on two sockeyes that returned to Redfish Lake indicated that they were genetically distinct from kokanee, supporting the nmfs’s contention that Snake River sockeye was a pure species. 96

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

175

[175], (33)

Lines: 292 to 2 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [175], (33)

The National Marine Fisheries Service’s decision to list the sockeye as endangered—it also listed Snake River chinook as threatened and elevated its status to endangered in 1994—put the Sho-Bans on equal footing with interests that had previously held more political clout. Between the 1970s and early 1990s, the Army Corps of Engineers and other state and federal agencies spent hundreds of millions of dollars to sustain and enhance salmon runs, but to no avail. In 1980 Congress passed the Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act in an effort to implement a program that would preserve anadromous fish runs without negative economic repercussions. The Northwest Power Planning Council, created to oversee the program, implemented various strategies to save the runs, from redesigned fish ladders, to water releases to help smolts, to screens placed over turbines, to experiments with bypass systems. The dams, however, continued to operate at peak efficiency for influential interests: electrical production, recreation, navigation, and irrigation. With the endangered species listings, the Sho-Bans had a federal mandate that gave fish the same priority as other interests. The potential for negative repercussions notwithstanding, the fish had to be saved, even if it meant drawing down reservoirs to help flush smolts to the ocean, or far more drastically, breaching the four dams on the Snake River system that had been in place for just over twenty-five years, an option that would have been unthinkable just a few years earlier. The negative economic consequences would be enormous and far-reaching in terms of electricity rates, agriculture, transportation, industry, and commercial and recreational fishing. 97 Fort Hall Tribal Business Council chairman Joseph Thorpe’s 1968 warning that“our treaty is very big”turned out to be prophetic. Tribes that favor dam breaching, like the Sho-Bans, had gained a voice in the controversy, and decision makers were learning “that treaties may trump economics.”98 Meanwhile, the Sho-Bans and the Idaho Department of Fish and Game continued their efforts to save the sockeye through a captive breeding and release program. The program included planting smolts, eggs, and adult sockeye in Redfish and other lakes. In 1998, 140,500 smolts began their migration to the ocean, more than any previous year in the century. Numbers of returning adults, however, remained critically low, ranging from zero to two, and fish biologists remained

176

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

[176], (34

Lines: 296 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[176], (34

pessimistic about future returns, which they estimated at 0.18 percent. Consequently, the Idaho Fish and Game Department endorsed removal of the four Snake River dams in 1998, judging it the best and only way to preserve the species. 99 The contemporary Lemhi and Sho-Ban efforts to save the Snake River sockeye run draw on traditions that long predate the non-Indian presence in the Salmon River country. During his fieldwork at the Lemhi Agency in 1906, anthropologist Robert Lowie noted that the Lemhi traditionally performed a dance, the nu’akin, to ensure the annual return of the salmon. When the run began, the Lemhis held a first salmon ceremony, or ta’ma-a’gai, performing religious rituals to secure the well being of future runs, before celebrating the bounty of the salmon harvest with a feast in which the entire tribe shared in the first catch. Salmon remained important to the Lemhi Shoshones, on both cultural and subsistence levels, after contact with non-Indians and removal from their homeland. But in 1990 there would be no first salmon ceremony for the sockeye, for there were no sockeye salmon. The Lemhis, true to their cultural obligation to serve as stewards of the salmon, and together with other Indian peoples at Fort Hall, rejoined an ongoing and intensifying battle over salmon and dams reminiscent of their creation stories. 100 In Lemhi mythology, Coyote, their creator, liberated the salmon and bade them return every year. In the Coyote tales recorded by Lowie, Coyote met an old woman with a basket containing salmon and water. He upset it, creating the rivers and releasing the salmon into them. Tired of chasing the salmon downstream, Coyote built a dam to hold them, but the river washed it out, so he told the salmon that they must return every year to spawn in the mountains. In another story, Coyote noticed that a dam had been built that blocked the salmon from returning to their spawning grounds upstream. He transformed himself into a baby so that the Indians would take him in and care for him. When they were away gathering roots, he fashioned five pointed sticks to dig out the dam. Coyote broke four of the sticks trying to destroy the dam. Finally, with the fifth stick he succeeded in dismantling it, freeing the salmon and enabling them to return to their spawning grounds. 101 Concerns over the health of and access to salmon runs date back to the Lemhi Shoshones’ earliest encounters with non-Indian set-

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

177

[177], (35)

Lines: 300 to 3 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [177], (35)

tlers in the Salmon River country. But the issues became far more complicated than the disputes over the weirs that Thomas McGarvey built on the Lemhi River in the 1860s. Like other Indian peoples, the Lemhis gained a voice in the twentieth-century disputes over resource allocation when their treaty rights were judicially confirmed. They have allied with Indians against non-Indians, and they also united with non-Indians in opposition to all others downstream to defend their ability to exercise those rights. The debate over salmon and dams, meanwhile, has taken on national overtones. As the controversy over saving the salmon rages, many Indian people may be wondering whether treaty rights could help to form what the Lemhi Shoshones might call Coyote’s fifth stick.

[Last Page

[178], (36

Lines: 306 ———

348.459

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[178], (36

178

the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights

8

Sacajawea’s People They have Sacajawea heritage days, they have Sacajawea arts and crafts, they have everything but the real Indians who are Sacajawea’s people in the valley. The feeling we get is, “We don’t want you here, but we want your Sacajawea heritage.” . . . My kids come up here with me to fish and camp in the summer, and they say “Dad, how could you ever give this land up?” But we haven’t given up. The Lewis and Clark bicentennial is going to be our last fight. In 1805 the Americans asked for our help. Now we’re asking for theirs. Rod Ariwite, Lemhi Shoshone, 1999

[First Page] [179], (1)

Lines: 0 to 41

When Lewis and Clark ventured into the Salmon River country in 1805, the various ethnic groups inhabiting the region—Salmoneaters, Sheepeaters, and Buffaloeaters—were beginning to coalesce into the tribal entity historically known as the Lemhi Shoshones. This process of cultural fusion, or ethnogenesis, culminated over the course of the nineteenth century, as the Lemhis incorporated Paiute-speaking Bannocks from the south into their sociopolitical system and maneuvered to meet the challenges that came with the increasing non-Indian presence in their aboriginal homeland. Under the leadership of Chief Tendoy, the Lemhis proved skillful at maintaining good relations with the whites who settled in and around the town of Salmon, Idaho. Tendoy earned the gratitude of early settlers by keeping the Lemhis neutral during the Nez Perce, Bannock, and Sheepeater wars of the late 1870s. But this show of good faith was not enough to stem the tide of change. Despite decades of Lemhi resistance to removal and pleas made by non-Indians on the Lemhis’ behalf, the federal government eliminated their tiny Lemhi Valley reservation and sent them into exile at Fort Hall in 1907. Interactions with neighboring Plateau and Plains culture groups and subsistence activities in the Salmon River country set the Lemhis apart from their Northern Shoshone relatives to the south, but interactions with non-Indians also helped to shape Lemhi identity during the nineteenth century. The need to negotiate with government officials

179

———

1.5pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [179], (1)

required that the Lemhis develop a new and foreign form of political leadership—a permanent chief or spokesman who could negotiate with whites on behalf of the tribe. When the federal government engaged in treaty making with the Lemhis, it assumed that they were a distinct group or tribe; it thereby helped to make them one. After removal there remained no incentive for the federal government to treat with the four hundred to five hundred Lemhis as equals. The Bureau of Indian Affairs administered the Fort Hall Reservation as a single tribal entity. But the Lemhi Shoshones’ experiences as a minority on a multitribal reservation only served to reinforce their identity. Shortly after the Lemhis arrived at Fort Hall, superintendents there ceased the practice of enumerating them separately from other Indian peoples on the reservation. When the Fort Hall tribes adopted a constitution in 1936 under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, Lemhi autonomy was further eroded. Although the ira was designed to preserve tribal culture and to allow Indian peoples to enjoy greater participation in decisions concerning their affairs, it had the opposite effect for the Lemhis. To retain a voice in decisions at Fort Hall, the Lemhis enrolled as members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, thus losing a measure of their Lemhi identity. Consequently, when the Lemhis organized a committee to secure annuities promised but never paid to them, they faced difficulties. The Lemhi Committee succeeded in forcing federal officials to turn their attention to a Lemhi annuity fund that they had long ignored. By 1939 officials had compiled a census of Lemhi descendants eligible to receive payment. Slowly, individual per capita shares were distributed. But when it came time to dispense the surplus from the fund, the Lemhis were required to request the funds through the General Council of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The Lemhis met and agreed to use the funds for a celebration of Lemhi heritage, but the resolution passed by the Fort Hall Tribal Business Council asked that the funds be released to all tribal members. The bia refused, explaining that the Lemhis held exclusive rights to the monies. At the same time, the bureau refused to allow the Lemhis to exercise those rights because it determined that the Lemhis could not be distinguished from other tribal members on the reservation. The bia’s refusal to recognize the Lemhis, however, only strengthened Lemhi identity and created confusion about the Lemhis’ status at

180

sacajawea’s people

[180], (2)

Lines: 41 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[180], (2)

Fort Hall that carried over into the Lemhi Shoshones’ icc claim that followed. The creation of the Indian Claims Commission in 1946 coincided with a major shift in federal Indian policy to one of termination. As commission historian Harvey Rosenthal explains, “It is impossible to say if the commission represented the end of the Collier era or the beginning of that of termination; it stood between.” Whatever the intentions of its framers, however, the icc was soon co-opted by terminationists in Congress, who viewed it as a useful tool in severing the special relationship between American Indian tribes and the federal government. With lump-sum payments to tribes, the government could justify washing its hands of the Indian business. Nonetheless, “Indian communities and identity persisted.” Indeed, as Rosenthal argues, the icc produced the exact opposite of the effect desired by terminationists: “enacted in theory to remove a stumbling block to assimilation, in practice it helped to redefine ‘Indianness’ for some groups and reawaken cultural pride for all.” Certainly this was the case with the Lemhi Shoshones. 1 In 1962 the icc carved the larger Shoshone claim into four separate claims based on its determination that four distinct groups had held exclusive use and occupancy of portions of the lands in question. The Lemhi Shoshones were one of these groups, but the wording of the Indian Claims Commission Act required that they pursue their claim as enrolled members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall. The consequences of that fact, however, remained unclear to tribal members at Fort Hall, Lemhi and non-Lemhi alike, in large part because of the uncertainty resulting from the bia’s earlier decision concerning the Lemhi annuity fund. The fact that some Lemhis, who had spent decades pursuing the annuity monies, assumed that their icc case involved those funds only added to the confusion. When it became clear that it was their homeland and millions of dollars that were at stake, many Lemhis organized to oppose the icc award offer, but their efforts were in vain. Once again, the Lemhis’ minority status at Fort Hall had cost them monies offered in restitution for their homeland, and as before, the Lemhis found the federal government unsympathetic to their objections because it failed to distinguish the Lemhis from other Indian peoples at Fort Hall. As in the past, however,

sacajawea’s people

181

[181], (3)

Lines: 44 to 48 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [181], (3)

the government’s refusal to recognize the Lemhis only strengthened their identity. Paradoxically, Lemhi identity persisted during the twentieth century both in spite of and as a result of bia administrative decisions and federal Indian policy. But if organizing to pursue legal claims reinforced Lemhi identity, its roots are in the Salmon River country and in the continuing Lemhi tie to their homeland there. The Lemhis have sought redress for being exiled from their aboriginal homeland, but that does not mean they have accepted their displacement. A Lemhi community in Salmon clung stubbornly to the town’s landscape for nearly a century after removal, beckoning Lemhis from Fort Hall. The residents of the Indian village earned the friendship of many nonIndian residents of Salmon, while the Lemhi determination to remain in their homeland left others incredulous. The Lemhi Shoshones, from both Salmon and Fort Hall, have fought to protect the treaty rights that preserve their traditions and their access to important resources. They have maintained and safeguarded the graves of their ancestors. But with the destruction of the Indian village in 1991, the Lemhis were twice removed from their homeland, and they have responded by redoubling their efforts to retain a presence there. In the years since the Lemhi icc claim, the Tinno case, and the demise of the Lemhi village in Salmon, a new generation of Lemhi leaders has emerged to renew the Lemhi Shoshone claim to their homeland, and they have brought national attention to their struggle to preserve their connection to the Salmon River country. After the death of her father, Willie George Jr., Rose Ann Abrahamson vowed to carry on his commitment to preserving Lemhi Shoshone culture and traditions in the Salmon River country and to cultivating mutual respect between its Indian and non-Indian communities. Abrahamson followed through on her oath even after the Indian village came down, organizing and participating in powwows, traditional ceremonies, and other events to celebrate the Lemhis’ heritage and their shared history with the non-Indian residents of the Salmon River country. Rod Ariwite grew up in the Indian village and attended Salmon High School with Abrahamson, where he played football for the Salmon “Savages.” His vision for the Lemhis’ future in the Salmon River country is even more ambitious. Ariwite directs the Fort Lemhi

182

sacajawea’s people

[182], (4)

Lines: 48 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[182], (4)

Indian Community, Inc., a Lemhi Shoshone group that is currently working to restore federal recognition for the Lemhis, and resecure a land base for them in the Salmon River country. 2 The Fort Hall Indian Community, Inc., was formed under the auspices of Idaho Legal Aid Services in 1995, and it secured a $65,000 grant from the administration for Native Americans with the assistance of Idaho Legal Aid Service’s Indian Justice Clinic to pursue federal recognition. The Lemhis used the grant money to contract with Dr. Orlan Svingen in the history department at Washington State University and Dr. Greg Campbell in the anthropology department at the University of Montana to conduct research and produce reports in support of the Lemhis’ efforts to secure acknowledgment. 3 Gaining federal recognition, however, has proved difficult and time-consuming for tribes. In the first decade after its creation, the bia’s Branch of Acknowledgment and Recognition (bar) granted recognition to only eight of the 105 groups that had submitted petitions. 4 A total of 150 petitions had been submitted by 1994, but bar had resolved only thirty of them, adding one more to the list that gained recognition through the acknowledgment process. 5 Because of this backlog of cases, bar began to develop procedures to streamline the petitioning process. The secretary of the interior implemented these in February 2000, limiting the research that bar employees undertake before evaluating petitions. 6 Nonetheless, tribes seeking federal acknowledgment face an uphill battle, as evidenced by the Bush administration’s decision to rescind recognition that had been granted to the Duwamish tribe during the final days of the Clinton administration. With the advent of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act in 1988, the issue of recognition has become associated with Indian gaming, and petitioners consequently are viewed with even greater suspicion. 7 But while the Lemhis pursue recognition according to bar guidelines, they also hold hopes that it can be achieved through direct congressional or presidential action. As the country prepares for the bicentennial of the Lewis and Clark expedition, Lemhi leaders are taking their campaign for recognition and land restoration to the public. A Lemhi Shoshone Web site even includes an on-line petition in support of their efforts. They point to the irony of celebrating Sacajawea’s contribution to the success of the Corps of Discovery while at

sacajawea’s people

183

[183], (5)

Lines: 55 to 61 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [183], (5)

the same time denying formal recognition to the Lemhi Shoshones, Sacajawea’s people. As historian Orlan Svingen put it, “How can you celebrate Sacajawea’s role with the Lewis and Clark expedition when recognition of Sacajawea’s people has been removed?”8 The Lemhis hoped to reestablish a reservation in the Salmon River country in conjunction with their efforts to achieve recognition. The proposed reservation would have had a model Lemhi village and a Sacajawea interpretive center to draw tourists during the bicentennial, and the plan seemed to get off to an auspicious start when the Bureau of Land Management suggested that it could help accommodate the Lemhis’ wish in 1997. “The tribe may only need 1,000 acres or less,” blm area manager Dave Krosting commented at the time, “and in that case, we could probably find some land that would have very little conflict with other uses. We’d look at any practical proposal to help these people because they’re very deserving of it.”9 The controversy over the Sacajawea dollar coin also focused national attention on the Lemhis’ efforts to resecure recognition and a place in their homeland. The coin’s model was a non-Lemhi tribal member from Fort Hall, and consequently, many Lemhis protested that the depiction of Sacajawea on the coin was inaccurate. Some three hundred Lemhis signed a petition sent to the U.S. Mint that expressed their objections. For Rod Ariwite, however, the unveiling of the coin represented an opportunity to galvanize support for the Lemhis. While many Lemhis considered the coin an affront, Ariwite remained more diplomatic. “We are somewhat offended that they used a non-Lemhi,” he explained, “but we are honored that they are honoring one of our own.”10 Ariwite attended the Sacajawea coin reception ceremony at the White House on May 4, 1999, where he delivered a formal request for Lemhi recognition to First Lady Hilary Clinton. 11 Rose Ann Abrahamson also made a visit to the White House, when in January 2001 President Clinton posthumously elevated William Clark to the rank of army captain and conferred the title of honorary sergeant to York, Clark’s slave, and Sacajawea. As a descendant of Cameahwait, Sacajawea’s brother, Abrahamson accepted the honor on behalf of Sacajawea from Clinton during a White House ceremony. 12 Meanwhile, the story of the contemporary Lemhi Shoshones began to garner national attention. Newspapers featured accounts of the Lemhi Shoshone quest to return to the Salmon River country. On October

184

sacajawea’s people

[184], (6)

Lines: 61 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[184], (6)

26, 1999, the New York Times ran a front-page article on the Lemhis with the headline “Seeking Land for Tribe of Girl Who Helped Lewis and Clark.”13 But if the Lemhis have received support for their cause, they have also confronted obstacles. One has been the federal government. Despite the blm’s favorable response to the Lemhis’ hope of acquiring a plot of land in the Salmon River country, the Interior Department has been less encouraging. “It is very hard for us to do something like that for one group of Indians without doing it for another,” department spokesman Stephanie Hanna commented. “If conscience was the only factor, a whole lot of Indian land might be given back based on historical grievances.”14 Meanwhile, Congress did fund some $12 million for a Sacajawea Interpretive, Cultural, and Education Center, but not in conjunction with a restoration of the Lemhis to their homeland. Instead, at the request of elected officials in Idaho, the center was granted to the town of Salmon and its tourist industry. 15 That decision was like pouring salt on an open wound of the Lemhis, who feel that Salmon residents are capitalizing on the town’s Lemhi heritage while they shun the Lemhi Shoshone people. “The people who should be benefiting from the Lemhi heritage are not benefiting at all,” commented Snookins Honena, a grandson of Chief Tendoy. 16 Ariwite is more explicit. “They have Sacajawea heritage days, they have Sacajawea arts and crafts, they have Sacajawea everything but the real Indians who are Sacajawea’s people in the valley,” he explains. “The feeling we get here is, ‘We don’t want you here, but we want your Sacajawea heritage.’ ”17 Such allegations came at an inopportune time for Salmon residents, who had been on the defensive about their attitudes toward Indian peoples since a 1999 controversy over their high school mascot, an Indian known as the “Salmon Savage.” The controversy began in July when the Crue family, non-Indians from Urbana, Illinois, visited the Salmon area with the intention of purchasing property there. The Crues had adopted a son of Shoshone-Bannock and possibly Lemhi descent and wanted to raise him with a familiarity with his cultural heritage—the family divided summers between Indian powwows and time spent at Fort Hall. 18 But Cyd Crue, as it happened, was a coordinator for the National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media, and she and her husband, she explained in a letter to the school board and

sacajawea’s people

185

[185], (7)

Lines: 67 to 73 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [185], (7)

the Salmon Recorder-Herald, were “appalled” to see the town’s beauty “marred by the use of your high school’s team name and logo.” Crue invited civic leaders to consider changing the mascot, but she warned that if “reasonable discussions have not progressed within 45 days, we will then proceed with legal actions available to us.”19 In response, Dr. Candice Donicht, the school superintendent, contacted Crue and promised to initiate the dialogue she had requested but asked that the discussions wait until the beginning of the next school session so all interested parties could participate. Crue found the delay acceptable. 20 City administrator Larry Sloan, however, was less compromising than Donicht in a letter to Crue. “It is probably just as well that you are no longer considering purchasing property in Lemhi County,” he wrote. “We have found . . . that bigoted, prejudicial people with preconceived notions are not comfortable in this community.” Sloan went on to explain that Salmon residents“are quite aware of the history of the Indians in our area, and are more attuned to their beliefs and customs than someone that might drive by and make their judgments from, say, a billboard.” In the community’s defense, Sloan cited its historical experiences with Indian people as well as its recent consultation with the Lemhis in designing the Sacajawea Center—“don’t even think about criticizing the spelling of her name,” he cautioned, “her descendants claim this is the accurate spelling and we tend to believe [them].” Sloan also challenged Crue’s characterization of her son in her initial letter as “Shoshone-Bannock.” In his experiences, he elaborated, American Indians preferred to be recognized as members of their particular tribes or bands, like Lemhi Shoshones, or Te-Moak Shoshones. Indeed, he asked Crue whether “in fact there is no such description as being a Shoshone-Bannock?” Sloan continued, “I cannot speak for the school board and have no idea what their response will be concerning your demand [regarding the mascot]. But I will be sorely disappointed,” he wrote, “if they choose to make changes any time some uninformed passerby perceives some imagined insult and rudely demands things be changed to fit their notion of how the world should be.”21 In her response, Crue commended the community for its efforts on behalf of the interpretive center, and she informed Sloan that she took “no disrespect” to his question about her son’s designation. “I am currently living with a Lemhi family,” she explained. 22 “They, as does

186

sacajawea’s people

[186], (8)

