Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, 1855-1984 [1 ed.] 9780803226906, 9780803225176

Citation preview

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved. Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, 1855-1984,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Seeking Recognition

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved. Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Seeking Recognition

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

david r. m. beck

The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, 1855–1984

University of Nebraska Press Lincoln & London

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Portions of this manuscript were previously published as “‘Standing Out Here in the Surf’: The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Western Oregon, 1954–1984” in Oregon Historical Quarterly 110:1 (Spring 2009). © 2009 by the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska All rights reserved Manufactured in the United States of America

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

∞ Library of Congress Catalogingin-Publication Data Beck, David, 1956– Seeking recognition: the termination and restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, 1855–1984 / David R. M. Beck. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-8032-2517-6 (cloth: alk. paper) 1. Coos Indians—Government relations. 2. Umpqua Indians— Government relations. 3. Siuslaw Indians—Government relations. 4. Indian termination policy— Oregon. 5. Coos Indians—Claims. 6. Umpqua Indians—Claims. 7. Siuslaw Indians—Claims. 8. Selfdetermination, National—Oregon. 9. Oregon—Race relations. I. Oregon historical quarterly. II. Title. e99.c874b43 2009 323.1197'410795—dc22 2009018698 Set in Sabon by Bob Reitz.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

I dedicate this work to those Indian people and their allies who have worked to reverse the impact of the federal policy of termination.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved. Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

c on t e n t s

List of Illustrations viii Preface and Acknowledgments List of Abbreviations xxii

ix

1. Before the Treaty 1 2. The 1855 Treaty and the Beginning of Quasi Recognition 17 3. Removals and Resistance 41 4. Old Homelands, New Lives 68 5. Amalgamation, Confederation, and the Claims Cases 96 6. Termination Proposed 115 7. Termination Compelled 137 8. Hard Times 165 9. Restoration 182 10. The Achievement and Meaning of True Recognition 207

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Notes 219 Bibliography 283 Index 301

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

i l l us t r at ions

Photographs

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Following p. 164 Chief Daloose Jackson “Princess Lottie Evanoff” Howard Barrett Sr. Henry Hudson Barrett Henry Hudson Barrett and the beach stage Howard Barrett Sr. driving the beach stage The Barrett Family Tom Jackson’s son, with Logan Barrett, Blaine Barrett, Tom Jackson, and Billie Dick Clay Barrett and Frank Drew Bill Brainard Edgar Bowen showing Ekoo and Abaki Beck the waterfront in Charleston. The author with Edgar Bowen outside the tribal hall Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribal Hall sign in Empire The ocean at Sunset Bay beach Map The Oregon Coast

11

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

p r e fac e a n d ack n owled gments

The idea for this project developed in the early 1990s when I served as an advisor to LaDonna Harris’s Americans for Indian Opportunity (aio), where Coos Elder Chief Edgar Bowen served on the board of directors. In 1993, aio had initiated its American Indian Ambassadors Program in which young American Indian leaders from across the United States gather together to learn ways to strengthen their work in and for their home communities. As we traveled together to tribal communities across the United States and Latin America, Ed told me more than once that the young people he met through the Ambassadors Program gave him renewed confidence that the future of Indian country might be positive. His generation had nearly lost hope at times. As we thought about and planned for the future, we often discussed the past. At the time, I was working on a three-and-a-half-century, two-volume history of the Menominee Indians of Wisconsin. The Menominee are one of the most high-profile tribes both to suffer the 1950s federal policy of termination—a congressional attempt to end the U.S. federal relationship with tribes—and subsequently to undergo the reversal of that policy, regaining recognition under a process known as restoration. It turns out that Chief Bowen’s people, the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians, are among the most low-profile tribes both to suffer the 1950s federal policy of termination and to regain recognition. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, along with some fiftyseven other Oregon coastal tribes, fell victim to termination under a single piece of legislation passed by Congress the same day as the better-known Klamath termination bill. The Coos,

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw vehemently opposed termination and Chief Bowen was one of the tribe’s leaders who led the battle to reverse it. As we traveled with aio through Indian country throughout the 1990s—across the United States and to indigenous villages in Bolivia, Guatemala, and Mexico—and as I made my way into the professoriate, I began to realize just how little was known in our profession, and indeed throughout Indian country, about the story of the termination legislation of these Oregon tribes. As I completed my study of Menominee history, I wanted to delve more deeply into the later twentieth-century history of the federal policy of termination and its impacts on tribes. I was struck both by Bowen’s oft-repeated maxim, “The price of sovereignty is eternal vigilance,” and by his story of the thirty-year battle he helped spearhead for his small tribal group to gain federal recognition. Determined to learn more, I decided to write a paper on Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw termination and restoration. As I worked on this paper, Howard Roy invited me to a Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw culture camp in 2005, where my family and I were generously welcomed and hosted by numerous tribal members. There I met Brenda Brainard who, among her other accomplishments, played a critical role as a young attorney in the restoration process and later went on to run one of the most effective public school Indian education programs in the United States. What began as a paper to be delivered at an American Society for Ethnohistory conference became a book project, due primarily to the urging of both Brenda Brainard and Rosalyn LaPier. In the process of interviewing tribal members and reading the documents, I realized that to tell the story of termination and restoration for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw most effectively, I needed to begin in 1855—the year these tribes and others signed the Treaty of Empire negotiated by x

p re fac e a n d ac k n ow l e d g m e n t s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Joel Palmer on behalf of the United States. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw have honored that treaty since its signing, but the U.S. Congress never ratified it. In fact, the federal government lost the document. Alexander Hamilton once said of our nation’s founding documents, “The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records.”1 In many ways, treaties are founding documents of modern tribal nations. Yet this one would have to be “rummaged for” by tribal members in order to recall it to U.S. attention. The signing, failure to ratify, and loss of the 1855 Empire Treaty were the first in a string of painful and devastating events that would lay the foundation for the federal termination of the tribes as well as the successful response of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw in repudiating it. The more I learned, the more I realized that a series of events occurred over those approximately 130 years in a developmental pattern that can be traced to the Empire Treaty and its impacts. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes, which eventually confederated, signed that treaty with other Oregon tribes; unlike the other tribes, however, in the years to come they were not compensated for the land and resources they lost. In fact, they existed for approximately the first century after the treaty negotiation in a quasi-recognized status, but nonetheless were treated as Indians by United States officials and even received some federal services as Indians during this time. Still they suffered blow after blow from the United States. Although some tribal members moved to a reservation that gathered individuals from various coastal tribes together as their homelands were opened to white settlement, these three tribes maintained both governing systems and their relationships with significant places on the landscape in their original homelands, where many tribal members remained. Even as they changed their lifestyles, they maintained a cultural and political pr eface and acknow l e dgm e nt s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

xi

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

independence. Then, in 1956, their status changed drastically after the sweeping 1954 termination legislation went into effect. This led to a three-decade-long battle, the culmination of which saw the confederated tribes finally gain full federal recognition as a result of the process of restoration. Meanwhile, in September 2000, as I began teaching at the University of Montana, the dean of the Davidson Honors College, Jerry Fetz, invited me to sit in on a conversation between the novelist David Guterson and a handful of students. Guterson’s book Snow Falling on Cedars was the annual freshman summer read, and he was in town for the Honors College convocation. Partway through the discussion, the previous year’s freshman author, James Welch, entered the room. He and Guterson, who had once been Welch’s student, soon became involved in a fascinating discussion of writing technique. Welch commented that, for him, an important part of the process of developing a novel was figuring out the tension points; after that, the story could more easily be filled in. It struck me that the series of critical events that shaped Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw history from 1855 to 1984, culminating in termination and restoration, could serve as such tension points for this tribal history. Seven key events, ending with termination and restoration, thus formed the structure of the story. After a brief introductory chapter, they have become the flash points for this work. The first five events—the signing of the 1855 treaty, tribal removal from their homelands, allotments and dispersals, establishment of a confederated government, and unsuccessful lawsuits in which the tribes hoped to be compensated for their losses—together form approximately the first half of the narrative, while the final two events—termination and restoration—provide the framework for the latter half of the narrative. Thus this work ultimately focuses on latter twentiethcentury policy effects, but within their historical context. In many ways, the story of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and xii

p re fac e a n d ac k n ow l e d g m e n t s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Siuslaw tribes parallels that of other Indian groups during this time. It is a wrenching story of loss of lands and resources, cultural attack by the white world that increasingly surrounded them, and adaptation to a new world and new lifeways. It is also a lesson in hope, perseverance, and triumph—sometimes modest, sometimes spectacular—in the face of change. In other ways, though, their story departs from the standard narratives. Groundbreaking works on nineteenth- and twentieth-century northwestern U.S. tribal experiences, by Alexandra Harmon and Brad Asher, challenge the standard interpretation of tribal identity and tribal relations with the American culture, positing a far more complex development of tribal culture in a changing world.2 In the wake of their work, historians must broaden their interpretations of tribal communities and the actions of tribal members. Termination era studies are increasingly sophisticated as well. On a national level, policy studies of the era include Larry W. Burt’s Tribalism in Crisis, which analyzes the conservative ideology and the roles of conservative terminationists in formulating federal policy in the 1950s; Kenneth R. Philp’s Termination Revisited, which analyzes policy from the New Deal through termination and Indian responses to it, and views the termination era as providing the seeds for self-determination; and Donald L. Fixico’s Termination and Relocation, which provides an overview of this federal policy period. Several groundbreaking tribal studies exist as well. R. Warren Metcalf analyzes the devastating impacts of the policy on the mixed-blood Utes of the Uintah-Ouray Reservation in Termination’s Legacy. Jaakko Puisto views the policy in relation to a reservation that escaped its fate, the Flathead Reservation of Montana, in a doctoral dissertation, “‘This is My Reservation, I Belong Here.’” The best analysis of Menominee termination remains Gary Allen Orfield’s master’s thesis, “Ideology and the Indians.”3 pr eface and acknow l e dgm e nt s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

xiii

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Tribal members entering the fields of history and anthropology are also adding significantly to our knowledge and insights into this era. Laurie Arnold analyzes the battle over termination among the confederated group of tribes placed together on the Colville Reservation in Washington State in her doctoral dissertation, “The Paradox of a House Divided,” and Jason Younker discusses termination and restoration in the policy section of his dissertation, “Coquille.” While little has been written on the restoration process, scholars are now paying attention to the related federal acknowledgement process and to unrecognized tribal groups.4 Nicholas C. Peroff’s study of the Menominee, conducted shortly after that tribe achieved restoration, remains the standard and has been reprinted in its second edition. Meanwhile, very little has been written about the Oregon coastal terminations and restorations. Stephen Dow Beckham discusses this history in the pre-restoration years in The Indians of Western Oregon, and E. A. Schwartz provides coverage of the Siletz case in The Rogue River Indian War.5 By and large, however, the field reflects American Indian history of the latter half of the twentieth century—it remains in an incipient or nascent stage. This provides historians of this period with the opportunity to shape the dialogue in the field. In doing so, we need to be able to tell the history from multiple perspectives in both the Indian and white worlds, or at least give it our best shot. From the beginning of my career as a professional historian, it has been important to me that tribal voice play a key role in defining my work. For it is through tribal voice that Indian agency can most readily be detected. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians were far more than passive victims in their relationship to the white world in the years between 1855 and the late twentieth century. They worked hard through the generations to right the wrongs perpetrated against them xiv

p re fac e a n d ac k n ow l e d g m e n t s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

and thus became active agents in the history that led them to a more hopeful place by the end of this story. Tribal members’ own insights into their history thus provide a critical component for a fair telling of it. The Haitian scholar Michel-Rolph Trouillot has pointed out that people are “both . . . actors and . . . narrators” of history, and he observes that “[n]aiveté is often an excuse for those who exercise power. For those upon whom that power is exercised, naiveté is always a mistake.”6 Those Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw leaders who fought for tribal rights through the generations had a strong grasp of both their history and their rights, even while those who exploited their resources and denied them their rights had little or no understanding of these things. In the end, this gave tribal members strength in their efforts to bring about change. It gives the stories they tell strength as well. Tribal voice can be teased out of several types of sources— tribal and nontribal—if the scholar is willing to pay close attention to them. Our work thus becomes a process of decolonizing the telling of history, not for romantic or political purposes, but simply to gain a clearer understanding of what really happened in the past. We need to avoid what Trouillot refers to as “historical overdose,” through which people become “complaisant hostages of the pasts they create.”7 We do this by constantly revising our historical questions and seeking out new historical evidence to help us reinterpret the evidence we already have at our disposal. History consists of multiple narratives telling individual events and stories; our task in the twenty-first century, already begun by able historians, is to broaden those narratives and include tribal perspective. Doing so can help us learn in what ways tribal communities and individuals were victims, but also in what ways they were active agents shaping their destiny, for better or for worse. For the initial stages of this project, I had the good fortune pr eface and acknow l e dgm e nt s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

xv

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of being able to interview several key participants in the history of both termination and restoration, whose memories are sharp and whose stories are enthralling, and whose value in the shaping of this history has been matched by their generosity in sharing it. I also had the good fortune that early ethnologists have richly recorded tribal members’ words in their field notes and publications. The interviews I conducted with tribal members who were directly involved with both termination and restoration added the kinds of insights that are often unavailable in the written record. These interviews provide insider stories of the hardships and travails involved in the losses and the fight to reverse them. These sources have provided me with the opportunity to see the story from the perspectives of a variety of individuals. A surprisingly rich base of documentary sources is extant for these little-studied tribal groups. In fact, these sources exist in two realms in addition to oral history: historical documents and published and unpublished anthropological research papers. Previous books have focused on either the historical or anthropological works, sometimes supplementing them with oral history.8 In this work I have consulted both the primary source historical documents and the anthropological field notes, especially those held at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Anthropological Archives, supplementing both with oral history interviews. All three of these sources are amazingly rich, and taken together they provide evidence that can tell a broad and deep story. Documentary sources in the federal archives and papers and writings of individuals are especially helpful in laying out the American side of the story in the nineteenth century, but these also record the Indian voice in a variety of ways throughout the entire period under study here. Council meetings held in the 1870s through the 1940s survive in the documentary record through minutes, for example. Hearings and investigations xvi

p re fac e a n d ac k n ow l e d g m e n t s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

provided tribal members with opportunities to comment on their circumstances and conditions. Newspaper articles that recorded events and meetings often refer to or quote tribal members; the Oregon Historical Society holds a comprehensive microfilm collection of early Oregon newspapers. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, published on microfilm, proved to be priceless. While Harrington’s purpose was to record words in tribal languages, he recorded many of the stories that his consultants told him as they described the words they were pronouncing. This provides a wealth of information on everyday life among the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians not only in the early 1940s, when the interviews were conducted, but essentially beginning in the lifetimes of the consultants’ parents and grandparents—dating back to the late nineteenth century. Most of these notes are in the tribal members’ own words. University of Columbia scholar Leo Frachtenberg, visiting the coast some three decades before Harrington, also copiously recorded ethnological information that he learned from knowledgeable tribal members. Harrington and other early ethnologists, such as Frachtenberg, seemed to like and in some cases respect the Native people with whom they worked. Frachtenberg married an Indian woman, although he once referred to one of his consultants in print as having “limited intelligence.”9 Other ethnographers detested Indians. For example, Philip Drucker, a University of California anthropologist who worked on the Oregon coast in the 1930s, wrote this about Indians he was visiting for research in Arizona: “There’s no place to camp around Yuma, and I’m damned if I’ll move in with the stinking Indians.” George Bissell, who collected Coos and Lower Umpqua words, wrote the following in an aside in his field notebook: “I shall be glad when I get done; for as Pope told us to lo the poor Indian, so I always do loathe him when in contact.”10 pr eface and acknow l e dgm e nt s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

xvii

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Nonetheless, Drucker’s and Bissell’s work do provide some useful insights into nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century tribal life on Oregon’s coast. I supplemented the oral histories I made and those made by earlier ethnologists with conventional, historical archival and published documents: correspondence, testimony before congressional committees, and quotes from newspapers to enrich the tribal perspective of the history. Such sources also provide a rich source for unearthing Indian voice in earlier times. This information was recorded through outside, Western lenses, yet has proven invaluable when closely read. David Warren Sabean, in Power in the Blood, showed that the peasants’ understanding of events could be gleaned from the record of the crown, even while their understandings of the concept of truth differed markedly. Students of indigenous history have used similar methods to understand relationships between peoples of vastly differing cultural background.11 Early Indian agents occasionally recorded the words of Indian individuals in their correspondence. Meetings with tribal members were often recorded, with tribal leaders’ words translated into English. Dozens of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members testified for the tribes’ claims case against the United States. Newspaper accounts included interviews with tribal members and discussion of their actions, which can be dissected and interpreted; and by the mid-twentieth century, tribal members were writing to government officials themselves. All of these sources, considered carefully, help us understand what tribal members were thinking and doing during the years under consideration. Yet it is also important to know what the United States was doing to, and in relation to, the tribes. That record is more readily available, but also needs to be the subject of careful interpretation. The actions of government agents need to be considered in the context of federal policies as well as local xviii

p re fac e a n d ac k n ow l e d g m e n t s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

non-Indian perceptions and actions. Territorial and state government officials, as well as nongovernmental, white citizen actions, also played key roles in shaping this history. Their efforts can be found in state archival and legislative records, newspaper accounts, and individuals’ papers. The recognized modern authority on Oregon Indians, Stephen Dow Beckham, played an important role in this history in the late twentieth century. Unfortunately, he declined to be interviewed for this project. I have attempted to portray his actions and glean insights into his role based on his written work, both published and in the public record. Likewise, I would have liked to view Senator Mark Hatfield’s papers, but they were not yet processed in the archives at Willamette University. Fortunately, the non-Indian actors generally left a wealthy documentary trail, and so their views are readily accessible to the researcher. It is especially important in relation to termination to know what federal policymakers were planning and how their efforts directly and indirectly affected the tribes. This work, in developing a case study of the record of the policy’s impact on the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribe, therefore delves fairly deeply into the actions of the terminationists themselves, particularly in chapters 6 and 7. All of these sources help illuminate this story in ways that provide a multivariate view of these events, with different actors taking center stage at different times in the telling. Over the years, my family and I have visited the southern Oregon coast numerous times, where we have stayed in the state parks that encompass the lands that the tribes lost in the tragic story that follows, camping out in tents or in yurts. We have stood in awe of the magnificent reaches of this edge of the Pacific Ocean, whose vast and powerful presence emphasizes the insignificance of human life on this earth. We have also pr eface and acknow l e dgm e nt s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

xix

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

had the great good fortune of spending countless hours with tribal members and their families as they recounted the steps they took over many decades to fight the injustices foisted on them by the United States government, the territory and state of Oregon, and American citizens in order to ensure a better future for their children and grandchildren. This experience, as the reader may see from the story that follows, proves the significance of human life on this earth—that the effort of even a small group of people to make momentous change against great odds is possible. I would like to thank the following people who helped this project along through their generosity, hospitality, and aid in myriad practical ways: anonymous reviewers who have read the manuscript or parts of it, JoAllyn Archambault, Frank and Pam Barrett, George C. Barton, Abaki Beck, Ekoo Beck, Jo Beck, Katy Beck, Angela Bowen, Coos elder Chief Edgar A. Bowen, Brenda Brainard, Chief David Brainard, Muriel Brainard, MaryAnn Campbell, Eliza Canty-Jones, Robert C. Carriker, Larry Cebula, Richmond Clow, Wade Davies, George M. Dennison, Gary Dunham, Sherry Dupuis, Richard Engemann, John Ferrell, Jerry Fetz, Scott Forsythe, Neil Froemming, LaDonna Harris, Eddie Helms, Marianne Keddington-Lang, Rosalyn LaPier, Valentina LaPier, David Lewis, Amy Lonetree, Kristine McGee, Damian Miller, David Miller, Ursla Null, Catherine O’Sullivan, Howard Roy, Sara Satterthwaite, Mark Thiel, Angeline Wall, Geoffrey Wexler, Don Whereat, Kristen Wilhelm, Geoffrey White, Elizabeth Woody, and Jason Younker. I would especially like to thank those who shared their stories and knowledge with me and my family. Staff at the following archival and research centers provided invaluable aid: L. Tom Perry Collection, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University, Provo; Marquette University Archives, Milwaukee; naes College Archives, Chicago; xx

p re fac e a n d ac k n ow l e d g m e n t s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

National Archives and Records Administration repositories in Washington dc, College Park Maryland, and Pacific Alaska Region-Seattle; Oregon Historical Society; Oregon State Archives; National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution; National Museum of the American Indian Archives, Smithsonian Institution; University of Montana Interlibrary Loan office, Missoula. This work was completed in part with support from the following: the 2006 Donald J. Sterling Jr. Fellowship from the Oregon Historical Society; a short-term Visiting Scientist appointment at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History; the Anthropology Department, University of Hawaii-Manoa; the East-West Center for Pacific Studies, University of Hawaii-Manoa; a Small Research Grant, University of Montana; the University of Montana Native American Studies Department; the University of Montana College of Arts and Sciences; a University of Montana sabbatical; the University of Montana President’s Excellence Fund; the University of Montana Office of the Provost; and of course, my family. I am especially appreciative of the cover artwork for this book created by the Blackfeet/Métis artist Valentina LaPier, who has a Coos grandchild.

pr eface and acknow l e dgm e nt s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

xxi

a bbr e v i at ions

aio aiprc bia ceta dc g-p ira ira narc

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

oia wrba

Americans for Indian Opportunity American Indian Policy Review Commission Bureau of Indian Affairs Comprehensive Employment Training Act District of Columbia Georgia-Pacific Indian Reorganization Act Indian Rights Association Native American Research Center Office of Indian Affairs Willow River Benevolent Association

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

c ha p ter o n e

Before the Treaty

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

American indians have lived along the oregon coast since time immemorial, in their terms, and for thousands of years according to archaeologists. Coos Elder Chief Edgar Bowen likes to say, “We’re the oldest continuous government in southwestern Oregon.”1 Indeed, the ancient origin stories of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw that described the beginnings of nearly all aspects of the tribal world center them in the landscape where they lived at the time of first contact with the white population.2 George Gibbs, a mid-nineteenthcentury, non-Indian observer, summed up the early contact conditions along the coast as follows: The district inhabited by these tribes is a narrow strip, twenty to thirty miles in width, and some four degrees of latitude in extent, lying between the coast range and the ocean; a rough + broken district heavily timbered with fir, intersected by numerous rapid streams most of them rising in those mountains, and where spurs or bluffs, coming down to the sea, alternate with broad sand beaches and small landlocked harbors of difficult access. Along this tract are settled several small tribes, each imprisoned, as it were, between prominent headlands, drawing their subsistence almost entirely from the sea, having but casual intercourse with the interior, and until recently none with its white inhabitants. With two or three exceptions, little has in consequence been known of them or their affinities.3

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

John Peabody Harrington, conducting ethnological research for the Smithsonian Institution in the 1940s, described the land base of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw after extensive interviews with tribal elders. He wrote that they “had habitats in what is now known as the coast country of the state of Oregon extending eastward from the ocean beach to the top of the divide seen as horizon when looking toward the land from off the coast, which divide separates the comparatively short rivers of the coast from the great valley of the Willamette, the Willamette River running north to enter the Columbia River.”4 The Coos are of two language groups within the Coosan language family, Hanis and Miluk. The Hanis lived in villages along Coos Bay, while the Miluk lived south of there through an area known as the South Slough, along the ocean and to the Coquille River, where they lived in proximity to and intermarried with their close relatives the Coquille. Jim Buchanan, who had been born in 1852, told visiting ethnologist Harry Hull St. Clair II in 1903 that the landscape was filled with people. “Every stream has people on it,” he said. Lionel Youst, in his biography of Annie Miner Peterson, stated that the Coos lived in numerous small villages of ten to one hundred people along Coos Bay and south to the Coquille River. Each village had its own headmen or chiefs. Nonetheless, the Coos built a strong relationship with two other tribes, the Siuslaw and the Lower Umpqua, and in the American period would become politically bound to them. The Siuslaw and Lower Umpqua are both of a linguistic stock referred to as Siuslaw. Eventually the Coos would split further from the Coquille. At the time of first contact, the three affiliated tribes altogether numbered in the thousands, with several dozen villages ranging in size from fewer than ten to one hundred or more inhabitants. This despite a massive, destructive tsunami that had struck the coast in 1700.5 2

b e f o r e t h e t r e at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Harrington posited the reasons that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were associated long before the Americans came. “The Coos were the only tribe of the coast which at least in their present . . . placename status were habitually northern-looking. Of course their enforced Yachats residence made them familiar with the coast north of Coos Bay, but their very name, which patently was used in ancient times, means southerners, and the idea that they were a double twofold tribe consisting of Haanis-Millukw and Siuslaw-Umpqua branches, was ancient.”6 The Coos referred to themselves as southern people, meaning they related more to their northern neighbors than to tribes south of them. The next major river north, the Umpqua, empties into the Pacific some thirty-six miles up the coast from Coos Bay. There the Lower Umpqua tribe resided. Harrington also observed that their name for themselves could be translated as southerners. The Lower Umpqua numbered twenty-one villages. According to Leo Frachtenberg, their easternmost territory extended to present-day Scottsburg.7 James Owen Dorsey and Harrington both observed that the village was the cornerstone of social life and organization.8 The northernmost of the three tribes were the Siuslaw, whose northern neighbors were the Alsea. In an 1884 visit to the Siletz Agency, Dorsey recorded that the Siuslaw had previously lived in thirty-four villages, most of them lining the Siuslaw River, some nearly as far inland as present-day Eugene. Frachtenberg, visiting almost two decades later, recorded the eastern limits of the Siuslaw as present-day Mapleton.9 Another piece of evidence connects the Coos Bay tribes with the Lower Umpqua tribes. According to Lottie Evanoff, not long before the arrival of the whites, a group of Alsea warriors attacked the Umpqua at the Umpqua River. The Siuslaw had let the Alsea cross their river, some twenty-two miles north of the Umpqua, unimpeded. But the Lower Umpqua called befor e t he t re at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

3

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

for and received aid from the Coos tribes and expelled the Alsea, chasing them north, leaving the beach “strewn with dead Alsees.” This diminished this Alsea band so severely that when smallpox hit it was nearly wiped out, according to Evanoff.10 An army surgeon posted in the region in the 1850s, Dr. John J. Milhau, wrote of the dense population in Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw country. “The Coast Indians between Cape Arago and Cape Foulweather have at one time been very numerous, the number of indian graves and the vestiges of former habitations go to show that every stream and every nook was densely populated.”11 Oral history conducted in the early 1940s confirmed the dense population. It was said that one could “throw a ball up in the air + it wd fall + hit the people, + that there were so many children that when they played together [it] made the ground shake. And the small pox kild them off.”12 Milhau also observed that “the word Kallawotsett is the indian name for the Umpqua river from its mouth to the rapids, a distance of 30 miles.” He noted that U.S. officials referred to all three of the tribes together as Kalawatset. Linguistically, in an accurate assessment, he disagreed. Culturally, however, he described the three tribal groups in association with each other: The Coos bays, Kallawotsetts + Siusclaus have the habits, pursuits +c. of Coast Indians living in underground houses near the water, subsisting on fish berries roots and seeds, very fond of whales and seals. Short in stature and thick set, tattoe the arms but not the face, wear ornaments in the nose, ears and around the neck. Bury the dead in the ground and place all the effects of the deceased individual over the grave canoe baskets +c +c . . . . Spend a great deal of their time in their canoes but seldom go outside except in the finest weather.13 4

b e f o r e t h e t r e at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Philip Drucker, interviewing Hank Johnson, Spencer Scott, and Ellen Tronson of the Lower Umpqua, and Agnes Johnson of the Coos, in the 1930s, provided some description of traditional material culture of both groups. He described underground houses as long as thirty to forty feet, with cedar plank roofs above ground. Two to three families could live in the houses, with each having its own fire.14 The Coos made beds by driving posts into the ground, laying boards on top, and covering the boards with mats and bedding.15 Tule mats used as wallpaper also provided good insulation that kept the houses warm.16 Leo Frachtenberg, an early-twentieth-century linguist, observed that the Coos, like their neighbors, made their living from the resources available to them:

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

They were hunters and fishermen. Their food consisted of the meat of deer, elk, bear, beaver, wild-cat, and of salmon, trout, eel, sturgeon, halibut, whale, clams and crabs, which they either boiled in baskets by means of hot stones or roasted on sticks. They never ate raw meat and were acquainted with the use of salt. Roots formed an important part of their daily food, their favorites in this respect being, camas, fern, crab-apples, hazelnuts, berries, skunk-cabbage and others.17

Ida Mecum, a Coos woman, told Drucker that her family hulled and dried myrtle nuts, then baked them in ashes in a fire.18 Spencer Scott recalled boiling sea water for salt; Lottie Evanoff remembered gathering it from holes and rocks in which sea water had dried.19 George Bundy Wasson recalled that the Coos traded seafood with the Kalapuya and Klickitat tribal members who packed them in from the mountains. “It was a custom of the Coos tribe that no stranger should enter a camp uninvited,” he said. So visitors would sit in a conspicuous place near the camp and the chief would invite them in. The visitors would befor e t he t re at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

5

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

be feasted while the Coos women took their packs, emptied them of nuts and berries, and replaced these with dried eels, herring, or clams. “It would have been an insult if one of these visiting members would open their packs to see how much clams or dried . . . eels was put in the place of the nuts or dried berries that he had brought for trade.”20 According to Drucker, the Indians speared salmon after laying traps of leaves and sticks in the river to guide the fish toward their canoes. The Indians built fences to catch salmon and, when they got enough fish, they took the fences down, according to Alec Evanoff. Lottie Evanoff remembered that “every slough had a salmon trap.” Tribal members also caught fish in dams that would trap them when the tide receded. The Coos used special dams on the muddy bottoms of rivers to catch eels. The best eels ran at night, when the moon was not out, according to Lottie Evanoff and Frank Drew. The Siuslaw traveled up the Siuslaw River as far as present-day Mapleton to fish for eels. Fish drying and smoking, and the drying of whale blubber, occurred indoors. Dried fish was stored in tule and root baskets; fish skin, jaw parts, and eggs were all dried and stored for use in the winter months. The Coos carried dried salmon in a “bundle, tied up with hazel-sticks.” Sea lion flippers were special delicacies.21 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw ate whale only when it washed ashore, already dead or easily killed.22 Other common meat dishes included elk, which were trapped in pits with spears pointing up at the bottom, and deer, which the Coos caught in buckskin nooses or killed with clubs. Lottie Evanoff recalled that the Coos also hunted elk on the South Slough island by waiting until high tide and then running them off and clubbing them over the head as they tried to swim ashore. Or, at places where they knew elk would jump, they would build a deep narrow pit that would trap the elk, which dangled there until they came and killed it. The hunters used 6

b e f o r e t h e t r e at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

sweathouses and herbs to remove their scent, so as not to scare off the animals. Frank Drew told Harrington that the Siuslaw would hunt elk in the mountains in July, when they “were real fat.” People would carry the elk home on their backs, tied to a pack. Drew also observed that the Siuslaw regularly burned out the underbrush in their country so that the deer could be seen from afar.23 Beaver could be caught with nooses or, according to Lottie Evanoff, with dogs trained to go into beaver houses and pull them out by the tail.24 Individuals from the three tribes dried and treated numerous plant and animal foods for use in the cold and rainy winter season. Jim Buchanan recalled that each family needed approximately twenty bundles of dried salmon, dried elk, and dried deer meat. According to Drucker, salal berries were “pounded into cakes + dried for winter.” Dried huckleberries provided another critical food source. Seaweed could also be dried into cakes and “eaten with grease.” Other plant foods eaten in winter included clover roots. These were dug in autumn, “after leaves had dried,” and “Sun-Dried, [they] kept for winter.” Dried eels and salmon heads provided an important source of meat that would last through the cold times. Clams and mussels were “dried on strings for winter” and later boiled to eat. Though the mussels were tough when prepared that way, they provided important nutrition in those months when cold and heavy rains made it dangerous and difficult to go out to hunt or collect food. Salmon eggs also provided a winter delicacy.25 Tribal members also made clothing and tools from local resources. They made skirts and capes of grasses; pants and shirts and moccasins from buckskin. People wore raingear made of either coon hides or grasses.26 Jim Buchanan told St. Clair, “They would skin shags and divers and made hats lined with buckskin and covered with these [birds’] feathers.”27 Clubs and spears, paddles and canoes, bows and arrows, fish weirs and the points in animal pits, were all made of the befor e t he t re at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

7

appropriate wood materials. Elk horns were used for utensils as well as wedges and blades for cutting trees. Harpoons used to kill sea otters, seals, and sea lions were attached to buoys made from bladders. Braided hides made snares that could purportedly catch even a bison. Baskets woven of wood, barks, and grasses held water, cooked food, and, lined with leaves, served as plates. They also made valuable storage bins for food and belongings.28 For the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, the resources of the land and the water provided them with everything they needed to live: food, clothing, shelter, tools, and conveniences. These were their most precious resources.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Tribal leadership consisted of two chiefs, or headmen, in a village and a spiritual doctor. The chief’s major role was to take care of the people, especially the poorer people in the community. Buchanan described the role of the Coos chief to St. Clair. The head chief was always visiting around. He would take his crowd around with him on a tour to play shinny, gamble, etc. He was wiser and smart and worth more than the rest of them and for that reason was chief. . . . He would be chief who had more than the rest, was a good talker, in the council, and he . . . would keep building himself up and accumulating things. . . . If one of the village should gain anything, he would give his chief the whole or part of it, and if the man gets into some trouble later, the chief is the one who helps him out. One of the chiefs was always higher than the other in the village. Both of them acted as sort of judges. What they said went. If one disobeys the head chief and the other less rich men take his part on the ground that he is right, that often settles the matter. The head chief may be wrong.29

Annie Miner Peterson, who became the oldest fluent bilingual Hanis and Miluk speaker after Buchanan passed away 8

b e f o r e t h e t r e at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

in 1933, told ethnologist Melville Jacobs that young men and women “were the ones to take food to the poor people.” She added, “Then indeed everyone had food. . . . That is how it was always done. The good (chiefs and well-to-do) people looked after the poor people.” Poor people could get food by approaching a home with smoke, where they would be fed and given leftovers to take home with them. Peterson had been born in 1860 and grew up with the old people, eagerly listening to and learning their stories.30 The chiefs and the doctor oversaw law and order, with the doctor adjudicating thefts based on visions he received, and the chiefs being responsible for sponsoring a murder or war dance held by the murderer, and to pay off the family of the murdered.31 Doctors, who could be male or female, could also heal people by sucking the sickness from their bodies, a power given to them from the supernatural world in which powerful spirits resided.32 The chiefs and doctors were part of an elite class. In fact, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw society was marked by clear class distinctions. Leo Frachtenberg observed that “[t]his distinction between rich and poor, or as my informants expressed it between good and bad, was very marked and permeated every phase of Coos life.” Ida Mecum remarked that wealthy people used beaver hides as seats in their canoes; others simply sat uncomfortably on the floor. Lottie Evanoff, however, described people placing straw on the floor of canoes and covering this with tule mats. She also recalled that wealthy people made their quivers of otter fur. Rich folks made their spoons of elk horn, poor folks used shells. Wealthy people lived in wood houses, while poorer people might live in grass huts. Rich men tattooed their arms to measure dentalia, the strings of shells used as money. The Lower Umpqua referred to a rich man in the same language as a chief; indeed, the chief’s role in taking care of his people at times called for him to use befor e t he t re at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

9

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

his wealth for the benefit of those who had none.33 Evanoff recalled that her father, who was a chief, traveled to his summer home where “since he was a chief” he would “merely look on as his men were catching salmons.”34 People married outside their own villages, with the men purchasing their wives who left their community and family for their husband’s. The higher the status of a woman, the higher was her purchase price. In cases of divorce, the purchase price might be refunded in full, in part, or not at all, depending on circumstances. Adultery was also dealt with by traditional law, and either the wife or husband kept the children when this split up a marriage, depending again on circumstances.35 Even before 1800, foreign ships began to pass along the Oregon coast, as part of the European and American oceanic explorations of the Pacific. By the 1780s Spanish, Russian, British, and American ships plied the Northwest Coast at various points between Alaska and California.36 Some passed close enough to shore, or sent small boats in to explore, that they began to record their observations of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw landscape and even people. The first white men probably sailed along Oregon’s coast in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, but it was the late 1700s and early 1800s when the fur traders began a steady business in their sailing ships along the rivers and bays there. In 1791 the Jenny, which had sailed from Bristol, England, stopped for ten to twelve days at the Umpqua River while its crew traded with the Lower Umpqua for a small amount of otter skins.37 On 10 April 1792, the Columbia also stopped near the mouth of the Umpqua River and traded copper and iron for otter furs. John Boit, who kept a log, observed that the Lower Umpqua spoke a language entirely different from other Oregon tribes he had encountered.38 The use of distinct languages by relatively small population groups would lead 10

b e f o r e t h e t r e at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The Oregon Coast

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

to communication problems with the white intruders in the early nineteenth century. After Lewis and Clark spent the winter of 1805–6 near the mouth of the Columbia River, the major fur companies established a presence, with the Hudson’s Bay Company gaining control.39 In 1818 the United States and Great Britain agreed to put off claiming Oregon Territory for either nation.40 Thereafter British and American frontiersmen passed through and settled in the area. Lottie Evanoff once remarked that the early whites were like the mythical character Coyote. “They w[oul]d make a baby + then just keep on going.”41 In the late 1820s, British fur traders and trappers working for the Hudson’s Bay Company began working the coast, even into the remote reaches of the Siuslaw, Lower Umpqua, and Coos Rivers. Alexander R. McLeod recorded his experiences along the Siuslaw and then farther south in 1826 and 1827. He traveled with an interpreter who knew the Siuslawan languages better than anyone else in the group, but was really fluent in the Chinook jargon, a lingua franca on the coast, especially toward the Columbia. This, however, was not good enough to bring about what we would refer to today as effective intercultural communication, which McLeod recognized. On 18 July 1826, at his Siuslaw River camp, he observed, “we cannot therefore interrogate the Indians on many subjects as we could wish because we are not only subject to misunderstand them but also liable to be misunderstood and a wrong construction put upon our questions which might very likely rise suspicion that would tend to frustrate our views, we are therefore more forebearing less inquisitive than we otherwise would be were we better provided with Interpreters.”42 McLeod’s experience, however, illustrated the connection between the Siuslaw and the Coos. As McLeod camped near Siuslaw villages he befriended a Siuslaw chief he called “the little Chief.” McLeod’s purpose of course was to trade for 12

b e f o r e t h e t r e at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

furs, so he waited at the Siuslaw River while Little Chief went down to Coos Bay to trade for furs from the Coos, which he would then trade to McLeod. He later said that members of a Lower Umpqua village that he visited had never seen a white man before.43 Trade between McLeod’s group and the local tribes meant that their relations were relatively friendly, but they were often strained as well. The major source of tension between McLeod and the Indians was over access to resources. The tribal members wanted the greatest economic benefit, which they could gain by serving as middlemen. McLeod was continuously frustrated in requesting information on where to trap the furs. The tribes protected their resource by misinforming the white trappers as to the locations of the best trapping grounds, and therefore they were able to maintain control of the furs. They knew that if McLeod’s men could trap the animals themselves, the Indians would lose the animals and the income from their furs. The tensions came to a head with the Coos, who killed a member of McLeod’s party named Ignace after Ignace’s gun went off in a confrontation.44 The twin issues of conflict over resources and lack of a common tongue meant that relations would be uneasy at best. Frank Drew later commented that “the Indians watched their rights in those times” and that “[i]t was risky business for whitemen to trap and barter around here in those times.”45 Those two issues, resources and communication, foreshadowed much of what would occur in the nineteenth century. A language represents not only words but a distinctive world view and understanding of a people’s place here on earth. So even later, when words could be translated, a language conflict—or put another way, a world-view conflict—existed. In July 1828, Jedediah Smith, during a lengthy exploration that had originated in St. Louis two years earlier, passed along the Oregon coast, nearly losing his life. Smith, traveling befor e t he t re at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

13

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

from the south up to the Umpqua River, thus became the first white American to lead an expedition through this country. A companion, Harrison G. Rogers, who lost his life at the hands of the Lower Umpqua, recorded a journal, part of which still survives. He reported that the exploration party arrived at Coos River from the south on 8 July.46 Although the story of this conflict is told from various perspectives, it is safe to say that miscommunication, cultural misunderstanding, and conflict over resources were the root causes of it.47 The first continuous occupation by white settlers among the three tribes began in about 1830 or 1832 when the Hudson’s Bay Company established Fort Umpqua in the Lower Umpqua homeland, along the Umpqua River near what is now Elkton. Jean Baptiste Gagnier reportedly established a Hudson’s Bay post on the Umpqua River, among the Lower Umpqua. He married into the tribe, which gave him kinship relations and an opportunity to learn the language and cultural practices of the people with whom he traded, a combination that FrenchCanadian traders had long employed.48 However, the British presence in the region was short-lived. Within a mere two decades Americans would claim the lands and begin to force the tribal people off of them. From 1775 to 1853 tribal population would decline precipitously due to smallpox and other disease epidemics that swept the coast as many as nine times, “decreasing the indigenous population up to 90 percent.”49 In the 1840s, Americans began moving into the territory south of the Columbia River by the thousands and settling there. This signaled the major changes that Oregon’s Indian population would face in the coming decades. In 1846, the United States and Great Britain divided the landscape at the forty-ninth parallel. Two years later the United States officially established the Oregon Territory.50 14

b e f o r e t h e t r e at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

In 1911, Louisa Smith, then the oldest woman in the Lower Umpqua tribe, recalled her childhood in approximately the 1840s for the linguist Leo Frachtenberg. Her family lived away from other people, up river. Her step-father was a trapper. They ate a lot of flounder and dried salmon and an occasional deer. “We were always warm in this our house. We had lots of food.” Her stepfather trapped hides and her mother and grandmother prepared them, and relatives brought canoes to haul them to market.51 Flounder could be caught by stepping on them in shallow water, as at one site that Frank Drew and Clay Barrett recalled on the Siuslaw River.52 This would all change in the coming years. America’s relationship with the Oregon Indians was contentious from this time forth. Two laws foretold the difficulties tribes would have with the rapidly increasing American population beginning at mid-century. The 1848 Organic Act that established the Oregon Territory followed past legal precedent in guaranteeing that Indian rights and title to lands could only be extinguished by treaty. The Oregon Donation Land Act passed two years later, however, “gave any United States citizen title to 320 acres of land for staking and occupying a claim,” in the words of Mark Axel Tveskov. Under the latter law, nonIndians staked out and claimed Indian lands that should have been protected by the Organic Act. The contradictory nature of the two laws coupled with the inability of U.S. Indian Service agents in Oregon to protect tribal rights led to the loss of twoand-a-half-million acres of Indian lands.53 The resource conflicts caused by misunderstanding on the official level were greatly exacerbated because individual white settlers could have cared less what the Indian needs or rights were. Many, though not all, simply wanted land for themselves and viewed the tribal members as obstacles to their own economic goals and success. This also forced the United States to negotiate treaties quickly with the tribes to legalize white land takings. befor e t he t re at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

15

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

At this critical juncture in the history of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes, the United States knew hardly anything of them. In 1847 Congress asked the Bureau of Indian Affairs to prepare an extensive report on the Indians of the United States. The Indian office asked Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, an ethnologist and ex-Indian agent, to prepare the survey. The resulting work, published in six volumes covering thousands of pages, provided an exhaustive overview of Indian relations and demographics. Relying on information from the Lewis and Clark era nearly a half-century previously, Schoolcraft reported the numbers of Coos and Lower Umpqua Indians in a list and said nothing more about them, and nothing about the Siuslaw at all. This is understandable considering the distance and remoteness of Oregon from Washington dc and considering the relatively small size of the tribes. Fifteen hundred Coos and five hundred Lower Umpqua were reported.54 However, it is also reflective of the way the government would view these tribes for the next century—obliquely and deserving of minuscule attention in the overall development and enactment of Indian policy.

16

b e f o r e t h e t r e at y

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

c ha p ter two

The 1855 Treaty and the Beginning of Quasi Recognition

The 1850s and 1860s established the pattern of treatment that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw would endure for the next century. For the most part, both the local white population and government officials would deal with them based on reactions to activities of other Indians in the region, on unfounded fear, or out of ignorance of their condition. Numerous observers at the time, including some government officials, recorded what seem to be accurate descriptions of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw relations with the white population, yet these same officials treated members of these tribes individually and as groups in ways that contradicted their observations. This meant that tribal members were to face difficult times. Treaty making in southwestern Oregon began in 1850, with the tribal groups in the Rogue River region of the far coastal south, where white explorers discovered gold.1 Settlers moving to this area west of the Cascade Mountains often came through the Willamette Valley and then south, or to California and then north. They took Indian lands at will, often simply claiming and stealing homes of tribal members, even occasionally murdering them to do so. This led to warfare when military volunteers attacked southern coast Indians “and in 1853–1854 massacred the Takelma, Shasta, Chetco, and Lower Coquille Indians.” Tribal members responded to the attacks and resultant loss of resources, and the Rogue River War lasted until 1856. These eruptions included

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

not only conflict between the local tribal groups and settlers but also disputes between the settlers and U.S. officials. In the end, most surviving tribal members from the Rogue River region would relocate to a coastal reservation far to the north of their homelands.2 At times, to the consternation of U.S. military and government officials in Oregon, white settlers showed venomous hatred toward and utter disregard of the rights of the region’s Indian people. As warfare broke out, the split between official U.S. views and views of the settlers toward Indians often conflicted. In 1853, as they were gathering for battle, a group of settlers unfurled a U.S. flag on which some of the women had sewn “Extermination!” Several of the men spoke strongly in favor of that sentiment. It was only after General Joseph Lane stirringly defended the American flag as a “glorious banner . . . that knows no race, no tribe, no creed” and “stands for all our people, here and everywhere” that the flag was destroyed.3 The sentiment remained, however. Oregon Territory’s superintendent of Indian Affairs, Joel Palmer, desperately tried to thwart the mayhem caused by the white inhabitants, whom he referred to at one point as “evil disposed persons whose acts of aggression and barbarity are calculated to arouse the bitterest feelings of savage vengeance.”4 In the larger picture, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw lands were not yet viewed as significant by U.S. officials, but the tribal members themselves, though both friendly and generous to the local white population, were at times feared by the whites and treated as enemies. From their faraway offices along the East Coast, American politicians understood the Pacific Coast only in vague terms. They recognized the value of San Francisco, the Columbia River, and the Puget Sound for trade, and the gold fields for wealth; but early reports of the region’s future role in the United States barely mentioned Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw lands, aside from lumping 18

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

them together with other southern Oregon and northern California coastal lands and describing them as rugged and lacking major seaports.5 In 1853 Congress broke Washington Territory off from Oregon. That September, Oregon Superintendent of Indian Affairs Joel Palmer wrote to Commissioner of Indian Affairs George Manypenny of the Indians in the Willamette Valley, “They have become distrustful of all promises made them by the United States, and believe the design of the Government is to defer doing anything for them till they have wasted away. The settlement of the whites on those tracts which they regarded as secured to them by solemn treaty stipulations, results among the Indians . . . in frequent misunderstandings between them and the settlers, and occasions and augments bitter animosity and resentments.” He also noticed that this distrust extended even to the Oregon tribes that had yet to enter into treaty relations with the United States.6 In October of that, year William Martin, special agent sent to meet with the Coos and Umpqua Indians, wrote along similar lines to Palmer, suggesting early and honest treaty negotiations with both tribes. [T]here is no doubt but all of our indian difficulties in this country have their origin in behalf of the indians believing that the whites intend taking their lands from them without paying them for it, but when they find that not to be the case, they at once have the most implicit confidence in the white people; after their lands are bought all that is needed is never to deceive them in the first instance, for if they ever lose confidence in the whites it is a very hard matter to get them to replace that confidence again.7

In his instructions to Martin, upon his appointment as agent, Palmer wrote of the tribes living at the Coos and Umpqua Rivers, “Learn also whether they are disposed to sell to the the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

19

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

United States the country claimed by them, and remove to such parts as may be designated for a permanent home. You can inform them should they agree to do so, that they will be aided and protected by the Government in all their rights.”8 Without this cession and removal, the government would not guarantee the Indians’ rights, though they were theoretically protected by law. Martin wrote to Palmer after visiting the Coos, “I found them entirely friendly to the whites.” He went on to inform the superintendent that he believed “[t]hey are anxious to sell their lands, and make a small reserve to live on.” He described those lands as encompassing the Coos Bay country all the way from the Pacific to the peaks of the mountains, from near the Coquille River in the south to Ten Mile Creek, located ten miles south of the Umpqua River. “The country is mostly level and covered with Spruce, Fir and white cedar, and contains an immense quantity of fine stone coal,” he said. He finished by saying, “I would propose buying the land of the Co-ose Indians as soon as possible.”9 They made no treaty at this time, however. On the same trip, as Martin traveled toward Scottsburg, some twenty miles inland on the Umpqua River, he met with the Lower Umpqua. “They claim to the Umpqua and always have been willing for the whites to have all of their land, except a small piece covering their fishery,” he reported. “I told them that the President . . . wanted to pay them for [their land] which pleased them very much.”10 In 1854 a new agent, Edwin P. Drew, took charge of the Umpqua District, which became known as the Umpqua Subagency. The tribes living in that jurisdiction included the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and the Coquille.11 White encroachments reached into the territory of these tribes as lawless settlers marauded up and down the coast. Three Coos Indians were among the more than two dozen Indians in the area murdered 20

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

by whites in 1853–54.12 In one case, Superintendent Palmer informed Commissioner of Indian Affairs Manypenny, an Umpqua Indian family established a small farm in a secluded cove, where they built a cabin, “enclosed a field,” and planted crops. “[U]nfortunately for the poor Indian, a white man saw and coveted this romantic spot, included it in his survey,” under the Land Donation Act, “and bade the indian remove.”13 Palmer instructed Drew to be especially careful to treat the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Coquille in a humanitarian and just manner, in order to maintain peace among the tribes and between the tribes and white citizens. Nonetheless, Palmer also told Drew that federal policy toward Oregon Indians “is to extinguish their title to the country, and colonize them on suitable Reserves.” Drew’s job was to get these four tribes to agree to remove to a remote piece of land not coveted by white settlers or entrepreneurs.14 At the same time, Palmer urged Commissioner Manypenny to authorize him to treat with the Indians to purchase their lands and set aside reservations that white citizens could not take from the Indians.15 Theft of Indian land by white citizens was so common in Oregon that Secretary of the Interior Robert McClelland wrote to the United States attorney general Caleb Cushing to learn the legality of it. Cushing responded that the idea “that any white settler may rightfully take possession of any of the lands occupied by the Indians and oust them prior to the extinguishment of their occupancy title by the United States . . . is too absurd to admit of any reasoned reply. Suffice it to say that a white settler has the same right thus to oust the Indians as he has to oust white men, and no more.” He believed “the right to substitute robbery for purchase and violence for law” to be so far-fetched as to barely merit discussion.16 However, his opinion had little influence on the spot, and the land thefts continued. Finally, in December 1854, McClelland authorized Palmer the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

21

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

to negotiate for land cessions with the tribes within Oregon Territory.17 Shortly thereafter, in the summer of 1855, Palmer negotiated the Empire Treaty with twenty-eight tribal groups, including the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. Fifty-nine Coos, ten Lower Umpqua, and thirteen Siuslaw chiefs and headmen signed the treaty, meaning these tribes still had numerous village sites. Jackson signed the treaty as one of the Coos leaders. He was but one of numerous village headmen.18 However, none of the Coos present was fluent either in English or in the lingua franca, Chinook jargon, also referred to as “the Hudson Bay” by some tribal members.19 A white man living in the area translated for them. The Coos simply called this man “Coos [Hanis] language man,” because of his facility with the language, and had to trust his representations of their words to Palmer and Palmer’s words to them. According to one source, “There was a Coos Ind. there . . . who had a smattering of the jarg, + he said at the meeting, . . . you talk,” to Coos language man when translation was needed.20 The translation of the treaty negotiations on both sides into the multiplicity of tribal languages and from them into English must have been awkward indeed. Nonetheless, one woman of Coos and Coquille descent later said of the Coos, “Some old Indians said after the treaty was signed, the Indians gathered at Tar Heel point and held a special ceremony.” This event included speeches by tribal leaders, prayers conducted by a spiritual leader, and the burying of “a stone hatchet in the ground,” as “the waves beat a mournful dirge along the shore.”21 The burying of the hatchet could well have signified Coos hopes for peace with the expanding white population, which would become a contested viewpoint within the tribe in the years to come. The commissioner of Indian Affairs did not forward the 1855 treaty to Congress because it arrived in Washington during a recess and “because of the hostile condition of the 22

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Government’s relation with certain Indians in that country,” which the document explained was not created by the twentyeight tribal groups signatory to the treaty.22 Indeed, he was referring to the Rogue River wars, and so although Congress ratified some of the treaties that Palmer negotiated with the coastal tribes in 1854 and 1855, it failed to ratify this one.23 Though the tribes viewed this as a solemn, binding agreement, the Indian Bureau in Washington dc disagreed. Palmer and his successor treated the tribes as if they expected the treaty to be ratified, but the commissioner of Indian Affairs and Congress never followed their advice. Unfortunately, the United States deceived the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw and others “in the first instance,” leading to a century and a half of displacement and underdevelopment from which the tribes have yet to fully recover. In hindsight we can say that both Palmer’s and Martin’s concerns of the broad-reaching impact of U.S. deceit were prescient. This treaty failed to stop the loss of tribal lands in southwestern Oregon Territory and also failed to compensate the Indians for those losses.24 James Buchanan, a tribal member who was present as a child at the 1855 treaty negotiations with Palmer, later remembered what occurred at the treaty meeting. The story had likely been passed down orally through tribal tradition. A federal official told the Indians, “‘You will leave a valuable country, but the United States Government will pay you for it as soon as you Indians move. You Indians will be paid for the timber, for the land, the river, coal and gold.’ . . . Then General Palmer said, ‘Sure, the U.S. Government will pay as soon as you move to Fort Umpqua.’”25 Indeed, the treaty would have established a reservation for all the tribal people to move onto and would set aside the rest of their territory for the white citizens. They were to retain their land until “expiration of the time specified,” when they would be removed. In exchange for the sales, the tribal groups were the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

23

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

to receive annuity payments paid out in goods and services for twelve years, a lump sum at the time of removal to cover tribal wants and needs, and to pay for their subsistence.26 Since the treaty was not ratified, the tribes did not receive payment for the lands. They continued to lose them anyway. Treaties often served to dispossess Indians from their homelands, but from a tribal perspective, the treaties served two additional and important purposes: they helped document preexisting rights that were not extinguished under the new relationship with the United States, and they provided compensation for the loss of resources and destruction of the tribal economy that accompanied land loss. Since Congress never ratified Palmer’s 1855 Empire Treaty, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw became quasi-recognized tribes and never received either legal assurances or compensation. Palmer recognized that “miscreant” or marauding white citizens caused much of the resulting conflict, but he also recognized that the white population would continue to increase as roads were built from the east to the coast. He observed, “we have it in contemplation to extinguish Indian title to all the land bordering on the thoroughfares from the States to this coast, and the removal of the Indians there from” to open the way for white emigrants.27 As early as the 1820s there “was growing enthusiasm for the Oregon country” in the eastern United States. This caused an “‘Oregon fever’” and led to the steady flow of easterners into Oregon Territory. These were the people for whom Palmer was opening up lands. The expanding white population in the 1850s inexorably moved Oregon toward statehood, which it achieved in 1859.28 As the emigrants arrived, Indian lands would need to be emptied for them west of the mountains. The solution Palmer called for was removal and establishment of reservations. Meanwhile, the Rogue River War to the south caused even Indians not involved with any warfare on white citizens to 24

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

be removed to new lands, simply because they were Indians. Palmer himself feared that Oregon’s Indians were “doomed on this coast unless a strong military force be thrown in as a shield” to protect them from the bloodthirsty white population. Instead, when Indians in the Rogue River country responded to white encroachments on their land and murder and robbery of their people with violence, Governor George Curry of Oregon reacted by calling for volunteer forces to attack the Indians. When these forces responded by attacking innocent villages of Indians and killing men, women, and children, the governor had to backtrack and post a notice asking citizens to leave the fighting to U.S. and territorial troops.29 But the damage had been done. Whatever the governor’s intentions, the territorial government had encouraged all-out attacks on Indians no matter their relation to the United States. Special agent Drew visited the Coos Indians immediately as tensions and fear among white citizens grew. An early white Coos Bay resident had observed that the “Coos Indians always maintained a friendly relation to the whites,” and that approximately thirty local Indian women married local white men in the male-dominated frontier town of Coos Bay. Early observers remarked that there was little conflict between the Coos and the new white citizens of the area. The Coos Indians took a liking to American clothing, far more so than to gold or silver, and occasionally some swiped clothing from local clothes lines. One observer, in comparing Indian to white morals in the region, has remarked that stealing was acceptable among Indians because it showed cunning, but that they did not respect people who did not keep their word. Nonetheless, white residents were afraid the tribal members might become violent and were quick to take preemptive violent action themselves, even when uncalled for. In one case, some white residents apparently hanged an old Indian man because a little white girl was scared when she saw him “pulling his whiskers with a clam shell.”30 the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

25

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Drew found that both Coos and Siuslaw leaders feared they would be blamed by local whites for the conflicts to the south of them. Drew paraphrased what the Coos headmen told him: “that ‘they very well know what they told Gen. Palmer + they meant it + should live up to their part of the treaty + if the Indians at Rogue River do anything wrong it is not their fault + they are not accountable for that.’” Siuslaw leaders Enen and John concurred. Nonetheless, white suspicions and resentment of these tribes caused Drew to recommend gathering the Indians all together.31 At least among the Coos, there appears to have been conflict regarding whether to befriend or attempt to repel the white invaders. Both of Lottie Evanoff’s grandfathers were chiefs, probably at the time of early contact. Her father’s father was “Empire chief” and her mother’s father, Coos River Hanis chief. Both were murdered. The Hanis chief “did not want to make friends with the white people, so the Ind[ian]s shot him—he had my mother in his arms when they shot him,” Evanoff recalled. “After that,” she said, “there was no more Coos R[iver] chief. The whites after that said they needed no chief for the [Hanis]. Empire chief was enough.” She also observed, “It seemed that every Ind[ian] chief w[oul]d get murdered.” Quite possibly related to this, Evanoff told Harrington “that the Hanis have produced few halfbreeds, but the Millukw have produced nothing-but.”32 The local white community organized a group of volunteers with W. H. Harris as their captain, and when white residents fled into Coos Bay, the Coos and Coquille Indians were also gathered there and held under guard. The white citizens viewed this as precautionary, knowing the local tribal people to be friendly but fearing they would join in the uprising. At the end of the scare, the white residents “returned to their homes in safety,” but that was not what fate held in store for the Coos Indians.33 They had resources too valuable for the white population to ignore. 26

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The fur trade and gold initially attracted whites to Oregon, but resources in places like Coos Bay—including seafood, lumber, coal, and rich topsoil—kept them there and supported the establishment of white communities. One early pioneer described the tribal lands surrounding Coos Bay as follows: “Previous to 1853, no white man had a residence on the fertile shores of its bays or rivers. The aboriginal Indians alone enjoyed its wealth of game, fish, fruits, and berries, which were in such abundance, as to make it an Indian paradise.”34 Another said of his first view of the bay in 1853, “Indian villages lined the eastern bank of the bay from the mouth of South slough to where Empire City now stands, and the scene presented to the travelers was romantic in the extreme.”35 The white population wanted these tribal lands. Most viewed the coastal Indians as little more than obstacles that they had to dispense with in order to take possession of these lands. There were exceptions. John Beeson, for example, expressed sympathy for tribal members’ losses and their reactions to those losses. His life was threatened for speaking out and he had to flee his home, but he wrote to the commissioner of Indian Affairs and to California and New York newspapers when his mail was censored and local Oregon papers refused to publish his correspondence. Beeson wrote, “I belong to the small minority in Oregon who believe with Generals Wool and Palmer, that the late war was unnecessary and cruel in the extreme, and that all the burning of property, the destruction of life and expenditure of public treasure, would have been saved if the civil authorities had administered equal justice instead of calling the people to arms.” He went on to observe that “it is a fact there are far more murdered Indians than Indian murderers; and when the whole truth is known, I believe it will appear that Indians are less savage than some who assume to be civilized. . . . I could not perceive wherein they were not equally with us endowed the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

27

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

by their Creator with the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” Beeson believed the Indians who fought back were as right as anyone would be in trying to protect their lands and resources from lawless invasion. He believed that other citizens felt as he did, but refused to speak out publicly.36 Captain Harris, in his reminiscences, recalled that he “and others purchased their claims of the Indians. In fact, an informal treaty was entered into, which was kept inviolate by the Indians.”37 Such an agreement, while illegal under U.S. law, was more humanitarian than simply claiming land under the Donation Act, which, though dubiously so, was legal. These exceptions were rare; most whites were not concerned about compensating Indians for their lands or resources. Indeed, they simply wanted to dispossess the Indians from those lands and resources, and to eliminate the Indians as well. Palmer, who was attacked for his honesty and soon left office, commented numerous times on the murderous intentions of the white population, at one point referring to “[t]he avowed determination of the [white] people to exterminate the Indian race, regardless as to whether they were innocent or guilty.” He later wrote Commissioner of Indian Affairs Manypenny: “[O]ne thing only could any considerable portion of the [white] people claim as agreeing in sentiment, and that was extermination of the Indian race!”38 In November 1855, President Franklin Pierce attempted to concentrate the Indians on the land that white citizens would be least likely to use. After accurate surveys were finally concluded, he created by executive order the Coast, or Siletz, Reservation on a stretch of land approximately 120 miles long, from Cape Lookout in the north to the Tsiltcoos River, located just a few miles south of present-day Florence. The reservation extended east approximately twenty miles.39 The United States began to remove most of western Oregon’s Indians from their homelands and villages to sites on the new 28

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

reservation, but without a treaty this executive-order reservation remained vulnerable to trespass and destruction.40 The Siuslaw already lived on the southern end of the Coast Reservation on their ancient homeland. The Coos and Lower Umpqua (or Kalawatset band of Umpqua) were not immediately removed to the new reservation. However, the white citizens in the Coos Bay region, despite their view of the Coos as friendly neighbors, wanted them sent there. In November 1855, subagent Drew traveled to Empire City in order to gather the Lower Umpqua band together. White citizens there were in a panic. They believed the Coos Indians “had moved up the River . . . taking away all the Indians who were in the employ of the whites.” Drew believed the Coos had established a line of communication to the warring tribal bands and so he removed them to a “temporary Reservation” some “four miles below Empire City.” He also established a group at the Umpqua Agency.41 Early in the spring of 1856, Palmer ordered Drew to relocate both the Coos and Lower Umpqua Indians to the Siuslaw River. They did not go. A group of local Coos Bay volunteer militia wrote to Palmer sometime in the spring of 1856 offering to aid in the removal of the Coos to the Coast Reservation. They repeated their offer to Drew. Palmer, who felt the militia only complicated matters and fueled conflict, refused their help. Another Indian agent, Nathan Olney, who had been brought to the region south of the Coos to effect the removal of those bands of Indians living south along the coast, believed the Coos and Umpqua were going to join in the rebellion. Palmer did not believe this, but did believe that all the coast Indians would be safer if removed to the reservation.42 A further complication for the Americans was that the Coos who had been removed to Umpqua, which was south of the Umpqua River, simply ran away and returned to Coos Bay.43 In June, Drew was ordered to combine the two groups into the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

29

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

a single encampment “preparatory to removing them farther north.” Drew later recalled that he believed the Indians between Coos Bay and the Siuslaw River to be alone among Oregon Indians as being friendly to the whites and even “hostile to the hostile” Indians of the coast, and he recommended making a separate treaty with them. Some five hundred people whom he identified as Kal-la-wat-set (Lower Umpqua), who had combined with some other tribal members, now lived on a spot at the river that had the resources to support a much smaller camp of fifty to sixty people.44 This site, several miles upriver from the mouth on the north side of the Lower Umpqua River, is where Jean Gagnier had established his Hudson’s Bay Company trading post, and on which the United States would establish Fort Umpqua to guard the southern gate to the Coast Reservation.45 Some of the Umpqua and Coos ended up on the Siuslaw River, where, according to oral tradition, they were loaded on barges and taken down the ocean to Fortuna, California, several dying along the way. After several years they returned overland to the Coast Reservation, in what they came to refer to as the “Death March.”46 Lottie Evanoff later recalled the irony that elderly Indians in the Rogue River area refused to travel north to the reservation and remained in their old homelands. However, when the Coos were removed from Coos Bay, the old people were all forced to make the trip. She told Harrington, “Some old people they carried in panniers on the sides of horses when they deported the Coos Bay Ind[ian]s.”47 When the Coos were forced to leave Coos Bay, they moved their women to an island, but that did not halt the removal efforts, as they had hoped it would.48 In fact, Palmer believed that the coast tribes, including the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, soon would be subject to the Empire Treaty he signed with them in August and September 30

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of 1855. He expected Congress to ratify it. In his annual budget report for the fiscal year beginning 1 July 1856, he included a line item of $41,200 to fulfill federal obligations to “the Coast tribes, confederated,” which included the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, Tututni, Chetco, Coquille, Tillamook, and Clatsop. The first article of that treaty, while providing for a cession of their lands, also had laid the basis for establishment of the reservation to which they were to move.49 Palmer’s successor, Abraham F. Hedges, strongly urged the ratification of this treaty, citing “dissatisfaction” and “uncertainty” caused by U.S. failure to do so. He feared this could lead to war. He requisitioned beef and flour to help support the tribes under Drew’s jurisdiction, despite their having no treaty.50 These tribes now included the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Alsea.51 In February 1857, Manypenny forwarded the treaty to Secretary of the Interior McClelland, who forwarded it to President Franklin Pierce, who forwarded it to the Congress for consideration, to no avail. Manypenny explained that his office received the treaties in November 1855, withheld them due to the Rogue River War, and then they were “overlooked.”52 Hedges’s successor as superintendent, J. W. Nesmith, continued to provide goods and services for the tribes at Umpqua Subagency. The food included beef and flour, and the services included not only subagent Drew and an interpreter, but also a physician and a schoolteacher for a brief time. The school was short-lived, but according to Drew enthusiastically attended by between forty-five and fifty pupils.53 The physician reported that poor housing conditions and poor diet caused most of the health problems from which the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Alsea suffered. During the seasons when the tribal members could spend much time outdoors and eat fresh fish and berries they were much less likely to be ill. Drew recognized this too; he recommended the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

