The Journal News from Hamilton, Ohio • Page 4

i i i i (klimcr The Exciting Newspaper serving the GoldenTriangle of Southwestern Oho! VI it I i 0 Iff IWI II0 inions THE JOURNAL-NEWS Homilton. Ohio 45012 Phone 863-8200 Oilord Phone 523-846J A I I I I I A I JOHN IVANS JR. I I I IICHAtD A A I I A i Jill i A i 370 agreements in path of movement westward Indian treaties still problem for government A A United Features Syndicate Many Americans may view Indian treaties as romantic relics of colonial history and the Old West. Although a century has passed since the last treaty was signed, the concept among Indians remains intensively alive today. For most of the first century of its existence, the United States conducted its relations with Indians on the basis of treaties.

Tribes were recognized, at least in theory, as sovereign nations. Though they were not viewed in precisely the same way as European countires, the various tribes were met as formal equals for the signing of treaties, and the Senate ratified them in the same manner as other treaties. From 1778, when (he first Indian treat) 1 was signed, until 1871, when Congress decided it would start dealing with Indian affairs by legislation, some 370 treaties were made with Indian tribes. IN ADDITION TO AFFIRMING PEACE between the parties, the treaties defined terms by which Indian land was sold, designated the areas Indians would retain and set forth the rights and services to which Indians were entitled. Except where provisions of these treaties have been supcrceded by legislation or rendered inoperative by changing circumstances, they remain valid and the courts continue to uphold them.

The U.S. government acknowledges lhat it has sometimes violated these treaties, and through the Indian Claims Commission it is still making settlements with the tribes involved. Disputes over treaty provisions also are being litigated in the courts almost continuously. One area particularly fertile in producing legal battles has been the hunting and fishing rights that were written into the treaties and have now come into conflict with state game laws. THE HISTORY OF U.S.

TREATY relations with Indians also deeply affects the outlook of Indians themselves as they contemplate their problems and think about the kind of future they would like to have. "People are always puziled when they learn lhat Indians are not involved in the civil rights struggle," says Vine Deloria in "Custef Died for Your Sins." "Many expect Indians to be marching up and down like other people, feeling that all problems of poor groups are basically the same. Two hundred years ago a new nation was founded where many nations once existed. The Indian nations which inhabited what has become the United Slates gave up their land lo (he newcomers some of il by sale, some by war and some by treaty. You may be surprised to know that, although the federal government slopped a i treaties with Indian tribes many years ago, there is still a lot of debate concerning those agreements.

In the last 25 years the government has had 370 claims filed against it in the name of these treaties the lota! disputed terrilory of these claims is more land than the U. S. possesses. The government has awarded more lhan $500 rhillion in seltlcments and slill has more than 150 cases pending. Tracy Early of United Features Syndicate lakes a close look al some of the treaties and Ihe circumstances and disputes surrounding them in a four-part series beginning today.

Executive Editor Jim Blount also reviews six of those treaties which involved the settlement of this region. "But Indian people, having treaty rights of long standing, rightly feel lhat protection of existing rights is much more important to them." The treaties, signed and ratified by the Senate, like a treaty with Russia or Brilain, provide a basis for Indian tribes to demand political autonony, Decoria believes. Ignoring for the most part Ihe 1963 March on Washington and the 1968 Poor People's Campaign, Indians in 1972 conducted their own assault on the nation's capital, which resulted in a take-over and venting of hostility at Ihe Bureau of Indian Affairs. The campaign, however, was not a struggle for conslitutional or human rights, as it might have been for blacks, but a Trail of Broken Treaties, conducted by people who still tend to see the United Stales as "them," not "us." INDIANS OCCUPYING WOUNDED KNEE in 1973 addressed themselves to Chairman William Fulbrighl of Ihe Senate Foreign Relations Committee and demanded hearings on alleged treaty violations. In 1074 about 3,000 Indians from various tribes met in Mobridgc, S.I)., for an International Treaty Council to formulate slragcgy on treaty issues, and adopted a Dcclaralion of Continuing Independence.

Not all Indians share the same outlook, of course. But the sight of Jews returning after 2,000 years to reestablish a state of their own in Israel has excited some Indians to dream that Ihey, too, may one day regain the independence Ihey had before Columbus. Other Indians identify with Ihe Arabs as people resisting displacement by immigrant Europeans. Beginning at Hie beginning, Indians in the Trail of Broken Treaties even called for the Pope to revoke (be 14911 bull of Alexander VI a allotted the area of new discoveries between Spain and Portugal. The treaties themselves departure points for Indian protest reveal a mixed attitude among whites.