Lines: 73 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[186], (8)

my son, identify as Shoshone-Bannock or Sho-Ban as an indication of where they are enrolled.” She reminded Sloan that “the Lemhi Shoshone are no longer recognized as a tribe. They were forced out of the Salmon area by the federal government. Wouldn’t it be wonderful,” she asked, “if they could come home?” Crue remained firm in her objection to the mascot, pointing out that many communities across the nation had replaced theirs because they considered them outdated or inappropriate. The process, she urged, could be affirming for communities rather than divisive. 23 Meanwhile, Crue’s criticism of the Salmon Savage elicited numerous letters sent to the editor of the Recorder-Herald, which ranged from hostility and defensiveness to sarcasm and sympathy in their tone. Some agreed with Crue; most did not. In one of several letters advising Crue to mind her own business, Karel Fisher, a Salmon resident, recounted past friendships between Indian and non-Indian members of the Salmon communities. Fisher’s father, for example, had provided firewood for an elderly woman in the Indian village. In light of the community’s past experiences with the Lemhi Shoshones, Fisher suggested, it was unfair of Crue to label it racist because of its mascot. Lemhi children attending Salmon High School, moreover, had participated in sports without objecting to the mascot; if it did not offend them, why did it bother Crue? 24 Ultimately, after a forum discussion of the issue with members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, the school decided to keep the name “Savages” but eliminate the Indian mascot. 25 The Lemhis for their part remained more concerned with returning to their homeland than they were over Salmon’s high school mascot. An article in the RecorderHerald reported that Rose Ann Abrahamson, who had served as the mascot while she attended high school in Salmon, was one of the “moving forces” behind the effort to change the mascot, but Raina Sanders, the source the newspaper cited in making the charge, later denied she had commented about Abrahamson’s view on the matter and in fact explained she had never even met Abrahamson. 26 In his football days as a “Savage,” Rod Ariwite dismissed the mascot with a shrug. Nor did Ariwite express much concern over the 1999 controversy. He is concerned about Salmon residents’ attitudes toward Indians, but mainly insofar as they could hinder his efforts to see the Lemhis return home. 27

sacajawea’s people

187

[187], (9)

Lines: 77 to 83 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [187], (9)

Many Salmon residents fear that a return of the Lemhis would bring unwelcome changes. Lemhi County commissioner Tom Chaffin explained that area residents would welcome a return of the Lemhis, but they fear that a reservation would be accompanied by a casino and competition for precious resources like water and salmon, as well as jobs. “I don’t doubt that they have been neglected or abused down there [at Fort Hall]. My heart goes out to them,” Chaffin commented, but he also admitted that“personally, I don’t want to see a reservation.” Many Lemhis “lash out at that attitude, saying the white residents of the valley want only the legends of Sacajawea and their Shoshone ancestors, not real human beings.”28 They cite the destruction of the Indian village in 1991 as a clear sign that they are not welcome in Salmon. “It was our home,” Ariwite explains, “but I guess everyone else thought it was an eyesore.”29 If the community of Salmon does not entirely welcome the Lemhis’ return, the Sho-Bans at Fort Hall are not eager to see them go either. Recognized tribes in general do not favor federal acknowledgment; the more tribes there are, the thinner federal funds must be spread. Commenting on the Lemhis’ desire to return home, Fort Hall Tribal Business Council chairman Duane Thompson offered a dismissal, explaining that “their treaty was never ratified, so basically they belong down here.”30 But many Lemhis have never felt that they belonged at Fort Hall— Ariwite describes them as “hostages” of the Sho-Bans. The Lemhis never wanted to go to Fort Hall in part because they had been enemies with some of the other bands on the reservation, and despite nearly a century sharing the same home, old tensions remain. “It was that way then,” Ariwite explains. “Why in hell would it be any different now?”31 The Lemhis believe that Indian and non-Indians alike have victimized them. “Basically,” Ariwite summarizes the Lemhi experience, “we are the Indians to the other Indians.”32 Of the nearly five hundred Lemhi Shoshones at Fort Hall, Ariwite estimates, at least half are in favor of returning to the Salmon River country. The odds are stacked against them. The government will not help them. Salmon area residents are reluctant to accept them. The Sho-Bans do not want to let them go. But the Lemhis will not give up. They want their children to know the land of their ancestors. “My kids come up here [to the Salmon River country] with me to fish and

188

sacajawea’s people

[188], (10

Lines: 83 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[188], (10

camp in the summer, and they say, ‘Dad, how could you ever give this land up?’ ” Ariwite relates, “But we haven’t given up. The Lewis and Clark bicentennial is going to be our last fight. In 1805 the Americans asked for our help. Now we’re asking for theirs.”33 On October 20, 2001, a crowd gathered with great pageantry to dedicate the site of the future Sacajawea Interpretive, Cultural, and Education Center just east of Salmon. Lemhi elders had requested the ceremony so that they could perform a traditional blessing on the site to honor Sacajawea and other ancestors. Special guests included descendants of William Clark and expedition member Sgt. Patrick Gass, as well as all living descendants of Tendoy and Cameahwait. Rose Ann Abrahamson thanked city, county, and state officials on [189], (11) behalf of the Lemhis for providing them with “a place to put our feet and call home.” Darrell Tendoy, Chief Tendoy’s great-great-grandson, Lines: 93 to 10 used the occasion to make a plea for the Lemhis’ return from their enforced exile at Fort Hall. Efforts were underway to restore the wolf ——— and grizzly bear to the Salmon River country, he pointed out. “Why * 51.45901pt ——— not the Lemhis?” he asked. He then reminded the audience that “this is Normal Page our land.” After the speeches concluded, the blessing ceremony commenced. Led by ninety-six-year-old Walter Nevada, the tribe’s eldest * PgEnds: PageB member, tribal elders and descendants of Cameahwait and Tendoy touched the ground four times with coup sticks, claiming the land for [189], (11) the tribe, the City of Salmon, and the nation in honor of Sacajawea and other Lemhi ancestors. 34 When the Corps of Discovery entered the Salmon River country in 1805 it reunited Sacajawea with her people, ending her five-year exile from her homeland. The arrival of the bicentennial celebration of the Lewis and Clark expedition presents the federal government with a unique opportunity. The Lemhis have been refugees for nearly a century. If government officials are serious about pursuing a policy of self-determination for Indian peoples, and if they are sincere in their desire to honor American Indian contributions to the achievements of the Corps of Discovery, then perhaps they will restore official recognition to the Lemhi Shoshones, Sacajawea’s people.

sacajawea’s people

189

[190], (12

Lines: 101 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[190], (12

Notes preface 1. For a concise summary of these debates see Novick, That Noble Dream, 512–21. For further reading see Karamanski, Ethics and Public History. For specific discussions of public historians, federal recognition, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, see Quinn, “Public Ethnohistory?” and Hurtado, “Public History and the Native American.” 2. Worster, “Beyond the Agrarian Myth,” 23. introduction

[First Page] [191], (1)

Lines: 0 to 54

1. Questions about Sacajawea’s life and death have inspired a good deal of scholarly debate. Historians have offered numerous assessments of her contributions to the Lewis and Clark expedition. The date and place of her death have also been points of contention. Indeed, even the proper meaning and spelling of her name are unclear. The most popular versions are Sacagawea or Sakakawea, which translates in Hidatsa to “Bird Woman,” and Sacajawea, meaning something like “Boat Launcher,” “Boat Pusher,” or “burden that is pulled or carried” in Shoshone. While historian James Ronda notes that there is linguistic and historical merit to both versions, he finds the Hidatsa derivation more acceptable. This is also the spelling adopted by the U.S. Mint. For the present purposes, however, the spelling favored by Shoshone and Shoshone historians is more appropriate. For concise and accurate accounts of the various controversies surrounding Sacajawea, see Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 256–59, or the entry on Sacajawea by McBeth in Encyclopedia of North American Indians, 562–63. For a more nuanced narrative of the various versions of Sacajawea’s life, see McBeth, “Memory, History, and Contested Pasts: Reimagining Sacajawea/Sacagawea.” For the Lemhi Shoshone perspective on Sacajawea, see George, “Agaidika (Lemhi) Shoshone Perspective on Sacajawea.” 2. Mooney, “Undaunted Coinage.”

191

———

3.474pt Pg ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [191], (1)

3. An alternate spelling for “Shoshones” is “Shoshonis.” Although the latter seems to enjoy greater popularity at present, the former is employed herein except in direct quotations. Older tribal members write the word as “Soshone,” a spelling that may be used because it more closely approximates the proper pronunciation: sho-sho-nee. Nineteenth-century writings sometimes refer to the Shoshones as“Snake Indians.”See the“Shoshone”entry by Murray in Encyclopedia of North American Indians, 586–89. 4. Rider, “Sacajawea: Slave on a Dollar.” 5. For a brief discussion of the impact gaming has had on recognition see, for instance, New York Times Magazine, November 24, 2002, 35–38. 6. Hagan, “Full Blood, Mixed Blood, Generic, and Ersatz.” 7. Part 83 Title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations lists seven criteria that must be satisfied for federal recognition: (1) identification from historic times as “American Indian” or “aboriginal,” (2) residence in a particular area with members descended from an Indian tribe and distinct from other groups, (3) continuing tribal or other influence over members from historic times, (4) a statement of membership qualifications and governing procedures, (5) a list of current and former members descended from a tribe, (6) a membership that does not belong to some other tribe, (7) no congressional legislation that has terminated or forbidden a federal relationship. Quinn, “Public Ethnohistory?” 74. 8. Fogelson, “Perspectives on Native American Identity,” 51–52. 9. Nagel, American Indian Ethnic Renewal, 242. 10. Fogelson, “Perspectives on Native American Identity,” 54. 11. Champagne, “Change, Destruction, and Renewal,” 7. See also Nagel, American Indian Ethnic Renewal. 12. Madsen, The Lemhi. 13. Crowder, “Nineteenth-Century Indian-White Conflicts,” 16. 14. Tim Egan, “Seeking Land for Tribe of Girl Who Helped Lewis and Clark,” New York Times, October 26, 1991, a1; Thomasma, Truth about Sacajawea, 9–10. 15. See note 1 for a discussion of the proper spelling of “Sacajawea.” James Ronda in Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 147, relates the story of Sacajawea indicating her recognition of the Lemhi

192

notes to pages xv--xix

[192], (2)

Lines: 54 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[192], (2)

16.

17. 18. 19. 20.

21. 22.

Shoshones as her people by sucking her fingers. Talbot, “Searching for Sacagawea,” 85. The “New Western” historians have been criticizing the traditional Turnerian approach to Western history since the 1980s. Turner suggested that “American history has been in a large degree the history of the colonization of the Great West. The existence of free land, its continuous recession, and the advance of American settlement westward, explain American development.” But this process of frontier expansion came to a close in 1890, when the superintendent of the Census Bureau declared the frontier closed. For Turner the demise of the frontier “closed the first period of American history.” Perhaps this helps to explain why historians of the Lemhi Shoshones have discounted their twentieth-century experiences. In the Salmon River country, the close of the frontier might be more accurately dated to the removal of the Lemhi Shoshones to Fort Hall in 1907. Just as Turner perceived the end of an era in 1890, so too have the principal chroniclers of Lemhi history brought down the curtain on their accounts in 1907, as noted earlier. Turner, “Significance of the Frontier,” 26, 47. For discussion of the New Western history see, for instance, Limerick, Milner, and Rankin, eds., Trails: Toward a New Western History, and Cronon, Miles, and Gitlin, eds., Under an Open Sky. Fogelson, “Perspectives on Native American Identity,” 44. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 539. Fogelson, “Perspectives on Native American Identity,” 48. Nagel dates its earliest use to a 1962 article by Lester Singer. Campbell credits William Sturtevant with having introduced the notion in his 1971 work on the Seminoles. Anthropologist Jeffrey Anderson of Colby College has indicated in correspondence with the author that the term was used with reference to American Indians as early as 1958 by Holder in “Social Stratification among the Arikara.” Nagel, American Indian Ethnic Renewal, 16; Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 539–78. Campbell borrows his definition from John H. Moore. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 540. Referring to Indian peoples as“ethnic”or“minority”groups can be problematic, since these terms can obscure their sovereign status. Vine Deloria and others, however, have argued that the term has

notes to pages xix--xxi

193

[193], (3)

Lines: 84 to 97 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [193], (3)

grown more appropriate since the American Indian Movement exposed Indians to life outside the reservation and to some of the common problems they face. Nagel, American Indian Ethnic Renewal, 8–10. 23. John W. Cragun, Wilkinson, Boyden, and Cragun Law Offices, to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs (hereafter cia), July 9, 1952, File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall Central Classified Files (hereafter ccf) 210, National Archives, Washington dc (hereafter na-dc). 1. the lemhi shoshones and the salmon river country 1. The prospector, R. G. Bailey, later claimed that he coined the name River of No Return in an article he wrote about the expedition for an Elk City id newspaper, in which he called the Salmon “a river of no return.” See Salmon (id) Recorder-Herald, January 17, 1952, 11. 2. Boone, Idaho Place Names, 328–29; Kimball, “River of No Return”; Sheldon and Reed, “Idaho’s River of No Return.” The National Geographic Society later sponsored another expedition down the river to promote the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968. See Craighead and Craighead, “White-water Adventure.” 3. According to a list of place-names in the vertical files of the Salmon id Public Library (Idaho History–Lemhi County), the Lemhis called the river Aggipah, meaning salmon. But the name probably meant “salmon water.” According to Julian Steward and others, the Lemhi word for salmon is agai and the word for water is pa. Steward, Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups, 186. 4. Boone, Idaho Place Names, 329. 5. Archeological work conducted by Dr. Earl Swanson and his students in the mid-1960s, for example, identified sites along the Salmon River at least twelve thousand years old. See Salmon Recorder-Herald, August 5, 1965, 1, 4. 6. Madsen and Rhode, Across the West. 7. Lamb, “Linguistic Prehistory of the Great Basin.” Lamb coined the term “Numic” to describe the related family of languages in question. The traditionalist view of the Numic expansion also draws on the work of Julian Steward, whose 1940 essay “Native Cultures

194

notes to pages xxii--2

[194], (4)

Lines: 97 ———

7.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[194], (4)

8. 9.

10.

11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

21.

of the Intermontane Area” presaged Lamb’s hypothesis, as well as on others. Lamb, however, is most closely associated with the traditional model of Numic expansion, which is also referred to as the “Lamb hypothesis.” Sutton and Rhode, “Background to the Numic Problem,” and Rhode and Madsen, “Where Are We?” Bettinger, “How, When, and Why the Numic Spread,” 45; Madsen, “Mesa Verde and Sleeping Ute Mountain,” 24. It is worth noting that Holmer admits to an “interest in making the research relevant to the descendants” of the Northern Shoshones so that they could “establish the antiquity of their presence in the region for legal reasons.” Holmer, “In Search of the Ancestral Shoshone.” Lexicostatistics assumes that core vocabulary in all languages has a rate of loss of 19 percent per one thousand years; hence linguists are able to estimate how long it has been since related languages diverged from a common tongue. Walker, “Revisionist View of Julian Steward,” 63–64. “When applied to languages whose divergence times are known,” Grayson explains, “the method routinely gives horrendous results, and tests of the key assumption that retention rates are constant have routinely shown this assumption to be false.” Grayson, “Chronology, Glottochronology, and Numic Expansion,” 20–21. Rhode and Madsen, “Where Are We?” 213. Walker, “Revisionist View,” 60–61. Walker, “Revisionist View,” 61. Walker, “Revisionist View,” 62. Walker, “Revisionist View,” 63. Barker and Pinto, “Legal and Ethical Implications of the Numic Expansion,” 16. Barker and Pinto, “Legal and Ethical Implications,” 17. Lowie, “Northern Shoshone.” Apo, the father, or Nomono Apo, the father of Indians (Coyote and in some cases Wolf), is contrasted with the father of whites, Wihindaibo (Iron Man), whom he defeats in a battle of strength. Lowie, “Northern Shoshone,” 233. Lowie notes that the Shoshone story of the theft of fire is similar to that of tribes west of the Rocky Mountains, but the Lemhi version

notes to pages 4--7

195

[195], (5)

Lines: 125 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [195], (5)

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

28.

29. 30.

31. 32. 33. 34.

196

is different, and “is not exactly paralleled by any other form known to the writer.” Lowie, “Northern Shoshone,” 235. Lowie, “Northern Shoshone,” 233–35, 244–47. Lowie, “Northern Shoshone,” 236–38. Zimmerman, “Archeology, Reburial, and the Tactics of a Discipline’s Self-Delusion,” 41–42. See also Deloria, God Is Red. Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 184. Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 171. “Opinion of the Commission, Shoshone Tribe of Indians of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming, et al., v. United States of America, Docket no. 326 before the Indian Claims Commission, October 16, 1962,” 436–37, Records of the Indian Claims Commission (hereafter icc Records). “Official Report of the Proceedings before the icc in the Matter of the Lemhi Tribe, Represented by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, v. United States of America,” Docket no. 326-i, March 3, 1971, icc Records. The Lemhi claim was one of several dockets subdivided out of docket no. 326, which included various claims brought by the tribes at Fort Hall and other reservations. Ultimately, all awards were shared among all tribal members at Fort Hall. This arrangement, and the decision to accept the award at all, created a great deal of animosity, as the Lemhi Shoshones objected to the Fort Hall tribes having jurisdiction over their claim. See chapters 4 and 5. Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 175. Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 184–96. For examples of Stewart’s arguments concerning Great Basin sociopolitical organization, see “Tribal Distributions and Boundaries in the Great Basin,” or “The Shoshone: Their History and Social Organization.” Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 186. Walker, “Revisionist View,” 65–68. Walker, “Revisionist View,” 72. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 539–42.

notes to pages 7--11

[196], (6)

Lines: 158 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[196], (6)

35. Steward, Basin-Plateau, 200; Murphy and Murphy, “Northern Shoshone and Bannock,” 285. 36. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 542. The Bannock Northern Paiute dialect is part of the Western Numic linguistic division, while Shoshone is a Central Numic language. Many of the groups that the Bannock joined became bilingual after their arrival. Liljeblad, “Indian Peoples in Idaho,” 104. 37. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 568–69 n.14. 38. Hultkrantz, “Shoshones in the Rocky Mountain Area,” 16. 39. Steward, Basin-Plateau, 187. 40. Liljeblad, “Indian Peoples of Idaho,” 95. 41. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshone,” 568–69 n.11. 42. Hultkrantz,“Shoshones in the Rocky Mountain Area,”14, 17; Lowie, “Northern Shoshone,” 206; Steward, Basin-Plateau, 186–87. 43. Anthropologists disagree as to the nature of the impact of the horse. The issue was a prominent one in the Stewart-Steward debate before the icc. According to Steward, band organization and territoriality developed only after the introduction of the horse. Stewart, on the other hand, held that the “the horse was the main factor in destroying the sense of solidarity that inhabitants of a well-defined territory may have had and thus destroyed bandness, not caused it. That is, Stewart effectively turned Steward’s model on its head.” Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 189. Walker, drawing on Stewart, Liljeblad, and others, argues for greater prehorse social and political organization than Steward had allowed for, but maintains that the introduction of the horse had a tribalizing effect on Northern Shoshones, in that the preexisting “food-based local groups were quickly absorbed into larger composite bands,” though the names for them stuck. Walker, “Revisionist View,” 69. 44. Lowie, “Northern Shoshone,” 189–90. 45. Murphy and Murphy, “Northern Shoshone and Bannock,” 300; Liljeblad, “Indian Peoples in Idaho,” 91. 46. Hultkrantz, “Shoshones in the Rocky Mountain Area,” 14–17; Liljeblad, “Indian Peoples in Idaho,” 99, 104; Steward, Basin-Plateau, 191. 47. Hultkrantz, “Shoshones in the Rocky Mountain Area,” 14–15; Liljeblad, “Indian Peoples in Idaho,” 104.

notes to pages 11--13

197

[197], (7)

Lines: 187 to 2 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [197], (7)

48. Liljeblad, “Indian Peoples in Idaho,” 104. 49. Madsen, The Lemhi, 27. 50. Liljeblad, “Indian Peoples in Idaho,” 105. 2. contact, ethnogenesis, and exile 1. Hoxie, Encyclopedia of North American Indians, 562–63; Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 256. 2. The boy was named Jean Baptiste but was nicknamed “Pomp” or “Pompey” by Clark, who later cared for him as well as some of Charbonneau’s other children. See Ambrose, Undaunted Courage, 198; DeVoto, Journals of Lewis and Clark, 451; Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 256, 259. 3. Thwaites, Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 2:321. 4. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 138–41. 5. This spelling is similar to the one used by older Shoshone tribal members and may have been Lewis’s phonetic spelling of the proper pronunciation of the word—see note 3 in the Introduction. Moulton, Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 5:68–69. Of the numerous editions of the Lewis and Clark journals, the most recent, edited by Gary Moulton and published in eight volumes between 1987 and 1993, is the best. Because of its full entries, the Thwaites edition (1959) is most frequently cited herein. 6. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 139–41. 7. Ambrose, Undaunted Courage, 270; Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 141–42. 8. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 143–44. 9. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 143. 10. The confluence of the Lemhi and Salmon rivers occurs at the present-day town of Salmon id. 11. Thwaites, Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 2:342. 12. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 143–44, 152. 13. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 144–46. 14. “For reasons that are now unclear,”Ronda explains,“Sacagawea was not included in Lewis’ advance party.” Lewis, however, worked to gain the Lemhis’ confidence by telling them of her presence among the main party. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 146, 257. 15. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 147. The woman that

198

notes to pages 13--19

[198], (8)

Lines: 218 ———

7.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[198], (8)

16.

17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

36. 37. 38.

had been captured with Sacajawea, Lewis reported, “escaped from the Minetares [the Hidatsas] and rejoined her nation.” Thwaites, Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 2:361. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 147–51. Lewis’s descriptions of Lemhi material culture shows a keen appreciation of detail, but his account of their social behavior, character, and personality, as Ronda explains, was colored by stereotypes that he held. Thwaites, Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 3:25. Cameahwait introduced Old Toby to Clark because of his knowledge of the area. Lewis characterized him as “a friendly intelligent old man,” and noted “Capt. C. is much pleased with him.” Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 151; Thwaites, Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 3:8. Thwaites, Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 3:26. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 151–53; Thwaites, Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 3:33. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 152–53. Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 154. Madsen, The Lemhi, 28–30. Madsen, The Lemhi, 30. Madsen, The Lemhi, 32–33. Arrington, History of Idaho, 1:166–69. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni”; Crowder, Tendoy, 41. Arrington, History of Idaho, 1:175. Arrington, History of Idaho, 1:168–70, 174; Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 546. Arrington, History of Idaho, 1:167, 170–71, 173. Arrington, History of Idaho, 1:171–72; Campbell,“Lemhi Shoshoni,” 546–47; Madsen, The Lemhi, 36. Madsen, The Lemhi, 36. Arrington, History of Idaho, 1:169, 173–75. Arrington, History of Idaho, 1:176–78; Madsen, The Lemhi, 39. The change in spelling may have resulted from the pronunciation the missionaries used. Arrington, History of Idaho, 1:165; Rees, Idaho Chronology, 74. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 548. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 548–49. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 545–48; Madsen, The Lemhi, 39.

notes to pages 19--25

199

[199], (9)

Lines: 262 to 3 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [199], (9)

39. 40. 41. 42.