31

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

that the tribes be permanently established near Cape Perpetua, from the Umpqua and Smith River valleys in the south to the Siuslaw River Valley in the north. This country, he observed, “is generally level and slightly timbered, and would offer sufficient agricultural lands, while the lakes, of which there are several, abound in fish and wild fowl in the fall and winter months, and the surrounding mountains furnish an abundance of elk, deer, bear and other small game.” The tribes grew some crops, especially potatoes, but needed a reliable source of their traditional foods to remain healthy. Without a treaty, the United States would need to find a suitable permanent home for the tribes.54 A bureaucratic change compounded the problems for these tribes in early 1857 when Congress combined the Oregon and Washington superintendencies. Suddenly the superintendent of Indian Affairs had a much larger workload and had many more tribes with which to become familiar. This marginalized the peaceful, nonratified treaty tribes or quasi-recognized tribes even more.55 In 1859, the Office of Indian Affairs closed the Umpqua Subagency and ordered that the Coos and Lower Umpqua be moved to the newly established Alsea Subagency at the Yachats River.56 Joshua Sykes, who would later leave the Indian Service and join the Confederate Army, took over Drew’s position as subagent at Umpqua in October 1859. Hundreds of Coos and Lower Umpqua had been subsisted with meager government rations that they augmented with what farming and fishing they could manage on a heavily overused resource. Drew observed that previous to being concentrated together, “[b]efore their removal, their hunting grounds and fisheries were numerous and extensive.”57 Oregon Superintendent of Indian Affairs Edward R. Geary believed the new site to be a vast improvement over the “barren beach” where they were being held. He commented that 32

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

its “fertility” of soil and “abundancy of fish and wild fowl” would quickly lead to self-sufficiency.58 In preparation for the removal, Sykes established a farm at the new agency, in the spring of 1860, and purchased three yoke of oxen, but the potato crop, on which the tribal members were to subsist in their new home, “proved an almost entire failure.”59 Sykes reported that while some of the local white population supported the removal others, including Drew, opposed it. The latter encouraged the Indians to hide or run to the mountains to avoid removal. Some went as far as Scottsburg, where Sykes chased them down.60 Among the whites opposing the removal were men who had married Indian women. One county official in Empire hid Indians in his house.61 Some Indians themselves hid out. A Coos man called Marshfield Tom hid out near his home in the Marshfield area and never removed, for example. Frances Elliot recalled that her grandmother had a grass house “built in the brush hiding away from the soldiers” near Charleston. The house was barely large enough for her grandmother to fit in, but she lived there to avoid removal.62 Frank Drew later wondered why they “were taken by force, including their poor old people, so far + over so much rough country way up to Yahach” when there was good land on the Siuslaw River, located on the reservation, where they could have stayed.63 In the end, Sykes believed he had tracked down all but about twenty of the Coos and Lower Umpqua Indians that he was assigned to remove. The removal was carried out in the cold, rainy, coastal fall weather in 1860. The tribal members were forced to leave their canoes behind, for which they requested recompense.64 The removal came overland. As Beverly Ward describes it in her book White Moccasins, Grandmother and other Indians told about this, and it was a terrible journey. Some old-timers who saw the Indians go said the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

33

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

it was a heart-rending sight. The soldiers did not like their duty, and they pushed the Indians fast. Proud Chiefs walked with bowed heads, women with babies on their backs, old ones and children trudged along, and some of the children’s faces were fair and their hair was light. When they strayed off the trail, they were lashed with whips. They traveled through the rain and waded the streams. When night came, the soldiers doled out a little food. There wasn’t enough shelter for the Indians, so they sat around the fire in their sodden clothes and slept on the cold wet ground. When they reached the rivers, the soldiers got the local Indians to take them across in their canoes. They went through dark gloomy swamps. The pack mules mired down, and the soldiers cussed and beat the mules. They climbed a treacherous trail over Heceta Head, above the Sea Lion Caves, and went on around Perpetua Mountain. Some of the old ones and children fell on the rocks and left a trail of blood behind. They walked single file around rocky ledges, where one misstep meant falling hundreds of feet down on the rocks or in the ocean below. A grave was hastily dug. The mourners cut their hair and spread it over the grave, then they moved on. Two or three old ones gave out and were left along the way. One woman walked until she fell in the throes of childbirth, and a soldier pushed her out of the way with his foot. When the Indians slowed their pace, the soldiers drove them on, and they finally reached the end of their journey.65

The journey was only the beginning of their troubles that winter. Even feeding and clothing the Indians during the harsh winter months was a dire problem, compounded by the lack of treaty-based funding and the problem that even general appropriations for Indians were insufficient.66 The Coos and Lower Umpqua tribes did not receive any payments and little 34

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

support for the loss of their resources accompanying this move, since their 1855 treaty remained unratified. This left them in abject poverty that increased with each removal. Having left most of their belongings and tools behind, and being camped on a cold, windy unfamiliar site with few amenities, the people suffered greatly. Some had thin blankets, some had none. They stole food from the Alsea in an attempt to survive, but “[m]any Indians died the first winter. Nights were filled with the cries of hungry children and the sounds of mourning.” Those who tried to run away were hunted down and punished, sometimes with whippings that scarred them for life.67 Remembering her grandmother’s stories and other oral history, Beverly Ward summed up this experience with a palpable sadness. “One old Indian described it well,” she observed. “He said, ‘I move, and I build a house, and I put a fence around it like the white man’s. Then they tell me to move again, and I build a house and put a fence around it. Then they come and tell me I have to move again.’”68 Meanwhile, the Siuslaw were able to remain on their ancient homelands, since these were now incorporated within the boundaries of the Coast Reservation. They continued to hunt and fish, they grew a few crops, and they increasingly hired themselves out to white contractors and farmers in the region to support themselves and their families.69 They now lived south of the Coos and Lower Umpqua, who had been removed to Alsea territory. Unfortunately even those Indians who had previously moved to the Coast Reservation were unable to support their families. The reservation contained very little potential productive farmland; there was little decent grazing land and, with the removal of Indians from up and down the coast, little game. Time and again, federal agents observed that the Indians on the reservation were unable to eke out more than a meager existence there.70 the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

35

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Members of other tribes were aware of these conditions as news traveled up and down the coast. It is little wonder that most of the Coos and Lower Umpqua tribal members opposed leaving their homelands for the reservation, and, unfortunately, their arrival there did not portend better times or better living conditions. The oral history of the tribes still recounts those moves. Frank Drew told John Peabody Harrington that the move from Florence took three days. Lottie Evanoff, who was born at Sand Point but generally told people that she was born at Yachats, where she grew up, commented to Harrington that the winter weather at Yachats was harsher than that at Coos Bay. She recalled her mother “used to plug the keyhole” against “this kind of powdery snow” that they never had to deal with at Coos Bay.71 According to Frank Drew, the Umpqua had the best spot at Yachats, on Yachats Creek. Because of their location, they were able to catch fish. The South Slough people were located north of them toward the middle of the reservation.72 Coos Elder Chief Edgar Bowen also recalled the stories of the removal that he heard while growing up: [T]hat was during the Rogue River Indian Wars. And they thought we were going to join up with the Rogues to come kill the whites, which we’d never [have done]. So they got scared of Indians, they just took us all, and whipped us north to Winchester Bay up there at Reedsport. About half of us died there over the winter. And then they moved us on up to Yachats and another half died. Got up there and they didn’t have any money for us because we didn’t have any treaty. And they made the women go out on the rocks and pick shells . . . animals off the rocks to eat. And their feet were bleeding and all that. What a . . . sorry mess.73

Official government censuses confirm the precipitous population decline Bowen describes. An 1857 census counted 690 36

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

members of these three tribes. By 1864 that number was approximately 380, but by 1875 it was barely more than 200. Schoolcraft reported that the Coos alone had numbered some 1,500 when Lewis and Clark visited the coast in 1806.74 Into the 1860s, the Oregon superintendent of Indian Affairs assumed that the Empire Treaty would be ratified. The 1862–63 annual funding estimate for the superintendency, for example, requested $25,000 for services provided “for the Tillamooks, Cooses, Coquilles, Too-too-tenays, Chetcoes, Siuslaws, Umpquas and other tribes now located on the Siletz, Alcea, + Grand Ronde Reservations, and with whom Treaty has been made, but not yet ratified.”75 Beginning in fiscal year 1865–66 this line item disappears from annual estimates, and the federal support for these tribes comes primarily from funds earmarked for “Removal and Subsistence” of nontreaty Indians. The subagents assigned to them were paid with federal money as well.76 The removal to Yachats took the Coos and Lower Umpqua farther away from their homelands. Alsea houses that had predated the removal still remained; all of the Alsea who had lived in them had died of smallpox in one of the many epidemics that swept the coast.77 The living was bleak, and tribal leaders angrily demanded that the United States recognize the 1855 treaty. Amos Harvey, the Alsea subagent, reported in 1863 that “the Indians frequently speak of a treaty made with them a long time ago, and ask why their paper has never been returned. They say they have always been the friends of the whites, gave up their lands, removed as the whites desired them to, and have waited vainly a long time for the fulfillment of the promises made them.”78 With the U.S. Civil War raging in the East, and Indian Service officials working hard to counteract Confederate efforts to entice Indians in the East to their cause, federal officials in Washington had little energy to expend solving problems for tribes in the Far West.79 Harvey believed the new reservation to be ideal for the the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

37

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Indians. It was removed from white settlements, and the land was of little interest to whites. The rivers and ocean “abound with both shell and scale fish,” he wrote; the woods held plentiful game, and “I have induced most of the Cooses and Umpqaus this season to plant gardens.” Several families lived in cabins, and the government buildings included separate potato houses in which the two tribes could store their crop.80 Tribal members built their own cabins of spruce shakes. These did not match the cabin of the agent for comfort, however: his was built with a fireplace “on each side of the room.”81 The experience of Gishgiu, the wife of one of the Coos headmen who had signed the 1855 treaty, provides a different perspective of reservation life than the rosy view portrayed by Harvey. This too is remembered through oral history and has been recorded by two of her direct descendants, George Bundy Wasson Jr. and Jason Younker. Gishgiu was herself a Coquille woman who had married Kitzn-jin-jn of the Coos tribe. Conditions on the reservation got so bad that she lost faith in the Americans and ran away. After American soldiers captured her, she tried again. “Finally,” Younker says, “even though she was elderly and almost completely blind, Gishgiu dove into the Pacific Ocean and swam around the major headlands, including Cape Perpetua and the Sea Lion Caves” to escape the soldiers’ pursuit. Then she made the long walk down the shore to the Coos River, where she again took to the water, swimming to South Slough, where her daughter Adulsah lived. There she hid in a hollow log, where Adulsah brought her food until Gishgiu’s son-in-law found her. He “became incensed and insisted that she move into the house . . . where she belonged.” There he was able to protect her from the soldiers who continued to pursue her.82 This remarkable story of desperation, stamina, and courage illuminates the disparity between the Indian reality and many government reports. Numerous people made 38

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

the long trek home and tried to avoid the soldiers who came looking for them.83 A number of Coos escaped the reservation and remained in or returned to the South Slough. Some had planned to do so from the beginning. One group of Indians hid their canoes in tall tules near Coos Bay when they were removed, expecting to come back for them. Lottie Evanoff recalled that “Grandma Baker” had found these canoes much later, covered with moss, and left them there, since it was the old-time custom to leave other people’s canoes alone.84 A woman known as Libby worked for a white family who hid her in a barrel when the soldiers came looking for her. A man named Tarheel, although captured at least once, returned to South Slough where he lived out the remainder of his life; he was eventually buried on Tarheel Point. Coos women married to white men, like Adulsah, were allowed to remain as well. Mrs. Hinch and Mrs. Tolbert also were in this category.85 Those living with white men but unmarried hid from the soldiers to avoid removal. Dan Hayward hid his unmarried wife on an island the whites called Coon Island—until after this occurrence, when they renamed it Squaw Island for that reason. White settlers helped other Indians hide, out of sympathy.86 George Bundy Wasson estimated that some two hundred Coos Indians avoided the removals and stayed in their homelands. “[W]henever any soldiers or officers from the reservation came hunting for the Indians,” he recalled, runners would go “to the different villages and camps and notify them and they would hide in the mountains and hills, and they would watch and when agents or the soldiers left, why they would notify the Indians and they would come out.”87 Further complicating the picture, local Indians were already being incorporated into the local economy as laborers. White farmers in the rich farmlands on the ceded territory hired the Indians from Alsea and from the northern reaches of the reservation during harvest where they proved of “great assistance.”88 the 18 55 t re at y and quas i re cogniti o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

39

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Then, in 1864 and 1865, the local white population decided they needed control of Yaquina Bay, a “newly discovered harbor” located within the boundaries of the Coast Reservation. They found the harbor to be rich in oysters, and they hoped to establish a town there. The Oregon congressional delegation referred to the reservation as “unnecessarily large.” The commissioner of Indian Affairs agreed, adding that the interest of white citizens “is paramount in importance to that of the Indians.” President Andrew Johnson sundered the Coast Reservation by executive order in December 1865. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, Alsea, and Siuslaw were now located in the southern reserve, which extended only as far north as the Alsea River.89 In fact Superintendent J. W. Perit Huntington suggested closing the southern portion of the reservation altogether and removing the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Alsea to the Siletz River area, which would open the whole southern region to white settlement.90 Shortly thereafter, whites began moving into Indian houses on the lands removed from the reservation, and then in the summer of 1867, scores of Indians followed the lead of Gishgiu and Tarheel and ran away. They returned to their original homelands to the south, returning to homes from Empire City in Oregon all the way down to Crescent City, California.91 Several hundred remained at what came to be known as the Alsea Subagency on the split Coast Reservation. Unprotected by treaty, the life they would tentatively begin to build there would be severely threatened over the next decade.92 Yet others, such as those who had been taken by barge to California, were lost as tribal members as they lost contact with their families. Coos Elder Chief Edgar Bowen, for example, laments that he has unknown relatives on the Grand Ronde Reservation who were lost from the family this way.93 Thus was ushered in a time of great loss and confusion.

40

t he 1855 t re aty a n d q uasi r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

c ha p ter th r ee

Removals and Resistance

Th e c o o s a n d l ow e r u m p q ua t r i ba l m e m b e rs who survived slowly began to adapt to life at Yachats. They lived in proximity to both the Siuslaw and Alsea tribes at the Alsea Subagency, eking out an existence gathering seafood from the ocean tidelands and clearing land to plant meager gardens. The government provided no rations for them, nor shelter. Tribal members were largely on their own in terms of supporting themselves, on a harsh landscape. In some cases they were made to work for whites without pay, in other cases tribal members could apply for short-term passes to go work for wages outside the reservation. Children were sent to school but provided with no food there; their families fed them with what food they could manage to obtain.1 Most of the approximately 160 Alsea lived at their village at the mouth of the Alsea River, on the south side. This was the northern boundary of the sundered reservation, which came to be referred to as both the Alsea Reservation and the Alsea Subagency. They supplemented their hunting and fishing with “small gardens.” The Siuslaw River flowed into the Pacific about two-thirds of the way down the newly created reservation from the Alsea River. This is where the Siuslaw remained, living primarily on fish, which they supplemented with small gardens. The Coos and Lower Umpqua for the most part lived near the agency proper, located approximately eight miles south of the Alsea River. They subsisted primarily on fish and game

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

“and what they get from Siletz Agency and from outside.” Lottie Evanoff, who grew up at Yachats, told John Harrington that the Alsea Indians would trek down to Yachats with dried fish for which the Coos would trade clothing. The official agency site was described by one of Oregon’s superintendents of Indian Affairs as along the “sea shore, on a bleak plain, nearly on a level with the waters of the ocean. The incessant gales render the climate very disagreeable, and at the same time serve to keep the vegetation saturated with salt water spray, or mist, which is very damaging to grain crops.” The combined population of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw was estimated at 440 in 1867.2 The Alsea subagent during the latter half of the 1860s, George W. Collins, did not help make life better for the Indians at Yachats. He was remembered as mean, selfish, and uncaring. Annie Miner Peterson, who had lived at Yachats when he oversaw the subagency, recalled that “he did not look after us.” Frank Drew remembered, “Old Collins was pretty crooked + did not stand with the Ind[ian]s.” When an Indian man brought him a gold nugget he had found, Collins confiscated it and mined for gold himself. Collins also chased down Indians who left to return to their old homelands to the south, almost getting himself killed in one such incident.3 A report to the commissioner of Indian Affairs by John W. Wells, who visited the Oregon tribes on his way to the Flathead Agency via the Panama Canal, emphasized the need for government support for the tribal members who had not returned to their old homelands but stayed near the agency at Alsea: “I fear the ‘Indian will want blanket, his squaw want shawl, and his child want woollen clothing, to keep warm,’ (as the chief of the Lower Umpquas touchingly expressed it).”4 It is likely that Joe Scott spoke for the tribe. The Coos and Lower Umpqua were hardest hit, being removed from their longtime homelands. 42

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

J. W. Perit Huntington, the Oregon superintendent of Indian Affairs, observed that so long as the Indians at Alsea lived with the threat of removal, they had no reason to establish roots there. The Indians needed assurance, he wrote, that “the possession of their lands shall be perpetual,” as “it is idle to expect an Indian to open a farm and erect dwellings +c. while in daily expectation of being dispossessed.” He recommended either recognizing permanency to their holdings at Alsea or removing them to Siletz.5 As the latter half of the century drew on, the white population continued to increase along the coast. Oregon’s official population count grew almost eightfold in the four decades following statehood, between 1860 and 1900, to over 413,000.6 This led to a clamor for further dispossession of Indian lands, causing continuing and intensifying misery for tribal members. Coos Elder Chief Edgar Bowen recalls what happened between the mid-1850s and the mid-1870s: “[T]hey just threw us off” the land. “After we improved the land and helped make all those buildings and everything, then they just opened it up to white settlement.”7 A further threat occurred in 1869 when Francis Daniels, a resident of Empire City, petitioned to establish a gold mine on the Alsea Reservation.8 The Alsea Reservation had little governmental fiscal support, with its budget coming almost entirely from a small fund set aside for tribes without treaties or awaiting removal. The subagent in charge often had to act as “Physician, Carpenter, Blacksmith, +c.,” and the agency rarely had funds for any improvements. Subagent Frederick Battey observed in 1870 that at Alsea, “[t]he Indians have been furnished with nothing in shape of clothing or subsistence and justly complain of being kept upon a reservation under such treatment.”9 On the other hand, Oregon’s Superintendent Alfred Meacham reported to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ely Parker a rosier, if less accurate, picture in his annual report that same year.10 remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

43

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The next year, 1871, Meacham wrote to Parker suggesting allotment for the tribes at Alsea. He wrote of the Alsea, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw that “their wants are few” and “they mostly occupy their old homes and still retain somewhat, their former modes of living.” The plan had been to provide land allotments for them at Siletz, but since there was no funding for it, Meacham suggested doing it where they already lived.11 Meacham believed the tribes at Alsea were on the road to American-defined “civilization.” He had sponsored a weeklong meeting of delegations of three Indians from each Indian agency in October, where they listened to teachers, ministers, and a senator and attended the state fair. Among those attending from Alsea was Lower Umpqua chief Joe Scott. Meacham believed the Indians made a good impression on the white people who attended and that this was an important step in encouraging their civilization. Together with the establishment of farms and schools, these meetings portended a more positive future for tribal members, he believed. He commented specifically that the tribes at Alsea were “becoming civilized” even without schools or much federal support.12 None of the delegates from Alsea spoke, or if they did their words were not recorded, but a Grand Ronde delegate, Joe Hutchins, probably reflected the Indian view of this “convention” when he spoke about tribal losses and American promises. He lamented leaving good farmlands for unfulfilled pledges. He commented that when he moved, “I was promised that my people should have some things that they have not got. I can’t see them; may be it is because I am getting old and blind.” This comment was greeted with laughter; even in times of great sorrow the Indians retained their sense of humor. (The Siuslaw were known to tease the Coos, for example, by calling them “those driven out by the Whites.”) Hutchins added that if the Americans wanted the Indians to become like white 44

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

men they ought to give them the things white people have, such as a fair ground.13 Hutchins finished his talk, while being interrupted by applause, by saying,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

I do not want you to stand on our heads and put your feet on our heads but stand square up and look us in the eye. I want you to understand that I am not a snake. I do not crawl on the ground but stand up straight like a man. I think it is all right for you to know that this is my feeling today. You have been talking to me a long time about throwing away my heart. Now I have thrown away my heart and I want you to give me your heart. I think I am something more than a beast. Standing here in God’s house today, I feel like I could claim to be a man.14

Indians who spoke emphasized that they were interested in becoming like white people, who had come west with virtually nothing but had accumulated many goods.15 This was not an attempt to throw aside their cultural heritage, but rather a frustrated cry against the poverty that became their lot when they lost their lands and resources to the Americans. Meacham’s successor, T. B. Odeneal, claimed to be the first Oregon superintendent of Indian Affairs to visit Alsea when he went there in spring 1872. He reported that the tribes there, though they had never been hostile to the United States, had been largely ignored by the Americans. Yet with “half-starved teams” they had “planted extensive crops.” They wanted a school, and he wanted to provide them with a manual-labor boarding school, so long as he did not interfere with any churches.16 However, failure of budget and confusion over administrative jurisdiction dashed any federal hopes for their plans at Alsea; when George Litchfield took over the subagency at Alsea, he was not appointed full subagent, so had no fiscal remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

45

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

authority. Odeneal did not know the limits of Litchfield’s authority and wired Washington for instructions, which were slow in coming. Finally agent J. H. Fairchild of Siletz, who technically oversaw Litchfield, was instructed to do no more than forward reports.17 When Samuel Case turned over the Alsea property to Litchfield, he wrote to him in a private letter, “the Indians of the Alsea Sub Indian Agency have received but one small amount of presents and that was furnished by A. B. Meacham. . . . I could not get that portion of money due the Alsea Agency from T. B. Odeneal.” In fact, Case had been forced to use his own money to purchase supplies to put in crops in the spring of 1873.18 Litchfield himself had difficulties hiring Indians to do the work of the agency, since they had to work for the promise of pay, rather than actual cash. Litchfield desperately hoped for direction or financial support from the Indian Affairs Office in Washington dc in fall 1873, before the onset of winter storms. The response in Washington was typically bureaucratic. Though they did not inform Litchfield of this, officials at Indian Office headquarters wrote each other notes asking if the Alsea Subagency hadn’t been abolished. The war with the Modocs was the real focus of Washington’s interest in Oregon Indian affairs throughout 1872 and 1873.19 Actually, the Great Plains drew much of the Indian Department’s attention during these years. All of this left the tribal members at Alsea virtually on their own and so they continued to support themselves as best they could by fishing, hunting, gathering, growing small gardens, and working as part of the cash economy off the reservation. By the mid-1870s, white citizens developed and increased political pressure to appropriate the land of the four tribes on the Alsea Reservation. Odeneal led the charge, purportedly in the best interest of the Indians, by suggesting that those 46

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

living at the Alsea Reservation be removed to the Salmon or Nestucca rivers in the north of the Coast Reservation. He argued that the Alsea Reservation was surrounded on the north, south, and west by white settlements and that he made this recommendation motivated “solely by a desire to better the condition of the Indians.” The agency itself was on inhospitable ground, and the buildings nearly beaten down to worthlessness by the weather.20 Odeneal recognized that “[m]ost of the Indians at Alsea have always lived there,” but argued that they were few in number. “They claim the land,” he observed, “but I think that very little compensation in an addition to fitting up houses for them, as good as they now occupy, would be satisfactory.” In fact, he believed that the sale of their houses and property would pay these costs. Of course, this would cost the government virtually nothing, since the Indians themselves and not the United States had paid for and invested the sweat equity to build those houses, gardens, and fences. Odeneal added that the Indians should not be removed until they agreed to it, and he offered to hold a council with them on the subject.21 In 1873 and 1874, two federal inspectors, Edward C. Kemble and William Vandever, made separate visits to the Oregon coast to report on the advisability of removing Indians from their lands. Kemble met with Siletz Agency tribal members on 15 December 1873, but apparently met with only a few tribal leaders at Alsea. He recommended against closing the Siletz Reservation, and did not comment on Alsea. Various leaders at Alsea came to meet with Siletz agent Fairchild to express their views. He did not identify any of these leaders by tribe or name, but commented that they were unable to meet with Kemble when he came to Alsea, “not having received notice in time to be present at the Council.”22 According to Fairchild, they vehemently opposed removal from their lands. remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

47

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

“They said ‘that the country where they lived was nearly worthless to the Whites’—‘that it was near the sea coast sandy and barren and unfit either for farming or grazing’—‘that in fact no white men were settled near there’—‘that it was their home’— ‘their fathers lived and died there’—‘that some people were telling them they would have to remove and their hearts were very sorry’—‘that they wanted to die in their country and leave it to their children’—‘they did not want any other country’— ‘that when they looked around them they saw nearly all their people were dead and it would not be long before they too would go and then the whites could take their land’—‘that now they earnestly asked to be let alone to die in the land their fathers gave them’—‘that years ago the Government gave the land they now occupy to them and they do not wish to leave it’—‘that they had never had trouble with the whites, never steal, and never have killed any whites’—‘when they want anything of the whites they do not beg but buy it’—‘that no white man can say they have conducted themselves bad’—‘have always been good friends to white people’—‘that the Government has never given them much, and now although they would like some things to help lift themselves up, yet, they desire above all things to be let alone and allowed to die in the country the Government has given them’—‘that they came here to tell me all that was in their hearts and desired me to write to the Great Cheif [sic] in Washington their words.’”23

Tribal members’ strong connection to their homeland contrasts starkly with Odeneal’s view that enticing them to remove would require little other than selling property and providing new housing. Neither Kemble’s report nor Fairchild’s put an end to the issue, however. On 2 January 1874 Senator John H. Mitchell took up Odeneal’s cause and wrote Secretary of the Interior Columbus Delano suggesting the United States throw open 48

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

both the Alsea Reservation and the northern portion of the Coast Reservation to settlement, leaving a portion of both reservations for the various Indian tribes to occupy. Delano quickly wrote the commissioner of Indian Affairs supporting the plan.24 Shortly thereafter the Portland Bulletin published an article describing Mitchell’s proposal, which included taking land from both the north and south ends of the Alsea Reservation, and commented that “[t]hese changes would not be to the disadvantage of the Indians, but of great value to the settlers.”25 Litchfield responded to the Portland Bulletin article immediately with a letter to the commissioner of Indian Affairs, opposing the idea of removal. Litchfield, who once described himself as “upon the side of Justice and defending the weak + downtrodden whether White, Black or Red I have been for Years on that Line and I expect never to deviate from” it, urged the commissioner to give a full hearing to the Indians. Kemble had met with but few. Litchfield believed that white settlers, aside from some loggers, had little interest in the country due to its inhospitality to farming and pointed out that the Alsea and Siuslaw still lived in their original homeland, to which they were greatly attached.26 Benjamin Simpson, surveyor general and ex–Indian agent, urged Mitchell to follow through with his plan to throw open the Alsea Reservation to white settlement and business interests. By summer, he reported that “the people are clamerous [sic] for it.” He told Mitchell he supported Indian rights, but that the timber along the Alsea River, while of no value to the Indians, was of interest to white lumbermen. The two closest major lumber centers at the time were Coos Bay and the Columbia River. Logging was in the early stages of becoming a key foundation of the Northwest’s economy. Logging provided income for loggers and cleared land for the farms, which came after the woods were cleared. Mitchell responded remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

49

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

by pressuring Delano to give his personal attention to getting an executive order to open the two reservations.27 William Vandever’s visit to the coast occurred in summer 1874. He submitted reports of his meetings, including one regarding the “proposition to diminish the Alsea Reservation” that unfortunately is not included with his correspondence with the Indian Affairs Office in Washington. In a letter to the commissioner of Indian Affairs that fall, however, Vandever indicated that his recommendations included removing the tribes from the Alsea Reservation to the Siletz Reservation. He pointed out that only about 250 Indians lived at Alsea, and they could as easily be overseen by the Siletz agent if they were removed.28 Fairchild spent much effort in the latter half of 1874 to procure appropriations to build grist and sawmills that would create the infrastructure necessary for removal.29 At the same time, he recognized that many Indians moved off the reservations to find work, but was powerless to stop them. Some lived at Yaquina Bay, where they “engaged in fishing, oystering, and lumbering.” Others lived south of the Alsea Reservation to the California border. These included tribal members who had never left their homelands, and others like the Coos who had returned to Coos Bay in the 1860s, and the Lower Umpqua who made a living in their old haunts along the Umpqua River. White citizens petitioned the Siletz Agency to remove these tribal members south of the Alsea Reservation onto the Siletz Reservation.30 However, other white citizens did not hesitate to hire Indians as laborers in the cash economy. At any rate, in response to a query by Commissioner of Indian Affairs Edward Smith in late autumn 1874, Fairchild painted a positive picture of removal prospects, emphasizing the dismal aspects of the Alsea landscape, the small number of tribal members who would need to be removed, and their friendly (and in some cases kinship) relationship with the tribes 50

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

at Siletz. He also observed that farming was difficult at best at Alsea, and that continuing to live by hunting and fishing only inhibited tribal members’ progress toward “civilization.”31 If saw and gristmills were built, and the Indians offered homesteads at Siletz, Fairchild believed they would remove, though he admitted they ought to be consulted regarding this. He supported Ben Simpson and Joel Palmer’s view that it would be best to close the Alsea Reservation, and though he and Litchfield got along with each other, he disagreed with Litchfield’s opinion that the Indians at Alsea should be able to remain there.32 In March 1875, the beleaguered Alsea, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw saw their hopes dashed, and Mitchell and Simpson saw their desires accomplished. Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw numbers had declined to just more than 200 by now.33 On 5 March, Simpson reported that Congress had passed a bill requiring the “Alsea Indians” to be removed to the “Siletz Reservation.” The Corvallis Gazette hailed this move “as it will open for settlement a large tract of arable land, and give access to one of the finest lumbering districts in the State.” The legislation opened approximately 75 percent of the Coast Reservation to white settlement. It closed the Alsea Reservation entirely and lopped off the northern tier of the Siletz Reservation for white settlement. Tribes in both areas were asked to remove to a designated site, bounded by the Siletz River on the south and the Salmon River on the north. The removal was not to occur without tribal agreement to it, however.34 The Indian service ordered meetings with tribal members in an effort to get them to agree. The northern tribes agreed to move with the promises of government help that were made to them. Those on the Alsea lands remained reluctant. Their agent, George Litchfield, sided with them, but they had little other support from either federal officials or local white citizens. remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

51

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

In May 1875, however, Siletz agent Fairchild, to whose reservation they were to remove, wrote that the Indians at Alsea had already put in their crops and lived in comfortable homes, so the removal should not occur until fall. He did not want to move them to their new home between the Siletz and Salmon rivers until a sawmill and a gristmill could be built to accommodate their needs.35 The white population was eager for the removal to take place so they could move into the lands. On 4 June the Corvallis Gazette tried to answer “conflicting rumors” about “the throwing of that reservation open for settlement by the whites” by publishing a letter from Mitchell to Simpson assuring him that it would happen soon.36 The Indians remained adamantly opposed to removal, however. On 17 June 1875, under orders from Washington, U.S. Indian agents held a council with Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Alsea Indians in which one leader after another voiced opposition to the move.37 First Litchfield and Fairchild spoke, reiterating that local whites wanted Indian land and had convinced Congress to pass a law diminishing the Siletz Reservation and eliminating the Alsea. Glossing over the requirement that Indians approve their removal, Fairchild and then Litchfield urged them to move to the Siletz where they would be provided with farmland. Fairchild told the council that his instructions from the commissioner of Indian Affairs were to “tell them what you are prepared to do for them at Siletz. Tell them the Government desires them to go, and that all the money appropriated for them will be expended at Siletz for their benefit.” At Siletz, each adult male would be provided with a farm, with the implication that no government aid would be available to them outside of the reservation at Siletz.38 Several Alsea leaders responded first, emphasizing that they still lived on their homelands, and that they had built their own homes with lumber they had hauled to a mill and had sawn into boards themselves. They indicated their anger with 52

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

whites who wanted their land, and emphasized that both they and their children wanted to remain there. They did not particularly believe American promises, and had only to look at their neighbors, the Coos and Lower Umpqua who had been moved onto Alsea lands, to see what might happen if they gave up their self-sufficiency for government protection. John Aquinna, an Alsea headman, told the American agents, “I do not want to leave my country + be driven like the Coos + the Umpquas. Gen’l Palmer told the Coos + the Umpquas if they came here they would be like the Whites.”39 He added, “I said I did not want to be like the Coos and Umpquas. They live here now—many years they have been dying off. Their women have suffered from exposure gathering muscles [sic] on the rocks. Palmer did not tell them they must live on muscles [sic] when they were brought here. They were told they would get sugar and coffee and flour. For that reason I do not want to take any more of the white man’s promises.” He also said, “I have nothing to fear if the whites come here. We have no horses, sheep or cattle for them to get.”40 The Siuslaw also remained on their ancient homelands. Siuslaw John, chief of the Siuslaw said, “I do not want to hear all the time about moving. I have heard it for a long time and thought it was all settled long ago.”41 He continued, “As long as I live on my land I am not sorry if I have nothing. My people have all the same mind as I have on this point. . . . They do not want money. . . . If I was to talk many days, I should say the same thing.”42 Siuslaw Dick, a headman, added, “It was never my wish to give up my country. . . . I will not go under any circumstances. In my country I want to die. . . . Before I ever saw a white man I raised produce on my land. . . . We are very poor now. Let us alone.” Siuslaw George wondered, “How can the whites believe in a just God and try and drive the Indians off their land?”43 Indeed the whites, a historically migratory and remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

53

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

wandering people with little connection to their landscape, could not fathom the cultural and spiritual relationship of Indians to their lands. Indians had no desire to live in poverty, but placed a higher value on their relationship to the land than on money. The Lower Umpqua and the Coos had both been moved already, onto the ancient lands of the Siuslaw and Alsea. They too strongly opposed going to Siletz. Chief Joe Scott spoke first for the Lower Umpqua. “Today all these People are gathered together with sad hearts + with the same sorrowful feeling to listen to Mr. Fairchild who has come to talk to them about their leaving their Country and moving to Siletz.” He emphasized that he had no wish to leave. “I was brought to this Country a long time ago, it is my country now.”44 The Umpqua headman, Soperry, also spoke. “Why do these people all have heavy hearts? Because they fear being driven away. They have long feared this. All these young men when they grow up will talk the same. We will not give up our land. I know the whites have much money, but I want none of it, though I am poor.”45 Tom, a Lower Umpqua “leading man,” spoke in the same vein. “This is a good country for us. I was young when we came. Now this is our home. They may try to drive us off many years but we will never give it up. They got our father’s land. The Great Cheif [sic] got the better of us long ago. We don’t want to hear a thing about this. The Great Cheif [sic] got the better of us long ago with the same promises we hear today. This is our land and we are doing well here.”46 Coos leaders, who spoke last, also spoke in strong opposition to another removal. Jeff, a Coos headman, lamented of what the Coos had already given up, and what it had cost the tribe. The Whites have made us poorer by driving us from our Original Country (Coos Bay). My heart has been long sick about 54

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

the original Treaty made by Gen’l Palmer not being ratified. We have come a good way from that Country to this one, it was not a small Country that we gave to the White People, but a large one. I have very little property. I never got any thing for my Country that I gave up. I have no horse team nor wagon. I don’t owe any thing, but the Government owes me a good deal. I have left Two Places already, from Coos Bay to Umpqua, + from Umpqua to Alsea. Where I now live, I wish to live and die.47

John Waters later recalled that when the Indians were removed from Coos Bay, not only did the tribe lose its resources but individuals “lost all their personal property, with no compensation.”48 The ferryman, Pomley—a Coos Indian who had been born just months after Jedediah Smith’s party passed through the area and who “never wore shoes + when he was walking on the beach left tracks that looked exactly like a bear’s footprints”— scolded agent Fairchild for not looking after their needs, nor keeping the government’s promises. He recalled that agent Case had promised a wagon for each tribe, but that they had not received one. “We will never give up this Country, we will keep it always,” he said. “I know the minds of the People.”49 George Cameron of the Coos reflected the words of many when he said, “My heart is full + sick with this talk of leaving this Country.” He wondered, “The whites don’t lie to each other when they make a Treaty, why do they lie, when they make a Treaty with Indians?”50 He concluded with vehement opposition to removal. “I do not want them [the whites] to make any more promises of what they will do if we will leave our Country. Our chief who helped make the treaty died and got nothing from Washington. I do not want to give up my country like that any more. I am doing well here, and mean to stay.”51 remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

55

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Buchanan, another Coos man, also reflected on what the Coos had given up, and why. He commented, “The first time our fathers saw the whites they regarded them as friends.” Another Coos, Robert Burns, took his turn to scold the agents. “You are paid to look out for Indians, and now we want you to look out for our interests,” he told them. Coos chief Jack Rodgers, who had served as Litchfield’s interpreter in 1873 and 1874, and therefore understood English well, concluded, “My people don’t want to leave here, neither do I. . . . Don’t drive or haul us. It will be useless for any more agents to come and talk with us on this matter. We never will give up our country.”52 This overwhelming tribal opposition to removal in 1875 prompted Fairchild to respond, “I have heard many men who all speak one way. . . . It is possible that Congress and the President have been misinformed respecting your wishes.”53 Indeed, Fairchild briefly had misgivings, which he expressed to the commissioner of Indian Affairs in his report of the council meeting. He commented that he now believed that the four tribes would be better off staying where they were, and that if the land were open, it would be virtually ignored by the white population. “[N]ot five claims would be located by white settlers in ten years,” he opined.54 Nonetheless, when Fairchild invited members of the tribes at Alsea to a Fourth of July celebration, he expressed confidence in his belief that the ensuing experience of reservation amenities would change their minds. “I think they will reconsider their determination,” he wrote in a letter published in the Corvallis Gazette.55 The celebration included a feast cooked by the Indian women of the reservation, speeches by Fairchild and a visiting “professor” from Portland, and “old fashioned parades” and dancing, in which the Indians wore their traditional clothing.56 Ultimately, however, it did not convince members of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw that they wanted to leave their lands. 56

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

In July 1875, Ben Simpson was appointed to consult with and ultimately remove the tribes, from whom the United States still needed approval for the move. In addition to the agents who oversaw the Indians, James Brown, a one-armed special agent who had been hired to track down Indians who lived or moved off of reservations, was also commissioned to meet with the tribes and aid in their removal.57 Simpson called a council at Alsea for 24 August. The Corvallis Gazette reported that “a great effort will be made to move” the Indians from Alsea Bay, “and hopes of success are entertained by those posted in such matters.” Brown attended, as did Alsea subagent George Litchfield. Though Simpson originally thought he would be working directly with Fairchild, the latter sent his clerk, M. N. Chapman, to represent him.58 When the federal officials showed up on 24 August, Litchfield treated them inhospitably.59 In addition, the Indians at the agency were busy gathering food, as a whale had washed up on shore, and they spent most of the day butchering the carcass. According to Lower Umpqua tradition, a whale washing ashore was an important event because it provided the people with plenty of grease. Whales washed ashore more frequently after the advent of the Pacific whaling industry, as injured whales escaped the ships but could not live. Everyone in the community participated in butchering it. Finally, at four o’clock in the afternoon, a council met, at which the Coos and Lower Umpqua leaders present spoke against removal. The next day, 25 August, the officials furnished beef and tobacco to the forty Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Alsea tribal members who gathered and began the effort to convince them to move. Several tribal leaders from Siletz also spoke, including George Harney, Big Bill, Depot Charly, and Tututana Dick, “all insisting on their [Alsea Agency Indians’] removal” and “sustaining the authority of the Government and urging obedience thereto.” All but Tututana Dick were paid for their efforts, and Simpson recommended that he be compensated as well.60 remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

57

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Chapman extolled the value of the farmlands, and the hunting and fishing, on the Siletz. He described the mills being built. Somewhat to his disbelief, he did not convince the tribal members to vacate their homes. They “mildly declin[ed]” his proposition, “some remarking that their fathers had lived upon salmon and grown old, and that they were content to do likewise.” Simpson believed the objections this day to be “milder” than those of the previous day. He too had difficulty understanding why the Indians would not move. “So far as I could see there is nothing on Alsea Reservation to keep them there,” he wrote, apparently having learned nothing from the June or August council meetings.61 The council concluded with Simpson promising the tribes he would report to the Office of Indian Affairs “and perhaps come to see them again.”62 Fairchild, Simpson, and Chapman all believed that if the government would move Litchfield to Siletz, most of the Indians at the Alsea Reservation would follow him. Fairchild added that he had heard from Indians at Siletz that the Alsea had told him they were ready to move.63 Simpson wrote to Senator Mitchell the real reason he hoped removal would occur quickly: “Of course I feel a deep interest in the early completion of this work, as the people in this country have so much anxiety about it.” He meant the white people. It bothered him that the Alsea Indians had comfortable houses, albeit houses they had built themselves, and that they left these homes while off hunting and fishing. Simpson believed that poor whites could benefit by acquiring the Indians’ farmlands and homes. Mitchell simply wrote to the commissioner of Indian Affairs, “I heartily concur” with Simpson’s proposal.64 Immediately after this council, Litchfield wrote Commissioner of Indian Affairs Edward Smith a personal letter, in an unofficial capacity, in which he attacked Simpson’s politics. In the letter, he observed that this meeting made no sense to the Indians, since they had not yet heard back from Washington 58

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

regarding their June council proceedings. He also asked to be permitted to come to Washington to argue on the Indians’ behalf. “These Indians have different claims upon Government,” he said. “The Coos + Umpquas have more claims than the others, as they have been brought here under Treaty promises.” The Alsea and Siuslaw, after all, were still in their aboriginal territory. Nonetheless, he said he believed he could convince the Alsea to remove. It is unclear whether he was referring to the Alsea tribe or the Indians of the Alsea Subagency here, although based on later evidence, it may well have been the former.65 Meanwhile, Simpson wrote to the Corvallis Gazette regarding the proposed removal. “I have no doubt but that they will finally consent to go,” he said of the Indians, adding, “I do not propose to give it up until they go.” He also expressed his displeasure with the idea of Indian input into their circumstances. “I regard it as very unfortunate that the words ‘with their consent,’ were put in the Law. I am very sure it would be better for the Indians if they were compelled to go, if they will not go without compulsion, and I am sure it is the intention of the Department to open that country to settlement at an early day, and I assure you I shall do all in my power to bring it about at as early a day as possible.”66 The next week a judge from Alsea Bay wrote to the Gazette, attacking his own Democratic party for failing to support removal of the Indians from Alsea to Siletz, and pointing out that Republican Senator Mitchell had done far more than Congressman (and ex-Senator) Nesmith in those efforts, despite Nesmith’s campaign promises to work for the removal.67 That fall federal officials continued to push for removal, but without success. Simpson recommended that Fairchild send Indians such as George Harney to Alsea “to prepare the minds of the Indians for removal.”68 Meanwhile, some tribal members began to take homesteads on their lands, but without remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

59

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

following proper legal procedure, nor with anyone to instruct them. R. A. Bensall of Newport wrote to the commissioner of Indian Affairs that if the government “really desires Indians to become citizens + free holders” it ought to provide tribal members with assistance in establishing property rights.69 Coos chief Jack Rodgers tried to establish a homestead above Florence in 1876 after Litchfield received documentation approving Indian homesteads. But he lost the land to Dave Moore of Coos Bay, a white man who was able to legally claim most of the land, including Rodgers’s, in what came to be known locally as Uncle Dave’s Cove.70 And whites weren’t the only ones to acquire other peoples’ lands. Lottie Evanoff recalled that Jim Buchanan, after selling his place at Cushman near Florence, tried unsuccessfully to “jump old Pummeley’s” claim, and succeeded in jumping someone else’s in the Siuslaw area of South Slough. Frank Drew, however, merely observed that Buchanan owned forty acres there.71 Such stories have lived on in the tribes as oral history. Over a century and a quarter later, Frank Barrett recalled his father Howard Barrett Senior’s stories about how these losses affected Siuslaw tribal members. They were told to return to their homelands and go ahead and “stake up a claim. And so a lot of them came back to the Siuslaw area. . . . And he said when they turned the Indians loose they weren’t smart enough. They just went down there, pegged the four corners. The whites came in, got a claim for that piece of ground, and they lost their property to whites. It’s a sad situation.”72 These failures served as a precursor to property rights losses that occurred many times over the next century. The federal government’s short-term goal was to open up tribal lands to white settlement, but at least part of the longerterm goal was to put an end to individual Indians’ relationships with their tribes and place them on the same status as their non-Indian neighbors, as private landowners and citizens. 60

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The concept of dual citizenship did not enter the minds of the bureaucrats. More than a decade before the 1887 passage of the Dawes or General Allotment Act, which intended to carry out these very goals by individualizing land holdings under the U.S. fee patent system, this was the Oregon Indian policy. Tribal members could remove or not; those who were self-sufficient could find farmland wherever they wished; those who were not yet self-sufficient would be trained to become farmers on what remained of the Siletz Reservation. Of course, anti-Indian sentiment among white settlers worked against the government’s land-ownership policy—certainly part of the reason that Bensall felt he had to warn the commissioner of Indian Affairs that Indians needed property rights training to avoid being cheated out of their lands. Meanwhile tribal members struggled with two major goals: to survive, and to do so in their old or adopted homelands. They understood that survival meant the continued access to resources, primarily seafood, but also game, which they supplemented with their gardens. It also meant protection from the elements. Many tribal members were loath to give up homes they had built through their own toil for vague promises of adequate homes elsewhere. They well knew the value of governmental promises. The summer 1875 meetings were just the beginning of a battle to force the removal of the four tribes from the Alsea Reservation. It coincided with an effort to remove Tillamook bands and the Nestucca from the northern portion of the Coast Reservation to the same site to which the Alsea, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were to be removed—the land between the Salmon and Siletz rivers, which now made up a major portion of what was left of the Coast Reservation. The tribes from the north agreed to move more readily than the Alsea Reservation tribes, but the land to which they moved remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

61

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

proved unable to sustain them when the government agents could not afford to buy seed or build homes for them. In fact, conditions were so bad that the northern tribes asked to be attached to the Grand Ronde Agency soon after their arrival.73 These conditions provided further inducement for the Alsea Reservation tribes to forego removal. In September 1875 the Oregonian published an announcement from the register of the Oregon City land office that the Alsea Reservation had been closed.74 The next month James Brown, who had attended the August council meeting, wrote to the commissioner of Indian Affairs, saying, “Why the Alseas have not moved to their ground is more than I am able to say,” since they had indicated a willingness to do so. But that willingness was only ever vaguely proven by federal officials. Brown went on to indicate the real reason for his concern: “The whites are anxiously waiting the vacation, a sufficient number stand ready to locate almost the entire lands now occupied by the Alseas.”75 Beginning at about this point in the documentation, it generally becomes unclear when the Alsea Reservation and the Alsea tribe are treated distinctly—until the 1877 removal, which involves just the Alsea tribe. In addition, because the documentation from this time simply does not distinguish among the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Alsea, it is unclear whether mention of “the Alsea” in these documents refers to the reservation, the four tribes collectively, or only the Alsea tribe. The autumn of 1875 came and went without proper provision made at Siletz for the support of the Alsea tribes, and with the arrival of the winter storms in October and November, the four tribes remained in their old homes, despite the March law that had closed the reservation.76 Litchfield refused to turn over government property despite Simpson’s insistence that he do so, because he did not trust Simpson. Simpson failed to return to Alsea after he injured himself on 62

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

a visit to the northern tribal groups. Fairchild finally wrote Simpson in November, admitting that part of the failure of the government to remove the Alsea, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw was due to the tribes’ failure to agree to the removal. Nonetheless, Fairchild now supported the removal again. He believed the tribes withheld their approval due to Litchfield’s influence. In his letter to Simpson he recalled that the Coast Reservation was established to separate the Indians who had fought against the whites from the white population.77 This disingenuous statement ignored the reality of the historic neutrality and friendship of the tribes at the Alsea Reservation with the United States, but helped provide an impetus for removal that resonated among white settlers as well as Washington dc politicians once the Indian wars of the 1870s broke out across the western United States, from the plateau region to the Plains to the Southwest. Litchfield recognized that it would be difficult for Indians and whites to live together “in any State and Particularly in Oregon.”78 On 16 November, Commissioner of Indian Affairs E. P. Smith telegraphed Litchfield, ordering him to turn over the Alsea “funds and property” to Fairchild, but the next day Smith telegraphed the local military authorities rescinding the orders. He wrote that “owing to lateness of season Alsea Indians will not be ordered to remove until late spring.” The military forwarded this correspondence to the Siletz agent.79 Within days Smith wrote to the new Siletz agent, William Bagley, that Litchfield would turn over one thousand dollars that he could use for general “improvements” on the Siletz Reservation.80 The withdrawal of financial support for the Alsea Subagency would further impoverish the tribal members living there. Government officials no doubt believed this would be further inducement for them to remove. As the new year, 1876, was ushered in, the sixty or seventy Alsea members still maintained their homes and gardens remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

63

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

along the Alsea River, where they fished and hunted to support themselves. The fifty or sixty Siuslaw continued to live some twenty-five miles down the coast, also fishing and with small gardens. In between, about a third of the way down the coast from the Alsea, lived the one hundred or so Coos and Lower Umpqua, who also primarily subsisted on fish and game.81 In the spring of 1876, Secretary of the Interior Zachariah Chandler authorized the commissioner of Indian Affairs to close the Alsea Reservation.82 The new Siletz Indian agent, William Bagley, attempted to facilitate removal of the four tribes from Alsea but failed to wade through the bureaucratic red tape and secure appropriations to pay for necessary improvements and the removal costs to bring the tribes north. Commissioner of Indian Affairs E. P. Smith insisted that improvement funds be drawn from Litchfield, once Bagley was properly bonded and authorized to do so, and Litchfield turned over the funds in February 1876. Bagley held another Fourth of July party to entice the Indians to move to the Siletz, but recognized that the economy was in such shape that even those Indians already living at Siletz needed to travel to nearby off-reservation farms run by white farmers to find work to support themselves and their families. By the end of summer he expressed his frustration at orders from the commissioner’s office that he incur no further expenses and remove the Indians from Alsea to Siletz. One order “cannot be complied with except by disobeying the other,” he wrote.83 By autumn 1876, a proposal began to float that would consolidate the Alsea, Siletz, and Grand Ronde reservations. The Grand Ronde agent, P. B. Sinnott, wrote in strong support of this plan, saying there was enough land at Grand Ronde for all of the Indians. Senator Mitchell continued to take a personal interest in the removal and wrote the commissioner of Indian Affairs in strong support of this plan. Bagley opposed 64

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

this proposal and continued planning for the removal to Siletz, however.84 In September Bagley went to Alsea and took control of the government property, hiring Linton Starr (a local non-Indian) to hold the stock, and removing other property to Siletz. The Indians abandoned their homes, not wishing to see Bagley, but he later caught up to some Alsea leaders. He told them he would reserve the government property for their use at Siletz.85 In February 1877, Bagley wrote to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Smith that many of the Alsea were ready to remove, “and are awaiting only transportation.”86 The Alsea began to move to Siletz by June, but it was not until after yet another July Fourth celebration that Alsea leaders negotiated an agreement to move, which required the government to pay the costs of transportation and the provision of land and goods. Bagley hired Starr and two other non-Indians to remove Alsea household goods.87 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were not part of the removal. A census that agent Bagley sent to the commissioner of Indian Affairs in August listed 108 Alsea Indians now at Siletz and estimated the number of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians under his jurisdiction to be 200. But a note appended to the census read, “The Census of these last three Tribes of Indians belonging to this Reservation has not been taken as the Indians are not here, and could not have been taken without great expense to the Department.” By 1878 the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were no longer included on the Siletz census at all.88 In reality, the Siuslaw remained in their homelands along with some Coos and Lower Umpqua people, and other Coos and Lower Umpqua moved in several different directions. A 1909 document held at the National Anthropological Archives sheds some light on this scattering. An ethnographer, perhaps Leo Frachtenberg, spent that summer interviewing Jim Buchanan, Frank Drew, and Lottie Evanoff’s uncle, Tom remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

65

Hollis—a forty-five-year-old fisherman who was the son of a white man and a Coos woman—about Coos myth, tradition, and grammar. His note regarding Hollis, known as Splitnose Tom since boyhood because a playmate had hit him in the face with a hatchet, reads, “The Coos at first lived at Coos bay. They then were brought to Ya¯’hatc, about 26 miles South of Newport. When Ya¯’hatc was thrown open to white settlers, some 30 years ago, part of the Coos went to Siuslaw where they still live, while the rest returned to Coos Bay. Hollis came from Ya¯’hatc to live at Siletz for about 22 years.”89 Another document, written by Frachtenberg from 1909 field notes, provides a little more detail.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

On the 26th day of April 1876 the Yahatc was thrown open to white settlers, and the Government tried to induce the Yahatc Indians to move to the Siletz Reservation. It seems, however, that the Coos Indians were by that time thoroughly disgusted with the tutelage of U.S. Indian Agents, some of whom used their official position as a splendid opportunity for the get-rich-quick system. . . They held a council . . . and decided to take matters into their own hands. Instead of going to Siletz, the majority of the Coos Indians went to Lane County on the Siuslaw River, taking up land and timber claims under the Homestead Law. The rest, possibly induced by the reminiscences of a glorious past spent in Coos Bay, went to live and die on the soil their forefathers had inhabited. But they found every available inch of land in the possession of their former guests, the white people; and not being willing to go any further, they asked and obtained permission from the white settlers to build camps for themselves and families on certain allotted grounds.—Thus the handful of Coos Indians living in Coos Bay to-day, are only tolerated campers on the soil, of which hardly sixty years ago they were the sole and undisputed owners.90 66

r e m ova l s a n d r e si sta n c e

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

According to Spencer Scott, who was twenty-one years old at the time, and Frank Drew, the tribe held four days of meetings before deciding not to move to yet another reservation. Some by then had been removed from their lands three times in approximately two decades. Tribal members would move back and forth between these places, and lived scattered throughout their homelands, largely lost to the official record. Though their old fishing and hunting grounds had been taken away, many subsisted by trapping and hunting, or gathering seafood and fishing in as many of their old haunts as they could utilize.91 By this time, tribal distinctions had become biologically blurred through intermarriage among the various tribes and with non-Indians. There was still Coos-Coquille overlap as well as the overlay of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw intermarriage, and marriage with members of other neighboring tribes. The fluid living situations of tribal members who moved back and forth, up and down the coast, added to this confusion. Tribal members often learned the language of their spouses, so cultural distinctions became blurred also. But politically people still identified with specific tribes, as they had identified with specific villages in such circumstances since time immemorial. Those who identified with the Coos, Lower Umpqua, or Siuslaw tribes now found themselves without a recognized home base, isolated from other tribal allies, and in increasing conflict with their white neighbors.

remova l s and re s is tance

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

67

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

c ha p ter fo u r

Old Homelands, New Lives

The next four decades, into the 1910s, saw the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw fall farther from federal recognition as the tribal members began to make lives for themselves on the fringes of the developing coastal cities of southern Oregon. Individuals struggled to find places to live and ways to make a living. Tribal members sought land to live on, many sought jobs, and they sought to continue supplementing their incomes, whether from farming, wage labor, or entrepreneurship, with subsistence hunting, gathering, and fishing. All of these would prove to be mighty challenging in the rapidly changing world that was now theirs. As Oregon’s coastal communities grew, a hardscrabble life developed for many Oregonians. Oregon was already integrating into the larger national and international economic systems. The Northwest Coast by this time had been developed to exploit natural resources such as metals, timber, and agriculture, all of which relied on sales in distant markets. This led to cycles of boom and bust as the economy rose and fell based on conditions beyond the control of local entrepreneurs. It also led to a concentration of land holdings through speculative purchasing of lands that formerly belonged to Indians. Wealthy individuals and corporations such as the large timber companies came to dominate local economies.1 American Indians hoping to move back into their homelands were relegated to the fringes of both the real estate and the economy. With the Alsea agreement to remove to Siletz, the Coos,

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw stood apart from their coastal neighbors, insisting on remaining in and returning to their ancient homelands and refusing government removal to a reservation. Their decision to forego removal was doubtless reinforced by the conditions under which the Alsea were forced to live by the government. The federal government failed to supply the funds to provide the amenities Bagley had promised the Alsea, which caused them several more years of upheaval. In September 1877, a letter appeared in the Corvallis Gazette under the name of George Harney, stating that the recently removed Indians “are now actually dying off, fast, from starvation. . . . For some time past a majority of them have been living on muscles [sic] and the remains of the whale that was washed ashore on North Beach a few weeks since.”2 Simpson wrote to Senator Mitchell about the Harney letter, saying “that the whole affair is in bad condition, and something should be done imedeately [sic] to relieve them.”3 Simpson did not believe that Harney had actually written the letter, but admitted that he too had made promises that the government failed to keep, especially regarding housing, support for farming, and seed potatoes. Simpson blamed the Democratic-controlled Congress for the failure to appropriate funds.4 The Oregonian reported this letter and commented that such a situation could lead to an Indian uprising similar to those of the Nez Perce or Modoc tribes. Interestingly, the Oregonian urged the government to remove to Siletz those Indians who “continue to herd together in indolence and want”—but to let other Indians remain on their lands. “Those Indians within limits of the present coast reservations, who have their own little farms and occupy them, should not be molested,” the newspaper opined. When a San Francisco observer made note of the story that Indians were starving, however, the Oregonian published a blistering denial. At any rate, by November many old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

69

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of the Alsea had returned to their old homes, which at least provided shelter and a supply of fish that they knew where to catch for the winter.5 Although Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members had received some federal services despite the nonratification of their treaty, the federal government intended for them to be on their own if they refused removal to Siletz. This was what the tribal members wanted as well, so long as they could do so in their old homelands. An 1877 incident illustrates the refusal of tribal members to leave their old haunts, their insistence on utilizing the resources they believed to be theirs, and the increasing conflict that arose from this tribal insistence in the face of the expansion of white settlers into their country. Judge L. F. Mosher of Roseburg reported on this incident to Senator Mitchell. A Lower Umpqua Indian, merely identified in the documents as Joe, built a dam on a rapid at one of his tribe’s traditional fishing sites, and got into trouble with the law. A few miles upstream from Scottsburg, he blocked off the Umpqua River in order to catch salmon. According to Lower Umpqua tradition, the people moved upriver when the salmon ran, and dried the meat for winter. This is the time of year the Coos still hold their annual salmon ceremonies. Two years earlier, when a dam was built in the same place, the sheriff had attempted to arrest the Indians responsible, but they had fled. When he tore the dam down, they rebuilt it the next day.6 The loss of this food source, which was likely needed to last throughout the year, was potentially a disaster in these times of near starvation. But now a local white man, William Rose, was catching trout in the river and shipping them to Portland for processing in the cannery. Mosher feared there would be no trout for the cannery and this would lead to discontent among the whites. Mosher warned that if the Indian agent did not stop tribal members from building dams, the local population 70

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

would make “‘good indians’” of the fishermen, in reference to the common saying, “The only good Indian is a dead one.” Agent Bagley wrote the commissioner of Indian Affairs, saying he was helpless to ameliorate the problem without money, but hoped to have time soon to go to both Umpqua and Coos Bay, since members of the Lower Umpqua and Coos had returned to their old haunts.7 Smith responded that removal funds had been released and warned Bagley, “With the amount at your disposal [$750] it is expected that you will get all the Indians in question under your control, + that they, or any one of them, will not be permitted to seriously interfere with the fisheries on the Umpqua river.”8 The primary concerns of the Indian Service were to prevent conflict between the white settler communities and tribal members and to protect the white businesses. The Indians, on the other hand, needed to be able to continue to support themselves and make new lives for their families in their old homelands. Conditions on the reservation were bad enough to discourage them from moving there even had they been willing to leave their lands. In the winter and spring of 1878, Bagley again needed extra financial help to try to provide basic necessities for his wards at Siletz.9 By the autumn of 1878, Bagley also expressed concern regarding the Siuslaw homesteads. Siuslaw tribal members lived in houses they had built on land they had never left, with gardens and orchards, but they lived on unsurveyed lands. Bagley believed that, without government help, they would “be cheated out of their homes by failing to comply with the requirements of the homestead laws, allowing white settlers to file and prove up or enter under preemption the lands they now occupy.” He intended to go visit the Siuslaw when the opportunity arose. He recognized that numerous Indians continued to live along the coast, not connected with any reservation, and hoped to visit many of them.10 old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

71

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

In the winter of 1880–81, Bagley’s replacement as agent at Siletz, Edmund Swan, conducted a census of tribal members connected to the agency. The final count, 998, included over a third who lived off the reservation. Swan dispatched Bagley to count the Indians living off-reservation, and reported 73 Coos, 20 Lower Umpqua and 85 Siuslaw living between the reservation and the California border. This accounted for 178, or almost half of the 360 Indians living off-reservation. The actual population number may have been higher, since Bagley left to conduct the census around the first of the year, during the rainy season, which slowed both travel and work.11 Meanwhile, the Alsea continued to negotiate the terms of their removal, yet again, to the reservation. Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians were not involved in these discussions. The Siletz agent was too overwhelmed trying to support his wards to do anything but tacitly accede to Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw wishes to remain separate. In August 1880, Alsea leaders asked to wait to remove until after their fall harvest of both seafood and vegetables. Swan agreed, and in December attended a council where he again pushed for removal. At this point, Alsea leaders informed him they had changed their minds. Interestingly, they were supported by local whites for whom Indians worked as laborers, and who urged them to stay—including those who had previously strongly supported Indian removal from the area. Swan despaired of the Alsea ever becoming farmers, but continued negotiation throughout the winter. This led to another agreement, which ultimately ended in the removal of Alsea tribal members to the Siletz Reservation in the spring of 1881.12 By 30 April 1881, sixty-seven Alsea individuals, of fifteen families, moved to the lower farm area of the reservation with promises of 160-acre homesteads and government aid commensurate with that of other Indian people already living on the reservation. Swan provided the Alsea with seed and 72

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

vegetables, and oxen and horses for their crops, but had to requisition funds for lumber and building materials. Meanwhile the tribal members camped out awaiting assignment of their plots of land.13 At this point Swan also attempted to impose strict control over those Alsea tribal members who had just moved onto the reservation. When an “honest, industrious . . . fully competent” white man, William Curtis, came to Swan asking that his legally married wife and his children be allowed to leave the reservation to return to their home, or that Curtis at least be allowed to move to the reservation, Swan refused. He reasoned, “The case is not a pleasant one to dispose of, I would not think it advisable to allow his settling here, and to allow an Alsea, though she be a woman, to return and settle again from whence the Alseas so recently came, would seem like establishing a bad precedent which others might see fit to follow.”14 Word of this certainly would have discouraged the Coos, many of whom already were intermarried with whites. Apparently Swan failed to comprehend the significance of family in these tribal communities. Family and kinship ties were of extreme importance to tribal members. With the destruction and loss of tribal villages, the focus of tribal identity, culture, and social and economic life changed. For those who took up residence on the reservation, it became the family and the reservation. For the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, however, it became the family and the tribe. The generation born during the mid-nineteenth century still referred to themselves by village, when asked what tribe they were from. Generations after them answered with Coos, Lower Umpqua, or Siuslaw, although the Coos would often distinguish between Hanis and Miluk. Jim Buchanan, for example, did not call himself Coos, but Walatch. Annie Peterson, born around the time of removal to Yachats, said her mother’s tribe was old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

73

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Intesedge, though hers was Coos.15 In this we can see the shift in focal point of identification from village to tribe. Because of their kinship relations, numerous Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members actually moved back and forth between the reservation and their old homelands, for short-term or long-term stays with family, but nearly always returned to their original homeland communities. It is fair to assume that off-reservation Indians understood the conditions under which they would be forced to live if they moved to the reserve, and those conditions failed to support their most significant cultural values. Swan also firmly believed that care of Indians who lived off the reservation was not his responsibility. This attitude helped solidify both the idea that off-reservation Indians were in a different category and that they were at best nominally under the care of the U.S. government. Tribal members still clung to the notion that the Empire Treaty had established a mutual relationship with the United States. Swan simply focused his efforts on Indians who lived on or belonged to the Siletz Reservation. He requested funds for tracking down “renegade indians” and “prostitutes,” but when informed of indigent Indians off the reservation, he expected others to care for them. He believed their poverty to be a result of their living near and working for whites, who refused to care for them when the Indian person became ill or invalid. A woman named Alice, who lived near the mouth of the Elk River near Port Orford and whose story was written up in the Port Orford Post, had only a gunny sack to wear over her shoulders and her body was covered in scabs, according to a local doctor. Swan offered the opinion that the local white population should care for her. The resources “needed to make comfortable a poor indian woman is very trifling for a county of 1500 people where there are Doctors, lawyers, merchants and other tradesmen 74

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

as Coos county presents, many of whom have plenty of this worlds [sic] goods,” he wrote. He also callously observed that most such stories of indigent Indians were inaccurate in his experience.16 The next year a new agent, F. M. Wadsworth, took over at Siletz and reported hopefully that the 360 off-reservation Indians, were “composed principally of the Sinslaws, Coos, and Umpquas,” and that “[m]any of them desire to return to the reservation,” the only impediment for which was a lack of funding.17 Wadsworth’s observation about their hopes was plainly inaccurate. All three tribes had refused moving to the reservation previously; those individuals who had been removed to the Alsea Reservation had returned to their homes (with the Siuslaw remaining in theirs); and the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were no doubt aware that conditions on the Siletz Reservation had only recently caused the Alsea to abandon their new home and return to their old homes.18 It is also clear that the federal government intended to provide services for members of these tribes only if they would move to the reservation, and that most intended not to do so. As late as 1884, Wadsworth requested money to complete the Alsea houses. Their condition must have been more severe even than that of the other tribal members on the Siletz Reservation, as Wadsworth continued to request special funding for their needs. “The fact is they were placed on new lands with nothing to work with,” he wrote to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Hiram Price. An exasperated Price reminded him that since the Alsea were now part of the Siletz Agency, their funding needed to be drawn from the same source as all other funding for the reservation. The requests continued, however. In fact, Wadsworth passionately lobbied for the Alsea, observing that their remote placement on the reservation made it difficult for them to share resources with the other tribes, and that they needed to be treated fairly. He wrote again to old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