From the firsl, whites came lo the "new" world with the idea that Ihey were laking over. The commission given by Ferdinand and Isabella authorized Columbus to "subdue" whatever territory he found. In 1496, Henry VII of England gave Ihe same authority lo John Cabot. Yet whites fell themselves compelled to acknowledge lhat the Indian tribes were nations, lhat they had a claim to the land lliey had occupied from lime immemorial and lhat it was therefore ligical lo enter into formal treaty relationship wilh tliem. The late Felix Cohen, an authority on Indian law, traced the recognition of Indian rights back to a 16- century Dominican teaching at Salamanca, Francisco de Viloria.

Asked to advise the Spanish king on the rights of Indians, he declared that their religion or lack of it had no bearing on their rights as human beings to Iheir land and liberty. The papal bull could assign spheres of operation for European powers, he contended, but it could not give away Indian land. This opinion received confirmation at Rome when Paul III declared in 1537 lhat Indians "are by no means to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their 'properly, even though they be outside the Despite violations in actual white conduct, these principles were usually acknowledged wherever high authorities thought about pruchase, as in the acquisition of Manhattan for merchandise worth an estimated CO guilders or perhaps $24 or who knows what to Indians. In 1763, taking an action highly annoying lo George Washington and oilier colonials hungry for land beyond (lie Appalachians, Gcroge III ordered the western Indian territory closed, and decreed llial only the crown could buy Indian laud. After 1774, the Continental Congress took over Indian affairs, and (his power remained with Congress, rather lhan the slates individually, under the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution (Art sec.

8). BECAUSE OF THIS HISTORY, the federal government has generally taken a more responsible view of Indian rights than have state and local authorities, or settlors, Iraders and soldiers in direct competition wilh the "savages." When the government failed to uphold Indian land rights, it was in parl because whites pushing west were virtually uncontrollable. As settlement proceeded, the government sought to ameliorate white-Indian conflict by making new treaty purchases from Indian tribes. Forced removal was defended as the only realistic alternative to Indian extermination. is because the Constitution gave Congress responsibility for relations with Indians lhat the federal government today spends more than 51 billion a year on a Bureau of Indian Affairs Interior, an Indian Health Service and other Indian programs scattered through various departments, though it has nothing comparable for any other ethnic group.

In addition, Indians are entitled to all federal benefits and assistance programs open to citizens generally OEO, Social Security, whatever. IN 1871 CONGRESS DECIDED thai "hereafter no Indian nation or tribe within the territory of Ihe United States shall be acknowledged or recognized as an independent nation. Iribe or power with whom the Uniled Stales may contract by treaty." But existing trealies were not abrogated. Established treaty righls were likewise confirmed in 1924 when citizenship was given lo all Indians (the Iroquois say they decline) who had not previously secured it by other menas, such as homesteading, army service, etc. In a 19G8 Supreme Court decision on the Mcnominees of Wisconsin, Justice William Douglas wrote lhat Congress couid alter Indian trealies by law, but lhat where it had not done so, treaty rights remained in effect.

Should grain continue? Millions of Metric Tons 75 Reader Poll What are your opinions on United Slates grain export agreements and the authority of the federal government in approving or rejecting transactions by private companies in this nation? You can register your views in this Journal- News Reader Poll. Read the accompanying article. Then read and consider the possible answers below. Then check those which match your views and forward the questionnaire to Reader Poll, Journal-News, P. 0.

Box 298, Hamilton, Ohio 45012. Replies will be accepled until Friday, Oct. 10. If you wish, you also may submit a letter to the editor on the subject. 1.

is your opinion of (lie 1975 grain transaction which would have sent 9.8 million tons of grain to the Soviet Union? Check- only one: I favor the 1975 sale of U. S. grain, including wheat, lo the Soviet Union. I am opposed to the 1975 sale of U. S.

grains to the Russians. I am undecided. 2. What is your opinion of future grain transactions involving the U.S. and Russia? Check only one answer: I favor a long-term agreement with the Russians for Ihe export of U.