43. 44. 45.

46. 47. 48. 49.

50.

51. 52. 53.

54. 55. 56. 57. 58.

200

Arrington, History of Idaho, 1:172, 178. Crowder, Tendoy, 45. Crowder, Tendoy, 45. Steward, Basin-Plateau, 193–94; “Memorandum Re: Dr. Julian Steward’s Conclusions as to the Political and Territorial Organization of the Shoshone,” Exhibit, Docket no. 326, icc Records. Crowder, Tendoy, 46–47. Crowder, Tendoy, 37–39. The Doty treaties promised tribes a lump sum and annuity payments for their agreement to maintain peace with non-Indians in their territory, with the exception of the third treaty, at Ruby Valley, Nevada Territory, which also provided for the future establishment of a reservation within the territory of the Western Bands. The treaty at Soda Springs paid $3,000, but the signatories also expected to share in treaties concluded at Fort Bridger and Box Elder. Stewart, “Shoshone Claims Cases,” 195–96. Madsen, Northern Shoshoni, 37–38. Trenholm and Carley, Sentinels of the Rockies, 223. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 551. Madsen, Northern Shoshoni, 53; Treaty with Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868 (Fort Bridger Treaty). The Fort Hall Reservation was established by executive order on July 30, 1869. For evidence of Tay-to-ba’s standing as a Lemhi subchief, see Lemhi Agent John Wright to cia, July 27, 1878, Roll 349; Wright to cia, January 25, 1879, Roll 351, Letters Received, Idaho Superintendency. Treaty with the Shoshones, Bannacks, and Sheepeaters of Idaho, September 24, 1868 (Virginia City Treaty). Prucha, Great Father, 1:496–99, 531–33, 562–81. In the end, the federal government paid the Lemhis $13,240.10 for the improvements on the reservation and $5,000 for relocation costs. Madsen, The Lemhi, 76–77. Crowder, Tendoy, 51. John Hailey to John Rees, April 13, 1917, Rees Collection. Madsen, The Lemhi, 79; Trenholm and Carley, Sentinels of the Rockies, 224. Madsen, The Lemhi, 79–82. Crowder, Tendoy, 60–65; Josephy, Nez Perce Indians, 591–92; Madsen, The Lemhi, 82–86.

notes to pages 25--31

[200], (10

Lines: 311 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[200], (10

59. 60. 61. 62. 63.

64.

65. 66.

67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73.

74. 75.

Crowder, Tendoy, 66–69; Madsen, The Lemhi, 80–86, 89–94. Crowder, Tendoy, 70; Madsen, The Lemhi, 102–3. Madsen, The Lemhi, 103. Madsen, The Lemhi, 102–4. Madsen, The Lemhi, 112–16. Lemhi signatories to the 1880 agreement included Chief Tendoy, Tissidimit, Grouse Pete, and Jack Tendoy (Chief Tendoy’s son). Fort Hall signatories were Tihee, Captain Jim, and Jack Gibson. For a detailed account of Lemhi resistance to the federal government’s removal efforts, see Stephens, “Lemhi Indian People of Idaho.” [201], (11) Madsen,The Lemhi, 172–73;“Agent’s Report,”in U.S. House, Annual Report of the cia (1905), 203. Despite numerous non-Indian reports that a majority of Lemhis Lines: 355 to 3 had signed the agreement, no original or copy of the document has ——— been found bearing the names or marks of the eighty-six Lemhis * 20.5pt PgV alleged to have consented to removal. Stephens, “Lemhi Indian ——— Normal Page People,” 99–108. Stephens, “Lemhi Indian People,” 102–8. PgEnds: TEX Madsen, The Lemhi, 187. See “Snook Still Spry at 95,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 19, 1975, [201], (11) 1, 5. Madsen, The Lemhi, 187–88. Stephens, “Lemhi Indian People,” 108–10. Qtd. in Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 24, 1993, 5. Madsen, The Lemhi, 186; “From Hills to Valleys,” Pocatello (id) Tribune, June 15, 1907, 1; “Lemhis Are Busy Moving to Fort Hall,” Pocatello Tribune, June 24, 1907, 1. For a detailed discussion of the removal process and the Lemhis’ early experiences at Fort Hall, see Montgomery, “Struggle to Retain Tribal Identity.” Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 567. Madsen, The Lemhi, 188.

3. the lemhi committee and the fight for annuities 1. Madsen, The Lemhi, 191; Narrative and Statistical Reports, Fort Hall 1915, Roll 49, Section 3, 7; Narrative and Statistical Reports,

notes to pages 33--39

201

2.

3. 4. 5.

6. 7. 8. 9. 10.

11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17.

18.

202

Fort Hall 1924, Roll 50, Section 1, 29; Ruby and Brown, Guide to the Indian Tribes, 193. The following discussion of the Lemhi Committee’s fight to secure unpaid annuities, as well as the account of the Lemhis’ icc claim provided in chapters 4 and 5, expand on Mann, “Returning to the River of No Return.” Montgomery, “Struggle to Retain Tribal Identity,” 28, 37–40. Acting cia William Zimmerman to Sen. Glen Taylor, April 25, 1947, File 16241, Box 222, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Lemhi council members included William Wettembone, Leland Bear, John Yello, Ralph Connequash, Peter Ashendivo, Ingaquasha Jim, Toopomby Tendoy, Hoorah Tendoy, Youhoo Tendoy, George Matsaw, Fred Yogoshoah, and William Burton. Council Proceedings and recommendation by business committee of the Lemhi Indians, Council Proceedings, December 27, 1909, File 23566, Fort Hall ccf 53, na-dc. Evan Estep to cia, October 19, 1911, and C. F. Hauk to Estep, October 26, 1911, File 90570, Fort Hall ccf 34, na-dc. Montgomery, “Struggle to Retain Tribal Identity,” 76. Montgomery, “Struggle to Retain Tribal Identity,” 76–78. Lowie, “Northern Shoshone,” 209. George Wince Tendoy is referred to hereafter as Wince to distinguish him from his half-brother George, Toopompey’s older brother. Wince did not share the same mother—Tendoy had children with three different wives. For information on the descendants of Tendoy refer to Crowder, Tendoy, app. 2, 123–24. Montgomery, “Struggle to Retain Tribal Identity,” 22–24. Steward, Basin-Plateau, 194. Montgomery, “Struggle to Retain Tribal Identity,” 91. Salmon Recorder-Herald, July 9, 1930, 1, 3, 4. Montgomery, “Struggle to Retain Tribal Identity,” 61–62. Fay, “Charters, Constitutions, and By-Laws,” 44, 56. Fort Hall Superintendent F. A. Gross to cia, April 17, 1936, Fort Hall ccf 056; Chief, Fiscal Division Memorandum, June 15, 1936, Fort Hall ccf 210; Assistant Commissioner William Zimmerman to Fort Hall delegates, July 11, 1936, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. Report regarding concerns expressed by Fort Hall delegates to Washington dc, signed by William Zimmerman, Assistant cia,

notes to pages 39--43

[202], (12

Lines: 396 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[202], (12

19. 20.

21.

22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32.

July 11, 1936, File 61825, Box 41, Accession 53a-367, Fort Hall ccf 310, na-dc. Office of the cia to F. A. Gross (n.d.), File 16241, Box 222, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Gross to cia, June 8, 1937; cia to Treasurer, June 23, 1937; Assistant Treasurer to cia, June 25, 1937; Charles B. Emery to Gross, June 20, 1937; Chief, Records Division, to cia, July 6, 1937; Emery to Gross, July 15, 1937; Gross to cia, March 24, 1938; Gross to cia, August 10, 1938; cia to Gross, November 14, 1938; Gross to cia, November 22, 1938; Gross to cia February 28, 1939; Gross to cia, March 7, 1939; cia to Gross, n.d. (responding to Gross to cia November 14, 1938); Emery to Gross, March 29, 1939; Gross to cia, April 15, 1939; Gross to cia, September 25, 1939; cia to Gross, September 29, 1939; Gross to cia March 9, 1940; Emery to Gross, March 19, 1940; Gross to cia, March 28, 1940, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. List of Lemhi Indians Enrolled and Entitled to Final Payment (1939 Lemhi Census), File 15464 (1939), filed with larger File 39327 (1937), Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Gross to cia, August 10, 1938, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Gross to cia, March 24, 1938, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Willie George, George Wince Tendoy, Frank Wahtomy to cia, April 18, 1938, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. Lemhi Committee to cia, February 28, 1941, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. Tuller, “Indian Reorganization Act Years,” 264–65. Lemhi Committee certification of eligibility for payment, February 28, 1941, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. George LaVatta to Mrs. Adams, October 10, 1941, File 16241, Box 222, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 211, na-dc. Fred Daiker, Assistant to the cia, to George LaVatta, December 6, 1941, File 16241, Box 222, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 211, na-dc. Fort Hall Tribal Business Council (hereafter fhtbc) Resolution, September 23, 1941, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Probates, Files 8273, 8274, Box 230, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 350–51, na-dc. Files 8274, 8275, 22298, Box 230, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf

notes to pages 43--46

203

[203], (13)

Lines: 433 to 4 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [203], (13)

33.

34.

35. 36. 37.

38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

46.

47.

48.

204

350; File 13485, Box 11, Accession 62a-523, Fort Hall ccf 211; File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, April 8, 1947, Fort Hall 1944–47 regular council meetings, Box 1554, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, 1946–65, Portland Area Office (hereafter pao 58). LaSalle Pocatello, fhtbc Chairman, to Sen. Glen Taylor, April 9, 1947, File 16241, Box 222, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Zimmerman to Taylor, April 25, 1947. “Lemhi Tribal Leaders Seek Fund Claimed Due on Treaty,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, September 23, 1948, 1. Alfred Cordon, attorney for the Lemhi Indians, to cia John Nichols, April 13, 1949, File 5517, Box 42, Accession 57a-185, Fort Hall ccf 313, na-dc. Office of the cia to Cordon, April 28, 1949, File 5517, Box 42, Accession 57a-185, Fort Hall ccf 313, na-dc. Assistant cia John Provinse to George LaVatta, February 17, 1949, File 28360, Box 223, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 220, na-dc. Minutes, fhtbc meeting, special session, June 26, 1951, File 3977, Box 220, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. Qtd. from Tuller, “Indian Reorganization Act Years,” 265. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, November 13, 1951, File 00, Box 41, Accession 57a-185, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, November 13, 1951, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. Gibson District meeting minutes, December 7, 1951, File 39977, Box 220, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. The attendance list from the Gibson District meeting contains none of the names or surnames listed in the 1939 Lemhi census or other lists of Lemhi names in other sources available. Resolution of the Fort Hall Business Council of Shoshone Bannock Tribes, Number 211, December 7, 1951, File 39977, Box 220, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. Statement showing analysis of fund “14x2608 Fulfilling Treaties With Indians Formerly at Lemhi Agency” as of January 29, 1952, File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. E. Morgan Pryse, Area Director, pao, to Office of the cia, February

notes to pages 36--51

[204], (14

Lines: 462 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[204], (14

49.

50.

51.

52.

53. 54.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59. 60.

7, 1952, File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Memorandum from J. P. Edwards to A. J. S. Eccleston, March 11, 1952, File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall ccf 210, nadc. H. Rex Lee, Acting cia, to E. Morgan Pryse, Area Director, pao, July 8, 1952, File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Office of the cia to Wilkinson, Boyden, and Cragun Law Offices, July 18, 1952, File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. John W. Cragun, Wilkinson, Boyden, and Cragun Law Offices, to the Office of the cia, July 9, 1952, File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Office of the cia to Wilkinson, Boyden, and Cragun, July 18, 1952. Minutes, fhtbc special meetings, February 18, 1954, March 22, 1954, fhtbc Minutes, 1954, Box 1554, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. Memorandum regarding meeting between Mr. Murray (of Wilkinson, Boyden, Cragun, and Barker) and W. Barton Greenwood, Acting cia, July 9, 1954; Robert Barker to cia, October 5, 1954, File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. For their part of the agreement, the Shoshone-Bannocks at Fort Hall were promised $6,000 a year for a twenty-year period, for a total of $120,000. Although the Shoshone-Bannocks consented in the agreement to allow the Lemhis to move to Fort Hall, the $120,000 was for the cession of portions of the Fort Hall Reservation to the government, also covered in the agreement. The ShoshoneBannocks received the entire amount promised to them. Glenn Emmons, cia, to Wilkinson, Boyden, Cragun, and Barker, December 6, 1954, File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Memorandum regarding phone call, Robert Barker to A. P. Niskala, December 10, 1954, File 2569, Box 26, Accession 68a-4937, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. Minutes, fhtbc annual meeting, May 17, 1955, fhtbc Minutes, 1954, Box 1554, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. Indian Claims Commission Act.

notes to pages 52--55

205

[205], (15)

Lines: 498 to 5 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [205], (15)

61. Ross, Index to the Decisions of the icc. The Lemhi annuity fund was one of forty-six exception numbers included in the larger claim. The settlement award was $1.6 million. See files Docket 326c, Shoshone-Bannock Original Papers, Docket 326-c-1, Box 2797, icc Records. 62. Frell Owl, Fort Hall Superintendent, to Office of the cia, October 5, 1957, File 13485, Box 11, Accession 62a-523, Fort Hall ccf 211, na-dc. 63. U.S. House, Problems Relative to Land Use and Economic Conditions on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, 83–85 (qtd. 84). 64. Probate, Frank Wahtomy, bia-fh. 65. “Application for Allotment or Change in Allotment,” September 5, 1958, File 13485, Box 11, Accession 62a-523, Fort Hall ccf 210, na-dc. 4. termination and the indian claims commission

[206], (16

Lines: 523

1. Program, Days of Old Fort Hall Indian Celebration, July 26–27, ——— 1953, Fort Hall Vertical File. 1.5pt P ——— 2. Mary Lou Skinner, report on interview with Dr. Sven Liljeblad Normal P at Idaho State College, Pocatello, March 22, 1956, Folder 3, Box 4, * PgEnds: E Skinner Collection. 3. Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni,” 564–67; Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 24. [206], (16 4. See the summer 1957 issues of The Tevope, Folder 1, Box 2, Skinner Collection. 5. Lemhi Rod Ariwite describes the Lemhis as “the Indians to the other Indians” at Fort Hall. See chapter 8. See also Campbell, “Lemhi Shoshoni” 564–67; Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 24– 25, 179–94. 6. The discussion of the Lemhis’ icc claim in chapters 4 and 5 draws from Mann, “Returning to the River of No Return.” 7. Burt, Tribalism in Crisis, 4. 8. Burt, Tribalism in Crisis, 4–5. 9. Prucha, Great Father, 2:1013–16; Wunder, History of American Indians, 98. 10. Fixico,Termination and Relocation, 33; Prucha, Great Father, 2:1023– 30; Wunder, History of the American Indian, 99. 11. Burt, Tribalism in Crisis, 6. 12. The policy of relocation was also used to further the goals of ter-

206

notes to pages 55--62

13.

14. 15.

16.

17.

18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

minationists. The federal government promoted a policy of relocating Indians from reservations to urban areas during the 1950s in the hope that cities would offer more employment while also furthering assimilation. Prucha, Great Father, 2:1079–84. Fixico,Termination and Relocation, 25; Prucha, Great Father, 2:1017– 23; Wunder, History of the American Indian, 89–91; Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 172. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, September 13, 1946, File 39977, Box 219, Accession 56a-588, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, September 13, 1946, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. The renewal included two alterations. Under the old contract, attorney expenses incurred in pursuing the cases were [207], (17) not covered, and the court set fees at not more than 10 percent of the judgment awarded. The new contract stipulated that attorney Lines: 565 to 6 expenses be covered, and it set the fee at 8 to 10 percent of the awarded judgment. ——— Despite strong support for naming Felix Cohen, an authority on 0.0pt PgVa ——— Indian law, President Truman appointed Edgar Witt, former lieuNormal Page tenant governor of Texas, as the first chief commissioner. The first associate commissioners were attorneys Louis O’Marr from * PgEnds: Eject Wyoming and William Holt from Nebraska. Fixico, Termination and Relocation, 30–31; Prucha, Great Father, 2:1017–23; Wunder, [207], (17) History of the American Indian, 89–91, 111–12. “Petitioners’ Proposed Finding of Fact and Brief,” 1:8–46, Docket nos. 326 and 327 before the icc, February 16, 1961, Folder 3, Series A, Omer Stewart Collection. Indian Claims Commission Act. Prucha, Great Father, 2:1028–44. Prucha, Great Father, 2:1041–46. Burt, Tribalism in Crisis, 21–22. Wunder, History of the American Indian, 112. Prucha, Great Father, 2:1056–59. Wunder, History of the American Indian, 105. Prucha, Great Father, 2:1059. Prucha, Great Father, 2:1060. U.S. House, Report with Respect to the House Resolution (1954), 53. U.S. House, Report with Respect to the House Resolution (1952), 331. Skinner’s final report, together with the notes on which it was

notes to pages 62--65

207

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41.

42.

43.

44. 45. 46.

208

based, cover not only health and sanitation at Fort Hall but also record her general impressions of the reservation and some of the experiences she had there. Also included in the Skinner Collection are memorabilia from the time period, including, but not limited to, reservation newsletters and miscellaneous Tribal Business Council meeting minutes. “The Fort Hall Story,” 57, Folder 5, Box 6, Skinner Collection. U.S. House, Problems Relative to Land Use, 36. U.S. House, Problems Relative to Land Use, 36–37. U.S. House, Problems Relative to Land Use, 37. U.S. House, Problems Relative to Land Use, 41. U.S. House, Problems Relative to Land Use, 65. Zimmerman, “Fort Hall Story,” 9. Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 179–94. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, February 23, 1952, File 00, Box 41, Accession 57a-185, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. U.S. icc, Final Report, 6–9. Minutes, fhtbc general meeting, February 23, 1952, File 00, Box 41, Accession 57a-185, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. Robert W. Barker returned to the law firm as a partner on January 31, 1953, after a two-year leave of absence as administrative assistant to Sen. Wallace F. Bennet (r-ut). He had previously worked on Shoshone claims and became involved with the icc claims upon his return. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, April 6, 1953, fhtbc Resolutions, Box 1554, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58; Minutes, fhtbc annual meeting, May 27, 1953, File 00, Box 41, Accession 57a128, Fort Hall ccf 054, na-dc. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, July 20, regular meeting, August 12, special meeting, August 20, 1954, fhtbc Minutes, 1954, Box 1554; Minutes, fhtbc annual meeting, May 17, 1956, fhtbc Minutes, Box 1555, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, January 10, 1957, fhtbc Minutes, 1958, Box 1555, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, January 10, 1957. Minutes, fhtbc special meetings, February 19, March 18, April 8, 1957, fhtbc Minutes, 1957, Box 1555, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58.

notes to pages 66--7 1

[208], (18

Lines: 606 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[208], (18

47. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, January 10, 1957, fhtbc Minutes, 1958, Box 1555, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. 48. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, January 10, 1957. 49. Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 170–71. 50. The Steward-Stewart debate also raised questions about the ethics of expert testimony. In a 1977 American Anthropologist article entitled“The Anthropologist as Expert Witness,”Lawrence Rosen cited the Steward-Stewart debate as an example of the ethical problems surrounding the use of anthropological knowledge in adversarial proceedings. Omer Stewart responded in a later volume, insisting that in his “25 years as an expert witness I have never experienced any problems of a scholarly or ethical nature.” In response to Rosen’s implication that he behaved differently as a witness than as a scholar, Stewart maintained that his “scholarly writings were the same before and after I testified as an expert witness. . . . I express my opinions with vigor in meetings of scientific societies, as I do in the courts, and they are the same opinions, reached by the same processes.” Regarding his debate with Julian Steward, Stewart admitted that “it would be difficult to find two anthropologists who exhibited greater contrasts,” but he noted that the rift predated the claims cases, rather than being a result of any political motivations associated with them. Stewart held, despite Rosen’s suggestion to the contrary, that his testimony amounted to nothing more than the presentation of objective data, although he also noted Julian Steward’s greater reliance on theory, and further noted that over time “Julian had changed his theory.” More recently, other scholars have joined Stewart in defending his record. In an epitaph, Deward Walker described Stewart as a man who had “spent his life battling racism, ethnocentrism, imperialism, and their consequences among the American Indians. Anthropology was his weapon. Conscience was his guide.” Walker’s characterization of Julian Steward’s work as an expert was far less favorable. “It is the opinion of various tribal leaders and attorneys of my acquaintance,” he wrote,“that the net effect of Steward’s involvement with the icc was to minimize significantly tribal claims awards.” Steward’s ethnographic model, in Walker’s view, “was a useful tool for Department of Justice attorneys.” Rosen, “Anthropologist as

notes to pages 7 1--72

209

[209], (19)

Lines: 655 to 6 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [209], (19)

51. 52. 53. 54. 55.

56. 57. 58. 59. 60.