75

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Price, “Pardon me if I talk to[o] plain it is only my intense feeling for this people + desire to do just—As I agree with them. I know of + feel the effects of many of the wrongs that have been heaped upon the Indian + here I feel that we should do as we would that others would do by us in these days of our prosperity.” When Price still resisted, Wadsworth wrote back, “I think we ought to do as we agreed by them. Certain it is that we took them from their homes on the Alsea + brought them here under promises that have not been fulfilled. All I ask is for us to do right in the matter so that our conscience will be easy about it.” He was finally able to build the houses at the end of 1884.19 Surely the treatment and condition of those tribal members who had moved to the reservation was apparent to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and others who resisted moving. As the conditions on the reservation itself, including farming, evangelism, and education, demanded the attention of the agents, their responsibility for tribal members off the reservation rapidly disappeared from the record. In 1885 Wadsworth reported responsibility for 907 Indians, but the next year he counted only 612, a loss of almost one-third. The most likely explanation is that he stopped counting the off-reservation Indian population. His records still listed Siuslaw, Coos, and Umpqua Indians among the eighteen tribes on the reservation, but apparently he did not travel to count them. By the 1890s, the enumerated lists no longer included the Siuslaw. As Coos Elder Chief Edgar Bowen remembered many years later, the Siuslaw were the only ones allowed to remain on their own lands. By the mid 1890s, though the reservation was referred to as home to “the remnants of 28 different tribes,” neither Coos, Lower Umpqua, nor Siuslaw were on population lists.20 Curiously, however, federal officials did include Oregon coast’s off-reservation Indians in the late nineteenth-century policy 76

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

efforts that were enacted nationwide. These policy enactments included both education of children and allotment of lands to individual landholders. In the mid-1880s the Siletz Reservation began sending children to off-reservation boarding schools as well as the agency on-reservation boarding school that had been established there. By the late 1880s, agent Wadsworth was actively rounding up children from Coos Bay to send to the agency school.21 As with other boarding schools, the Siletz Agency school provided education at lower levels and children who were to advance were expected to go off-reservation to continue their education. Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw children eventually attended Chemawa Indian School near Salem, and some left the state going as far as Haskell Institute in Kansas and Carlisle Indian Industrial School in Pennsylvania. From the federal perspective, the primary purpose of Indian education was assimilation. Boarding schools were generally industrial-type schools where children would learn English and gain a rudimentary academic education, and where they would learn basic skills they could use in the manual labor market. These schools were places in which Indian children were to leave their tribal world behind them. Illustrative of this, the commissioner of Indian Affairs’ office laid out the rules regarding use of tribal and English languages in a letter sent to the Indian agent at Siletz in the 1880s. The letter outlined an English-only policy to which all schools receiving federal funding were required to adhere. Neither books nor instruction in tribal languages were permitted, although Bible readings and prayers in tribal languages were allowed at the beginning of the school day. This was also true in contract schools attended by Indian children. Mission schools that received no federal funding were permitted to provide as much as half the instruction in a tribal language, but required to provide at least half in English. old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

77

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

An exception to this rule permitted mission schools training young Indian men to be ministers to learn to preach in the language they would use in church. Any Indian could own a Bible published in “the vernacular” so long as it did not interfere with their learning English. Indian teachers were permitted to teach in the tribal language only in schools that received no federal funds, and where no government schools existed nearby. Even so, this could be done “only with a view of reaching those Indians who cannot have the advantages of instruction in English.” The Office of Indian Affairs intended this heavy-handed regulation to apply to Indian children in any educational condition or circumstance.22 Tribal members largely recalled the boarding school experience in negative terms. Epidemics caused Miluk speakers to refer to Chemawa in their own language as “They Die at Chemawa,” for the children who did not return to their families. One such child was Fred Wasson.23 Other children were beaten so severely they carried their scars for life. This happened to Henry Brainard, the oldest of four boys, whose father died at sea. Henry was only protecting his two-year-old brother. If children wet their beds, they would be beaten, and Henry’s little brother, at two years old, still wet his bed. Henry would switch sheets with him in the morning and take the beating instead.24 Edgar Bowen recalls that when his grandfather, who was Coos, attended Chemawa, he married a Colville Indian woman. He had wanted to marry a Coos woman, but the agent in charge of the boarding school would not let him.25 Not everyone who attended school completed it. Andrew Charles, a Coos Indian who grew up among the Siuslaw, for instance, spent three years at Chemawa and “two years and six days” at Haskell. He worked in the Indian Service at Crow Agency from 1914 to 1918, and worked in Portland for about eight or nine years before returning to the Siuslaw area where 78

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

he spent much of his life.26 Others who completed school used the education to their advantage. Fred Wasson’s brother, George Bundy Wasson, later used his boarding school experience to help his people in their claims efforts in the twentieth century. Daisy Codding, also a Wasson, graduated from Carlisle after attending South Slough schools and then Chemawa. She remained in Pennsylvania for a decade where she was trained as a nurse in Westchester, before returning to Oregon.27 Off-reservation public schools also could receive federal funding for educating Indian children, and so children who lived in off-reservation communities attended public schools with non-Indian children, albeit in small numbers. For example, at the turn of the century, seven Indian children from the Coquille River area attended Bullard’s School in Public School District Sixty, in Coos County, along with some thirty-six non-Indian children. George Wasson’s Indian wife (George Bundy Wasson’s mother), Mrs. Susan Adulsah Wasson, taught in one of these schools at South Slough. Federal funds supported the Indian children and probably subsidized the education of the non-Indian children as well. While Indian children represented just 16 percent of the Bullard student body in 1900 and 1901, “government funds” for Indian students paid 42 percent of the cost of running the school.28 Meanwhile, allotment and the further opening of the Siletz Reservation took an increasing amount of the energy of U.S. officials. In the face of further white pressure, the coastal tribes and the federal government made an agreement at a meeting held at the Siletz Agency in October 1892. There, the remaining Coast Reservation land was broken up again and divided as lands were allotted to individual tribesmen, fulfilling a two-decade-old federal initiative in the region. The 1892 agreement authorized the coastal allotments under the enabling legislation of the 1887 General Allotment or Dawes old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

79

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Act, a cornerstone of the new policy of forced assimilation that now marked Indian Department efforts.29 Congress passed the Allotment Act as enabling legislation to authorize breaking up the tribal estate. It would permit confiscation of tribal lands so that parcels could be turned over to individuals for farming or ranching and eventually be individually owned in fee patent with a title to sell. This was part of a larger nation-wide policy effort that included shipping children off to boarding schools, banning traditional religious practices, and thwarting tribal self-governance efforts. The goal was to coerce rapid assimilation by putting an end to tribal lifeways, cultural practices, and legal rights. Although it is not often highlighted in written histories, even some non-treaty Indians were included in these allotments. On the southern Oregon coast, for example, some Coos and Siuslaw Indians received allotments at Coos Bay and in the Florence area, and some Lower Umpqua Indians received allotments at the mouth of the Umpqua River. These were known as public-domain or section-four allotments and were authorized under section four of the General Allotment Act. Section four permitted Indians who lived off the reservation, or those whose tribes had no reservation, to claim allotments on any free lands under the same conditions as tribal members on reservations received allotments. The prospective allottee would apply directly to the local land office, but the application fees would be paid by the U.S. Treasury. Fee patents issued under section four were to be treated in the same manner as those issued to tribal members on reservations.30 However, the authority of the federal government to issue section four patents in western Oregon came under attack almost immediately. Congressman Binger Hermann challenged the authority of special allotting agent Michael Piggot to allot land off the reservation, causing an uproar among the tribal members. In 1893 they asked Frank Drew to go to Florence 80

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

real estate agent and notary public Joe Morris Jr. to write letters on their behalf, to learn whether they were legally citizens and held legal title to their allotted lands. Drew himself wrote a blistering letter to Piggot.31 Indeed, not all off-reservation Indians were eligible for these allotments. Howard Barrett, for example, was denied an allotment after first being told to settle it. The investigating official viewed him as a “citizen” because although his mother was Siuslaw, his father was white. For decades Howard sought unsuccessfully to be reinstated as an Indian for allotment purposes.32 George H. Barrett, Howard’s half-brother, gained a public-domain allotment, although after three years, he said, “They took it away from me.”33 But Howard’s mother, Ellen Barrett, received an allotment on Neely Mountain, northwest of Mapleton, and successfully fought off the effort of a local non-Indian entrepreneur to liberate it from her. In 1903 George O. Knowles filed a complaint against her “alleging that the allottee is the wife of a white man and that she never made settlement of the tract as the law requires and that the land is not agricultural or grazing land, but mountainous and valuable for timber.” A hearing was scheduled before the Department of the Interior Land Office commissioner that summer. But she did not lose the land.34 Drew was not so lucky. He had good reason to wonder about the extent of citizenship rights that fell to the allottees. He gained his allotment in 1895, received a copy of the deed in 1899, but never settled on the land. Instead, he sold the timber to one man and the deed to the land to someone else. His allotment was suspended in 1901 for these reasons, and the next year Binger Hermann, by then with the General Land Office, canceled it altogether.35 Drew later had a house on what he referred to as a homestead that he acquired under the General Land Laws, near Florence, old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

81

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

on the south side of Sutton Creek some three-quarters of a mile from the ocean. His dog Sooner “caught more salmons than any of us” there, by wading into the creek. A shell midden sat on his property, downstream from his house, at the location of an old Indian village. Drew also reported that other tribal members received land under the homestead law.36 Susan Wasson received an allotment at South Slough on Coos Bay, and others from the Roseburg District of the Roseburg Agency receiving allotments included members of the Barrett, Bates, Charles, Chintell, Dick, Drew, Elliot, Fearns, Harney, Jackson, John, Johnson, Lesina, Layfette, Leon, Macey, McMann, Mecum, Miller, Moore, Ned, Palous, Pike, Smith, Sommers, Talbot, Tipton, and Wasson families.37 Beverly Ward, a woman of Coos and Coquille descent, recalled that “sometimes an agent wasn’t too honest. Some Coos Indians were given tidelands along the sloughs. Some were given allotments along the sandhills, where it is hard to grow a garden. One Indian had an allotment on top of a mountain, where it would be hard for a goat to live.”38 Even most of the allotted lands were eventually lost from Indian ownership, however, in a brazen “land grab” that “illegally” brought the land “into the control of land speculators and timber companies,” according to historian Stephen Dow Beckham.39 For example, Lottie Evanoff remembered one woman, Grandma Baker, who sold her allotment for twenty dollars.40 The tribal members also lost their rights to participate in the political and economic life of the Siletz Reservation when they accepted these allotments.41 And Daloose Jackson had to abandon his allotment near Florence to find a job, after the government failed to provide him with anything “to cultivate with, nor clothing.” At the end of his life he was a well-known and beloved individual in the Coos Bay area, living in a house at the sash and door factory as a “ward of the Simpson lumber company.”42 82

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

When tribal members gained lands that held valuable resources, though were unfit for farming, they could best make a living from the land by harvesting the timber. But when they did so, they stood to lose the land. Another problem was inheritance. When Lottie Jackson’s mother, Accumnia, or Jennie Charley, died, it was not enough for the Department of the Interior’s special allotting agent to vouch for Lottie. She had to employ Florence attorney C. H. Holden to provide several affidavits affirming she was the only heir.43 These types of obstacles made it difficult for elderly Indian people who did not speak English as a first language to navigate the bureaucracy required to hold onto their resources. The federal government viewed the tribal members who took public-domain allotments ambivalently. On the one hand they viewed them as emancipated citizens, Indians by heritage, but not in a political sense. Yet their children attended boarding schools such as the one at Chemawa, along with reservation Indian children and children of those off-reservation Indians who never took allotments. Government officials also began to think of public-domain allottees as the off-reservation Indians in southwestern Oregon, and increasingly altogether ignored those such as Howard Barrett who were not allottees. After 1906, Congress and the Indian Bureau also considered the allottees to be citizens if they lived among the white population.44 The Indian Bureau found them difficult to keep track of, however. In 1899, when special allotting agent William Casson was charged with tracking down allottees and providing them with copies of their land patents, he found his work delayed for months because the Indians were “badly scattered” from New Mexico and Arizona to Canada. Because the allotments were insufficient to support individuals or families, people generally used them as supplementary sources of income or resources, so they continued to support their families in other ways as they long old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

83

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

had done. Casson commented, for instance, that allottees frequently shipped out on sailing vessels, making it impossible for him to get hold of them.45 Others continued to move with the seasonal labor market, both traditional and modern, to provide for their families. The Indian Service nonetheless continued to attempt to exert iron-fisted control over the actions of off-reservation tribal members, both allottees and non-allottees. These efforts at control were not always successful. One tribal tradition that carried on was the purchasing of wives, albeit in a modified format. Frachtenberg reports that Frank Drew, although married in a church, paid his wife’s family fifty dollars in silver and a horse, “besides cash many presents.” Jim Buchanan served as a go-between. He himself had paid hundreds of dollars for his wife in 1870, as her father, brother, uncle, and grandfather were all chiefs. In addition, Jim Buchanan apparently used traditional doctors throughout his life for healing from serious illness.46 At the same time, tribal members maintained a political independence and used that in an effort to right the wrongs of the past. In the early 1890s the Coos and Siuslaw tribes began to consider how to fight back effectively and attempt to force the federal government to redress the injuries it had done to the tribes. Alec Evanoff later recalled that sometime in 1892, 1893, or 1894, his wife, Lottie, and her mother attended a meeting held by attorney C. H. Holden in the sitting room of the Jackson Hotel in Empire City. Frank Drew referred to this meeting as “the 1st Ind[ian] rights meeting they ever had,” and both Lottie and her mother donated some money to the cause. Unfortunately, Holden died soon thereafter.47 In 1893 Drew himself went to Joe Morris Jr. and asked him to write for help in gaining remuneration for their lost coastal lands.48 With the shift from village-based culture to tribe-defined society, the political leadership was weakened at this time, 84

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

though it did not disappear entirely. The best-known Coos man living in the region at the turn of the century was Chief Daloose Jackson, although he no longer served as tribal chief. His daughter Lottie later explained, “When my father was very old, [tribal members] came to him + wanted [him] to become chief again, but he declined, saying that when an alder gets old, it rots. So they got Bob Burns for chief instead of my father.” Lottie apparently did not think much of Burns, saying that he “did not do anything when chief,” and adding that he was once photographed wearing inappropriate tribal beadwork.49 Both the Coos Bay Times and the Coos Bay Harbor published notices of Jackson’s death in 1907, and remembrances of his life were published for decades afterward. One old-timer recalled, some thirty years after the chief’s death, “Jackson always wore a plug hat and with his cane he was seen daily plodding along the roads of Coos Bay. . . . On gala occasions he would dress up in his wonderful regalia and he was surely the cock of the walk. A grand old gentleman was Jackson and a chief who was always ready and eager to narrate the historical record of his Coos Bay tribe.”50 After his death it was left to a new generation to keep the stories of the past alive. Politically, despite the meeting with attorney Holden in the 1890s, the tribes were in an adaptive holding pattern during these years. The shift from local village control to tribal control of politics occurred slowly. Tribal members continued to hope and press for recompense for lost lands and resources. This quest helped bind them together politically in tribal units. Most, however, were primarily concerned with feeding themselves and their families as they continued to face poverty and economic hardship in their new circumstances. To understand the survival of these tribes at the beginning of the twentieth century, then, we need to know more than how individuals were treated by the United States; we need to know how they old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

85

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

supported themselves and their families. This can be difficult to ascertain, since to a large degree the tribes remained outside of the official record.51 Whether they had taken allotments or not, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members were part of the economic and social life of the places they lived, and the population there viewed them ambivalently, some holding prejudices against them, and others participating in their social activities. At the end of Coos Bay’s North Slough cranberry harvest season in October 1895, for example, the Coos Bay News reported that the tribe held a “big dance” to celebrate. Part of the article was written in Chinook jargon, a coastal lingua franca, and reported that “Siwash” (Indians) and “Boston Men” (white Americans) celebrated together and had a “hiyu skookum time,” meaning very good.52 Indian people living away from the Siletz and Grand Ronde reservations, and living along the coast, were not supported by charity or government, and they engaged in a stunning variety of pursuits to support themselves and their families, from traditional food sources to participation in the modern, developing coastal American economy, to a broad combination of these. People lived at Coos Bay, at Reedsport, at Florence, at various places along the rivers and sloughs, and elsewhere on the coast. As was the case up and down the coast for Indians and non-Indians alike, the logging and lumber industries provided wage-earning jobs. George Wasson was the son of a local pioneer and a Coos woman, and his family ran a lumber camp that employed some fourteen men on a stand of white cedar they owned. His father reportedly opened “the first sawmill on lower Coos Bay.” Several elders recalled that old Tarheel, who together with his wife spoke only his native language, often visited with the Wassons and regularly brought them salmon, mussels, and clams by the canoe load. According to Daisy Wasson Codding, Tarheel worked for her parents. 86

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Annie Miner Peterson, also a Coos woman, married several men during her lifetime, Indian and non-Indian, and finally spent her last days with a Swedish lumberjack. Up and down the coast, Indian people worked in logging camps. Men cut timber and rolled it down to the creeks, jacking it over stumps where they had to, and the winter rains would carry it to the rivers. Women cooked in the camps. Nellie, Chief Jackson’s adopted daughter, worked in a veneer factory that was known for employing Indian women. The seafood industry also provided a living for many people. Daloose Jackson’s daughter Lottie married Alec Evanoff, who owned a profitable fishing boat that in 1917 was the most successful fishing boat based out of Coos Bay. John Thomas of Kentuck Inlet was also a successful fisherman, whose family donated forty dollars to the Red Cross in 1918 during the First World War, and was recognized as one of the most generous donors of the region. Others hired themselves out to fishermen, often times to the Norwegians and Swedes who moved to the area. Cranberry harvesting remained an important economic and social occasion for tribal members, many of whom continued to support themselves with traditional food sources as well. C. D. McFarland owned the North Slough cranberry meadows in the vicinity of Hauser, and Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members all came to work the harvest. For children it was like a “vacation,” according to George Bundy Wasson. McFarland built a dance hall for the pickers he employed; some nights the dances were all-white, some nights for mixed-blood Indians and whites, according to Lottie Evanoff. Some tribal members even sold illicit alcohol during prohibition at harvest time.53 Tom Wasson’s wife, Pauline, a Russian-Aleut woman who met him through his sister Daisy at Carlisle in Pennsylvania, would run a number of restaurants over the years in old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

87

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

the Charleston, Empire, Sunset Bay, and Marshfield areas. Beginning in the 1910s and through the Second World War, these enjoyed a high reputation in the region.54 Coos Bay, because of its various extractive industries, was a good place to find employment, another reason Coos people were likely to return there. In the days before roads were built, the Barrett family drove the mail and passenger stagecoach up and down the beach, first between Empire and Winchester Bay, and later between the Siuslaw and Umpqua rivers. Henry Hudson Barrett, a white New Yorker who had fought in the Mexican War and some of the Indian wars, settled in Oregon and married first a Coos woman and later a Siuslaw woman, Ellen. He had children from both marriages. Henry Hudson Barrett drove the stage lines and, later on, so did his children. Clayton, who was born around 1880, drove the northern route. Howard, another son (who would later be denied his allotment application), also helped with this work after he finished high school, around 1912. Barretts Landing, on the Umpqua River, is named for this family.55 At this time there were no roads up the Siuslaw River, so travelers to Mapleton had to go by canoe or overland.56 Spencer Scott, whose mother was Umpqua, remembered hauling freight up the Alsea River by canoe, sometimes with three or four canoes at once. He often worked with William Smith on the route from Waldport to the Alsea Valley. This method of hauling goods up and down river lasted until roads were built.57 Scott, who was born in the late 1800s, also recalled the garden-farms the local Indian people grew. John Peabody Harrington reported that “[w]hen Spencer first came to his senses, he saw all the Indian families having good gardens + also put in a lot of berries. It seemed that the land was fresh in those times.” Scott also remembered hiring himself out as a 88

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

youth to work a plow, which he did barefoot behind a pair of oxen.58 Frank Drew referred to one common food as “soldier potatoes,” since the soldiers originally introduced them to the coastal tribes.59 Deer and elk provided meat. Frank Drew, a Coos and Umpqua man born in 1871, and who married a Siuslaw woman named Lucy, recalled fall excursions to hunt deer and elk at Clover Ridge or Clover Patch, a grassy meadow east of the seal cave. According to Drew, “all” the Siuslaw families hunted there.60 One delectable treat was dried salmon eggs mixed with deer meat. Dried salmon backbone made a good dessert.61 Hunting could be done with arrows, but the Indians also dug seven-foot holes along game trails, camouflaged at the top, to serve as traps. Sharpened spikes made of arrowwood, a strong hardwood, speared the animals as they fell in. When the arrowwood flowers bloomed in July, it was time to head to the mountains to hunt elk.62 None of the three tribes ate bear meat, it was “too much like a human being,” according to Frank Drew.63 Tribal members did eat ducks, curlews, and snipe.64 Old Dan Johnson was well known as a successful duck hunter.65 Hunting and trapping not only supplied food, but also cash, both for food and for hides. Cash earned by hunting or fishing, or gathering and selling the products of this work, or cash earned selling labor to local farmers or in the local lumber industry, could be used to purchase groceries as well. Frank Drew recalled that when he lived near Oysterville he took turns with others paddling a canoe to Oneatta to collect groceries. The memory stuck in his head because once a white man had seen him and assumed incorrectly that he was paddling a stolen canoe.66 Both land and sea animal furs and hides could be used to make clothing or blankets, or sold into the market. Spencer Scott recalled trapping fishers in the Waldport area. He said he earned four to five dollars per hide, although later he found old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

89

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

they were worth twenty-five to thirty dollars each. Land and sea otter skins could also be sold for cash. Some seal hides made blankets. Sea lion hides were reputedly “thicker than horse hide.” Beaver skins brought between one and two dollars apiece. Spencer Scott recalled that he “trapt them and ate the fat tails” in addition to selling the hides. He had an uncle who would loop a rope around a beaver’s foot and pull it from the house, trapping it that way. Spencer’s uncle also sent Spencer in to do the same. Lottie Evanoff’s father got twenty-five cents a hide for coon hides.67 When Harrington interviewed Drew and other old-timers in the 1940s, they recalled hunting and fishing exploits from their youth, which would have dated from the late nineteenth century into the early 1900s. Seafood was not only eaten fresh, but dried for later use. Lottie Evanoff recalled the old “seal-drying village” at Heceta Head as well as the “eel drying place way up” the Siuslaw River, for example.68 Drew recalled that once when he came to Florence from Yachats to stay with Siuslaw John, “a whole bunch of Siuslaws went up to Mapleton and got lots of eels.”69 Old Dan, known as Old Dan Johnson to the local white population, reportedly lived to be over a hundred years old, before his death in 1911. He was an Umpqua speaker who signed the 1855 treaty, and was removed to Yachats in 1864. After Yachats was opened to white settlement, he moved on to the Siuslaw River country. He hunted game in the mountains and fished the rivers. Dan was a renowned seal hunter. According to Frank Drew, “Dan w[oul]d hide behind a log + w[oul]d spear a seal . . . landing the seal in the canoe before the seal c[oul]d sink.” Lottie Evanoff recalled that he also hunted from pits he dug in the sand, from which he would kill one seal, and when others saw it lying on the beach and came to join it, he would kill them too. Drew recalled that Old Dan also made a decoy of an old sea lion skin stuffed with hay.70 90

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Drew said that “all” the Siuslaw ate seal meat, and Dan provided it for many of the tribal members. Seals were quite abundant at the mouth of the Siuslaw River at one time. Old Dan also sold the seal oil for cash, hauling it on horseback.71 Sharks were also caught so that their livers could be boiled to provide oil to the mills, which paid as much as a dollar a gallon for it. Mills also bought whale, sea lion, and seal oil for fifty cents a gallon. Siuslaw Indians, for example, sold their oil to a mill in Gardiner.72 Lottie Evanoff recalled that many Indians lived at the Siuslaw River “when we first came back from Ya[chats].” She was a young girl at the time. Frank Drew, who was born in Yachats in 1871, together with a twin brother who died, came to Siuslaw with his family in 1875. In the summer, according to Lottie Evanoff, the fishing was poor at Siuslaw and it was a struggle to get crabs, so she and her family moved down to Coos Bay after about a year. They ended up remaining in Coos Bay one year when a white man took their land at Siuslaw while they were absent.73 Drew recalled that Old Jackson stayed at Siuslaw for about five years before moving to Coos Bay.74 In fact, seafood was still the basic meat source, including fish, oysters, fresh- and saltwater mussels, various types of clams, sea urchins, chiton, crabs, and crawfish. Scott told Harrington of crabbing at Winchester Bay: “My mother + I walked along tidepools and she fixed a yard long stick with an iron point on it for me to use in spearing crabs in the pools + I took great pleasure in spearing them.” Spencer was about ten years old at the time, and easily gathered a dozen eight-inch crabs at a time that way.75 Fish also served as a basic food source. Clay Barrett recalled a time when he and Jimmy Mason netted fifty white sturgeon at about four thirty one morning on the Siuslaw River. He also recalled fishing for sturgeon with the Umpqua man William Wilson, on the Umpqua River, a renowned sturgeon fishery old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

91

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

that was so full of sturgeon that it could be dangerous to canoe in it. Barrett paddled the canoe while Wilson speared the sturgeon that were digging for buried shrimp in about four feet of water. They would butcher, cook, and eat some of the fish immediately and dry a lot of it.76 Green and white sturgeon, halibut, flounder, cod, perch, snapper, grouper, smelt, eel, and various kinds of salmon were popular food fish at this time in history. The languages of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw distinguished among Chinook salmon, both at various times of life and different times of year. Salmon runs occurred at different times of the year, from spring to fall, on different streams and rivers. For example, Chinook ran up the Umpqua River, but not up the Siuslaw or the Siletz, in the spring. The best runs reportedly came later in the season.77 Freshwater fish, such as trout, and the bass and catfish that were planted in local lakes, were also caught for food. Tribal members caught fish in nets, in basket traps, by spearing, and by blocking off streams. Some also adopted hook-and-line methods. Flounder could be stepped on in shallow water, or easily trapped in tidewater. Tribal members caught fish, of course, for food and for the market, as well as canneries. Fishermen caught sardines for the canneries in dip nets. Lottie Evanoff’s father, Daloose Jackson, caught flounder and sturgeon for the market that was shipped fresh by rail.78 The first cannery on the Siuslaw River, run by a man named Douglas, hired out Indian labor exclusively, according to Evanoff. Indian men did the fishing for Douglas and Indian women worked in the cannery. Pomley, the old ferryman, worked as a cook there.79 Plants also provided an important food source, both roots and berries. Cranberries would be eaten and taken to market. Lottie Evanoff recalled picking huckleberries and blackberries, which were abundant. Blackberry plants were cultivated 92

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

by the women who picked them; young plants bore as well as older plants, so old vines would be removed. Marshfield hotels purchased blackberries for a dollar a gallon or five dollars for a “coal oil can full.” Other berries such as blueberries, huckleberries, thimbleberries, and strawberries also provided food. Lottie Evanoff recalled eating strawberries that grew “in dead Ind[ian]s’ skulls” and out of cow manure at Yachats. “Kids eat most anything,” she commented. She also remembered her father telling her about drying and pounding and eating the berries of kinnikinnick, a plant whose leaves were added to tobacco. Chokecherries were plentiful around Siuslaw.80 The Coos ate the roots of a swamp grass that was sweet when eaten raw. They also ate wild carrots, at least one variety of which they chewed and swallowed the juice, but did not eat the fiber. Cattail roots, eaten raw, were another food. Camas grew abundantly in some areas. One particular kind of fern root provided a plentiful food source, as did skunk cabbage, which was eaten when young. Both these were cooked in earth ovens, not boiled. Fern root was generally eaten with dried salmon eggs. The stalk of the wild parsnip was eaten raw. They also ate plants from the sea, although Lottie Evanoff observed that the Chinese from Empire’s Chinatown ate more sea lettuce or seaweed than the Coos Indians, and also used kelp, a common sea plant, to boil with sugar to make candy, which she herself enjoyed eating.81 Plant and animal parts, of course, were used for more than food—various plants made twine and rope, matting for boats and walls, and roofing for houses, utensils, and clothing; animal parts such as shells and elk horns also made utensils and various tools. Annie Peterson kept a toothpick holder she’d made from a barnacle off a whale. Women wore grass dresses. Plants also made numerous medicines. For example, wild parsnips were not only eaten; when mixed with eel grease the resulting old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

93

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

compound was used to treat mouth sores.82 Uses of wood included building shelter and transportation. One of the most important tools, the basket, was made from plant material. The women made small baskets of grasses and other plants to fill with berries while picking and larger baskets to dump the berries into to haul back to camp, for example. Their primary use, however, was to haul mussels from the ocean. Tightly made baskets of spruce root could be used to haul water. They were also used to haul firewood and camas.83 This was arduous work. Frank Drew and Spencer Scott described early twentieth-century basket use for gathering firewood to Harrington as follows: “The Ind[ian] women gathered wood in these baskets. The woman when arriving she is to gather her load + sets her packbasket on a high spot, + then fills it + then has to sit down with the basket to her back + puts the forehead strap across her forehead, + then struggles to her feet.” People might hold the basket or hold the woman’s hand as she made the effort to stand.84 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw continued ancient cultural practices while adapting them to the changing world. This is evidenced in their continuing use of a stunning variety of resources, considering how much had been taken away from them. They also were now very much part of the fabric of local non-Indian communities, even while they remained on the outskirts. The fact that these tribal members received virtually no federal support and that they had lost all of their resources without recompense meant that they had to earn their livings in a broad variety of ways. They still lived on the fringes of American society, however, despite U.S. hopes for assimilation. The federal government remained ambivalent about the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, on those occasions when 94

o l d h o m e l a n d s, n e w l i v e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

federal officials remembered that these tribes existed. Despite their participation in the local economy and their broad use of natural resources, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes were largely, but not entirely, ignored by the federal government. In 1900 the commissioner of Indian Affairs published a list of names of tribes jointly “agreed upon by the Bureau of American Ethnology and the Indian Bureau.” The list included the Coos but not the Siuslaw or Lower Umpqua, by any of their appelations.85 Nonetheless, members of all those tribes continued to garner attention from federal agents in relation to their allotments. The United States’ refusal to enter into a treaty relationship and to fulfill its trust responsibilities and their own quasi-recognized status continued to rankle the tribes. In 1916–17, more than forty years after their leaders had eloquently protested their treatment by U.S. leaders at the 1875 council meeting, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw took serious action. They faced the future by establishing, in 1917, a tribal government confederating all three tribes and using that structure as a springboard for their twentieth-century efforts to gain recompense and recognition from the United States.

old ho m e l ands , ne w l ive s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

95

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

c ha p ter five

Amalgamation, Confederation, and the Claims Cases

After decades of both frustration and survival the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes acted in 1916 and 1917 to bind their future more tightly together by taking their claims to Washington dc and establishing a confederated tribal government. By then, many of the tribal members worked in the local industries and a large number had married into local white families. But even these people, and in fact a majority of tribal members, still relied on traditional food sources as a key basis of sustenance. For most Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw people, survival was a significant problem that they had to devote most of their lives to maintaining. Yet many knew that their efforts at survival were diminished by the wrongs the United States had historically perpetrated against them. Tribal leaders at this time had parents and grandparents who had suffered through the wrenching losses of resources and lands without compensation, and some of them had experienced great losses themselves. And so the leaders continued to look to the future, beyond individual survival, to survival of the tribal group. At the beginning of June 1916, George Bundy Wasson took action. Wasson was a class of 1902 Carlisle student who had toured the United States with John Philip Sousa’s band and studied Indian law. He made a living as a timber cruiser. He went to Washington dc with Arthur P. Fenton, an attorney who was also an ex–Indian Service employee. They went to conduct research and to lobby Congress and the White House

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

for compensation in the amount of six to ten million dollars for the nearly 1.8 million acres lost after 1855. Wasson stayed through into November and quickly returned after a short visit home and spent “much of [the] winter at Washington dc, looking into the details of the claim.”1 By the end of the year, Wasson found a copy of the 1855 Empire Treaty, which had been missing since 1857, among federal documents in Washington dc. Hopes immediately ran high for a settlement. The Oregonian reported that tribal members stood to collect twelve and a half million dollars at the rate that “raw government land has always sold for.” Wasson wrote home “that every person to whom the situation has been explained admits the Indians have a just claim and will beyond a doubt be remunerated.”2 On 30 April 1917, some seventy-five tribal members from Coos, Lane, and Douglas counties, who primarily represented the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, met at the old Pioneer Hotel in Empire where they elected a joint government and resolved to continue to support George Wasson, both morally and financially, in his efforts in Washington dc. A committee consisting of tribal members from various communities along the coast worked together. Thomas Wasson, Frank Drew, and Peter Jordan, all Coos; Charles Macey, Lower Umpqua; and William Dick, a Siuslaw, drew up a contract with Wasson.3 At the Pioneer Hotel meeting, the tribal members elected James Johnson, who was Coos and Umpqua, as chief after Wasson declined the position. Bob Burns, the former chief had died several years previously, probably in 1911 or 1912. Now the federal government required formal representation from the tribes to approve the claims request. One newspaper reported that the tribal members “agreed to pay George Wasson and his associates 20 per cent of any amounts he may secure for them” and several other papers reported he was to seek twelve million dollars. In May 1917, the Oregonian reported ama lgam at ion, conf e de rat ion, and t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

97

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

optimistically that “the preliminaries have been so well forwarded that there is a good prospect of settlement within the next two years.” The Coos Bay Harbor also observed that the government had lost the treaty.4 Tribes, however, were not permitted to sue the United States without the permission of the U.S. Congress, due to an 1863 law that barred them from the U.S. Court of Claims without such authority.5 In 1918, Senator Charles McNary introduced a bill that passed in the Senate to permit the tribes to sue in the United States Court of Claims, according to the Oregonian. The newspaper assured its readers that the tribes were not seeking a return of the land, but simply financial remuneration for that which they had lost.6 Apparently the Indian Bureau paid little heed to these efforts. In 1920 Howard Barrett, Siuslaw, wrote to the commissioner of Indian Affairs, “I would like much as well as others do to know the present status of the treaty and claim or treaty of 1855 given to the Indians of the Siuslaw, Umpqua, and Coos Bay, which is a well known fact that it has never been carried out yet.”7 The Indian Office responded, “In reply this will advise you that we are unable to identify the treaty to which you refer.” The only Oregon treaties they could locate had been ratified and fulfilled. “However, if you will furnish definite information concerning any particular treaty, agreement, or Indian claim, which you believe has not been settled, or fulfilled, the matter will be investigated and appropriate action will be taken.”8 For this reason and others, the work was slow. In many ways life went on as usual. For over a decade the tribes worked doggedly to convince Congress to pass a jurisdictional bill authorizing them to bring their case before the U.S. Court of Claims. Tribal chairman and delegate to Congress George Bundy Wasson did much of the work. His travel plans to Washington dc were front-page news in local papers at least 98

am al gam at ion, conf e de rat i o n , a n d t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

occasionally in the 1920s.9 The tribe paid the costs for the suit out of its own money. In addition to donating time and labor when they could, tribal members donated cash. John Vierow, for example, spent over $150, part specifically as “dues . . . to the suit” and part to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Finance Committee, which supported the efforts.10 In October 1927, Washington dc attorney Daniel B. Henderson met with some fifty Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members at Empire, the site of the 1855 treaty signing, about the case. At this meeting they also laid plans for electing tribal leaders and representatives.11 In November, claims meetings were held at the Siletz Reservation and in Roseburg.12 Finally on 23 February 1929, Congress passed a bill authorizing the tribes to seek redress in the court of claims.13 This major step forward buoyed hopes among tribal members. Four months later, on 23 June, Wasson planned to bring Henderson to an old-fashioned feast, with some two hundred and seventyfive tribal members, to discuss the case. The council was held at Second Creek near Empire. Henderson was unable to make it to the event, as was Wasson, who took ill with the flu.14 The tribe put on an old-style feast for those attending and their non-tribal guests. A visitor told an Oregonian reporter, “‘Food was prepared Indian style. . . . A trench was dug five feet deep and 20 feet long and five feet wide. It was partially filled with large rocks, which in turn were heated by burning several cords of wood in the trench. After six hours the ashes were removed from the heated rocks. Then wet sea grass was placed on the rocks. Clams, chicken, and salmon were placed on top of these and over the food more sea grass, canvas, and one foot of sand.’”15 Tom Wasson, well-known regionally as a master at preparing seafood, was in charge of the barbecue. Following customary tradition regarding proper treatment of visitors, “‘The outside whites were treated as distinguished guests and invited to share the food and entertainment.’” ama lgam at ion, conf e de rat ion, and t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

99

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Feasting and visiting were accompanied by storytelling, music, and games. In reporting that the focus of the meeting was the land claim, the Oregonian referred to the lost tribal lands as “Confiscated Property.”16 Soon after, on 15 August 1929, Henderson brought the suit before the U.S. Court of Claims.17 Frustration built again among tribal members, however, as the court system now worked almost as slowly as had Congress. On 30 May 1931, members of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs scheduled a meeting with Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members to discuss the case at Chemawa, Oregon, but only Senator Lynn Joseph Frazier, a North Dakota Republican, and some staff members showed up, and they accomplished little.18 In order to win the case, the three tribes would have to prove several things. First, they needed to show evidence that they were indeed Indian tribes, and that the United States recognized them as such. They would also need to prove that the land they claimed was indeed their land. And finally, they would have to show that they had never been properly compensated for that land. They rested their hopes primarily on the treaty itself, which Wasson had tracked in Washington, on the testimony from the 1875 removal hearings, and on oral testimony from tribal members and residents of the area. Testimony was taken by deposition in the case in November 1931, in North Bend. Henderson and T. Hardy Todd scheduled a visit for one o’clock in the afternoon on 4 November, which drew over one hundred members of the three tribes to Loggie Hall. The lawyers were delayed at Klamath, however, and did not arrive until the next week. From 10 until 13 November, they took depositions from both Indians and non-Indians in what the local newspaper, the Coos Bay Times, called “a petition for compensation for their allegedly confiscated lands.”19 For tribal members, describing what they had lost was a traumatic experience. Frank Drew, who himself testified for the 100

am al gam at ion, conf e de rat i o n , a n d t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

case and served as interpreter for some of his elders, recalled a decade later that the experience caused a lot of Indians to break down and cry.20 Henderson and Todd served as counsel for the tribes, and Walter C. Shoup represented the interests of the United States. Non-Indians testified for the court of claims that the Coos had lived in the Coos Bay area since the earliest white population’s arrival. William Robert Simpson, who served as sheriff of Coos County in 1884–85, recalled Coos Indians returning to their homelands after removal, living throughout the region, and working in the local mills.21 George Jackson, a general laborer and jack-of-all-trades whose parents moved to the Coos Bay region in the 1850s, claimed to know just about all of the Coos Bay Indians in the region. He observed that the white population had long had friendly relations with the Indians in the area. While some Coos Bay Indians had moved to Yachats, others had remained in their homelands; these were the people he had befriended in his life. Many who had been removed returned. “The agent would come down, collect them, take them up there and, I suppose, count heads to report to the Government at Washington and not furnish them any food stuffs and the Indians would run away, as they called it, and return to Coos Bay,” he said. He also knew the Barrett family, who lived at the site of Fort Umpqua, when he visited there in the 1880s. They, the Talbots, the Wassons, and the Jordans were among the mixed-blood families he named, who were able to avoid removal since the husband was white.22 J. N. Hedden, a merchant from Scottsburg, also testified on behalf of the tribes, since he believed “that the Indians have been abused.” Hedden and his father had purchased beaver, otter, fisher, marten, and mink as well as deer, elk, and coon hides from the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw for decades. These were the only tribes he purchased from. He ama lgam at ion, conf e de rat ion, and t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

101

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

testified that the Indians worked hard, always had plenty when they lived off the land, and got along well enough with their white neighbors that no one in his area had ever requested the agent to come remove them to the Coast Reservation. When asked at the end of his testimony if there was anything else he believed to be pertinent to the case, Hedden said, “Well, all I know about this is what the Indians told me. If they told me once they told me a hundred times that the Government stole the land from them.”23 The bulk of the testimony in the case came from tribal members. Nearly all of the tribal members who testified were from Hanis or Miluk Coos, although Hulda Perry was Lower Umpqua, and Andrew Charles, though Coos, grew up and lived most of his life at Siuslaw, where Frank Drew also made his home. George H. Barrett claimed to be of the Coos Bay tribe, although he lived much of his life in the Siuslaw and Lower Umpqua areas. According to Clayton Barrett, George H. was Siuslaw, and his half-brother, George Barrett, was Coos. Their father had children with a Siuslaw wife and a Coos wife. At any rate, the Coos tribe took the lead in providing testimony; after all, the hearings were held on their land in Empire. But people with ties to all three tribes were involved.24 Tribal members told of the places they lived, naming them often in their native tongue, which the court required to be translated into English. They also described the places where they gathered food in great detail. It is now commonly accepted that place names and resource usage both play significant roles in defining aboriginal territory. “Occupancy” of a place includes not only “locations about which people have knowledge of ecology, legends, and indigenous place names,” but also places “where they have built their habitations and buried their dead.”25 The places described in testimony ranged from the South Slough of Coos Bay to the Siuslaw River area and from the 102

am al gam at ion, conf e de rat i o n , a n d t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

ocean up into the mountains. In the 1940s John Peabody Harrington would use this testimony as a basis for interrogating his consultants about the villages, rivers, streams, and lakes throughout this area, and collect detailed place-name information. The evidence provided in this testimony is overwhelming regarding the extent of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw homelands. Tribal members also testified about the places people lived and moved to over the years. Jim Buchanan testified in part through interpreter Frank Drew. He recalled that after leaving Yachats many tribal members went to Siuslaw, where some stayed while others moved to Lower Umpqua and Coos Bay. Drew, though Coos, stayed at Siuslaw.26 Tribal members recalled that the government had promised to pay for their homelands when they were removed to Fort Umpqua and later to Yachats. Jim Buchanan said, “At the time when the country was taken away from us we believed within our own hearts that the promises of the whites were fully as good as the promises of the Indians.” Because they were not, he believed that the Coos still owned the land.27 This, of course, is reflected in the unratified Empire Treaty, which was used in the case, and in much Indian Office correspondence, which was not. Frank Drew commented that “I have oftentimes wondered why the Government did not fulfill their part of the contract while [the Indians] carried out their part in good faith.”28 In all, the testimony revealed the heart-wrenching losses that tribal members and their families had suffered. Jim Buchanan lamented the fact that they had lost so much productive land filled with resources, “that the white people have come and reaped the golden harvest of our country while a number of us are now today living from hand to mouth.” Annie Peterson said, “Long years ago my parents were living happy in their own homes. They have abundance of food of all kinds such ama lgam at ion, conf e de rat ion, and t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

103

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

as fish and game from the forest of the Coos Bay country. Immediately after the whites came to our country we then right away experience hardships and we have no way of remedying conditions that we once enjoyed.” Peter Jordan lamented, “When I was a boy here there was plenty of ducks, plenty of clams, plenty of sturgeon, geese, swans, pellican [sic], elk, deer, and bear; now today there is practically none. You can do quite a bit of hunting and find practically nothing any more.”29 The changes in the world around them were made more poignant because the United States government failed to live up to the solemn agreement that tribal members believed they had made. Four years later, on 9 April 1935, George Bundy Wasson traveled to Washington dc and added his testimony to the court records. Wasson recalled that while growing up he often heard the elders talk about the “Joe Palmer”—Empire—treaty. Wasson described the extent of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw seasonal rounds and their land claims in detail in relation to a map that is now on file at the National Archives. He also provided the court with a substantive outline of the tribes’ historical relationship with the United States, beginning in 1855.30 Meanwhile, in 1934, the General Accounting Office (gao) submitted a report on the case to the U.S. Department of Justice, in which the gao outlined the expenditures the United States had made on behalf of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, separately and combined with other tribes. Of nearly a million dollars spent on the coastal tribes between the years 1854 and 1930, some eight thousand dollars was spent directly on the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. The bulk went to pay for removal expenses, employee salaries, a physician, and some one thousand dollars in rations. The funds also included forty-nine dollars spent on education and nine dollars on agricultural equipment. Detailed separately were expenses paid 104

am al gam at ion, conf e de rat i o n , a n d t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Alsea together, and the tribes at the Siletz Reservation.31 These sums, though paltry, do indicate that the federal government recognized the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw as distinct from the tribes at Siletz. And certainly neither the tribes nor the United States thought of the confederacy as part of the Siletz Reservation. A clear indication that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were not considered part of the Siletz Reservation occurred in 1935 and 1936 when Siletz took up the question of whether to organize its government under the Wheeler-Howard Act, also known as the Indian Reorganization Act (ira). A list of people to whom absentee ballots were sent, with their addresses and tribal affiliations, indicated that while numerous off-reservation Indians were considered to be Confederated Siletz members, including Alsea, Coquille, Chetco, Rogue River, and numerous other tribes, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were not. Of more than two hundred names on the lists, not a single ballot went to a Coos, Lower Umpqua, or Siuslaw tribal member. The list was after all based on the Siletz tribal rolls.32 Then one of the most significant events of the early twentieth century occurred for the three tribes: beginning in 1937 the Indian Service “assisted the Confederated tribes in constructing a tribal hall and community center at its Coos Bay headquarters . . . on a 6.12 acres parcel of land which was held in trust by the United States for the tribes.” The land on which the community hall stood was donated for tribal use in 1940 by L. J. Simpson and W. G. Robertson of the Empire Development Company.33 In various small ways, the United States recognized the existence of the three tribes and also provided services to them as Indians. The gao report, the building of the tribal hall, and the ira vote at Siletz, all taken in juxtaposition with ama lgam at ion, conf e de rat ion, and t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

105

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

one another, show that the United States recognized the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw as an autonomous entity. Despite this treatment and the evidence presented to it, the court of claims ruled in May 1938 that “[a]n unratified Indian treaty is not evidence of governmental recognition of Indian title to lands described therein.” It recognized that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw had lived in the area, but also ruled that oral tradition was not proof enough that they had done so “from time immemorial.” In fact, the court expressed concern that “Plaintiffs rest their case . . . upon the oral testimony of twenty-one witnesses,” and that “at least seventeen of the twenty-one witnesses produced have a direct interest in the outcome of this case.” The court feared the testimony to be tainted. In fact, the court argued “that the United States never recognized the plaintiff Indians as the aboriginal owners of the lands they now claim.” Indeed, according to the court, “until the agreement of . . . 1892,” the United States “recognized no existing rights of property to any specific area of lands to be vested in them.”34 The tribes appealed this decision to the United States Supreme Court, but that body “refused to consider the appeal.”35 As legal historian Christian McMillen has observed, it was not until 1941 that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that tribes could secure land claims rights by “proving occupancy from time immemorial.”36 Ironically the failure of the confederated tribes paved the way for the success of other western Oregon tribes in the court of claims. The twenty-five other tribal groups who signed the same treaty succeeded in the court of claims in the case filed “[u]nder the ethnographically erroneous names of Alcea Band of Tillamooks v. United States.” The suit included the Chetco tribe and bands of the Tillamook, Coquille, and Tututni tribes, all signatories to the unratified 1855 Empire Treaty that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw also had signed. The lesson they took from the Coos, Lower Umpqua, 106

am al gam at ion, conf e de rat i o n , a n d t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

and Siuslaw loss was to provide supplemental documentary evidence supporting their oral testimonies.37 In 1945 the court of claims ruled favorably in the Tillamook case, stating that the court “held that the plaintiffs Tillamook, Coquille, Too-too-to-ney and Chetco tribes have satisfactorily established original Indian title, through exclusive use and occupancy in 1855, and long prior thereto.”38 The map accompanying the decision, based on an 1855 map and the Royce Indian Land Cessions maps, clearly delineates the original homelands of all the tribes involved in the treaty negotiations. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw lands are marked out between the Tillamook bands, which are north of them, and the Coquille, Tututni, and Chetco to the south.39 Many tribal members who were of both Coos and Coquille heritage shifted allegiance to the Coquille tribe at this point, at the advice of both Wasson and their legal counsel, which led to long-lasting animosity between the groups.40 Meanwhile, in early 1939, the Office of Indian Affairs listed as its first land priority for the Grand Ronde–Siletz Agency “[t]he purchase of a tract of land for the benefit of the publicdomain allottees of southern Oregon, which can be declared a reservation, thereby permitting these Indians to organize and incorporate; and which will be so located that it may serve as a nucleus for possible future land acquisitions.” The Office recognized that it had stopped keeping track of the off-reservation Indians in 1925, and that it needed to make new tribal rolls.41 Also in 1939, the agency met with the state fish and game department to discuss Indian hunting and fishing rights, and hoped to secure rights for those tribal members living on public-domain allotments. This would include some, but not all, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members.42 Then, in September 1941, Superintendent Ralph Fredenberg informed more than two dozen Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members that they would not be eligible for full ama lgam at ion, conf e de rat ion, and t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

107

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

federal benefits unless they established a government under the Indian Reorganization Act. This law had gone into effect in 1934, with one of its major purposes being to encourage tribes to form a constitutional government. If a tribe voted to accept the ira, the constitution it wrote was fairly certain to be accepted by the Indian Bureau, especially if it had modeled its constitution on the system suggested by the bureau. On the one hand, these documents, which came to be called boilerplate constitutions, often failed to serve tribes well as they entirely cast aside traditional forms of governance. On the other hand, accepting the ira and organizing under it, as Fredenberg recognized, made it easier to gain federal services. Fredenberg, a Menominee Indian, had been superintendent of that tribe’s agency when they fought against the Indian Bureau, eventually refusing to organize under the ira.43 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw never accepted the ira either. At the time of this meeting, the Coos and Curry County Indians were putting the finishing touches on their tribal hall, which would serve as a physical place to hold Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw organizing meetings, and in the long run would be more important to their survival than the ira. At the time of its opening, the Coos Bay Times hailed the building as bringing “the resumption of something of the old-time tribal spirit” that “will aid in the perpetuation of this pride among those who remain of the friendly natives who first occupied the Coos country, and whose children now are members of the population entire, and altogether good neighbors.”44 Despite this talk of Indians blending into the larger population, the federal government still treated the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw—as well as other Indian tribal groups in southwest Oregon, such as the Coquille—as politically separate entities. This extended even to the individual level. In 1940, for example, the bureau conducted a census of Indians on the public domain. The census identified 257 people with Coos, 108

am al gam at ion, conf e de rat i o n , a n d t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Lower Umpqua, or Siuslaw blood, including those descended from other tribes as well.45 According to tribal oral history, the census was based on self-identification, through response to a newspaper advertisement.46 Although flawed, this census served as a basis for defining the regional tribal population. The tribes officially dedicated the hall at a big celebration on the first Sunday in October 1941, with Marshfield mayor Albert Matson presiding as emcee, the North Bend high school band playing lively music, and a big feed out put on by Pauline Wasson, Daisy Coddington, Mary Miller, and several other women. Fredenberg “dropped a discouraging word” at the end of the ceremony, when he warned that the federal government had no money to pay for upkeep and maintenance of the new building.47 The Coos held a meeting after the ceremonies and the lunch, “making arrangements for a later session at which formal reorganization under new Indian affairs laws will be discussed.”48 Fredenberg said he hoped that the building would “be a nucleus for social events of friendly people, both Indians and white people.”49 The tribes held several meetings and feeds in which they served meals such as clam chowder, salt salmon, bacon, and potatoes, and planned their future. They sought funds to landscape and fix a road, and established a legislative committee to govern themselves, consisting of James Siestreem, Jane Siuess, Howard Barrett, Frank Drew, Frank Johnson, George Bundy Wasson, Charles Edward Ned, and Mrs. Alvin Sprague (nee Jennie Carlson).50 James Siestreem, Coos Bay tribal chairman, along with Ed Sprague and Fred Sandberg, formed the committee in charge of the building. The building, built in a rugged logged-over area, needed an access road. Siestreem would pass his cowboy hat at meetings and when he got enough money he would purchase a load of gravel to make a roadway through the wetlands.51 Shortly after the building’s dedication, the tribes ama lgam at ion, conf e de rat ion, and t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

109

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

sponsored a Saturday night box social, and then announced that the building would be available for rent to non-Indians wishing to use it.52 Earl Wooldridge, Fredenberg’s successor, met numerous times with the Coos Bay tribes at their community hall over the next several years.53 The main purpose of these meetings was to secure recognition by the tribes from the federal government. Ironically, even though the Grand Ronde–Siletz Agency superintendent was working with them, and the Indian Bureau had built them a building, they did not recognize the tribes. Also ironically, that same superintendent was working to help them become recognized. Ed Metcalf served as acting chairman and George Wasson served as acting secretary at the 1942 and 1943 meetings, at least one of which (which doubled as an eightieth birthday party for Ira Metcalf) drew a crowd of more than sixty people. According to minutes, Wooldridge pointed out that the publicdomain census showed that “an official committee from the Indian Office” believed the “Indians had not lost their tribal identity.” In a sign that the end of the reservation allotment era did not end the allotment policy entirely, he suggested that issuing public-domain allotments would be an important step to take. He also recommended that the “Coos, Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes” should gather “records of council proceedings and other evidence of meetings” dating to at least 1875. In addition, he suggested locating and identifying graveyards.54 All of these would become important issues over the next several decades. The Coos Bay Harbor viewed these meetings as a revival of interest in pursuing their needs on the part of tribal members, who had to recover from the blow of their U.S. Court of Claims loss, which “came like a dash of cold water.”55 Also in 1942, a government physician, promised to the Indians of southwestern Oregon long since, began to make monthly 110

am al gam at ion, conf e de rat i o n , a n d t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

rounds to visit Indians in Coos and Curry counties. Part of the purpose of the community hall had been to provide space for such physical checkups. The next winter, an ear-nose-eye-throat specialist, paid for by the Indian Bureau, visited southwest Oregon Indians in Florence, Powers, Gold Beach, and at the community hall in Empire. In fact this was also a provision of article four of the 1855 treaty.56 Thus the government continued to provide some minimal service to the public-domain and other off-reservation tribal members. In the spring of 1945, the tribes held a meeting that drew enthusiastic attendance from non-reservation Indians and culminated in the writing of a constitution, which the “Indians of Southern Oregon” voted overwhelmingly to accept in December 1945. When Wooldridge forwarded the constitution to Washington, confusion ensued. Wasson included a letter with Wooldridge’s submission saying, “This action on our part was undertaken as a mutual benefit for our members and it is hopeful that some of the benefits extended to other tribes . . . may be made available to us also.” They needed more from the government than simply a community hall, he wrote.57 In April of 1946, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw authorized their officers to petition the state of Oregon to recognize their hunting rights west of the mountains. They also discussed asking Congress to pass a law compensating them $200 per acre for 160 acres each for the public-domain allotments that many had never received.58 Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs William Zimmerman wrote that he had no record of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw organizing under the ira—even if they had never voted on it, however, its provisions would apply to them. But he could not accept their constitution. Wooldridge responded that they had not organized because Chemawa Agency had not given them the opportunity to do so.59 Meanwhile, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw failure ama lgam at ion, conf e de rat ion, and t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

111

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

in the U.S. Court of Claims did not put an end to their efforts to seek a judgment. When Congress established the Indian Claims Commission (icc) in 1946 to adjudicate tribal claims against the United States once and for all, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw filed a claim. On 6 July 1947, the tribal business committee approved a contract to hire lawyers to bring their claims before the icc, but tribal members at a meeting that December learned to their dismay that they had no legal representation. At this meeting tribal members first floated the idea of taking their claim to the United Nations. Then on 6 June 1948, the tribes met again in a general council at the Indian Community Hall in Empire, where they adopted a resolution to hire attorneys John Mullen of North Bend, who had represented the Alsea, and Everett Sanders of Washington dc, as decided in July 1947. The chairman of the business committee, Howard Barrett Sr., who now resided in Florence, proclaimed, “The purpose of this meeting is to establish our claims again.” The recorded vote showed fifty-four in favor, with no indication of opposition.60 Tribal secretary Ida Helms observed that “much evidence has been discovered since the trial of the case of the Coos Bay, lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians against the United States and which was introduced in evidence in the trial of the Alsea band of Tillamook vs. the United States. It would be unjust and inequitable to deny the Coos, lower Umpqwa, and Siuslaw tribes the right of recovery.” The tribes authorized E. E. Morris, Ed Sprague, Clay Barrett, and George Thomas to make legal decisions on their behalf.61 Mullen worked successfully to complete the claims of the Coquille, Tututni, Chetco, and Tillamook, and also attempted to have the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw case reheard. Mullen spoke at a meeting presided over by chairman Howard Barrett Sr., on the evening of 21 October 1949, at the tribal hall in Empire. Some one hundred members of various 112

am al gam at ion, conf e de rat i o n , a n d t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

tribes from throughout southwestern Oregon attended. Mullen spoke of the progress in the former case. While the news was discouraging for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, Mullen asked them “to be patient and [gave] them detailed explanations showing that by the same means as the first case, there is hope for them also.” Henry Roe Cloud, representing the Indian Service, also spoke. He paid tribute to the work of George Wasson and observed that Oregon had been required to protect Indian lands. Roe Cloud “urged patience, stating that all tribes would have the right of recovery.”62 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, with the support of Senators Guy Cordon and Wayne Morse, and Representative Harrison Ellsworth, sent their brief, ten-paragraph petition to the Indian Claims Commission on 9 August 1951. The petition itself merely summarized what land the tribes claimed the United States had usurped and the tribes’ rights to it in a very general way. In January 1952, after two delays, the United States filed a motion for summary judgment in which it stated, “[T]he Court of Claims has decided this case on the facts. This Commission could do no more. The issue of fact having been determined, there is nothing for this Commission to determine.” The icc agreed with this argument. A bia employee later noted that at the hearing held on 9 June 1952, “the petitioners offered no evidence and, after oral argument, the petitioners’ attorney stated that he had no objection to the Commission dismissing the docket. Accordingly, the Commission dismissed Docket No. 265 on July 11, 1952.” Indeed, when it dismissed the case, the icc observed that Mullen had offered no evidence at the hearing, and accepted the United States government’s argument that “[n]o one can contend in view of the magnitude of the record in that case and the nine years over which such litigation extended that plaintiffs did not have their day in court.”63 The tribes’ loss in court in 1938, together with their attorney’s failure to ama lgam at ion, conf e de rat ion, and t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

113

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

provide compelling new evidence, had doomed their efforts. It might also be noted that the icc was overwhelmed with work.64 No doubt the commissioners were more than happy to dismiss what they viewed as cut-and-dried cases lacking merit, in order to lighten their loads. Perhaps most disheartening for the tribes in all this was that supporting evidence existed in abundance. It included Office of Indian Affairs correspondence as well as documents that had been archived in the Smithsonian Institution. It also now included new ethnographic data, most notably the work of John Peabody Harrington. In fact, in the brief prepared for Congressman Ellsworth, many of these documents were cited. Some of Harrington’s notes were attached.65 Yet somehow, the tribe’s attorney failed to make a case and botched yet another opportunity to right the wrongs of the past. In 1954 the tribes hired attorney James Green to bring their claim before the icc yet again, but the commission refused them since their case had already been dismissed by that body two years previously.66 This attempted resurrection would soon come to haunt the confederated tribes. Meanwhile, the federal efforts at developing a termination program and deploying it in western Oregon were beginning to bear fruit.

