Siletz news /, November 01, 2000, Page 29, Image 29

TRIBAL HISTORY
A Piece of Siletz History
by Robert Kentta, Cultural Resources Director
This is the 13th article in a series that covers different time periods
or events in our tribal history. The articles have, hopefully, explained
some things you didn’t know about the treaties our people signed and
how our reservation was created and reduced to a mere fraction of its
original size within the first 20 years of its existence. I hope, too, that I
have explained some of the aspects of federal Indian policy that have
had dramatic effects on each of us as individual members of our tribe,
on our families, and on our tribal organization as a whole. Last month’s
article was about the process of allotment at Siletz in 1892. This article
is a continuation of our story and a continuation of the story of allotment
and its effects at the Siletz Indian Reservation.
Part XIII - The 1892 “Surplus Lands
Agreement”
As stated in the last article, allotment was both boon and bane to
our people for various reasons. Federal policy was directed at de-lndian-
izing our people. The allotment policy was an important part of that
process because it meant breaking up communal ownership of
reservation lands and getting individual tribal members to accept
individual ownership of lands and the resources on
those lands.
Allotment generally was a popular notion at Siletz because of the
belief that it would protect our people from the kinds of dispossession
that they experienced in 1865 and 1875. What probably was not
understood were the consequences of taxation (once clear title was
achieved), what would happen with inherited allotment lands, and what
would happen to reservation lands that weren’t included in allotments.
It didn’t take very long to find out.
The process of allotting lands at Siletz was wrapped up late in
the summer of 1892. Before Commissioner of Indian Affairs T.J. Morgan
had even received a final report on the completion of the Siletz allotment,
he began setting up a commission to “negotiate” with our tribe for the
remainder of our reservation. The secretary of the Interior had
apparently already decided to declare the Siletz Reservation land
remaining after allotment “surplus” under a provision of the General
Allotment Act.
On Aug. 22,1892, Commissioner Morgan wrote a letter to Reuben
R Boise and William H. Odell, both of Salem, and H.H. Harding of
Carthage, Mo. He included instructions forthem to use in the proposed
negotiations. The commissioner’s letter gives the first of many clues
that this
proposed
“negotiation”
was
anything
but
a casual offer to negotiate with our people for our remaining
reservation lands.
The rushed nature of the affair (not waiting to find out exactly
how many allotments had been assigned or how many acres they
encompassed) is not the only indication that things were not necessarily
on the up and up. The letter mentions several details that had already
been taken care of in the planning process, looking forward to our
people’s eventual acceptance of this scheme.
The most surprising feature in the letter of instructions is a
statement that “A bill is now pending in the Senate to authorize the
secretary of the Interior to reserve from sale five sections of timberland
upon said reservation, not required for allotment to the Indians, and
located conveniently to the sawmill upon said reservation, and provides
that the timber on said lands may be cut and manufactured by the
Indians for their own use and for sale under such rules as the secretary
of the Interior shall, from time to time, prescribe, regulating the cutting
of timber so as to secure an equality of benefits to the Indians,
employment for them, and judicious aid to them in becoming self-
supporting, the right, title, and interest of the Indians as at present
existing, not to be altered, changed, or affected thereby.”
In effect, the letter was a contradiction in terms. While proposing
to take nearly all of the remaining land and resource base of our tribe
- destroying any real chance of economic development of our natural
resources - he also was speaking of a bill that would recognize our
commercial rights to five sections of reservation timber that would be
reserved from the cession. If the government was really concerned
about our people having an “equality of benefit" and “employment” and
“judicious aid in becoming self-supporting," why didn’t the bill recognize
that our Siletz people had commercial rights to all of the remaining
reservation land? Why was the tribe about to be forced into ceding
191,000* acres in order to secure commercial rights to a mere five
sections (3,200 acres)?
“Forced" is my interpretation of what happened, although
Commissioner Morgan’s letter of instructions stated that “no undue
pressure should be used to induce them to consent to the cession.” It’s
clear to me that the proposed cession was much more than a casual
offer from the government. It’s also clear that a simple NO would not
be enough to fend off the barrage of inducements and pressures that
would then be used to gain our people’s signatures on an agreement
to cede the unallotted reservation lands. It was the same situation as
the 1865 and 1875 reductions of our reservation, with only the illusion
of our people having a choice in the matter.
The three commissioners (Boise, Odell, and Harding) arrived at
the Siletz Agency in the first week of October 1892. They spent a couple
of weeks touring the reservation, getting a feel for the lay of the land,
and getting a visual inventory of its resources. They also met tribal
members in various parts of the reservation, stated the reason they
were here, and told the people about meetings that would be held on
the subject.
On Oct. 17 and 29, meetings were held at the agency. Oscar
Brown, Johnny Williams, and Pengra Logan served as interpreters.
The commissioners stated the purpose of their visit and immediately
began discussing the terms of the agreement.
The first fear tactic used was that if the people sold the unallotted
lands, part of the interest on the sale price would be held back in order
to pay taxes on the allotments while they remained in trust. This is
something that is mentioned in correspondence at other times and it
baffles me. My understanding has always been that taxes would not
accrue on allotment lands while they remained in trust. The
commissioners warned our people that they would need cash right
away to pay taxes on their allotments or else they would lose their
allotments and the sheriff would sell them.
Taxes on allotted lands would not be the only nor the most blatant
example of threats, intimidation, lies, or promises (that would go
unfulfilled) used to gain acceptance of the commission’s proposal.
(See History on page 27)
29