210

Expert Witness”; Stewart, “Expert Witness Answers Rosen”; Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 174; Walker, “Revisionist View,” 73. Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 170–72, 174–75, 186–87. Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 171. Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 171. Ronaasen, Clemmer, and Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology,” 171. Pocatello was chairman at the time the arrangements to send Fort Hall delegates were made. Frank Parker was chairman by the time the hearings occurred. Initially, former council chairman Willie George was to attend with Pocatello, but health problems prevented him from doing so and Pokibro was selected as his replacement. Leslie Fishman, the anthropologist, resided in Denver at the time of the hearings, but she had previously lived in Pocatello, where she had befriended members of the Tribal Council. She refused to accept payment for her services as a consultant. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, September 24, 1957, fhtbc Minutes, 1957, Box 1555, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, September 24, 1957; “Petitioners’ Proposed Finding of Fact and Brief,” Omer Stewart Collection. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, March 14, 1961, fhtbc Minutes, 1961, Box 1556, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. “Petitioners’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Brief,” Omer Stewart Collection. Robert Barker to Omer Stewart, August 18, 1961; Stewart to Barker, n.d., Folder 2, Series A, Omer Stewart Collection. Stewart to Barker, n.d. Reflecting later on the Shoshone claim, Stewart was less dismissive of the government’s argument: “One problem loomed as potentially embarrassing: the question of a separate Bannock territory in Idaho. . . . I concluded that the Bannocks and Shoshone . . . could be recognized as joint owners . . . even though several anthropologists and some government publications assigned the Bannock a separate territory.” Stewart, “Shoshone Claims Case,” in Sutton, Irredeemable America, 200.

notes to pages 72--75

[210], (20

Lines: 661 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[210], (20

61. “Petitioners’ Objections to the Defendant’s Requested Finding of Facts, Petitioners’ Comments on Defendant’s Objections to Petitioners’ Proposed Finding of Fact, and Petitioners’ Reply Brief,” Docket nos. 326 and 367 before the icc, September 19, 1961, Folder 6, Series A, Omer Stewart Collection. 62. “Findings of Fact,” Docket nos. 326 and 367 before the icc, October 16, 1962, Folder 5, Series A, Omer Stewart Collection. 63. “Findings of Fact,” 445–46. The Northwestern Bands of Shoshone at the Washakie Reservation in Utah were eventually included in the consolidated Shoshone land claim. 64. Assistant Commissioner William Holt delivered the decision, with Chief Commissioner Arthur Watkins and Assistant Commissioner T. Harold Scott in concurrence. The lands were defined as follows: “Commencing at the crest of the Bitterroot Mountains at the headwaters of the North Fork of the Salmon River; thence southwest along the crest of said mountains to a point on said crest near the headwaters of the creek which has its mouth at Shoup id; thence southwest to the mouth of Panther Creek; thence southwest to the mouth of Wilson Creek; thence southwest to the source of Pistol Creek; thence south to the source of Bear Valley Creek; thence north, east and south along the crest of the Sawtooth Mountains to Snowyside Mountain near Snowyside Lake; thence northeast to Dickey id; thence northeast to Nicholia id; thence north to the crest of the Bitterroot Mountains; thence northwest along said crest to the point of beginning.” “Findings of Fact,” 413, 415, 446. 65. General Services Administration, “Re: Petition of the Shoshone Tribe of Indians of the Wind River Reservation, Wyoming, et al. and the Lemhi Tribe, Represented by the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall Reservation id, icc nos. 326 and 326-i,” June 7, 1968, File 624, Box 57, Accession 75–73-1, Fort Hall ccf 250, National Archives, Federal Records Center, Suitland md (hereafter frc-Suitland). 5. the lemhi icc claim, 1962--72 1. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, October 25, 1962, fhtbc Minutes, 1962–63, Box 1556, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. 2. General Council of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes Resolution 1667,

notes to pages 75--79

211

[211], (21)

Lines: 687 to 7 ———

7.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [211], (21)

3.

4. 5.

6.

7. 8. 9.

10.

11.

212

adopted March 21, 1963, (119 for, 0 against), fhtbc Resolutions, October 1958–June 1963, Box 1556, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, September 30, 1964, Folder 253, Claims, Individual Indian Monies (hereafter iim), Administrative Room 142 (hereafter Rm 142), Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fort Hall id (hereafter bia-fh). The interest on the loans was raised to 5 1/2 percent by the time applications became available. Newspaper article (n.d.); Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, September 30, 1964, fhtbc general meeting, March 22, 1965, Folder 253, Claims, iim, Rm 142, bia-fh. The Lemhi claim was to be evaluated based on the value of the lands in 1875, when the icc ruled they had been taken, while it decided that the Shoshone claim was to be evaluated based on the 1868 value. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, September 30, 1964, Folder 253, Claims, iim, Rm 142, bia-fh. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, September 30, 1964. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, October 26, 1964, Minutes of Tribal Meetings, fh-1964 (and 1965) (1 of 2), Box 4, Fort Hall Decimal Files. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, February 25, 1965, 060, Tribal Relations, Fort Hall (1965–68), Box 1531, Census Subject Files, 1953–67, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58; Minutes, fhtbc general meeting, March 22, 1965, fhtbc Minutes, 1965 (1 of 2), File 064, Box 4, Fort Hall Decimal Files. The Wind River appraisal loan was not needed. Both tribes covered appraisal expenses as the case progressed. The agreement to divide the award settlement evenly later became a point of contention. Some of the ShoshoneBannocks at Fort Hall were not even aware that the Wind River Shoshones were involved in the claim. Consequently, when a settlement was offered, some Shoshone-Bannocks at Fort Hall were reluctant to accept it. Confusion and contention surrounding the Shoshone settlement foreshadowed the conclusion of the Lemhi claim. “Proposed Compromise Settlement of Shoshone Tribe’s Claim in

notes to pages 80--83

[212], (22

Lines: 706 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[212], (22

12.

13. 14.

15. 16.

17. 18.

19. 20.

21.

22.

Docket no. 326,” August 15, 1967, File 4441, Box 46, Accession 73a1106, Fort Hall ccf 174.1, frc-Suitland. “Application of the Shoshone Bannock Tribes for a Loan from the United States to Procure Expert Assistance,” May 15, 1965, File 2687, Box 56, Accession 72a-5640, Fort Hall ccf 259, frc-Suitland. Qtd. in Fay, “Charters, Constitutions and By-Laws,” 44. An ordinance of April 1941 established a one-half degree blood requirement and a three-year residency requirement, but it was later revoked by a 1952 ordinance. By the meeting, then, tribal members included those enrolled in 1935, their children, and any members that might have been adopted into the tribes before the 1941 ordinance was revoked. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, August 19, 1952, fhtbc Minutes, Box 1554, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, August 19, 1952. While the 1952 ordinance was not disapproved by the secretary of the interior and was therefore assumed to be valid, the tribal constitution could not be amended without a referendum. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, October 25, 1962. Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 70. Minutes, fhtbc special meeting, June 19, 1965, Minutes of Tribal Meetings, Fort Hall, 1964 (and 1965) (1 of 2), Box 4, Fort Hall Decimal Files. The motion carried with two in favor and two abstaining. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, September 13, 1965, fhbc Minutes, 1965 (2 of 2), Box 4, Fort Hall Decimal Files. U.S. Department of the Interior (usdoi), bia, Branch of Credit Commitment Order, September 17, 1965, and fhtbc Resolution 2167, October 26, 1965, File 2687, Box 56, Accession 72a-5460, Fort Hall ccf 259, frc-Suitland. Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker,“Report to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall id, Concerning Proposed Settlement of Lemhi Docket no. 326i, an Aboriginal Title Case Now Pending Before the icc,” January 18, 1971, Folder 253, Vault, iim, Rm 142, bia-fh. While the Northwestern Bands of Shoshone were not enrolled members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall, tribal members resided at Fort Hall or at the Washakie Subagency of the Fort Hall jurisdiction. The Northwestern Bands did not adopt

notes to pages 83--86

213

[213], (23)

Lines: 729 to 7 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [213], (23)

23.

24. 25. 26. 27.

28. 29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

214

an ira constitution, so under the icc Act they did not have to pursue their claim themselves; the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall prosecuted their claim. The fact that they were not enrolled members at Fort Hall, however, meant that they retained ultimate control over their claim, unlike the Lemhi Shoshones. “Finding of Fact,” 387–88, Docket no. 326 before the icc, October 16, 1962; Resolutions of the Tribal Council, 1968–71 (064), Vault, iim Rm 142, bia-fh. Tribal Claims Section, Proposed compromise settlement of the Shoshone Tribe’s claim in Docket no. 326, August 15, 1967, File 4441, Box 46, Accession 73a-1106, Fort Hall ccf 174.1, frc-Suitland. General Services Administration, “Re: Petition of the Shoshone Tribe.” fhtbc special meeting, August 25, 1967, File 4441, Box, 46, Accession 73a-1106, Fort Hall ccf 174.1, frc-Suitland. fhtbc special meeting, August 25, 1967. fhtbc Resolution 4501, March 16, 1971, File 293, Box 18, Accession 75–86-4, Fort Hall ccf 054, frc-Suitland; Edward Boyer to Dr. Pashal Sherman, American Indian Civil Liberties Trust, April 20, 1968, File 1870, Box 43, Accession 75–73-1, Fort Hall ccf 050, frcSuitland. Resolutions of the Tribal Council, 1968–71 (064), Vault, iim, Rm 142, bia-fh. Louis Bruce, cia, to Arthur Hayball, Chairman, fhtbc, November 14, 1969; fhtbc Ordinance s14–69, August 22, 1969, File 293, Box 18, Accession 75–86-4, Fort Hall ccf 054, frc-Suitland. W. A. Mehojah, Fort Hall Superintendent, to Area Director, bia Portland Area Office, October 6, 1970; Tribal Ordinance s8–70 (amended), September 30, 1970, File 4725, Box 45, Accession 73a1106, Fort Hall ccf 053, na-dc. Ernest Wilkinson, “Report to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall id, Concerning Proposed Settlement of Lemhi Docket no. 326-i,” January 18, 1971, Folder 253, Vault, iim, Rm 142, bia-fh. General Services Administration, “Re: Petition of the Shoshone Tribe.” The three subtotals do not add up to the sum provided. The sum of the subtotals should be $522,740.79, rather than $522,750.79. Ernest Wilkinson, Report to the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, January 18, 1971, Folder 253, Vault, iim, Rm 142, bia-fh.

notes to pages 87--91

[214], (24

Lines: 750 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[214], (24

34. “Findings of Fact on Compromise Settlement, Docket no. 326-i before the icc, Decided March 8, 1971,” vol. 34 of 51, Box 2805, icc Records. 35. Parman, Indians and the American West, 152. 36. Parman, Indians and the American West, 153. 37. Robert Barker, Report to Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, January 18, 1971, Folder 253, Vault, iim, Rm 142, bia-fh. 38. “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971, 31. 39. American Indian Movement president Russell Means was LaNada Boyer’s brother-in-law for a time, which perhaps accounts for her use of the surname Means. After returning to Fort Hall in 1970 and becoming active in reservation politics, she began using the name LaNada Boyer again. Johnson and Stapilus, “Fort Hall.” 40. Johnson and Stapilus,“Fort Hall”;“Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971, 17–20. 41. Edward Boyer, Olive Boyer, Joseph Thorpe, Zelphia Towersap, and LeRoy Towersap to LaNada Means, December 30, 1970, ShoshoneBannock Indian Tribe, Box 23, Office Files of Commissioner Louis R. Bruce. 42. Arthur Tendoy to icc commissioner John Vance, June 5, 1971, Letter File, Box 2805, Docket no. 326h-i, icc Records. 43. “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971, 17–20. 44. “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971, 17–20. 45. Salmon Recorder-Herald, January 28, 1971, 1. 46. “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971, 3. 47. Report of W. A. Mehojah, Fort Hall Superintendent, to Area Director, bia Portland Area Office, on general council meeting on January 30, 1971, February 2, 1971; Minutes of general council meeting of Shoshone Bannock Tribes, Fort Hall, January 30, 1971, Petitioner’s Exhibit no. 3, Petitioner’s Exhibits nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, March 3, 1971, Shoshone-Bannock Tribes, Docket no. 326-i, icc Records; “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971, 32. 48. Report of Mehojah to Area Director, February 2, 1971. 49. Minutes, general meeting, January 30, 1971; “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971; Report of Mehojah to Area Director, February 2, 1971. 50. Minutes, general meeting, January 30, 1971; “Official Report of

notes to pages 91--97

215

[215], (25)

Lines: 778 to 8 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [215], (25)

51.

52.

53.

54. 55. 56.

57.

58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

63. 64. 65. 66. 67.

216

Proceedings,” March 3, 1971; Report of Mehojah to Area Director, February 2, 1971. Minutes, general meeting, January 30, 1971; “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971; Report of Mehojah to Area Director, February 2, 1971. “Summary Sheet,” Shoshone Tribe or Nation and ShoshoneBannock Tribes—Consolidated Dockets no. 326-d, 326-e, 326-f, 326-g, 326-h, 366, 367, (064) Resolutions of Council, 1968–72,Vault, iim Rm 142, bia-fh. Report of Mehojah to Area Director, February 2, 1971; fhtbc Resolutions 4430, 4431, January 30, 1971, File 253, Vault, iim Rm 142, bia-fh; Abstract Minutes of General Meeting of January 30, 1971, icc Records. Mehojah to Area Director, February 2, 1971; “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971. “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971; “Findings of Fact on Compromise Settlement,” March 8, 1971. “Transcript of Hearings before the icc on Petition in Intervention in Docket no. 326-i, Pocatello id, June 29–30, 1975, Lemhi Tribe, D.326-i,”in Library of American Indian Affairs, Ethnographic Guide to the Indian Claims Commission, 122, 151–53, 282–83. Thomas E. Cook, attorney, Hansen, Hansen, and Hopkins, to cia Louis Bruce, February 25, 1971, Shoshone-Bannock Indian Tribe, Box 23, Office Files of Commissioner Louis R. Bruce. “Transcript of Hearings before the icc,” 241. “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971, 37–41. “Official Report of Proceedings,” March 3, 1971, 40, 44–45. “Findings of Fact on Compromise Settlement,” March 8, 1971. “Petition for Award of Attorney Fees and Statement of Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker, Docket no. 326-i before the icc, filed May 7, 1971,” icc Records. Cook to Bruce, February 25, 1971. Indian Claims Commission Act. Cook to Bruce, February 25, 1971. C. Timothy Hopkins, attorney, Hansen, Hansen, and Hopkins, to the icc, April 6, 1971, icc Records. This decision had been codified in Section 505 of Ordinance s8–70, as amended on September 30, 1970.

notes to pages 98--101

[216], (26

Lines: 811 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[216], (26

68. Assistant Area Director to cia, April 13, 1971, Folder 253, Vault, iim, Rm 142, bia-fh. 69. Hansen, Hansen, and Hopkins submitted a notice of appeal four days earlier, but after learning that Andrews had subsequently filed a similar appeal on behalf of the same group, excepting Lemhi plaintiff Ray Crow, along with a petition in intervention, partner C. Timothy Hopkins withdrew the firm’s notice. C. Timothy Hopkins to the icc, June 4 and July 7, 1971, icc Records. 70. “Petition in Intervention, Docket no. 326-i before the icc, filed June 8, 1971,” icc Records. 71. “Motion to Deny Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff, Docket no. 326-i before the icc, filed June 14, 1971,” icc Record; Robert Barker to Kesley Edmo, June 15, 1971, File 253, Vault, iim, Rm 142, bia-fh. 72. “Order Setting Hearing Date on ‘Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff,’ June 22, 1971”; “Memorandum in Support of Motion to Deny Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff, June 21, 1971, Docket no. 326-i before the icc,” icc Records. 73. Tendoy to Vance, June 5, 1971; Vance to Tendoy, June 17, 1971, Letter File, Box 2805, Docket no. 326h-i, icc Records. 74. “Transcript of Hearings before the icc,” in Library of American Indian Affairs, Ethnographic Guide, 1–12. 75. Resolution 4665 was passed on June 30, 1971. The nine tribal members appearing as witnesses for the defense were Angela Butterfield, Jimmy Yupe, Laura Edmo, Emory Tendoy, Zelma Edmo, Raymond Meeks, Layton Littlejohn, Alvin Buckskin, and Kesley Edmo. Edward Boyer, Josephine Pokibro, LaNada Boyer Means, Walter Nevada, Russell Pokibro, Katy Tendoy, Zelphia Towersap, Udale Tendoy, Mary Galloway, and Joseph Thorpe testified for the plaintiffs. Superintendent Mehojah and tribal attorney Reed Bowen also testified for the defense. Resolution 4665, File 293, Accession 75–86-4, Box 18, Fort Hall ccf 054, frc-Suitland; “Transcript of Hearings before the icc.” 76. “Transcript of Hearings before the icc.” 77. “Transcript of Hearings,” 59. 78. “Transcript of Hearings,” 75–76, 83, 88, 100, 104, 111. 79. “Transcript of Hearings,” 211, 216. 80. “Transcript of Hearings,” 160. 81. “Transcript of Hearings,” 294.

notes to pages 101--106

217

[217], (27)

Lines: 850 to 8 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [217], (27)

82. “Order Dismissing ‘Petition In Intervention,’ Docket no. 326-i before the icc,” icc Records. 83. fhtbc Resolution 4609, June 1, 1971, File 293, Box 18, Accession 75– 86-4, Fort Hall ccf 054, frc-Suitland; “Finding of Fact on Award of Attorneys’ Fees, Docket no. 326-i before the icc, August 5, 1971,” icc Records; Public Law 92–442. 84. fhtbc Resolution 4684, July 7, 1971, File 293, Box 18, Accession 75–86-4, Fort Hall ccf 054, frc-Suitland. 85. Acting cia to Secretary of the Interior,August 9, 1907, bia-fh; Chief Tendoy Cemetery Cultural Resource Management Plan, Nancy V. Anderson and Michael A. Pfeiffer, Salmon District id, Bureau of Land Management (blm), usdoi, November 1985, Salmon Land Acquisition and Tendoy Cemetery, Room 131, Realty, bia-fh. 86. “Memorandum in Support of Motion to Deny Motion to Intervene as Plaintiff, June 21, 1971,” icc Records. 87. fhtbc Resolution 4431 (Sharing Resolution), January 30, 1971, biafh. 6. returning to the river of no return, 1907--93 1. It is possible that the individual buried at the site is Cameahwait, Sacajawea’s brother. The Salmon Recorder-Herald explained that the cedar pole marked the resting place “of a ‘very famous’ Indian, the identity of whom is known only to a few of the Indian elders.” However, an article covering a 1985 powwow held in Salmon in commemoration of Sacajawea and the 180th anniversary of the Lewis and Clark expedition reported that Lemhi organizers had plans to replace a fifteen-foot-high pole marking the grave of Cameahwait, located on a butte between the towns of Tendoy and Lemhi. Further, the piece noted that the task was a tradition that certain generations were charged to fulfill, just like the tradition fulfilled seven years later. Cameahwait was killed during a battle with the Blackfeet on what is now Bloody Dick Creek, in Montana. While the date of his death is uncertain, it occurred sometime between the 1805, when he welcomed the Corps of Discovery to the Lemhi Valley, and the arrival of the Mormon missionaries who established Fort Lemhi nearby in 1855. In sum, the timing of Cameahwait’s death, the description of his burial site

218

notes to pages 106--109

[218], (28

Lines: 878 ———

7.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[218], (28

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11.

12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18.

19. 20. 21. 22.

and its location, and the maintenance rituals of his cemetery are all consistent with the ceremony held in 1992. Crowder, Tendoy, 43–44; “Sacajawea Pow Wow Slated,” August 8, 1985, 1, 9; “Lemhi Indians Keep Age-Old Tradition Alive,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 3, 1993, 1. “Lemhi Indians Keep Age-Old Tradition Alive.” “Lemhi Indians Keep Age-Old Tradition Alive.” “March of Time Ousts Redskins,” 1938 newspaper article, Vertical File 1027. Kimball, “Tendoy,” 74; Madsen, The Lemhi, 191; Ruby and Brown, Guide to the Indian Tribes, 193. “Scenes of Early Day Salmon,” Idaho History–Lemhi County, Vertical Files, Salmon Public Library. Bennett, “Village That Once Was.” Bennett, “Village That Once Was”; “March of Time Ousts Redskins.” “March of Time Ousts Redskins.” Bennett, “Village That Once Was”; Kimball, “Tendoy,” 74. Bennett, “Village That Once Was”; Kimball, “Tendoy,” 74; Salmon Recorder-Herald, “Sims’ Body Found, Rites Set Friday,” January 21, 1971, 1;“Willie: A Link Has Been Broken,”March 12, 1981, 1;“ ‘Fanny’s Son’: Blood Brother of the Shoshone,” pt. 5, January 26, 1989, 6. Salmon Recorder-Herald, March 3, 1983, 1. Salmon Recorder-Herald, November 20, 1947, 4. Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 8, 1921, 2; Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 3, 1971, 7. Salmon Recorder-Herald, August 13, 1930, 1. Salmon Recorder-Herald, August 6, 1970, 9. Salmon Recorder-Herald, September 14, 1938, 8. Dorothy Pyeatt Baker, “Our Indian Brothers,” in Clara Proulx, “Early History of the Upper Lemhi Valley,” 26, Vertical File, Idaho History–Lemhi County, Salmon Public Library. Salmon Recorder-Herald, December 29, 1988, 6; January 5, 1989, 6. Snook, Wilson, and Dinnell, “Lemhi Band of the Shoshone Indians,” 54–55. Salmon Recorder-Herald, December 29, 1988, 6; January 5, 1989, 6. “Public Voucher for Reimbursement of Travel and Other Expenses,

notes to pages 109--114

219

[219], (29)

Lines: 901 to 9 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [219], (29)

23.

24.

25. 26. 27. 28. 29.

30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35.