114

am al gam at ion, conf e de rat i o n , a n d t h e c l a i m s c ase s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

c ha p ter six

Termination Proposed

Federal indian policy has shifted several times since the late nineteenth century, between attempted assimilation and expanded tribal self-governance. The failed policies of forced assimilation that accompanied the nineteenth-century allotment era gave way in the 1930s to efforts by John Collier, who served as head of the Indian Bureau from 1933 to 1945, to turn control of tribal governance over to the tribes, under a model he thought best for all Indians. While the new policy initiative of home rule encouraged tribes in some important ways, the paternalistic nature of Collier’s policies in fact destroyed some subsistence-based tribal economies and led to decades of continuing underdevelopment in many other tribal communities.1 The policies relating to the termination period, which originated between the 1920s and the 1940s, increased this underdevelopment. All of this caused tribes to continue questioning the effectiveness of U.S. oversight of their lives and resources. It also caused tribal leaders to search and hope desperately for ways to gain control of management of their communities. Collier believed that one positive future for wealthy tribes lay in a political process he dubbed “incorporation,” which he touted as early as 1926. During the 1920s, the Klamath, as well as Wisconsin’s Menominee Indians, were targeted for dissolution of the trust relationship and replacement of the reservation with a corporation.2 Still, even by about 1940, most Indian Bureau field service employees thought it would

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

be foolhardy to turn management of tribal affairs over to tribal governments, which they feared would create autocracies.3 The 1940s and 1950s brought difficult times to Oregon’s tribes. Poverty levels were high in coastal tribal communities and even their neighbors, the timber-rich Klamath, were unable to gain control of their economy. Edgar Bowen recalls that although some people continued to live off the land into the twenty-first century, after World War II, many stopped doing so.4 While some folks continued to fish and gather seafood, to hunt and to gather berries, and even to tap spruce and fir trees on National Forest land and sell the pitch, most became tied more tightly to the market economy that many had entered earlier in the century.5 Nick and Hattie Hatch’s Siuslaw family were perhaps reflective of the way people made a living in the new economy. In the 1940s, Nick went to Idaho to work, sending money home. Hattie, who was Siuslaw, ran the household, where three daughters lived. The other daughter worked in the Willamette Valley. A son worked at a dairy in Lakeside, and yet another son attended university in Corvallis.6 Despite the advent of wage labor, it remained a challenge for people to feed their families. “We were poor,” recalled Frank Barrett, a Siuslaw and Howard Barrett Sr.’s son. “We didn’t have any running water. We didn’t have running water or electricity until I was a freshman in high school. . . . We had a big garden, a lot of fish,” including flounder, perch, and salmon, as well as other seafood such as crab and clams. The food that they did not get from the land was tasty, but often unhealthy, Frank recalled. “Mom made bread and a slab of bacon and she’d melt the bacon juice and we’d take this homemade bread and dip it in the hot bacon. Oh it was good. But man, it would clog our arteries. . . . We all had bad hearts.”7 This individual poverty was felt by Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members. To compound the suffering, the tribes 116

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

also lacked any tribally controlled resources from which tribal members could support themselves and their families. Nonetheless, Collier’s notion of incorporation became a basis for the termination policy of the 1950s that would be applied not only to wealthy tribes but also to tribes that lacked resources. In the hands of new federal bureaucrats, policy began to shift away from Collier’s hope for increased tribal self-determination under U.S. tutelage. Federal officials instead began to plan to release tribal governance, education, health care, and economic development from federal oversight altogether. An effort to disband tribes and incorporate individual Indians into American society accompanied this shift. Termination was part of a broader effort in the 1950s by Congress and the Department of the Interior to minimize the federal relationship with Indian tribes. The policy initiatives of the fifties included termination of the tribal-federal government relations, relocation of tribal members from reservation or rural communities to urban centers, and Public Law 280, which turned law enforcement jurisdiction in Indian country over to state-level authorities in five states and the territory of Alaska.8 All of these initiatives were intended to diminish the role of tribes and enhance the role both of individual Indians and of the non-Indian world surrounding tribes. These policies provided a victory for state-control advocates. These changes occurred just as Congress ordered the decentralization of the Indian Bureau. Bureau officials said this would better serve the needs of the local tribal communities, since the management of over 100 agencies nationwide proved unwieldy from Washington dc.9 On the other hand, as historian Larry Burt has observed, one result “was to ensure that future Indian policies would reflect the needs of the recent boom in the western economy.”10 A newly established Portland Area Office took on oversight responsibilities of the tribes in Oregon, Washington, and Northern Idaho, superseding the terminat ion p rop os e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

117

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

responsibility of the Chemawa Indian School for southwestern Oregon tribes. Its top priority almost from the beginning was to prepare long-range plans in which the tribes under its jurisdiction would prepare for release from federal supervision.11 Some tribes rejected this idea of termination, others endorsed it, while yet some, such as the Klamath, bitterly divided around the concept. Across the United States, tribes lived in abject conditions and many were willing to consider any plan that promised a broadened and improved economic base, or, for tribes with resources, greater control of their economic assets. A century or more of federal incompetence in managing tribal affairs, combined with stifling federal oversight of Indian lives, caused numerous tribes to search for ways to gain some control over their own governance. An increasingly powerful cabal of federal officials hoped to provide them with this control while at the same time withdrawing federal supervision of tribal affairs and eliminating once and for all the trust relationship. The Senate Interior and Insular Affairs’ subcommittee for Indian Affairs, under the leadership of Arthur V. Watkins of Utah, with the aid of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (bia), and under pressure from both Congress and superiors at the Department of the Interior, led the charge to establish and implement this policy change. This was a time, immediately following World War II, when the Congress was hoping to downsize the federal government, and termination and/or tribal incorporation fit neatly with those plans. Although incorporation had been trumpeted by Collier since before his assignment to run the Indian Bureau, he did not believe that it would be accomplished as part of the elimination of the federal trust responsibility. As late as 1943, in a planning memo he wrote to “Superintendents, Tribal Councils, All Indian Service Personnel and All Indians,” Collier emphasized that “the Indian office has—and will have—a continuing responsibility” to 118

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Indians and tribes. In that memo, Collier also wrote that the persistence of Indian tribalism in the face of federal policies that worked to destroy it confounded policy makers, but this tribal resilience proved that policies intended to destroy tribes would fail.12 But Collier recognized that the Indian Reorganization Act had put at least some tribes on the path to self-determination, which would cause the federal role to be increasingly “advisory” and decreasingly “supervisory.” Collier wrote, “I think we can agree, however, that federal advisory ‘supervision’ ought not to be withdrawn until Indians have attained a fair political, economic and cultural equality equivalent to that guaranteed by the Four Freedoms” enunciated by President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt defined these as freedom of speech and religion, and freedom from want and fear in an anti-isolationism speech to Congress in January 1941. Collier also recognized that “[t]he complete withdrawal of this [federal] protection would merely substitute a more difficult problem in place of one that is on the way to a solution. It would create a permanently dispossessed and impoverished group that would either have to live on the dole or would become one more sore spot in the body politic.”13 Collier, who recognized that bureau organization had changed little since about 1929, had initiated a reservation planning policy in the 1930s that morphed into a postwar planning process for reservation communities as early as 1942 that was intended to “enable the Indians to enter fully into opportunity without paying as a price the surrender of their personalities.” Part of the plan was to help individual Indians prepare to work and thrive in the non-Indian world, but the plan was intended to be developed in a democratic manner, community by community, not as ordered from the top.14 He believed that when veterans returned from the war, many would go to their impoverished and rural home reservations. terminat ion p rop os e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

119

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

“To say that the solution is to discontinue the educational [and other] services now offered by the Federal Government is simply to blink at the known facts and to urge instead an attitude of indifference which suggests not simple ignorance but a kind of devious and malicious conniving, something on a footing with the robbing of widows and orphans,” he told Congress.15 Nonetheless, in preparation for increased self-determination, in 1944 Collier developed a three-tier list of tribes, categorizing them as highly acculturated, moderately acculturated, or largely still Indian. Those in the first group, which in Collier’s judgment would be best prepared for assumption of responsibilities from the federal government, included over 150,000 Indians in tribes from twelve states, including Oregon. The Oregon tribes on the list included not only the Grand Ronde and Siletz reservations, but 789 section-four or public-domain Indians as well. Though not enumerated by tribe, this would include many Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members.16 Not everyone believed that assumption of governing responsibilities by tribes should be accompanied by a continuation of the trust relationship, as Collier had. Shortly after he left office, in 1945, the policy came to focus on ending the federal supervisory role altogether, a notion increasingly supported by Congress and the American public, though not by Indians. In February 1945, the Chicago Daily News marked Collier’s resignation with an editorial calling for a policy change that would look forward instead of backward. The Indian Service had been relocated to the Merchandise Mart in Chicago to clear space in Washington offices for the war effort. The Daily News opined that American Indian soldiers “wear the same uniforms, and in general speak only the same language as other Americans. In fact, they are generally indistinguishable from other Americans in any respect. And that, we think, is as it should be.”17 120

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

When William Brophy replaced Collier as head of the Indian Bureau he was told that the era of New Deal spending had ended. He recommended closing agencies such as the one at Grand Ronde–Siletz “that served acculturated Indians,” according to historian Kenneth R. Philp. Brophy recognized the legal necessity of obtaining tribal permission to end the federal relationship with tribes, however.18 In the fall of 1945, the recently established National Congress of American Indians (ncai) issued a four-page statement expressing concern over the shift in policy. Archie Phinney, a Nez Perce tribal leader and member of the ncai Executive Committee, wrote the statement. In it he expressed fear that the call for increased Indian self-determination would provide more power to states in affairs related to tribes, and could serve to undermine the federal trust relationship. “[T]ribal self-government . . . must not be developed on the basis of supplanting Federal responsibility but of supplementing and reinforcing Federal responsibility,” he warned.19 In 1947 the Indian Affairs Subcommittee of the House Committee on Public Lands held hearings on “Emancipation of Indians.” Three bills focused on releasing individual Indians from federal wardship and tribal privileges so that they could gain control of their own lands and resources. While Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs William Zimmerman insisted tribes should have a voice in the proposed radical changes, some congressmen viewed this as an opportunity to end wardship and the reservation system.20 Also in 1947, Zimmerman would draw up a list of tribes ready for termination, at the request of the Senate Post Office and Civil Service Committee.21 Zimmerman developed a three-tier list similar to Collier’s, but more conservative. His list lumped the bulk of tribal groups and Indian individuals into the predominantly Indian category. Slightly more than fifty thousand Indians from ten agencies “could be released terminat ion p rop os e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

121

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

now from Federal supervision” by his reckoning. He estimated, somewhat disingenuously, that eliminating these tribal groups from federal supervision would permit the bureau to release over five hundred, or 5 percent, of its employees. The tribes on this list did not include the Oregon coastal Indian tribes or reservations, however. Zimmerman categorized the Grand Ronde as lacking resources and as semiacculturated, estimating they would be ready for termination within ten years. He did not enumerate the Siletz or public-domain Indians in his list at all.22 That October, representatives from ten Northwest tribes met at Pendleton, Oregon. They adopted a resolution opposing termination. According to the East Oregonian, “The conference here believes ‘it is erroneous to say that the Indians are ready for emancipation.’ . . . It is reiterated here . . . that the majority of Indians are opposed to withdrawal of government supervision over tribal affairs. The government has spent millions of dollars for the foreign people in Europe and other parts of the world, especially in countries who were only recently at war with us. Why don’t they try to help the ‘conquered people’ of this country first?”23 Ruth Muskrat Bronson, a Cherokee and the secretary of ncai, told senators that ncai believed the federal government needed to increase support of tribal communities, especially in the area of education, before it decreased it.24 Portland District Director E. Morgan Pryse noted in his monthly report that twelve representatives of twelve tribes met in Pendleton, Oregon, and they opposed “liquidation of reservations” such as that proposed for Klamath and also opposed “withdrawal of Federal supervision over Indian affairs through legislation or enforced agreement.”25 But Congress was intent on moving ahead with its withdrawal program. In July 1947 it commissioned a report on the ways in which the executive branch could be reorganized for better efficiency. Former president Herbert Hoover chaired 122

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

the commission, which strongly urged “gradual integration of all Indians into the general population and economy.” In the interim, it also proposed moving the Indian Bureau out of the Department of the Interior, and turning over management of the social welfare of Indians to the states.26 D’Arcy McNickle, a bureau employee of Chippewa-Cree tribal background who was raised on the Flathead Reservation in Montana, wrote in 1948 that the purpose of federal policy was to end discrimination against Indians and permit tribes to exert “their own local controls for those previously exercised by the Federal Government.” He wrote that the Indian Reorganization Act was the method tribes were using to do this. He also emphasized that, legally and in terms of policy, Indians’ “privilege of dual citizenship is fully recognized.”27 But this thinking seemed to be a holdover from the Collier era, and Congress increasingly disagreed. The push to end discriminatory laws was thus perverted to become a way to push for single citizenship. The Indians of Oregon, Washington, and Idaho either had the misfortune or good luck that an efficient and able administrator, E. Morgan Pryse, ran the Portland Area Office of the bia during this time. When the central office called for its six-year program leading to “withdrawal,” he marshaled all of his office’s resources to meet this goal. He began on 10 August 1948 with a memorandum to all superintendents in his region calling for them to meet with tribes and develop long-range termination plans. He wrote that one “objective of the long range plan will be a determination of a proposed date that the Federal government may withdraw its supervision of reservation activities and turn the reservation over to the Indians for good. This must be done,” he concluded. In this memo he established meeting dates for all tribal groups; the Grand Ronde–Siletz meeting was set for 17–20 January 1949.28 terminat ion p rop os e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

123

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

After that meeting, Pryse enthusiastically reported to Washington that the Indians at Siletz would be ready to stand on their own within six years. “The remarkable fact is that the Indians themselves want this type of integration and there are no obstacles or difficulties in getting them to assume responsibilities in this direction. . . . There is no talk here of prolongation of federal service. The only caution is that unwise action shall not be taken in precipitating the race into county and state life when these commonwealths are themselves not yet ready to receive the Indians.” He added, “This accomplishment can be considered a forerunner for other Indian jurisdictions. After all is not such an outcome the heart and core of all federal supervision of Indians.”29 Pryse later said that he recognized the possibility of Siletz termination right after he took office, and “immediately began to close out the old Grand Ronde– Siletz Agency.”30 This policy seemed to have the support not only of Congress and Indian bureau officials, but of some Indian tribes as well. Zimmerman still expressed hope that treaties would be honored, and Brophy’s successor as commissioner of Indian Affairs, John Nichols, believed that Indians should retain their lands while they increased their self-determination, but he seemed unwilling to face the increasingly hostile congressional committees. In the face of pressure from states and Indian leaders, the bureau lost control over policy development to Congress.31 Several tribal groups in western Oregon added to the pressure to bring about policy change by expressing their increasing frustration with the way the Indian Bureau dealt with their affairs. These included the Klamath, and the confederated tribes at both Siletz and Grand Ronde. The Klamath had vigorously opposed federal mismanagement of their magnificent forest since the 1920s. For the tribes at Siletz, the dissatisfaction with federal management of their timber source, on parcels 124

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of unallotted lands reserved for tribal timber, also began in the 1920s.32 By the early 1950s, the Department of the Interior took concrete steps to implement the policy, which they began to refer to as the “freedom plan” or “the program.” Officials believed the best place to start was with tribes that had a strong enough economic base to be self-supporting, or with tribes that indicated a desire to manage their own affairs free from federal interference.33 The former category included tribes with timber and mineral resources. It also extended to tribes receiving large lump-sum payments through judgments or compensation money for resources taken or displaced. All such tribes should be pushed to termination, these bureaucrats believed. As Assistant Secretary of the Interior Orme Lewis, an Arizona attorney who was a close political ally of Republican senator Barry Goldwater observed, “When Indian tribes have a constant income, this Department is convinced that they should join with the Bureau of Indian Affairs in the development of a program leading toward their assumption of responsibility for supervision and direction of their own affairs, or . . . the transfer of these services to the local or State governments.”34 House Concurrent Resolution 108, the 1953 law that provided the enabling legislation for termination enumerated the Klamath, but not the other sixty-one tribal groups of western Oregon, in its call for specified tribes to be “freed from federal supervision and control.”35 However, based on hearings held to determine bia effectiveness in Indian country, the Bureau of Indian Affairs classified the western Oregon tribes as among “those groupings in which a substantial number of Indians had expressed a positive desire to achieve full independence from Federal trusteeship and supervision in the near future.”36 In fact, the bureau included the western Oregon tribes in this category as early as 1941, when they were under the jurisdiction of Chemawa School.37 terminat ion p rop os e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

125

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The Bureau of Indian Affairs grouped the scores of tribes of western Oregon, excluding the Klamath, into three categories: those that had become part of the Grand Ronde Reservation (546 people), those that had become part of the Siletz Reservation (731 people), and those in southwestern Oregon (804 people). The bia described the southwest Oregon Indians as scattered in 213 families across thirty-seven locations, as related to the people at both Grand Ronde and Siletz, and in many cases as having accepted land allotments.38 Some of these generalizations were accurate, of course, but they ignored the larger issue for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw—that they had established and continued to utilize their own tribal governmental entity. Several western Oregon tribes, including the Grand Ronde and Siletz confederations of tribes, passed tribal resolutions favoring termination. On the other hand, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw opposed termination, since they had been fighting for the opposite—recognition—since signing the 1855 Empire Treaty. Their testimony was ignored, however.39 Coos Elder Chief Edgar Bowen said, “I never did really realize what was happening.”40 He described what occurred at a multitribal meeting held to conduct a vote on tribal support for termination: “Well we voted against termination, and we [were] the only ones. They convinced the rest of them they were going to get rich. But they didn’t [convince] us. When they took us to Siletz to terminate us, to get us to sign, they locked our people in another building. And they wrote . . . this also includes the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw.”41 The reason the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw opposed termination, according to Bowen was simple. “Basically, what it was was selling your heritage.”42 Bill Brainard, also Coos, described the meeting similarly: The Coos, Umpquas, and Siuslaws didn’t even have the right to vote. They were locked in another building. They were locked 126

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

in another building when they had the meeting in Siletz. . . . [T]he Coos, Umpqua, and Siuslaw sent 47, 48 delegates to the Siletz Reservation back in the ’40s for this termination, and like I said all of them definitely voted “no” against termination. But they were taken out and locked into another building and told it didn’t apply to them.43

The history surrounding that meeting is somewhat murky, but numerous sources agree that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw opposed termination there. A tribal history compiled by tribal sources, perhaps in the 1960s, states that the Siletz hearings occurred in 1947, and that a forty-six-member delegation of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members was sent by the tribes to vote against termination. Representatives of the Portland Area Office were attending monthly meetings at Government Hill on the Siletz Reservation in 1947, and Indians from throughout the region were attending. According to this source, “The delegates were informed that the termination vote did not apply to them and they were taken from the hearings to be placed in a locked room under guard until the vote was completed.”44 At this time, the proposed legislation did not mention the Coos, Lower Umpqua, or Siuslaw, but it did imply their inclusion under the category “Southwest Oregon Indians.” Marguerite Severy, the daughter of Frank and Lucy Drew, recalled that several meetings were held: one at Siletz, at which the chairman, Elmer Logan, welcomed them as guests but denied them a vote; one at Empire, in which the Coquilles also denied them a vote; and one at the University of Oregon, at which only Klamath council members took lead roles. Nick Hatch, who was married to a Siuslaw, also recalled more than one meeting at which the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were not allowed to vote.45 Brenda Brainard tells the story slightly differently. In her terminat ion p rop os e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

127

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

version, approximately a dozen and a half tribal members attended the meeting, where any tribal groups that would be terminated had to agree to do so. At lunch break they tried to convince others not to terminate. When the meeting started after lunch, they were locked out. As in the other versions of the story, the decision was made on their behalf without their permission to participate in termination. She recalls that when she conducted legal research for the tribe later on, she saw a document in which federal representatives noted that in the future they would need to deal with the Coos.46 George Barton believes the meeting occurred in the early 1950s, while he was still in high school. He recalls the meeting well because the planning occurred for it in his grandmother Clara Lapp’s kitchen. She owned an allotment homestead that is reportedly the only one remaining still owned by a tribal member, which the family kept by paying taxes on it. The kitchen had become a gathering place for socializing, gossip, and informal planning meetings. The meeting to plan the opposition to termination was held there, and meetings afterward to discuss anger and next steps after being locked out also were held there.47 Later, as termination began to be implemented nationwide, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Glenn Emmons, in a statement prepared for President Dwight D. Eisenhower, said, “Our programs . . . are entirely voluntary and involve no element of compulsion or coercion.”48 Indeed, congressional committee and subcommittee leaders had emphasized in floor debate that Congress was “merely expressing a desire that we direct the Indian Bureau to look into some of the Indians who are ready to be heard and ready to be emancipated,” in the words of House Interior and Insular Affairs Committee Chair A. L. Miller of Nebraska.49 Emmons was a staunch supporter of termination, which should come as no surprise. After all, Orme Lewis, under whose 128

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

tenure the Association on American Indian Affairs observed that “[t]ermination came into full bloom,” had played the key role in selecting him for the position.50 But years later, the office of the commissioner of Indian Affairs agreed that the tribes had not given consent, pointing out that they were not required to do so by law.51 Meanwhile, those tribes that had won the U.S. Court of Claims judgment in the Alsea case were awarded their payments in 1947, although the money was not paid out then. In a February meeting at Chemawa Indian School near Salem, attended by some 130 coastal Indians, tribal members urged the state and federal governments to make a census of Indians so that disbursement of claims funds could be made. Significantly, State Senator Douglas McKay of Salem opened the meeting.52 This theoretical sudden influx of cash made them prime targets for termination as part of the federal pattern of pushing tribes that won judgment awards to terminate. It also forced tribal members of mixed tribal heritage to decide which tribe to affiliate with—one that would receive a payout, or the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, which would not. Some tribal members, especially those of mixed Coos and Coquille background, were lost to the confederated tribes this way.53 Pryse, the Portland Area Office director, later pointed out to the press that the Alsea money would be paid directly to Indians on termination.54 The Grand Ronde and Siletz tribes stated their reasons for supporting termination in tribal resolutions. The Grand Ronde’s problems began with a loan fund in the U.S. Treasury that the Bureau of Indian Affairs made inaccessible; they hoped termination of some federal responsibilities would provide them access to their money. They officially opposed overall termination only since it would abrogate their hunting and fishing rights, according to tribal resolutions.55 terminat ion p rop os e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

129

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The Siletz were simply tired of incompetent federal officials mismanaging their affairs. During termination discussions held at Swan Island, the Siletz Tribal Council told the commissioner of Indian Affairs that they had first requested withdrawal of federal supervision in 1897. Their frustration with the management of their timber resource, which had first surfaced in the 1920s, increased throughout the forties and through termination.56 The Siletz vented their frustration, noting tribal members’ levels of education and assimilation. After their claims judgment was made, they renewed their request for federal withdrawal. In 1947 they drafted resolutions to permit them to organize under a constitution and to control their financial affairs. In 1948 the Siletz General Council discussed a petition seeking the dismissal of Superintendent Earl Wooldridge. They noted that Grand Ronde was also interested and discussed filing their petitions together. According to minutes of an 18 January meeting, “Mr. Elmer Reed in a brief discussion told how we Indians could do a much better job selling our own timber. . . . It is very evident that we have capable men here who could handle any Indian timber sale which might come up and also we could get our Cruising and surveying done for far less than [w]hat the government charges.”57 A sticking point was a section of land known as the Medicine Rock Timber Reserve, logged by Warner Lumber Company. They had taken only the best trees, leaving marketable timber in the cut-over area. Reed was himself a logger, and the tribes authorized that he be given a permit to relog the cut-over area and bring the extra timber to market. Over a year later, the tribes passed a resolution demanding that the Indian Bureau issue him the permit, stating that “delay of issuance of said permit is causing our tribe a great loss and said relog work or lumber operations should be started at once.”58 In more general terms, the money fronted to Indians to 130

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

purchase timber to log was only five thousand dollars. This was too little for tribal members to bid competitively for timber. In March 1950, the tribes requested that the United States increase this amount five fold so that tribal members would have an opportunity to make a living at either logging or lumbering.59 In August 1950, in preparation for a meeting with the commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Siletz General Council listed as its top priority for the discussion “complete liquidation.” This proved to be good timing from a federal perspective, since it closely followed Secretary of the Interior Oscar Chapman’s call for establishing a termination program. When Commissioner of Indian Affairs Dillon S. Myer met with tribal members, he later recalled, “I met a young gentleman by the name of [Coquelle] Thompson [Jr.], who is chief of, I believe, the Siletz group, who got up in the meeting and said: ‘Commissioner, we are glad to see you. We came down to say hello to you and to tell you we don’t think we need you much longer.’” As the Siletz rewrote their tribal constitution, they inserted a clause in the preamble, which they referred to as a “[l]iquidation clause,” reading, “to help provide necessary legislation for immediate liquidation.” The tribe’s membership approved this clause at a special meeting on 10 September.60 In December the office of the commissioner of Indian Affairs wrote tribal chairman Elmer Logan, promising “close cooperation” in developing the necessary plans “to dispense with any special service from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.”61 But the plan extended beyond the Siletz to include all of the Indians of southwestern Oregon. At this point the Grand Ronde still intended “to retain their present guardianship status.”62 In December the Portland Area Office issued its first official description of the “Program for the Early Termination of Selected Activities and Withdrawing Federal Supervision over the Indians at Grand Ronde–Siletz and Southwestern Oregon.” The off-reservation Indians were all lumped together in this terminat ion p rop os e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

131

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

planning document as “Southwestern Oregon Indians.” The document referred to the Coos by name only in listing some of their meager assets, and never mentioned the Siuslaw or Lower Umpqua. Its proposal that the bia draft legislation to terminate “Indians under the Grand Ronde–Siletz Administration” did not enumerate any specific tribal groups.63 The report recognized 213 Indian families living along the coast and in the Willamette Valley, and noted that only 22 percent of the original allotments—60 of 273—remained in Indian hands. The plan recommended selling seventeen of those and turning the other forty-three over to fee patent. It made no mention of the fact that numerous families had never accepted allotments. It also recommended that the tribal hall in Empire be patented in fee.64 The report seemed to argue, in a backhanded manner, that termination would hardly affect the off-reservation Indians, since they received little aid from the government anyway. “Southwest Oregon Indians were not closely affiliated with an Indian Agency prior to 1938 and, consequently, never received much assistance from the government, except for the privilege of sending their children to Chemawa School and supervision of their [allotment] timber and land sales.” In fact, the report went on to say, due to lack of funding, federal supervision of timber sales rarely occurred.65 The report considered the off-reservation Indians to be nothing more than groups of individuals and families, and recognized no tribal affiliation beyond that of individuals to tribes already living at Siletz or Grand Ronde. “Many of the early day Indian families refused to move to this new home and their descendants still reside in all sections of the old area. It is these small groups that make up the population described under the Southwestern Oregon Indians.” In discussing claims, the report refers only to those successfully adjudicated, ignoring the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw yet again.66 132

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The perpetuation of this error would be a direct cause for inclusion of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indian tribe in the development of termination legislation, and the failure of federal officials to consider them as a tribal entity in developing that legislation. Local and Portland Area Office officials would have known of their separate existence, but officials at the top levels of the Department of the Interior might not, and certainly congressmen would rely on reports to provide them with their knowledge. Officials within the bureau in Washington dc recognized that situations varied among Oregon’s tribes. In fact, they believed these differences offered an opportunity to develop the Oregon terminations to serve as a model for all of the rest of Indian country. Officials recognized that the case of the Klamath, like the Menominee in Wisconsin, was exceptional. While these tribes seemed logical to eliminate from federal trust first, because of their wealth, if the termination program was going to be broadly successful it would need to include a large number of tribes that lacked economic resources and development. This type of discussion was not part of the public discourse surrounding the termination plans, however. An internal memo approved by Commissioner of Indian Affairs Myer in January of 1951 observed: The circumstances surrounding the Grand Ronde–Siletz tribes and the California Indian groups are such as to permit early termination of Federal supervision. The wide range of social and economic conditions which prevail represent practically all of the problems which will be encountered in the bureauwide program for eventual termination of Federal supervision over all Indians. Solutions to the problems in these areas will go far in setting the pattern for progress in other areas. It is, therefore, extremely important to attack the problems of these jurisdictions with utmost care and to devise the best possible solutions.67 terminat ion p rop os e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

133

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Myer said in a meeting attended by a high-ranking Oregon state Indian affairs official “that the objective of the Bureau of Indian Affairs was to ‘get out of business as soon as possible.’”68 The Siletz, however, supported the new plans and moved quickly. So did subgroups within the reservation community. In March 1951, the twelve Tututni tribes at Siletz, in their own separately conducted council, passed a resolution demanding “full and complete emancipation and freedom from any and all Government supervision.” They wanted their assets divided per capita. Their chairman, Elwood Towner, sent copies of the resolution to Senators Guy Cordon, Hugh Butler, and George W. Malone of the Indian Affairs Committee, commenting, “We feel that the U.S. Indian Service has outlived its usefulness as far as our To-to-Tin Indians are concerned.”69 In presenting the idea of withdrawal to the tribes, however, Area Director Pryse seemed to emphasize the benefit to the tribe without delving into the potential detriment. At a 15 April meeting, for example, he apparently did not discuss the withdrawal of the trust responsibility, instead presenting the plan as a “program” focusing “on removal of government restrictions.”70 Also in the late winter of 1951, Coquelle Thompson Jr.—a former Siletz tribal chair, former Chemawa student, and Oregon State College graduate who served on Governor McKay’s newly established Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs, sought and received that body’s endorsement of termination for the forty-three tribes of Grand Ronde and Siletz.71 Then, in April 1951, the confederated Siletz tribes passed a resolution, 34–1, to sell all tribal lands and timber.72 By summer and fall 1951, they were considering a draft of the act supplied by the office of the commissioner of Indian Affairs. This early draft did not mention public-domain Indians at all, referring only to “termination of Federal Services” to “Indian Tribes, Bands, and individual Indians that were formerly under the jurisdiction of the Grand Ronde and Siletz Agencies.”73 134

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Area Director Pryse reported to Washington, “The various tribes have already approved the subject matter of the resolutions and there remain only the formal approval and signatures of officers to the resolutions.” In western Oregon these only included the tribes aggregated on the Grand Ronde and Siletz reservations. For example, at Siletz he identified the four key tribes as the Alsea band of Tillamook, the Tututni, the Chetco, and the Coquille.74 In other words, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were merely implied as part of the official considerations of the Indian Bureau at this time, if they were not ignored altogether. As for the nonreservation western Oregon tribes, bureau officials later simply said, “Those people who have inherited interests in public-domain allotments in the southwestern portion of Oregon have shown that they are in favor of the program of withdrawal by applying for patents in fee and having their restricted lands sold for them by the Bureau.”75 This assertion is questionable since one in five still held their allotments and many other tribal members had never taken them. But the rationale is consistent with the federal definition of what the allotments meant, although it flew in the face of what tribal members thought. Some had simply used the allotments to retain a place in their homeland, and of course many other tribal members had returned home without taking allotments. In May 1951, the first article about the proposed termination program appeared in the Lincoln County Leader. Coquelle Thompson Jr. wrote it. He believed the vote signified that his people wanted to “throw off the wardship yoke and become real citizens of our beloved country.” He thought if Indians began paying taxes, they would gain the respect of whites. “Aren’t we ready for liquidation?” he soliloquized. “Our boys and girls have been inter-marrying with whites for forty years or more. . . . We have, in my opinion, made the transition into the white way of life, there is no reason further terminat ion p rop os e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

135

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

to be pampered by the Government.” The true advantage, he argued, is that the Siletz would become “real citizens,” a comment he made twice.76 Citizenship, startlingly, was still an issue for Indians in Oregon in the 1950s, some three decades after the passage of the federal Indian Citizenship Act. Governor McKay’s committee on Indian affairs successfully sought passage of state laws ending the ban on both interracial marriage and alcohol use among Indians. A third proposal, counting nonwhites in the population tally used to draw legislative district boundaries, also became law. News stories about these focused in part on the need to provide full citizenship rights to American Indians. Indian tribal leaders were part of the governor’s committee, and tribal leaders also recognized the problem. The Tututni resolution calling for termination, for example, also demanded “that we be given all the rights and privileges of full and complete U.S. citizenship by the Congress.”77 Commissioner of Indian Affairs Myer congratulated Governor McKay on the passage of the new state laws, saying, “The enactment of this legislation is an important milestone for these first Americans on the road to full independence and freedom from governmental paternalism of any sort.”78 Thus the federal government and reservation communities of western Oregon began to pave the way for termination of federal supervision over the Indians of Oregon’s coast. The state would work hard to support the effort over the next several years, as both state and federal officials hoped Oregon could become a national model for enacting the new federal Indian policy. Tragically, when the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw opposed termination, the tribe’s voice was drowned out by the increasing clamor of three other entities—federal, state, and reservation tribal governments—that favored the radical change in one form or another. Slowly but inexorably, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were included, against their will, in the development and enactment of this policy. 136

t e r m i n at i o n p ro p o se d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

c ha p ter seven

Termination Compelled

It is worth noting that as termination efforts picked up momentum for the western Oregon tribes, a curious combination of factors would coalesce to hit these tribes, at least in terms of sheer numbers of tribal groups affected, harder than all others together. More than half of all tribes that would be subjected to termination hailed from western Oregon. This could occur because, unlike in many places and times, the Indian Bureau worked efficiently to develop longrange plans; some tribes specifically requested in tribal resolution to be removed from government oversight, and the state itself mirrored federal hopes that Oregon could become the shining example of the new policy. To that end, under Governor Douglas McKay’s leadership, Oregon actively participated in a national effort of the fourteen states (later expanded to twenty-two) with the largest Indian populations to make coordinated efforts to work with the federal government in establishing Indian policy. These states established the Governors’ Interstate Council on Indian Affairs in 1950. The stated purpose of this organization was to “[b]ring about the early and equitable settlement of Indian treaties,” in order to “[e]quip Indians for living with and in our American culture through education and training,” and to “[b]ring an early end to federal wardship, with adequate federal aid in the interim.”1 Each state was to appoint two representatives, one of whom would be selected by the state’s Indians. McKay selected the

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

terminationist Coquelle Thompson Jr. of the Siletz Reservation, not from a list sent him by tribal members, but from a list made by bia Portland Area Office Director E. Morgan Pryse. No one on the list Pryse sent to McKay represented the Coos, Lower Umpqua, or Siuslaw tribes. In fact, when McKay’s office called a statewide Conference on Indian Affairs in July 1950, and when he solicited input from “each of the four tribal councils in Oregon,” no Coos, Lower Umpqua, or Siuslaw members were invited, and their tribal council did not receive an invitation.2 That conference ended with a call for McKay to appoint an Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs. McKay established this committee in August 1950, including at least nine tribal members on the twenty-member committee. They represented the four groups McKay recognized—Warm Springs, Umatilla, Klamath, and Grand Ronde–Siletz—and also included one of the at-large committee members. Again, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were entirely ignored.3 McKay believed that by creating this committee, Oregon was taking the lead nationally in what all forty-eight governors desired—integrating Indians into the general culture, ending federal wardship, and fulfilling the Hoover Commission’s recommendation advocating “progressive measures to integrate the Indians into the rest of the population as the best solution to ‘the Indian problem.’”4 In addition to Coquelle Thompson Jr., McKay appointed his Indian Education director, Harvey Wright, to the Interstate Council on Indian Affairs. Wright thought there should be no separation at all between Indians and other citizens. At an Interstate Council meeting, he told the assembly, “I believe the only answer to the Indian problem is complete and immediate assimilation of the Indians into our stream of life.” At a meeting of the Oregon Governor’s Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs, he observed, “The chips are down—we must face facts. The time is coming when all Indian reservations 138

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

will be dissolved . . . with or without consent” of Indians. He therefore believed that the state had a responsibility to work with local governments to stop treating Indians as a “sub-race” and to begin treating Indians as citizens.5 Oregon state efforts were in line with efforts both of other states and of the federal government in terms of moving toward termination. Then, in late 1951, Pryse’s office drafted the resolution calling for liquidation of the Siletz.6 In November the tribe unanimously passed the resolution in council. At the meeting where it was considered, one tribal member “stated that he wanted to be free. We are self supporting. We don’t want any more Government hold on ourselves.” Pryse responded “that the Indians were First class citizens. There isn’t too much land anyway.”7 The resolution read, in part, “we feel that Federal supervision has ceased to be necessary, and it has, in many cases, through antiquated regulations, become a burden to our people and no longer conducive to our welfare, present and future.”8 An eighty-year-old Grand Ronde man, a visitor at the November council, supported the idea of freedom, but warned that he hoped “we get what we are asking for. Be careful,” he continued, recalling that both the Wheeler-Howard and Johnson Acts were damaging to the people at Grand Ronde.9 On the one hand, he seemed to be saying, freedom from government controls would be good, but on the other hand, it would come through congressional action, which had a history of hurting Oregon tribes. House of Representatives counsel George W. Abbott, in a report on the Eighty-third Congress, gave a slightly different version: “Representatives of the principal group communities involved joined in urging general terminal legislation, with a high degree of Federal-State-local cooperation making development of the legislation possible.” He ignored the smaller tribes altogether in his rationale, focusing on the Grand Ronde, and terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

139

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

especially the Siletz, tribal support of termination legislation. The Grand Ronde initially rejected the idea of termination in a 35–34 vote, but eventually caved in to federal pressure and voted to support the bill.10 The smaller tribal groups that did not go on the record favoring termination were nonetheless swept away in the Oregon termination legislation, with justifications rather than defensible reasons. In January 1952, Pryse announced the Oregon termination plan to the press. The Oregon Journal wrote that “[f]ederal supervision over the more than 2,000 Indians at Grand Ronde and Siletz and in southwestern Oregon soon may be withdrawn—at the request of the Indians.” The paper also reported that this decision was based on what Pryse referred to as “hundreds of meetings” with tribes over the previous year.11 Pryse had also lined up the support of Governor McKay, who had written him a letter strongly endorsing the termination plan in August 1951. “The keystone policy of our Oregon Indian Council is to advocate support and promote progressive measures that will integrate the Indians into the rest of our population,” McKay wrote. “The termination of federal supervision over the Oregon Coast Indians is in line with the established policy of our state, and we will support this program.” He added that state, federal, and Indian leadership all needed to be part of the discussion.12 When John Nichols’s successor as commissioner of Indian Affairs, Dillon S. Myer, announced the termination program nationally in 1952, he too ignored the smaller tribes. The Oregonian reported his announcement on 14 February with the headline, “West Oregon Indians to Be First to Be Removed from Supervision.” The announcement referred to forty-three coastal tribes, but in naming tribal groups, the newspaper did not mention the three affiliated Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes at all.13 The next day, in an editorial, the 140

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

newspaper did likewise, referring to the “2000 odd Grand Ronde–Siletz Indians.” This number includes all of the coastal tribal members under consideration, whether they lived on or held affiliation with one of the reservations or not.14 The editorial writer proudly observed, “It is worthy of note that the federal government has chosen Indians of the Oregon coast to be the first in the nation to achieve full citizenship.” The editorial also noted, however, “There is irony . . . in the timing,” since most other Americans were coming under increasing government control at the same time as “[t]he Indian is decontrolled.”15 On 15 February, the same day that the Oregonian published its editorial applauding the termination plan, federal and state officials met with Klamath tribal officials to plan a termination for them as well. Governor Douglas McKay chaired the meeting and noted with satisfaction that this could be a significant step in freeing all Oregon Indians from governmental supervision.16 Commissioner Myer outlined his plan to the secretary of the Interior who in turn reported it to Congress. He began by emphasizing that tribal consultation in development and implementation of the “withdrawal” policy was of paramount concern to the bureau. The Oregon tribes had requested federal withdrawal, but the department was willing to consider other forms of tribal self-determination for those tribes that believed the bia was holding them back developmentally. This probably included most tribes in the United States. If tribes desired partial withdrawal or if they desired to control their programs while remaining under the trust relationship, the bia would work with them. Myer developed this three-fold approach to withdrawal after meeting with Osage tribal leaders, but intended to apply the policy throughout Indian country.17 Myer reported that the western Oregon tribes formerly under the jurisdiction of the Grand Ronde–Siletz agency, as terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

141

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

well as most California tribes, had specifically requested federal withdrawal. He listed five categories of tribes with which termination legislation had been discussed, and included these two groups as the first category, those requesting it. The second category included the Menominee and Osage, who both had significant resources; the third category included tribes that were located remotely to bureau agencies and received “nominal” services. Other categories included those impacted by Missouri River flooding and a miscellaneous grouping of tribes.18 Not all federal officials wanted to proceed as quickly as did those in the Portland Area Office. In March 1952 the chief of Interior’s legislative branch expressed his concern regarding unresolved policy issues. He wondered specifically about rules permitting tribes to incorporate and maintain a legal tribal identity, and about the extent to which tribes would be permitted to enact “local self-government.” In a particularly prescient observation, he asked whether tribes should “be accorded the right to accept or reject the proposed emancipation by appropriate and legally binding tribal action?” He observed, “If they are not, the cry of broken treaties may be raised.”19 Within weeks, Coquelle Thompson Jr. wrote another polemic on freedom for the Toledo Lincoln County Leader. At the request of Indians and whites, he wrote, he needed to defend the coming freedom of Indians from governmental wardship, which had been destructive to Indians and tribes.20 In April 1952, Republican senators Arthur V. Watkins of Utah and Clinton P. Anderson of New Mexico brought bill s 3004 to the Senate, and Democratic representative Toby Morris of Oklahoma brought resolution hr 7489 before the House. These identical bills were to “facilitate the termination of Federal supervision over the Affairs of Indian tribes and bands and individual Indians that were under the jurisdiction 142

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of the former Grand Ronde and Siletz Agencies.” There is no mention of specific tribes, including the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, who in their quasi-recognized state had operated independently of either of these agencies.21 However, hearings held at this time mention only the fortythree tribes of southwest Oregon—the number that did not include the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. Hearings were held simultaneously in the House and in Senate Building room 224 on the morning of May 21. Myer went before the House while Associate Commissioner Rex Lee testified before the Senate committee. Myer told the House Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, “there is about 800 Indians in Southwest Oregon, small bands and groups, that have not a general organization but we have consulted with all of these groups of Indians over the period of the last year and a half now from time to time. We have resolutions, definite resolutions from the two that are organized. Information has been available as to our plans.”22 This would certainly have come as a surprise to Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw leaders. Myer told committee members that the bia could close out the work in six months if the bill were passed, since the Indians were so well integrated into the surrounding society already. He received hearty congratulations from committee chair Reva Beck Bosone for “carrying out the desires, I am sure, of every member of the committee to get the Indian off wardship as soon as he is capable of being taken off wardship.”23 Meanwhile, in the Senate hearing room, Arthur V. Watkins of Utah was the only subcommittee member present at the hearing on California and western Oregon termination, although Senate counsel Albert Grorud was also there. Lee testified that the termination bill “is in accord with the policy of this Department and the Congress to terminate federal supervision over Indians and their property whenever they are able to manage their own affairs without special assistance.” The Siletz, Grand terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

143

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Ronde, and off-reservation Indians in southwest Oregon met this designation, he offered. He exhibited no knowledge of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, however, saying those not at Siletz or Grand Ronde “maintain no tribal organization or affiliation and are not identified as tribal groups.” He emphasized that the Siletz and Grand Ronde communities had passed resolutions favoring the legislation, adding, “While resolutions were not obtained from other groups in Western Oregon affected by the bill, the general consensus was in favor of the bill.”24 Less than three weeks later, the Senate subcommittee held another brief hearing. Again Watkins was the only subcommittee member present—although he got up and left for a floor vote before Felix Cohen, representing the Association on American Indian Affairs, had a chance to testify on what Cohen referred to as “a terribly important bill, perhaps the most important bill on which this committee has taken action in several years.” Cohen expressed his displeasure at the Senate’s lack of interest. “I feel obligated . . . to express regret that the Senators who are members of this committee have found themselves unable to be present, any of them, when our testimony was being presented.” His experience reflects the congressional mindset regarding termination by mid-1952. He had only heard of the hearing at the last minute and mentioned to Watkins that he would like to have the opportunity to testify in greater length. Watkins dismissed the idea, however, telling Cohen “that it was impossible to give us this extended opportunity to testify because the committee has made up its mind and wants to get this bill on the calendar as quickly as possible.”25 The testimony by bureau officials at these hearings and the response by Senator Watkins and other congressional representatives indicate that they believed the Oregon tribes were not only prepared for termination, but wholeheartedly supported 144

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

it. They failed to recognize the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw as a group, or their concerns. After this point, things became rushed. In August the commissioner of Indian Affairs sent out a memo requesting withdrawal information from the Portland District Office by mid-September. Pryse commented in both his August and September monthly reports that this presented a problematic time crunch. After sending in the report, he wrote that he would continue his research.26 Meanwhile, as the fall 1952 election season that brought Dwight David Eisenhower into office drew on, both parties inserted an Indian affairs plank into their platforms, each emphasizing the thinly veiled theme of integration and citizenship. The Democrats pledged to help the tribes maintain their cultural distinctiveness, while the Republicans promised to consult tribal leaders in selecting the new commissioner of Indian Affairs.27 Both parties planned to continue the process of assimilation. Shortly after the 1952 elections, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Myer told a gathering of western governors that Oregon was leading the way “on a program that will take us completely out of the picture as far as these Indians are concerned,” singling out the Grand Ronde–Siletz case. He believed these were the initial steps of a multiyear process to do away with the bia altogether. He also emphasized that the bureau would work closely with tribes and local officials: “This programming must be carried out in close cooperation with the Indians, both as individuals and groups, as well as with responsible representatives of other governmental agencies—mainly State and local.”28 That year, the House of Representatives asked its Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs to conduct an exhaustive study of the Bureau of Indian Affairs to learn the degree to which it understood its Indian wards, the degree to which it terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

145

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

carried out its trust responsibilities, and the “adequacy” of federal law necessary to carrying out the federal trust responsibility. The result was House Report 2503, a massive tome of 1,594 pages plus maps. The bia itself supplied much of the information.29 One section of the narrative report prepared by the bureau included a listing of tribes ready for withdrawal and steps the bureau had taken to help bring that about. While admitting it had made relatively little progress, the report touted bia efforts in two places: “Our most noteworthy progress has been made on withdrawal programming with approximately 30,000 Indians in 115 separate bands or tribes in California, and with 43 bands or groups of Indians in the Grand Ronde Siletz jurisdiction in western Oregon.”30 The report briefly mentioned the Coos tribe, discussing their failed claims, and commenting that 228 Coos tribal members were among the fourth section, public-domain allottees. It mentioned the Siuslaw only to say, incorrectly, “They were gathered at an early date on the Alsea Reservation and were then later transferred to Siletz Reservation.” And as for the Lower Umpqua, the report referred to the Kalawatset in the index, but at the actual point in the text, they are not mentioned separately from the Umpqua.31 Aside from these brief descriptions, the statistical and other narrative reports that make up the bulk of hr 2503 ignored these three tribes completely.32 Despite this, or perhaps because of it, Howard Barrett Sr. continued to attempt to get federal officials to pay attention to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. He traveled to Washington dc to meet with President Eisenhower about the tribes’ claims in the early 1950s, but fell ill and could not get out of bed to go to the meeting. In addition to a mill accident that qualified him for a veteran’s disability pension, Barrett had an untreatable low-blood-pressure problem.33 Howard’s son, Frank, bought a Model-A Ford in 1952, 146

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

at the age of sixteen, and he became his father’s chauffer. Howard did not drive—he only drove once, a delivery truck that he crashed, and so Frank had an opportunity to become involved in tribal politics at an early age. Howard raised money to travel through donations from tribal members, as George Wasson had before him.34 Though bureau officials in Portland rarely paid them any attention, they were not thinking of excluding the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw from the legislation. They did, however, exclude them almost completely from the planning process. In January 1953, the Portland Area Office held a “Resources Conference” in which the first item on the agenda was “Programming for Assumption of Responsibility for Management by the Indians.” Yakama leaders spoke against termination there. But of 149 invitees, most of them tribal members, none represented the Coos, Lower Umpqua, or Siuslaw.35 That same month Harvey Wright, chair of the Governor’s Committee on Indian Affairs, wrote to U.S. Representative Walter Norblad urging action on the western Oregon termination bill. “Three of the members of the Grand Ronde Tribal Council were in my office yesterday and stated that their people wanted to get out from under the Bureau of Indian Affairs lock, stock, and barrel, but they thought that their hunting and fishing rights were of considerable value.” He asked Norblad to help compensate the tribes for any lost fishing rights, and also said, “[W]e need your support to obtain complete withdrawal of the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs over these 43 bands and tribes along our coast.”36 Governor Paul Patterson lent his support to the effort as well, writing to both Norblad and Senator Guy Cordon urging them to support termination. He contended that the Indians were so assimilated that “[t]o all intents and purposes, there is no reservation over this area.” Patterson concluded his argument by commenting, “The Indians want to be released; terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

147

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

the Bureau of Indian Affairs has agreed to sponsor legislation to release them; and I do not know of any reason why these people should not be given full citizenship rights.”37 Patterson envisioned that termination would end any special relationship or rights that Indian people or tribes in Oregon had retained in relation to the federal government. These efforts stand in contrast to states that opposed terminations because of the fear that they would drain state budgets. In March of 1953, Orme Lewis wrote to the chairs of both the House and Senate committees on Indian affairs, Senator Watkins and Representative William H. Harrison of Wyoming, that “Federal responsibility for administering the affairs of individual Indian tribes should be terminated as rapidly as the circumstances of each tribe will permit.”38 Congress soon acted, passing House Concurrent Resolution 108, which authorized the Indian Bureau to begin the process of terminating federal relationships with various tribes, and urged speed in doing so. In the fall of 1953, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Glenn Emmons sent a “preliminary” draft of a termination bill “for discussion purposes only” to the Portland Area Office with instructions to get tribal, local, and state input into the bill. He warned, however, that Congress had complete authority and to let “all parties” know that their recommendations may not be acted upon. In the legislative plan the Department of the Interior sent to Congress in September, the Indians of the Grand Ronde and Siletz agency, identified only in that manner, were described as “probably ready for termination of Federal supervision and control.” On 6 October, Pryse wrote to tribal chairmen under his jurisdiction—including to Howard Barrett Sr., the Siuslaw chairman of the Coos, Lower, Umpqua and Siuslaw tribes— asking for their responses by 1 November. The new bill differed from previous versions in several ways. For one thing, instead 148

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of forty-three, it specifically listed seventy-two tribal groups designated for termination, first specifying the Siletz and the Grand Ronde confederations, and then identifying seventy specific groups including the Coos, Kusa, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. This is the first time the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw specifically appeared in the proposed legislation. Changes also were made in the bill so it would be consistent with bills seeking termination of other tribes in the United States. Commissioner of Indian Affairs Emmons invited the affected tribes to meet with him at the Portland Area Office on Swan Island on 11 October, but despite the fact that Pryse had written Barrett just five days previously asking for his input, Emmons did not invite any representatives of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, or Siuslaw tribes.39 Emmons called the meeting a “listening meeting.” He told the tribal leaders who were present, “What we are trying to achieve essentially, as I see it, is a condition of parity or equality for the Indian people as compared with the rest of the population. This does not mean that we are expecting Indians to give up their own culture and be just like everyone else. But it does mean that we want to give the Indians the same opportunities for advancement—the same freedom and responsibility in the management of their properties—as other American citizens.” Notes, apparently prepared by the area office for Commissioner Emmons, read, “All Oregon tribes will oppose government withdrawal except Grand Ronde–Siletz tribes where the director worked up and submitted such a program to Washington Office in 1950. These tribes anxious to have it approved.”40 However, the newly written bill was not exactly what the Grand Ronde and Siletz tribes were hoping for. The changes in the bill toward standardization bothered the Siletz tribes, for example. First at the 11 October meeting with Commissioner Emmons, where they only had ten minutes to speak, and then terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

149

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

in a 22 November tribal meeting, the Siletz expressed impatience with the slow federal movement toward termination. In a general council resolution, they reiterated their support of immediate withdrawal of federal supervision as resolved in August 1951, asked for immediate termination and sale of tribal resources, and also demanded per capita payment of the claims judgment monies being held in the U.S. Treasury. Using the federal government’s own coercive tactics against the government, they resolved that these funds “be distributed per capita to all eligibles before relinquishment of Federal supervision over our affairs.”41 According to a federal report outlining the steps taken in preparation of the termination bill, only three meetings were held with tribes regarding the 1953 version of the bill, all in November. One was a joint meeting of Grand Ronde and Siletz tribal members, which about thirty people attended; one was with the Grand Ronde community, attended by some fifty people; and the final meeting was the Siletz meeting, which government officials claimed drew “a large attendance.” By contrast, in preparation for the 1951 bill, “[t]he Area Director spent a substantial part of his time after 1948 in discussing the termination bill with the Indians and with local officials.”42 Ironically, when the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were locked up and kept out of the meetings they attended preparatory to the 1951 legislation—and told that the legislation did not apply to them—that legislation indeed did not include them. But when the legislation was revised in 1953, and they were included in it, federal officials held no meetings at all with them. But federal officials in Washington dc probably were unaware of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw exclusion. In his September monthly report, Pryse had indicated that his staff were “actively planning the necessary meetings and discussions with interested Indian and local governmental groups” to discuss the legislation.43 150

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Meanwhile, Howard Barrett Sr. continued a practice he had conducted for decades, putting pencil to paper and voicing his tribe’s concerns to federal officials through correspondence. Over half a century later, his son, Frank, recalled a striking childhood memory of his father: “He’d have this box with papers in it, and he’d be at the table [until] midnight writing letters.”44 Barrett responded to Pryse, voicing his opposition to termination. On 26 October he wrote that the proposed bill would be “satisfactory for the majority concerned.” But that did not include the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. This bill would not help tribal members without allotments, for example, and it did not deal with mineral and timber or fishing and hunting rights. And the claims judgment was patently unfair. “To pay part of the Indian people and leave part out would be an heinous injustice and a [blight] to our U.S. Government; [technicalities] don’t count where right and truth is evident,” he wrote.45 Pryse seems to have ignored Barrett’s concerns altogether. Meanwhile, in December 1953, Pryse wrote and began to disseminate the report that would provide Congress and the American public with just about all of the information they would receive regarding the western Oregon terminations. This revised version of the 1950 report was called “Proposed Withdrawal of Federal Responsibilities Over the Property and Affairs of the Indians of Western Oregon,” and it was published in large part in the congressional hearings on the western Oregon termination legislation. This time, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw claims were mentioned, in an argument that their claims were just, even though they lost the claims case itself. “These Indians are fearful lest their claim may be denied,” Pryse wrote.46 In December, at its annual convention—called with the theme “The Crisis in Indian Affairs”—the National Congress terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

151

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of American Indians adopted a resolution opposing termination legislation “unless some provision is made for consent by the tribes affected and the states involved.”47 Then in early January, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Orme Lewis sent copies of Pryse’s report to Senate president Richard M. Nixon and Speaker of the House Joseph W. Martin Jr., requesting them to bring the bill to the appropriate committees.48 In the accompanying letter, Lewis assured the congressional leaders that the Siletz and Grand Ronde communities would be little affected by the legislation since the bia had not only closed the Grand Ronde–Siletz agency but had eliminated nearly all services to the tribes. As to the rest of western Oregon’s Indians, he said, “About 800 of the Indians maintain no tribal organization and are not usually identified as tribal groups.”49 This statement clearly contradicts the actions of the on-again, off-again nature of the Portland Area Office’s dealings with the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. But events now were speeding along beyond the control of this small tribal group. Governor Patterson, in a January 1954 message to Klamath leader Boyd Jackson, emphasized the state’s position: “I do feel that the Indians should be told that at the present time they have no right to expect or hope that the State of Oregon will extend to them any special privileges, or that they will create a Department to help them look after their affairs” after the onset of termination. He also expressed concern that Indians not become a burden on the state, indicating that the federal government should pay any costs associated with termination or Indian needs. “I agree with those who feel that we should be very sure that the people are ready for their complete liberation and then, if they are, we should help them in every way possible,” he told Jackson.50 However, Patterson’s papers, held in the state archives in Salem, show that in 1954 his office paid virtually no attention to any tribes except the Klamath in relation to termination.51 152

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Pryse feared that failure to pay the judgment claims for the other coastal tribes might negatively impact their support for termination. In November he had written the commissioner of Indian Affairs and told him just that. Then, as Congress held hearings in February 1954, though the tribes did not send delegates, Pryse wired the Association on American Indian Affairs that the Grand Ronde and Siletz tribal councils “refused to act officially” to support the current termination bill “because judgment fund not distributed” and recommended Congress immediately remedy that by passing a law to cause the payment. About this time, Congress was establishing a pattern of using judgment monies and other tribal financial resources as inducements to tribes to accept termination. In fact, just the previous month, in January, Senator Watkins had coerced the Klamath tribal council to pass a resolution favoring termination—the only official support they would give—by threatening to hold up a $2.6-million judgment payment.52 In the wake of the passage of hcr 108, Congress rushed to write termination legislation, sending twelve bills into committee and the hearings process by early 1954. This prompted the National Congress of American Indians to call what became known as the Emergency Conference of 1954. On 9 February, President Joseph R. Garry, a Coeur d’Alene, sent out the meeting invitation; from 25 to 28 February, some 150 delegates from 43 tribes representing 183,000 tribal members converged on Washington dc to speak almost in unison against the proposed terminations. No one from western Oregon attended—the only Oregon representatives at all were two tribal members from the Warm Springs Confederated Tribes whose reservation was located in the north-central region of the state, far from the southwest coast.53 Nonetheless, the coastal Indian termination was discussed briefly in an address by Homer Jenkins, the bia’s acting program division director. He commented that they were not terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

153

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

listed in hcr 108, but that a bill was prepared for them since they were already working toward termination of the tribalfederal relationship. “These latter Indian bands had previously requested that Federal supervision over their affairs be terminated, and a terminal program has been in process of development for the past two years,” Jenkins told the delegation in its opening session.54 Tribal members were unmoved by bia protestations, however, and spoke out strongly against the termination bills. “The crisis created by the introduction of bills in Congress to terminate federal services and supervision over Indian reservations, with the serious consequences they hold if enacted, now faces us in urgent and clear-cut terms,” President Garry wrote. “Though the bills before Congress today affect only a limited number of tribes in certain states, it is almost certain they constitute the first wave of attack. Every day or two new bills affecting a different group of Indians are being introduced.”55 National Indian leaders clearly believed they were under assault by both Congress and the bureau. In a brief overview of the results of the conference, ncai delegates created a “Declaration of Indian Purpose” that insisted on tribal consultation before passage of laws impacting them. The ncai reported that its delegates believed that “[a]ny legislative action which would ‘terminate’ the obligations of the Federal Government to any Indian tribal organization must be taken only after all possible avenues of assistance have been explored, and then only with the full consent of the Indians affected.”56 George Abbott, attorney for the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, told the delegates that the committee wanted to determine for itself which of the proposed tribes were actually ready for “terminal legislation.” This decision would be based on the extent to which they met the four criteria Zimmerman had outlined to the senate in 1947: acculturation, 154

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

economic resources, acceptance of termination by the tribe itself, and whether the state would provide “services identical to those rendered to all other citizens.”57 In fact, several of the tribes targeted for termination were spared after the hearing process. The Osage protested through the Oklahoma congressional delegation, and the Sac and Fox from Tama, Iowa, sent letters of protest and were dropped from the list at the outset. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribe of the Flathead Reservation in Montana made it to the hearing phase, but their bill was not passed. In part, this was also due to congressional intervention. According to one source, “Lee Metcalf was quoted as saying that it would pass only over his dead body.” The Sac and Fox and the Salish and Kootenai also asked ncai to oppose their termination bills from the very start.58 By early 1954, the Indian Rights Association, an Indian advocacy group, had made its own study of the preparation of various tribes for the termination process. Although the ira deemed some tribes, such as the Menominee of Wisconsin, better prepared for termination, they did not hold the same opinion regarding the Indians of Oregon’s coast. They disagreed with both the tribes and the federal government regarding tribal readiness for termination. Referring specifically to the Grand Ronde and Siletz tribal members, they wrote, “These Indians also have received scant attention from the Federal Government in recent years. However, the fraudulent sale— within the last five years—of valuable timber land belonging to some members of this group for only a fraction of its value was prevented only by the last minute intervention of the Federal government as Trustee. It was a convincing illustration of the need of Indians for trustee protection of their property from their land-hungry white neighbors.” The Siletz laid the blame for usury on poor federal management from the Portland Area Office.59 terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

155

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

As with many other observers, the Indian Rights Association ignored the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw entirely in their assessment. Even the new Portland Area Office director, Don C. Foster, who proclaimed that Indians through their tribal councils needed to set the direction of area office work, ignored the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes.60 Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay, ex-governor of Oregon, also hurt western Oregon’s Indians’ efforts to stop termination’s floodgates, although as secretary of the Interior, his priorities were much more strongly related to resources and the nation’s growth than to Indian issues. In fact, except for an offhand remark by Senator Watkins, Indian issues were not even raised as a topic worthy of discussion in McKay’s nomination hearings.61 Nonetheless, McKay announced early in his tenure that, in the words of historian Larry Burt, “the government should prepare Native Americans for full citizenship rights.”62 Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal leaders believed that McKay played an important role in their history, as did historian Stephen Dow Beckham, who later observed, “This was the McCarthy era of the 1950s and there was fear about collectivism and communism . . . and the Indians in Mr. McKay’s home state would be a showcase for the example of the legislative treating of the American Indian.” Congress would be extending freedom to the tribal members and breaking communal bonds. “Consequently,” Beckham concluded, “the Tribes of Western Oregon were singled out for this kind of special treatment.”63 The Coos leader Bill Brainard later said, “I believe Douglas McKay is one of the biggest damn liars out. And I think that they wanted the little bit of land that was left. I believe they . . . just wanted it for their own use.”64 McKay’s own papers support the assertion that he hoped Oregon’s Indians could become a national model for governmental reform. After all, as governor in 1951, he had provided 156

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

strong support for the plan. Then in 1953 he had told an Indian youth from Oklahoma in an on-air broadcast of the program Youth Wants to Know, “I am in sympathy with starting out on a program such as I handled in the state of Oregon where we tried to improve the situation of the Indian and allow him to be a citizen.”65 McKay told Congress that in funding requests “our goal [is] assisting the Indian in becoming self-reliant in the conduct of his own affairs” in order to claim “an equal position in our society.”66 The definition of equal, of course, required doing away with the trust relationship. Another factor that worked against the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw was the attempted resurrection of their land and treaty claims case before the Indian Claims Commission. In 1954 Congress finally awarded the other twenty-five tribal groups that had signed that same treaty a two-and-ahalf-million-dollar judgment. The bill wound its way through Congress at the same time as the termination legislation. The first week of August, the Senate committee approved the bill to make the payment, which had originated with Oregon Representative Mathew Harris (Harry) Ellsworth.67 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw effort to gain a judgment settlement was doomed before it got off the ground. After the icc denied them the right to a claims trial because they had already been denied once, they continued to try to get Congress to pass a bill permitting them to bring their claims to the icc, without success.68 Yet Congress used this attempt as evidence that the tribes might have a windfall, an infusion of money that would put them in the category of other tribes receiving judgments that made them targets for termination.69 After the 1954 hearings, and as the termination bills wound their way through Congress, high-ranking federal officials hosted the bia area directors at a conference in Washington dc. Assistant Secretary of the Interior Orme Lewis attended, terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

157

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

as did Commissioner of Indian Affairs Emmons and others. Senator Watkins spoke of the basic philosophy undergirding termination legislation at this meeting. “Basic premise of new legislation is to restore initiative to Indian people. Transfer of services out of Bureau is motivated by benefit of getting Indians into contact with the normal sources of services for other citizens. We must legislate in the best interest of all—Indian consent is not mandatory, but we will give every reasonable hearing to them.”70 This message can be interpreted as ambiguous in relation to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, who were not given a hearing, but whose consent was unnecessary for the legislation that would affect them. Of course, the area office probably never even considered this conundrum in its decision making. On 16 July, the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs held a brief, final hearing on the termination bill. House counsel George Abbott dismissed the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw summarily when he lumped together, without naming any tribes, the eight hundred Indians who were not part of the Grand Ronde or Siletz reservations. He told committee members that they “maintain no tribal organization and are not usually identified as tribal groups.”71 This was clearly the company line on the off-reservation tribal members, repeated by numerous officials. Associate Commissioner of Indian Affairs Rex Lee then displayed the bureau’s sloppy understanding of coastal tribal communities when he said that there were “18 or 28” tribal groups involved in the legislation, but that they go by “40 or 50 names.” He went on to say that there was not a single objection to termination from any of these groups. “We know of no objection,” he told committee chair E. Y. Berry, “that is, we have not had any official communication of any kind. . . . [W]e have had no official communication of any kind that 158

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

is in disagreement with the over-all proposition.” He was unaware of the letters Howard Barrett Sr. had written, apparently. Lee went on to say that the only complaints about the termination bill from tribal members was that it was taking so long to pass.72 William Zimmerman Jr., who had left government employ to work for the Association on American Indian Affairs, also spoke to the committee, raising several concerns about the bill. The most important issue, he emphasized, was to be sure to pay out the claims judgment in the Alsea case before termination. He also questioned whether there was enough time for tribes to make final rolls in preparation for members to receive per-capita payments for the sale and distribution of tribal property. Lee pointed out that most groups had no property and therefore it would not be necessary to prepare rolls for them. In all of this the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were conveniently forgotten. The committee then voted to send the bill to the full committee on its way to the floor of the house.73 It quickly made the transformation from bill to law. Friday, the 13th of August 1954—six years to the week after Pryse had sent out his memo organizing “Six-year Reservation Programs”—turned out to be an unlucky day indeed for western Oregon tribes. That day Congress passed Public Law 587 terminating the federal relationship with the Klamath Indians of Oregon. That same day it passed Public Law 588, ending federal obligations to the sixty-one tribal groups along the Oregon coast. The next day Eisenhower signed both bills. These sixty-one groups included the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, and even Congress later recognized that “[t]he Confederated Tribes vigorously opposed the Termination Act.” Oregon’s major newspapers listed four Indian groups primarily affected by the legislation: Klamath, and those tribes at Grand Ronde, Siletz, and Empire. The Statesman observed, “The bills give the Indians the same privileges and responsibilities as other terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

159

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

citizens.”74 The termination of the western Oregon tribes was such a foregone conclusion that the area director did not even mention it in his August 1954 monthly report.75 Several months later, in a speech before the Oregon Republican Club, McKay assured his audience that Indian terminations would only occur “with full consultation with the Indians themselves.”76 Shortly thereafter in a speech to Indians in the Southwest, McKay stated his feelings clearly. Although termination was not yet being applied to all tribes, “I firmly believe a trust relationship such as we have in Indian affairs is fundamentally bad for any group of people. . . . It discourages self-reliance and independent action that have lifted this country to its present position among the nations of the world.”77 State governments began to express concern in autumn 1954 that the cost of termination could become a burden to the states. The Governors’ Interstate Council on Indian Affairs, after electing Oregon’s Harvey Wright as its new chair, issued a resolution “that Congress be urged to defer enactment of withdrawal legislation relating to specific tribes until the Claims of the specific tribes against the United States have been adjudicated and settled.”78 Theoretically, this would give those tribes receiving judgment a sufficient financial base to begin the new era. The judgments for those coastal tribes that received them would prove to be woefully inadequate to fend off disaster. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, of course, having lost their claims cases and all efforts to revive them, would receive no judgment funds. At any rate, this call came too late to help any of the coastal tribes of Oregon. The coastal tribes in Oregon would have two years to prepare for final termination of their status. According to a House of Representatives report, the costs for the Grand Ronde–Siletz terminations would be paid from tribal judgment funds. This report failed to acknowledge off-reservation Indians in western Oregon.79 In December 1954, too late for Oregon’s coastal 160

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

tribes, the Portland Area Office held a meeting at which tribal leaders from throughout the region vigorously opposed termination. Don Foster, the area office director, urged tribes to prepare for termination, recognizing that some were not doing so for fear it would lead to it. Special Assistant to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Thomas Reid “assured the Indians that the federal government will consult with them fully before making recommendations about their welfare and status, even though the government will not always accept the recommendations of the Indians,” according to the Oregon Daily Journal.80 Helen Peterson, the Oglala Sioux executive director of the National Congress of American Indians, attacked the national implementation of the termination plan and offered the opinion that “‘[c]onsultation’ between the federal government and the Indians exists in theory only and not in fact.” At its summer 1955 convention, ncai passed a resolution calling for Congress to rescind hcr 108, since it had “proven detrimental to Indian interests and imposes serious hardship on Indians as well as State governments.”81 None of the rising opposition to termination would impact the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw case, unfortunately. The Department of the Interior dug in and worked hard to continue to sell termination to tribes and the American public. For instance, Orme Lewis vigorously defended the termination program, even after he left the Department of the Interior. In a speech given at the Phoenix Press Club in October 1955, he said, “Some alarmists attempted to picture the program as a sinister move by the United States to dodge its responsibilities. Such talk has been proven without foundation.” The real problem, he averred, was to avoid holding back the tribes that were ready for termination in order to protect those that were not. Ironically, in relation to the tribes named in the western Oregon termination law, he added, “Current terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

161

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

programs are designed to help establish a sound economy for each tribe in order that the day of freedom may be more promptly reached.”82 Grand Ronde tribal member Merle Holmes later pointed out, “In 1954, 822 Indians were listed on the [Grande Ronde] Termination Rolls. The record shows that 79 voted for termination; 11 voted against it. That did not constitute a majority.”83 Certainly the idea of termination held by tribal leaders did not match the reality to be experienced by tribal members. Siletz tribal member Hardy Simmons later recalled that after he returned from World War II he took up logging. “I wasn’t much interested in Termination. I didn’t go up to the meetings. A lot of people couldn’t see the purpose of those meetings. I don’t think there was more than a handful of people who knew what Termination was.”84 The small number of those voting and participating in decision making at the Grand Ronde and Siletz reservations shows only that a majority of those attending tribal meetings supported termination, in whatever way they understood it—most likely as a means to end heavy-handed federal mismanagement and corruption. The vast majority of tribal members may have been at best dimly aware of what termination would mean. Stanford University conducted a telling study of the nearby Klamath between passage of the termination law and the date it went into effect that showed the difference between what tribal leaders and federal policymakers said, on the one hand, and what the common tribal member understood, on the other hand. The federal government judged the tribes on this reservation as among the most prepared for termination. Fourteen percent of those asked “believed that the tribe had requested termination.” A vast majority did not, although some Klamath leaders had been lobbying for it for decades. Only 6 percent thought that they were “more advanced than other tribes,” and therefore more prepared for termination, despite the fact that 162

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

numerous federal studies had listed them as in this category. Forty-two percent of those polled “were unable to think of any reason at all” that they should be terminated.85 The low voter turnout at Grand Ronde and Siletz may reflect a practice that was common in Indian country in which Indian community members opposed to a political idea simply avoided meetings. Or it may reflect the problem that people are often so busy going forth in their own lives that they pay less attention to politics. Pauline Ricks of Siletz later told senators that the rosy description of the future after termination presented by bureau officials was almost irresistible to tribal members there. “This looked good to our people who . . . have never been out of depression.” Other tribal members confirmed that they did not understand what termination meant; they were given no hearing by Congress in 1954, which relied on the testimony of Pryse and the 1951 tribal resolutions supporting termination.86 Vine Deloria Jr. aptly described this problem in relation to the proposed termination of the Colville confederated tribe in Washington. In testimony that he presented to Congress opposing Colville termination legislation, he observed that part of the tribe favored it and others opposed. But any kind of majority that may be created, he believed, would not reflect the true feelings of the majority of tribal members. Speaking on behalf of the National Congress of American Indians, he said, “We believe that the Colville people are stampeding toward something they don’t understand by the vision of quick, easy money . . . and that that stampede has been started by a handful of people.”87 This seems an apt description of what actually occurred at Grand Ronde and Siletz. At any rate, the 1951 resolutions of the confederated tribes at Grand Ronde and those at Siletz approving not only the idea of termination but termination itself proved enough for the federal government to move forward with termination. terminat ion com p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

163

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The fact that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, who actively opposed termination were included shows just how serious the federal government was. Once the legislation began to move through Congress the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were virtually powerless to stop it. Their only voice, their tribal chairman, sought input and wrote his protests in futility. He was invited to almost none of the meetings of tribal leaders held in preparation for the passage of the law or the enactment of the policy. The Congress and executive branch of the federal government ignored national Indian leaders and even federal bureaucrats who believed the policy change to be ill-advised and hastily conceived. The state supported the policy strongly and together with the Portland Area Office characterized the off-reservation Indians as not really Indian any longer—as people who had melted into the surrounding society. While this clearly was not the case in reality, it was true in the minds of the state and federal bureaucrats who paid them little heed yet who would decide their future. As the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw had long lived in a state of near invisibility, with only sporadic recognition of their separate existence, their termination was accomplished with but the faintest realization by federal officials that they were even doing it to them or what the longterm impacts would be. Even their non-Indian neighbors, let alone the broader Oregon or United States public, knew little of what was happening to these tribes. And the way that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw largely disappear from this chapter of the book in the telling of the enactment of the termination policy in southwestern Oregon reflects their place in the conscience and consciousness both of the policymakers deciding their future and of the public at large.

164

t e r m i n at i o n c o m p e l l e d

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Chief Daloose Jackson. Folder 067, Coos Bay Meetings, General Records, Decimal Files, Grand Ronde–Siletz Indian Agency, rg 75, nara-pars.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

“Princess Lottie Evanoff.” Courtesy Oregon Historical Society. ohs cn 011300.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Howard Barrett Sr. Courtesy Frank Barrett.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Henry Hudson Barrett. Courtesy Frank Barrett.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Henry Hudson Barrett and the beach stage. Courtesy Frank Barrett.

