Spilyay tymoo., July 15, 1983, Page 7, Image 7

I
Spilyay Tymoo
July 15, 1983, Page 7
Indian News Notes
SUPREME COURT RULES THAT ALLOTTEES CAN SUE
U.S. FOR FOREST MANAGEMENT:
Tribal history rewritten
The United States Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision ruled June
27 that the United States could be sued for monetary damages for
the mismanagement of forest lands on the Quinault Indian
Reservation. As a consequence, a $100 million suit filed by the
Quinault Tribe and 1,465 owners of allotted lands on the
reservation is expected to go to trial. Ordinarily, the United States
could claim sovereign immunity to damage suits.
The majority opinion, written by Justice Thurgood Marshall,
states that statutes “clearly establish fiduciary obligations of the
Government in the management and operation of Indian lands
and resources, they can fairly be interpreted as mandating
compensation by the Federal Government for damages sustained.
Given the existence of a trust relationship, it naturally follows that
the Government should be liable in damages. . .”
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Powell, joined by Justice
Rehnquist and Justice,O’Conner, wrote: “The fact that damages
cannot be recovered without the sovereign’s consent hardly
supports the conclusion that consent has been given. Yet this, in
substance, is the Court’s reasoning. If it is saying that a remedy is
necessary to redress every injury sustained, the doctrine of
sovereign immunity will have been drained of all meaning.”
Ken Smith, the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs, said the
court’s ruling made it more important that the BIA do a good job
in managing Indian resources. “We intend to do that; we want to
work closely with tribes and we ask them to work closely with us,”
he said. “The efficient management of resources is much more
important than lawsuits or monetary damages; but if we don’t do
our job, then the tribe should have the right to seek recourse,” he
concluded.
SPOKANE TRIBE ANNOUNCES PLANS TO BUILD $1.5
MILLION BINGO HALL:
The Spokane Tribal Council has announced plans to construct
a $1.5 million bingo hall on trust land south of Chewelah^
Washington,‘ John Samuels, tribal chairman, said the tribe
expects to begin operations in the new building in mid-1984. He
said the tribe has formed a commission to operate the facility.
Samuels said the tribe plans to run its bingo parlor in the same
manner as those under state jurisdiction, but the tribe will not seek
state approval to open the facility.
The site of the proposed facility is land orginally given to
Indians who were an .offshoot of the Spokane Tribe. Knownasthe
Mestqua Allotment, it has been held in trust by the United States.
It was acquired by the Spokane Tribe last year.
Kah-Nee-Ta activities coordinator Rosemary Charley spends part o f her workday Updating the
history of the reservation for inclusion in packets and as a soruce of information for guests at the
resort.
Up until now the history of
the Warm Springs reservation
presented with Kah-Nee-Ta
c o h v e n tio n p a c k e ts and
promotional literature was a
m ixture of miscellaneous
inform ation w ritten in a
haphazard way. Because of this
K a h -N e e -T a a c tiv itie s
coordinator Rosemary Charley
has been assigned the task of
rewriting the history.
T he p re v io u s h is to ry
according to the Kah-Nee-Ta
general m anager G arland
Brunoe was developed by non-
tribal members with “a little
thrown in here and little
thrown in there.” It was time
the history were updated and
“put in the right perspective,”
he explains.
R ather than using the
current printed history as a
basis for beginning Charley has
used other sources in Jier
rewriting of the reservation’s
history including the McQuinn
Strip History, Important Dates
on the R eservation and
information obtained through
the Oregon Historical Society.
The task of writing this
history was no easy matter.
Several hours a day were spent
from January until recently
compiling information and
writing it in a quality manner.
The history will be given to
an elder of the tribe for review
along with review by Brunoe
before it is authorized for use in
promotional literature. a
With incongruities corrected
and improvements made the
rewritten history should give
visitors to Kah-Nee-Ta an
a c c u ra te p ictu re of the
reservation and its people.
Crimes Against People...
Law and Order Code clarified for public
«
Spityay Tymoo photo by Leno
fraua; negligent wounding;
by Pat Leno
negotiating a bad check and
C rim es a g a in st people
recklessly endangering.