220

October 17–18, 1936,” Folder 161, F. A. Gross, 1929–36 (1 of 2), Box 10, Fort Hall Decimal Files. F. A. McCall, attorney, Salmon id, to Fort Hall Superintendent F. A. Gross, August 16, 1934; Gross to McCall, August 30, 1934; William Sharkey, Salmon, to Gross, October 14, 1934; Gross to Sharkey, October 30, 1934, Folder 380, Allotment of Lands, 1921, Box 29, Fort Hall Decimal Files. F. A. Gross to R. B. Cavaness, December 30, 1938, Extension Correspondence, 1937–41, Box 1, Fort Hall Agency Extension Subject Files, 1933–47, Fort Hall Decimal Files. Mary Lou Skinner, report on interview with Dr. Sven Liljeblad, Skinner Collection. Fort Hall Health Unit Memorandum, July 15, 1955, File 267, Box 120, Accession 64a-528, Fort Hall ccf 134, na-dc. Mary Lou Skinner, report on the “little old lady from Salmon,” June 26, 1956, Folder 12, Box 3, Skinner Collection. See, for example, July and August issues, 1957, Folder 1, Box 2, Skinner Collection. Memorandum, James Dawes, Acting Area Tribal Affairs Officer, to Indian Health Area Director, Portland or, May 27, 1966 (Dawes Memo), Tribal Relations, General, Fort Hall, 1955–68, Box 1531, Desk Files of the Tribal Operations Branch, pao 57. Charles S. Spencer, Fort Hall Superintendent, to Bertha Ariwite, January 23, 1962, File 2, Drawer 2, 302 Tax, Realty, bia-fh. Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 24–25. Salmon Recorder-Herald, July 15, 1948, 1. Dawes Memo. Tribal Ordinance s8–70 (amended), September 30, 1970. As of 1987 there were ten surviving Lemhis who had lived through removal: Olive Hope Tinno, Phoebe Ponzo, Myrtle Calico, David Johnson, Walter Nevada, Cora Pegoga George, John Ponzo, Irene Ponzo, Jessie Tyler Nappo, and Josephine Trahant Fisk. Sho-Ban News, October 8, 1987, 5. While the Sho-Ban News indicates that Phoebe Ponzo, or Tin-Navo, was six months old during removal, other sources maintain that she was born during the Lemhi “trail of tears” along Birch Creek near a site named Tin-navo, or “writing on the rocks,” which her parents named her after. Snook, Wilson, and Dinnell, “Lemhi Band of the Shoshone Indians,” 62.

notes to pages 115--118

[220], (30

Lines: 944 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[220], (30

36. Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 15, 1989, 1; June 22, 1989, 1. 37. Acting cia to Secretary of the Interior, August 9, 1907; Walter Jones, Salmon District Manager, blm, to W. A. Mehojah, Fort Hall Superintendent, June 9, 1969; Chief, Division of Resources, Idaho State blm Office, to Salmon District Manager, blm, June 5, 1981, Lemhi Cemetery File, Realty, bia-fh. 38. Jones to Mehojah, June 9, 1969, Lemhi Cemetery File, Realty, biafh; Salmon Recorder-Herald, August 25, 1988, 3. 39. Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 8, 1921, 2. 40. Jones to Mehojah, June 9, 1969; Mehojah to Jones, June 13, 1969, Lemhi Cemetery Folder, Realty, bia-fh; Salmon Recorder-Herald, July 17, 1969, 5; August 27, 1970, 12. 41. Draft, Chief Tendoy Cemetery Cultural Resources Management Plan, Realty, bia-fh. 42. Wilson, “Indian Beliefs, Medicines, and Foods,” 60. 43. A. W. Galbraith, Assistant Area Director, Portland Area Office, to Fort Hall Superintendent, June 30, 1971, Lemhi Cemetery Folder, Realty, bia-fh; fhtbc Resolution 4684, July 7, 1971, Fort Hall ccf 054, frc-Suitland. 44. Galbraith to Fort Hall Superintendent, August 18, 1971, Lemhi Cemetery Folder, Realty Office, bia-fh. 45. usdoi blm Confirmation/Report of Telephone Conversation, April 30, 1981, May 15, 1981, May 18, 1981, Lemhi Cemetery Folder, Realty, bia-fh. 46. usdoi blm Confirmation/Report of Telephone Conversation, May 18, 1981; blm Memorandum,“John Davis Visit,”June 23, 1981, Lemhi Cemetery Folder, Realty, bia-fh. 47. blm Memorandum, “Chief Tendoy Grave Site,” June 5, 1981, Lemhi Cemetery Folder, Realty, bia-fh. 48. Lawrence Bardsley, Lemhi Area Manager, blm, to Don Hettervik, June 29, 1981, bia-fh; Bardsley to Hettervik, July 16, 1981, Lemhi Cemetery Folder, Realty, bia-fh. 49. usdoi blm Confirmation/Report of Telephone Conversation, December 17, 1981, Lemhi Cemetery Folder, Realty, bia-fh. 50. Stephanie Brady, Salmon District Office, blm, to Area Director, Portland Area Office, May 5, 1982, Lemhi Cemetery Folder, Realty, bia-fh; Salmon Recorder-Herald, March 2, 1989, 2.

notes to pages 118--121

221

[221], (31)

Lines: 976 to 1 ———

13.5pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [221], (31)

51. Draft, Chief Tendoy Cemetery Cultural Resources Management Plan. 52. Lemhis and others who volunteered to help the blm included Alfred and Lois Navo, Walter Nevada, Zelphia Towersap, Dorothy Baker, Joe Baker, Bertha Ariwite, Sadie Ariwite, Emory Tendoy, Phoebe and John Ponzo, Druscilla Gould, Tony Shay, Gail Martin, Emma Dan, Emaline George, Joyce Ballard, Keith Tinno, Charlene Farmer, Marian Hill, Anna Belle Devinny, Mike Christy, and Joe Diaz. The blm awarded a plaque to the volunteers recognizing the importance of their efforts. Land Use Policy Commission File Letter, June 24, 1987; unidentified newspaper article, Lemhi Cemetery Folder, Realty, bia-fh. 53. The cemetery was doubled in size to eighty acres to include grave sites outside the original tract. Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 22, 1989, 2. 54. Salmon Recorder-Herald, August 25, 1988, 3. 55. Salmon Recorder-Herald, January 26, 1989, 6. 56. Nybroten and Sloan, Confidential Report. 57. Dawes Memo. 58. Studebaker, “Lemhi-Shoshone: Way of the Guardian Spirit.” 59. Bennett, “Village That Once Was”; Dawes Memo. 60. Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 26. 61. Dawes Memo. 62. Idaho State Education Contract, 1951–52, correspondence since 1946, Box 1827, Classified Files of the Area Education Officer, pao 65. 63. Salmon Recorder-Herald, February 28, 1957, 1. 64. Salmon Recorder-Herald, January 23, 1969, 1. 65. Salmon Recorder-Herald, January 17, 1974, 1; February 27, 1986, 1. 66. Idaho State Education Contract, 1951–52, correspondence since 1946, Box 1827, Classified Files of the Area Education Officer, pao 65. 67. Salmon Recorder-Herald, May 13, 1954, 1. 68. Salmon Recorder-Herald, July 18, 1985, 3; August 1, 1985, 2; August 8, 1985, 12; May 28, 1987, 13. 69. Baker, “Our Indian Brothers”; Bennett, “Village That Once Was”; Roberta Green,“People of the Lemhi”; Kimball,“Tendoy,” pt. 2, 74.

222

notes to pages 121--123

[222], (32

Lines: 100 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[222], (32

70. “Indians Fill Order for Buckskin Gloves,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, March 18, 1948, 2. 71. Bennett, “Village That Once Was”; Dawes Memo; Kimball, “Tendoy,” pt. 2, 74; Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 26. 72. Snook, Wilson, and Dinnell, “Lemhi Band of the Shoshone Indians,” 57. 73. Dawes Memo; Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 26. 74. Bennett, “Village That Once Was”; Green, “People of the Lemhi.” 75. State of Idaho v. Gerald Tinno, testimony of Jessie Tyler, Cora George, Transcript on Appeal, 74–87, 88–96. 76. Bitterroot, a member of the purslane family, is the state flower of Montana. Its scientific name is Lewisia redivivia, in honor of Meriwether Lewis, who first introduced it to non-Indians. Salmon Recorder-Herald, May 28, 1953, 1; May 31, 1973, 1; Wilson, “Indian Beliefs, Medicines and Foods,” 61. 77. Salmon Recorder-Herald, May 31, 1973, 1. 78. Salmon Recorder-Herald, May 28, 1953. 79. Salmon Recorder-Herald, May 31, 1973, 1. 80. Bennett, “Village That Once Was,” 97. 81. Baker, “Our Indian Brothers,” 26. 82. Wilson, “Indian Beliefs,” 62. 83. Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 15, 1989, 1. 84. Lowie, “Northern Shoshone”, 227. 85. Wilson, “Indian Beliefs,” 60, 62. 86. Madsen, The Lemhi, 106, 114, 123, 128. 87. “March of Time Ousts Redskins.” 88. Stephens, “Lemhi Indian People,” 108–10. 89. Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 8, 1921, 2. 90. “March of Time Ousts Redskins.” 91. Salmon Recorder-Herald, January 20, 1932, 1; October 5, 1932, 1. 92. Salmon Recorder-Herald, December 7, 1938, 1. 93. Salmon Recorder-Herald, January 26, 1950, 1. 94. Idaho State Education Contract, 1949–50, correspondence since 1946; Idaho State Education Contract, 1951–52, correspondence since 1946; Idaho State Education Contract 1952–53, Box 1827, Classified Files of the Area Education Officer, pao 65. 95. Salmon Recorder-Herald, March 16, 1950, 3. 96. Salmon Recorder-Herald, July 15, 1954, 5.

notes to pages 124--128

223

[223], (33)

Lines: 1048 to ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [223], (33)

97. Bennett, “Village That Once Was”; Kimball, “Tendoy,” 74; “Sims’ Body Found, Rites Set Friday”; “Willie: A Link Has Been Broken”; “ ‘Fanny’s Son,’ ” pt. 5, Salmon Recorder-Herald. 98. Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 25. 99. Nybroten and Sloan, Confidential Report. 100. Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 25. 101. Rose Ann George, for example, a Lemhi who grew up in Salmon, remembered that she spoke no English when she began attending school. “Willie: A Link Has Been Broken.” 102. Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 25. 103. Idaho State Education Contract, 1949–50, correspondence since 1946; Idaho State Education Contract, 1951–52, correspondence since 1946; Idaho State Education Contract, 1952–53, Box 1827, Classified Files of the Area Education Officer, pao 65. 104. Salmon Recorder-Herald, “Indian Miss Gets White House Letter,” June 1, 1961, 1; December 4, 1969, 1;“Salmon Indian Places Second in Utah Event,” November 1, 1969, 6; “Rose Ann George Gains Indian Contest Honors,” November 8, 1973, 1. 105. Nybroten, Economy and Conditions, 25. 106. Salmon Recorder-Herald,“One Hospitalized after Knife Fight at Indian Village,” March 5, 1953, 1; “Arrest of 15-Year-Old Indian Clears Up Mystery of Prowler,” November 17, 1957, 1. 107. Salmon Recorder-Herald, May 9, 1963, 5; July 10, 1969, 12. 108. F. J. Stroud, Sheriff, Lemhi County, to Congressman Compton I. White, March 11, 1938; White to cia, March 17, 1938; cia to White, April 25, 1938, File 16141, Fort Hall ccf 931, na-dc. The Tendoy family’s belief that Chief Tendoy concluded some formalized agreement concerning the usufruct rights of his descendants in the Salmon River country is discussed in chapter 7. 109. “Indians Fill Order for Buckskin Gloves.” 110. Kimball, “ ‘Fanny’s Son,’ ” pts. 1–3, December 29, 1988, 6; January 5, 1989, 6; January 12, 1989, 6. 111. Dawes Memo. 112. Kimball, “Tendoy,” pt. 2, 74. 113. Kimball, “ ‘Fanny’s Son,’ ” pt. 1–5, December 29, 1988, 6; January 5, 1989, 6; January 12, 1989, 6; January 19, 1989, 6; January 26, 1989, 6. 114. Kimball, “ ‘Fanny’s Son,’ ” pts. 4, 5; Snook, Wilson, and Dinnell, “Lemhi Band of the Shoshone Indians,” 53–54.

224

notes to pages 128--133

[224], (34

Lines: 110 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[224], (34

115. Snook, Wilson, and Dinnell, “Lemhi Band of the Shoshone Indians,” 55. 116. “Willie: A Link Has Been Broken.” 117. Lewis and Clark brought a variety of trade goods on the expedition, including combs, beads, knives, axes, shirts, bells and whistles; the Corps of Discovery “was the mercantile and hardware display case for a trade empire on the move.” The Jefferson Peace and Friendship Medallion, featuring a likeness of Jefferson on the front and clasped hands below a crossed peace pipe and axe, was reserved for chiefs or headmen. As Ronda explains, the gifts represented“the fundamental element in Jefferson’s western Indian policy. Trade and diplomacy, commerce and sovereignty were all parts of the engine that drove American expansion and guided the Lewis and Clark expedition.” Ronda, Lewis and Clark among the Indians, 5, 9. 118. Kimball, “ ‘Fanny’s Son,’ ” pts. 4, 5; “Willie George, 83, Dies on Indian Reservation,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, January 7, 1971, 8; Snook, Wilson, and Dinnell, “Lemhi Band of Shoshone Indians,” 55, 56, 59. 119. Kimball, “ ‘Fanny’s Son,’ ” pt. 6. 120. Salmon Recorder-Herald, November 18, 1970, 2. 121. Salmon Recorder-Herald, January 21, 1971, 1. 122. John E. McLaughlin to Bill Johnson, March 11, 1996; Kimball, “ ‘Fanny’s Son,’ ” pt. 1. Lois and Alfred Navo later traveled to Utah to help Miller name and catalog items in the university’s museum. 123. Salmon Recorder-Herald, January 18, 1973, 5; Snook, Wilson, and Dinnell, “Lemhi Shoshone Band of Indians,” 55. 124. “Willie: A Link Has Been Broken.” 125. “Indian Feast Slated,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 18, 1981, 1b. 126. “Salmon River Days Sets New Record,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, July 9, 1981, 1. 127. “Salmon River Days Sets New Record.” 128. Jed Wilson to Marcia Montgomery, July 30, 1996. 129. “Eyesores Exist in Salmon,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, November 17, 1983, 1. 130. Salmon Recorder-Herald, August 22, 1985, 1; March 7, 1991, 3. 131. Salmon Recorder-Herald, July 18, 1985, 3. 132. Salmon Recorder-Herald, July 2, 1987, 2. 133. Salmon Recorder-Herald, December 19, 1991, 10.

notes to pages 133--137

225

[225], (35)

Lines: 1141 to ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [225], (35)

7. the lemhis, salmon, and treaty rights 1. Idaho v. Tinno. 2. Treaty with the Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868 (Fort Bridger Treaty). 3. Idaho v. Tinno, testimony of Jessie Tyler, Cora George, Transcript on Appeal, 74–87, 88–96. 4. For example, both Lewis and Clark and Mormon missionaries noted in their diaries the Lemhi Shoshone practice of using various types of weirs, or traps, to harvest salmon. Moulton, Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 5:136–37; Undeberg,“Lemhi, Mountain Men, and Missionaries,” 14. 5. Thwaites, Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 3:9. 6. The fort was named after a king in the Book of Mormon. The name Lemhi, applied to the valley, its river, and the people that inhabited it, was derived from Limhi. 7. Qtd. from the Salmon Mission River Journal, July 2, 1855, in Undeberg,“Lemhi, Mountain Men, and Missionaries,” 14. These unpublished journals, made available by the Church of Latter-day Saints Historian’s Office, were kept by three missionary clerks, David Moore, B. F. Cummings, and Jacob Miller. 8. Lowie, “Northern Shoshone,” 185–86. 9. Arrington, “The Salmon River Mission,” in History of Idaho, 1:169. 10. Undeberg, “Lemhi, Mountain Men, and Missionaries,” 28–29. 11. Crowder, Tendoy, 37–39; Madsen, The Lemhi, 99; Shoup, History of Lemhi County, 4–5. 12. Madsen, The Lemhi, 65. 13. Madsen, The Lemhi, 74. 14. Madsen, The Lemhi, 79–82. 15. Madsen, The Lemhi, 82–83, 99. 16. Madsen, The Lemhi, 91–98, 109. 17. Madsen, The Lemhi, 130. 18. For evidence of Tay-to-ba’s standing as a Lemhi subchief, see Lemhi Agent John Wright to cia, July 27, 1878, Roll 349; Wright to cia, January 25, 1879, Roll 351, Letters Received, Idaho Superintendency. 19. J. Clinton Peterson to bia Treaty Division, August 20, 1954, File 12563, Box 42, Accession 59a-643, Fort Hall ccf 931, na-dc; Idaho v. Tinno, 46.

226

notes to pages 143--148

[226], (36

Lines: 118 ———

7.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[226], (36

20. Peterson to bia, August 20, 1954. 21. Madsen, The Lemhi, 82–104, 188. 22. Peterson to bia, August 20, 1954; bia to Peterson, September 17, 1954, Fort Hall ccf 931, na-dc. 23. Boise Statesman, August 23, 1954, 2. 24. F. J. Stroud, Lemhi County Sheriff, to Idaho Congressman Compton I. White, March 11, 1938, Fort Hall ccf 931, na-dc. 25. White to cia, March 17, 1938; William Zimmerman Jr., Assistant cia to White, April 25, 1938, Fort Hall ccf 931, na-dc. 26. Petersen, River of Life, 166. 27. Petersen, River of Life, 167. 28. Petersen, River of Life, 11, 107, 166, 168–69. 29. Petersen, River of Life, 168–69. 30. Ulrich, Empty Nets, 159–60. 31. U.S. House, Problems Relative to Land Use, 85–87. 32. Johnson and Stapilus, “Fort Hall,” 9. 33. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, July 15, 1959, fhtbc Minutes, 1959, Box 1556, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. 34. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, April 12, 1960, Annual Report of the Shoshone-Bannock tribes, May 18, 1960, fhtbc Minutes, 1960, Box 1556, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. 35. Shumate editorial, November 6, 1960, File 2974, Box 12, Accession 62a-523, Fort Hall ccf 931, na-dc. 36. Minutes, Bingham County Public Relations Council meeting, November 21, 1960, File 2974, Box 12, Accession 62a-523, Fort Hall ccf 931, na-dc. 37. “Preliminary Investigation of Alleged Game and Fish Abuses in Eastern Idaho,” report, April 5, 1961, File 1505, Box 223, Accession 68a-2045, Fort Hall ccf 931, frc-Suitland. 38. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, August 8, 1961, Box 1556, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58; Correspondence, Box 1531, Desk Files of the Tribal Operations Branch, 1953–67, pao 57; Idaho v. Tinno, testimony of Jessie Tyler, 77–87, Cora George, 88–96, Arthur Tendoy, 140–48. 39. Parker served as Chairman of the Tribal Business Council in late 1957. In making her accusations before the council, Matte noted that“this has been going on for years.”It is not clear whether Parker met with officials while he held this position, or if the meetings

notes to pages 148--155

227

[227], (37)

Lines: 1229 to ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [227], (37)

40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45.

46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51.

52.

53.

54. 55.

228

occurred subsequently. Edward Boyer was chairman at the time the charges were proffered. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, August 18, 1961, Box 1556, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. Idaho v. Tinno, testimony of Cora George, Transcript on Appeal, 95. Ethel Kimball, “Salmon City Takes Name from Fish,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, Diamond Jubilee Edition, 1961, sec. 2, 1. Ethel Kimball, Hook, Liar, and Plinker [regular column], Salmon Recorder-Herald, February 22, 1962, 3. Salmon Recorder-Herald, March 1, 1962, 7. Richardson noted that Kimball made reference to an unnamed Indian who had served in the military and been decorated for service beyond the call of duty. Kimball mentioned an incident in which a “greedy white man” bribed an Indian to slaughter game “for the price of a bottle of cheap wine.” It is likely the individual alluded to by Kimball was Willie George Jr., a Lemhi leader and decorated veteran who was very popular in the area and had a noted drinking problem. Letters to the editor, Salmon Recorder-Herald, March 1, 1962, 2. Kimball, Hook, Liar and Plinker, March 6, 1962, 3. Letters to the editor, Salmon Recorder-Herald, March 6, 1962, 9. Letters to the editor, Salmon Recorder-Herald, March 6, 1962, 9. Kimball, Hook, Liar, and Plinker, March 22, 1962, 7. Minutes, fhtbc regular meeting, December 11, 1962, fh Minutes, 1962–63, Box 1556, Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, pao 58. Charles S. Spencer, Fort Hall Superintendent, to R. D. Holtz, Area Director, Portland, October 8, 1963, fh, Law and Order Code and Ordinance (2 of 2), General Subject Files, 1953–67, Box 1531, Desk Files of the Tribal Operations Branch, pao 57. Statement of Support and Confidence, October 1963, fh, Law and Order Code and Ordinance (2 of 2), General Subject Files, 1953–67, Box 1531, Desk Files of the Tribal Operations Branch, pao 57. Spencer to Holtz, October 8, 1963. Joseph Thorpe Jr., fhtbc Chairman, to Professor Sol Tax, Acting Director, Center for the Study of Man, Smithsonian Institution,

notes to pages 155--160

[228], (38

Lines: 126 ———

13.5pt

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[228], (38

56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62.

63. 64.

65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70.

71. 72. 73.

74.

November 13, 1968, 060, Tribal Relations, General, Fort Hall, 1965– 68, Box 1531, Desk Files of the Tribal Operations Branch, pao 57. Salmon Recorder-Herald, October 3, 1963, 1. Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 24, 1964, 7. Salmon Recorder-Herald, August 5, 1965, 1. Salmon Recorder-Herald, August 12, 1965, 1; August 26, 1965, 1; September 9, 1965, 1; September 23, 1965, 1; October 14, 1965, 1. Salmon Recorder-Herald, June 6, 1968, 1. Mazurek, American Indian Law Deskbook, 242. Reservation cattle herds declined as a result of Public Law 281, passed in 1953, which removed bia restrictions on the sale of Indian livestock. [229], (39) Thorpe to Tax, November 13, 1968. Joseph Hearst, Dean, College of Liberal Arts, Idaho State UniLines: 1303 to versity, to Professor Sol Tax, November 13, 1968, Tribal Relations, ——— General, Fort Hall, 1965–68, Box 1531, Desk Files of the Tribal Op13.5pt PgV erations Branch, pao 57. ——— Idaho v. Tinno, Clerk’s Transcript on Appeal. Normal Page Idaho v. Tinno, testimony of Dr. Sven Liljeblad, Transcript on Ap- * PgEnds: Eject peal, 8–12. Mazurek, American Indian Law Deskbook, 232. [229], (39) Idaho v. Tinno, testimony of Dr. Sven Liljeblad, Transcript on Appeal, 12. Idaho v. Tinno, 36, italics added. Frequently, treaties describe lands ceded by a tribe, which often serve as boundaries for reserved hunting and fishing rights. In cases like Fort Bridger where geographic boundaries are not specified, however, the court may determine the extent of reserved rights of tribes based on the lands that they exclusively used and occupied historically. Mazurek, American Indian Law Deskbook, 241. Idaho v. Tinno, testimony of Dr. Sven Liljeblad, Transcript on Appeal, 39–70. Idaho v. Tinno, testimony of Arthur Tendoy, 142–150. Idaho v. Tinno, testimony of Jessie Tyler, 73–88, Cora George, 89– 100, Arthur Tendoy, 140–46, Dasso Nappo, 169–73, Gerald Tinno, 176–181. Idaho v. Tinno, testimony of Dr. Early Swanson, 104–26.

notes to pages 160--166

229

75. Idaho v. Tinno, Memorandum Opinion, 27. 76. Idaho v. Tinno, 32. 77. Justice McFadden delivered the opinion, with McQuade, Justice Donaldson, and District Judge Maynard concurring. Justice Shephard concurred but dissented in part, taking exception with the majority’s opinion that state fishing regulations are inapplicable to Indians. Shephard allowed that “Indians possess broader authority to take fish and game than do non-Indians,” but he nonetheless maintained that “the state possesses authority to regulate its fish and game resources for the purpose of reasonable conservation of that resource to the end that those who follow after us may similarly enjoy those resources.” Idaho v. Tinno, 1, 12–14. [230], (40 78. Idaho v. Tinno, 9–11. 79. Ulrich, Empty Nets, 130, 147. Lines: 134 80. Ulrich, Empty Nets, 147–48, 150, 161. ——— 81. Johnson and Stapilus, “Fort Hall,” 8. 13.5pt 82. “Efforts to Save Fish in Lemhi Underway,” May 5, 1977, 1; “Trapping ——— Begins to Save Runs,” May 13, 1977, 1, Salmon Recorder-Herald. Normal P 83. “Chinook Salmon Run Faces Problems,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, * PgEnds: E June 23, 1977, 1. 84. “Chinook Salmon Run Faces Problems.” [230], (40 85. “Indian Fishery Closed in Upper Salmon Areas,” Salmon RecorderHerald, July 14, 1977, 7. 86. “Tribal Council Refuses to Recognize State Act,” Salmon RecorderHerald, July 21, 1977, 5. 87. Johnson and Stapilus, “Fort Hall,” 8–9. 88. Johnson and Stapilus, “Fort Hall,” 8–9. 89. Johnson and Stapilus, “Fort Hall,” 9. 90. Ulrich, Empty Nets, 151. 91. Salmon Recorder-Herald, April 11, 1985, 7. 92. Petersen, River of Life, 193–94; “Fish Symposium Held.” 93. Petersen, River of Life, 194–95;“Agencies, Tribes, Work to Save Sockeye Run,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, May 30, 1991, 14; “Fish Symposium Held.” 94. “Agencies, Tribes, Work to Save Sockeye Run”; “Fish Symposium Held.” 95. Qtd. in Petersen, River of Life, 196.