Howard Barrett Sr. driving the beach stage. Courtesy Frank Barrett.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The Barrett Family: Grandma Susie with Ellen Barrett (front row) and Ellen’s sons Blaine and Howard Sr. Courtesy Frank Barrett.

Tom Jackson’s son (on left), with Logan Barrett, Blaine Barrett, Tom Jackson (Coos), and Billie Dick (Siuslaw). Courtesy Frank Barrett.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Clay Barrett and Frank Drew. Courtesy Frank Barrett.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Bill Brainard. Courtesy Muriel Brainard.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Edgar Bowen showing Ekoo and Abaki Beck the waterfront in Charleston. Photo by the author.

The author with Edgar Bowen outside the tribal hall. Courtesy Rosalyn LaPier.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribal Hall sign in Empire. Courtesy Rosalyn LaPier.

The ocean at Sunset Bay beach. Photo by the author.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

c ha p ter eig h t

Hard Times

Th e n at i o n a l c o n g r e s s o f a m e r i c a n i n d i a n s proclaimed that the 1954 legislative session “constituted the gravest threat to Indian properties and rights since the General Allotment Act of 1887.” In an “information letter” written in 1954, Helen Peterson wrote, “When the various bills introduced in that session are added up, they amount to a callous attempt at abandonment by the Federal government of legal and moral responsibilities toward Indians, at opening wide the doors to exploitation of tribal resources by outsiders, at policies and actions that history has already shown will only lead to further impoverishment and total liquidation of the tribes.” She added, “The accumulative effect of the bills was shocking in the light of our government’s loud proclamations about justice and democracy to the far parts of the world.” ncai still supported tribal self-determination, however, and Peterson reported that they had supported both the Menominee and Klamath in their termination efforts, at the request of the leaders of those tribes.1 Section three of the Western Oregon Termination Act required the Indian Bureau to make a list of tribes for whom tribal rolls needed to be compiled and those for whom they would not. The distinction was based in part on whether the tribes had any property or funds to distribute among members. The Siletz tribes, for example, would receive money from the sale of timber, which they had been seeking for many years. They would also receive claim money, but that would be paid

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

out under a separate law of Congress. On the other hand, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were included among the Indians of southwestern Oregon, for whom Foster argued no tribal rolls would be needed, since “[t]here are no tribal funds to be distributed.”2 The Department of the Interior in fact helped doom the continuing efforts of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw to press their own claims. Senator Wayne Morse, a friend of Howard Barrett Sr., came to Florence and spent much of a day with him, skipping other appointments, to discuss claims legislation.3 Morse wrote the commissioner of Indian Affairs, whose office responded with a full discussion of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw claims from the 1855 treaty through the failed court efforts. Acting Commissioner W. Barton Greenwood wrote to Morse, “Since the time for filing claims before the Indian Claims Commission has expired, it will be necessary that the Coos Bay Tribes obtain a jurisdictional act if their claims are to be heard. Several bills have been introduced in the Congress to authorize the Coos Bay Tribes to present their claims to the Indian Claims Commission but have failed of enactment.”4 Morse had not only known Barrett, he had previously helped the Coos regain access to and use of their ancient graveyard at Sunset Bay, near the Cape Arago lighthouse, by passing a law permitting the building of a monument to Henry Milton Brainard there.5 With Morse’s help the tribes brought yet another bill before the Congress to permit them to bring claims, which became known by its Senate number, s 3156. Bureau officials met with tribal members to answer their continuing questions about claims in 1955.6 Senator James E. Murray, the chair of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, wrote the department seeking advice. Assistant Secretary of the Interior Wesley A. D’Ewart responded on 19 April 1956, “We recommend that the bill 166

hard times

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

be not enacted.” He believed it to be “important that there be a finality to litigation of such case,” and explained, “In our opinion the enactment of s 3156 would no doubt be considered by other Indian groups as a precedent for the enactment of similar legislation to permit them to reopen cases which have already been settled upon the basis of evidence which had not been developed at the time of the earlier trial of the case. Under such a theory, there is no foreseeable end to Indian claims litigation.”7 In other words, the merits of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw claims notwithstanding, they needed to serve as an example that the government was getting out of the Indian claims business. The tribes would approach termination with virtually no financial base. That May, Ralph Nader spoke out forcefully against termination and in support of Oliver LaFarge and the Association on American Indian Affairs. Nader wrote, “Emancipating the Indian would be an admirable objective, if he suffers under restrictions denying him full citizenship. Such is not the case. The Indian already has legal equality with his white neighbors and enjoys all the rights of full citizenship.”8 That was true in theory, even in Oregon, but his arguments would be too late for Oregon’s coastal tribes. Termination proved to be disastrous for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. The law went into effect on 13 August 1956, when Secretary of the Interior Fred A. Seaton issued an official proclamation of termination effective immediately. He said “all statutes of the United States which affect Indians because of their status as Indians shall no longer be applicable to western Oregon tribes, bands, groups, or communities of Indians” and that state laws would apply to the Indians just as they did for everyone else.9 Three days later, the Oregonian wrote an editorial extolling the virtues of termination and welcoming “Grand Ronde–Siletz Indians of western Oregon” to “full independence,” “freedom,” har d ti m e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

167

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

and “full” citizenship. The editorial concluded, “The western Oregon Indian is an average western Oregonian,” with no special status. Even at this date, most Oregonians who thought of coastal Indians at all thought of western Oregon Indians as members of either the terminated Siletz or Grand Ronde reservations, not recognizing those tribal members who did not fit either category. The editorial writer referred to 2,100 Indians, the number based on the 1950 census count. These included 731 Indians at Siletz, 546 at Grand Ronde, and 804 other southwest Oregon tribal members unaffiliated with the two reservation communities.10 Interestingly, the very next day the Oregonian ran a frontpage story about the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, who continued to oppose termination and to push for a settlement of their claims. Tribal Chairman Howard Barrett Sr. had just made public a petition the tribes had presented “seeking admittance into the United Nations.” This was something the tribes had first considered doing in 1947, when tribal members discussed the idea at a public meeting. It also seems to be an effort on Barrett’s part to vow that the United States would not terminate the tribes without first making proper restitution.11 In the petition (a copy of which was sent to the White House as well), the tribes outlined the long history of mistreatment by the United States government and made the point that the land ceded in the 1855 treaty still belonged to the tribes since the United States never ratified the treaty.12 After outlining the history of the case in detail, the document concluded with caustic observations about bia treatment of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. If any proof were needed to the total lack of concern with respect to its Indian wards, it would need only to be pointed out that after a century of its unlawful supervision, it does 168

hard times

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

not know who its own wards are and has been and is now demanding that the individual members of the various tribes come forward with proof that they are Indians and are descendants of the old Indian tribal members. For decade upon decade, a swarm of calloused bureaucrats has fattened upon the life blood of these tribes with a complete disregard of the duties of a Guardian or Trustee or any principle of common honesty, justice or ethical decency. . . . Were any private citizen to conduct himself in a position of trust in any degree after the manner in which the Guardian has dealt with these wards, no time would be lost in lodging him behind the bars of the nearest penitentiary. . . . The course of conduct by the government toward these people is an affront to the conscience of every honorable man in the nation who knows what has transpired. Unless the government is called to account . . . [these actions] will forever remain a blot upon the record and a disgrace to the American people.13

The un, however, eventually “informed the tribes that it was an ‘internal [U.S.] affair,’” and refused to intervene.14 That same day, 17 August, Don Foster gave a talk entitled “The Indian as an Oregon Citizen” at the City Club in Portland. But, at least as reported in the local papers, the talk focused on Klamath termination, which was not scheduled to occur for two more years and did not include discussion of the coastal tribes. Foster did not believe the federal government was doing a good job preparing the Klamath.15 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were not prepared for what would hit them either. Although many tribal members were not immediately notified of the termination of their already tenuous relationship with the United States, the termination soon led to a dispersal of tribal members. Coos Elder Chief Edgar Bowen recalls, “I was teaching school in Sitkum, Oregon,” when termination occurred. “I was just har d ti m e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

169

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

kind of numbed by it. I just thought it was too bad. . . . And of course when they terminated us we lost all the young, [who] scattered all over from New York to Florida to Hawaii, you name it, someplace overseas some of ’em.” The young left disproportionately to the rest of the population.16 This drain of future leadership was problematic for tribes whose members were leaving the reservations for urban areas under the federal relocation program during this time as well.17 George Barton was one of those young people, having just graduated from high school in 1954. He had earned a bia scholarship to pay the costs of attending college. He recalls, “[T]hat program extended out two years. In other words they didn’t just drop everybody immediately, but . . . those that graduated in ’55, they only got one year and so forth. And . . . it helped, but the real problem was that I would suspect that the vast majority that were in that program in the termination situation never completed any school because of economics. I was very fortunate.” His family had a business, and they could still help him pay the costs of higher education. But “that was one of the things that I saw caused real hardship for a lot of our people because I know a lot of the kids that started that program never finished.” In Barton’s opinion, “that single thing probably set a lot of the tribes back further than any other single thing.”18 The first effect Frank Barrett recalled was the diminished opportunity of tribal members to pursue their education as well.19 The money for the education program came from a relocation and work training program established by the federal government, theoretically in conjunction with the state of Oregon.20 Just prior to termination, area office directors from across the country were called to Washington dc for a legislation briefing. The report from the conference emphasized that relocation offices should concentrate on providing services to tribes undergoing termination.21 In a memo titled “Operation 170

hard times

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Schedule for Western Oregon Readjustment Act,” the commissioner’s office instructed Portland Area Office employees that by 15 October 1954 tribes had to be advised of the “special training program” to be overseen by the Community Services, Education, and Relocation Central Office. That same memo stated that the special training program was to be completed by 13 August 1956—the effective date of termination. The program’s purpose was to train Indians in skills they could use in non-tribal communities.22 Edgar Bowen recalls that he used the money to get some carpentry training and then completed a degree in secondary education that allowed him to become a schoolteacher. But most tribal members, he recalls, did not have enough education to attend college. Many of the women in the tribe, including most of his sisters and aunts, received training as hairdressers, for example.23 By the termination date, the Portland Area Office estimated that one-fifth of western Oregon Indians received training from the relocation and education program.24 For those who remained in their homelands, conditions steadily worsened. The new law also brought disillusionment and disenchantment, at the same time that it further destroyed the economic condition of tribal members. No special studies of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal conditions or preparation for termination were done at the time of termination. An accounting of tribal assets, however, found that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw had $47.48 in tribal funds on hand as of July 1953, and no resources or lands aside from the tribal hall. Initially, the Portland Area Office proposed turning this money over to the federal treasury. To add insult to injury, according to a tribal source, “Due to the fact that the government couldn’t decide how to d[i]vide the sum equally among all the members of the tribe, it was held for quite some time and eventually paid to two members of the coquille tribe!”25 har d ti m e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

171

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Not even the 6.1 acres on which their badly deteriorating tribal hall stood was considered tribal land by the federal government, though the Indians considered it so. Though it had been transferred by the Chemawa agency to the “Coos Bay Indian Tribes” in 1948, upon termination, the Bureau of Indian Affairs decided there was no such tribe. The transfer agreement was signed by Howard Barrett Sr. and Ida Helms, clearly making it an agreement of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, who at the time occasionally referred to themselves as the Coos Bay tribe or tribes. Even while responding to a document citing a 1940 “Coos Bay Tribe” resolution to oversee upkeep of the tribal hall, bureau officials, both local and in Washington, denied their existence. At the time of termination, a federal land transfer agreement turned this land over to the city of Empire to be held in trust for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and the Coquille for as long as Empire would remain a city.26 The Grand Ronde and Siletz were only slightly better off financially at the times of termination. The Grand Ronde had some six thousand dollars, and the Siletz slightly over forty thousand. Shortly after termination the sale of one of the Siletz timber plots finally realized $301,000, $223,000 of which was paid out in per capita. By comparison, two of the tribes at the top of the termination list were much better off financially. The nearby Klamath brought in some two million dollars a year through their timber industry, while the Menominee of Wisconsin were in even better shape, with substantial fiscal and material assets. In addition to operating a thriving lumber industry, the Menominee held some two million dollars in tribal funds in the U.S. Treasury and won a forest mismanagement lawsuit versus the federal government that netted them nearly eight million dollars after attorney fees.27 In light of this and the hopes on the part of federal officials that termination would lead to self-sufficiency, it is difficult to 172

hard times

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

fathom how the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw fit into the federal model or federal goals. In fact, they were lumped in with other Oregon tribes in that next category of tribes prioritized for termination—those that had requested it—even though they had actively opposed it. Less than a year after termination went into effect, in the summer of 1957, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes lost their longtime advocate and chairman since 1936, Howard Barrett Sr.28 A new generation of leaders would need to carry the battle for recognition of tribal rights, for compensation for past losses—and now for recognition as a tribal entity under the federal trust relationship. They had to do so in the face of termination. One way they hoped to be heard was in relation to the changing status of their old homelands as a lengthy section of the ocean front came to be considered for preservation. In 1958 Oregon senator Richard Neuberger began a congressional effort to protect some forty miles of coastal duneland with the establishment of a national seashore under the aegis of the national park system. His proposal met with opposition from a variety of fronts, including the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes.29 On Sunday, 28 June 1959, some fifty coastal tribal members and about a hundred of their guests gathered at the Siltcoos outlet’s lagoon campground to oppose the establishment of a national recreational area in the dunes and to reemphasize their claims to their homelands. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes called the meeting and invited southwestern Oregon tribal members to attend. They met in the morning and cooked salmon for lunch. Those attending, who were primarily Siuslaw, Lower Umpqua, and “Siletz” according to the Oregonian, passed a council resolution opposing establishment of the Oregon Dunes National Seashore, which would impinge on tribal lands they had tried—but failed—to har d ti m e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

173

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

sell to the United States in 1855. The Siuslaw were especially concerned about the national seashore, since their land claims extended from Yachats to Empire and forty miles inland. The original proposal for the national seashore extended from the Umpqua River near Reedsport to the Siuslaw River near Florence. This included all of the land that would be set aside in the national seashore. Harry Johnson, a Lower Umpqua man from Reedsport, told a reporter, “I don’t know whether this resolution will help our claims, but we have got to start somewhere. I think the land belongs to the tribes.”30 Frank Barrett, a Siuslaw, joined a local non-Indian group that opposed the establishment of the seashore.31 Over half of the land proposed for the national seashore was already publicly held, the bulk of it as part of the Siuslaw National Forest.32 When House and Senate subcommittees held hearings in Reedsport, Florence, and Eugene in October 1959, and later in 1963, however, the Indians were not formally included in the published record. Although dozens of newspaper articles were included in the published hearings, the Oregonian story about tribal claims was not included.33 Nonetheless, four tribal members attended congressional hearings in Florence, where tribal chairman George Barton spoke against establishment of the national recreation area. Barton felt compelled to voice the tribe’s concerns because “all of the sudden they want to make a national . . . dunes park . . . out of land that still we haven’t given up!”34 “[T]he tribes were against this,” Barton explains, “because we hadn’t had any final determination on a reservation and we were in the process of restoration, and all of a sudden they wanted to take a big chunk of land out of the equation.” Barton recalls that he shocked senators with his comment that the tribes were seeking a reservation and still held claim to a vast area, including that being considered for inclusion in the dunes legislation. When a southern senator asked incredulously if 174

hard times

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

that claim included Florence, Barton responded that it most certainly did.35 Oregon senator Maurine B. Neuberger, who took over the fight after her husband’s death in 1960, amended her own bill in 1963 to expand the lands to be incorporated into the national seashore to include those south of Tenmile Creek. The new bill defined the shoreline from the Siuslaw River on the north to Coos Bay on the south, a stretch of some forty miles, as part of the Oregon Dunes National Seashore. This included much of the original Siuslaw, Lower Umpqua, and Coos oceanfront. When Oregon Dunes finally became a national recreation area within the Siuslaw National Forest in 1972, it included all this land.36 It also included a section of dunes known as the North Spit, a chunk of sandy land located directly across Coos Bay from Empire, and fronting on the ocean. The National Park Service had defined this spit of land as 90 percent public-owned acreage that “should be retained in public ownership for recreation and conservation of its natural values.” Bill Brainard later lamented, “the North Spit, for example, was all ours and they made a part of it into a national dunes . . . people buy and sell it, they killed the dunes by stabilizing it, the Indians couldn’t go out there and say we want a piece of ground.”37 Coquelle Thompson Jr., whose father Coquelle Thompson was part Coos and whose mother was Lower Umpqua, later wrote Oregon’s Governor McCall about the dunes, saying that perhaps the federal government ought to “clear title with the Indian” before creating a national seashore, “since they actually have the right of ownership over these lands.” After all, the Empire Treaty had never been ratified. Thompson asked McCall to contact the tribal chairman, George Barton, about this. McCall simply responded that “the Indian Court of Claims” would be the proper venue for resolution of land title.38 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw made little headway har d ti m e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

175

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

in this issue, but it was one of many during termination in which they acted to assert their tribal rights and continued to attempt to hold the United States to recognize the terms of the 1855 treaty. During this time, the Portland Area Office virtually ignored the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, as well as other terminated tribes, and concentrated its efforts almost exclusively on reservation-based tribes.39 In fact a 1959 Bureau of Indian Affairs map that shows the Portland Area jurisdiction identifies thirty-one reservations in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho that fell under the area office’s purview, including the terminated Grand Ronde–Siletz reservation, but failed to identify even the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw, and Coquille tribal hall and six-acre reservation.40 For most federal officials, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw simply did not exist. National observers by the 1960s began to declare termination a failure. High-profile cases, such as the Menominee, garnered the most national attention, but the policy was already being considered unsuccessful at nearly all levels.41 Locally, the Siletz, who had long pushed for liquidation of their resources, did not view termination as an end, but as a new beginning. The termination bill they agreed to in 1951 would have made provision for a tribal entity to oversee both the tribal cemetery and the tribal enterprise, but without federal supervision. At the time, they envisioned coming under the laws of the state of Oregon. In January 1955, between passage of the Termination Act and actual termination, the business council, acting at the behest of the general council, resolved to renegotiate a log road right-of-way with a fifty-year agreement that would “be subject to renegotiation by the Tribe or its successor at the end of each five-year period.”42 This supports the notion of a continuation rather than a termination of tribal governance. Historian S. Lyman Tyler, in a paper written in 1958 for the Commission on the Rights, Liberties, and Responsibilities of 176

hard times

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

the American Indian and published in 1964, wrote that the western Oregon termination “is one that the United States and its Indian Bureau has little reason to be proud of.” He stated that “[h]urried termination is not wise,” and expressed concern that “the Bureau employees who drew up the termination program gave an impression in regard to these Indians that was more favorable than it should have been.” He also believed the Indians had legitimate claims, and wondered how they could be “prosecuted in the name of tribal entities that no longer exist and without the financial resources that might have been able to aid organized groups.”43 Nonetheless, there was startlingly little recognition of the problem inside Oregon or inside the federal government. In 1958 the Oregon Legislature conducted a study on the condition of Oregon Indians, which stated that the coastal Indians not affiliated with Grand Ronde or Siletz “maintained no tribal organization.” The report went on to say that termination of these tribes “is generally considered a success.” The report only refers to forty-three tribes—the number listed in the bill before the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were included.44 In January of 1959, the Oregon Council of Churches held a meeting in Salem, which some three hundred people attended. Though Warm Springs and Umatilla tribal members spoke out against termination, “several representatives from the coast tribes presented the opposite point of view, speaking in favor of termination.”45 Later that year Governor Mark O. Hatfield established a new Governor’s Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs in order “to find ways to extend to Indian people opportunities and services that are available to all citizens, [and] to encourage Indians to assume their rightful responsibilities” in Oregon society.46 In December, the White House information office reiterated the Council of Churches’ view that the forty some tribal har d ti m e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

177

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

groups on the coast had sought termination, which is why the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs supported them in bringing about the legislation. In none of these venues was the perspective of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw taken into consideration.47 In all cases where the western Oregon tribes were considered at all, the groups were lumped together, and termination was discussed along with the judgment monies the tribes were to receive from the federal government. These monies of course did not go to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. The national opposition to termination culminated, at least in the popular American mind, in Vine Deloria Jr.’s famous termination essay published in Custer Died For Your Sins in 1969, although historian Larry Burt optimistically posited its diminished popularity among policymakers as early as 1955.48 Yet the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were never considered in the discussion. In fact, a broadly circulated 1966 report that recognized the failure of Menominee, Paiute, and even Klamath termination pronounced the termination of Oregon’s western tribes a success, saying it “caused no suffering or displacement” because the “tribes were prepared for severing B.I.A. relations.”49 Despite the increasingly widespread recognition of the failure of termination, however, a powerful cabal ensconced in the Senate Interior and Insular Affairs Committee (under which Indian Affairs was relegated to subcommittee status) were, in the words of the Native American scholar D’Arcy McNickle, “still committed to a policy of dismembering the last of the Indian estate and unilaterally releasing the government from responsibility for helping the Indian people to achieve a tolerable accommodation in American society.”50 These senators, including committee chair Henry “Scoop” Jackson of Washington, Len Jordan and Frank Church of Idaho, Clinton Anderson of New Mexico, and Alan Bible of Nevada, 178

hard times

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

all demanded that incoming Commissioner of Indian Affairs Robert Bennett, a Wisconsin Oneida who would become the first Indian to run the bia since the nineteenth century, adhere to the policy enunciated in hcr 108, the 1953 termination resolution. Bennett, a longtime supporter of termination, indicated that he supported continuing the process of termination with tribes that indicated they were ready, or that had a lot of money. At this point, Congress and the bureau were laying plans to terminate both the Colville of Washington and the Agua Caliente of California.51 In this atmosphere it was difficult for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw to make headway in their efforts to reverse their own termination. Nonetheless, they continued trying, in various ways, not only to gain recognition as a tribe, but also to be treated as Indians on an individual basis. As part of the latter effort, also in 1966, several Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members applied for public-domain allotments under section four of the 1887 General Allotment Act. Contrary to popular belief, allotments continued long after the Collier years, in some special circumstances.52 Oregon newspapers ran coverage of a man who called himself Amos A. Hopkins-Dukes, an ex–Hollywood stuntman, “Indian rights crusader,” and college graduate who one reporter also referred to as being “[a] self-styled Indian ‘Moses’” with an “extensive criminal record,” an fbi number, and numerous aliases. Hopkins-Dukes, in his role as executive director of the Tribal Indian Land Rights Association (from which he was later forced to resign by its members), urged Indians in the Northwest to apply to claim public-domain allotments.53 Some of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw applicants were children and grandchildren of tribal members who had received such allotments earlier in the century. Marguerite Severy, a Coos and Umpqua woman whose parents were Frank and Lucy Drew, applied for a certificate har d ti m e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

179

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

that would allow her to apply for such an allotment, and so did Bill Brainard, Coos, Frank and Richard Barrett, both Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw, and Nick Hatch, on behalf of themselves, their children, and their grandchildren. The Department of the Interior denied all of their applications by authority of the Termination Act, which had severed all federal relations with the tribes. The Allotment Act was to apply only to tribes that retained a trust relationship under federal law. Severy, Brainard, and Hatch all wrote passionate and eloquent appeals rebutting the validity of the Termination Act, especially since tribal members had never been given the right to vote for or against it, and had never received compensation for their land and resource losses. The appeals too were denied. The head of the Indian Bureau’s Branch of Real Property told the Barretts in January 1967 that “Congress has the right to exercise its plenary power over the Indians and their property. This it did with respect to the Western Oregon Indian Tribes and their members. Congress may also abrogate treaties made with the Indians by subsequent legislation.”54 The latter comment was superfluous since their treaty was never ratified. Just the next year, in Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, the Supreme Court found that Congress did not intend to abrogate treaty rights with its termination legislation.55 Someone in the tribe finally caught the attention of the bia, however. In 1967, the bureau issued a statement regarding the failed Indian Claims Commission case, quite possibly in response to the tribal council pressing tribal claims.56 Bill Brainard, in his role as vice-chairman of the tribal council, wrote Senator Robert Kennedy in March 1967 outlining the treaty promises never kept and imploring the senator who, he observed, had “always worked diligently for the less fortunate classes of this country” to advise or help the tribe. He concluded by observing morosely, “Various members of our tribes have 180

hard times

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

tried unsuccessfully for many years to win for these tribes that which was promised them. Needless to say, it becomes discouraging when every door seems to be closed.” Kennedy’s response closed another door. He turned the letter over to the bia; the bureau responded to Brainard, reminding him of the termination legislation and the lost claims cases.57 During these harsh times, a glimmer of hope appeared in, of all places, Richard M. Nixon’s 1968 presidential election campaign. In September, Nixon issued a forceful paper calling for tribal self-determination and repudiating termination, which Howard Baker read at the annual ncai conference in Omaha. In it Nixon eloquently outlined the plight of American Indians in relation to federal policy and socioeconomic status. Among other things, he pledged to strengthen government relations between the United States and tribes and to honor the trust relationship. He vowed to support self-determination for Indians and to protect reservation lands.58 This would play an important role in shifting federal policy, although the impact for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw would be delayed.

har d ti m e s

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

181

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

c ha p ter n in e

Restoration

Within weeks of nixon’s statement, a faint ray of hope for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw came from a somewhat unlikely source: the U.S. Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare. Oregon’s Senator Wayne Morse, Howard Barrett Sr.’s old friend, chaired its Indian Education subcommittee. Morse received a letter from tribal member Wilfred Wasson who worked out of the dean of students’ office at Oregon State University in Corvallis. Wasson outlined the problems his Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw students faced in trying to gain access to higher education, due to termination. He concluded by asking, “Since this termination was accomplished on paper only and there were no payments or cost to the government, could not the termination be revoked just as easily?”1 Morse responded immediately by sending a letter to Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall and organizing an informal hearing at the tribal hall in Empire on 6 November 1968. Morse wondered whether “this may be an appropriate instance for revocation of termination.” In the letter he told Udall, among other things, “My understanding of the pre-conditions for termination is that the consent of a majority of the involved tribe is required.” Udall responded that “[c]onsent of the tribes involved was not required,” and that “[t]he criterion for termination during this time was a determination, both by the Executive and by the Congress, that selected tribes and their members had reached a stage of development

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

and acculturation such as to make unnecessary further Federal control.” The 1950 census, he argued, showed that such integration had occurred.2 A member of Morse’s staff and a representative of the commissioner of Indian Affairs’ office attended the hearing and took testimony from tribal members. About twenty tribal members attended, as did an attorney who seemed unprepared to provide much help. The bureau representative merely listened, providing little commentary. Tribal members testified to the long history of unjust treatment they had endured, and the hardships brought on by termination. When they pointed out that termination had occurred without their consent, the bureau representative explained that consent was not an issue, so the termination was legal. He admitted to others within the bureau, however, that it was likely that the tribes were correct—that they had been terminated without their consent.3 The bureau official wrote to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Robert Bennett that some aid should be provided for higher education needs, but that tribal members “appear to be well integrated into the society in which they live and should not be disturbed.” He recommended against investigating their socioeconomic status “since that would lead to some expectation that the Bureau or the Federal Government might undertake programs which would not likely be forthcoming.”4 In other words, the less the government paid attention to the tribes, the less they would be likely to expect from the government. Unfortunately for the tribes, after both the bia and Department of the Interior’s response, this effort dissipated. The tribes kept up the pressure on federal officials when they could. Tribal council members worked full time supporting their families, but still donated many hours to the tribal efforts. In the fall of 1970, tribal chairman George Barton wrote President Richard Nixon, outlining the tribe’s inequitable treatment by the government and its tribulations since termination. restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

183

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Barton concluded by saying, “we . . . ask you to use the power of your office to get the termination rescinded by the Department of Interior, and again make our people eligible for B.I.A. programs.” The time seemed propitious for such a request. Just the previous July, Nixon had repeated his repudiation of the termination policy and called on Congress to do so by passing a law reversing hcr 108, although he had not gone so far as to suggest reversal for those tribes that had already been terminated. Unfortunately for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, Nixon’s staff forwarded the letter to their old nemesis, the Department of the Interior, and this effort quickly died as well.5 Sadly, even into the early 1970s, the federal government rarely noticed the continuing existence of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw in their traditional homelands. After the 1970 census, a Bureau of Indian Affairs “planning support group” compiled a statistical report of Oregon, Idaho, Utah, and Washington counties “having significant Indian population.” According to the compilers, their report constituted “an attempt to furnish usable information to the [Portland] area [office], agencies, and tribal groups to make projections for future planning.” The twelve Oregon counties the report analyzed did not include Lane, Douglas, or Coos—the counties with the largest concentration of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw people.6 They were practically on their own in attempting to be recognized, let alone to reverse termination. Despite deteriorating conditions from the mid-1950s into the 1980s, tribal members fought back to regain federal recognition. Tribes not recognized by the federal government may gain recognition in one of two ways: by successful application through the bia’s Branch of Acknowledgement and Recognition (bar) or by congressional legislation. Terminated tribes don’t have this option. Their only remedy is congressional restoration or to sue in court.7 The earliest case of restoration 184

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

occurred in 1868 when the Wyandotte, terminated by an 1855 treaty, regained recognition. The Wyandotte went through the process of termination and restoration again in the 1930s.8 In the post-termination era, the Menominee tribe of Wisconsin first successfully battled back to achieve restoration in 1973.9 The Confederated Tribes of Siletz, consisting of some twenty-four bands, became the second U.S. tribal group to accomplish this feat, which they did in 1977. The Cow Creek band followed in 1982, and the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community in 1983 as the second and third successful Oregon tribes.10 Then came the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw effort at restoration. In the summer of 1974, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, along with the Coquille and other tribes, banded together to bring momentum to the efforts to overturn termination. Russell Anderson, a Coos leader who served as chairman of the tribal council, made a joint effort with Jerry Running Foxe of the Coquille. In April 1974, they called a meeting of some twenty coastal tribes to push for both fair compensation for lost lands and resources and “for implementation of their Indian rights as prescribed by law.”11 In meetings held during the summer, they discussed timber, hunting, and fishing rights, and they publicized their efforts to trace tribal members who had disappeared at termination and had been absent from tribal events throughout the years. They held an announced salmon bake and tried to use their publicity to have Indian parents register their children for the new Indian Education program supported by the federal government (at the time known informally as “Title IV”). Decades later Eddie Helms recalled being surprised that the tribe was still functioning so long after termination. At that point he began to participate in cultural events, after a long hiatus.12 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw also requested a restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

185

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

neighboring organization, the Small Tribes Organization of Western Washington (stoww), to help them “gain congressional attention for their situation.”13 In March 1975, now-Senator Hatfield, along with Senator Robert Packwood, revived the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw land claim, preparing yet one more round of legislation authorizing them to sue. Stephen Dow Beckham, a historian and consultant to stoww, had worked to prepare the tribes’ history, which both Hatfield and Packwood presented to the Senate along with their own pleas for justice for the tribes. “The history of the Government’s treatment of these tribes is a grievous one,” Packwood observed. Hatfield added, “Passage of this legislation would result in the final determination of an issue which has been with us for about 120 years.” Hatfield hoped that “new evidence . . . unavailable in previous cases” would serve the tribes in this one.14 Then, on 1 October, the tribe initiated a petition for recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs Federal Acknowledgment Project.15 This would allow them to further their efforts either through Congress or the executive branch. Beckham raised several key issues in his argument that the case should be reheard, observing that John Mullen, the tribe’s attorney in 1952, had failed to use historians or anthropologists as expert witnesses, had ignored Hudson’s Bay Company records showing that the land was indeed inhabited by the three tribes, and that other governmental and private archival records showing the tribes’ occupancy of the lands were also ignored by the attorney. “There was no excuse in 1952 for the attorney for the tribes not to use the abundant documentation necessary to document these people’s claims,” he said, adding that Mullen had even failed to appeal the case.16 As the bill languished in committee, Beckham sent a memorandum providing historical background of the tribes’ dismal treatment at the hands of the United States to the committee as a whole. Then, in August 1976, he sent a personal letter to 186

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

influential committee member Senator Birch Bayh of Indiana, exhorting him to move the bill along.17 Despite the efforts of the tribes and their allies, the bill failed. However, the tribes were now gaining slow but steady momentum in their efforts at federal recognition. Finally, it seemed, the government, through various officials and departments, was paying some attention to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. The American Indian Policy Review Commission (aiprc) established a “Task Force on Terminated and Nonfederally Recognized Tribes” that held hearings that examined the impacts termination had on tribal groups. The aiprc interviewed leaders of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, first at Coos Bay in November 1975, and then at Salem, Oregon, in March 1976.18 Bill Brainard, executive director of the Willow River Benevolent Association (wrba, pronounced “reeba”); Russell Anderson, chairman of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw; and Edgar Bowen all testified, together with their ally, Beckham.19 Anderson, a professional who worked for the Coos Bay–North Bend Water Department and later the North Bend Street Department, has been described as a kind, well-liked man. Brainard was always ready for a fight, a character trait that served him and his tribe well in the battle for restoration.20 Brainard explained that the Willow River Benevolent Association was organized so the tribes would have a corporation to work through the federal government. For example, they established a Manpower Agency with federal Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (ceta) money to help with the problem of unemployment, putting hundreds of people to work.21 Unemployment was a constant problem in the area, due in part to the boom-and-bust nature of the extractive industries that continued to dominate the economy. The lumber industry changed radically in the 1950s and ’60s to the detriment restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

187

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of Oregon’s coastal communities. Three factors played key roles in this change. First, in the postwar years, the demand for lumber increased significantly. Second, the local lumber companies, and even Weyerhaeuser, operated on a conservative basis, planning their cuts on properties they owned so that they would have timber far into the future. But the local interests sold to Georgia-Pacific (g-p), and both Weyerhaeuser and g-p rapidly expanded the cuts to make money quickly in the market. And third, Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay lifted restrictions that had required timber to be milled in local markets. This allowed coastal lumber to be milled elsewhere, taking the work away from the coast and allowing for larger cuts that rapidly diminished the once-rich timber resource. At the same time, the local mills failed to update their equipment. All of this caused a broad-based economic depression in the Coos Bay region by the 1960s. In Coos County, employment in the timber industry “peaked in 1960 and then began a slow but steady decline.” This was reflective of the timber industry throughout the Northwest.22 This regional economic dip came at an especially bad time for the tribes, who were struggling with termination. Tribal members could rarely expect to gain a job in one field and be employed there for the long term. Edgar Bowen worked a variety of jobs, including as a longshoreman, before becoming a school teacher, a job he held for thirty-one years. Bill Brainard worked at a variety of jobs in the logging and lumber industry, and on boats, before taking a long-term job with Pacific Power and Light Company in 1962, which he held until his health began to fail him.23 These men are but two examples of tribal members who continued a process dating to the nineteenth century of integrating into the local economy. Men and women worked in the timber, lumber, agricultural, and seafood industries, often as laborers, sometimes skilled, and occasionally as business operators. 188

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

This economy was seasonal and fluctuated, at times drastically, however. Although the tourist industry was quick to recognize the Indian heritage of the area when it was deemed an attraction, Indians faced problems of local prejudice that made jobs harder to obtain or, once obtained, less comfortable. In the South Slough, for example, “Tony Tanner recalled that he and others of the Indians were the last to be hired and the first to be layed [sic] off in a fluctuating job market.” This remained a problem across time.24 The problem was exacerbated by the late 1970s when the fishing and timber industries began to diminish, as many of the products they relied on, such as salmon and timber, were largely diminished, and as the industries found ways to have machinery do more of the work at the expense of employing large numbers of people. As the Coos County timber industry began a steady decline, the industry began to rely more heavily on harvesting public, as opposed to private, lands. Between 1960 and 1980, the manufacturing jobs in Coos County declined from 50 percent to 30 percent of the local economy as mills closed permanently. The economy increasingly divided the generations, with the younger people leaving to find work, and the older generation still able to hang onto jobs they had long held.25 This demographic circumstance in the population at large reflects Edgar Bowen’s observation that Indian youth scattered from the area after termination. The aiprc illumination of dire socioeconomic conditions did not have any immediate impact, however. Six years later, in 1982, the Native American Research Center (narc) produced a statistical profile of the confederated tribes that confirmed what the 1975–76 hearings had brought out. Using this report, Congressman Morris Udall observed that “75% of the tribal families are below poverty level as compared with 8% for the general population of Oregon. In addition, 47% of the tribal members were unemployed,” compared to 9.8 percent as a figure locally.26 restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

189

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The narc report provided other insights into tribal conditions nearly three decades after termination. The unemployment problem was exacerbated by a 16.3-month average time span before the unemployed gained new work. Only 10 percent of tribal members had attended any college, with only one-half of 1 percent of tribal members actually holding a college degree. So most tribal members, when they worked, did “general labor.” Almost 80 percent of the unemployed said they worked in either the wood products (logging and milling) or seafood processing industries.27 An additional and longstanding problem was the de facto loss of hunting and fishing rights, which the tribes and Beckham believed had never been given up.28 This loss of access to hunting and fishing made it more difficult for families to support themselves during trying economic times. Termination exacerbated unemployment and poverty, which in turn intensified other problems. Although more than half of tribal members owned their own homes—many inherited them from their elders—the home values were low and most could not now afford to make the repairs necessary to keep the homes in a livable condition. For this reason, renters’ housing conditions were better than those of homeowners.29 Health care also suffered. Few tribal members owned automobiles, which also hampered their ability to find work, and on average, tribal members lived between eleven and twelve miles from a medical facility. About half the tribal members who were employed qualified for health-care coverage, but only about half of them—an eighth of tribal members—had access to health-care facilities. Due to termination, Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members were denied access to Indian Health Service facilities. More than half of tribal members suffered chronic or long-term illnesses, hampering their ability to work.30 Statistically, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal 190

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

members lagged far behind their white Oregon neighbors, who were themselves increasingly impoverished. This was true in relation to employment, educational background, housing, and health care. Termination had failed to improve the living conditions of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members; instead they were in worse shape than before the law went into effect. Cultural losses continued, as “there was only one native Coos speaker left, and she died in 1976.” Walter Kawamoto, in an article in American Behavioral Scientist, observed that when termination went into effect “efforts should have been made” within the tribe “to preserve the community.” But this did not happen because “the last of the generation that had direct ties to the past were passing away.” The Native American Research Center profile concluded by observing: “Restoration to Federal recognition could appreciabl[y] increase the self-sufficiency of the members of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaws. Assistance could bring about the self-help that is important to the continuation of tribal life. . . . These efforts could result in a reversal of statistics to bring the tribal life in line with the majority population.”31 A 1982 census, the first since the flawed 1940 Bureau of Indian Affairs public-domain census count of tribal members, enumerated 587 Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members. Of these, 504 lived in Oregon, with 465, or 79 percent, still living in the three counties comprising the locus of the tribes’ traditional homeland—Lane, Douglas, and Coos counties. The census report described the population as “enrolled tribal members.” Although the termination process generally included an accounting of tribal rolls so they could be closed, and children born after the termination date could thus be kept off the rolls, this accounting was never completed in the case of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw since they had no property to divide.32 However, federal officials went under the tacit assumption restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

191

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

that those born after 13 August 1956 were not considered Indian, but full-fledged U.S. citizens. To U.S. officials, this meant without tribal affiliation. Federal census takers, for instance, in 1970, failed to count members of nonrecognized tribes as Indian in the census count. This prompted Bill Brainard to wryly observe that after the census officials had visited his family, he came “to find out no one lives at my house.”33 In fact the Portland Area Office failed even to keep track of the pre–1956 tribal rolls for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, although eventually it located the 1940 roll of off-reservation Indians. This had been the most complete roll including the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw for several decades. Nonetheless, tribal members still referred to themselves and their families as tribal members. As in 1855, when the United States failed to ratify their treaty, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw still viewed themselves, more than 125 years later, as a tribal entity that should have an official relationship with the federal government.34 Many in the tribe continued to view hunting, fishing, and gathering as retained rights, not subject to state law, for example. Tribes throughout the Northwest were asserting their off-reservation fishing rights at this time in a contentious battle that the tribes would win, based on treaties and U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Speaking specifically about Washington and Oregon, Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall noted in 1963 that “there needs to be a greater public understanding of the Indians’ rights and needs” in relation to fishing rights. His office made an effort to delineate tribal rights and to discern between treaty and nontreaty Indians; federal, tribal, and state laws; and on-reservation versus off-reservation rights.35 In this minefield, tribes whose members asserted their rights, even in the face of arrest, had a better chance of long-term success than those that did not. This has historically been true because federal authorities, whether judges or bureaucrats, 192

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

often consider whether tribes have kept up traditional practices consistently over time in determining whether they may continue to pursue those rights. Ironically, those tribes that follow state law are more likely to lose their rights. And this was difficult for tribes, as the Oregon Fish Commission chose to “crack down” on tribal fishing until the courts ruled on the extent to which states held authority in the matter.36 Individuals had to stand up and be prepared to face arrest when they asserted their rights by fishing. Members of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes resisted state efforts to control their hunting and fishing rights in a variety of ways. George Barton recalled digging clams and hunting deer for subsistence purposes with only occasional interference by state officials, who would back down when he forcefully explained the basis of his rights. He and other tribal members insisted on their rights to use their traditional lands and resources in the ways they always had.37 Frank Barrett remembered Marguerite Severy standing off game wardens when she fished at her home up on the North Fork of the Siuslaw River. When threatened with a ticket, she asked why. The warden said it was for “wanton waste.” She replied, “What are you talking about? You know Indians would never waste anything. We eat everything we catch. . . . Go ahead and write me out a ticket.” He didn’t, but warned her to stop. Barrett himself stood off the game warden when crabbing, though his brother didn’t, which bothered Frank. “I said well by golly I’d fight it,” since he firmly believed the tribe’s members had legal rights to the resource.38 Once, during the annual salmon ceremonies, a confrontation with state officials ended humorously, in a story that has been told for decades since. Barton remembered, “We’d lined up about three tables on the north end of Sunset” Bay beach. On those tables they had laid out several hundred pounds of frozen small salmon to thaw and to finish filleting. “And so restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

193

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

we had all these fish out there. And I’m busy with my fillet knife and . . . we were getting ready to prepare ’em and here comes the state police. . . . Somebody called the state police, and ‘the Indians are rioting down there!’ So here they come out there and I don’t remember this, but I’ve been kidded about it ever since.” Edgar Bowen picked up the story here, speaking to Barton. “You see they said ‘You can’t be doing this.’ And you said, ‘Who are you?’ And he pulled out this badge.” Barton glanced at the badge and said, “‘We don’t recognize that’ and just kept filleting.” The police gave up and left, though Bowen was certain they were going to write a ticket.39 Barton also recalls an instance when he was tribal chair during termination, in which an impoverished Lower Umpqua family at Reedsport took a deer out of season. Turned in by their non-Indian neighbors, and brought to trial, they turned to Barton for help. He turned to a Portland law school, whose faculty learned that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were subject to an unratified treaty and were considered terminated by the federal government, but agreed to help them anyway. According to Barton, the school brought a van load of students to the hearing, where the school’s official argued against a district attorney who was “out of his depth.” The judge dismissed the case after hearing a lengthy argument on behalf of tribal rights.40 The tribe also had to demonstrate to Congress that tribal members, though scattered, still acted together for communal functions. In 1975, in their tribal hall, “the Confederated Tribes opened Oregon’s first Indian-operated, cultural museum.”41 Barton believes that the tribal hall was the most critical factor in keeping the community together. It was a place to meet, a place both to socialize and plan political actions, and a place that served as the tribes’ reservation, small though it was. Although the city of Coos Bay rented it out to outside groups, 194

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

and the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were subject to rental fees to use it (often waived), the tribal members thought of it as their own place.42 Ironically, after termination went into effect in 1956, the United States had not sold the tribal hall, but had turned over the trust responsibilities to the city of Empire. Barton credits the survival of the tribe to the survival of the tribal hall. “I have to honestly say I believe that we would not exist today if it hadn’t been for this [land] with the tribal hall on it.” After the city of Coos Bay took over the oversight of the hall, when it swallowed up Empire, they rented it out to a boxing club, among other users. “And that’s where we finally . . . had enough,” Barton recalls. The boxing club “had bored holes in the floor and set up a ring, and bored holes in the wall you know, and here was a boxing ring.” The city also sent in surveyors at one time, who told Barton the land was going to be sold to developers to build a housing development. These various threats caused the tribe to appeal to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Finally they succeeded when “the land was transferred to a tribal corporation.” In 1965, the tribes finally regained control of their 6.1-acre tribal property when Bill Brainard got hold of the deed and they filed it at the county courthouse in Coquille. The continuing status of the tribal hall worked in the tribes’ favor, even though the hall eventually deteriorated to the extent that they could not use it.43 Unfortunately the tribe lacked funds to keep it up. Tribal members volunteered in work groups to reshingle it, fix the floors, and paint the walls. They collected money from each other and materials from local merchants: “We’d just talk to the companies around here and just shame them into giving us what we needed,” George Barton recalls. It was not enough to keep the building in working condition, but it was enough to keep the building in tribal hands.44 restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

195

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

“And we took care of our graveyards,” Ed Bowen recalled, including at Cape Arago and one above Sunset Bay. “That was another thing that we all gathered to do that showed some kind of cooperation among us. So that helped too.”45 In June 1975, they recovered the remains of two ancestors, one an Umpqua, and reinterred them. Edgar Bowen and Esther Stutzman conducted prayers at the ceremony on behalf of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. The ceremony occurred at the “sacred burial grounds on a bluff above the ocean [that] have been used by Indians for centuries.” Stutzman, director of the Native American Research Center, told an Oregonian reporter, “‘We were tired of seeing skulls and bones of our ancestors in museums. . . . Once bones are in the ground they should not be disturbed.’”46 This recovery of remains, long before passage of the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 authorized such returns, provided yet another small recognition by the outside society that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were indeed still Indian. Besides the graveyard, the beach at Sunset Bay, which the Indians had simply called Big Creek in the old days, had long been the site of annual tribal salmon ceremonies, and this tradition continued. Sometimes only a small number of people would attend, not many more than a dozen; at others, well over one hundred would participate. Eddie Helms, whose mother, Ida Helms, served as secretary of the Southwestern Oregon Indians in the 1940s, recalled, for example, that his family had drifted away from tribal activities after being informed they were no longer Indian at termination, but began to participate in tribal events in the latter years of termination when they learned that the salmon ceremonies continued.47 Ed Bowen kept his job teaching school, and Bill Brainard continued to work in the utility business. The two of them kept the tribal government operating by meeting on a regular 196

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

basis to seek restoration and plan their continuing existence as a tribe, despite the fact that with termination the tribal government was considered defunct by U.S. officials. These meetings became an important factor in the restoration efforts. “We’re the oldest continuous government in southwestern Oregon,” Bowen will remind listeners. Bill Brainard said the same thing. But the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw faced difficult times after termination, and in Bowen’s words, “the continuous government got as thin as the two of us [he and Bill Brainard] at one time.”48 George Barton recalled that though it did get extremely thin, meetings continued month after month, without break, and over time the numbers built back up.49 This proved critical, as Congress cited the continuous existence of self-governance within the tribes as one of the justifications for restoration, when it would occur.50 Tribal leaders kept the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw operating as a tribe all during this time, but also continued to seek aid from powerful outsiders. Bowen served on the board of directors of a national Indian organization, Americans for Indian Opportunity (aio). It was through aio that he met Ada Deer, a Menominee leader who helped spearhead her tribe’s successful battle to reverse the termination law, and who became a national symbol for tribes fighting back against the United States government. Bowen admired Deer’s spunk and willingness to fight. When the Menominee achieved restoration in 1973, “that kind of gave us a little bit of heart that we would be able to . . . make it,” Bowen said.51 LaDonna Harris, aio’s founder and a Comanche, was married at the time to Oklahoma senator Fred Harris. She opened her Washington dc home and her offices, and she and her husband opened congressional doors to various tribal members seeking redress to the hardships faced by their tribes. Another aio board member, Eddie Tullis, was seeking federal recognition for his tribe, the Poarch Band of Creeks from Alabama, restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

197

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

as well. The Harrises aided the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw in their restoration efforts. When Bowen, Brainard, and others testified at hearings in Washington dc, they were hosted by the Harrises and also by the Quakers.52 So Bowen and Brainard held meetings, which eventually became weekly meetings, and later they met more often than that, several times each week by the end. They slowly built momentum over a thirty-year period. Progress could seem painstakingly slow at times. They were “just a committee that was trying to keep things rolling,” Bowen recalled. “And we tried to get a lot of people involved after they got rid of us, and it was hard to do because we were scattered.” Most of those who had not left were located in the Coos Bay area. Most were struggling just to make ends meet. Bowen remembered that when he and Brainard tried to organize other tribal members early on, they would respond by saying “‘Well you’re doing all right . . . and you just go ahead. We’ll back you.’ You know how it is. Until we got the first twenty dollars, of course, and then the fight started. Like throwing a chunk of meat out to a bunch of Alaskan sled dogs, the first one that goes down is finished.” Bowen felt like that first dog down on more than one occasion.53 Tribal members paid their own expenses for travel most of the time. The tribe kept up membership in Indian organizations, and in the 1970s joined the National Congress of American Indians. Membership dues were based on tribal membership, and the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw generally paid between thirty-five and forty dollars in the late seventies and early eighties. Bill Brainard and Russell Anderson took turns representing the tribes at these meetings, at least through 1981.54 Muriel Brainard, Bill’s wife, said that when they attended various tribal meetings, “the rest of the tribes always accepted the delegates from our tribe.” The meetings were important, 198

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

so that both other tribes and the federal government would know that the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw kept attending these meetings. “Bill and I went to meetings in Salt Lake City, in Rapid City, South Dakota, and Bill went one year, and the next year Russ [Anderson] would go. We paid our own way, because there wasn’t any money. You know, once in a while, we might have gotten a few dollars for gas, which was like nothing, you know. But that was how you could prove then to the federal government that they were still a tribe.”55 Frank Barrett’s experience echoed that of the Brainards: “[W]e used our own gas, wrote our letters, you know, paid for our own stamps. Wrote letters to senators and everything,” as his father had before him.56 The initial outside funding came from Father Ted Zuern, who worked many years for the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions. Bowen said, “I think they lent us twelve thousand dollars, I’m not sure what the amount was. But we’d never have made it without that either. I can name some of the things that were so slim that if we hadn’t have got ’em, we wouldn’t have made it. That was one of ’em. And one of ’em was the letters that we got. If we hadn’t have got those we’d never have got it.”57 In fact, they worked hard locally as well as nationally to raise money and to build a broad coalition of supporters. Tribal members raised funds not only by passing the hat at meetings, but also through sales and feeds. They raised money through rummage sales and fry-bread stands at Coos Bay events, for example, and even reused old envelopes to help conserve funds. One year when they needed some real money to move the restoration process, they put on a big salmon bake for over 250 Airstream Trailer campers at Sunset Bay. “That gave us our seed money to do some of the legal work,” Barton remembered.58 Other support came in a variety of nonmonetary ways. restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

199

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Locally, the Indian Parent Committee of Coos Bay School District Number Nine took action in 1976. Indian parent committees had been authorized under federal law to help determine ways in which federal monies for Indian education would be spent on curricular needs. The Coos Bay parents recognized the dearth of good and accessible written materials relating to western Oregon’s Indian peoples. So they suggested that a book aimed at both children and the general public be written to tell the story of tribal culture and history of the region. As a result, their longtime ally Stephen Dow Beckham wrote The Indians of Western Oregon: This Land Was Theirs, a very readable tome published in 1977. He dedicated the book “To the Tribal council members of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw,” including Russell Anderson, Bill Brainard, and Edgar Bowen.59 Together with other tribal groups, the tribes created a slide show, Our Hearts Beat as One, on the effects of termination on Oregon Indians. Don Whereat remembers the slide show, and George Barton recalls taking it to local service clubs. They also took it to Washington dc in their lobbying efforts.60 Tribal leaders worked to get outsiders to aid them actively in their restoration efforts. Bowen recalled, “I can remember that we thought it would be a good idea if we got some letters of support.” A non-Indian from Reedsport, Jeff Banda, offered to help. Banda offered to seek support letters from the Reedsport and Florence areas. “So he got about fifteen letters. Well god, we thought that was all right, you know.” Then when momentum slowed down, “we put my daughters and one of their friends to go on out into the neighborhood to get the business people and anybody else they could to write a letter of support for reinstating the tribes.” At the same time, tribal council members also solicited support letters. “And they got letters from Newport, I think, and Florence and Coquille, Myrtle Point. They got one from every city except Bandon. Bandon, they wouldn’t give us one.”61 200

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The state of Oregon didn’t help the tribes much, either. “They’ve always been against us. Still are,” Bowen said. Part of the problem for the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw was that the state continued to view its relationship to Indians as it had been defined by the termination process. Governor Tom McCall, who served from 1967 to 1975, and who had been assistant to Governor McKay in the early 1950s, reflected the state’s view when he wrote, on more than one occasion, that Oregon did not have a separate state Indian affairs department, because “all of our State agencies . . . boards, and commissions work with Indians, as with every other citizen.”62 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw did come to McCall’s attention twice in the 1970s, first when Coquelle Thompson Jr. contacted him about the Oregon dunes, and later when he received a letter from a third-grader, Gary Bracelin, from Eastside who had heard in class that the tribes had never been compensated for their lost lands and demanded to know what the governor was doing about it. McCall responded to the child that the tribes had failed before both the court of claims and the Indian Claims Commission, and that he should take the matter up with his congressman.63 But Fourth District Democratic Congressman James Weaver and Republican Senator Mark Hatfield supported them. “And if Hatfield went for it then Packwood would go for it. You see Hatfield was the senior senator and Packwood was the junior senator,” Bowen said.64 Hatfield wrote Secretary of the Interior Cecil Andrus, in May 1980, indicating his support of the petition the tribes had presented to the bia in 1975 for recognition.65 The tribes also enlisted the aid of Stephen Dow Beckham, who by now had become one of the primary experts on tribal history in western Oregon. Other tribes, such as the Cow Creek, also wrote letters of support.66 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw also received letters of support from LaDonna Harris on behalf of aio, and Father Zuern of the National Office of Jesuit Social Ministries.67 restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

201

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Tribal members also wrote letters. Bowen recalls: “[W]e wrote tons of letters. I forget how many miles I figured the letters [would stretch if] we laid them end to end. First we’d do it by the typewriter one at a time.” Then they used the money from Father Zuern to purchase a copy machine. “I’m not sure what [kind of machine] it was but you could [print] more than one [letter] at a time. We flooded ’em. Someplace back there . . . in everybody’s office, there’s big files” filled with correspondence from the confederated tribes. “We kept getting a little bit smarter,” Bowen remembered with pride. “And then we got down to what we call the paper war. Well if you can get one of those machines and twelve thousand dollars you can cause a lot of paper to start flying. And . . . all these little things are not real big but they contribute to eventual success.”68 Between 1980 and 1982, support letters also came in from clergy, the Coos County Board of Commissioners, the Coos Bay School District, and various Lane County social-service officials.69 Bill Brainard’s daughter Brenda, who had been born “fortyeight days before termination,” as she tells it, and therefore was a terminated Indian instead of simply being not an Indian in the government’s eyes, went to law school for the sole purpose of fighting for restoration. She attended the University of Oregon so that she could study under the famed attorney Charles Wilkinson, whose “passion and compassion” inspired her, as did his tales of the Menominee success. As the Menominee had inspired Edgar Bowen, so they also inspired Brenda Brainard. Don Wharton of the Native American Rights Fund (narf) provided legal help for the restoration process early on.70 One of Brenda Brainard’s major victories occurred in the spring and summer of 1981 when she drafted a bill and successfully manipulated it through the Oregon State Legislature, a body that had previously not been kind to the tribes. The 202

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

new law called for the state to provide surplus salmon to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribes “for their historical, traditional, and cultural salmon ceremonies that take place each year.”71 Russell Anderson, as chairman, and Bill Brainard as vice-chairman, of the tribes, testified before the House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources in May. Although the Oregon Wildlife Federation and Northwest Steelheaders opposed the bill, the committee voted favorably and sent it to the floor.72 The state Fish and Wildlife Commission, concerned that this would lead to broader fishing rights, requested an amendment that became part of the law, specifying that this law recognized the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw for this one purpose only.73 In July, Brenda Brainard testified before the state senate committee charged with bringing the bill forward, bringing a practical focus to her testimony: “If we were not required to fish for our Ceremony, there would be all that much more fish for both sport and commercial interests,” she told committee members. She went on to testify that the tribe’s success at gaining access to fish from the state for their ceremonies historically had been “inconsistent.” The state senate also requested the amendment, stating that “[n]othing in this Act shall constitute a legal or political recognition of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, or Siuslaw Indian Tribes for any purpose other than as specifically set forth herein.”74 The bill passed both bodies with overwhelming support—in the House 54–3 and in the Senate 56–3. On 5 August, Governor Victor Atiyeh signed the bill into law, and it became effective immediately. Despite the restricting amendment to the bill, this law provided a legal and moral boost to the tribes, who for the first time had official recognition from the state of Oregon. In November 1981, Russell Anderson passed away from a heart attack, never having the opportunity to know whether restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

203

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

his work would lead to success.75 In January 1982, a group of tribal members flew to Washington dc to begin the process of meeting officials who would help them. Donald Wharton of the Oregon Legal Services Corporation’s Native American Program organized the meeting, which also included the Cow Creek band of Umpqua and the Confederated Grand Ronde tribe. The group stayed at the inexpensive Davis House, run by the American Friends Service Committee, a Quaker organization. They met with congressional officials and local Washington dc Indian leaders. Wharton commented to Suzan Harjo of ncai that the third draft of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw bill had the support of Cynthia Wooten, the staff member to Congressman Weaver, who was bringing the bill forth.76 Interestingly, though, the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw had apparently dropped membership in the ncai. Resolutions at ncai annual conventions, voted on by delegates representing the dozens of member tribes, could be used to show national Indian support for tribal issues. The ncai passed such resolutions supporting Cow Creek restoration at its 1982 convention, and the Klamath at its 1984 convention, but did not consider a resolution relating to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw in 1982, 1983, or 1984.77 In the spring of 1984, a delegation consisting of Bill Brainard, Edgar Bowen, Don Whereat (who replaced Russell Anderson after he passed away), Carolyn Slyter, and Brenda Brainard went to testify before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Despite jitters and some forgotten lines, the testimony went well and the committee viewed the tribe’s restoration bill favorably. Brenda Brainard later recalled telling the committee that Russell Anderson died with a broken dream. She told them, “‘The man sitting here should be Russ Anderson, who gave his life for restoration.’ I said ‘You know, I was born a recognized Indian. I have the right to die a recognized Indian.’ 204

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

I said, ‘This man was born a recognized Indian, and he died terminated. That wasn’t fair.’ And I really did kind of . . . chastise ’em, you know.” Attorney Dennis J. Whittlesey and historian Stephen Dow Beckham also played key roles at the hearings.78 The tribe employed Beckham to research genealogy in preparation for restoration through a federal grant from the Administration for Native Americans.79 Nonetheless, even at this time of triumph, disaster almost struck. Two Coquille tribal members came to Washington, either to add a rider onto the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration Bill or to have the bill defeated altogether, in the hopes of gaining Coquille restoration as well. “It’s hard having two tribes in the same town,” Brenda Brainard later commented. Jason Younker, a noted Coquille tribal scholar, has commented on the two tribes’ struggles for federal recognition. “Even though many [Coquille] descendants were living in the Coos Bay area, the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw and the Coquille Indian Tribe would pursue separate restoration cases, a result of the 1950s land claims settlement as well as festering dissonance.”80 Strong personalities in both tribes seemed to play a role; the cooperative efforts of Russell Anderson and Jerry Running Foxe in the 1970s had dissipated. In the end, this has led to the recognition of two distinct tribal nations. While everyone else returned home, and even the tribe’s attorney left town, Brainard stayed another nine days to fight off this new threat.81 Brainard was aided immensely by Michael Jackson, at the time a Senate staff member who spent hours showing her the ropes. She spent her time putting out fires by lobbying representatives, senators, and their aides to keep the bill intact. In the end she was successful.82 She returned home with confidence and high hopes for the tribe’s future. Finally, more than a century and a quarter after the signing of the Empire Treaty, the U.S. Congress was seriously restor at ion

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

205

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

considering welcoming the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw to the company of recognized tribal members within the United States. It seemed the tribe’s luck was changing and that efforts by tribal members and generations of leadership were finally paying off.