S. grains. I am undecided. I am opposed to any long-term grain agreements with the Soviet Union. I am undecided.

3. What is your opinion on the posilion of the federal government in the exporting of U. S. grain? Do you believe a person or an agency in the federal goevernmcnf should have the power to approve or reject future grain deals with foreign nations? Check only one of Ihe following possible answers: I believe Ihe federal government should have the power to approve or reject all grain transactions by private U. S.

companies with foreign nations. I believe private companies in the U. S. should not be subject to federal controls over their grain transactions with other nations. If By MARY LINK Congressional Quarterly WASHINGTON The long-term grain sales agreement thai the Ford administration is negotiating wilh the Soviet Union may help control grain pur- 1 chases by that volatile customer, but il won't change Ihe over-all U.S.

grain export policy. The United Slates needs grain exports to help its a balance of payments. jjj In fiscal 1975 alone, agricultural exports brought the United States $12 billion in net earnings. But since 1972 when sudden large Soviet purchases almost drained American grain reserves the United Slates has found il difficult to follow one consislcnl grain policy. 11 lias required grain exporters to report sales both before and after completion.

II has completely embargoed the export of some commodities and has canceled some sales after contracts have been signed. The result has been an uneven trade policy lhat, al various times, has alienated foreign customers, domestic exporters and farmers. Under Secretary of Stale for Economic Affairs Charles W. Robinson left Moscow Sept. 16 "very optimistic" that the two countries would sign a "multiyear agreement involving a substantial amount of grain" within a few weeks.

President Ford sent the negoliating team to Ihe Soviet Union lo seek a long-term commitment from the Kussians lo purchase minimum amounts of grain each eyar, as other countries do, and stop their unpredictable demands on the U.S. market. While House figures show Soviet purchases in the laslllirce crop years have varied from 1.8 million to 11 million metric Inns of grain. The Ford decision followed Soviet purchases of 9.8 million tons of grain in July and a subsequent refusal by U.S. longshoremen to load grain bound for Hie Soviet Union.

Critics charged thai Ford's decision lo seek a new commitment from the Soviets while continuing lo embargo grain sales lo thai country was a capitulation to Ihe maritime unions and their supporter, AFL-C10 President George Meany. Successful ncgolialions with Ihe Soviets would bring 65 55 Total U.S. Grain Exports Name. Address. City, village, Check the following if (hey apply lo you: a a farmer.

I raise grain crops. Transaction with Russia raises old questions; U. S. policy has wavered 1966 67 FISCAL YEARS some measure of control lo one disruptive area of the U.S. grain export trade.

But various alternatives affecting the entire structure of U.S. grain export policy also have been suggested. Uep. James Weaver (D-Orc.) has introduced a bill (hat would centralize the U.S. grain exporting system under government control.

Instead of haying the grain trade operating under a free-market philosophy, wilh private grain traders buying from farmers and selling to foreign buyers. Weaver's bill would make the Commodity Credit Corp. (CCC) the sole bargaining agent for U.S. grain exporls. Private grain traders could still continue lo sell 15 I'MGUiDlDONTHAYE TO PLEASE EVERYBODY AT 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 Source: U.S.

Dtpirtmtnl of grain, but only under terms and conditions approved by the CCC prior lo sale. Farmers could sell their grain lo Ihe grain companies, as they do now, but would have Ihe new option of selling directly to the CCC. which then would market their grain. The central marketing approach has received support from a number of individuals, including Geroge Meany, who suggested at one point that the government should buy wheal and "sell il lo Russia at a profit." Secretary of Agriculture Earl L. Bulz countered Aug.

1, lhat "I think George would change his tune" if people suggested lhal AFL-C10 products be marketed the same way. Turning in Ihe opposite direction from government- controlled marketing, one grain cooperative in the Midwest announced Sept. 3 il would be directly marketing wheat grown by its producers, completely bypassing private grain traders. (icorgc Voth, executive vice president of the Kar- Mar-C'o Inc. cooperative, admitted lhat farmers could not he assured of higher prices with (his approach, "hut there is the polenlial for a new, progressive force for producers, which has not existed before." One proposal currently pending in Congress as parl of the fiscal 1976 agriculture appropriations bill would rcaclivale and slrenglhen the position of sales manager for the Agriculture Deparlment.

The position was created by Congress in 1955 but was left vacant for several years. Even when the position was filled, Ihe House Appropriations Committee reported it was not cf- feclive. The committee intends the sales manager lo be a slrong. independent position, which will keep track of all U.S. commodity sales, including those by private traders.

Other legislation lhat has been proposed would require the secretary of commerce to issue a domestic food price impact statement before approving commodities exports of more lhan 20 per cent of the projected crop and would require prior approval by Ihe secretary of agriculture for any exporls exceeding 50,000 tons..