230

notes to pages 167--175

96. Qtd. in Petersen, River of Life, 198–99. 97. Qtd. in Petersen, River of Life, 173, 199–200, 207, 247–48; “Fish Symposium Held.” 98. Ulrich, Empty Nets, 232. 99. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, “Sockeye Migration Biggest This Century.” 100. Lowie, “Northern Shoshone,” 218. 101. Lowie, “Northern Shoshone,” 275, 278. 8. sacajawea’s people

1. Rosenthal, “Indian Claims and the American Conscience,” 57. [231], (41) 2. Tim Egan, “Seeking Land for Tribe of Girl Who Helped Lewis and Clark,” New York Times, October 26, 1999, a1; Peter Sleeth, “Riding Lines: 1394 to Back on Sacajawea’s Legend,” Portland Oregonian, July 23, 2000, a1. ——— 3. Ted McDonough, “Research May Lead to Formal Tribal Recogni- * 20.5pt PgV ——— tion,” Moscow (id)–Pullman (wa) Daily News, May 21, 1999, 1a. Normal Page 4. Hurtado, “Public History and the Native American,” 64. PgEnds: TEX 5. Of the thirty petitions, nine were recognized and thirteen denied through the acknowledgment process, one was denied since bar [231], (41) determined that the petitioners were part of a recognized tribe, four were recognized or restored through legislative action, one merged with another petitioner, and two had their status clarified at the request of the Interior Department. Nagel, American Indian Ethnic Renewal, 242, 252n. 6. Association on American Indian Affairs, “Federal Acknowledgment Regulations.” 7. Sean Murphy, “Decisions on Status of Tribes Draws Fire”; see also New York Times Magazine, November 24, 2002, 35–38. 8. McDonough, “Research May Lead to Formal Tribal Recognition,” 10a. The Lemhi Shoshone Web site can be found at http://www.lem hishoshone.com. 9. “blm May Accommodate Lemhi Tribe’s Wish for a Home,” Lewiston (id) Morning Tribune, May 29, 1997, 1. 10. “Tribes Applaud Unveiling of Sacajawea Coin,” Moscow-Pullman Daily News, May 5, 1999, 1.

notes to pages 175--184

231

11. McDonough, “Research May Lead to Formal Tribal Recognition,” 1a. 12. Katherine Pfleger, “Clark Promoted to Captain,” Spokane Spokesman-Review, January 19, 2001, b3. 13. See New York Times, October 26, 1999, a1. 14. Egan, “Seeking Land for Tribe,” a18. 15. Egan, “Seeking Land for Tribe,” a18; Sleeth, “Riding Back on Sacajawea’s Legend,” a30. 16. Sleeth, “Riding Back on Sacajawea’s Legend,” a30. 17. Egan, “Seeking Land for Tribe,” a18. 18. Lemhi Rozina George disputes Cyd Crue’s claim that her child is a Lemhi. Rozina George, “Changes made in the manuscript ‘Re[232], (42 turning to the River of No Return,’ ”correspondence in the author’s possession. Lines: 144 19. Cyd Crue to editor, Salmon Recorder-Herald, July 29, 1999, August 5, 1999. ——— 20. “Savage Logo Considered a Negative Stereotype,” Salmon Recorder0.0pt P ——— Herald, July 29, 1999. Normal P 21. Larry Sloan, letter to the editor, Salmon Recorder-Herald, August * PgEnds: E 12, 1999. 22. Crue was staying with Lemhi Rose Anne Abrahamson. Crue and Abrahamson met at a powwow in Illinois while Abrahamson was [232], (42 attending the University of Chicago in 1998–99. Rozina George, “Changes made in the manuscript ‘Returning to the River of No Return,’ ” correspondence in the author’s possession. 23. Crue, letter to the editor, Salmon Recorder-Herald, August 5, 1999. 24. Crue, letter to the editor. 25. Sleeth, “Riding Back on Sacajawea’s Legend,” a30; “Coalition and Sho-Ban Students Scheduled for Racial Mascot Discussion,” Salmon Recorder-Herald, November 11, 1999. 26. “Fort Hall Tribal Council Does Not Support National Coalition,” Salmon Recorder-Herald December 2, 1999; “Sanders, Weiser: Words Misconstrued by Shumate,” Sho-Ban News, December 16, 1999. 27. Sleeth, “Riding Back on Sacajawea’s Legend.” 28. Sleeth, “Riding Back on Sacajawea’s Legend.” 29. Egan, “Seeking Land for Tribe,” a18. 30. Egan, “Seeking Land for Tribe,” a18.

232

notes to pages 184--188

31. 32. 33. 34.

Sleeth, “Riding Back on Sacajawea’s Legend,” a30. Egan, “Seeking Land for Tribe,” a18. Egan, “Seeking Land for Tribe,” a18. Salmon Recorder-Herald, “Sacajawea Dedication Program Set Saturday,” October 8, 2001, 6; “New Culture Center Ground Blessing Draws Large Crowd,” October 22, 2001, 1.

[233], (43)

Lines: 1483 to ———

*

429.45901p

——— Normal Page * PgEnds: PageB [233], (43)

notes to pages 188--190

233

[234], (44

Lines: 149 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[234], (44

Bibliography manuscript and archival materials Bruce, Commissioner Louis R. Office Files, 1969–72. Records of the Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (hereafter bia Records). Record Group (rg) 75. National Archives (hereafter na), Washington dc. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Finance Division, Annuity Payment Rolls, 1841–1949. bia Records. rg 75. na, Washington dc. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho (hereafter biafh). bia Records, rg 75. Claims, Individual Indian Monies, Realty, Resolutions. Classified Files of the Area Education Officer, 1934–64 (pao 65). Portland Area Office Records Relating to Tribal Government Services. bia Records. rg 75. na, Pacific Northwest Region, Seattle wa (hereafter pnr-Seattle). Desk Files of the Tribal Operations Branch, 1953–67 (pao 57). Portland Area Office Records Relating to Tribal Government Services. bia Records. rg 75. na, pnr-Seattle. Fort Hall Central Classified Files (ccf), 1907–71. bia Records. rg 75. na, Washington dc. Fort Hall Central Classified Files (ccf), 1960–71. bia Records. rg 75. na, Federal Records Center, Suitland md (hereafter frc-Suitland). Fort Hall Decimal Files, 1912–65. bia Records. rg 75. na, pnr-Seattle. Fort Hall Vertical File, Library and Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Idaho Superintendency. bia Records. rg 75. m-234 (microfilm). na, Washington dc. Indian Claims Commission (icc) Records (rg 279), Annual Records, Opinions, Findings of Fact and Orders, 1948–78. Closed Docketed Case Files, 1947–82. na, Washington dc. Lemhi County History Committee. Centennial History of Lemhi

235

[First Page] [235], (1)

Lines: 0 to 78 ———

13.25pt Pg ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [235], (1)

County, Idaho, vol. 1, 1992. Archives and Special Collections. University of Idaho Library, Moscow. Liljeblad, Sven. “Indian Peoples of Idaho,” 1957. Special Collections, Eli M. Oboler Library, Idaho State University, Pocatello. Liljeblad, Sven, to Sen. Henry Dworshak, April 21, 1961, Archives and Special Collections, University of Idaho Library, University of Idaho, Moscow. McLaughlin, John E., Utah State University, to Bill Johnson, Washington State University (containing Wick Miller field notes, 1972), March 11, 1996. Public History Office, Department of History, Washington State University, Pullman.

[236], (2)

Narrative and Statistical Reports, Fort Hall. bia Records. rg 75. m-1011 (microfilm). na, Washington dc. Rees, John E. Collection. ms 21. Library and Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Salmon Public Library, Salmon id. Vertical File. Idaho History Lemhi County; Native Americans, Lemhi Shoshone. Skinner, Mary Lou. Collection. mc 041. Special Collections, Eli M. Oboler Library, Idaho State University, Pocatello id. Stewart, Omer. Collection. ms 534, Library and Archives, Idaho State Historical Society, Boise. Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, 1946–65 (pao 58). Portland Area Office Records Relating to Tribal Government Services. bia Records. rg 75. na, pnr-Seattle. Vertical File 1027. Indians, Idaho. Archives and Special Collections. University of Idaho Library, Moscow. Wilson, Jed, Hyrum ut, to Marcia Montgomery, Washington State University, July 30, 1996. Public History Office, Department of History, Washington State University, Pullman. government documents and court case Indian Claims Commission Act. U.S. Statutes at Large 60 (August 13, 1946): 1049–56. Public Law 92–442. U.S. Statutes at Large 86 (September 29, 1972):

236

bibliography

Lines: 78 ———

8.5pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[236], (2)

743–44 (transferring Lemhi icc settlement award to the ShoshoneBannock Tribes, Fort Hall id). State of Idaho v. Gerald Tinno, 94 Idaho 759, 497 P.2d 1386 (1972). Treaty with Eastern Band Shoshoni and Bannock, 1868 (Fort Bridger Treaty). U.S. Statutes at Large 15 (1868) 673. Treaty with the Shoshones, Bannacks, and Sheepeaters of Idaho, September 24, 1868 (Virginia City Treaty). Documents Relating to the Negotiation of Ratified and Unratified Treaties 1801–69, t494 (r10). rg 75, na, Washington dc. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Problems Relative to Land Use and Economic Conditions on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation, Idaho: Hearings before a Special Indian Subcommittee. 85th Cong., 1st sess., October 15–16, 1957. ———. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Report with Respect to the House Resolution Authorizing the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to Conduct an Investigation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., December 15, 1952, H. Rpt. 2503. ———. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Report with Respect to the House Resolution Authorizing the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to Conduct an Investigation of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., September 24, 1954, H. Rpt. 2630. ———. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 59th Cong., 1st sess., 1905, H. Doc. 5, serial 4959. ———. Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 60th Cong., 1st sess., 1907, H. Doc. 5, serial 5296. U.S. Indian Claims Commission. Annual Report, 1968. Washington dc: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. U.S. Indian Claims Commission. Final Report, August 13, 1946–September 30, 1978. Washington dc: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1978. published works Ambrose, Stephen. Undaunted Courage: Meriwether Lewis, Thomas Jefferson, and the Opening of the American West. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1996.

bibliography

237

[237], (3)

Lines: 134 to 1 ———

15.0pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [237], (3)

Arrington, Leonard J. History of Idaho. 2 vols. Moscow: University of Idaho Press, 1994. Association on American Indian Affairs. “Federal Acknowledgment Regulations,”http://www.indian-affairs.org/regulations.cfm (accessed December 2, 2001). Barker, Pat, and Cynthia Pinto, “Legal and Ethical Implications of the Numic Expansion.” In Madsen and Rhode, Across the West, 16–19. Bennett, Susie. “The Village That Once Was.” In Patchwork: Pieces of Local History. Salmon id Salmon High School, 1989. Bettinger, Robert L. “How, When, and Why the Numic Spread.” In Madsen and Rhode, Across the West, 44–55.

[238], (4)

———, and Baumhauf, Martin A. “The Numic Spread: Great Basin Cultures in Competition.” American Antiquity 47 (1982): 485–503.

Lines: 186

Boone, Lalia. Idaho Place Names: A Geographical Dictionary. Moscow: * University of Idaho Press, 1988.

28.5pt

———

Burt, Larry W. Tribalism in Crisis: Federal Indian Policy, 1953–1961. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1982.

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

Campbell, Greg. “The Lemhi Shoshoni: Ethnogenesis, Sociological Transformation, and the Construction of a Tribal Nation.” American Indian Quarterly 25 (2001): 539–78.

[238], (4)

Champagne, Duane. “Change, Destruction, and Renewal of Native American Cultures at the End of the Twentieth Century.” In Contemporary Native American Cultural Issues, ed. Duane Champagne, 7–10. Walnut Creek ca: Altamira Press, 1999. Clemmer, Richard O., L. Daniel Myers, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, eds. Julian Steward and the Great Basin: The Making of an Anthropologist. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1999. Craighead, John, and Craighead, Frank Jr. “White-water Adventure on Wild Rivers of Idaho.” National Geographic 137 (February 1970): 213–39. Cronon, William, George Miles, and Jay Gitlin, eds. Under an Open Sky: Rethinking America’s Western Past. New York: W. W. Norton and Co., 1992.

238

bibliography

Crowder, David L. “Nineteenth-Century Indian-White Conflicts in Southern Idaho.” Idaho Yesterdays 23 (Summer 1979): 13–18. ———. Tendoy: Chief of the Lemhis. Caldwell id: Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1969. Deloria, Vine Jr. God Is Red: A Native View of Religion. Golden co: Fulcrum Publishing, 1994. DeVoto, Bernard, ed. The Journals of Lewis and Clark. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997. Fay, George, ed.“Charters, Constitutions and By-Laws of Indian Tribes of North America, part XII.” In Occasional Publications in Anthropology, Ethnology Series, no. 13. Greeley: University of Northern Colorado, 1971.

[239], (5)

Fixico, Donald L. Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1986.

Lines: 240 to 2

Fogelson, Raymond D. “Perspectives on Native American Identity.” In Studying Native America: Problems and Prospects, ed. Russell Thornton, 40–59. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1998. George, Rozina. “Agaidika (Lemhi) Shoshone Perspective on Sacajawea.” Sho-Ban News 26, no. 33 (2002): 5. Grayson, Donald K. “Chronology, Glottochronology, and Numic Expansion.” In Madsen and Rhode, Across the West, 20–23. Green, Roberta. “People of the Lemhi.” Ruralite 25 (January 1978): 18–19. Hagan, William T. “Full Blood, Mixed Blood, Generic, and Ersatz: The Problem of Indian Identity.” Arizona and the West 27 (Winter 1985): 309–26. Holder, Preston. “Social Stratification among the Arikara.” Ethnohistory 5 (Summer 1958): 210. Holmer, Richard. “In Search of the Ancestral Shoshone.” In Madsen and Rhode, Across the West, 179–87. Hoxie, Frederick, ed. Encyclopedia of North American Indians. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1996. Hultkrantz, Ake. “The Shoshones in the Rocky Mountain Area.” In

bibliography

239

———

*

22.0pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [239], (5)

American Indian Ethnohistory: California and Basin Plateau Indians, ed. David Agee Horr, 173–214. New York: Garland Publishing, 1974. Hurtado, Albert L. “Public History and the Native American.” Montana The Magazine of Western History 40 (Spring 1990): 58–69. Idaho Department of Fish and Game.“Sockeye Migration Biggest This Century.” Press release, May 29, 1998, http://www.cyberlearn.com/ wwwboard/messages/5.htm (accessed November 23, 2001). Johnson, O. K., and Randy Stapilus, “Fort Hall: A State of Transition, 1868–1979.” Idaho State Journal (Pocatello), August 5, 1979, special insert. Josephy, Alvin M. The Nez Perce Indians and the Opening of the Northwest. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997.

[240], (6)

Karamanski, Theodore ed. Ethics and Public History: An Anthology. Melbourne fl: Krieger Publishing, 1990.

Lines: 296

——— * 28.5pt Kimball, Ethel. “The River of No Return.” Real West 12 (June 1969): ——— 32–34, 54–57, 70. Normal P ———. “Tendoy: The Indian Chief Who Fought for Peace.” Pts. 1 and PgEnds: T 2. Real West 12 (March 1969): 16–18, 74–75; 12 (April 1969): 44–46, 68, 74. [240], (6)

Laidlaw, Sally Jean. “Federal Indian Land Policy and the Fort Hall Indians.” Occasional Papers of the Idaho State College Museum, no. 3 (1960). Lamb, Sydney. “Linguistic Prehistory of the Great Basin.” In International Journal of American Linguistics 24 (1958): 95–100. Library of American Indian Affairs, Ethnographic Guide to the Indian Claims Commission: Research on American Indian Law, History, and Anthropology. New York: Clearwater Publishing Co., 1975. Limerick, Patricia Nelson, Clyde A. Milner, and Charles E. Rankin, eds. Trails: Toward a New Western History. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1991. Lowie, Robert H.“The Northern Shoshone.” In Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History, 2:169–307. New York: Museum of Natural History, 1909.

240

bibliography

Madsen, Brigham D. The Lemhi: Sacajawea’s People. Caldwell id: Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1990. ———. The Northern Shoshoni. Caldwell id: Caxton Printers, Ltd., 1980. Madsen, David B. “Mesa Verde and Sleeping Ute Mountain: The Geographical and Chronological Dimensions of the Numic Expansion.” In Madsen and Rhode, Across the West, 24–34. ———, and David Rhode, eds. Across the West: Human Population Movement and the Expansion of the Numa. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press, 1994. Mann, John W. W. “Returning to the River of No Return: The Lemhi Indian People and The Salmon River Country, Idaho, 1945–1972.”Master’s thesis, Washington State University, 1997. Mazurek, Joseph P., ed. American Indian Law Deskbook. Niwot: University Press of Colorado, 1998.

[241], (7)

Lines: 348 to 3 ———

15.0pt PgV

McBeth, Sally. “Memory, History, and Contested Pasts: Reimagining Sacajawea/Sacagawea.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 27 (2003): 1–32.

——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX

———. “Sacagawea.” In Hoxie, Encyclopedia of North American Indians, 562–63.

[241], (7)

Montgomery, Marcia B. “The Struggle to Retain Tribal Identity: The Lemhi Indian People of Idaho, 1907–1929.”Master’s thesis,Washington State University, 1996. Mooney, Chris. “Undaunted Coinage.” Lingua Franca, March 2000, 10–12. Moulton, Gary E., ed. The Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, vol. 5. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1988. Murphy, Robert R., and Murphy, Yolanda. “Northern Shoshone and Bannock.”In Handbook of North American Indians, Great Basin. Washington dc: Smithsonian Institution, 1986. Murphy, Sean. “Decisions on Status of Tribes Draws Fire.” Boston Globe, March 27, 2001. http://www.boston.com/globe/nation/pack ages/gaming/Decisions on status 032701.htm (accessed December 3, 2001).

bibliography

241

Murray, Larry G. “Shoshone.” In Hoxie, Encyclopedia of North American Indians, 586–89. Nagel, Joane. American Indian Ethnic Renewal. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Novick, Peter. That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profession. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Nybroten, Norman, ed. Economy and Conditions of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation. Moscow: University of Idaho, 1964. ———, and W. Sloan. A Confidential Report on Observations Basic to Planning and Development of Salmon and Lemhi County. Moscow id: University of Idaho Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 1970.

[242], (8)

Parman, Donald. Indians and the American West in the Twentieth Century. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1994.

Lines: 398

Petersen, Keith C. River of Life, Channel of Death: Fish and Dams on the Lower Snake. Lewiston id: Confluence Press, 1995.

1.5pt P

Prucha, Francis Paul. The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians. 2 vols. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. Quinn, William Jr. “Public Ethnohistory? Or, Writing Tribal Histories at the Bureau of Indian Affairs.” Public Historian 10 (Spring 1988): 71–77. Rees, John E. Idaho Chronology, Nomenclature, Bibliography. Chicago: W. B. Conkey Company, 1918. Rhode, David, and David B. Madsen. “Where Are We?” In Madsen and Rhode, Across the West, 213–21. Rider, David B. “Sacajawea: Slave on a Dollar.” The People’s Paths Home Page, March 9, 2000. http://www.yvwiiusdinvnohii.net/News 2000/0300/Drider0000308SacajaweaDollar.htm (accessed May 22, 2001). Ronaasen, Sheree, Richard O. Clemmer, and Mary Elizabeth Rudden, “Rethinking Cultural Ecology, Multilinear Evolution, and Expert Witnesses: Julian Steward and the Indian Claims Commission Proceedings.” In Clemmer, Myers, and Rudden, Julian Steward and the Great Basin, 170–202.

242

bibliography

———

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[242], (8)

Ronda, James P. Lewis and Clark among the Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1984. Rosen, Lawrence. “The Anthropologist as Expert Witness.” American Anthropologist 79 (September 1977): 555–74. Rosenthal, Harvey D. “Indian Claims and the American Conscience.” In Sutton, Irredeemable America, 35–70. ———. Their Day in Court: A History of the Indian Claims Commission. New York: Garland Publishing, 1990. Ross, Norman A., ed. Index to the Decisions of the Indian Claims Commission. New York: Clearwater Publishing Company, 1976. Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown. A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986.

[243], (9)

Sheldon, Philip J., and John C. Reed. “Idaho’s River of No Return.” National Geographic 70 (June 1936): 94–136.

Lines: 450 to 5

Shoup, George E. History of Lemhi County. Boise: Idaho State Library, 1969. (Salmon Recorder-Herald, May 8–October 23, 1940.)