206

r e sto r at i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

c ha p ter ten

The Achievement and Meaning of True Recognition

Tr i ba l m e m b e rs b e g a n to f e e l t h e e l at i o n o f victory in the early fall of 1984 when Congress passed the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration Act. The House had passed the bill in August. The Senate passed it in an amended form on 28 September. The House agreed to the amendments four days later and Congress presented the bill to President Ronald Reagan on 5 October. Reagan signed the bill on the last possible day and it became law. Ed Bowen remembers the voting. “We were home. We’d come back. And they were to have a vote on it. And everybody in the House and Senate voted for it, except some guy from Florida voted against it.” Tribal members were exuberant. “We were quite happy about it.” A tribal spokeswoman told the Coos Bay newspaper at the time, “There are an awful lot of happy people around here,” adding, “we’ve been fighting to get this for thirty years.”1 Ed Bowen reflected the tribal mood when he observed at the time, “We were orphans, now this puts us back in the family of nations.” Tribal secretary Joyce Deabler said in elation, “Pride will once again return to us . . . we’ve always known our heritage and we never thought we would lose this battle . . . it was always a matter of when it would happen, not if it would happen . . . it’s a whole different feeling.”2 On 17 October 1984, President Reagan signed the bill restoring federal status to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. Senator Hatfield, in the midst of a reelection campaign, announced to the press that Reagan had signed the restoration act

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

into law. He commented that the termination “came without notice, explanation, or hearings to defend their standing,” and added that restoration would benefit the tribes in a variety of ways. “It will open doors of assistance in the areas of health services, education assistance, and economic development.” He hoped that it would begin to reverse the effects of the “hard blow to tribes’ economic, social, and cultural well-being” that the termination had brought about or exacerbated.3 Joyce Deabler said, “We’re very grateful to Jim Weaver and Mark Hatfield and to our historian, Stephen Dow Beckham, as well as so many others.” So the tribe put on a powwow to honor both tribal elders and the outsiders who had helped them achieve their goals. “It was a day of pomp and ceremony,” the Oregonian said. They held their celebration in the National Guard Armory because their tribal hall was in disrepair. Congressman Weaver joined them for the celebration of their remarkable success that day. The crowd gave him a standing ovation when he was introduced, but he deflected the credit back to the tribal leaders. “I just did my job,” he told them, “You were the ones who suffered and held tough.” He added, “The government finally did something right. I don’t see them doing much right these days.” Then he said, “The reason they did something right in 1984 was because they did something wrong in 1954.”4 Bill Brainard summed up tribal feelings when he pronounced himself “very, very happy . . . we’re on cloud nine around here today,” at the end of the “30-year struggle.”5 The tribe then turned to the difficult tasks of governing itself and seeking compensation for lost lands. Bill Brainard summed up the United States’ actions toward the confederated tribes and their resources simply: “They came, they stayed, they conquered. They took the land and then they divided it up. . . . [T]he land was stolen from these tribes. . . . And we lost. . . . And there’s never been a compensation of any kind.”6 208

t he achie ve m e nt and m e an i n g o f t ru e r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

The story of those battles and efforts is worthy of further research, but this work will stop here at the point of victory and success. In many ways, the story of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw struggles from 1855 through 1984 reflects the experiences of tribes across the United States as they dealt with the “unspeakable sadness” of wrenching losses of people, land, community social structure, an economic base, and political freedom.7 It also reflects the struggles of tribal communities to shape their future on their own terms in the face of all this. And finally, this story shows the unique nature of the struggles of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. When Kevin Gover, an Oklahoma Pawnee, was appointed director of the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of the American Indian in September 2007, he explained to a national Indian radio audience his vision for museum exhibits and management by saying, “The story is that we are still here.”8 Indeed, one of the remarkable stories of the twentyfirst century is the survival of American Indian tribes and nations. But more significant than mere survival, tribal communities increasingly have the opportunity to shape the future on their own terms. This has been achieved by community after community, against great odds, by the stalwart and visionary leadership that developed within those communities, and the allies, inside and outside of Indian country, with which that leadership worked. Each tribal community has its unique story of survival and the development of modern self-determination. The termination era, the most destructive time of the twentieth century for many tribes, affected Indian communities and individuals in myriad ways, and hurt even many tribal groups that escaped actual termination legislation. Of those terminated, some successfully fought back to gain restoration and others did not. At the same time, other tribes seeking recognition—that were the ac hie ve m e nt and m e aning of t ru e r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

209

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

.

not part of the terminations—also succeeded and failed in gaining recognition. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw are unique among these groups because if they had not been terminated they would have continued seeking recognition. Unlike other tribes, they were terminated from a state of quasi recognition, the legal limbo they existed in until 1956 when Public Law 588 went into effect, officially terminating the ill-defined political relationship they had developed with the United States after 1855. At the time of termination, some Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw tribal members chose to avoid affiliation with their tribes and blend into the larger population, while some others attempted to both affiliate with the tribes and blend into the outside society. The blending was physically possible for many because of the long history of intermarriage within the tribes. It was economically possible because, although most tribal members lived at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder, many families had been integrated into aspects of the local economy since the late 1800s. It was desirable not to be viewed by the outside world as Indian for many who hoped for a better life for their children due to the virulent anti-Indian prejudice that stained a significant portion of Oregon’s citizenry. In 1925, when those tribal members who would be young adults at the time of termination were born, the chairman of the history department of the University of Oregon, Robert Clark, published A History of Oregon. This work would shape a generation’s understanding of the state’s past. In it, he defined Oregon’s Indians as people at a lower level of development than white Americans: “Oregon Indians were true savages. The Indians of the Oregon country represented the various stages of savage and barbarian culture, but it cannot be said that any of them possessed even the rude beginnings of civilization. They had neither a written 210

t he achie ve m e nt and m e an i n g o f t ru e r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

language nor a settled agriculture. It can hardly be said that they tilled the soil at all. Some tribes, which migrated with the seasons, were wanderers over the face of the earth. They ate wild fruits and berries, they even subsisted on insects. They were always poor, always hungry and miserable. They had bows and arrows, and they knew how to fish and hunt, but beyond that stage they had not progressed. They were truly savage men.”9

This view of Oregon’s Indians—combined with the government’s half-hearted efforts to recognize the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, and the tribes’ century-long failure to gain compensation for lost resources—would seem to signal the futility of struggling for fair and separate treatment. The easiest thing to do at the point of termination would have been to give up and become part of the “melting pot” of American society. And yet tribal leaders persevered, spurred on by the efforts of their predecessors and the hopes to reverse the slights to their family members and community over time. These leaders still hoped to carve out a unique place for their tribal community within Oregon’s landscape. They did not wish to blend, but wanted to be recognized as one of what Chief Justice John Marshall had referred to in 1831 as America’s “domestic dependent nations.”10 On a national level, the disasters of the termination decisions led to immediate protest from tribes across the United States. Some were able to avoid termination by vigorous opposition; others began to fight against termination as soon as it happened to them. Some of the latter eventually reversed the law, after painful decades of loss, and achieved restoration. Beginning with the Menominee of Wisconsin, these tribal efforts were vital in the development of the nation’s late-twentieth-century Indian self-determination and self-governance policies. Yet as Victor J. Hanby observed, in 1975, “Though termithe ac hie ve m e nt and m e aning of t ru e r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

211

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

nation was repudiated as a policy by President Nixon in 1970, in effect it has never been repealed by legislation.”11 And although 1970s legislation, beginning with the 1975 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, reflected a congressional shift in policy, it was left to terminated tribes on an individual basis to gain from Congress (or in California, the courts) a restoration of the status that assured them the right of government-to-government dealings with the United States. Some succeeded; others did not. In Oregon, after seven restorations, and since not all of the state’s tribes were terminated, nine recognized tribal governments now exist, including several confederacies. One of these is the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians.12 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw were able to succeed where others failed for several reasons. When Ed Bowen reflected on this, the alliances they built and their perseverance topped the list. He credited a collective effort as a key factor in success. “[W]e kind of stuck together,” he recalled. Their willingness to fight was another important factor. “I started fighting a long time before we started gettin’ a reservation,” he says. “We used to fight ’em in the taverns and in the streets. And then we started having meetings, and then they just kept snowballing.” Bill Brainard’s fighting spirit, so important to the success of the tribes, is renowned among tribal members.13 This penchant to fight back was deeply based in generations of mistreatment. “And of course if you’re treated wrong! You see, I very much resented the way that my relatives were treated, my aunts and uncles. And my kids resent the way I was treated. It goes on and on and on, it won’t stop. That being treated that way kind of holds you together,” Bowen observed.14 Ironically, the greatest strength in this small tribal community was in its response to harsh attacks. Howard Barrett Sr. carried on a long-standing tribal tradition by fighting for 212

t he achie ve m e nt and m e an i n g o f t ru e r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

federal recognition even before termination, and afterward that battle was carried forth by, among others, Bill Brainard, Edgar Bowen, Russell Anderson, George Barton, Frank Barrett, and eventually Bill’s daughter Brenda. Ed’s children, Cougar, Beaver, and Angela, joined the fight as well. They all led the drive to reverse federal policy based on their desire to reverse the injustice that their families and ancestors had suffered at the hands of the United States government. This tribal confederacy’s success was based on hard work, perseverance, and good fortune. Federal policy shifts finally brought political sympathy to the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw cause, and tribal leaders succeeded in bringing public sympathy to bear as well. Brenda Brainard likes to point out that success would not have been possible without the efforts of many tribal members on many levels. “There were lots of people that did lots of things. And everyone’s work was essential and integral. Some of us had work that . . . required more education or expertise. But I don’t want this to ever be reflected in any way that I did more than anybody else. What I did was different. . . . I went to law school. I learned how to write the legislation.” Others also took visible leadership roles. But many people contributed in ways that were hardly noticed. “Even no matter how little [someone] did, it was important. We couldn’t have done it without whoever did what little bits they could.”15 When we consider the causes of both termination and restoration, we tend to ponder tribal economies and politics. The Klamath and Menominee suffered termination because they had enough wealth in their forests to convince federal officials they could make it on their own, and both tribes understood that the federal government badly mismanaged their resources, for example. The confederated Siletz and Grand Ronde tribes passed resolutions supporting the concept of termination, albeit the ac hie ve m e nt and m e aning of t ru e r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

213

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

in a significantly different way than it was enacted, and without a clear understanding by the majority of tribal members of its implications. But the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw had no such wealth and made no such request. As a result, their drive for restoration was only partially fueled by economic desire to correct the injustice of never being compensated for lost lands and resources. In addition, their leaders were driven by a responsibility to those who had gone before them. This was their homeland, and if the United States would recognize their right to maintain a separate existence there, then the suffering of those tribal members who had survived in a quasi-recognized status through the years since the tribal signing of the unratified 1855 treaty would not have been for naught. They simply had a stubborn will to succeed. As Bill Brainard stated, “They say this is the melting pot of the United States. Well, I have news for them. I haven’t melted and I’m not going away.”16 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw never wanted to melt into America and fought hard to maintain their distinctive way of living. It also seems likely that the success of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw restoration, in part, can be attributed to their long-standing efforts to seek recognition. After all, they were already just quasi recognized in 1954 when their termination occurred. They had been struggling to gain full federal recognition for a century already, and the leaders of the tribe had grown up hearing the stories of their families’ struggles. They took up the effort as part of their family and tribal heritage. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw experience with restoration is perhaps more similar to that of tribes who gained federal recognition without going through the termination process. In August 1984, the Poarch Creek tribe of Alabama gained federal recognition. Like many other eastern tribal groups, their tribal members had remained in their original homelands during the same time that other Creek bands were forced to 214

t he achie ve m e nt and m e an i n g o f t ru e r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

move to Indian territory, in their case in the 1830s. Congress never terminated recognition of this band of Creek, and yet it took them a century and a half to gain recognition.17 Interestingly, the Poarch Creek’s long-time tribal chairman, Eddie Tullis, served on LaDonna Harris’s board of directors with Edgar Bowen and Ada Deer. All three of their tribes gained significant recognition within a decade of each other—the Poarch Creek and the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw within weeks of each other. All three gained a fresh start toward selfdetermination by gaining recognition from the federal government. The Menominee came back from termination through a congressional act. The Poarch Creek, an unrecognized group, gained recognition through the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Federal Acknowledgement process. The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, a quasi-recognized group, may have been able to follow the Poarch Creek route to gaining recognition had they not been terminated by Congress, and thus been forced to go back to Congress to reverse the termination. As historians begin to study late-twentieth-century American Indian political history in earnest, we are discovering that in the termination era, federal policies shaped the histories of tribes in many ways that were similar to each other. The same is true of the self-determination era. We are also learning that each tribal story needs to be studied both alone and together with other tribal histories in order to understand the contours of federal Indian policy and its impact on tribal communities and individuals. When asked why the Oregon tribes seem to have fared so badly in relation to federal Indian policies, Coos Elder Chief Edgar Bowen half-jokingly replied, “Well, the further west you come, the harder it got, and we were standing out here in the surf. They really fixed us when they got here.”18 Every tribe can claim exceptionalism in its unique historical development, and the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw are no exception. the ac hie ve m e nt and m e aning of t ru e r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

215

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

In mythologic-historical terms, the Coos world began when humans were created in a world that already existed. Beings that they called “Worldmakers” or “Worldmaker-Tricksters,” as translated by Melville Jacobs, brought about the great transformations necessary to make a place for human beings in this world. It took five generations of these Worldmakers to bring about the change. They used their cunning to defeat powerful enemies in the process of making this transformation.19 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw lost their place in this world after 1855, when the Empire Treaty was not ratified. Five generations of leaders—from those who signed the treaty to Daloose Jackson, to those who established the tribal confederation to Howard Barrett Sr., and finally to those who succeeded in achieving restoration—worked diligently, using all their cunning and energy, to bring about the modern transformation that once again changed everything for the tribe. As Bowen said at the time of success, their work brought them back into the company of nations. Their success is a remarkable achievement. Today, Bowen is fond of saying, “The price of maintaining our sovereignty is eternal vigilance.”20 He and other tribal leaders have lived their lives with that precept at the forefront. The Haitian scholar Trouillot has observed that “[t]he ultimate mark of power may be its invisibility; the ultimate challenge, the exposition of its roots.”21 The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw dug through the many layers that made U.S. power invisible to tribal communities; once they exposed those roots, they were able to use moral argument and law to shift that power to their own benefit. From the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw perspective, they did come to an agreement with the United States in 1855, even if Congress never did ratify the treaty. Generation after generation fought to regain the recognition on the part of the federal government that had been taken away when the treaty 216

t he achie ve m e nt and m e an i n g o f t ru e r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

was not ratified, and they continued to fight for recompense. In 1984 the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw achieved a considerable victory in that battle. The year 1984 has a far different connotation for them than it does for most Americans. In a very real sense, the confederated tribes defeated an Orwellian “big brother” that year instead of succumbing to him, giving them great cause to celebrate.

the ac hie ve m e nt and m e aning of t ru e r e c o g n i t i o n

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

217

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved. Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

n ot e s

Abbreviations aio aiprc ccf ccs cpm ctsr dc gr-s naa-si

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

naes nara nmaia ohs osa pao pars rg si uoscua

Americans for Indian Opportunity American Indian Policy Review Commission Central Classified Files Congressional Serial Set College Park, Maryland Confederated Tribes of Siletz Records Washington dc Grand Ronde–Siletz National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution Native American Educational Services National Archives and Records Administration National Museum of the American Indian Archives Oregon Historical Society Oregon State Archives Portland Area Office Pacific Alaska Region (Seattle) Record Group Smithsonian Institution University of Oregon Special Collections and University Archives

Preface and Acknowledgments 1. Field notes, 23 August 2007, Hamilton, 1775, quoted in Bill of Rights display, National Archives Museum, Washington dc. 2. Harmon, Indians in the Making; Asher, Beyond the Reservation. 3. Herzberg analyzes the destructive effects of termination on the Menominee in “The Menominee Indians: Termination to Restoration.” See also Beck, The Struggle for Self-Determination, chapters 9–10. 4. Tolley, Quest for Tribal Acknowledgement; Cramer, Cash, Color, and Colonialism; M. Miller, Forgotten Tribes; B. Miller, Invisible Indigenes.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

5. Peroff, Menominee Drums; Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 187–203; Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, 254–68. Hood wrote about the Klamath case in 1972 in “Termination.” Zenk, in “Siuslawans and Coosans,” published in the Handbook of North American Indians, focuses in depth on Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw history and culture, but ignores termination altogether. 6. Trouillot, Silencing the Past, xix, 2. 7. Trouillot, Silencing the Past, xviii. 8. Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, delves deeply into the historical record, especially utilizing federal archival and newspaper sources. Youst, She’s Tricky Like Coyote, on the other hand, who focuses more heavily on the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, relies on John Harrington’s and Melville Jacobs’s field notes on those tribal groups. 9. Frachtenberg, Lower Umpqua Texts, 2. Photo of Frachtenberg and his wife can be seen in Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 179. 10. Arizona Trip Log, 15 February 1938, unnumbered volume, box 15, Philip Drucker Papers, 1933–ca. 1954; George P. Bissell, collector, Lower Umpqua Vocabulary, 1881; both in National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution (hereafter naa-si). 11. See, for instance, chapter 6, 174–98, in Sabean, Power in the Blood. For a discussion of this in relation to indigenous studies, see L. Smith, Decolonizing Methodologies, 1, 28–30; and Beck, The Struggle for Self-Determination, ix–xvi.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

1. Before the Treaty 1. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. Transcripts of all interviews in author’s possession. 2. For some examples see, on the Coos: Lottie Evanoff and Frank Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, vol. 1, reel 24 (hereafter 1:24), frames 555–629; Frachtenberg, “Coos,” Coos Texts, and “Traditions of the Coos Indians.” J. Buchanan, “Coos Myths, traditions, grammatical notes and miscellany,” naa-si. Harry Hull St. Clair II, Coos Linguistic Material, 1903, naa-si; Jacobs, Coos Narrative and Ethnologic Texts and Coos Myth Texts. Lower Umpqua: Frachtenberg, Lower Umpqua Texts. Siuslaw: Frachtenberg, “Siuslawan”; Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, “Siuslaw Myths,” naa-si. 3. George Gibbs, “Observations on the Coast Tribes of Oregon,” naa-si. 4. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 6. 220

n o t e s to pag e s x i v – 2

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

5. Goddard, map, “Native Languages”; “Information Given by Jim Buchanan,” 1, and field notes, 24, in Harry Hull St. Clair II, Coos linguistic material 1903, naa-si. Frachtenberg published an edited version of St. Clair’s notes in “Traditions of the Coos Indians,” but St. Clair’s notes from Buchanan are used in this chapter. Frachtenberg classified Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw into a distinct language family that he called Siuslawan. See his 1922 publications “Coos,” 305n1, and “Siuslawan,” 437, 441–42. Youst, She’s Tricky Like Coyote, 12; “Articles of Agreement,” s 34b-c14, Record Group (hereafter rg) 46, National Archives and Records Administration, Washington dc (hereafter nara-dc). On the tsunami, see Phillips, “Tsunamis”; Younker, “Weaving Strong Ropes”; Byram, “Tectonic History”; and Losey, “Native American Vulnerability,” all in a special issue of the Oregon Historical Quarterly. 6. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 1041. 7. Dorsey, “A Visit to the Siletz Agency” (4.0)(364); “Notes Relating to the Gentile System of the Siletz Tribes” (4.0)(362); “Siuslaw vocabulary, with Sketch map showing villages” (4.2.2)(394) all in James Owen Dorsey Papers, naa-si; Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 6; Frachtenberg, “Siuslawan,” 441. 8. Dorsey, “A Visit to the Siletz Agency,” (4.0)(364), James Owen Dorsey Papers, naa-si; Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 3. 9. Dorsey, “A Visit to the Siletz Agency” (4.0)(364); “Notes Relating to the Gentile System of the Siletz Tribes” (4.0)(362); “Siuslaw vocabulary, with Sketch map showing villages” (4.2.2)(394), all in James Owen Dorsey Papers, naa-si. Frachtenberg, “Siuslawan,” 441. 10. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 681–82. 11. John J. Milhau, General Remarks, attached to Milhau to Gibbs, 14 November 1856, in John J. Milhau, Letters to George Gibbs. Milhau text copied inaccurately by George Gibbs, “Notes from Lieuts. Geo. Crook, W. B. Hazen & Dr. J. J. Milhau,” in George Gibbs, “Observations on the Coast Tribes of Oregon.” Both in naa-si. 12. Frank Drew, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 752. 13. John J. Milhau, General Remarks, attached to Milhau to Gibbs, 14 November 1856, in John J. Milhau, Letters to George Gibbs. Milhau text copied inaccurately by George Gibbs, “Notes from Lieuts. Geo. Crook, W. B. Hazen & Dr. J. J. Milhau,” in George Gibbs, “Observations on the Coast Tribes of Oregon.” Both in naa-si. 14. Notebook 1, Coos, Notebook 4, Lower Umpqua, both in box 15, Philip Drucker Papers, naa-si. notes to page s 2– 5

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

221

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

15. Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, Ethnological notes, etc., naa-si. 16. Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 160. 17. “Ethnology of the Coos Indians 1909,” 10, in Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, “Ethnology of the Coos Indians, 1909,” naa-si. 18. Notebook 1, Coos, box 15, Philip Drucker Papers, naa-si. 19. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 231. 20. Testimony of George B. Wasson, Case File k-345, rg 123, naradc. 21. Notebook 1, Coos, Notebook 4, Lower Umpqua, both in box 15, Philip Drucker Papers, naa-si. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 482; 1:24, 484. On whale blubber, see Frank Drew, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 263. On eels, see The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 77–79. 22. Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 207, 266; August V. Kautz to George Gibbs, 19 June 1855, Population— Columbia Region Folder, Population, Compilation of Statistics On, James Mooney Papers, naa-si. 23. Notebook 1, Coos, Notebook 4, Lower Umpqua, both in box 15, Philip Drucker Papers, naa-si. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 34, 1106; 1:24, 312, 326, 505; 751. Andrew S. Charles testimony, 107, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 24. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 269. 25. James Buchanan testimony, 37, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc; Notebook 1, Coos, and Notebook 4, Lower Umpqua, both in box 15, Philip Drucker Papers, naa-si; Spencer Scott in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 426. 26. Notebook 1, Coos, Notebook 4, Lower Umpqua, both in box 15, Philip Drucker Papers; “Ethnology of the Coos Indians 1909,” 10–11, in Frachtenberg, “Ethnology of the Coos Indians, 1909.” All in naa-si. 27. “Information given by Jim Buchanan,” 1, in Harry Hull St. Clair II, Coos linguistic material 1903, naa-si. 28. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22–24; Notebooks 1 and 4, box 15, Philip Drucker Papers, naa-si. 29. “Information given by Jim Buchanan,” 1, in Harry Hull St. Clair II, Coos linguistic material 1903. See also Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, Ethnological notes, etc. Both in naa-si. 222

n o t e s to pag e s 5 – 8

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

30. Jacobs, Coos Narrative and Ethnologic Texts, 3, 89–90; Jacobs, Coos Myth Texts, 130; Youst, She’s Tricky Like Coyote, xi. 31. “Information given by Jim Buchanan,” 1, in Harry Hull St. Clair II, Coos linguistic material 1903; Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, Ethnological notes, etc. Both in naa-si. 32. Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, Ethnological notes, etc., naa-si; Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 683. 33. Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, “Ethnology of the Coos Indians, 1909;” Notebook 1, Coos, box 15, Philip Drucker Papers, both in naa-si; Frank Drew, Spencer Scott, and Lottie Evanoff to John Harrington, The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 584, 619; 1:24, 160. 34. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 102. 35. Dorsey, “A Visit to the Siletz Agency” (4.0) (364), James Owen Dorsey Papers; Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, Ethnological notes, etc., both in naa-si. 36. Lamb, A Voyage of Discovery, 1:17–27. 37. Elliot, introduction and notes, “Journal of Captain Charles Bishop,” 343–44. 38. Howay and Elliot, “Reprint,” 304. 39. Beckham, Requiem for a People, 23–24; Merk, History of the Westward Movement, 312. 40. Merk, History of the Westward Movement, 309–29. 41. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 695. 42. Appendix b, A. R. McLeod’s Journal South of the Columbia, Summer 1826, in Davies, Peter Skene, 165n1. 43. Appendix b, A. R. McLeod’s Journal South of the Columbia, Summer 1826, in Davies, Peter Skene, 167–186. 44. Appendix b, A. R. McLeod’s Journal South of the Columbia, Summer 1826, in Davies, Peter Skene, 167–215. 45. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 727. 46. Dale, The Ashley-Smith Explorations, 191–92, 279–82; “Harrison G. Rogers’s Second Journal,” in Dale, The Ashley-Smith Explorations, 272–75; Douthit, A Guide to Oregon South Coast History, 8. 47. See discussion in Douthit, A Guide to Oregon South Coast History, 184–89. 48. Henderson, LaTourette, and LaTourette, ed., “Correspondence,” 442n246; Scholfield, “The Klamath Exploring Expedition,” 355–56; Herman, “Early History,” 56; McArthur, “Oregon Geographic Names,” 192–93. notes to page s 9– 14

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

223

49. Younker, “Weaving Strong Ropes,” 196. 50. Merk, History of the Westward Movement, 309–29; “An Act to Establish the Territorial Government of Oregon.” See Douthit, Uncertain Encounters, for a good analysis of Indian-white relations in Oregon in the decades immediately before and after the division. 51. Frachtenberg, Lower Umpqua Texts, 101–2. Frachtenberg, in “Siuslawan,” referred to Smith as in her seventies, 437–38. 52. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 480. 53. Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 117–23; Tveskov, “The Coos and Coquille,” 403; “An Act to Establish the Territorial Government of Oregon,” 323; “An Act to Create the Office of SurveyorGeneral of the Public Lands in Oregon.” 54. Schoolcraft, Information Respecting the History, pt. 3, 571.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

2. The 1855 Treaty and the Beginning of Quasi Recognition 1. Beckham, Requiem for a People, 41–45. 2. Beckham, “History of Western Oregon Since 1846,” 182–83; Schwantes, The Pacific Northwest, 117. 3. As remembered by E. L. Applegate more than thirty years later. “Fourth of July Oration,” delivered by Applegate in Ashland, 1887, reported in Ashland Tidings, 15 July 1887, 1, transcribed by Ben Truwe, Medford, Oregon, November 2004, Takelma vertical file, Southern Oregon Historical Society. Applegate, a Republican, fondly recalled Lane, a Democrat, saying, “Our glorious flag represents no war of races—no extermination of any people! That declaration is against the doctrine of the American flag. We as American citizens cannot accept any such a principle. That is the doctrine of savages, not of civilization. Any man who accepts any such a motto as that does dishonor to the Christian mother that gave him suck! It is with great pain—it is with humiliation and shame that I behold any such inscription emblazoned upon our American flag!” 4. Palmer to Samuel Culver, 2 September 1854, Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs 1824–81, nara microcopy 234 (hereafter m234), roll 608, frame 680. For a biography of Palmer, see O’Donnell, An Arrow in the Earth. 5. See, for example, Bvt. Gen. Persifer F. Smith, Report on Affairs in Oregon and California, 7 October 1849, m234–610, frames 390–477. 6. Meany, History of the State of Washington, 148–58; Palmer to Manypenny, 23 June 1853, and Palmer to Manypenny, 8 October 1853 (Annual Report), m234–608, frames 123, 251. 224

n o t e s to pag e s 1 4 – 1 9

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

7. Martin to Palmer, 14 October 1853, m234–608, frame 272. 8. Palmer to Martin, 21 September 1853, m234–608, frame 243. 9. Martin to Palmer, 14 October 1853, m234–608, frames 271–72. 10. Martin to Palmer, 14 October 1853, m234–608, frames 272–73. 11. Palmer to Edwin P. Drew, 30 September 1854, m234–608, frames 711–13. 12. Palmer to Martin, 10 April 1854, m234–608, frame 614. 13. Palmer to Manypenny, 20 December 1853, m234–608, frames 512–13; Palmer to Edward R. Geary, 18 December 1853, box 1, folder 15, Edward R. Geary Papers, Oregon Historical Society (hereafter ohs). 14. Palmer to Drew, 30 September 1854, m234–608, frames 711–13. 15. See Palmer to Manypenny, 23 August 1853; Palmer to Manypenny, 8 October 1853 (Annual Report); Palmer to Manypenny, 27 February 1854, all in m234–608, frames 188, 251–53, 555–58. 16. Cushing to McClelland, 22 June 1855, m234–608, frame 835. 17. Manypenny to McClelland, 28 December 1854, m234–608, frames 802–3. 18. Youst, She’s Tricky Like Coyote, 12; Confidential Executive Document 9, 34th Cong., 3rd sess., “Articles of Agreement Entered Into on the Eleventh and Seventeenth Days of August,” s 34b-c14, rg 46, nara-dc. This Jackson was an earlier Chief Jackson, not Daloose. 19. According to Harrington, the Indians from the Florence area, many of whom would have been Siuslaw, referred to the Chinook Jargon as “the Hudson Bay instead of as Chinook.” The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:21, 955. 20. Frank Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 21. 21. Ward, White Moccasins, 51; Youst, She’s Tricky Like Coyote, 12. 22. Alcea Band of Tillamooks et al. v. The United States, 103 C. Cls. 511–12; “Articles of Agreement Entered Into on the Eleventh and Seventeenth Days of August,” s 34b-c14, rg 46, nara-dc. 23. “Treaty with the Rogue River, 1854”; “Treaty with the Chasta, Etc., 1854”; “Treaty with the Umpqua and Kalapuya, 1854”; “Treaty with the Kalapuya Etc., 1855”; “Treaty with the Molala, 1855,” in Kappler, ed., Indian Treaties, 654–60, 665–69, 740–42. 24. Prucha, American Indian Treaties, 246–55; “Treaty With the Indians Along the Oregon Coast,” 11, 17, 23, 30 August and 8 September notes to page s 19– 23

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

225

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

1855, in Deloria and DeMallie, Documents of American Indian Diplomacy, 2:1320–28. For discussion of the treaty see Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 155–62. 25. Testimony of James Buchanan, 14 October 1931, at a meeting of the Siuslaw Organization of Indians, box 122, folder 4, s 83a-f9 (70th–82nd), rg 46, nara-dc. 26. Articles 1–3, “Treaty With the Indians Along the Oregon Coast,” 11, 17, 23, 30 August and 8 September 1855, 1320–23. 27. Palmer to Manypenny, 11 March 1854; Palmer to Nathan Olney, 16 April 1855; Palmer to Manypenny, 10 July 1855; Palmer to Manypenny, 9 October 1855, all in m234–608, frames 568–69, 1052–56, 1143–47, 1235–45. 28. Schwantes, The Pacific Northwest, 78–104. 29. Palmer to Manypenny, 7 October 1855; “Indian Outbreak in Southern Oregon—Dwellings Burned and Families Murdered,” dateline Corvallis, Sunday, 14 October [1855], Statesman Extra, including petition of over 150 people to the governor; General Orders No. 10, Territory of Oregon, Head-quarters, Portland, the Governor, 20 October 1855; all in m234–608, frames 1190–91, 1201–2, and 1204. 30. Drew to Palmer, 30 October 1855, m234–608, frames 1253–54; A Pioneer Resident of the Bay, The Settlements and Early Settlers of Coos Bay, 4–5; Ward, White Moccasins, 32, 54; Dodge, Pioneer History, 7, 9; “Reminiscences of Capt. W. H. Harris,” in Dodge, Pioneer History, 131. 31. Drew to Palmer, 30 October 1855, m234–608, frames 1253–54. 32. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 938–41, 951. 33. “Col. Ball”; “Recollections of Early Days by Mrs. Esther M. Lockhart,” both in Dodge, Pioneer History, 336–37, 356. 34. A Pioneer Resident of the Bay, The Settlements and Early Settlers of Coos Bay, 3. 35. “Reminiscences of Capt. W. H. Harris,” in Dodge, Pioneer History, 130. 36. Beeson to Manypenny, 8 October 1856; letters to the editors of the True Californian and the New York Tribune, 30 September 1856, all in m234–609, frames 13–15, 17–19. 37. Dodge, Pioneer History, 132. 38. Palmer to Manypenny, 8 March 1856; Palmer to Manypenny, 8 August 1856, both in m234–609, frames 510, 903. 226

n o t e s to pag e s 2 3 – 2 8

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

39. Thomas A. Hendricks, Commissioner, General Land Office, to Charles E. Mix, Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 3 September 1855, m234–608, frame 848; Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 147–48; Schwartz, “Sick Hearts,” 230. Order of President Frank[l]in Pierce, 9 November 1855, in Kappler, ed., Indian Affairs, 1:891. 40. Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 145–58; Beckham, “History of Western Oregon Since 1846,” 182. 41. Coos (or Kowes) Bay . . . v. the United States, 151; Beckham, Indians of Western Oregon, 145–58; Drew to Palmer, 3 December 1855, m234–609, frames 413–14; Umpqua Sub Indian Agency Report on Indian Affairs, 10 November 1858, E. P. Drew, attached to Mott Report to Denver, 11 February 1859, m234–611, frame 1133. 42. Palmer to Manypenny, 11 April 1856; Palmer to Manypenny, 3 July 1856, both in m234–609, frames 651–52, 785–97. 43. Lottie Evanoff, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 596. 44. Umpqua Sub Indian Agency Report on Indian Affairs, 10 November 1858, E. P. Drew, attached to Mott Report to Denver, 11 February 1859, m234–611, frames 1133–41. 45. Beckham, “Lonely Outpost,” 233; Youst, She’s Tricky Like Coyote, 9–10. 46. Ward, White Moccasins, 54. 47. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 594. 48. Ward, White Moccasins, 54. 49. “Annual Estimate of Funds required for the service of the Indian Department in the Territory of Oregon, for the fiscal year commencing July 1st 1856, and ending 30th June 1857. By Joel Palmer, Superintendent,” m234–609, esp. 595–98; “Treaty With the Indians Along the Oregon Coast,” 11, 17, 23, 30 August and 8 September 1855. 50. Hedges to Manypenny, 8 December 1856, 6 February 1857, and 17 March 1857, in m234–610, frames 200–201, 295–96, and 310; “Estimate of funds for 1st quarter 1856,” Hedges, m234–610, frame 205. 51. The Coquille had been attached to the Port Orford district in September 1855: Annual report of E. P. Drew, Umpqua Sub-Agency, 1 July 1857, m234–610, frames 788–91 (reprinted with slight modifications in 1857 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs). 52. Manypenny to McClelland, 5 February 1857; McClelland to the President, 11 February 1857; Message of the President of the United States, transmitting the treaty, 11 February 1857. All in s 34b-c14, rg 46, nara-dc. notes to page s 28– 31

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

227

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

53. “Annual estimates required . . . for the Year commencing July 1st 1858, and not provided for by treaty Stipulations,” J. W. Nesmith, m234–610, frame 683; Annual report of E. P. Drew, Umpqua Sub-Agency, 1 July 1857, m234–610, frames 788–91. 54. Annual report of E. P. Drew, Umpqua Sub-Agency, 1 July 1857, m234–610, frames 788–91; Edw. P. Vollerm[?], M.D., Umpqua Sub-Agency to Hedges, 18 April 1857, and Vollerm[?], Health report for quarter ending 30 June 1857, both in m234–610, frames 546, 638–39. 55. “An Act making Appropriations for the Current and Contingent Expenses of the Indian Department,” 185; Nesmith to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Denver, 5 May 1857; Nesmith to Denver, 16 June 1857, both in m234–610, frames 524–25, 561. 56. Coos (or Kowes) Bay . . . v. the United States, 151; Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 145–58; A Pioneer Resident of the Bay, Settlements and Early Settlers of Coos Bay, 4–5. 57. Geary to Greenwood, 7 October 1859; Geary to Greenwood, 3 November 1859; Umpqua Sub Indian Agency Report on Indian Affairs, 10 November 1858, E. P. Drew, attached to Mott Report to Denver, 11 February 1859, m234–611, frames 1001, 1047, 1133–34. 58. Geary to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Greenwood, 20 July 1859, m234–611, frames 866–68. 59. Geary to Greenwood, 5 January 1861, 234–612, frame 814; J. W. Perit Huntington to Commissioner of Indian Affairs D. N. Cooley, 29 March 1866, m234–615, frames 148–50. 60. Sykes to Geary, 16 November 1860, m234–612, frames 818–820. 61. Sykes to Geary, 16 November 1860, m234–612, frames 818–820. 62. Lottie and Alec Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 979; Frances Elliot testimony, 99, 101, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 63. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 579. 64. Sykes to Geary, 16 November 1860, m234–612, frames 818–820; Geary to Greenwood, 5 January 1861, m234–612, frames 814–15. 65. Ward, White Moccasins, 57. 66. Sykes to Geary, 16 November 1860; Geary to Greenwood, 5 January 1861, m234–612, frames 818–20, 814–15. 67. Ward, White Moccasins, 57–58; Annie Peterson testimony, 63, and Laura Metcalf testimony, 77, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File K-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 228

n o t e s to pag e s 3 1 – 3 5

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

68. Ward, White Moccasins, 58. 69. Report of Samuel Case, Commissary in charge of Alsea Indian Sub-agency, 10 August 1872, No. 79 in 1872 Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 755–56, Congressional Serial Set (hereafter css) 1560. 70. Nesmith to Denver, 24 December 1857; Nesmith to Mix, 20 January 1858; Nesmith to Mix, 28 September 1858; Geary to Greenwood, 10 October 1859; m234–611, frames 243–46, 301–2, 473–74 and 1015–16. Ty-gon-ee-shee, Port Orford Chief speaking to C. H. Mott, 6 November 1858 reported in Mott to Denver, 11 February 1859, m234–611, frame 1108. Capt. F. F. Dent to William Rector, 30 September 1861, m234–612, frames 1122–23. Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, 167–68, 170–71. 71. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 735; 1:23, 35, 186, 195. 72. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 741. 73. Author’s interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. Beckham confirms the extent of the tribal losses. “The government records showed that nearly fifty percent of the Coos and Lower Umpqua had died at Yachats between 1859 and 1875,” he wrote in The Indians of Western Oregon, 162. 74. [W. H.] Barnhardt, collector, Census of Oregon Indians 1857, naa-si; Huntington to Dole, 19 August 1864, m234–614, frame 373; 1875 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 677–80. Schoolcraft, Information Respecting the History, pt. 3, 571. Schoolcraft also recorded 500 “Killawatts” and, below Ulseahs, 900 “Sheastuckles.” In 1867 the number for all three tribes was counted at 440: Report on Alsea, John W. Wells to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Louis Bogy, 12 January 1867, m234–615, frames 511–12. 75. Annual estimate for fy 1 July 1862 to 30 June 1863, m234–612, frame 1126. 76. Compare, for example, estimate of funds needed for first half of 1864; estimate of funds needed for 1st and 2nd quarter 1865; estimate of funds necessary for 3rd and 4th quarter 1865; in m234–614, frames, 141, 751, 876; estimate of funds needed for 1st and second quarter 1866; estimate of funds needed for the 3rd and 4th quarter 1866; in m234–615, frames 79, 164. 77. Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 316; Younker, “Weaving Strong Ropes,” 196. notes to page s 35– 37

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

229

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

78. Report of Amos Harvey, 12 August 1863, 1863 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 79. The best work on Indians in the Civil War remains Nichols, Lincoln and the Indians. 80. Report of Amos Harvey, 12 August 1863, 1863 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 81. Spencer Scott and Frank Drew, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 741. 82. Wasson, “Growing Up Indian,” 217–20; Younker, “The Southwest Oregon Research Project,” 2–3. 83. Mrs. Wm. Waters testimony, 130, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 84. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 167. 85. Melody Caldera, “Conflict and Reservations,” in Caldera, ed., South Slough Adventures, 68–70; Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 1052; Lollie and Daisy Wasson in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 1060–61. 86. Alec and Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 929–30, 1040, 1052; 1:24, 316, 410; Testimony of George B. Wasson, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 87. Testimony of George B. Wasson, Case File k-345, rg 123, naradc. 88. A. D. Barnard to J. P. Usher, Secretary of the Interior, 22 December 1864, m234–614, frame 684. 89. See map, “Coast Reservation 1855–1875,” in Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, 162. For brief history of the historic development of the coast reservation see J. H. Fairchild to Ben Simpson, 11 November 1875, m234–621, esp. frames 1228–1231. Statement of Secretary of the Interior Jas. Harlan, 20 December 1865, and Order of President Andrew Johnson, 21 December 1865, both in Kappler, ed., Indian Affairs, 1:891. Joseph S. Wilson, Acting Commissioner, General Land Office, to Secretary of the Interior J. P. Usher, 8 August 1864, Correspondence, ohs. 90. Huntington to Usher, 12 December 1864, m234–614, frames 763–70. 91. Huntington to Cooley, 16 January 1866, telegram; Huntington to Commissioner of Indian Affairs N. G. Taylor, 9 September 1867, telegram; Huntington to Taylor 18 September 1867; R. A. Bensell to Ben Simpson, 26 August 1867, all in m234–615, frames 73, 436–44. 230

n o t e s to pag e s 3 7 – 4 0

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Annie Miner Peterson in Jacobs, Coos Narrative and Ethnologic Texts, 108. This led to persistent conflict between white citizens and Indians, and in 1874 James Brown was appointed as “Special Agent to exercise an espionage and control of Indians who leave their reservations.” See Secretary of the Interior Columbus Delano to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 11 December 1874, for appointment, m234–619, frame 790, and correspondence regarding the work in m234–620, esp. in the 900s frames. 92. Report on Alsea, John W. Wells, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Louis Bogy, 12 January 1867, m234–615, frames 511–12. 93. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

3. Removals and Resistance 1. Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 2. Ben Simpson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 6 January 1876, m234–623, frames 115–16; Report on Alsea, John W. Wells to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Louis Bogy, 12 January 1867, m234–615, frames 511–12; T. B. Odeneal to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Edward Smith, 30 May 1873, m234–618, frame 590; The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 236. 3. Peterson in Jacobs, Coos Narrative and Ethnologic Texts, 106; Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 248, 258. J. W. Perit Huntington to Commissioner of Indian Affairs N. G. Taylor, 9 September 1867, telegram; Huntington to Taylor, 18 September 1867; R. A. Bensell to Ben Simpson, 26 August 1867, all in m234–615, 433–442. 4. Report on Alsea, Wells to Bogy, 12 January 1867, m234–615, frame 515. Emphasis in original. 5. Huntington to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Nathaniel Taylor, 16 June 1867, m234–615, frames 426–27. Emphasis in original. 6. The numbers grew from 52,465 in 1860 to 413,536 in 1900. Oregon Blue Book, 1947–48, 184. 7. Schwartz, “Sick Hearts,” 232–33; author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; Beckham Indians of Western Oregon, 162. 8. Daniels to Secretary of the Interior, 14 October 1869, m234–615, frame 874. 9. F. A. Battey to William Laughridge, 30 March 1870, m234–616, frames 269–70. For budget information see budget estimates for the Oregon superintendency from 1863 to 1873 in m234–613, frames 494, notes to page s 40– 43

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

231

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

513, 629, 928, and 989; m234–614, frames 132–33, 141, 388, 447–51, 751, 771, 876, and 934; m234–615, frames 79, 164, 662, 668, 961, and 977; m234–616, frames 498, 775, 823; m234–617, frame 552; and m234–618, frame 603. 10. Meacham to Parker, 21 September 1870, m234–616, frames 454–55. 11. Meacham to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 27 October 1871, m234–616, frames 932–33. 12. Meacham to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 27 October 1871, m234–616, frames 932, 951–52. 13. “Proceedings of a Convention of Agents and Delegates from the various Reservations of the Oregon Indian Superintendency, held at Salem, Oregon, Oct. 10th 11th 12th 13th 14th and 16th + 17th 1871, pursuant to an order of Hon. A. B. Meacham, Superintendent of Indian Affairs for Oregon,” m234–617, 382–83; Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 881. 14. “Proceedings of a Convention of Agents and Delegates from the various Reservations,” m234–617, 382–83. 15. “Proceedings of a Convention of Agents and Delegates from the various Reservations,” m234–617, 348–424. 16. Odeneal to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Francis Walker, 19 June 1872; Odeneal to Walker, 19 September 1872, m234–617, frames 527–29, 587–88. 17. Odeneal to Commissioner of Indian Affairs E. P. Smith, 27 July 1873, telegram, m234–618, frame 650. Fairchild to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Edward Smith, 4 December 1873, m234–617, frames 1066–67. 18. Case to Litchfield, 17 September 1873, m234–618, frames 181–82; Case to Senator Mitchell, 9 January 1874, m234–619, frames 1064–66. 19. Litchfield to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 22 September 1873, m234–618, frames 184–85. Much of the 1872 and 1873 correspondence in m234–617 and m234–618 relates to the war with the Modoc. 20. Odeneal to Smith, 30 May 1873, m234–618, frames 589–94. 21. Odeneal to Smith, 30 May 1873, m234–618, frames 589–94. 22. Minutes of council held at Siletz Agency, 15 December 1873, attached to Kemble to Commissioner of Indian Affairs E. P. Smith, in “Letter from the Acting Secretary of the Interior”; Fairchild to Smith, 28 January 1874, m234–619, frames 466–69. 232

n o t e s to pag e s 4 3 – 4 7

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

23. Fairchild to Smith, 28 January 1874, m234–619, frames 466–69. 24. Mitchell to Delano, 2 January 1874; Delano to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 6 January 1874, both in m234–619, frames 722–27 and 720–21. 25. “Indian Reservation,” Portland Bulletin, n.d., attached to letter of 10 February 1874, m234–619, frame 902. 26. Litchfield to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Edward Smith, 10 February 1874, m234–619, frames 903–4. For his self-description, see Litchfield to Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Smith, 12 September 1876, m234–622, frames 923–24. 27. Simpson to Mitchell, 29 June 1874; Mitchell to Delano, 9 July 1874, both in m234–619, frames 1188–90 and 1186–87; Schwantes, The Pacific Northwest, 175–81; Douthit, A Guide to Oregon South Coast History, 129. 28. Vandever to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 22 August 1874; Vandever to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 9 November 1874, both in m234–620, frames 710–11 and 736–37. 29. See Fairchild to Smith, 11 July 1874; Fairchild to Smith, 8 October 1874; Fairchild to Smith, 4 December 1874, all in m234–619, frames 547–48, 606–10, and 625–31; and Fairchild to Mitchell, 6 October 1874 in m234–620, frames 39–41. 30. Fairchild to Smith, 11 July 1874, m234–619, frames 547–48; Fairchild to Smith, 16 July 1874, enclosing petition signed by twenty-six Coos County citizens asking for removal of Indians in Coos and Curry Counties, m234–619, frames 552–53. 31. Fairchild to Smith, 4 December 1874, m234–619, frames 625–31. 32. Fairchild to Smith, 4 December 1874, m234–619, frames 625–31. 33. 1875 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 677–80. 34. Coos (or Kowes) Bay . . . v. the United States, 152; “Removal of Alsea Indians,” Corvallis Gazette, 6 March 1875. The removal is discussed in both Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, 194–200 and Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 162–64. 35. Fairchild to Smith, 17 May 1875, m234–621, frames 227–29. 36. “Alsea Indian Reservation,” Corvallis Gazette, 4 June 1875. 37. Two versions of the proceedings of the council held 17 June 1875 notes to page s 48– 52

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

233

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

by Fairchild and Litchfield with the tribes of Alsea, Coos, Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians residing on Alsea Indian Reservation are located in m234–621, one forwarded to the Office of Indian Affairs by Fairchild (frames 291–310), and the other by Litchfield (frames 643–662). The wording differs slightly in the two. I have tried to use the more specific transcriptions, which vary. When they are similar I generally follow the Fairchild transcription. Hereafter notes will cite either the Fairchild or the Litchfield version, as appropriate. The Fairchild version, transcribed and typed, is also available attached to “Memorandum for Hon. Harris Ellsworth in re Claim of Coos Bay, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indian Tribes,” unprinted hearings, Eugene, Oregon, 24 September 1953, hr 83a–f9.1, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, rg 233, nara-dc. Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, discusses the events relating to the removal within the larger context of Coast Reservation changes and the politics of dispossession of tribal lands, 191–201. 38. Fairchild version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 39. Litchfield version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 40. Fairchild version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 41. Litchfield version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 42. Fairchild version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 43. Fairchild version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 44. Litchfield version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 45. Fairchild version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 46. Fairchild version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 47. Litchfield version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 48. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 769. 49. Litchfield version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234– 621; field notes in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 692, 1022. 234

n o t e s to pag e s 5 2 – 5 5

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

50. Litchfield version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 51. Fairchild version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 52. Fairchild version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. On Rodgers as interpreter, see Litchfield’s list of Alsea Agency vouchers for debts from between 7 June 1873 and 1 July 1874, m234–624, frame 53. 53. Fairchild version, 17 June 1875, Council Proceedings, m234–621. 54. Fairchild to Smith, 21 June 1875, m234–621, frames 286–89. 55. “Siletz Agency,” Corvallis Gazette, 2 July 1875. 56. “Fourth at Siletz,” letter to editor from Mortimer, Corvallis Gazette, 16 July 1875. 57. Delano to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 19 July 1875; Fairchild to Smith, 2 September 1875, m234–621, frames 555–56, 366–69; J. N. Hedden testimony, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. See also Brown’s monthly report to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 31 August 1875, m234–620, frame 1116. 58. John Mac., letter to editor, Corvallis Gazette, 27 August 1875. The key documents describing this council meeting are Fairchild to Smith, 2 September 1875; Litchfield to Smith, 27 August 1875; Simpson to Mitchell, 26 August, 1875; Simpson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 27 August 1875, all in m234–621, frames 366–69, 672–75, 746–49, and 1162–67; and Chapman to Fairchild, 8 September 1875, m234–620, frames 1209–15. Regarding preparations see Simpson to Fairchild, 16 August 1875, box 1, folder 1, Confederated Tribes of Siletz Records (hereafter ctsr), ohs. 59. Fairchild to Smith, 2 September 1875, m234–621, frames 367–68. 60. Frachtenberg, Lower Umpqua Texts, 83; Simpson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 27 August 1875; Chapman to Fairchild, 8 September 1875, both in m234–620, frames 1163–66, 1213–14; Simpson to Fairchild, 26 August 1875, Box 1, Folder 1 ctsr, ohs; Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 207. 61. Simpson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 27 August 1875; Chapman to Fairchild, 8 September 1875, both in m234–620, frames 1163–66, 1213–14. 62. Chapman to Fairchild, 8 September 1875, m234–620, frame 1215. notes to page s 55– 58

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

235

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

63. Chapman to Fairchild, 8 September 1875, m234–620, frame 1215; Fairchild to Smith, 2 September 1875; Simpson to Mitchell, 26 August 1875; Simpson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 27 August 1875, m234–621, frames 368–69, 747, 1166. 64. Simpson to Mitchell, 26 August 1875; Mitchell to Smith, 9 September 1875, both in m234–621, frames 747–49, 751. 65. Litchfield to Smith, 27 August 1875, m234–621, frames 672–75. 66. Simpson to editor, Corvallis Gazette, 3 September 1875. 67. Honorable Henry Warren, Drift Creek, Alsea Bay, to editor, Corvallis Gazette, 10 September 1875. 68. Simpson to Fairchild, 11 September 1875, box 9, folder 9, ctsr, ohs. 69. R. A. Bensall, Newport, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Smith, 23 October 1875, m234–620, frames 1126–27. 70. Frank Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 424–25. 71. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 442, 501–2, 556–57. 72. Author interview with Frank Barrett, 27 March 2007. 73. William Bagley to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Smith, 24 December 1875, m234–622, frames 70–72; Bagley to Smith, 28 June 1877; Bagley estimate of funds required, 1877; Simpson to Mitchell, 8 September 1877, m234–624, frames 534, 589, 973–76; Charles Ewing, Commissioner, Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions to Smith, 12 January 1877, m234–623, frames 777–785. 74. “The Alsea Lands Released from Indian Reservation,” Oregonian, 30 September 1875. 75. Brown to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Monthly Report, 31 October 1875, m234–620, frames 1129–30. 76. Litchfield to Smith, 30 October 1875, m234–621, frames 682–85. 77. Fairchild to Simpson, 11 November 1875, m234–621, frames 1228–35. 78. Litchfield to Smith, 12 September 1876, m234–622, frames 922–23. 79. Smith to Litchfield, 16 November 1875; Smith to Lieut. W. H. Boyle, 17 November 1875; Boyle to Fairchild, 19 November 1875, all in box 1, folder 3, ctsr, ohs. 236

n o t e s to pag e s 5 8 – 6 3

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

80. Smith to Bagley, 19 November 1875, box 1, folder 3, ctsr, ohs. 81. Simpson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 6 January 1876, m234–623, frames 115–16. 82. Chandler to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 3 March 1876, m234–622, frames 813–14. 83. Bagley to Smith, 31 March 1876; Bagley to Smith, 8 April 1876; Bagley to Smith, 26 April 1876; Bagley to Smith, 30 May 1876; Bagley to Smith, 1 June 1876 (May report); Bagley to Smith, 10 July 1876 (June report); Bagley to Smith, 29 August 1876; m234–622, frames 246, 251–55, 261, 289, 345–51, 387–92, 432–33. Smith to Bagley, 22 November 1875; Litchfield to Bagley, 12 February 1876, both in box 1, folder 4; Smith to Bagley, 15 March 1876, box 1 folder 5; Smith to Bagley, 28 April 1876, box 1, folder 6; Acting Commissioner S. A. Galpin to Bagley, 4 August 1876; Galpin to Bagley, 21 August 1876, both in box 1, folder 7; Office of Indian Affairs to Bagley, 15 September 1876, box 1, folder 8, all in ctsr, ohs. 84. Sinnott to Smith, 6 November 1876, m234–623, frames 374–78; Bagley to Smith, 30 October 1876; Senator Mitchell to Smith, 30 October 1876, both in m234–622, frames 507–18, 1048–50. 85. Bagley to Smith, 15 September 1876, m234–622, frames 446–48; Linton Starr to Bagley, 20 April 1877, box 1, folder 10, ctsr, ohs. 86. Bagley to Smith, 1 January 1877; Bagley to Smith, 12 February 1877, m234–623, frames 583, 612. 87. Bagley to Smith, 4 August 1877, m234–624, frames 581–87. G. W. Collins to Bagley, 7 August 1877; G. B. Hunsaker to Bagley, 6 August 1877; Smith to Bagley, 10 July 1877, all in box 1, folder 12, ctsr, ohs. 88. “‘Census Roll’ of Indians belonging to the Siletz Agency, 1877,” 20 August, m234–624, frames 595–609; census of 13 March 1878, m234–625, frames 183–92. See also census records in Indian Census Rolls, nara Microcopy 595 (hereafter m595), reel 505, Siletz, 1885–1908. 89. Frank H. Drew testimony and Andrew S. Charles testimony, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc; “Coos Grammatical Notes,” folder 4, J. Buchanan, Coos Myths, traditions, grammatical notes and miscellany, naa-si. On the nickname and some genealogy see The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 303, 374. 90. Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, “Ethnology of the Coos Indians”; notes to page s 63– 66

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

237

rough draft in three-page typed manuscript based on 1909 field notes, in Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, Coos Notes, both in naa-si. This document is quoted in “Pending Bill Seeks Justice for Indians, Passage Means Much to Oregon Tribes, Right to Sue at Issue, End of Fight for Recognition of 75 Year-Old Treaty Looms With $1,250,000 as Objective,” Oregonian, 18 February 1929. 91. Frank Drew, Spencer Scott, Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 36–60.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

4. Old Homelands, New Lives 1. Robbins, Hard Times in Paradise, 26–28; Schwantes, The Pacific Northwest, 162–83. 2. Harney to editor, under title “Starving Indians,” Corvallis Gazette, 7 September 1877. Letter dated 29 August. 3. Simpson to Mitchell, 8 September 1877, m234–624, frames 973–76. 4. Simpson to Bagley, 9 September 1881, box 9, folder 9 ctsr, ohs. 5. “Oregon,” Oregonian, 8 September 1877; “Our Coast Indians,” Oregonian, 10 September 1877; “Yaquina Indians,” Oregonian, 15 October 1877; Bagley to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Ezra Hayt, 2 November 1877; Bagley to Hayt, 9 November 1877; Bagley to Hayt, 16 November 1877, all correspondence in m234–624, frames 701–5, 719–20, and 756–58. 6. Mosher to Mitchell, 21 August 1877; Bagley to Smith, 27 August 1877, m234–624, frames 620–24; Frachtenberg, Lower Umpqua Texts, 83; author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 7. Mosher to Mitchell, 21 August 1877; Bagley to Smith, 27 August 1877, m234–624, frames 620–24. 8. Smith to Bagley, 17 September 1877, box 1, folder 13, ctsr, ohs. 9. See, for example, C. W. Holcomb, Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Bagley, 11 February 1878, box 1, folder 14, ctsr, ohs. 10. Bagley to Hayt, 8 November 1878, m234–625, frames 428–30. The phrase in the quote beginning after the comma was underlined by an official at the Indian office in Washington dc. Official documentation of other issues related to off-reservation Indians can be found in box 1, ctsr, ohs. 11. Report of E. A. Swan and statistical table, both in 1881 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs 205, 342. css 2018. 238

n o t e s to pag e s 6 7 – 7 2

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

12. Swan to Trowbridge, 23 August 1880, m234–630, frames 556–58; Swan to Trowbridge, 17 January 1881, Letters Received (hereafter lr) 1881:1970; Swan to Trowbridge, 24 May 1881, lr 1881:9838, both in rg 75, nara-dc. 13. Monthly report for May 1881, lr 1881:10577; Monthly Report for June 1881, lr 1881:12821; Swan to R. E. Trowbridge, 14 March 1881, lr 1881:5557; Swan to Trowbridge, 24 May 1881, lr 1881:9838, all in rg 75, nara-dc. 14. Swan to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Hiram Price, 27 June 1881, lr 1881:11866, rg 75, nara-dc. 15. James Buchanan testimony, 24, and Annie Peterson Testimony, 61, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 16. Swan to Price, 20 April 1882, lr 1882:8618; Dr. F. O. Von der Green to Secretary, 23 February 1882, lr 1882:5625, both in rg 75, nara-dc. The latter contains a clipping of undated article, “A Shocking Spectacle,” from the Port Orford Post. 17. Report of F. M. Wadsworth, 1882 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 187–90, css 2191. The number 360 is consistent with Swan’s report, which would mean that approximately half of those Indians counted living off-reservation (178) were Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw; the others must have been enumerated in small numbers living in various places. A 14 January 1871 census of the Jacksonville area, which was the old homeland of the Rogue River Indians, counted approximately 50 Indians there among the 4,759 people, 700 of whom were designated as “colored” (16 blacks and 634 Chinese were also counted), for example. See Jackson County Statistics, Takelma Vertical File, Southern Oregon Historical Society. The Indians were still there at the end of the decade: Bagley wrote in a special report to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Hayt, on 11 February 1879, that tribal bands were congregating in Jacksonville, m234–627, frames 57–61. Schwartz, citing Wadsworth, implies that all of the 360 were Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw, The Rogue River Indian War, 212. 18. For documentation of conditions at Siletz, the return of Alsea to the Alsea River, and the attempted re-removal, see Report of E. A. Swan, 1881 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 204–7, and Report of F. M. Wadsworth, 1882 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 187–90. 19. Commissioner of Indian Affairs Hiram Price to F. M. Wadsworth, notes to page s 72– 76

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

239

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

7 January 1884, box 3, folder 8; Price to Wadsworth, 28 January 1884, box 3, folder 9; Price to Wadsworth, 13 March 1884, box 3, folder 11; Price to Wadsworth, 12 April 1884, box 3, folder 13; Price to Wadsworth, 8 October 1884, box 3, folder 19; Price to Wadsworth, 24 November 1884 and 1 December 1884, box 4, folder 1, all in ctsr, ohs. Wadsworth to Price, 8 January 1884, lr 1884:1606; Wadsworth to Price, 23 September 1884, lr 1884:18959; Wadsworth to Price, 10 November 1884, lr 1884:22292, all in rg 75, nara-dc. 20. However, the reports on for whom the reservations were established continued to include the Siuslaw. See Siletz Population Reports in the following Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs: 1885, p. 348; 1886, 404; 1887, 360; 1888, 422; 1889, 508–9; 1890, 460; 1891 in Annual Report of Secretary of the Interior, css 2934, 768; 1892, 794; 1894, 495; 1899, 574. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 21. Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs A. B. Upshaw to Wadsworth, 16 March 1887, box 4, folder 9, ctsr, ohs. 22. Upshaw to Joseph B. Lane, 28 June 1888, box 4, folder 14, ctsr, ohs. 23. Melody Caldera, “Conflict and Reservations,” in Caldera, ed., South Slough Adventures, 70; Ward, White Moccasins, 74. George Bundy Wasson, Fred’s brother, attended both Chemawa and Carlisle: “Death Takes Geo. Wasson,” Coos Bay Harbor, 7 August 1947. 24. Melody Caldera, “Conflict and Reservations,” in Caldera, ed., South Slough Adventures, 70; author interview with Muriel Brainard, 20 June 2006; 1915, 1916, 1917 censuses of Roseburg District, Indian Census Rolls, m595, reel 446, Roseburg, 1915–17. 25. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 26. Andrew S. Charles testimony, 105–6, 115, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 27. Daisy Codding testimony, 85, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 28. Annual Public School Statistics, 1900, lr 1900:36056; Application for Public School Contracts, 6 July 1900, ps District 60, lr 1900:36057; O. C. Applegate, Indian Agent, Klamath Agency, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 4 July 1900, lr 1900:39455; Applegate to Commissioner of Indian Affairs W. A. Jones, 25 August 1900, lr 1900:43166; Application for Public School Contracts, lr 1901:41201; Annual Public School Statistics, 30 June 1901, lr 1901:41202, all in rg 75, nara-dc. Lottie 240

n o t e s to pag e s 7 6 – 7 9

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

and Alec Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 1117. For Wasson genealogy see Wasson, “Growing Up Indian,” 186–88. 29. “Agreement with the Indians of the Siletz Reservation in Oregon,” 323–26. Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 168–69, 173 discusses allotment, as does Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, 214–38. Allotments were discussed by agents at Siletz in the following Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs: 1888, p. 211; 1889, 275; 1890, 207; 1891, 376; 1892, 416; 1893, 271; 1894, 267. 30. “An Act to Provide for the Allotment of Lands,” 389. 31. Drew to Piggot, 12 January 1893; Morris to Piggot, 24 January 1893; Piggott to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 30 January 1893, all in lr 1893:4379; document jacket, Land Office rescinds cancellation of Drew’s allotment, lr 1902:6960; Hermann to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 13 March 1902, lr 1902:15490. All in rg 75, nara-dc. 32. Barrett to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 19 March 1920; Chief Clerk C. F. Hauke to Barrett, 12 April 1920; Special Allotting Agent William E. Casson, Report on Allotment in the Roseburg, Oregon, District, 11 November 1904, all in Central Classified Files (hereafter ccf) 1907–1939 Roseburg 313, rg 75, nara-dc. On Barrett genealogy, see The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 881–84. 33. George H. Barrett testimony, 67, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File K-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 34. Receiver, United States Land Office, Department of the Interior, Roseburg, Oregon, 7 July 1903, lr 1903:45827, rg 75, nara-dc; “Census Report, 1920, Non-Reservation Indians,” box 20, folder 4, Public Domain Census, 1916–1921, ctsr, ohs; author interview with Frank Barrett. 35. Document jacket, lr 1902:6960; Hermann to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 13 March 1902, lr 1902:15490; Commissioner to Secretary of the Interior, 8 February 1902, Letters Sent 1870–1908; Casson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, July 1899, 1899:34005, Special Case 181 (hereafter sc 181); all in rg 75, nara-dc. 36. Frank H. Drew testimony, 45, 50, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc; The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 365–66, 368. Note: There are two frames numbered 365. 37. “Allotment Off Reservation, Ca. 1892–1914,” box 5, folder 12, ctsr, ohs; Melody Caldera, “Indian Allotments,” 101–4, in Caldera, ed., South Slough Adventures; Roseburg District censuses in Indian Census notes to page s 80– 82

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

241

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Rolls, reel 446; patent receipts, attached to Casson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, July 1899, 1899:34005, sc 181, rg 75, nara-dc. 38. Ward, White Moccasins, 71. 39. Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 168–69, 173. 40. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 1050. 41. See discussion by Mr. Holst of Washington dc at 1 March 1941 General Council meeting of the Siletz Tribe, microfilm 3, ctsr, ohs. 42. “Her Father Was Chief Jackson III, Lottie Evanoff Only Pure Blood Indian of the Coos Tribe in This County; Born Near Yaquina,” Coos Bay Harbor, 12 May 1938; “Chief Jackson Dead,” Coos Bay Harbor, 5 January 1907. 43. Holden to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 7 September 1899; duplicate Homestead application no. 129, 10 October 1892, for Jennie Charley-Accumnia, both in 1899:43880. Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Holden, 13 October 1899; affidavits from Alex Jefferson of Land County, Lottie Jackson of Florence, and James Buchanan of Florence, all 28 October 1899, all in 1899:53328. Casson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 4 August 1900, 1900:39014. Signed receipt of Lottie Jackson for no. 129, dated 7 September 1899; Receiver, U.S. Land Office, Department of the Interior, to Commissioner of General Land Office, 12 December 1900, both in 1900:62504. All documents in sc 181, rg 75, nara-dc. 44. Assistant Commissioner E. B. Merritt to Horace G. Wilson, Supervisor in Charge, Roseburg School, 4 February 1914, ccf 1907–1939 Roseburg 053, rg 75, nara-dc. 45. Letters from Casson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 25 February 1899, 1899:9915; 30 March 1899, 1899:15464; 1 April 1899, 1899:16358; 20 April 1899, 1899:19677; 2 May 1899, 1899:21606; 10 May 1899, 1899:23301; 15 May 1899, 1899:24038; July 1899, 1899:34005, all in sc 181, rg 75, nara-dc. 46. Leo Joachim Frachtenberg, Ethnological notes, etc., naa-si. 47. Alec Evanoff and Frank Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 975. 48. Joe Morris Jr. to Michael Piggot, 14 January 189[3], lr 1893:4379, rg 75, nara-dc. 49. Field notes in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 937. Jackson and his wife, Hoi, or Fanny, were the only two Indians enumerated in a 1900 census of the North Marshfield district of Coos Bay: Pompey, “The 1900 Census,” Library of Congress. 242

n o t e s to pag e s 8 2 – 8 5

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

50. “Chief Jackson Dead,” Coos Bay Harbor, 5 January 1907; “Old Indian Passes Away: Chief Jackson an Old Coos Bay Native Dies at North Bend,” Coos Bay Times, 5 January 1907; “Her Father Was Chief Jackson III, Lottie Evanoff Only Pure Blood Indian of the Coos Tribe in This County; Born Near Yaquina,” Coos Bay Harbor, 12 May 1938; J. W. Flanagan, “Chief Jackson and Wife, of Coos Tribe,” Coos Bay Harbor, 25 May 1939. 51. See Report of Duncan D. McArthur, 1902 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 318–21, and Oregon statistics accompanying 1902 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 642, for example, which make no mention at all of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. 52. “Local Matters,” Coos Bay News, 23 October 1895. 53. The previous five paragraphs were drawn from a variety of sources: Youst, She’s Tricky Like Coyote, 141–44; untitled items regarding Wasson family, 23 May, p. 2, and 12 June 1917, p. 3, Coos Bay News; author interview with Frank Barrett; “Six Year Old Boy is Drowned, Alfred Aasen Falls Into Water While Playing, Boy Made His Home with Mr. and Mrs. Alex Evenoff [sic] on Catching Inlet,” Coos Bay Times, 30 April 1923; “Local Matters,” in several issues of Coos Bay News: 23 October 1893, 28 March 1916, 13 June 1916, 4 July 1916, 25 July 1916, 26 June 1917, 31 July 1917, and 7 August 1917; untitled items, 5 June 1917, and 19 June 1917, Coos Bay News; “Kentuck Indian Family Loyal to the Red Cross,” Coos Bay Harbor, 27 September 1918; “Thomas Wasson Died Wednesday, Pioneer Resident of Empire and Vicinity Dies Following a Long Illness,” Coos Bay Harbor, 3 June 1932; photo and caption of cranberry pickers, Peterson and Powers, A Century of Coos and Curry, 440ff.; “South Slough Men Taken by Sheriff,” Coos Bay Harbor, 5 October 1923. George Wasson testimony from 1931 hearings as recorded in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 919. Frank Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 920. Lolly and Daisy Wasson, Alec and Lottie Evanoff, The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 1060–61, 1090, and Lottie 1:24, 684; Daisy Codding testimony, 87, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345; Testimony of George B. Wasson, both in rg 123, nara-dc. 54. “Story of Coos Indians and Wasson Family To Be Told,” The World, 13 January 1967. 55. Frank Drew, in John Peabody Harrington field notes, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 883; author interview with Frank Barrett. notes to page s 85– 88

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

243

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

56. Frank Drew, in John Peabody Harrington field notes, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 883. 57. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:21, 905–11; 1:22, 779. 58. Field notes, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 31; 1:23, 230. 59. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 766. 60. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 349–52; 1:24, 899, 922. 61. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:21, 765, 919. 62. Frank Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 763, 769. 63. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 963–64. Alec Evanoff confirmed this: 1:22, 966. 64. Field notes in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 70. 65. Field notes, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 948; 1:23, 398–400, 436; 1:24, 910–11. 66. Field notes, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 534; 1:23, 515. 67. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:21, 861, 893, 907; 1:22, 80–81, 950, 956, 970, 995; 1:24, 269–70. 68. Field notes, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington 1:24, 893. 69. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 482. 70. Field notes in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 948; 1:23, 398–400, 436; 1:24, 910–11; Andrew S. Charles testimony, 110, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 71. Field notes in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 948; 1:23, 398–400, 436; 1:24, 910–11. 72. Alec and Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 970, 977; Lottie Evanoff 1:24, 702; Frank Drew 1:22, 1092, 1094. 73. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 804; 1:24, 913, 922, 929. 74. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 944–45. 75. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 66, 812–35; 1:23, 603. 244

n o t e s to pag e s 8 8 – 9 1

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

76. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:21, 782–83, 1:23, 756–57. 77. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:21, 765–821, 1:22, 270–280, 864–903, 973. 78. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:21, 765–821, 1:22, 270–80, 864–903, 973; Andrew S. Charles testimony, 108, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 79. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 688. 80. Lottie Evanoff, Alec Evanoff and Frank Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 739–807; Lottie Evanoff in 1:23, 979, and 1:24, 312. 81. Lottie Evanoff, Frank Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 746–99, 883. 82. Lottie Evanoff, Frank Drew, Spencer Scott, and Clay Barrett in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:21, 905–11; 1:22, 746–810; 1:24, 177, 239. Evanoff told Harrington of making oil-coats from cattail leaves, they “never leaked, kept you dry” (1:22, 798). 83. Frank Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 270, 278, 280, 775, 779; Andrew S. Charles testimony, 119, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. Alec Evanoff observed that white people made baskets of willow, but that Indians did not, since it “does not last long”; in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 791. 84. Field notes, in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 580. 85. The list did include Umpqua. See “Names of Indian Tribes,” 1900 Annual Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 519. 5. Amalgamation, Confederation, and the Claims Cases 1. See news blurbs in Coos Bay News, 23 May 1916; 6 June 1916, 3; 21 November 1916; “Death Takes Geo. Wasson,” Coos Bay Harbor, 7 August 1947; “Indian Tribe Holds Meeting, Gathering at Historic Pioneer Hotel in Empire for Purpose of Securing $12,000,000 from Government,” Coos Bay Harbor, 4 May 1917; Testimony of George B. Wasson, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc; Younker, “Coquille,” 70. 2. “Treaty of Empire is Found by Long Search; Coos Indians May Obtain Land Rights to 5,000,000 Acre Reservation as Result of Success Attending 14-Year Quest Among Archives,” Oregonian, 31 December 1916, sec. 5. Copy of original in Scrapbook sb 268, ohs. Reprinted as notes to page s 92– 97