C hapter. 305 is the first sub
It had been rumored in the
section of the newly written and
app ro v ed W arm S prings . community at the time the code
was being rewritten that the
Crimes code of the Law and
Order code. This section is self task force responsible for
rew ritin g the code was
explanatory and it deals with
those crimes committed by an adopting Oregon State laws
with some minor changes.This
Indian against another person,
proved to be untrue. A closer
Indian or non-Indian.
look at both the new and old
In the new code it is much
easier to locate /the offenses as. Code shows the working is very
much the same. Several
they are listed in alphabetical
sections of the old code have
order. They appear in the
been incorporated into other
following order: abduction;
sections. There have been some
assault; assault and battery;
new offenses added to cover
child abuse; child abuse,
areas not covered in the
o b l i g a t i o n to r e p o r t ;
previous criminal code.
contributing to the delinquency
of .a minor;, extortion; forgery;, , , , One of.the major changes, has
been the deletion of the phrase,
“and upon conviction there of
shall be sentenced to jail for a
period not to exceed
months/days, or pay a fine not
to exceed____-d o lla r s or
both. The fine and jail sentence
for all offenses upon conviction
are up to the discretion of the
presiding judge. A limit of $500
and or six months in jail are the
maximum for a offense. The
Indian Civil Rights act of 1968
regulate the maximum for
dollars and time. In sentencing,
the judge will determine what
the sentence will be on the
merits of each case heard. In
the old code the fine and
sentence 'Were dictated in
each section.
Two newly added sections
are Child Abuse (305.135) and
Child Abuse, Obligation to
Report (305.140) Child abuse is
considered as any physical
injury to a child other than
accidental. Thisincludes injury
which the explanation given
does not agree with the nature
of the injury. Neglect if a child’s
health and welfare to the point
that the safety or well-being can
lead to physical or mental harm
is also classified as child abuse.
A point covered in the
definition is “good health
treatm ent” of a child by
spiritual practices that are held
to be true * a re not-- considered
abuse. These are practices that
are held to be true and are not
considered abuse. These are
practices of traditional Indian
beliefs and they are performed
for the good of the child. Also
covered are the “good faith”
discipline of parents, teachers
an d p e rs o n s w ho are
responsible for the good of the
child and does not constitute
abuse when it does not result in
harm. Each case will be
reviewed and the prosecutor’s
office will determine from the
evidence if the case merits
criminal charges against a
person, or if the judge should
review the case as a civil case of
child custody action.
The obligation to report
child abuse (305.140) now
requires any person whether
private citizen, private or
p ublic pfficial who has
reasonable grounds to believe a
child with whom he or she has
contact has suffered abuse or
any adult with whom he or she
has contact has abi;<wH a child
to report such information
to the proper authorities
(W a rm S p r in g s p o lic e
department of Mildred Kirk,
Youth Services). It is now the
responsibility of each citizen to
report suspected child abuse.
Persons who do report
suspected abuse and do so in
“good faith” (acting without
any intention of doing' evil, ill
will harm, spite or bad) having
reasonable grounds for making
a report will have immunity
from any liability, civil or
criminal court actions. Failure
to report child abuse is a
criminal offense in the code and
persons can be prosecuted in
court. They can be fined a
maximum of $500 if convicted
but they cannot receive a jail
sentence.
Privileged communication
between psychiatrist, psy­
chologist : or attorney . and
clients or clergyman and
parishners is protected. All
o th e r privileges do n o t
constitute legal grounds for
withholding evidence regard­
ing child abuse.
Two sections that have been
d e le te d a re s e c tio n s 2,
assault with a deadly weapon,
and 4, assault and Battery
while armed with a deadly
weapon. This does not mean
the charges are not covered for
they can be interpreted and
c o v e re d u n d e r a s s a u lt
(305.110) and assault and
battery (305.1,15). It was felt
that the presiding judge or jury
would take into consideration
the use of weapons when the
case was heard.
In the next issue of the
Spilyay Tymoo, Crimes against
property and Sex crimes will
be .reviewed.. r .
, - .,