8.5pt PgVa

Snook, Fred, Jed Wilson, and Teri Wilson Dinnell. “The Lemhi Band of the Shoshone Indians.” In Centennial History of Lemhi County, Idaho: 1:50–59. Salmon id: Lemhi County History Committee, 1992. Stephens, Shirley A. “The Lemhi Indian People of Idaho: Removal from the Salmon River Country to Fort Hall, 1880–1907.” Master’s thesis, Washington State University, 1996. Steward, Julian H. Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups. Washington dc: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1938. ———. “Native Cultures of the Intermontane (Great Basin) Area.” In Essays in Historical Anthropology of North America, Published in Honor of John R. Swanton, 445–502. Washington dc: Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections, no. 100 (1940). Stewart, Omer C. “An Expert Witness Answers Rosen.” American Anthropologist 81 (March 1979): 108–10. ———. “The Shoshone Claims Cases.” In Sutton, Irredeemable America, 195–96. ———. “The Shoshone: Their History and Social Organization.” Idaho Yesterdays 9 (Fall 1965): 2–5.

bibliography

243

———

——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [243], (9)

———. “Tribal Distributions and Boundaries in the Great Basin.” In The Current Status of Anthropological Research in the Great Basin: 1964, ed. Warren L. d’Azevedo et al., 167–237. Reno: Desert Research Institute, 1966. Studebaker, William. “Lemhi-Shoshone: Way of the Guardian Spirit,” Idaho Arts Journal 5, no. 3 (August 1988) (Vertical File, Idaho History, Native Americans, Lemhi Shoshone, Salmon Public Library, Salmon id). Sutton, Imre, ed. Irredeemable America: The Indians’ Estate and Land Claims. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press and the Institute for Native American Studies, 1985.

[244], (10

Sutton, Mark Q., and David Rhode. “Background to the Numic Problem.” In Madsen and Rhode, Across the West, 6–15.

Lines: 510 Svingen, Orlan J., ed. “Sacajawea’s People: Lemhi Tribe Recogni——— tion Project.” Fort Lemhi Indian Community Legal-Political Report * 18.25pt (Draft). Department of History, Washington State University, Pull——— man, 1997. Normal P PgEnds: T Talbot, Margaret. “Searching for Sacagawea.” National Geographic 203 (February 2003): 68–85.

Thomasma, Kenneth. The Truth about Sacajawea. Jackson wy: Grandview Publishing Company, 1997. Thwaites, Rueben Gold, ed. Original Journals of the Lewis and Clark Expedition, 1804–1806. 8 vols. New York: Antiquarian Press, 1959. Trenholm,Virginia Cole, and Maurine Carley. The Shoshonis: Sentinels of the Rockies. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1964. Tuller, Cheyenne. “Indian Reorganization Act Years: Shoshone-Bannock Organization, Lemhi Exclusion, and the Fight for Lemhi Annuities, 1930–1945.” In Svingen, “Sacajawea’s People.” Turner, Frederick Jackson. “The Significance of the Frontier in American History.” In Frederick Jackson Turner: Wisconsin’s Historian of the Frontier, ed. Martin Ridge, 26–47. Madison: State Historical Society of Wisconsin, 1993. Ulrich, Roberta. Empty Nets: Indians, Dams, and the Columbia River. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 1999.

244

bibliography

[244], (10

Undeberg, Krista. “The Lemhi, Mountain Men, and Missionaries: Increasing Contact, 1850–1863.” In Svingen, “Sacajawea’s People,” 1–37. Walker, Deward E. Jr. “A Revisionist View of Julian Steward and the Great Basin Paradigm from the North.” In Clemmer, Myers, and Rudden, Julian Steward and the Great Basin, 61–73. Wilson, Jed. “Indian Beliefs, Medicines, and Foods.” In Centennial History of Lemhi County, Idaho, 1:60–63. Salmon id: Lemhi County History Committee, 1992. Worster, Donald. “Beyond the Agrarian Myth.” In Trails: Toward a New Western History, ed. Patricia Nelson Limerick, Clyde A. Milner, and Charles E. Rankin, 3–25. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas, 1991. Wunder, John R. “Retained by the People”: A History of the American Indian and the Bill of Rights. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994.

[245], (11)

Lines: 560 to 5

——— Zimmerman, Larry J. “Archeology, Reburial, and the Tactics of a Dis* 234.45901p cipline’s Self Delusion.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal ——— 16 (1992): 37–56. Normal Page Zimmerman, William. “The Fort Hall Story: An Interpretation.” Phil- * PgEnds: PageB adelphia: Indian Rights Association, 1959. [245], (11)

bibliography

245

[246], (12

Lines: 583 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[246], (12

Index

[First Page] [247], (1) Page references in italics indicate illustrations Abrahamson, Rose Ann: activities for Lemhi recognition by, 119, 133, 135–36, 182, 184, 187, 189 Agaidikas, 11, 12, 25 Agency Creek, 35 Alcatraz Island: aim occupation of, 94 alcohol: ban of, on reservations, 64; impact of, on Lemhi Shoshones, 41, 124, 130, 135 “Amazing Indian Children,” xviii American Anthropological Association, 73 American Anthropologist, 209–10n50 American Indian Civil Liberties Trust, 89 American Indian Ethnic Renewal (Nagel), xxi American Indian Movement (aim), 94 American Indians: scholarly studies of identity of, xx; service in World War II by, 62, 133 Anderson, Clinton P., 92 Andrews, Lee, 101, 103, 217n69 Archeological Resources Protection Act, 6 Ariwite, Benjamin, 44, 46, 134 Ariwite, Bertha, 116 Ariwite, Hattie Honena, 134 Ariwite, Irene, 130 Ariwite, Rod: community activities for Lemhi recognition by, x–xi, xviii, 179, 184, 189; Lemhi childhood in Salmon of, 182–83, 187, 188

Aschemeier, Wesley, 40–41 Atsina: raids on Lemhi Shoshones by, 17 Augur, Christopher, 28, 143, 164

Lines: 0 to 127 ———

Baird, Dale, 163 Baker, Dorothy Pyeatt, 112 Ball, Ed, 147 Balsam, Louis, 51 Bannack, Montana, 25, 26 Bannock Indians: Fort Bridger Treaty reservation for, 28; in Fort Hall Indian Reservation population, 13, 28, 34, 74–75; impact of Mormon missionaries on, 25; language of, 163–64; role of, in Lemhi Shoshone ethnogenesis, 11, 179 Bannock John, 33 Bannock War, 29, 31, 31, 33, 147, 148–49, 179 Barker, Pat, 6 Barker, Robert: as legal advisor for Lemhi icc claims, 54, 55, 69, 70–71, 74, 75, 79–81, 86, 88, 91–93, 95–96, 99, 101–5, 208n41 Basin-Plateau Aboriginal Sociopolitical Groups (Steward), 10 “Basinist” model of Numic expansion, 4 Baumhoff, Martin A., 4 Bear, Lee, 96 Bear Lake, 148 Beaverhead Range, 1, 3, 20, 21, 30, 32 Beaverhead River, 17, 18 Beebe, Arnold T., 163, 167

247

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [247], (1)

Belloni, Robert C., 168–69, 173 Bennett, James, 163 Bettinger, Robert L., 4 bitterroot gathering, 124–25, 223n76 Bitterroot Range, 1, 3 Bitterroot River, 21 Bitterroot Valley, 19, 20, 22, 24 Bjorn, Ted, 161 Blackfeet tribe: competition for buffalo by, 13; raids on the Lemhi Shoshones by, 18, 20 Blackfoot id, 95, 135, 163 Black Hair, 35 Blue, Brantley, 102, 103 Blue Lake nm, 92, 97 Boise, Ed, 50 Boise (ID) Statesman, 149 Boldt, George, 168–69, 173 Bonneville Dam, 152 Bonneville Power Administration (bpa), 175 Borah Peak, 1, 3 Bowen, Reed, 89, 98 Boyden, John, 54, 68, 69, 83–84 Boyer, Edward, 67, 79, 88–89, 94, 99, 101 Boyer, LaNada, 94, 100, 215n39 Brady, Stephanie, 120–21 Branch of Acknowledgment and Recognition (bar), ix, xvii, 183 “Broken Moccasins,” 12 Broncho, Wilford, 55, 56 Brooklyn School (Salmon id), 111, 113 Brophy, William, 61 Bruce, Louis, 90 Buckskin, Alvin, 97, 98, 100 Buffalo Bill Cody’s Wild West Show, 127, 134 Buffaloeaters (Kucundikas), 11, 13, 179 Buffalo Horn, 33 Buffalo Lodge, 44, 46, 96, 105 Bureau of Indian Affairs (bia): Branch of Acknowledgment and Recognition (bar), ix, xviii, 183; Branch of Credit and Financing, 83, 86; census of Lemhi Shoshones by, xxi–xxii, 51–57; criteria for defining an Indian tribe by, xvi–xvii; distribution of the Lemhi Tribe annuities by, 51–57, 70, 76–77, 82, 180; funds for tribe appraisals in, 80–81; involvement of, in

248

index

protection Tendoy Cemetery site, 119– 21; opposition to Resolution 211 by, 56–57; role and place in termination of, 61, 64, 65; socioeconomic study of Fort Hall Indian Reservation by, 66; and view of the Fort Hall Indian people as a group, 40, 180 Bureau of Land Management (blm), 107, 118, 119–20, 184, 185 Bush, George W.: federal recognition of tribes by, 183 Butterfield, Angela, 99 Cache Valley, 148 Caldwell, A. F., 40 camas gathering, 31, 125 Camas Prairie, 31, 31, 125 Cameahwait: as brother of Sacajawea, xviii, 18–19, 184; descendants of, xi, 189; as leader of the Lemhi Shoshones, 17–18, 19–20, 109, 218–19n1 Campbell, Greg: on the ethnogenesis of Lemhi Shoshones, xx, xxi, 11, 12, 183; on the impact of Mormon missionaries, 24 Camp Fortunate, 19, 21 Carl, Fred, 128 Carson National Forest, 92 Cavaness, R. B., 115 Chaffin, Tom, 188 Challis id, 123 chaparral bush: medicinal use of, 125 Charbonneau, Jean Baptiste, 198n2 Charbonneau, Toussaint, 16, 19 Chief Joseph, 149 Church, Frank, 102 Church of Latter-day Saints, 22 Clark, William, 15, 184, 189 Clearwater River, 20, 21 Clinton, Hilary, 184 Clinton, Bill: federal recognition of tribes by, 183, 184 Code of Federal Regulations, recognition of Indians by, xvi, xvii, 192n7 Collier, John, 60, 62 Colorado Plateau: Numic expansion into, 4 Columbia River: Corps of Discovery route to, 20; Lemhi Shoshone fishing

[248], (2)

Lines: 127 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[248], (2)

rights on tributaries of, 150, 151, 152, 160, 161, 169, 172, 175 Comanches: horses traded from, 13 Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 65, 66 communism: threat of, 61 Compton, Tom, 49 Conley, Jerry, 173 Cook, Thomas E., 100–101 Cordon, Alfred, 48 Corps of Discovery: arrival at Lemhi Valley of, xv, xviii, xxi, 15–16, 137, 189; navigating the Salmon River canyon by, 1; observations of Lemhi fishing practices by, 144 The Covered Wagon, 127 Coyote: as liberator of salmon, 177–78; in Northern Shoshone mythology, 7–9 Cragun, John, 53 creation narratives, 6–9 Crowder, David, xviii Crow tribe: competition for buffalo by, 13; government reservation for, 30 Crue, Cyd, 185–87 Dalles Dam, 152 Dann, Emma Pohipe, 137 Davis, B. W., 71 Davis, John, 119–20 Dawes, James, 115–16, 117, 122, 124, 131–32 “Days of Old Fort Hall Indian Celebration,” 59 Dell, Idaho, 114 Desert Culture, 5, 11 Diehl, E. J., 51 Dit-a-conitivo, 132 Division of Indian Health (dih), 115–16 domestic abuse, 130 Donicht, Candice, 186 Doty, James, 27, 63, 77 Doty groups: claims of, 63, 75 Doty treaties, 27, 148, 200n45 Droge, Dr., 116 Drouillard, George, 18 Dubois, Fred, 34, 35 Dubois id, 31, 31, 125 Duclos, August, 36 Dunlap, Tull, 131 Duwamish tribe, 183 Dzoavits, 7

Eastern Shoshones, 28 East Fork River, 154 Eccleston, A. J. S., 51–52 Echohawk, John, 103 Economy and Conditions of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation (Nybroten, ed.), 66, 116 Edmo, Kesley: as member of the Tribal Business Council of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall, 49, 82, 87, 93, 96, 98, 99–100, 101, 172, 173 Edmo, Laura, 99 Edmo, Leonard, 50 Edmo, Lorraine, 99 Edmo, Zelma, 99 education/school services, 65–66, 129 Edwards, James P., 51–53 Eightmile Creek, 143 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 64, 67 Ellis id, 114 Engamaia, Leon, 165 enrollment of tribes: blood degree requirements in, 83–85, 89–90, 213n14; and requirements for icc claims, 83– 84; residency requirements for, 84–85, 117 Estep, Evan, 40, 41 ethnogenesis of the Lemhi Shoshones, xxi, 11, 179, 183, 193–94n22 Evening, Charley, 44, 46, 49 Evening, Daniel, 97, 98 Farver, Peru, 54 Fisher, Karel, 187 Fisher, Lin, 46 fishing rights: of Lemhi Shoshones, xix– xx, xxiii, 59, 71, 124, 143–78, 182 fishing weirs and traps, 145–46, 147 Fishman, Leslie, 73, 210n55 Fogelson, Raymond, xvii, xx Fort Bridger, Utah Territory, 28 Fort Bridger Treaty: Lemhi hunting and fishing treaty rights in, 28, 44, 143, 148, 162, 163, 164, 165, 167, 229n70; provisions for Bannock Tribe in, 33 Fort Hall, 22, 30 Fort Hall Bannocks, 28, 34 Fort Hall Indian Reservation, xv–xvi; discrimination and factionalism in,

index

249

[249], (3)

Lines: 257 to 4 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page * PgEnds: Eject [249], (3)

Fort Hall Indian Reservation (continued) 60, 68; disparity in annuities distributed at, 40–41; Gibson District of, 50; health and education services on, 65–66, 129; Lemhi choices of lands for settlement on, 35–36, 39; Lemhi leadership political representation on, 40– 42; removal of Lemhi Shoshones to, xvii, xix, xxi, 6, 15–16, 36–37, 110, 118, 147, 179, 182, 220n35. See also Tribal Business Council of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall Fort Hall Service Unit, 116 Fort Hall Shoshones: Fort Bridger treaty provisions for, 28; hunting and gathering practices of, 12–14, 59; as the Pohogwes, 12; as Sage Brush People, 12; tribe appraisal process of, 81, 84 “The Fort Hall Story,” 66 “The Fort Hall Story: An Interpretation” (Zimmerman), 66, 67 Fort Lemhi Indian Community, Inc., 182– 83 Fort Lemhi Indian Community Recognition Project, x, xii, xviii Fort Limhi, 23–24, 26–27, 144 Fort Mandan, 16 Fort Owen, 22 Foul Hand, 22 Fraker, Harold, 158 Frank Church River of No Return Wilderness Area, 1, 3 Fuller, Harrison, 29, 146, 147 fur trade, 20, 24 Galbraith, A. W., 119 Galloway, Mary, 101 Gass, Patrick, 189 General Council of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes, 79, 180 General Services Administration (gsa), 87, 91 George, Camille Navo, 133 George, Cora: as Lemhi tribal member, 88, 97, 98, 124, 134, 156, 165, 168 George, Mission, 115 George, Raymond, 98 George, Rose Ann, 129–30 George, Rozina, xi George, Wilford, 131, 133

250

index

George, Willie, Jr., 133–34, 135, 182 George, Willie, Sr., 44, 112, 124, 133, 134 Gibson District, 50 gold: discovery of, 25, 27, 146 Goodacre, Glenna, xv, xvi Gordon, Slade, 169 Goshute Tribe: icc claims of, 75 Goss, James A., 6 Grant, Ulysses S., 29, 146 Grantsville id, 27 Grasshopper Creek, 25 Graves, C. L., 45 Grayson, Donald K., 4 Great Basin: and ancestors of Northern Shoshones, 4; culture of, 72, 73; Indian groups in, 9; Numic expansion into, 5, 6, 11 Great Basin Anthropological Conference, 10 “the Great Rogue” (“Le Grand Coquin”), 22 Greenley, Joseph, 171 Greenwood, W. Barton, 54, 55 Grey, Zane, 114 Griffith, Charles, 124 Gross, F. A., 43–44, 112, 114–15 Gros Ventre tribe, 13 Guleke, Harry “Cap,” 1–2, 127

[250], (4)

Lines: 407 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[250], (4) Hagan, William, xvi Hailey, John, 29 Hanna, Stephanie, 185 Hansen, Orval, 102 Hansen, Hansen, and Hopkins, 99, 100, 101, 103, 217n69 Hayden Creek, 169 Hayden Creek Grange Hall, 118 Hells Canyon, 1 Hemingway, Ernest, 114 Hettervik, Don, 120–21 Hidatsas: raids on the Lemhi Shoshones by, 18; Sacajawea taken prisoner by, xix, 16 Hill, George W., 23, 145 Hoebel, E. Adamson, 73 Holmer, Richard N., 4, 5, 195n9 Holt, William, 73 Honena, Andrew, 49 Honena, Snookins, xi, 185 Hopkins, C. Timothy, 101, 103, 105–6

horse: introduction and appearance of, 11, 12–14, 197n43 House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 55–56, 152 House Concurrent Resolution (hcr) 108, 64, 92 Howard, Oliver O., 29, 33, 148 Howe, Idaho, 114 Hudson’s Bay Company, 20 Hume, Richard, xi hunting and fishing rights: of the Lemhi Shoshones, xix–xx, xxiii, 59, 71, 124, 143–78, 182; of Nez Perces, 167 Ice Harbor Dam, 169 Ickes, Harold, 60, 62 Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 163, 170, 176–77 Idaho Falls id, 95, 99 Idaho Falls Post Register, 154 Idaho Fish and Game Department, 154, 159, 160, 161 Idaho Historical Society, 96 Idaho Indian Wars, 29, 31, 33 Idaho Legal Aid Services, 183 Idaho State University, 163, 166 Idaho Supreme Court, 168 Idaho Wildlife Federation, 153 Indian Affairs, 29, 61 Indian casinos, xvi Indian Claims Commission Act, 62, 82, 93, 100, 106 Indian Claims Commission (icc), xviii, xx; commission members of, 63, 73, 80; creation of, 39, 60, 62, 64, 181; decision on the Shoshone claims by, 75–77, 77; expert witnesses for, 9–10, 71–77, 77, 209–10n50; Great Basin claims submitted to, 72; land claims submitted to, 68–69; Lemhi Shoshone claims submitted to, xxii–xxiii, 52, 55, 59–77, 77, 87, 181; mandate period of, 63; Mixed Band of Shoshones and Bannocks claims submitted to, 70; Steward-Stewart debate at hearing of, 71–77, 77, 209–10n50; as a tool for termination, 62, 64–65, 181 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, xvi, 183 Indian Health Service, xvii

Indian identity: “Indians as artifacts” approach to, 9; as individuals and political entities, xvi; scholarly studies of, xx Indian Office. See Bureau of Indian Affairs (bia) Indian Reorganization Act (ira), xvii, 42, 62, 63, 147, 164, 180 Indian tribes: historical concept of, xvii Ingawanup, Florence, 52 Ingup, Don, 112 Isley, Bob, 131 Jennings, Jesse, 5 Jessie Creek, 111, 127 Johnson, Andrew, 28 Johnson, Horace, 44 Johnson, Lyndon: policy of Indian “selfdetermination” of, 92 Jones, Jim, 173 Jordan, Len, 102

Lines: 555 to 6 ———

0.0pt PgVa

Kashiwa, Shiro, 91 Kennedy, John F., 92, 129 Kicza, John, xi Kid’s Creek, 111, 113 Kid’s Creek Fishing Park, 110, 112, 141 Kimball, Ethel, 132, 156–58, 228n45 King, Owen L., 166 Klamath tribe, 64 Knife River, 16 kokanee salmon, 175 Kroeber, Alfred, 2, 72 Krosting, Dave, 184 krxk radio station, 154 Kucundikas, 11, 13, 25

——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [251], (5)

Lamb, Sydney: model of Numic expansion by, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 194–95n7 LaVatta, George, 45, 48, 49 LaVatta, Willamette, 50 LeClair, Herbert, 86, 159 Leesburg id, 27 “Le Grand Coquin,” 22 Lemhi Agency, 34, 41 Lemhi Agency School, 112 Lemhi Committee: claims submitted to icc by, 62–63; members of, 44, 46, 56, 202n5; struggle for Lemhi annuities by, 39–57, 60; success of, 56–57

index

[251], (5)

251

Lemhi Indian Reservation, 32 Lemhi Pass, 17, 21, 22 Lemhi Range, 1, 3, 21, 32 Lemhi River, 32; arrival of the Corps of Discovery at, 2, 17; government reservation for Lemhis near, 29; as hunting and gathering resource for the Lemhis, 124–25; Lemhi encampments along, 112; salmon runs on, 146, 154, 169–70 Lemhi Shoshones: anti-Mormon sentiments among, 24; assimilation of, xix, 34, 60–62; bitterroot gathering by, 124–25, 223n76; burial grounds of, 106–7; claims submitted to the icc by, xxii–xxiii, 52, 55, 59–77, 77, 97– 108, 181; contributions to Lewis and Clark expedition by, xv, 16, 17–20; disparity in annuities distributed to, 39–57; employment and wage work of, 123–24; enrolled as members of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall, 28, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 59, 82, 83, 101, 147–48, 180, 181; ethnogenesis of, xxi, 11, 15–20, 21, 22–29, 30, 31, 31, 32, 33–37, 179, 193–94n22; fishing practices of, 143–46; foodstuffs and medicinal plants used by, 125–26; horse culture of, 13–14; hunting and gathering practices of, 13–14, 59, 125–26; under jurisdiction of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall, 55, 57, 63, 100–105, 181; loan application for appraisal expenses by, 79–86; maintaining distinct identity during treaty and reservation periods by, 43, 59–60, 76–77, 79–108, 180; mineral valuation of traditional homeland by, 86, 89– 90, 92–93; as minority in Fort Hall Indian Reservation, 39–40; neutrality during the Idaho Indian Wars, 29, 31, 33; Numic language of, 2; oral tradition and myths of, xx, 6, 8–9, 177–78; petition for federal recognition by, xii, xvi, xviii; political organization of, xvi, 13, 25, 40–42; protection of the Tendoy Cemetery site by, 119– 21, 222n52; pursuit of restoration of traditional homeland by, 79–108; reliance on buffalo by, 13–14; removal