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

245

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

“Treaty Was Made With Indians in 1855, It Wasn’t Ratified, However,” Coos Bay Harbor, 27 November 1947. 3. “Indian Tribe Holds Meeting, Gathering at Historic Pioneer Hotel in Empire for Purpose of Securing $12,000,000 from Government,” Coos Bay Harbor, 4 May 1917; “Geo. Wasson Agent, Appointed to Represent Coos Bay Indians at Washington,” Coos Bay Times, 1 May 1917; untitled item, 8 May 1917, Coos Bay News, 3; “Indians Seek Funds, Coast Tribes Claim $12,000,000 From Government. New Chief Is Elected and Agent Is Empowered to Present Subject to Congress— Meeting Held at Scene of Original Pact,” Oregonian, 6 May 1917. Copy in Scrapbook 73, p. 133, ohs. 4. “Indian Tribe Holds Meeting, Gathering at Historic Pioneer Hotel in Empire for Purpose of Securing $12,000,000 from Government,” Coos Bay Harbor, 4 May 1917): 4; “Geo. Wasson Agent, Appointed to Represent Coos Bay Indians at Washington,” Coos Bay Times, 1 May 1917; untitled item, 8 May 1917): 3, Coos Bay News, 3; “Indians Seek Funds, Coast Tribes Claim $12,000,000 From Government. New Chief Is Elected and Agent Is Empowered to Present Subject to Congress— Meeting Held at Scene of Original Pact,” Oregonian, 6 May 1917. Copy in Scrapbook 73, p. 133, ohs. 5. Selander, “Section 2,” 388. 6. “Old Treaty Unearthed, Indians To Press Vast Claims Against Government; Original Empire Draft, Signed During Summer of 1855, Establishes Right of Early Oregon Tribes,” Oregonian, 16 June 1918. 7. Barrett to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 19 March 1920, ccf 1907–39, Roseburg 313, rg 75, nara-dc. 8. Chief Clerk C. F. Hauke to Barrett, 12 April 1920, ccf 1907–39, Roseburg 313, rg 75, nara-dc. 9. George Wasson to Mr. A. S. Charles, 20 June 1931, and Commissioner of Indian Affairs C. J. Rhoads to Senator Lynn J. Frazier, 24 July 1931, both in box 122, folder 4, s 83a-f9 (70th–82nd), rg 46, nara-dc; “George Wasson is Very Ill at Coquille,” Coos Bay Harbor, 6 January 1928; “Indians Have All Day Meeting at Second Creek,” Coos Bay Harbor, 28 June 1929. 10. John Vierow testimony, 124, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 11. O. W. Briggs, “Coos Indians Have Hopes of Realizing, Meeting Arranged Tonight With Government Agent to Discuss Heavy Claims for Dispossessing Coast Lands,” Coos Bay Harbor, 7 October 1927; “Coos Tribe Will Elect a Chief,” Coos Bay Times, 8 October 1927. 246

n o t e s to pag e s 9 7 – 9 9

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

12. “Indians to Discuss Bill,” Oregon Daily Journal, 9 November 1927. 13. “An Act Authorizing the Coos (Kowes Bay), Lower Umpqua (Kalawatset), and Siuslaw Tribes of Indians of the State of Oregon to Present their Claims to the Court of Claims.” 14. Philip H. Parrish, “Remnants of Indian Tribes Gather at Big Potlatch to Hear of Claims for Lost Land,” Sunday Oregonian, 14 July 1929, sec. 1; “News and Comment”; “275 Indians At Barbecue Event,” Coos Bay Times, 24 June 1929; “Indians Have All Day Meeting at Second Creek,” Coos Bay Harbor, 28 June 1929. Both the Coos Bay Harbor and the Coos Bay Times reported 275 in attendance; the Oregonian, whose reporter got the information second-hand several weeks later, reported that 150 attended, and also indicated that Henderson was there. The Oregonian also referred to the event as a “potlatch.” 15. Philip H. Parrish, “Remnants of Indian Tribes Gather at Big Potlatch to Hear of Claims for Lost Land,” Sunday Oregonian, 14 July 1929, sec. 1. This style of cooking is also described in Ward, White Moccasins, 10. 16. Philip H. Parrish, “Remnants of Indian Tribes Gather at Big Potlatch to Hear of Claims for Lost Land,” Sunday Oregonian, 14 July 1929, sec. 1. 17. George Wasson to Mr. A. S. Charles, 20 June 1931, and Commissioner of Indian Affairs C. J. Rhoads to Senator Lynn J. Frazier, 24 July 1931, both in box 122, folder 4, s 83a-f9 (70th–82nd), rg 46, nara-dc. 18. “Indians Gather at Chemawa Hearing, Senator Frazier of N.D. is Only One of Group to Come on Saturday,” Oregon Statesman, 31 May 1931. 19. “Henderson to Visit Southwest Indians,” Coos Bay Times, 2 November 1931; “Indians Prepare to Offer Claims,” Coos Bay Times, 5 November 1931; “Probe Indian Claims,” Coos Bay Times, 11 November 1931; “Indians’ Claims to Be Presented,” Coos Bay Times, 14 November 1931. 20. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 35. 21. William Robert Simpson testimony, 7–11, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 22. George W. Jackson testimony, 12–22, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 23. J. N. Hedden testimony, 133–40, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. notes to page s 99– 102

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

247

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

24. Testimony of James Buchanan, Hulda Perry, Frank H. Drew, Lottie Evanoff, Annie Peterson, George H. Barrett, Laura Metcalf, Maggie Sacchi, Daisy Codding, Ira B. Metcalf, Frances Elliot, Nellie Freeman, Andrew S. Charles, John Vierow, Peter Jordan, and Mrs. Wm. Waters, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc; The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:24, 881. 25. Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc; Tobias, Chief Kerry’s Moose, 3. 26. James Buchanan testimony, 27–28, 38-b; Frank H. Drew testimony, 43, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 27. James Buchanan testimony, 29–30, 38, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 28. Frank H. Drew testimony, 52, Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 29. James Buchanan testimony, 38; Annie Peterson testimony, 65; Peter Jordan testimony, 128; Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 30. Testimony of George B. Wasson, Case File k-345, rg 123, naradc. 31. General Accounting Office, “Report,” 5–6, 38–41, Case File k-345, rg 123, nara-dc. 32. “Siletz Absentee Ballots Mailed,” 19 March 1935, and “Siletz Absentees,” box 9, folder 11, “Wheeler-Howard Bill, Siletz Absentee Voters, 1935–1936,” ctsr, ohs. 33. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report to Accompany hr 5540, 4; H. M. Chritchfield to James S. Lindzey, 23 September 1954, box 33, Portland Area Office (pao) 07, rg 75, nara–Pacific Alaska Region (Seattle) (pars); H. Rex Lee to John C. Farris, 7 July 1954, ccf 1953–54 pao 033, rg 75, nara-dc. 34. Coos (Or Kowes Bay) . . . v. the United States, 152–53. 35. Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 181–82. 36. McMillen, Making Indian Law, xii–xv. 37. Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 180–86; Beckham, “History of Western Oregon Since 1846,” 186. 38. Alcea Band of Tillamooks et al. v. The United States, 103 C. Cls. 497. 39. Alcea Band of Tillamooks et al. v. The United States, 103 C. Cls. 527. 248

n o t e s to pag e s 1 0 2 – 1 0 7

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

40. Younker, “Coquille,” 74–77. 41. John Herrick to Commissioner, 13 February 1939, Office Files of Commissioner John Collier, 1933–45, Records of the Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, rg 75, nara-dc. 42. Wooldridge to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Attention: Mr. Daiker, Mr. Armstrong, 29 June 1939; Earl Wooldridge to Mr. Venning, Commissioner of Indian Affairs Office, 1 November 1939, ccf 1907–1939 Grand Ronde–Siletz (gr-s) 175, rg 75, nara-dc. 43. Minutes of Meeting of Coos Bay Indians, 7 September 1941, at Empire, 067, General Records, Decimal Files, gr-s Indian Agency, rg 75, nara-pars; Beck, The Struggle for Self-Determination, 122–23. 44. “Meeting at the Long House,” editorial, Coos Bay Times, 6 September 1941. 45. “Western Oregon—Summary Information on People and Their Locations,” 31 March 1955, Western Oregon Termination file, box 33, pao 07, rg 75, nara-pars. 46. Don Whereat in author interview with George C. Barton et al., 28 June 2006. 47. Minutes of Meeting of Coos Bay Indians, 7 September 1941, at Empire, 067, General Records, Decimal Files, gr-s Indian Agency, rg 75, nara-pars; “Indians Hold Meeting Sunday, New Building Scene Of Future Planning,” Coos Bay Harbor, 11 September 1941; “Indian Community Hall Dedicated Last Sunday, Large Gathering Hears Program Given Under Matson Leadership,” Coos Bay Harbor, 9 October 1941. 48. Harrison P. Hornish, “$20,000 Indian Hall Dedicated in Public Program Sunday; Mayor J. Albert Matson Says Tribe Often Mistreated but Members Were Always Honest; Fredenberg Speaks,” Coos Bay Times, 6 October 1941. 49. Harrison P. Hornish, “$20,000 Indian Hall Dedicated in Public Program ,” Coos Bay Times, 6 October 1941. 50. Minutes of the proceedings of a regular Council meeting of the Coos Bay, Lower Ump qua [sic] and the Siuslaw Indian Tribes, 7 December 1941; Minutes of the proceedings of a Council meeting of the Coos Bay, Lower Umpqua, and the Siuslaw Indians, 13 December 1941, ccf 1907–1939 gr-s 054, rg 75, nara-dc. 51. “Indian Community Hall Dedicated Last Sunday, Large Gathering Hears Program Given Under Matson Leadership,” Coos Bay Harbor, 9 October 1941; “Indians Hold Meeting Sunday, New Building Scene Of Future Planning,” Coos Bay Harbor, 11 September 1941; author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 20 June 2006. notes to page s 107– 109

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

249

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

52. “Indians Giving Party At Empire Saturday,” Coos Bay Harbor, 23 October 1941; “Siestreem Has White Elephant, Nobody Wants Two Mules Sent Here For Work in 1939,” Coos Bay Harbor, 13 November 1941. 53. Wooldridge had also succeeded Fredenberg at the Neopit Mills Agency on the Menominee reservation in Wisconsin. 54. Minutes of meetings 2 August 1942, 16 August 1942, 7 February 1943, 13 September 1943, 6 December 1943, all in 064 General Records, Decimal Files, gr-s Indian Agency, rg 75, nara-pars; “Tribesmen Honor Mrs. Metcalf, 80, Birthday Observed; Woolridge [sic] Present,” Coos Bay Harbor, 17 September 1942. 55. “Tribesmen to Gather On The 29th, Thanksgiving Dinner In Community Hall,” Coos Bay Harbor, 19 November 1942. Story repeated 26 November 1942. 56. “Indian Doctor Visits Southwestern Oregon,” Coos Bay Harbor, 3 September 1942; “Indian Community Hall Dedicated Last Sunday,” Coos Bay Harbor, 9 October 1941; “Specialist Will Treat The Indians; Dr. Lane And Two Nurses Come Soon,” Coos Bay Harbor, 9 December 1943; “Treaty With the Indians Along the Oregon Coast,” 11, 17, 23, 30 August and 8 September 1855, in Deloria and DeMallie, Documents of American Indian Diplomacy, 2:1323. 57. Mark Mecum, Edward H. Metcalf, George B. Wasson, Elizabeth Burnette, Marguerite Severy, Clayton H. Barrett to Grand Ronde–Siletz Agency, 21 November 1945; Constitutional ballots, 9 December 1945; George Miller to Indians of Southwestern Oregon, 3 January 1946; Miller to Indians of Southwestern Oregon, 10 February 1946; Wasson to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 3 March 1946; Wooldridge to Zimmerman, 21 March 1946; all in 067, General Records, Decimal Files, gr-s Indian Agency, rg 75, nara-pars. See also “Ballot for Adoption of Constitution and By-Laws for Guidance of Coos Bay, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw and other Indian Tribes West of the Coast Range of Mountains, in the State of Oregon”; Burnette to Wooldridge, 7 May 1945; Wooldridge to Burnette, 7 August 1945; Wasson, Burnette, Severy, Mecum, Clayton H. Barrett, and Metcalf to Indians of Southern Oregon, 21 November 1945; all in 057, General Records, Decimal Files, gr-s Indian Agency, rg 75, nara-pars. 58. Minutes of Meeting, 14 April 1946, 067, General Records, Decimal Files, gr-s Indian Agency, rg 75, nara-pars. 59. Zimmerman to Wooldridge, 24 June 1946; Wooldridge to 250

n o t e s to pag e s 1 1 0 – 1 1 1

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Zimmerman, 12 September 1946, both in 067 General Records, Decimal Files, gr-s Indian Agency, rg 75, nara-pars. 60. Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 187; Rosenthal, “Indian Claims and the American Conscience”; Fixico, Termination and Relocation, 26–27. “Meeting of the Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon,” 6 June 1948; “Motion for Summary Judgment”; James M. Green to Clerk, icc, 12 November 1954; James A. Langston, Clerk, to Green, 15 November 1954; all in Docket 265, rg 279, naradc. Mrs. Jack Thomas, “Indians Hear John Mullen,” Coos Bay Harbor, 11 December 1947; “Indian Meeting Slated at Empire June 6th,” Coos Bay Harbor, 27 May 1947; “Indian Leader Dies at Florence,” Coos Bay Times, 31 July 1957; “Narrative Report for the Month of June, 1948,” E. Morgan Pryse, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032. 61. “Indian Meeting Slated at Empire June 6th,” Coos Bay Harbor, 27 May 1947; “Coos Indians Start New Steps Collect Money for Seized Land,” Coos Bay Times, 10 June 1948. 62. Mrs. Jack Thomas, “Cooston,” Coos Bay Harbor, 27 October 1947; “Indians Learn of Claims Progress,” Coos Bay Times, 25 October 1949; Portland Area Office Narrative Report of October 1949, box 1, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars. Copy of report also in ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, nara-dc. 63. “The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indian Tribes, An Historical Perspective, 1982,” “Oregon Tribes Restoration” folder, series 4, container 117, National Congress of American Indians (hereafter ncai) Papers, National Museum of the American Indian Archives, Smithsonian Institution (hereafter nmaia-si); Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 187; Rosenthal, “Indian Claims and the American Conscience”; Fixico, Termination and Relocation, 26–27. “Meeting of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians of Oregon,” 6 June 1948; Petition 265 before the Indian Claims Commission, filed 9 August 1951; “Motion for Summary Judgment,” Docket 265, rg 279, nara-dc; Mrs. Jack Thomas, “Indians Hear John Mullen,” Coos Bay Harbor, 11 December 1947; Guy W. Lowell, Acting Chief, Tribal Claims Section to Area Directors, Attention: Tribal Operations Officer, 21 November 1967, ccf 1963 pao 175.2, rg 75, nara-dc. Narrative Report for the Month of November 1951, E. Morgan Pryse, 1 December 1951, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, nars-dc. 64. Fahey, The Kalispel Indians, 158. 65. “Memorandum for Hon. Harris [sic] Ellsworth in re Claim of notes to page s 112– 114

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

251

Coos Bay, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indian Tribes,” and “Report of John Q. [sic] Harrington, Bureau of American Ethnology, Smithsonian Institution,” 5 April 1943, both in Eugene, Oregon, Sept. 24, 1953, Unprinted Hearings, hr 83a-f9.1, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, rg 233, nara-dc. 66. James M. Green to Clerk, icc, November 12, 1954; James A. Langston, Clerk, to Green, November 15, 1954; both in Docket 265, rg 279, nara-dc.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

6. Termination Proposed 1. See Booth, “‘If the cattle are going to die’”; Jorgensen, The Sun Dance Religion; White, Roots of Dependence, for example. 2. This plan bears a striking resemblance to what occurred to Alaska’s Native peoples under the 1971 Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ancsa). For a discussion of incorporation, see Beck, The Struggle for Self-Determination, chapter 7. Klamath leaders themselves proposed taking over federal trust responsibilities as early as the 1920s: Haynal, “Termination and Tribal Survival,” 275–76. 3. “Proceedings of Conference of Indian Field Service Employees, Denver, Colorado, April 3–7, 1939,” Denver Conference, April 3–7 1939 folder, box 1, Correspondence of Assistant Commissioner William Zimmerman, 1935–48, rg 75, nara-dc. 4. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 20 June 2006. 5. Frank Drew said in the early 1940s that he got eighty cents a gallon for this pitch: The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:22, 98. 6. Frank Drew in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 452. 7. Author interview with Frank Barrett. 8. Pevar, The Rights of Indians and Tribes, 122–29. 9. “An Act to Facilitate and Simplify the Administration of Indian Affairs”; Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Senator Carly Hayden, n.d. (elaboration of his letter of 29 May 1950), pao 02, rg 75, nara-pars; Burt, Tribalism in Crisis, 5. 10. Burt, Tribalism in Crisis, 5. 11. E. Morgan Pryse, Area Office Director to Regional Office Staff, 17 August 1948, box 15, pao 02; Pryse to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 13 June 1952; Pryse to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 24 June 1953, both in ccf 051, pao 01; Glenn L. Emmons, Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, to All Bureau Personnel, 1 December 1954; Perry E. 252

n o t e s to pag e s 1 1 4 – 1 1 8

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Skarra to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 10 August 1956, both in box 33, pao 07, all in rg 75, nara-pars. 12. Collier to Superintendents, Tribal Councils, All Indian Service Personnel and All Indians, 15 November 1943, microfilm reel 3, ctsr, ohs. 13. Collier to Superintendents, Tribal Councils, All Indian Service Personnel and All Indians, 15 November 1943, microfilm reel 3, ctsr, ohs; Roosevelt, “Four Freedoms Speech”; Pederson, “Four Freedoms.” 14. Collier to all employees of the Indian Service, 23 September 1940; Walter V. Woehlke Memorandum on Policies for Mr. Herrick, 7 June 1939, both in Reorganization 1945 folder, box 2, Memoranda of Assistant Commissioner William Zimmerman, 1935–48, Records of the Office of Chief Clerk and Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs, rg 75, nara-dc; Eleanor Williams, Acting Director of Information, to Zimmerman, 27 October 1942; Draft document, supplement to “Guide for the Evaluation of Reservation Programs,” dated 12 June 1944; both in Indian Service Planning Files, 1942–44, Post War folder; A. L. Walthen, Chief Engineer, to Collier, 1 July 1943, in Misc. Correspondence, 1944 folder; all three in box 25, Office Files of Commissioner John Collier, 1933–45, Records of the Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, rg 75, nara-dc; Annual Report of the Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1948, 370–71. 15. Collier in U.S. Congress House, Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, on H. Res. 166, Investigate Indian Affairs, pt. 2, 61. 16. Philp, Termination Revisited, 72–74; Collier in U.S. Congress House, Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, on H. Res. 166, Investigate Indian Affairs, pt. 2, 63. 17. “Indians at War,” Chicago Daily News, 15 February 1945, Memos from staff folder 3 of 3, box 1, Memoranda of Assistant Commissioner William Zimmerman, 1935–48, Records of the Office of Chief Clerk and Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs, rg 75, nara-dc. On the Office of Indian Affairs move to Chicago, see “Removal of Indian Office to Chicago,” 7. 18. Philp, Termination Revisited, 69. 19. Archie Phinney, Executive Committeeman, ncai, “Indian Thoughts about Indian Service,” 4-page paper, n.d., stamped 1 October 1945 by oia, 1946 Decentralization folder, box 1, Memoranda of Assistant Commissioner William Zimmerman, 1935–48, Records of the Office notes to page s 119– 121

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

253

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of Chief Clerk and Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs, rg 75, nara-dc. 20. See especially comments of William Zimmerman, Jr., and Congressmen John R. Murdock and William Lemke in U. S. Congress, House, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Public Lands, on hr 2958, hr 2165, and hr 1113, Emancipation of Indians. 21. Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall to Senator Wayne Morse, 21 November 1968, ccf 1968, pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 22. Philp, Termination Revisited, 75; Zimmerman testimony in U.S. Congress Senate, Hearings before the Committee on Civil Service, Officers and Employees, 545–47, 591. The Menominee case is a telling example of the disingenuousness: Zimmerman told the Senate that fifty-eight federal employees could be released from their jobs after Menominee termination, but neglected to tell the Senate that the Menominee paid these salaries from tribal funds put into the federal treasury. See Herzberg, “The Menominee Indians: From Treaty to Termination,” 304. 23. Narrative Report for the month of October 1947, Pryse to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 31 October 1947; “nw Tribes Favor Strengthening of Indian Bureau, Indian leaders of ten tribes in Oregon, Idaho and Washington adjourned yesterday,” East Oregonian, Pendleton, 30 October 1947, typed copy, both in 1948 Narrative Report folder, box 1, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars. 24. Testimony in U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearings before the Committee on Civil Service, Officers and Employees, 585–91. 25. “Narrative Report for the Month of October, 1947,” E. Morgan Pryse, Regional Director, 31 October 1947, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, nars-dc. 26. Hoover et al., The Hoover Commission Report, 267, 269, 448, 459, 461–73. 27. McNickle, Memorandum, 12 November 1948, Indian Services Planning File 1942–44, Post War, box 25, Office Files of Commissioner John Collier, 1933–45, Records of the Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, rg 75, nara-dc. 28. Pryse to all Superintendents in Region 3, 10 August 1948; Pryse to Regional Office Staff, 17 August 1948, both in 6-Year Reservation Program-Withdrawal folder, box 15, pao 02, rg 75, nara-pars. 29. Pryse, Portland Area Office Narrative Report of February 1949, 1948–1949 file, box 1, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars. 254

n o t e s to pag e s 1 2 1 – 1 2 4

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

30. Pryse to Elwood Towner, 24 May 1951, ccf 1940–1957 gr-s 054, rg 75 nara-dc. 31. Philp, Termination Revisited, 79–87. 32. Clow, “Reservation Forestry Practices”; Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, 235–36. 33. Tyler, “Indian Affairs,” 42–43. 34. Lewis to A. L. Miller, Chairman, U.S. Congress House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report to accompany hr 444, p. 3; Goldwater to McKay, 12 May 1954, Personal and Confidential, Endorsements for Asst. Sec. Lewis folder, box 4, Office Files of Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay, rg 48, nara–College Park, Maryland (hereafter cpm). 35. U.S. Congress, House, hcr 108. Interestingly, Arthur V. Watkins, a principal architect of the termination policy in the Senate, in his extensive collection of papers, hardly refers to termination at all, and left no documentation relating to termination of any of the sixty-one tribes terminated in Public Law 588: “An Act to provide for the termination of Federal supervision.” Arthur V. Watkins (1886–1973) Papers, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University. 36. Tyler, “Indian Affairs,” 42; U.S. Congress, House, hr 89, Investigation and Study of Activities and Operations of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, 20 June 1953; Hearings held in Eugene, Oregon, 24 September 1953; Hearings held in Everett, Washington, 25 September 1953, all in Unprinted Hearings, 83a-f9.1, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, rg 233, nara-dc. 37. U.S. Congress, House, 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, Pursuant to H. Res. 698 (82nd Cong.), hr 2503. 38. U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings before the Subcommittees of the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs on s 2746 and hr 7317, (hereafter Joint Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317), 141. 39. Beckham, “History of Western Oregon,” 188; U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317, 159–67. 40. Testimony of no. 3 (Edgar Bowen), transcript of Task Force no. 10, Meeting at Coos Bay, Oregon, November 1975, 18, Records of the American Indian Policy Review Commission (hereafter aiprc Records), rg 220, nara-cpm. notes to page s 124– 126

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

255

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

41. Author interview with Coos Elder Chief Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 42. Linda Meierjurgen, “Tribe’s bill was long time coming, Restoration Act,” The World, 6 October 1984. 43. Bill Brainard testimony, Task Force no. 10 on Terminated and Nonfederally Recognized Indian Tribes, Congress of the United States, American Indian Policy Review Commission Transcript of Proceedings, 13 March 1976, Salem, Oregon, 29, aiprc Records, rg 220, nara-cpm. 44. U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317; Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes, Inc., “The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indian Tribes,” Southwest Oregon Community College Library; “Indians Hold Council,” Lincoln County Leader, 26 June 1947; “Siletz Indian Council Meeting,” Lincoln County Leader, 24 July 1947. 45. Severy to Area “E” director, Portland Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 8 August 1966; Hatch to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 3 September 1966, both in ccf 1964 pao 313, rg 75, nara-dc. 46. Author interview with Brenda Brainard, 13 June 2006. 47. Author interview with George C. Barton et al. 48. Commissioner of Indian Affairs Emmons to Secretary of the Interior, 20 May 1954, re: “Material for President Eisenhower,” Bureau of Indian Affairs folder, box 3, Office Files of Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay, rg 48, nara-cpm. 49. Richard Schifter, Association on American Indian Affairs to Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall, 8 March 1961, Termination Materials—83rd Cong. folder 1 of 3, series 6, container 256: Termination, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 50. Burt, Tribalism in Crisis, 13; Schifter to Udall, 8 March 1961, Termination Materials—83rd Congress, folder 1 of 3, series 6, container 256: Termination, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 51. Leonard M. Hill, Assistant to the Commissioner, to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 15 November 1968; W. D. Babby, Bureau of Indian Affairs, to Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, 21 November 1968, both in ccf 1968 pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 52. “Indian Tribes Hold Reunion at Chemawa,” Oregon Statesman, 15 February 1947. 53. Author interview with Brenda Brainard. 54. “sw Oregon Tribes Ask Supervision End,” Oregon Daily Journal, 17 January 1952. 55. Siletz and Grand Ronde tribal resolutions in U.S. Congress, Joint 256

n o t e s to pag e s 1 2 6 – 1 2 9

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317, 158–61; Grand Ronde resolutions in box 1557, pao 58, rg 75, nara-pars. 56. Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, 235–36. Minutes of General Council Meeting, 1 March 1941; minutes of Annual Meeting of the Siletz Tribe, 8 March 1942; minutes of Siletz General Council Meeting, 18 January 1948; minutes of Siletz Council Meeting, 20 February 1949; President, Siletz Tribal Council to Committee on Indian Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, 23 September 1944; Earl Wooldridge to Siletz Tribal Business Council and Others, 18 January 1945; cgd [C. G. Davis] to Wooldridge, 26 January 1948, all in microfilm 3; “Program for immediate discussion as presented to Comm. of Ind. affairs Emmons, Swan Island,” 11 October 1953, microfilm reel 4, all in ctsr, ohs. Siletz Tribal Resolution, 25 July 1954; Siletz Tribal Resolution, 31 August 1954; 24 October 1954 tribal council minutes, all in Siletz Minutes and Resolutions, box 1568, pao 58, rg 75, nara-pars. “Siletz Tribes to Get Payment,” Lincoln County Leader, 25 November 1954. 57. Minutes of 18 January 1948 Siletz General Council Meeting, microfilm reel 3; “Program for immediate discussion as presented to Comm. of Ind. affairs Emmons, Swan Island,” 11 October 1953, microfilm reel 4, both in ctsr, ohs; Hoxie Simmons to Senator Guy Cordon, n.d. (received in Office of Indian Affairs 16 May 1947), ccf 1940–1957 gr-s 054, rg 75, nara-dc. 58. Minutes of 21 November 1948 Siletz General Council meeting; Resolution of Siletz Tribal Council, 10 April 1949; Resolution of Siletz Tribal Council, 24 April 1949, all in microfilm reel 3, ctsr, ohs. 59. Siletz Indian Tribal Council Resolution, 12 March 1950, microfilm reel 3, ctsr, ohs. 60. Minutes of Siletz General Council meeting, 27 August 1950, minutes of Siletz tribes special meeting, 10 September 1950, both in microfilm reel 3, ctsr, ohs; “Program for the Early Termination of Selected Activities and Withdrawing Federal Supervision over the Indians at Grand Ronde–Siletz and Southwestern Oregon,” Portland Area Office, December 1950, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs; excerpt from statement by Secretary of the Interior Chapman, 25 July 1950, “Indian Affairs, Jan 1950-Aug 1950,” folder, Administrative Correspondence Series, Office of Governor Douglas McKay Papers (hereafter McKay Papers), Oregon State Archives (hereafter osa); U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, Hearing on hr 7489, 2. Coquelle Thompson Jr. was the son of Coquelle notes to page s 130– 131

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

257

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Thompson, who was a tribal leader, and he had a son, Coquille Thompson III, all of whom are sometimes confused: Youst and Seaburg, Coquille Thompson. Coquelle Thompson Jr. is the Coquelle Thompson referred to throughout this book. 61. Acting Commissioner H. Rex Lee to Logan, 14 December 1950, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs. 62. Narrative Report for the Month of November 1950, E. Morgan Pryse, 1 December 1950, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, nara-dc. 63. “Program for the Early Termination of Selected Activities and Withdrawing Federal Supervision over the Indians at Grand Ronde– Siletz and Southwestern Oregon,” Portland Area Office, December 1950, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs; Narrative Report for the Month of December 1951, E. Morgan Pryse, 1 January 1951, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, nara-dc. 64. “Program for the Early Termination of Selected Activities and Withdrawing Federal Supervision over the Indians at Grand Ronde–Siletz and Southwestern Oregon,” Portland Area Office, December 1950, 1, 9, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs. 65. “Program for the Early Termination of Selected Activities and Withdrawing Federal Supervision over the Indians at Grand Ronde–Siletz and Southwestern Oregon,” Portland Area Office, December 1950, 6, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs. 66. “Program for the Early Termination of Selected Activities and Withdrawing Federal Supervision over the Indians at Grand Ronde–Siletz and Southwestern Oregon,” Portland Area Office, December 1950, 8, 17–18, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs. 67. Memo by L. M. Hill, Acting Chief, Branch of Economic Development, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 25 January 1951, approved by D. S. Myer, 29 January 1951, ccf 1940–1957 gr-s 054, rg 75, nara-dc. 68. A. Harvey Wright, in minutes, Governor’s Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs, Salem, 29 November 1950, “Indian Affairs, Sept.– Dec. 1950” folder, McKay Papers, osa. 69. Resolution, 18 March 1951, General Meeting of the To-to-Tin Indian Tribes, Siletz, Oregon; Towner to Cordon, 11 April 1951, both in ccf 1940–1957 gr-s 054, rg 75, nara-dc. 70. Narrative Report for the Month of April 1951, E. Morgan Pryse, 1 May 1951, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, naradc. 258

n o t e s to pag e s 1 3 1 – 1 3 4

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

71. Douglas McKay, Summary of the Activities of the Governor’s Committee on Indian Affairs of the State of Oregon, as of 1 April 1952, “Indian Affairs, Jan-July 1952” folder, container 14, Administrative Correspondence Series, McKay Papers, 1948–1952, osa. 72. Minutes of 15 April 1951 Siletz special meeting, microfilm reel 3, ctsr, ohs. 73. Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs H. Rex Lee to Pryse, 10 August 1951 teletype, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs. 74. Narrative Report for the Month of May 1951, E. Morgan Pryse, 1 June 1951; and Narrative Report for the Month of July 1951, E. Morgan Pryse, 1 August 1951, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, nars-dc. 75. U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317, 143. 76. C. J. Thompson, “Indian Leader Discusses Future Of His People In Siletz Area,” Lincoln County Leader, 17 May 1951. 77. “Status of the Indian,” Oregonian, 3 December 1950; “Indian Affairs Group Opposes Legal Restrictions on Indians,” Oregon Statesman, 30 November 1950; “Indian Council Demands Bans on Discrimination,” Capital Journal (Salem), 30 November 1950; “Intermarriage, Liquor Ban Blasted at Indian Session,” Oregon Journal, 30 November 1950, all in ccf 1948–1952 pao 054, rg 75, nara-dc; Mervyn Shoemaker, “Senate Okehs Removal of Miscegenation Ban, Measure Allowing Interracial Marriages Now Goes to House after 21-to-7 Vote,” Oregonian, 21 March 1951, ccf 1948–1952 pao 013, nara-dc; Resolution, 18 March 1951, General Meeting of the To-to-Tin Indian Tribes, Siletz, Oregon, ccf 1940–1957 gr-s 054, rg 75, nara-dc; Wright to McKay, 27 December 1950, “Indian Affairs, 1951” folder, McKay Papers, osa. 78. Myer to McKay, 5 June 1951, “Indian Affairs, 1951” folder, McKay Papers, osa. 7. Termination Compelled 1. Resolution to establish Governors’ Interstate Council on Indian Affairs, 14 March 1950, St. Paul, Minnesota; Governor’s Conference on Indian Affairs, held 14 July 1950, minutes, both in “Indian Affairs, Jan 1950–Aug 1950,” folder; Governors’ Interstate Indian Council Notice, 25 June 1951, “Indian Affairs, 1951” folder; Alva A. Simpson to Governor Dan Thornton, Colorado, 7 July 1952, “Indian Affairs, Jan.–July 1952” folder, all in McKay Papers, osa. 2. Governor’s Conference on Indian Affairs, held 14 July 1950, notes to page s 134– 138

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

259

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

minutes; Pryse to McKay, 18 April 1950, including list with three brief resumes of tribal leaders; McKay to Thompson, 28 April 1950; McKay to Pryse, 28 April 1950; Governor’s Agenda for Oregon Conference on Indian Affairs, Statehouse, 14 July 1950, all in “Indian Affairs, Jan 1950–Aug 1950,” folder, McKay Papers, osa. 3. Governor’s Conference on Indian Affairs, held 14 July 1950, minutes; Memo, Thomas L. McCall, 24 August 1950, both in “Indian Affairs, Jan 1950–Aug 1950,” folder; Governor’s Office Press Release, 18 October 1950, in “Indian Affairs, Sept.–Dec. 1950” folder; all in McKay Papers, osa. 4. Statement of McKay for Governor’s Committee on Indian Affairs, 11 September 1951, “Indian Affairs, 1951” folder, container 14, Administrative Correspondence Series, McKay Papers, osa; Hoover et al., The Hoover Commission Report, 465. 5. Harvey Wright, Report on Interstate Council on Indian Affairs held at Salt Lake City, 12 May 1950, “Indian Affairs, Jan 1950–Aug 1950,” folder; Minutes, Governor’s Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs, 29 November 1950, “Indian Affairs, Sept.–Dec. 1950” folder; both in McKay Papers, osa. 6. Pryse to Towner, 24 May 1951, ccf 1940–1957 gr-s 054, rg 75, nara-dc. 7. Minutes of Siletz General Council meeting, 12 November 195[1], microfilm 3, ctsr, ohs. 8. Siletz and Grand Ronde tribal resolutions in U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317, 158–61. 9. Minutes of Siletz General Council meeting, 12 November 195[1], microfilm 3, ctsr, ohs. 10. Memo from George W. Abbott to Hon. A. L. Miller, Chairman, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs re: “United States Indian Affairs and the 83d Congress,” 1 October 1954, Indian Affairs Subcommittee, folder 5, s 84a-f9, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 84th Cong., rg 46, nara-dc; Narrative Report for the Month of June 1951, E. Morgan Pryse, 1 July 1951, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, nara-dc. 11. “sw Oregon Tribes Ask Supervision End,” Oregon Daily Journal, 17 January 1952. 12. McKay to Pryse, 21 August 1951, Proposed Withdrawal— Western Oregon (Pryse, pao director) 12/53 folder, box 6, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars. Copy of latter also in “Indian Affairs, 951” folder, 260

n o t e s to pag e s 1 3 8 – 1 4 0

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

container 14, Administrative Correspondence Series, McKay Papers, osa. 13. “Indians Die to Be Free of Controls, Full Citizenship Expected to Go to Coast Tribes,” Oregonian, 14 February 1952; “West Oregon Indians to Be First to Be Removed From Supervision,” Oregonian, 14 February 1952, sec. 2. 14. “Decontrol of the Indian,” Oregonian, 15 February 1952. Two thousand and eighty-one western Oregon Indians counted in 1950 are reported in U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317, p. 141. 15. “Decontrol of the Indian,” Oregonian, 15 February 1952. 16. “Klamath Indians in Line to Get Citizenship Right,” Oregonian, 17 February 1952, sec. 1. 17. Annual Report of the Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1952, 389–94. 18. Annual Report of the Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1952, 393–94. 19. Herbert J. Slaughter, Chief, Legislative Division to Hale Power, Chief, Division of Land Utilization, 19 March 1952, ccf 1940–1957 gr-s 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 20. “Indians Here to Get Treaty,” Lincoln County Leader, 14 February 1952; Chief Coquelle Thompson, “Guard Carefully, Indians, That We Do Not Lose That Freedom Which We Gain, Warns One of Lincoln County’s Prominent Leaders of Redman’s Liberation,” Lincoln County Leader, 28 February 1952. 21. U.S. Congress, House, A Bill to facilitate the termination; U.S. Congress, Senate, A Bill to facilitate the termination. 22. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Hearing on hr 7489, 2. 23. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Hearing on hr 7489, 8–9. 24. U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearing held before Subcommittee on Interior and Insular Affairs, s 3005 and s 3004, 74–80. 25. Cohen came to testify specifically about the California termination proposal. U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearing held Before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, s 3005, s 3004, and hr 459, 158–74. 26. August 1952 Monthly Report and September 1952 Monthly Report, E. Morgan Pryse, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, nars-dc. notes to page s 140– 145

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

261

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

27. Governors’ Interstate Indian Council Newsletter no. 6, 10 September 1952, “Indian Affairs, August–Dec. 1952” folder, container 14, Administrative Correspondence Series, McKay Papers, osa. 28. Address by Commissioner of Indian Affairs Dillon S. Myer, before the Western Governors’ Conference at Phoenix, Arizona, 9 December 1952, “Indian Affairs, August–Dec. 1952” folder, container 14, Administrative Correspondence Series, McKay Papers, osa. 29. U.S. Congress, House, 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, Pursuant to H. Res. 698, hr 2503, 1. 30. U.S. Congress, House, hr 2503, 29. 31. U.S. Congress, House, hr 2503, 428–29, 606, 629, 841. 32. U.S. Congress, House, hr 2503. 33. Author interview with Frank Barrett. 34. Author interview with Frank Barrett. 35. Portland Area Office Resources Conference, 20–22 January 1953, materials, folder 070, box 3, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars. 36. Wright to Norblad, 14 January 1953, “Indian Affairs, December 1952–April 1953” folder, container 12, Administrative Correspondence Series, Office of Governor Paul L. Patterson Papers, osa. 37. Patterson to Norblad, 15 January 1953; Patterson to Cordon, 15 January 1953, both in “Indian Affairs, December 1952–April 1953” folder, container 12, Administrative Correspondence Series, Office of Governor Paul L. Patterson Papers, osa. 38. Lewis to Watkins, 13 March 1953; Lewis to Harrison, 13 March 1953, both in Termination Act folder, container 6, Mitchell Al Dodge Papers, L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University. 39. Emmons to Pryse, 25 September 1953; Rough draft of [Termination] Bill, 15 September 1953; Grand Ronde–Siletz District Agent Henry A. Bushman to Siletz Tribal Council Chairman Elmer Logan, 1 October 1953, all in microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs. Pryse to “All Tribal Chairmen and Howard Barrett Sr.,” 6 October 1953, G.R. Siletz–W. Ore. Long Range & Withdrawal folder, box 6, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars. “Department of the Interior Preliminary Legislative Program, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., September 1953,” Legislation-Bills folder, box 4, Office Files of Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay, rg 48, nara-cpm. 262

n o t e s to pag e s 1 4 5 – 1 4 9

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

40. “Address to be delivered by Commissioner of Indian Affairs Glenn L. Emmons at Meetings with Indian Tribal Groups During September and October, 1953,” and notes, both in Comm. Emmons trip to Portland, October 1953 folder, box 8, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars. 41. Resolution adopted by Siletz General Council, 22 November 1953, microfilm reel 3; “Program for immediate discussion as presented to Comm. of Ind. Affairs Emmons, Swan Island,” 11 October 1953; Minutes of Special Meeting, Siletz Tribal Council, 1 November 1953, both in microfilm reel 4, all in ctsr, ohs. 42. “Steps in Preparation of the Bill, Western Oregon,” ccf 1957 pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 43. Monthly Report for September 1953, E. Morgan Pryse, 2 October 1953, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, nara-dc. 44. Author interview with Frank Barrett. 45. Barrett to Pryse, 26 October 1953, G.R. Siletz–W. Ore. Long Range & Withdrawal folder, box 6, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars. 46. Pryse, “Proposed Withdrawal of Federal Responsibilities Over the Property and Affairs of the Indians of Western Oregon,” December 1953, 14–15, Termination Materials—83rd Cong. folder 1 of 3, series 6, container 256: Termination, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 47. Clarence Wesley, Keynote Address, 10th Annual ncai Convention, 7 December 1953, Speeches Folder; Resolution 2, “Resolutions Adopted by the National Congress of American Indians, Tenth Annual Convention,” 9 December 1953, Resolutions Adopted 1953 folder, both in series 1, container 4, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 48. Copies were also sent to individuals requesting general information on western Oregon Indians from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. See H. Rex Lee to John C. Farris, 7 July 1954, in ccf 1953–1954 pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 49. Lewis to Joseph W. Martin Jr., Speaker of the House, 4 January 1954, and Lewis to Richard M. Nixon, President of the Senate, 4 January 1954, both in ccf 1953–1954 pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. Copy also in Termination Materials—83rd Cong. folder 1 of 3, series 6, container 256: Termination, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 50. Patterson to Jackson, 8 January 1954, “Indian Affairs, Jan–April 1954” folder, container 12, Administrative Correspondence Series, Office of Governor Paul L. Patterson Papers, osa. 51. Administrative Correspondence Series, Office of Governor Paul L. Patterson Papers, osa. notes to page s 149– 152

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

263

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

52. Pryse to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 3 November 1953; telegram, Pryse to Alexander Lesser, Executive Director, Association on American Indian Affairs, 9 February 1954, both in G.R. Siletz–W. Ore. Long Range & Withdrawal folder, box 6, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars; Haynal, “Termination and Tribal Survival,” 278–79. On pattern of financial coercion, see Beck, The Struggle for Self-Determination, 139. 53. “Resume of the Emergency Conference of American Indians on Legislation”; “Indian Registrations” list, both in “Emergency Conference of American Indians on Legislation,” Emergency Conference: Bulletin folder, series 6, container 257, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 54. “Address by Homer B. Jenkins, Acting Director, Division of Program, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Before a National Conference of the National Congress of American Indians, Washington, dc,” 25 February 1954, Emergency Conference: General Material folder, series 6, box 257, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 55. Garry, “Emergency Conference of American Indians on Legislation” memo, 9 February 1954, Competency Bill folder, series 6, container 256: Termination, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 56. Emphasis in original. “Resume of the Emergency Conference of American Indians on Legislation,” in “Emergency Conference of American Indians on Legislation,” Emergency Conference: Bulletin folder, series 6, container 257, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 57. “Emergency Conference of American Indians on Legislation,” 25–28 February 1954, Conference Report, Emergency Conference: Bulletin folder, series 6, container 257, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 58. Richard Schifter, Association on American Indian Affairs to Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall, 8 March 1961, Termination Materials—83rd Cong. folder 1 of 3; “Indian Legislation Pending,” 1 May 1954, Competency Bill folder; both in series 6, container 256: Termination; George Young Bear, Assistant Chief, and Edward Davenport, Chief of Tribal Council, Sac and Fox Tribal Council, Tama, “Letter to Congressmen and Senators from Iowa and to Interested Friends,” 22 December 1953, Emergency Conference: General Correspondence folder, series 6, container 257: Emergency Conference; all in ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 59. Indian Rights Association News Notes, 2[?]/11/1954, container 13, Mitchell Al Dodge Papers (unprocessed); Siletz Business Council Resolution, 11 April 1954, microfilm reel 3, ctsr, ohs. For discussion of this case, see Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, 255. 264

n o t e s to pag e s 1 5 3 – 1 5 5

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

60. Indian Rights Association News Notes, 2[?]/11/1954, container 13, Mitchell Al Dodge Papers (unprocessed); Foster to Logan, 9 April 1954, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs; Foster to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 5 October 1954, box 33, “Records of the Assistant Area Director Related to the Termination of Western Oregon Tribes, 1954–1960,” pao 07, rg 75, nara-pars. 61. Report of Proceedings, Hearing held before Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Organizing the Committee and Consideration of Secretary-Designate Douglas McKay as Secretary of the Interior, Executive Session, 15 January 1953, box 62, folder 3, Douglas McKay Papers, University of Oregon Special Collections and University Archives (hereafter uoscua). 62. Burt, Tribalism in Crisis, 13. 63. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; Stephen Dow Beckham testimony, aiprc Task Force no. 10, transcript, 13 March 1976, Salem Oregon, 101, aiprc Records, rg 220, nara-cpm. 64. Newman, Horses of their own Making. 65. Youth wants to Know, program transcript, Sunday, 29 March 1953, Frank Blair guest moderator, tv and Radio Broadcasts by Secretary McKay-1953 folder, box 65, Douglas McKay Papers, uoscua. 66. “Statement by the Secretary of the Interior, Douglas McKay, Before the Senate Subcommittee on Interior Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1956,” 84th Cong., 1st sess.; “Statement by the Honorable Douglas McKay, Secretary of the Interior, before the House Subcommittee on the Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations” for fy 1957, 84th Cong., 2nd sess., 5–6, both in “Interior Department Appropriations” folder, box 3, Office Files of Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay, rg 48, nara-cpm. 67. “Indian Hearings Set Aug. 31,” Lincoln County Leader, 12 August 1954; see discussion also in Beckham, “History of Western Oregon Since 1846,” 186. Public Law 715 awarded the funds: “An Act to Authorize the preparation of rolls of persons of Indian blood.” 68. U.S. Congress, Senate, A bill to authorize the presentation of claims. 69. U.S. Congress, House, hr 3474, 83rd Cong., 1st sess., 25 February 1953, and Testimony of John Mullen, United States House of Representatives, Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs hearing held at Eugene, Oregon, 24 September 1953, both in Unprinted Hearings, hr 83a-f9.1, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, rg 233, nara-dc; U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317, p. 147. notes to page s 156– 157

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

265

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

70. Emphasis in original. Summary, Area Directors’ Conference, 24 May–2 June 1954, Washington dc, folder 070, box 3, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars. 71. U.S. Congress, House, Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Subcommittee on Indian Affairs), s 2746, Termination of Federal Supervision of Indians located in Western Oregon, 16 July 1954, Washington dc, unprinted, 2, folder s 2746, box 1006, hr 83a-d9, rg 233, nara-dc. 72. U.S. Congress, House, Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Subcommittee on Indian Affairs), s 2746, Termination of Federal Supervision of Indians located in Western Oregon, 16 July 1954, Washington dc, unprinted, 4–4a, folder s 2746, box 1006, hr 83a-d9, rg 233, nara-dc. 73. U.S. Congress, House, Hearings Before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs (Subcommittee on Indian Affairs), s 2746, Termination of Federal Supervision of Indians located in Western Oregon, 16 July 1954, Washington dc, unprinted, 5–7, 12–13, folder s 2746, box 1006, hr 83a-d9, rg 233, nara-dc. 74. Klamath Termination Act; “An Act to provide for the termination of Federal supervision”; U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report to Accompany hr 5540, 5; “State Indian Bill Signed,” Oregon Journal, 15 August 1954, sec. 1; “Signing Frees Klamath Tribe,” Oregonian, 15 August 1954, sec. 1; “Ike Signs Bill To End Indian Supervision,” Oregon Statesman, 15 October 1954, sec. 1. 75. Monthly Report for July and August 1954, area director, 8 September 1954, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032, rg 75, nara-dc. 76. Speech before the Oregon Republican Club, Portland, 29 December 1954, Public Addresses and Statements by Douglas McKay as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, vol. 2, pt. 2 (8 October 1954 through 31 January 1955), box 64, Douglas McKay Papers, uoscua. 77. Address by Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay at the Annual Intertribal Indian Ceremonial, Gallup, New Mexico, 14 August 1955, Public Addresses and Statements by Douglas McKay as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, vol. 3, pt. 1 (4 February 1955 through 24 September 1955), box 65, Douglas McKay Papers, uoscua. 78. Allen P. Jeffries to Members, Governors’ Interstate Indian Council, re: Resolutions adopted by the Governors’ Interstate Indian Council at 266

n o t e s to pag e s 1 5 8 – 1 6 0

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

the Seventh Annual Meeting, “Indian Affairs, Jan–April 1954” folder, container 12, Administrative Correspondence Series, Office of Governor Paul L. Patterson Papers, osa. 79. U.S. Congress, House, 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 Pursuant to House Resolution 89 (83nd Congress). 80. “Fears Aired By Indians,” Oregon Daily Journal, 2 December 1954. 81. “Fears Aired By Indians,” Oregon Daily Journal, 2 December 1954; Resolution no. 12, 12th Annual Convention, National Congress of American Indians, August 29 to September 2, 1955, Spokane wa, Termination Materials—83rd Cong. folder 1 of 3, series 6, container 256: Termination, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 82. “Address by Former Assistant Secretary of the Interior Orme Lewis Before the Phoenix Press Club, Phoenix, Arizona,” 5 October 1955, Assistant Secretary Lewis folder, box 4, Office Files, Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay, rg 48, nara-cpm. Lewis stepped down as of 15 September 1955: Press Release, 27 July 1955, Department of the Interior Information Service, Office of the Secretary of Secretary Douglas McKay, in same folder. 83. Author’s field notes, 25 March 2007, Spirit Mountain Lodge and Casino, Grand Ronde, Oregon. 84. Youst and Seaberg, Coquelle Thompson, 257. 85. Talney, “Question Validity of Klamath Plan,” 882. 86. Schwartz, The Rogue River Indian War, 256–57. 87. “Statement of Vine Deloria, Jr., Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians, Before the Subcommittee, Senate Interior and Insular Affairs on s 1413,” Menominee folder, series 96–3, series 1, box 15, Museums, Indian Medical Studies, Indian Tribes, Helen L. Peterson Papers, nmaia-si. 8. Hard Times 1. ncai Information Letter, no. 1, 1955, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs. 2. Sec. 3, “An Act to provide for the termination”; Foster to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 5 October 1954, box 33, pao 07, rg 75, nara-pars; Federal Register, 19:224, 7440. 3. Author interview with Frank Barrett. notes to page s 160– 166

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

267

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

4. Greenwood to Morse, 29 June 1955, “Southern Oregon Claims— Oregon Coast” folder, box 34, pao 07, rg 75, nara-pars. 5. Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, 200; “An Act Authorizing the erection of a monument”; author interview with Muriel Brainard. 6. U.S. Congress, Senate, A bill to authorize the presentation of claims; Monthly Report for February 1955, area director, 7 March 1955, ccf 1940–1957 Portland District Office 032. 7. D’Ewart to Murray, 19 April 1956, ccf 1956 pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 8. Editorial, in Harvard Law Record, 22:10 (10 May 1956), special reprint, Nader, Ralph folder, 96–3, series 1, box 10/15, Helen L. Peterson Papers, nmaia-si. 9. Proclamation of Fred A. Seaton, “termination of federal supervision over the property of the western oregon tribes and bands of indians of oregon, and the individual members thereof,” 13 August 1956, pao 07, rg 75, nara-pars. 10. “Indian Independence,” Oregonian, 16 August 1956. The 2,081 western Oregon Indians counted in 1950 are reported in U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317, p. 141. 11. Barrett to C. G. Davis, District Agent, Portland Area Office, bia, 9 September 1951, and Barrett to Davis, 7 November 1951, both in Coos Bay Indian Claims folder, Decimal Files, General Records, gr-s Indian Agency Records, rg 75, nara-pars; “Coos Indians Address Land Petition to U.N.,” Oregonian, 17 August 1956; Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Tribe, Inc., “The Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indian Tribes,” Southwest Oregon Community College Library; “Indian Petition Hits White Man’s Dealings,” Coos Bay Times, 17 August 1956; Mrs. Jack Thomas, “Indians Hear John Mullen,” Coos Bay Harbor, 11 December 1947. 12. “Coos Indians Address Land Petition to U.N.,” Oregonian, 17 August 1956; “Indian Petition Hits White Man’s Dealings,” Coos Bay Times, 17 August 1956; Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes, Inc., “The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indian Tribes,” Southwest Oregon Community College Library. See also note from White House aid Sherman Adams attached to petition in ccf 1957 pao 059, rg 75, nara-dc. 13. Petition to the United Nations from the Siuslaw, Lower Umpqua, and Coos Bay Indian Tribes, signed 8 August 1956 by tribal chairman Howard Barrett Sr., ccf 1956 pao 059, rg 75, nara-dc. 268

n o t e s to pag e s 1 6 6 – 1 6 9

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

14. Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Tribe, Inc., “The Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indian Tribes,” Southwest Oregon Community College Library. 15. “Oregon Indians Topic,” Oregonian, 16 August 1956, sec. 2; “Indian Policy Hit, Incentive Claimed Slowed by Income,” Oregon Journal, 18 August 1956, sec. 1; “Indians May Reject Offer,” Oregonian, 18 August 1956, sec. 1. 16. Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Tribe, Inc., “The Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indian Tribes,” Southwest Oregon Community College Library; author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 17. U.S. Congress, House, Indian Relocation, 20; LaGrand, Indian Metropolis, 135. 18. Author interview with George C. Barton et al. 19. Author interview with Frank Barrett. 20. For correspondence regarding federal failure to work effectively with the state, see Martin N. B. Holm to Don Foster, 5 February 1955 and 4 March 1955, both in Western Oregon Termination file, box 33, pao 07, rg 75, nara-pars. 21. Appendix A, Summary, Area Directors’ Conference, 24 May–2 June 1954, Washington dc, 19, folder 070: Area Directors Conf. 1953–54, box 3, pao 01, rg 75, nara-pars. 22. Commissioner (signed by Associate Commissioner H. Rex Lee) to Central Office and Portland Area Office, 3 November 1954; Position Description, Relocation Officer, Portland Area Office, both in box 33, pao 07, rg 75, nara-pars. 23. Bowen in author interview with George C. Barton et al. 24. Perry E. Skarra, Final Accomplishment Report, 10 August 1956, 8, box 34, pao 07, rg 75, nara-pars. 25. U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317, p. 144; “Program for the Early Termination of Selected Activities and Withdrawing Federal Supervision over the Indians at Grand Ronde–Siletz and Southwestern Oregon,” Portland Area Office, December 1950, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs; Pryse to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 10 July 1953, ccf 1953–1954 pao 13, rg 75, nara-dc; Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Tribe, Inc., “The Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Tribes,” Southwest Oregon Community College Library. 26. Perry E. Skarra, Portland Area Office to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 7 October 1954; Foster to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 5 October 1954; “Transfer Receipt Agreement” signed by R. M. Kelly, notes to page s 169– 172

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

269

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Superintendent, Chemawa Indian School on 15 June 1948, Howard Barrett Sr., chairman, Coos Bay Business Committee, and Ida Helms, secretary, Coos Bay Business Committee, both on 6 June 1948; H. M. Critchfield, chief, Branch of Realty to Mr. [James S.] Lindzey, 23 September 1954, all in box 33, pao 07, rg 75, nara-pars; National Register of Historic Places, registration form. 27. U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings on s 2746 and hr 7317, p. 144; resolution of Confederated Tribes of Siletz, 7 November 1954, microfilm reel 3, ctsr, ohs; Emmons to Ada Service, 18 November 1954, microfilm reel 4, ctsr, ohs; “Siletz Tribes to Get Payment,” Lincoln County Leader, 25 November 1954; “Siletz Tribe to Get Cash,” Lincoln County Leader, 9 December 19541. On the Klamath, see U.S. Congress, Joint Hearings before the Subcommittees of the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs on s 2745 and hr 7320, pp. 212–13. On the Menominee, see Peroff, Menominee Drums; Beck, The Struggle for Self-Determination, chapter 9; and Orfield, “Ideology and the Indians.” 28. “Indian Leader Dies at Florence,” Coos Bay Times, 31 July 1957; author interview with Frank Barrett. 29. Douthit, A Guide to Oregon South Coast History, 163. For nontribal opposition, see “Opposition to National Seashore Park” folder, box 12, David Charlton Papers, ohs; and Charles Paul Keyser to Governor Mark Hatfield, 5 December 1962, folder 5, “Oregon Dunes National Seashore 1962–1963,” Charles Paul Keyser Papers, ohs. 30. “Indians Claim Coastal Area,” Oregonian, 30 June 1959; “Coast Indians To Meet,” The World, 26 June 1959; map, p. 23, U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on s 1526, s 2010, and s 2460, Oregon Dunes National Seashore, 1959. 31. Author interview with Frank Barrett. 32. Jensen, J. Granville, Economic Report, Proposed Oregon Dunes National Seashore, prepared for the United States Department of the Interior, 1959, p. 23, box 12, David Charlton Papers, ohs. 33. U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on s 1526, s 2010, and s 2460, Oregon Dunes National Seashore, 1959; U.S. Congress, House, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on hr 6260, Oregon Dunes National Seashore; U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on s 1137, Oregon Dunes National Seashore, 1963. 270

n o t e s to pag e s 1 7 2 – 1 7 4

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

34. Author interview with George C. Barton et al. 35. Author interview with George C. Barton et al. 36. Neuberger to Charles Paul Keyser, 1 April 1963; sec. 11, s 1137, 88th Cong., 1st sess., 19 March 1963, “A Bill To establish the Oregon Dunes National Seashore,” both in folder 5, “Oregon Dunes National Seashore, 1962–1963,” Charles Paul Keyser Papers, ohs. Later versions of the bill marked Tenmile Creek as the southern boundary: see U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on s 250, Oregon Dunes National Seashore, 1965; and U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearings before the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, on s 250 and hr 7524, Oregon Dunes National Seashore, 1966. However, the national seashore extended all of the way through the North Spit in the end: Final Environmental Statement, Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area Management Plan, Siuslaw National Forest (1977), 1–7, box 12, David Charlton Papers, ohs. 37. National Park Service, Pacific Coast Recreation Area Survey, 91; Newman, Horses of Their own Making. 38. Thompson Jr. to McCall, 25 March 1971, and McCall to Thompson, 31 March 1971, container 15, Administrative Correspondence Series 1970–1971, Records of Office of Governor Tom McCall, osa. 39. See annual reports of the Billings and Portland Area Offices, 1959–1962, in ccf 1958 pao 032, rg 75, nars-dc. 40. Map, “Portland Area Jurisdiction,” issued by the Portland Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs of the Department of the Interior, ccf 1957 pao 920, rg 75, nara-dc. 41. On the reaction to Menominee termination, see Beck, The Struggle for Self-Determination, 150–78. 42. Draft bill in H. Rex Lee to Pryse, 10 August 1951, teletype; tribe’s response in Acting Area Director L. P. Towle to Pryse, 28 September 1951, telegram, both in microfilm reel 4; Resolution of Siletz Business Council, 30 January 1955, microfilm reel 3, all in ctsr, ohs. 43. Tyler, “Indian Affairs,” 69–70. 44. “Report of the Legislative Interim Committee on Indian Affairs, A Reintroduction to the Indians of Oregon,” submitted to the 50th legislative assembly under Senate Joint Resolution 3, Oregon Laws 1957, October 1958, Senator Leander Quiring, chairman, 10–23, 55–56, ccf 1959 pao 061, rg 75, nars-dc. notes to page s 174– 177

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

271

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

45. Martin N. B. Holm to Don Foster, 23 January 1959, ccf 1959 pao 061, rg 75, nars-dc. 46. “Governor’s Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs,” established by Governor Mark O. Hatfield, 1 August 1959, ccf 1959 pao 021, rg 75, nara-dc. 47. Ethel B. Fast, for Information Office, White House to Ben Kelley, Poolville, Texas, 1 December 1959, ccf 1959 pao 041, rg 75, nara-dc. 48. Deloria, Custer Died For Your Sins, chapter 4; Burt, Tribalism in Crisis, 65. 49. Brophy and Aberly et al., comp., The Indian, 192–207. 50. McNickle, “The Indian Tests the Mainstream,” 278. 51. Bennett testimony and senator comments, U.S. Congress, Senate, Hearings before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Interior Nomination, esp. 11–29. On Bennett’s role in bringing about termination for the mixed-blood Utes in the early 1950s, see Metcalf, Termination’s Legacy, 132–57. For an in-depth study of the Colville termination efforts, see Arnold, “The Paradox of a House Divided.” 52. In fact, it wasn’t until 2006 that the federal government finally stopped considering section four allotment applications. See U. S. Government Accountability Office, Report. 53. Berger, “Indian Corporation Launches Oregon Campaign To Take Over Public Lands” Oregon Journal, 28 February 1966; Richard C. (Dick) Johnston, Federal Reporter, Oregonian, to William H. Benge, chief, Law and Order Division, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 24 May 1966, ccf 1965 pao 170, rg 75, nara-dc; “U.S. Requests Dismissal of Indian Rights Case,” copy in ccf 1966 pao 313, rg 75, nara-dc; David Gershenson to Helen Peterson, executive director, American Indian Development, 24 October 1968, Newton, Wayne folder, 96–3, series 1, box 10/15, Helen L. Peterson Papers, nmaia-si. 54. Marguerite Severy application for “certificate of Entitlement for use in filing . . . public domain Indian Allotment Claim,” 11 July 1966; Dale M. Baldwin, area director, to Mrs. Marguerite Severy, Florence, 21 July 1966; Severy to Area “E” Director, Portland Office, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 8 August 1966; Baldwin to F. G. Hutchinson, assistant chief, Branch of Real Property Management, Department of the Interior, 9 August 1966; Perry E. Skarra, commissioner, Real Property Management, to Severy, through Area Director, Portland, 28 September 1966; Baldwin to William Brainard, 10 August 1966; Brainard to Baldwin, 15 August 272

n o t e s to pag e s 1 7 7 – 1 8 0

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

1966; Skarra to Brainard through area director, 28 September 1966; Baldwin to Nick K. Hatch, 18 August 1966; Hatch to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 3 September 1966; Skarra to Hatch, 28 September 1966; all in ccf 1964 pao 313, rg 75, nara-dc. Baldwin to Richard Barrett, 2 December 1966; Baldwin to Frank Barrett, 2 December 1966; Frank Barrett to Baldwin, 14 December 1966; Richard Barrett to Baldwin, 19 December 1966; Baldwin to Hutchinson, 23 December 1966, all in ccf 1966 pao 053, rg 75, nara-dc. Baldwin to Hutchinson, 23 December 1966; Theodore W. Taylor, deputy commissioner, Branch of Real Property Management, to Frank Barrett, 31 January 1967; Taylor to Richard Barrett, 31 January 1967, all in ccf 1967 pao 313, rg 75, nara-dc. 55. Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States. 56. Guy W. Lowell, acting chief, Tribal Claims Section to area directors, Attention: Tribal Operations Officer, 21 November 1967, ccf 1963 pao 175.2, rg 75, nara-dc. 57. Brainard to Kennedy, 23 March 1967; Erma H. Walz, chief, Branch of Tribal Operations, Bureau of Indian Affairs to Brainard, 15 May 1967, both in ccf 1967 pao 260, rg 75, nara-dc. The tribal stationary identified Brainard as vice chairman, George Barton as chairman, and Edgar Bowen as chief. 58. “A Brighter Future for the American Indian,” Republican National Committee News Release, 27 September 1968, Records of Office of Governor Tom McCall (1967–1975), osa.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

9. Restoration 1. Wasson to Morse, 4 October 1968, ccf 1968 pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 2. Morse to Udall, 8 October 1968; Legislative Counsel Harry J. Horgan to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Robert Bennett, 9 October 1968; Udall to Morse, 21 November 1968, all in ccf 1968 pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 3. Assistant to the Commissioner Leonard M. Hill to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 15 November 1968; W. D. Babby, Bureau of Indian Affairs, to Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, 21 November 1968, both in ccf 1968 pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 4. Hill to Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 15 November 1968; Babby to Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner, 21 November 1968, both in ccf 1968 pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 5. Barton to President Nixon, 28 October 1970; correspondence notes to page s 180– 184

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

273

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of Mrs. C. E. Briedwell and Associate Commissioner of Indian Affairs Harold Cox, all in ccf 1968 pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc; author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 20 June 2006; author interview with George C. Barton et al.; author interview with Muriel Brainard; White House Press Release, 8 July 1970, Nixon, Richard folder, 96–3, series 1, box 10/15, Helen L. Peterson Papers, nmaia-si. 6. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Planning Support Group, “Portland Area Demographic Statistical Data Report”; Native American Research Center, “A Statistical Profile of the Confederated Tribes of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, Siuslaw,” Confederated Tribes—Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw folder, series 1, box 23, LaDonna Harris Papers, naes College Archives (hereafter narc, “A Statistical Profile”), 2, and Map B. 7. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report to Accompany hr 5540, 5. California tribes achieved restoration through the court system: U.S. Government Accountability Office, Report. 8. Wilkinson, “The Passage of Termination Legislation,” 1649. 9. “An Act to repeal the Act terminating Federal supervision over the property and members of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin.” 10. Ritter, comp. and ed., 2003–05 Oregon Directory of American Indian Resources, 2, 3, 14. On the Siletz restoration, see Olson, Standing Tall, 91–96. 11. Newspaper clippings: “Indian tribes to incorporate,” Oregonian, 29 April 1974; “Elect New Officers,” Anna B. Dement, “Oregon Tribes in United Group.” Wassaja[?], 15 June 1974[?]; The World, Coos Bay, 21 June 1974; “Indian Salmon Bake,” The World, 3 and 4[?] August 1974; “Indian survey taken,” Cottage Grove Sentinel, 15 January 1976; all in Coquille Restoration, 1983, Coos Bay Oregon folder, 2nd accession, series 4, box 1:13, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. Obituary, The World, 21 November 1981. 12. Newspaper clippings: “Indian tribes to incorporate,” Oregonian, 29 April 1974; “Elect New Officers,” Anna B. Dement, “Oregon Tribes in United Group.” Wassaja[?], 15 June 1974[?]; The World, Coos Bay, 21 June 1974; “Indian Salmon Bake,” The World, 3 and 4[?] August 1974; “Indian survey taken,” Cottage Grove Sentinel, 15 January 1976; all in Coquille Restoration, 1983, Coos Bay Oregon folder, 2nd accession, series 4, box 1:13, ncai Papers, nmaia-si; Eddie Helms in author interview with George C. Barton et al. 274

n o t e s to pag e s 1 8 4 – 1 8 5

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

13. Beckham to Members of Congress, 16 September 1973, reported in Congressional Record—Senate, 4 March 1975, 5034–35. Copy in ccf 1963 pao 175.2, rg 75, nara-dc. 14. Printed statements of Packwood and Hatfield, 4 March 1975, in Congressional Record—Senate, 4 March 1975, 5034–35. Copy in ccf 1963 pao 175.2, rg 75, nara-dc. 15. Hatfield to Secretary of the Interior Cecil D. Andrus, 16 May 1980, “Oregon Tribes Restoration” folder, series 4, container 117, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 16. Beckham to Members of Congress, 16 September 1973, reported in Congressional Record—Senate, 4 March 1975, 5034–35. Copy in ccf 1963 pao 175.2, rg 75, nara-dc. 17. Beckham to Bayh, 26 August 1976; Beckham to Senate Judiciary Committee, 11 January 1976, both in Senate Judiciary Committee, 94th Cong. s 945, Legislative Files box 11, rg 46, nara-dc. 18. See aiprc Task Force no. 10, transcript, 13 March 1976, Salem, Oregon, aiprc Records, rg 220, nara-cpm. 19. Beckham says that Brainard served as chairman of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw from approximately 1971 to 1985: “History of Western Oregon Since 1846,” 188. 20. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 20 June 2006; author interview with Muriel Brainard; obituary, Russell Jordan Anderson, The World, 21 November 1981. 21. Bill Brainard testimony, aiprc Task Force no. 10, transcript, 13 March 1976, Salem, Oregon, 27–29, aiprc Records, rg 220, nara-cpm; Ruby and Brown, A Guide, 80; author interview with Frank Barrett. 22. Robbins, Hard Times in Paradise, 131–36; Schwantes, The Pacific Northwest, 347–51. 23. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; Robbins, Hard Times in Paradise, 108; Linda Meierjurgen, “Tribe’s bill was long time coming, Restoration Act,” The World, 6 October 1984. 24. Melody Caldera, “Conflict and Reservations,” in Caldera, ed., South Slough Adventures, 70. A 1961 publicity pamphlet aimed at tourists, “Tahkeitch Tree Farm” (West Linn: Crown Zellerbach), described the history of Siuslaw Indians in the area of their tree farm in romantic and tragic terms. Perhaps hoping to titillate tourists, the authors wrote that “[t]oday some of their descendants reside in the area,” having inherited allotments. In Miscellaneous folder, box 12, David Charlton Papers, ohs. notes to page s 186– 189