252

index

to Fort Hall Indian Reservation of, 6, 15–16, 32, 36–37, 118, 147–48, 179, 182, 220n35; resistance to removal to Fort Hall, 33–34, 182; ritual life at Fort Hall of, 60; Sacajawea’s childhood with, xviii–xix, 144, 189; sacred grounds and burial sites of, 106–7, 119, 182; salmon mythology of, 177–78; Salmon River country traditional homeland of, 27, 79–108, 109–12, 113, 114–38, 139, 140, 141; seasonal encampments of, 112, 113, 114, 140; subsidized health care access for, 115–16; suspicions of icc and termination, 68–71; territory during the treaty and reservation period, 30, 31; “trail of tears” of, 117–18; village in Salmon, Idaho of, xix, xxiii, 59, 85, 90, 109–38, 139, 140, 141, 179, 187–89; “white father” and non-Indian champions of, 126–27 “Lemhi Trail of Tears,” 36 Lemhi Tribe, Represented by the ShoshoneBannock Tribes, Fort Hall Reservation, Idaho v. the United States of America, 76 Lemhi Valley, 13, 15, 112, 146 Leupp, Francis, 62 Lewis and Clark expedition: arrival in the Salmon River country of, 1, 2, 18– 20, 21, 179; bicentennial celebration of, 136–37, 183, 189; “Broken Moccasins” peoples noted by, 12; contributions of Sacajawea to, xv, 16, 20, 183–84; gifts and trade goods carried by, 134, 225n117; impact on the Lemhi Shoshones, xxi, 110, 179; observations of Lemhi fishing practices, 144; route of, 15–20, 21 Lewis’ River, 2 lichen, medicinal use of, 125 Liljeblad, Sven: field interviews with Shoshone and Bannock Indians by, 11–14, 59, 135, 148, 163, 164–65 Lima id, 114 Limhi, 24, 199n35 Lincoln, Abraham, 27 Little Goose Dam, 169 Littlejohn, Layton, 81 Little Lost River, 114 Lolo Pass, 20, 21

[252], (6)

Lines: 690 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[252], (6)

Lolo Trail, 19, 20, 21 Lost River Range, 1, 3 Lost Trail Pass, 19, 21 Lower Granite Dam, 169, 171, 175 Lower Monumental Dam, 169 Lower Snake River, 150, 151, 169, 175 Lowie, Robert: fieldwork with the Lemhi Shoshones by, 6, 7, 12, 41, 72, 125, 145, 177, 195–96n21 Madsen, Brigham, xviii, 33 Madsen, David, 2, 4 Mandan-Hidatsa, xviii–xix Mann, Luther, 63 Marley, William R., 159, 160 Marshall, Jim, 46, 49, 128 Marshall, Lily Wenee, 44 Martin, Henry, 63 Martin, John E., 69 Matcha, George, 112, 118 Matsaw, Edward, 44, 62 Matte, Mary, 81, 155 McCall, F. A., 114 McCarthy, Robert, xii McGarvey, Thomas, 145, 146, 178 McKay, John, 1 McLaughlin, James, 34 McNary Dam, 152 McPherson, Murdock, 35, 126 McQuade, Henry F., 167 Meagher, Thomas F., 27 medicinal plants, 125–26 Medicine Lodge Creek, 114 Mehojah, W. A., 90, 96, 98, 118, 119 Menominee, 64 Mexican territory: cession of, 27 Midland Pacific Railroad, 1 Miller, Wick, 4, 135 mining, 25, 27 Missouri River: Three Forks area of, 16, 21 Mix, Tom, 134 Monida Pass, 114 Montana Territory, 25, 27 Moore, M. J., 115, 117, 122 Mormons: depletion of Lemhi Valley salmon resources by, 24, 145; settlement in and withdrawal from Lemhi Valley by, 22–25 Mossett, Amy, xviii Murphy, Francis, 73

Nagashoah, Annie, 70 Nagel, Joane, xxi Napias Creek, 27, 146 Nappo, Dasso, 131, 166 Nappo, Edward, 112, 128 Nappo, Joe, 127 National Coalition on Racism in Sports and Media, 185 National Congress of American Indians (ncai), 154 National Geographic, xviii, xix National Geographic Society: expedition in the Salmon River canyon, 1, 2 National Marine Fisheries Service (nmfs), 174, 175, 176 Native American Church, 96 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 6 Native American Rights Fund, 103 Navo, Alfred, 109, 135, 137 Navo, Almo, 112, 118 Navo, Elmer, 112, 127–28, 131, 133, 135 Navo, Lois, 49, 109, 135, 137 Navo, Zuni White Bear, 135 Naw-ro-yawn, 22 Nelson, Ace, 41 Nevada, Sam, 46 Nevada, Walter, 98, 109, 189 “New Western” history: criticism of Turnerian approach, xix, 193n16 New York Times, xviii, 185 Nez Perces: Agaidikas contact with, 12; brokering truces by, 25; and feuds with Lemhi groups, 22; fishing rights of, 167; and friendship with Mormon settlers, 24; “party hunting” with nonIndians by, 157, 158; territory of, 19, 20 Nez Perce War, 29, 31, 110, 146, 148–49, 179 Niskala, A. P., 55 Nixon, Richard: federal Indian policy of, 61, 92, 94 North Dakota: Hidatsa Knife River village in, 16 Northern Pacific Railroad, 1 Northern Paiute–speaking Indians: and role in Lemhi Shoshone ethnogenesis, 11, 197n36 Northern Shoshones: ancestors of, 4, 195n9; creation myth and oral tradi-

index

253

[253], (7)

Lines: 730 to 8 ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page * PgEnds: Eject [253], (7)

Northern Shoshones (continued) tions of, 7–9, 195n20; in hostilities on Camas Prairie, 31, 31, 33; interaction with Lemhi Shoshones of, 179; Numic language of, 2; salmon fishing by, 166 North West Company, 16, 20 Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, 176 Northwestern Bands of Shoshones, 62–63, 86, 89, 213–14n22 Northwest Passage, 127 “Northwest Passage,” 150 Northwest Power Planning Council, 176 Numic language: models of expansion of, 2, 4–6 Nunumbi, 7 Nybroten, Norman, 66, 116, 122, 124, 128– 30, 132 Oberbillig, Ernest, 96 O’Boyle, Charles, 86, 90, 92 obsidian flaking, 7 Office of Indian Affairs, 45. See also Bureau of Indian Affairs Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 47, 55 Old Toby, 19, 20, 199n18 O’Marr, Louis, 73 oral tradition: and creation myth of the Northern Shoshone, 7–9; and creation narratives of Western Shoshone, 6; role of Coyote in, 7–9, 177–78; role of elkhorn scraper in, 7–8; vagina with teeth in, 7–8 Ordinance s8-70, 90 Ordinance s14-69, 90 Oregon: salmon hatchery program in, 150 Oregon Trail, 22 Owen, John, 22 Owl, Frell, 55 Pabihiano, 7 Pagutc, 7 Pahsimeroi River, 114 Pahsimeroi Valley, 135 Pandzoavits, 7 Paona, 7 Pappan, John, 81–82 Parker, Frank, 71, 155–56, 210n55 Peggi, 26

254

index

Perreau Creek, 125 Petersen, Keith, 151 Peterson, J. Clinton, 148, 149 Petit, Steve, 175 “Pierre’s Lookout,” 158 Pinto, Cynthia, 6 Plains: cultural influences of, 5, 179 Plateau: cultural influences of, 5, 11, 179 Pocatello, LaSalle, 46–47, 73, 210n55 Pocatello id, 95, 102 Pohogwes, 12 Pokibro, John, 73, 210n55 Pokibro, Josephine, 104 Pokibro, Russell, 101, 104, 166 Pollard family, 112 Ponzo, Harry, 112 Poog, Sophronia Shay, 96, 97 Portland, 150 Port Neuf River, 28, 30 Provinse, John, 48–49 Prucha, Francis Paul, 65 Pryse, E. Morgan, 51, 52 Public Health Service: Division of Indian Health, 115–16; transfer of reservation health services to, 59, 66 Public Law 92-206, 89 Public Law 277, 64 Public Law 280, 64 Public Law 281, 64, 66 Puget Sound, 169 Pulling, Pierre, 158 Puyallup Tribe v. Department of Game, 161–62, 163, 165, 167, 168 Qai-tan-an, 22 Quanda, Ada, 127 Quanda, George, 127 Quanda, Jack, 112, 127 Quanda, Judy, 127 Racine, Louis, 163, 164 railroads: surveys into the Salmon River canyon by, 1 Rainsford, John C., 146 Recreation and Public Purposes Act, 120 Redfish Lake, 174, 175, 176 Reingold, Mel, 170 reservation period: Lemhi Shoshone territory during, 31 Resolution 211, 50–51, 52, 53, 56

[254], (8)

Lines: 887 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[254], (8)

Resolution 1667, 79 Resolution 1917, 82, 83 Resolution 2048, 83 Resolution 2167, 86 Resolution 4665, 103, 217n75 Rexburg id, 154 Reynolds, Kenneth, 152 Reynolds, William, 155, 159 Rhode, David, 2, 4 Richardson, B. H., 157–58, 228n45 “River of Life” (Petersen), 151 River of No Return, 2 “River of No Return,” xix; return of Lemhi Shoshones to, 109–12, 113, 114– 38, 139, 140, 141; Salmon River as, 1 Rocky Mountains: Numic expansion through, 5 Rogers, Will, 134 Ronda, James, 19, 20 Roosevelt, Theodore, 35, 92 Rosen, Lawrence, 209–10n50 Rosenthal, Harvey, 181 Running Bear, 134 Rutherford, Janice, xi Sacajawea: and birth of son, 16; contributions to the Lewis and Clark expedition of, xv, 16, 20, 183–84; descendants of, xi, 133, 137; Hidatsa spelling of name of, xvi; marriage to Charbonneau of, 16; powwow in honor of, 137, 178; reunion with Lemhi Shoshones of, 144, 189; as sister of Cameahwait, xviii, 18–19, 184; taken prisoner by Hidatsas, 16 Sacajawea dollar, xv–xvi, xix, 184, 191n1 Sacajawea Interpretive, Cultural, and Education Center, 185, 186, 189 sagebrush: medicinal use of, 125 Sage Brush People, 12 Salish people, 12 salmon: commercial fishing on the Salmon River of, 150; effects of dam building on, 150–51, 160, 169, 172, 174–77; factors leading to decline of numbers of, 160; fishing weirs and traps for, 145–46, 147; habitat degradation of, 150–52; hatchery programs of, 150; Lemhi Shoshone fishing rights to, xix–xx, xxiii, 59, 71, 124, 143–78, 182;

Snake River sockeye as endangered species, 173–75; sport fishing of, 150, 160 Salmoneaters (Agaidikas), 11, 12, 179 Salmon id: high school in, 111, 113; Lemhi encampments in, 109–12, 113, 114– 15, 140; Lemhi Shoshone village in, xix, xxiii, 59, 85, 90, 109–38, 139, 140, 141, 179, 187–89; living conditions of Lemhi village in, 122–24; mining district near, 27 Salmon (ID) Recorder-Herald: on Chief Tendoy’s burial site, 118, 121–22; on death of Elmer Navo, 135, 136; on death of George Quanda, 127; on the death of George Tendoy, 42; on death of Jim Marshall, 128; on Lemhi bitterroot harvest, 125; on Lemhi claims filed with icc, 47–48, 95; on Lemhi elders in Salmon, 137; on Lemhi salmon fishing rights, 156, 160, 161, 170, 171; on the Lemhis’ place in Salmon, 132; on Lemhi student achievements, 129; on the Lemhi village in Salmon, 110, 112, 117, 123; on the “Salmon Savages” mascot, 186, 187 Salmon River Days, 136–37 Salmon River peoples, 22 Salmon River/Salmon River country: Lemhi Shoshone hunting and fishing rights to, xix–xx, xxiii, 59, 71, 124, 143– 78, 182; Mormon mission on, 22–25; non-Indian settlement in, xxi, 22– 25, 29, 31, 33, 110, 126, 146–47, 148–49, 179; as the “River of No Return,” xix, 1; as traditional homeland of Lemhi Shoshone, xvii, xviii, xix, 1–3, 3, 4–14, 39–57, 59–60, 109–12, 113, 114–38, 139, 140, 141 “Salmon Savages,” 129, 182, 185, 187 “Salmonscam,” 152 Salt Lake Valley, 23 Samuelson, Don, 143, 162 Sanders, Raina, 187 Sawyer, Audrey, 129 Sawyer, Joe Pat, 131 Seaton, Fred, 65 “self-determination”: federal policy of, 92 Selway-Bitterroot Wilderness Area, 1, 3 Senate Civil Service Committee, 61

index

255

[255], (9)

Lines: 1055 to ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [255], (9)

Sharkey, Barney, 114 Sharkey, Milley, 114 Sharkey, William, 114 Shay, Papitsy, 44 Sheepeaters (Tukudekas), 11, 12, 26, 179 Sheepeater War, 29, 33, 147, 148, 179 Sho-Nock Center, 69 Shoo-woo-koo, 22, 24, 25 “Shoshone assemblage,” 4 Shoshone-Bannock Legal Research Project, 94, 102 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of Fort Hall: and access to Lemhi Shoshone annuities, xxii, 49–51, 52, 54, 55, 82, 168, 205n56; fishing rights of, 153, 155, 158, 159, 170, 171, 172–77, 182; government settlement awarded to, 10, 55, 75, 89– 90; jurisdiction over Lemhi claims by, 55, 57, 63, 100–105, 181; Lemhi Shoshones enrolled as members of, 28, 40, 43, 46, 49, 52, 55, 59, 82, 83, 101, 147–48, 180, 181; prehistory of, 5; as a recognized tribe, 188 Shoshones: name of, xvi, 16, 192n3, 198n5 Shoshone Trail, 30 Shoshoni Cove, 18, 19 Shoup, George, 27, 29, 111, 126, 128 Shuford, George, 67 Shumate, Gene, 154 Silver, Fannie, 133, 134, 136 Silver, Toenip, 133 Simmons, A. J., 146 Sims, Howard, 111–12, 122, 128, 134 Sims, Marjorie, 111, 122, 128 Skinner, Mary Lou, 59, 60, 66, 115–16, 208n29 Sloan, Larry, 186 Smawley, Carol, xi Smith, Thomas S., 22, 24 Smithsonian Institution Center for the Study of Man, 162 Snag, 22, 25 Snake River Plain, 22, 111 Snook, Charles W., 35 “Socioeconomic Analysis of the Fort Hall Indian Reservation,” 66 sockeye salmon, 173–76 Soda Springs id, 27, 30 Sonnip, Oliver, 70

256

index

Southeastern Idaho Rod and Gun Club, 152 Spencer, Charles, 116, 159 Spiekerman, Ken, 149 State of Idaho v. Arthur, 167 State of Idaho v. Tinno, xxiii, 169, 173, 182 Steele Memorial Hospital, 115, 124, 135 Steward, Julian: as expert witness at the icc hearing, xxii, 5, 9, 10, 11, 72–77, 77, 209–10n50; on the impact of the horse, 197n43; on the organization of the Lemhi Shoshones, 26; study of Lemhi medical practices by, 115 Stewart, Omer: as expert witness at the icc hearing, xxii, 9, 10, 71–77, 77, 209– 10n50, 210n60; on the impact of the horse, 197n43; model of Numic expansion by, 11 Stinson, Buck, 26 Stoddard, Frank, 158 Stowers, C. N., 147 “straight-point” fishing spear, 143, 144 Straus, Jerry, 95, 97 Stroud, F. J., 131, 149 Studebaker, William, 122 Suarez, E. F., 98 Sullivan, John, 73, 74, 100 Sunbeam id, 143 Sunbeam Dam, 174, 175 Sun Dance, 60 Svingen, Orlan, ix, x, 183, 184 Swanson, Earl, 5, 6, 166 Taggee, 165 Talbot, Margaret, xviii Taos Indians of the Taos Pueblo, 92 taxes: exemptions on, 116 Taylor, Glen, 46–47 Taylor, John, 67 Tay-to-ba, 28, 44, 148, 165 Teepee Mountain, 114 Temoak Bands of Western Shoshones, 75, 186 Tendoy: burial site of, 112, 118–21; as chief of Lemhi Shoshones, 22, 25, 110, 148; death of, xviii, 26, 35, 135; descendants of, xi, 96, 112, 121, 130–31, 133, 165, 185, 189; as a Fort Hall Treaty signatory, 33–34; and maintaining goodwill with non-Indian neighbors, 29, 31, 33, 110,

[256], (10

Lines: 114 ———

0.0pt P

——— Normal P PgEnds: T

[256], (10

126, 146–49, 179; resistance to removal efforts by, 29, 34, 35, 146; as signatory of the Doty treaties, 27 Tendoy, Arthur, 101, 102, 165, 166 Tendoy, Darrell, 189 Tendoy, Emily, 99 Tendoy, Emma, 133 Tendoy, George, 41–42, 114, 148, 149 Tendoy, Katy, 104 Tendoy, Roy, 46 Tendoy, Udale, 96, 101 Tendoy, Wince, 41, 44, 112, 118, 126, 202n10 Tendoy Cemetery, 109, 119, 120 Tendoy id, 17, 23, 109, 144 “Tendoy’s Band,” 128 termination: criteria for grouping of tribes for, 61–62; defined, 61; and effects on tribes, 65; implementation of, 61–77, 77; Nixon repeal of hcr 108 and, 92; passage of, 64 Teton, Gilbert, 172 The Tevope, 115 Theory of Culture Change (Steward), 10 Thomasma, Kenneth, xviii Thompson, Duane, 188 Thomson, Edwin, 67 Thorpe, Joseph: as member of Fort Hall Tribal Business Council, 82, 88, 94, 101, 105, 143, 159–60, 162, 176 Three Forks Ranch, 131 Tindore, Alan, 82, 85 Tinno, Gerald: exercise of tribal treaty fishing rights by, xxiii, 143–44, 145, 148, 149, 163, 165, 166, 168 Toopompey, 35, 41, 42 Towersap, Zelthia, 101 Towle, Leslie, 48 trading: of fur, 20; Lemhi Shoshone networks of, 18 “trail of tears,” 117–18 treaties: establishment of reservations through, 28, 180; icc consideration of, 63–64; promoting relocation of tribes in, 28–29, 180; with Shoshones, 27, 200n45. See also specific treaties Tribal Business Council of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes of Fort Hall: claims submitted to icc by, 63–64, 68–70; enrollment requirements considered by, 90; lobbying for Lemhi annuities,

42–45, 49–50, 52–55, 180; members of, 134; passage of Resolution 211 by, 50–51, 52, 53, 54, 205n56; passage of Resolution 1667 by, 79–80; passage of Resolution 1917 by, 82; passage of Resolution 2048 by, 83; passage of Resolution 2167 by, 86; passage of Resolution 4665 by, 103, 217n75; “sharing resolution” 4431 passed by, 106–7; protecting Shoshone treaty fishing rights by, 153, 155, 158, 159, 170, 171, 172–77; on residency requirements, 117; and resolution to distribute settlement awards, 106–7; and response to termination, 65–66 Truchot, Teola, 87–88 Truman, Harry, 62 Tukudekas, 11, 12, 25, 26 Turner, Frederick J., xix, 193n16 Tyler, Glenn, 115 Tyler, Jessie, 124, 165 Ulrich, Roberta, 151, 169, 173 United States Geological Society (usgs): and expedition in the Salmon River canyon, 1 United States v. Oregon, 168 United States v. Winnans, 163 University of Idaho, 66, 67–68, 116 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 169, 176 U.S. Census Bureau: Indian identity defined by, xvii U.S. Court of Claims: Indian claims submitted to, 55, 62 U.S. District Courthouse, 102 U.S. Forest Service, 92, 124 U.S. Mint: Sacajawea dollar issued by, xv–xvi, xix, 184, 191n1 Utah Expedition, 24 Utah Territory, 24 Vance, John, 102, 103 Vietnam Women’s Memorial, xv Virginia City Treaty, 28 Wahtomy, Frank, 44, 46, 49, 50, 56, 62 Wahtomy, Rachael, 109 Wahtomy, Walter, 69 Walker, Deward: model of Numic expansion by, 5, 6, 10–11, 121, 209–10n50

index

257

[257], (11)

Lines: 1278 to ———

0.0pt PgVa ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [257], (11)

Warm Springs Creek, 111, 123 Warren, Eula, 128 Washakie, Utah, 86 Watkins, Arthur, 61, 64, 65, 80 Waunapitsi, 148 “The Western Shoshone of Nevada and the U.S. Government, 1863–1950” (Stewart), 10 Western Shoshones: cultural characteristics of, 11; ethnographic territory of, 6; icc awards to, 75 White, Compton, 131, 149 White, Edgar, 73 White, John, 25 Whitwell, Nora Yearian, 15 Wild Rivers bill, 161 Wilkinson, Ernest, 62, 63, 68, 69 Wilkinson, Boyden, and Cragun: as legal counsel for the Lemhi Shoshones, 52, 62, 63 Wilkinson, Boyden, Cragun, and Barker: as legal counsel for the Lemhi Shoshones, 69, 73 Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker: as legal counsel for the Lemhi Shoshones, 74, 75, 79, 86, 90, 91, 94, 95, 101–2, 106, 107

Williams Lake, 112 Wilson, Jed, xi, 114, 125, 131, 132–33, 134 Wind River wy, 28, 30 Wind River Reservation, 75 Wind River Shoshones: claims submitted to icc by, 79, 81, 82–83, 84, 86, 212n10; government settlement awarded to, 89 Wolf: in Northern Shoshone mythology, 7–9 Woodridge, Earl, 52 Wordsworth, John R., 161 World War II: change in federal Indian policy after, 60–61; service of American Indians in, 62, 133 Worster, Donald, x Wright, Arthur A., 163 Wright, John A., 147 Wu-Ny-Pitz, 148

[Last Page

[258], (12

Yankee Fork River, 143, 154, 160, 163, 165 York, Clark’s slave, 184 Young, Brigham, 22, 23–24, 25

Lines: 139

Zimmerman, Larry, 9 Zimmerman, William, 61–62, 65, 66, 67, 149 Zimmerman Plan, 61–62, 87, 207n12

——— Normal P * PgEnds: P

———

238.188

[258], (12

258

index