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

275

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

25. Robbins, Hard Times in Paradise, 135–38, 153–65. 26. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report to Accompany hr 5540, 5; narc, “A Statistical Profile,” 9–10. The data used in this profile were acquired from questionnaires sent to tribal members. The return rate was 73 percent. 27. narc, “A Statistical Profile,” 10–11. 28. Stephen Beckham and Bill Brainard testimony, aiprc Task Force no. 10, transcript, 13 March 1976, Salem, Oregon, 76–81, 97, aiprc Records, rg 220, nara-cpm. 29. narc, “A Statistical Profile,” 14–15. 30. narc, “A Statistical Profile,” 13. 31. narc, “A Statistical Profile,” 17; Kawamoto, “Community Mental Health and Family Issues,” 1486. Kawamoto also describes Don Whereat’s recollection in 1997 of the last language speaker. 32. narc, “A Statistical Profile,” 2, and Map B. 33. Bill Brainard testimony, aiprc Task Force no. 10, transcript, 13 March 1976, Salem Oregon, 69, aiprc Records, rg 220, nara-cpm. 34. For example, David P. Weston, assistant area director (Community Services) wrote to James Cederstrom, son of Alfred Sprague and Jennie Carlson, both Coos tribal members, on 13 September 1966: “We have no record of membership rolls of Coos tribe,” ccf 1966 pao 053, rg 75, nara-dc. Commissioner of Indian Affairs Robert L. Bennett to Senator Wayne Morse, 12 December 1968, ccf 1968, pao 013, rg 75, nara-dc. 35. Boxberger, To Fish in Common; Cohen, Treaties on Trial; Secretary of the Interior Stewart Udall to Mr. [Robert] Hart, [secretary, Steelhead Trout Club of Washington] 13 April 1963, in ccf 1960–61 pao 931, rg 75, nara-dc. 36. Jerry Tippens, “Oregon Ready To Crack Down On Indians Who Violate State Fishing Laws,” Oregon Journal, 6 January 1966. 37. Author interview with George C. Barton et al. 38. Author interview with Frank Barrett. 39. Barton and Bowen in author interview with George C. Barton et al. 40. Author interview with George C. Barton et al. 41. Beckham, Land of the Umpqua, 113. 42. Author interview with George C. Barton et al. 43. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; author 276

n o t e s to pag e s 1 8 9 – 1 9 5

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 20 June 2006; author interview with Brenda Brainard; U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report to Accompany hr 5540, 4; author interview with George C. Barton et al.; Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes, Inc., “The Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indian Tribes,” Southwest Oregon Community College Library. 44. Author interview with George C. Barton et al. 45. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; Linda Meierjurgen, “Tribe’s bill was long time coming, Restoration Act,” The World, 6 October 1984. 46. “Reburial rites held by Indians,” Oregonian, 8 June 1975. Photograph, c1. 47. George Barton, Edgar Bowen, Don Whereat, and Eddie Helms in author interview with George C. Barton et al. On old name, see Lottie Evanoff in The Papers of John Peabody Harrington, 1:23, 911 and 1:24, 408. 48. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; Testimony of Edgar Bowen, aiprc Task Force no. 10, transcript, 13 March 1976, Salem, Oregon, 95, aiprc Records, rg 220, nara-cpm. Brainard, “‘What Were We to Do When We Were Terminated?’” 477. 49. Author interview with George C. Barton et al. 50. U.S. Congress, House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report to Accompany hr 5540, 5. 51. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 52. For detailed documentation of numerous projects aio organized and supported, see the LaDonna Harris Papers, naes College Archives. 53. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 54. In ncai records, Coos Bay is listed as a tribe in 1976, and thereafter Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw. ncai records Bill Brainard as a member in 1977 and Russell Anderson in 1981. See ncai 1976 Tribal Membership folder, ncai Membership List 1977, ncai 1977 Tribal Membership List folder and Membership Dues 1978 folder in series 18, container 19; 1981 Original Membership List folder in series 18, container 20, ncai Papers, nmaia-si; author interview with Muriel Brainard. 55. Author interview with Muriel Brainard. 56. Author interview with Frank Barrett. 57. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. notes to page s 195– 199

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

277

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

58. Author interview with George C. Barton et al.; “Three Indian Tribes Hold Salmon Bake,” The Sun and North Bend News, 15 August 1968. 59. Beckham, The Indians of Western Oregon, iii–vi. 60. Whereat in author interview with George C. Barton et al.; Donald R. Wharton, Oregon Legal Services Corporation Native American Program, Portland, to Suzan Harjo, 18 December 1981, “Oregon Tribes Restoration” folder, series 4, container 117, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 61. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 62. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; and, for example, McCall to C. Gregory Crampton, director, Western History Center, University of Utah, 19 June 1967, “Indians” folder, 1967, container 7, Administrative Correspondence Series 1967–70, Records of Office of Governor Tom McCall, osa. 63. Bracelin to McCall, 11 January 1974, and McCall to Bracelin, 18 January 1974, both in “Indians” folder, box 34, Administrative Correspondence Series 1967–1974, Records of Office of Governor Tom McCall, osa. 64. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 65. Hatfield to Andrus, 16 May 1980, “Oregon Tribes Restoration” folder, series 4, container 117, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 66. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; memo from Stephen Dow Beckham to Harris, 2 May 1984, in Confederated Tribes—Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw folder, series 1, box 23, LaDonna Harris Papers, naes College Archives. 67. Bowen to Zuern, 9 October 1984, Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions Papers, Marquette University Archives. LaDonna Harris to Bowen, 27 September 1983; Bill Brainard to Harris, 29 May 1984; memo from Stephen Dow Beckham to Harris, 2 May 1984, all in Confederated Tribes—Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw folder, series 1, box 23, LaDonna Harris Papers, naes College Archives. 68. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 69. Resolution, Board of Commissioners, State of Oregon, County of Coos, 14 January 1982; Scott Vandehey, Holy Redeemer Rectory, North Bend, To Whom It May Concern, 14 January 1982; Cordann W. Hunt, R.N., Lane County Community Health Nurse in Florence, 29 February 1980; Suzanne Berlago, Human Resource Assistant 1, Department of Human Resources, Children’s Services Division, Lane Branch, Eugene, To Whom It May Concern, 5 March 1980; Tom Antosz, counselor, Lane 278

n o t e s to pag e s 1 9 9 – 2 0 2

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

County Employment and Training, To Whom It May Concern, 5 March 1980; John W. Crowley, superintendent of schools, Coos Bay School District 9, To Whom It May Concern, 19 January 1982; Alfred Roth, City Administrator, City of North Bend, to Bill Brainard, 21 January 1982, on behalf of Mayor and City Council, Restoration folder, series 4, container 117, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 70. Author interview with Brenda Brainard. 71. Author interview with Brenda Brainard; State of Oregon, “Salmon for Indian Ceremonies.” 72. “House Committee on Agriculture and Natural Resources,” 13 May 1981 hearing, Minutes 4/1–6/15 folder, box 364, 1981 Regular Session, House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, 1981 Legislative Assembly Records, osa. 73. Exhibit B: Rollie Rousseau, Fish and Wildlife Commission, Exhibits hb 2993–hm1 folder, box 365, 1981 Regular Session, House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, 1981 Legislative Assembly Records, osa. 74. Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, Minutes 1/21–7/8 folder; Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, Exhibits hb 2871–hb 3278 folder, both in box 423, 1981 Regular Session, Joint Ways and Means, Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, 1981 Legislative Assembly Records, osa. 75. Obituary, Russell Jordan Anderson, The World, 21 November 1981; State of Oregon, Death Index. 76. Wharton to Harjo, 18 December 1981, Oregon Tribes Restoration folder, series 4, box 117, ncai Papers, nmaia-si. 77. “Resolutions submitted to the Resolutions Committee of the National Congress of American Indians at the ncai 39th Annual Convention held September 26 through October 1, 1982, Bismarck, North Dakota,” Resolutions-Bismarck folder, series 1, container 39; “Convention Proceedings of the National Congress of American Indians (ncai), 40th Annual Convention, October 9–14, 1983, Greenbay [sic], Wisconsin,” Convention Proceedings of the ncai, October 9–14, 1983 folder, series 1, container 40; “National Congress of American Indians Report Of The 41st Annual Convention, Our Inalienable Rights: Treaties, Land, Culture, Sovereignty, Government: The Powers & Responsibilities of Our Indian & Native Governments,” Report of the 41st Annual Convention folder, series 1, container 41; Resolution 18–85-ga: “Resolution Supporting the Restoration of the Klamath Tribe,” Resolutions—ncai Spokane Conference folder, series 1, container 41, all in ncai Papers, nmaia-si. notes to page s 202– 204

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

279

78. Author interview with Brenda Brainard, 13 June 2006. 79. Phil Stanford, “Squabbles split Oregon tribe, Bylaws labeled phony,” Oregonian, 17 May 1987. 80. Author interview with Brenda Brainard; Younker, “Coquille,” 83. 81. Author interview with Brenda Brainard. 82. Author interview with Brenda Brainard.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

10. The Achievement and Meaning of True Recognition 1. U.S. Congress, House, Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Report to Accompany hr 5540; Public Law 98–481 Bill Summary and Status; “Tribes to Get Back Status,” The World, 4 October 1984; author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004; author interview with Brenda Brainard. 2. Linda Meierjurgen, “Tribe’s bill was long time coming, Restoration Act,” The World. Ellipses in original. 3. “Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration Act”; “Status restored, Confederated tribes,” The World, 18 October 1984; “Tribal members regain U.S. status as Indians,” The Oregonian, 18 October 1984. 4. Linda Meierjurgen, “Tribe’s bill was long time coming, Restoration Act.” The World, 6 October 1984; Nelson Pickett, “After 30 years, Indian tribes rejoice,” Oregonian, 14 April 1985; author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 5. “Status restored, Confederated tribes,” The World, 18 October 1984. 6. Newman, Horses of Their own Making. 7. Quote taken from title of Wishart, An Unspeakable Sadness. 8. Gover on Native America Calling, quoted in “Gover describes vision as new director of nmai.” 9. Clark, A History of Oregon, 17. Thanks to Jason Younker for alerting me to this work. 10. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia. 11. Hanby, “The New Indianism,” 209n3. 12. Ritter, comp. and ed., 2003–05 Oregon Directory of American Indian Resources; Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Indian Entities.” 13. Author interview with Brenda Brainard; author interview with George C. Barton et al. 280

n o t e s to pag e s 2 0 5 – 2 1 2

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

14. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 15. Author interview with Brenda Brainard. 16. Testimony of Bill Brainard, aiprc Task Force no. 10, transcript, 101, 13 March 1976, Salem, Oregon, aiprc Records, rg 220, naracpm. 17. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs, “Final Determination for Federal Acknowledgement.” 18. Author interview with Edgar A. Bowen, 2 April 2004. 19. Jacobs, Coos Myth Texts, 243–49. M. Smith, Review, observes that this view of creation of the modern world reflects that of the Coos’ northern neighbors. 20. Beck, The Struggle for Self-Determination, 187. Bowen is paraphrasing the saying “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.” Wendell Phillips said this in January 1852. Previous to that, in 1790, John Philpot Curran, in a speech in Dublin, declared, “The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance.” Demosthenes said something similar in Philippic 2. See Platt, ed., Respectfully Quoted, and Bartlett, Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. 21. Trouillot, Silencing the Past, xix.

notes to page s 213– 216

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

281

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved. Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

b i b l i o g ra ph y

Abbreviations ccf naes pao rg

Central Classified Files Native American Educational Services Portland Area Office Record Group

Unpublished Primary Sources L. Tom Perry Special Collections, Harold B. Lee Library, Brigham Young University Arthur V. Watkins (1886–1973) Papers. mss 146. Mitchell Al Dodge Papers. Unprocessed when viewed by author, June 2004. Library of Congress Pompey, Sherman Lee. “The 1900 Census of Indians in the North Marshfield Precinct, Coos County, Oregon.” Florence: Western Oregon Genealogical Research Library, Inc., March 1980, 1 p. Marquette University Archives

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions Papers. NAES

College Archives, Chicago

LaDonna Harris Papers. Note: These papers have been moved to the University of New Mexico Center for Southwest Research and Special Collections, where they are being reprocessed. I viewed them at naes College when it was in existence. National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution Barnhardt. Census of Oregon Indians 1857. ms 2360. George Gibbs. “Observations on the Coast Tribes of Oregon.” ms 196-A.

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

George P. Bissell, collector. Lower Umpqua Vocabulary, 1881. ms 873. Harry Hull St. Clair II. Coos Linguistic Material, 1903. ms 1822. J. Buchanan. Coos Myths, traditions, grammatical notes and miscellany. ms 2518. James Owen Dorsey Papers. ms 4800. James Mooney Papers. ms 2535. John J. Milhau. Letters to George Gibbs. ms 191-a. Leo Joachim Frachtenberg. Coos Notes. ms 1821. Leo Joachim Frachtenberg. Ethnological notes, etc. ms 330. Leo Joachim Frachtenberg. “Ethnology of the Coos Indians, 1909.” ms 1726. Leo Joachim Frachtenberg. “Siuslaw Myths.” ms 1725. Philip Drucker Papers, 1933–ca. 1954. ms 4516. National Archives and Records Administration–College Park, Maryland rg 48. Records of the Office of the Secretary of the Interior. Office Files of Secretary of the Interior Douglas McKay. Entry 770. rg 220. Records of Temporary Committees, Commissions, and Boards. Records of the American Indian Policy Review Commission, 1975–1977.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

National Archives and Records Administration–Pacific Alaska Region (Seattle) rg 75. Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Grand Ronde–Siletz Indian Agency Records. General Records. Decimal Files. Portland Area Office Records. pao 01. Subject Files of the Area Director, 1946–1957. pao 02. Desk Files for the Assistant Area Director for Administration. pao 07. Records of the Assistant Area Director Related to the Termination of Western Oregon Tribes, 1954–1960. pao 58. Tribal Council Minutes and Resolutions, 1946–1965. National Archives and Records Administration–Washington DC rg 46. Records of the United States Senate. rg 75. Records of the Bureau of Indian Affairs. 284

bibliography

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

ccf 1907–39. Grand Ronde–Siletz. ccf 1907–39. Roseburg. ccf 1940–57. Grand Ronde–Siletz. ccf 1940–57. Portland District Office. ccf 1948–52. Portland Area Office. ccf 1953–54. Portland Area Office. ccf 1956. Portland Area Office. ccf 1957. Portland Area Office. ccf 1958. Portland Area Office. ccf 1959. Portland Area Office. ccf 1960–61. Portland Area Office. ccf 1963. Portland Area Office. ccf 1964. Portland Area Office. ccf 1965. Portland Area Office. ccf 1966. Portland Area Office. ccf 1967. Portland Area Office. ccf 1968. Portland Area Office. Correspondence of Assistant Commissioner William Zimmerman, 1935–48. Entry 189. Letters Received, 1881–1907. Entry 91. Letters Sent, 1870–1908. Entry 96. Records of the Office of Chief Clerk and Assistant Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Memoranda of Assistant Commissioner William Zimmerman, 1935–1948. Entry 190. Records of the Office of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Office Files of Commissioner John Collier, 1933–45. Entry 178. Special Case No. 181. Land Patents. rg 123. Records of the United States Court of Claims. Case File k-345: General Accounting Office. Report on the Coos Bay et al. Claims Case k-345. Forwarded to the Department of Justice, 4 May 1934. Testimony of George B. Wasson for Plaintiffs, in the Court of Claims of the United States, Coos (or Kowes) Bay, Lower Umpqua (or Kalawatset), and Siuslaw Indian Tribes vs. the United States, Case No. k-345. 9 April 1935. bibliog rap hy

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

285

Testimony Taken on Behalf of Claimants, in the Court of Claims of the United States, Coos (or Kowes) Bay, Lower Umpqua (or Kalawatset), and Siuslaw Indian Tribes vs. the United States, Case No. k-345. 10–13 November 1931. rg 233. Records of the United States House of Representatives. rg 279. Records of the Indian Claims Commission. Docket Number 265. National Archives Museum–Washington DC Field notes, 23 August 2007. Taken at Bill of Rights display. National Museum of the American Indian Archives, Smithsonian Institution Helen L. Peterson Papers. National Congress of American Indians Papers. Oregon Historical Society Charles Paul Keyser Papers. mss 2383. Confederated Tribes of Siletz Records, 1855–1957. mss 442. Correspondence. mss 1500. David Charlton Papers. mss 1900. Edward R. Geary Papers. mss 68. Scrapbooks.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Oregon State Archives 1981 Legislative Assembly Records. Office of Governor Douglas McKay Papers, 1948–52. Office of Governor Paul L. Patterson Papers, 1952–56. Records of Office of Governor Tom McCall, 1967–75. Southern Oregon Historical Society Takelma vertical file. Southwest Oregon Community College Library Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Tribes, Inc. “The Coos, Lower 286

bibliography

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Umpqua and Siuslaw Indian Tribes: An Historical Perspective.” Unpublished paper, n.d., 8 pp. Spirit Mountain Lodge and Casino, Grand Ronde, Oregon Author’s field notes, 25 March 2007. Taken at “Termination and Restoration” exhibit: “Welcome to Our Story: The Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon” exhibit hall. University of Oregon Special Collections and University Archives Douglas McKay Papers, 1925–58. Collection No. ax 063.

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Other Published Primary Sources, Papers, and Secondary Sources Arnold, Laurie. “The Paradox of a House Divided: The Colville Tribes and Termination.” PhD diss., Arizona State University, 2005. Asher, Brad. Beyond the Reservation: Indians, Settlers, and the Law in Washington Territory, 1853–1889. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999. Bartlett, John. Bartlett’s Familiar Quotations. 17th ed. Edited by Justin Kaplan. Boston: Little, Brown, 2002. Beck, David R. M. The Struggle for Self-Determination: History of the Menominee Indians since 1854. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2005. Beckham, Stephen Dow. “History of Western Oregon Since 1846.” In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, 180–88. Vol. 7 of Handbook of North American Indians, general editor William C. Sturtevant. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1990. ———. The Indians of Western Oregon: This Land Was Theirs. Coos Bay or: Arago Books, 1977. ———. Land of the Umpqua: A History of Douglas County, Oregon. Roseburg or: Douglas County Commissioners, 1986. ———. “Lonely Outpost: The Army’s Fort Umpqua.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 70 (1969): 233–57. ———. Requiem for a People: The Rogue Indians and the Frontiersmen. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1971. Booth, Peter M. “‘If the cattle are going to die, let them die’: Tohono O’odham and New Deal Conservation.” In Trusteeship in Change: Toward Tribal Autonomy in Resource Management, edited by Richmond L. Clow and Imre Sutton, 115–44. Boulder: University Press of Colorado, 2001. bibliog rap hy

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

287

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Boxberger, Daniel. To Fish in Common: The Ethnohistory of Lummi Indian Salmon Fishing. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989. Brainard, Bill. “‘What Were We to Do When We Were Terminated?’” In Oregon’s Indians: Voices from Two Centuries, edited by Stephen Dow Beckham, 474–80. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2006. Brophy, William A., and Sophie D. Aberle et al., comp. The Indian: America’s Unfinished Business. Report of the Commission on the Rights, Liberties, and Responsibilities of the American Indian. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1966. Burt, Larry W. Tribalism in Crisis: Federal Indian Policy, 1953–1961. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1982. Byram, R. Scott. “Tectonic History and Cultural Memory: Catastrophe and Restoration on the Oregon Coast.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 108:2 (2007): 167–80. Caldera, Melody, ed. South Slough Adventures: Life on a Southern Oregon Estuary. Coos Bay: The Friends of South Slough, 1995. Clark, Robert. A History of Oregon. Chicago: Row, Peterson, 1925. Clow, Richmond L. “Reservation Forestry Practices.” Unpublished paper. Copy in author’s possession. Cohen, Fay G. Treaties on Trial: The Continuing Controversy over Northwest Indian Fishing Rights. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1986. Cramer, Renee Ann. Cash, Color, and Colonialism: The Politics of Tribal Acknowledgment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2005. Dale, Harrison Clifford, ed. The Ashley-Smith Explorations and the discovery of a Central Route to the Pacific, 1822–1829. Rev. ed. Glendale ca: Arthur H. Clark Company, 1941. Davies, K. G., ed. Peter Skene Ogden’s Snake Country Journal, 1826– 1827. London: The Hudson’s Bay Record Society, 1961. Publications of Hudson Bay’s Record Society 23. Deloria, Vine, Jr. Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. New York: Avon Books, 1969. Deloria, Vine, Jr., and Raymond J. DeMallie. Documents of American Indian Diplomacy: Treaties, Agreements, and Conventions, 1775– 1979. Vol. 2. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1999. Dodge, Orvil. Pioneer History of Coos and Curry Counties, Or., Heroic 288

bibliography

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Deeds and Thrilling Adventures of the Early Settlers. 2nd ed. Bandon: Coos-Curry Pioneer and Historical Association: 1969. (Orig. pub. 1898.) Douthit, Nathan. A Guide to Oregon South Coast History, Traveling the Jedediah Smith Trail. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 1999. ———. Uncertain Encounters: Indians and Whites at Peace and War in Southern Oregon, 1820s–1860s. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2002. Elliot, T. C. Introduction and notes. “Journal of Captain Charles Bishop of the ‘Ruby’ in 1795.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 29:4 (1928): 337–46. Fahey, John. The Kalispel Indians. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986. Fixico Donald L. Termination and Relocation: Federal Indian Policy, 1945–1960. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1986. Frachtenberg, Leo J. “Coos.” In Handbook of American Indian Languages, edited by Franz Boas, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40, pt 2, 297–429. Washington dc: Government Printing Office, 1922. ———. Coos Texts. Vol. 1, Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, edited by Franz Boas. New York: Columbia University Press, 1913. ———. Lower Umpqua Texts and Notes on the Kusan Dialects. Vol. 4, Columbia University Contributions to Anthropology, edited by Franz Boas. New York: Columbia University Press, 1914. ———. “Siuslawan (Lower Umpqua).” In Handbook of American Indian Languages, edited by Franz Boas, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 40, pt. 2, 431–629. Washington dc: Government Printing Office, 1922. ———., ed. “Traditions of the Coos Indians of Oregon.” Collected by Harry Hull St. Clair II. Journal of American Folklore 22:83 (1909): 25–41. Goddard, Ives. Map. “Native Languages and Language Families of North America.” Accompanies Ives Goddard, ed. Languages. Washington dc: Smithsonian Institution, 1996. “Gover Describes Vision as New Director of nmai.” Indianz.com (18 September 2007). Accessed 19 September 2007 at www.indianz .com/News/2007/004966.asp. bibliog rap hy

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

289

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Guterson, David. Snow Falling on Cedars. New York: Vintage Books, 1995. Hanby, Victor J. “The New Indianism and the Menominee of Wisconsin.” In Case Studies on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, A World Survey, edited by Willem A. Veenhoven and Winifred Crum Ewing, 1: 193–210. The Hague: Martines Nijhoff, 1975. Harmon, Alexandra. Indians in the Making: Ethnic Relations and Indian Identities around Puget Sound. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998. Haynal, Patrick Mann. “Termination and Tribal Survival: The Klamath Tribes of Oregon.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 101:3 (2000): 270–301. Henderson, Sarah Fisher, Nellie Edith LaTourette, and Kenneth Scott LaTourette, eds. “Correspondence of the Reverend Ezra Fisher, Pioneer Missionary of the Baptist Home Mission Society of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa and Oregon.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 17 (1916): 431–80. Hermann, Binger. “Early History of Southern Oregon.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 19 (1918): 53–68. Herzberg, Stephen J. “The Menominee Indians: From Treaty to Termination.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 60:4 (Summer 1977): 267–329. ———. “The Menominee Indians: Termination to Restoration.” American Indian Law Review 6:1 (Summer 1978): 143–86. Hood, Susan. “Termination of the Klamath Tribe in Oregon.” Ethnohistory 19 (Fall 1972): 379–92. Hoover, Herbert, et al. The Hoover Commission Report on Organization of the Executive Branch of the Government. Westport ct: Greenwood Press, 1970. (Orig. pub. 1949.) Howay, F. W., and T. C. Elliot, ann. “Reprint of Boit’s Log of the Columbia, 1790–1793.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 22:4 (1921): 265–356. Jacobs, Melville. Coos Myth Texts. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 8:2. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1940. ———. Coos Narrative and Ethnologic Texts. University of Washington Publications in Anthropology 8:1. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1939. Jorgensen, Joseph G. The Sun Dance Religion: Power for the Powerless. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972. 290

bibliography

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Kawamoto, Walter T. “Community Mental Health and Family Issues in Sociohistorical Context: The Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians.” American Behavioral Scientist 44:9 (May 2001): 1482–91. LaGrand, James B. Indian Metropolis: Native Americans in Chicago, 1945–1975. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2002. Lamb, Kaye W., ed. A Voyage of Discovery to the North Pacific Ocean and Round the World, 1791–1795. Vols. 1 and 2 of The Voyage of George Vancouver, 1791–1795. Works issued by the Hakluyt Society, Second Series, No. 163–64, 1984. Losey, Robert J. “Native American Vulnerability and Resiliency to Great Cascadia Earthquakes.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 108:2 (2007): 201–14. McArthur, Lewis A. “Oregon Geographic Names.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 28 (1927): 163–224. McMillen, Christian W. Making Indian Law: The Hualapai Land Case and the Birth of Ethnohistory. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. McNickle, D’Arcy. “The Indian Tests the Mainstream.” The Nation (26 September 1966): 275–79. Meany, Edmond S. History of the State of Washington. New York: MacMillan, 1910. Merk, Frederick. History of the Westward Movement. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. Metcalf, R. Warren. Termination’s Legacy: The Discarded Indians of Utah. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2002. Miller, Bruce Granville. Invisible Indigenes: The Politics of Nonrecognition. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2003. Miller, Mark Edwin. Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 2004. Newman, Jim, producer. Horses of Their own Making. Documentary film. Oregon Public Broadcasting, 1993. “News and Comment: Indian Affairs.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 30 (1929): 293. Nichols, David A. Lincoln and the Indians: Civil War Policy and Politics. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2000. (Orig. pub. 1978.) O’Donnell, Terence. An Arrow in the Earth: General Joel Palmer and the Indians of Oregon. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press, 1991. bibliog rap hy

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

291

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Olson, Kristine. Standing Tall: The Lifeway of Kathryn Jones Harrison. Portland: Oregon Historical Society Press, 2005. Oregon Blue Book, 1947–48. Orfield, Gary Allen. “Ideology and the Indians: A Study of the Termination Policy.” Master’s thesis, University of Chicago, 1965. The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, 1907–1955. Millwood ny: Kraus International Publications, 1981. Microfilm. Pederson, William D. “Four Freedoms.” In The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America, edited by David Schultz and John R. Vile, 2:383–94. Armonk ny: Sharpe Reference, 2005. Peroff, Nicholas. Menominee Drums: Tribal Termination and Restoration, 1954–1974. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1982. Peterson, Emil R., and Alfred Powers. A Century of Coos and Curry, History of Southwest Oregon. Coquille: Coos-Curry Pioneer and Historical Association, 1977. Pevar, Stephen L. The Rights of Indians and Tribes. 3d ed. New York: New York University Press, 2004. Phillips, Patty Whereat. “Tsunamis and Floods in Coos Bay Mythology.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 108:2 (2007): 181–92. Philp, Kenneth R. Termination Revisited: American Indians on the Trail of Self-Determination. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1999. A Pioneer Resident of the Bay. [Mann, Samuel Stillman]. The Settlements and Early Settlers of Coos Bay: Personal Sketches, Eccentric Characters, and Historical Reminisces. Marshfield: Printed at the Coast Mail Book and Job Printing Office, 1879. Platt, Suzie, ed. Respectfully Quoted: A Dictionary of Quotations. New York: Barnes and Noble, 1993. Prucha, Francis Paul. American Indian Treaties: The History of a Political Anomaly. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Puisto, Jaakko. “‘This is My Reservation, I Belong Here’: The Salish Kootenai Struggle Against Termination.” PhD diss., Arizona State University, 2000. “Removal of Indian Office to Chicago is Accomplished.” Indians at Work 10:1 (1942): 7. Ritter, Gladine G., comp. and ed. 2003–05 Oregon Directory of American Indian Resources. Salem: Legislative Commission on Indian Services. http:// www.leg.state.or.us/cis. Accessed June 2004. Robbins, William G. Hard Times in Paradise: Coos Bay, Oregon. Rev. ed. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2006. 292

bibliography

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Roosevelt, Franklin D. “Four Freedoms Speech.” Champaign il: Project Gutenberg, n.d. Electronic resource accessed 10 October 2007. Rosenthal, Harvey D. “Indian Claims and the American Conscience: A Brief History of the Indian Claims Commission.” In Irredeemable America: The Indians’ Estate and Land Claims, edited by Imre Sutton, 35–70. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1985. Ruby, Robert H., and John A. Brown. A Guide to the Indian Tribes of the Pacific Northwest. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1986. Sabean, David Warren. Power in the Blood: Popular Culture and Village Discourse in Early Modern Germany. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1984. Scholfield, Socrates. “The Klamath Exploring Expedition, 1850: Settlement of the Umpqua Valley—Its Outcome.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 17 (1916): 341–57. Schoolcraft, Henry R. Information Respecting the History Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes of the United States Collected and Prepared under the direction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs per act of Congress of March 3rd 1847. Pt. 3. Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo, 1853. Schwantes, Carlos A. The Pacific Northwest: An Interpretive History. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1989. Schwartz, E. A. The Rogue River Indian War and Its Aftermath, 1850– 1980. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997. ———. “Sick Hearts: Indian Removal on the Oregon Coast, 1875–1881.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 92:3 (Fall 1991): 229–63. Selander, Kenneth J. “Section 2 of the Indian Claims Commission Act.” George Washington Law Review 15:4 (August 1947): 388–425. Smith, Linda Tuhuwai. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. London: Zed Books, 1999. Smith, Marian W. Review of Coos Myth Texts, by Melville Jacobs. Journal of American Folklore 55:218 (October 1942): 263–64. Talney, Mark A. “Question Validity of Klamath Plan.” The Christian Century 73 (25 July 1956): 882–84. Tobias, Terry N. Chief Kerry’s Moose, a Guidebook to Land Use and Occupancy Mapping, Research Design and Data Collection. Union of British Columbia: Chiefs/Ecotrust Canada, 2000. Tolley, Sara-Larus. Quest for Tribal Acknowledgment: California’s Honey Lake Maidus. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2006. bibliog rap hy

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

293

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Trouillot, Michel-Rolph. Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History. Boston: Beacon Press, 1995. Tveskov, Mark Axel. “The Coos and Coquille: A Northwest Coast Historical Anthropology.” PhD diss., University of Oregon, 2000. Tyler, S. Lyman. “Indian Affairs: A Work Paper on Termination, with an Attempt to Show Its Antecedents.” A Publication of the Institute of American Indian Studies. Provo ut: Brigham Young University, 1964. Ward, Beverly. White Moccasins. Cottage Grove or: Jerry Running Foxe, 1986. Wasson, George Bundy Jr. “Growing Up Indian: An Emic Perspective.” PhD diss., University of Oregon, 2001. White, Richard. Roots of Dependence: Subsistence, Environment, and Social Change among the Choctaws, Pawnees, and Navajos. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1983. Wilkinson, Charles. “The Passage of Termination Legislation.” In Report on Terminated and Nonfederally Recognized Indians, 1625–49. Final Report to the American Indian Policy Review Commission. Washington dc: Government Printing Office, October 1976. Wishart, David J. An Unspeakable Sadness: The Dispossession of the Nebraska Indians. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1995. Younker, Jason. “The Southwest Oregon Research Project: Strengthening Coquille Sovereignty with Archival Research and Gift Giving.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 29:2 (2005): 1–14. ———. “Coquille/Kο¯ ’kwel, A Southern Oregon Coast Indian Tribe: Revisiting History, Ingenuity, and Identity.” PhD diss., University of Oregon, 2003. ———. “Weaving Strong Ropes: Oral Tradition and Understanding the Great Tide.” Oregon Historical Quarterly 108:2 (Summer 2007): 193–201. Youst, Lionel. She’s Tricky Like Coyote: Annie Miner Peterson, An Oregon Coast Indian Woman. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1997. Youst, Lionel, and William R. Seaburg. Coquelle Thompson, Athabaskan Witness: A Cultural Biography. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2002. Zenk, Henry B. “Siuslawans and Coosans.” In Northwest Coast, edited by Wayne Suttles, 572–79. Vol. 7 of Handbook of North American Indians, general editor William C. Sturtevant. Washington: Smithsonian Institution, 1990. 294

bibliography

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Government and Legal Documents “Agreement with the Indians of the Siletz Reservation in Oregon.” U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 27 (1894): 323–26. Alcea Band of Tillamooks et al. v. The United States, 103 C. Cls. 494 (1945). “An Act Authorizing the Coos (Kowes Bay), Lower Umpqua (Kalawatset), and Siuslaw Tribes of Indians of the State of Oregon to Present their Claims to the Court of Claims.” U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 45 (23 February 1929): 1256–58. “An Act Authorizing the erection of a monument to the memory of Henry Milton Brainard at Cape Arago Light Station in Coos County, Oregon.” U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 64 (31 March 1950): 40. “An Act Making Appropriations for the Current and Contingent Expenses of the Indian Department and for fulfilling Treaty Stipulations with various Indian Tribes, for the Year ending June thirtieth eighteen hundred and fifty-eight.” U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 3 (3 March 1857): 169–85. “An Act to Authorize the preparation of rolls of persons of Indian blood whose ancestors were members of certain tribes or bands in the state of Oregon, and to provide for per capita distribution of funds arising from certain judgments in favor of such tribes or bands.” Public Law 715, U.S. Statutes at Large. Chap. 1085, vol. 68 (30 August 1954): 979–80. “An Act to Create the Office of Surveyor-General of the Public Lands in Oregon, and to provide for the Survey, and to make Donations to Settlers of the said Public Lands.” U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 9 (1850): 496–500. “An Act to Establish the Territorial Government of Oregon.” U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 9 (1848): 323–31. “An Act to Facilitate and Simplify the Administration of Indian Affairs.” U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 60 (1946): 939. “An Act to Provide for the Allotment of Lands in Severalty to Indians on the Various Reservations (General Allotment or Dawes Act).” U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 24 (1887): 388–91. “An Act to Provide for the termination of Federal supervision over the property of certain tribes and bands of Indians located in western Oregon and the individual members thereof, and for other purposes.” Public Law 588, U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 68 (1954): 724–28. “An Act to Repeal the Act terminating Federal supervision over the bibliog rap hy

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

295

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

property and members of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin . . .” U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 87 (1973): 770–73. Annual Reports of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. 1857, 1863, 1875, 1881–82, 1885–94, 1899–1900, 1902. Annual Report of the Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, to the Secretary of the Interior, reprinted from the Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1952. “Bureau of Indian Affairs” Dillon S. Myer, Commissioner, 389–424. Silver Microfiche Commissioner of Indian Affairs Annual Reports I 20.1:952. Washington dc: usgpo, 1837–1968. Annual Report of the Commissioner, Bureau of Indian Affairs, to the Secretary of the Interior, reprinted from the Annual Report of the Secretary of the Interior For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 1948. “Bureau of Indian Affairs” William Zimmerman, Jr., Acting Commissioner, 369–92. Annual Reports of the Secretary of the Interior. 1872, 1891, 1894, 1899. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831). “Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration Act.” U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 98 (1984): 2250. pl 98–481. Coos (or Kowes) Bay, Lower Umpqua (or Kalawatset), and Siuslaw Indian Tribes v. the United States, Case k-345, 87 C. Cls. 143 (1938). Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. “Final Determination for Federal Acknowledgment of the Poarch Band of Creeks.” Federal Register 49:113 (11 June 1984): 24083. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. “Indian Entities Recognized and Eligible To Receive Services From the United States Bureau of Indian Affairs; Notice,” pt. 4. Federal Register 67:134 (12 July 2002): 46328–33. Department of the Interior. Bureau of Indian Affairs. Planning Support Group. “Portland Area Demographic Statistical Data Report, Selected Counties with Significant Indian Population, vol. 2, Oregon.” Report 237. Federal Register. 19:224 (18 November 1954): 7440. Indian Census Rolls, 1885–1940. Microcopy 595. Washington dc: National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, 1965. Kappler, Charles J., ed. Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties. Vol. 1. Washington dc: Government Printing Office, 1904. 296

bibliography

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

———., ed. Indian Treaties, 1778–1871. New York: Interland Publishing, 1972. (Orig. pub. 1904.) Klamath Termination Act. Public Law 587, U.S. Statutes at Large. Vol. 68 (1954): 718–23. “Letter from the Acting Secretary of the Interior to the Chairman of the Committee on Indian Affairs, accompanying a report of Inspector E. C. Kemble in relation to the condition of the Indians of the Siletz agency in Oregon.” 43d Cong., 1st sess., Senate Mis. Doc. No. 65, Congressional Serial Set 1584. Letters Received by the Office of Indian Affairs, 1824–81. Microcopy 234. Washington dc: National Archives and Records Service, General Services Administration, 1959. Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 391 U.S. 404 (1968). National Park Service. Pacific Coast Recreation Area Survey, A Report of the United States Department of the Interior. Washington dc: Department of the Interior, 1959. National Register of Historic Places. Registration Form. Tribal Hall of the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians. 7 February 1989. Copy in author’s possession. Public Law 98-481 Bill Summary and Status, http://thomas.loc.gov/ bss/98search.html. (word search 98-481) Accessed 4 February 2009. State of Oregon. Death Index, 1981–1985. State of Oregon. “Salmon for Indian Ceremonies.” 2005 Oregon Revised Statutes, title 41, section 496.201. U.S. Congress. House. A Bill to facilitate the termination of Federal supervision over the affairs of Indian tribes and bands and individual Indians that were under the jurisdiction of the former Grand Ronde and Siletz Agencies, Oregon. hr 7489. 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., 10 April 1952. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Report to Accompany hr 444, Per Capita Distribution—Shoshone and Arapaho Tribes, Wyoming. 83rd Cong., 1st sess., 17 April 1953, S. Rep. 263. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Report to Accompany hr 5540, Providing For Restoration of Federal Recognition To the Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Siuslaw Indians, To Institute For Such Tribe Those Federal Services Provided To Indians Who Are Recognized By the Federal Government and Who Receive Such Services Because of Federal bibliog rap hy

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

297

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Trust Responsibility, and For Other Purposes. 98th Cong., 2nd sess., 1984, H. Rep. 98–904. U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs. Hearing on hr 7489. 21 May 1952. Unpublished House Hearings. U.S. Congress. House. hcr 108. 83d Cong. 1st sess., 1 August 1953. U.S. Congress. House. Hearings before the Committee on Indian Affairs, on H. Res. 166, Investigate Indian Affairs, pt. 2. 78th Cong., 2nd sess., 2, 9, 16, 25 February 1944. U.S. Congress. House. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Public Lands. On hr 2958, hr 2165, and hr 1113, Emancipation of Indians. 80th Cong., 1st sess., 8, 9, 10, 11 April, 15 May 1947. Committee Hearing No. 8. U.S. Congress. House. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. On hr 6260, Oregon Dunes National Seashore. 86th Cong., 1st sess., Florence, Oregon, 30 and 31 October 1959. Serial No. 13. U.S. Congress. House. hr 5540, Public Law 98–481. Bill Summary and Status for 98th Cong. http://thomas.loc.gov. Accessed 3 May 2003. U.S. Congress. House. Indian Relocation and Industrial Development Programs. Report of a Special Subcommittee on Indian Affairs of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 85th Cong., 2nd sess., October 1957. Committee Print No. 14. Washington dc: Government Printing Office, 1958. U.S. Congress. House. 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 Pursuant to House Resolution 89 (83rd Congress). hr 2680. 83rd Cong, 2nd sess., 20 September 1954. Serial Set cis No. 11747. U.S. Congress. House. 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, Pursuant to H. Res. 698 (82nd CONG). hr 2503. 82nd Cong, 2nd sess., 15 December 1952. Serial Set cis No. 11582. U.S. Congress. Joint Hearings before the Subcommittees of the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs. On s 2745 and hr 7320, Termination of Federal Supervision over Certain Tribes of Indians, pt. 4, Klamath. 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., 23–24 February 1954. 298

bibliography

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

U.S. Congress. Joint Hearings before the Subcommittees of the Committees on Interior and Insular Affairs. On s 2746 and hr 7317, Termination of Federal Supervision over Certain Tribes of Indians, pt. 3, Western Oregon. 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., 17 February 1954. U.S. Congress. Senate. A bill to authorize the presentation of claims of the Coos (or Kowes) Bay, Lower Umpqua (or Kalawatset), and Siuslaw Tribes of Indians to the Indian Claims Commission. 7 February 1956. s 3156, 84th Cong., 2nd sess. U.S. Congress. Senate. A Bill to facilitate the termination of Federal supervision over the affairs of Indian tribes and bands and individual Indians that were under the jurisdiction of the former Grand Ronde and Siletz Agencies, Oregon. s 3004, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess. 10 April 1952. U.S. Congress. Senate. Hearing held before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. s 3005, s 3004, and hr 459. Report of Proceedings. Vol. 3. Washington dc: Unpublished Senate Hearings, 9 June 1952. 82 sini-t.50. U.S. Congress. Senate. Hearing held before the Subcommittee of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. s 3005 and s 3004. Report of Proceedings. Vol. 2, 52–100. Washington dc: Unpublished Senate Hearings, 21 May 1952. cis-No 82sini-t.49. U.S. Congress. Senate. Hearings before the Committee on Civil Service. Officers and Employees of the Federal Government. 80th Cong., 1st sess., on S. Res. 41. Pt. 3. 4, 6, 8, 11, 13, 15, and 18 February 1947. U.S. Congress. Senate. Hearings before the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. Interior Nomination. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., On the Nomination of Robert LaFollette Bennett, of Alaska, to be Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1 April 1966. U.S. Congress. Senate. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. On s 250, Oregon Dunes National Seashore. 88th Cong., 1st sess., 20 July 1965. U.S. Congress. Senate. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. On s 250 and hr 7524, Oregon Dunes National Seashore. 89th Cong., 2nd sess., 22 and 23 June 1966. U.S. Congress. Senate. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. On s 1137, bibliog rap hy

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

299

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Oregon Dunes National Seashore. 88th Cong., 1st sess., 8, 9, and 22 May, with testimony taken at Eugene, Oregon, 4 May 1963. U.S. Congress. Senate. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Public Lands of the Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. On s 1526, s 2010, and s 2460, Oregon Dunes National Seashore. 86th Cong., 1st sess., Reedsport, Oregon, 5 October 1959, and Eugene, Oregon, 7 and 8 October 1959. U.S. Government Accountability Office. Report to Conrad Burns, Byron L. Dorgan, Charles H. Taylor, and Norman D. Dicks. “Indian Issues: blm‘s Program for Issuing Individual Indian Allotments on Public Lands Is No Longer Viable.” gao-07–23R blm Indian Allotments, 20 October 2006.

300

bibliography

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

i n de x

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Page references in italics refer to photographic inserts: the first number indicates the text page preceeding the insert; the second number is the photographic plate number. Abbott, George, 139, 154, 158 Accumnia. See Charley, Jennie Administration for Native Americans, 205 agriculture, 35, 39, 43, 49, 52, 58, 72 Agua Caliente Indians, 179 Alaska, 117 Alcea Band of Tillamooks v. United States, 106 alder, 85 Alice, as off-reservation Indian, 74 allotments, xi, 44, 61, 77, 79–84, 86, 88, 95, 110, 111, 115, 126, 128, 132, 135, 146, 151, 179–80. See also General Allotment Act; public domain allotments and allottees; and family, individual, and tribal listings Alsea Indians: attack on Umpqua, 3–4; claims payment to, 129; decline of reservation populations, 51; family and kinship ties of, 73; government rations issued to, 31; health problems experienced, 31; as laborers for whites, 39, 72; northern territory of, 3; removal to Coast Reservation, 40, 230n89; removal to Siletz Reservation, 65, 68–69, 72; smallpox epidemics in, 4, 37; survival of, 61 Alsea Reservation: closing of, 62; federal support of, 43; forced removal from, 61; gold mining on, 43; legislation opening to white settlement, 47, 51, 52 Alsea River, 41, 49, 88 Alsea Subagency: Alsea Indians living at, 41; escaped coastal Indians at, 40; federal funding of, 63; Siuslaw Indians on, 41; at Yachats River, 32 American Friends Service Committee, 204

American Indian Ambassadors Program, ix American Indian Policy Review Commission (aiprc), 187, 189 American Indians: citizenship rights of, 136; disease epidemics in populations of, 4, 14, 37, 78; as domestic dependent nations, 211; federal policies toward, ix, xi, xii, xviii, 115–36, 137–64; historical studies of, xiii–xiv, xv; ira boilerplate constitutions, 108; in military service, 119; oral histories of, xvi; restoration process of, xiv, 182–206; survival of tribes and nations, 209; tribal actions of, xiii; tribal community and modern selfdetermination, 209; tribal identity of, xiii, xv; tribal voice of, xv, xvi–xvii Americans for Indian Opportunity (aio), ix Anderson, Clinton, 142, 178 Anderson, Russell, 185; collective restoration efforts by, 185, 213; death of, 203–4; testimony of, 203; tribal activities and national meetings, 187, 198, 199, 200, 203–4 Andrus, Cecil, as Secretary of the Interior, 201 Aquinna, John, as Alsea headman, 53 Arnold, Laurie, xiv arrowwood, 89 Asher, Brad, xiii Association on American Indian Affairs: on judgment monies and termination, 153, 159; views on federal termination policy, 129, 144, 167 Atiyeh, Victor, as Oregon governor, 203 bacon, 109 Bagley, William: concerns with Indian survival, 71; final census of agency population, 72; reducing Indian fishing, 71; as Siletz agent, 63, 64–65, 69

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Baker, Grandma, 39, 82 Baker, Howard, 181 Banda, Jeff, 200 Bandon or, 200 Barrett, Blaine, 164-6 Barrett, Clayton, 164-7; driving beach stagecoaches, 88; on fishing, 91, 92; on Lower Umpqua hunting and fishing, 15; on origins of brother, 102; role in tribal politics, 112 Barrett, Ellen, 81, 88, 164-6 Barrett, Frank: allotment application by, 180; on hunting and fishing rights, 116, 193; opposition to national seashore park, 174; on staking homestead claims, 60; tribal activities and national meetings, 146–47, 198, 213 Barrett, George, 102 Barrett, George H.: public-domain allotment to, 81; testimony in claims cases, 102 Barrett, Henry Hudson, 164-4, 164-5; beach stagecoach business, 88, 164-5; marriages of, 88, 102 Barrett, Howard, Sr., 164-3, 164-5, 164-6; battling for federal recognition, 212–13; as chairman of business committee, 112; children of, 116; claims against United States, 98; driving beach stagecoaches, 88; ignored by government, 83; on Indians on tribal legislative committee, 109; land allotment to, 81; opposition to termination policy, 151, 159; role in tribal politics, 146–47, 148, 166, 173, 216; as Siuslaw, 60 Barrett, Logan, 164-6 Barrett, Richard, 180 Barrett, Susie, 164-6 Barrett family, land allotment to, 82 Barrett’s Landing, 88 Barton, Frank, 170 Barton, George: government-funded education, 170; on hunting and fishing rights, 193, 194; on meetings about termination, 128; tribal activities and national meetings, 174–75, 197, 200, 201, 213; as tribal chairman, 183–84; on tribal hall and survival, 194–95

baskets, 6, 8, 94, 245n83 bass, 92 Bates family, land allotment to, 82 Battey, Frederick, 43 Bayh, Birch, 187 bear, 5, 32, 89, 104 beaver, 5, 7, 90, 101; hides of, 9, 90 Beck, David R. M., 164-9 Beckham, Stephen Dow: on allotted lands lost, 82; on federal termination policy, 156; historical background provided by, 186–87, 201; The Indians of Western Oregon, xiv, 200; on loss of hunting and fishing rights, 190; on prerestoration years of coastal tribes, xiv; role in tribal activities, xix, 208; testimony of, 205; tribal history book by, 200 Beeson, John, 27–28 Bennett, Robert, as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 179, 183 Bensall, R. A., 60, 61 berries, 4–7, 27, 31, 88, 92–93, 94, 116, 211. See also blackberries; blueberries; cranberries; huckleberries; salal berries; strawberries; thimbleberries Berry, E. Y., 158 Bible, Alan, 178 Big Bill, as tribal leader, 57 bison, 8 Bissell, George, xvii, xviii blackberries, 92–93 blankets, 35, 42, 89; of seal hide, 90 blueberries, 93 boarding schools. See education; Carlisle Indian Industrial School; Chemawa Indian School; Haskell Institute boilerplate constitutions, 108 Boit, John, 10 Bosone, Reva Beck, 143 bow and arrow, 7 Bowen, Angela, 213 Bowen, Beaver, 213 Bowen, Cougar, 213 Bowen, Edgar A., 164-9; on aio board of directors, 197, 215; on boarding school education, 78; on care of burials and graveyards, 196; as Coos Elder Chief,

302

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

index

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

ix, 1, 36, 215; education and training of, 171; on federal termination policy, x, 126, 169–70; on hunting and fishing rights, 194; jobs and employment, 188; loss of family and relatives, 40; Menominee as inspiration, 202; on passage of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration act, 207; on poverty of coastal tribes, 116; on Siletz tribe populations, 76; on success of collective restoration efforts, 202, 212, 213, 216; testimony of, 187, 198; on threat of removal, 43; tribal activities and national meetings, 196–97, 200, 204; tribal losses with removal, 36–37, 40, 43, 229n73 Bracelin, Gary, 201 Brainard, Bill, 164-8; allotment application by, 180; as Coos leader, 156; as executive director of wrba, 187; on federal census count, 192; filing deed to community center, 195; jobs and employment, 188; long-standing efforts for recognition, 212, 213, 214; on North Spit, 175; opposing federal termination, 126–27; seeking compensation for lost lands, 208–9; testimony of, 198, 203; tribal activities and national meetings, 196–97, 198, 204, 212, 213, 214; tribal feelings with restoration, 208; as tribal vice-chairman, 180 Brainard, Brenda: on collective restoration efforts, 213; on Coquille restoration activities, 205; on federal termination policy, 127–28; role in restoration process, x, 202–3, 205; testimony of, 204–5 Brainard, Henry, 78, 166 Brainard, Muriel, tribal activities and national meetings, 198–99 Branch of Acknowledgement and Recognition (bar), 184 Bronson, Ruth Muskrat, 122 Brophy, William, as head of Indian Bureau, 121, 124 Brown, James, as agent, 57 Buchanan, Jim: as Coos and Walatch, 73; on Coos clothing and tools, 7; on Coos populations, 2, 65; on Coos removal,

56; on Coos tribal leadership, 8; at Empire Treaty meeting, 23; staking homestead claim, 60; testimony of, 103; wife purchase practices, 84 Bullard’s School, 79 Bureau of American Ethnology, 95 Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions, 199 Bureau of Indian Affairs (bia): effectiveness managing Indian affairs, 125, 145–46; establishing termination policy, 118, 141, 148, 154, 172; Federal Acknowledgment Project, 186, 215; Portland Area jurisdiction, 176; studies of Indian demographics, 16; views of Empire Treaty, 23. See also Branch of Acknowledgement and Recognition; Federal Acknowledgement Project; Grand Ronde–Siletz Agency; Portland Area Office; Siletz Agency; Swan Island burials. See cemeteries and graves Burns, Bob, as Coos chief, 85, 97 Burns, Robert, 56 Burt, Larry, xiii, 117, 156, 178; Tribalism in Crisis, xiii Butler, Hugh, 134 California, Indian bands and tribes in, 146, 179 Carlson, Jennie, 109 camas, 5, 93, 94 Cameron, George, 55 canneries, 92 canoes, 4, 7, 9, 15, 33, 34, 39, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91–92 Cape Arago or and lighthouse, 4, 166 Cape Foulweather or, 4 Cape Lookout or, 28 Cape Perpetua or, 38 Carlisle Indian Industrial School, 77, 79, 96 carrots, wild, 93 Cascade Mountains, 17 Case, Samuel, 46, 55 Casson, William, 83–84 catfish, 92 cattail roots, 93 cemeteries and graves, 4, 34, 110, 166, 196

index

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

303

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Chandler, Zachariah, as Secretary of the Interior, 64 Chapman, M. N., 57, 58 Chapman, Oscar, as Secretary of the Interior, 131 Charles, Andrew, 78, 102 Charles family, land allotment to, 82 Charleston or, 33, 88 Charley, Jennie, 83 Chemawa Agency, 111, 118, 125 Chemawa Indian School, 77, 78, 83, 118, 125, 129, 132 Chetco Indians: claims cases of, 106–7, 112; federal plans for termination, 135; removal to reservation, 37; signing Empire Treaty, 31; white attacks on, 17 Chicago Daily News, 120 chicken, 99 Chinook jargon, as lingua franca, 12, 22, 86 Chinook salmon, 92 Chintell family land allotment to, 82 chiton, 91 chokecherries, 93 Church, Frank, 178 claims. See Indian Claims Commission; U.S. Court of Claims; individual tribes clam chowder, 109 clams, 5, 6, 7, 86, 91, 99, 104, 116, 193; shell of, 25 Clark, Robert, 210; A History of Oregon, 210–11 class divisions, 9–10 Clatsop Indians, signing Empire Treaty, 31 clothing, 7, 8, 25, 34, 42, 43, 56, 82, 85, 89, 93 Clover Patch, 89 Clover Ridge, 89 clover roots, 7 clubs, 6, 7 coal, 20, 23, 27 Coast Reservation: division and land removed from, 40; Fort Umpqua guarding, 30; Indian removal to, 30, 32–36, 230n89; legislation opening to white settlement, 51, 79; productive farmland on, 35; Yaquina Bay harbor, 40

cod, 92 Codding, Daisy Wasson, 79, 86, 109 Cohen, Felix, 144 Collier, John: as head of Indian Bureau, 115, 117; on postwar process for reservations, 121–22; tiered list of tribes, 120; on tribal incorporation, 115, 117, 118–19 Collins, George W., as Alsea subagent, 42 Columbia, trade with Lower Umpqua, 10 Columbia River: coastal tribe occupation near, 2; Lewis and Clark winter camp at, 12; timber resources near, 49; trade potential of, 18; white settlements south of, 14 Colville Confederated Tribe, 163, 179 Colville Reservation, xiv Commission on the Rights, Liberties, and Responsibilities of the American Indian, 176–77 community hall. See Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians: community center and tribal hall of Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (ceta), 187 Confederated Grand Ronde tribe, 185, 204 Confederated Salish and Kootenai tribe, 155 Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians: community center and tribal hall of, 105, 109, 172, 194; loss of mixed heritage members, 129; as recognized, 212; restoration of, xii, 182–206; tribal government of, ix, xi, xii. See also Coos Indians; Lower Umpqua Indians; Siuslaw Indians Confederated Tribes of Siletz, restoration of, 185 conflict, intercultural, 15 Coon Island, 39 Coosan language family, 2. See also Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians; Hanis language; Miluk language Coos Bay: Confederated tribal hall and

304

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

index

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

community center, 105, 172, 194; Coos villages along, 2; cranberry economy, 86; extractive industries in, 88; fish and seafood industry, 87; land allotments to Indians, 80; resources in, 27; South Slough of, 2, 38, 60, 102, 188; timber resources near, 49; tribal lands around, 27 Coos Bay or, 25, 26, 49, 85, 88, 175, 187, 194–95, 199 Coos Bay Harbor, 85, 98, 110 Coos Bay News, 86 Coos Bay-North Bend Water Department, 187 Coos Bay School District, 200 Coos Bay Times, 85, 100, 108 Coos County, 7, 9, 75–76, 97, 101, 108, 110–11, 184, 188, 189, 191, 202 Coos Indians, 164-10; adapting to life at Yachats, 41; aid to Lower Umpqua, 4; application for federal recognition, 184–85; care of burials and graveyards, 110, 166, 196; Chemawa Indian School attendance, 77; claims cases of, 96, 112, 157, 166; class distinctions in, 9; clothing and tools, 7–8, 93; confederating with other tribes, 95, 96–114; conflicts with fur traders, 13; Coosan language family of, 2; Death March to Coast Reservation, 30; decline of reservation populations, 51; Empire Treaty quasirecognition of, 24; everyday life of, xvii; federal services to, 70; first contact with white populations, 1, 11, 12; first mention in termination legislation, 148–49; forced removal from Coos Bay, 3, 30, 66; garden-farms of, 88; government rations issued to, 31; Hanis language group of, 2, 26, 73, 102; health problems and health care of, 31, 190–91; hiding from removal, 33, 38–39, 40, 69; homelands of, xi, 2, 18–19, 191; hunting and fishing rights of, 92, 111, 192–93, 203; impact of termination, 167–81, 210; interactions with white populations, xi, 18, 20–21, 25; intermarriage of, 67; land allotments to, 80; longstanding efforts for recognition, 214;

lost lands and resources, 208–9, 214; marriage and divorce practices of, 10; material culture of, 4, 5, 93–94; mention in House Report 2503, 146; Miluk language group of, 2, 73, 102; ncai membership of, 198, 204; off-reservation populations and subsistence, 72, 74, 76, 86; opposition to federal termination, ix–x, 126–27, 136, 164, 168; opposition to national seashore park, 173–74; oral traditions of, 1, 35, 36, 106; as Oregon coastal tribe, ix, 1; Our Hearts Beat as One, 200; participation in local economies, 94–95; petition to un, 168–69; plants as food and medicine sources, 92–93; political leadership of, 84–85; populations of, 16, 36–37, 72, 74, 76; poverty rates in, 189; relationships with other tribes, 2; removal to reservation lands, xi, xii, 29, 32, 34–35, 36, 40, 229n73, 230n89; repudiating Treaty of Empire, xi; restoration of, 201, 214, 217; returning to homelands, 40, 50, 230–31n91; reversing termination, 179; salmon ceremonies of, 203; scattering of, 65; seafood trade of, 5–6; shift to tribe-defined society, 84–85; signing of Empire Treaty, xi, xii, 22, 31; as southern peoples, 3; survival of, 42, 61, 96; transported to Fortuna ca, 30; treating sickness, 9; tribal leadership and government, 8–9, 126; in Umpqua Subagency, 20; unemployment rates of, 187–88, 190; U.S. recognition of, 105–6; village headmen or chiefs, 2; as wage labor, 94–95, 116; white settlement in lands of, xi, 21; Worldmakers myths, 216. See also Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians; Lower Umpqua Indians; Siuslaw Indians Coos River, 12 “Coquille” (Younker), xiv Coquille Indians: claims cases of, 106–7, 112; encroachment of white settlements on, 26; federal plans for termination, 135; relationships with other tribes, 2; removal to reservation, 37; signing

index

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

305

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Coquille Indians (cont.) Empire Treaty, 31; in Umpqua Subagency, 20. See also Lower Coquille Indians Coquille River, 2, 79 Cordon, Guy, 113, 134, 147 Corvallis Gazette, 51, 52, 56, 59, 69 Court of Claims. See U.S. Court of Claims Cow Creek band, restoration of, 185, 201, 204 crabapples, 5 crabbing, 91, 193 crabs, 5, 91, 116 cranberries, 86, 87, 92 crawfish, 91 Crescent City ca, 40 Crow Agency, 78 curlew, 89 Curry County (Oregon), 108, 110–11 Curry, George, as Oregon governor, 25 Curtis, William, 73 Cushing, Caleb, 21 Custer Died For Your Sins (Deloria), 178 Daniels, Francis, 43 Davis House, 204 Dawes Act. See General Allotment Act Deabler, Joyce, 207, 208 deer, 5, 6–7, 15, 32, 89, 101, 104, 193, 194 Deer, Ada, 197, 215 Delano, Columbus, as Secretary of the Interior, 48–49, 50 Deloria, Vine, Jr., 163; Custer Died For Your Sins, 178 dentalia, 9 Depot Charly, as tribal leader, 57 D’Ewart, Wesley A., 166 Dick, as Siuslaw headman, 53 Dick, Billie, 164-6 Dick, William, 97 Dick family, land allotment to, 82 disease and epidemics, 4, 14, 37, 78 doctors, 74; traditional, 8–9, 84 dogs, 7, 82 Dorsey, James Owen, 3 Douglas, running cannery, 92 Douglas County (Oregon), 97, 184, 191 Drew, Edwin P.: in charge of Umpqua

Subagency, 20; concerns with advancing white settlement, 25; Palmer communications with, 21; relocating Coos and Lower Umpqua, 29–30, 31–32 Drew, Frank, 164-7; attending Indian rights meetings, 84; on basket use, 94; children of, 179; on Collins’ care of Indians, 42; home at Siuslaw, 103; on hunting and fishing, 6, 7, 15, 89, 90–91; on Indian garden farms, 89; land allotment to, 80–82; on protecting tribal fur resources, 13; on removal to reservation lands, 33, 36; on scattered Coos populations, 65, 67; on staking homestead claims, 60; supporting Wasson’s efforts, 97; testimony in claims cases, 100–101; on trading for groceries, 89; on tribal legislative committee, 109; wife purchase by, 84 Drew, Lucy, 89, 179 Drew family, land allotment to, 82 Drucker, Philip, ethnographic studies by, xvii, xviii, 5, 6, 7 ducks, 89, 104 East Oregonian, 122 economic development, 117, 118, 208 economy, 20, 64, 68, 82, 85–87, 118, 123, 171, 190, 208–9, 214; market, 39, 46, 50, 87, 88, 94–95, 116, 210; Northwest Coast, 49, 68, 82, 117, 187–89; traditional, 13, 24, 46, 73, 87, 94–95, 115. See also agriculture; farming; farms; fishing; hunting; trapping education: as assimilation, 76, 77; boarding schools, general, 45, 77, 78, 83; as federal responsibility, 115, 120, 122; general, 117, 130, 137, 191; impact of termination on funding, 170–71, 182; mission schools in, 45, 77–78; off-reservation boarding schools, 77, 80, 83; public schools, 79; “Title IV” Indian Education Program, 185; as tool for change, 79, 202. See also Bullard’s School; Carlisle Indian Industrial School; Chemawa Indian School; Coos Bay School District; Haskell Institute; higher

306

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

index

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

education; Indian Education Act; South Slough: schools eels, 5, 6, 7, 90, 92; grease, as medicine, 93–94 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 128, 145, 146, 159 elk, 5, 6–7, 32, 89, 101, 104; horns used as tools, 8, 9, 93 Elk River, 74 Elliot, Frances, 33 Elliot family, land allotment to, 82 Ellsworth, Harrison, 113, 114, 157 Emmons, Glenn, as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 128, 148, 149, 158 Empire Development Company, 105 Empire or, 27, 29, 33, 40, 43, 84, 88, 93, 97, 99, 102, 111, 112, 127, 132, 159, 172, 174, 175, 182, 195 Empire Treaty: arrival in Washington, 22–23; articles and terms of, 22, 23–24, 31; documenting preexisting rights, 24; failure to ratify, 23, 24, 103, 175; loss of tribal lands with, 23; negotiated by Joel Palmer, x–xi, 21–22; paper copy found, 97, 100, 245–46n2; tribal expectations of, xi, 74, 103; tribes included in, 22, 31; U.S. compensation with, 23–24 Enen, as Siuslaw leader, 26 Eugene or, 3, 174 Evanoff, Alec: attending Indian rights meetings, 84–85; on Coos salmon trapping, 6; fish and seafood business, 87 Evanoff, Lottie, 164-2; on Alsea attack on Umpqua, 3–4; attending Indian rights meetings, 84–85; on chief Burns, 85; childhood at Yachats, 36, 42, 91; on contact with early whites, 12; on Coos escaping reservation, 39; on Coos hunting and fishing, 6, 87; on Coos interactions with whites, 26; on Coos wealthy and poor distinctions, 9, 10; on cranberry harvests, 87; as daughter of Chief Daloose Jackson, 87; on forced removal from Coos Bay, 30; on fur trade, 90; gathering salt, 5; grandfathers as chiefs, 26; on plants and berry food sources, 92; on seafood drying, 90; on staking homestead claims, 60

Fairchild, J. H.: on appropriating reservation lands, 47–48, 50, 52, 56, 233– 34n37; on removal of Alsea Indians, 58, 63; report on reservation life, 50–51; as Siletz agent, 46, 47 farming, 32, 48, 51, 61, 68, 69, 72–73, 76, 79, 83; non-Indian, 39, 66. See also allotments; Indian farm labor farms, 33, 43, 44, 49, 58, 64, 69, 72, 88–89; white acquisition of Indian farms, 21, 58 Fearns family, land allotment to, 82 feasts, 5–6, 56, 99–100, 109, 173, 199 Federal Acknowledgement Project, 186, 215 Fenton, Arthur P., 96 ferns, edible, 5, 93 Fetz, Jerry, xii fir trees, 1, 20, 116 fish, 4, 6, 27, 31–32, 33, 38, 41–42, 64, 70, 91, 92, 103–4, 116. See also bass; cod; eels; flounder; grouper; halibut; perch; salmon; sardines; smelt; snapper; sturgeon fisher, 89–90, 101 fishing: by Coos, 5, 6, 92, 192–93, 194, 203; by Lower Umpqua, 15, 92, 192–93, 203; reduction of, 71, 91, 92; by Siletz tribes, 6, 92, 129, 192–93; by Siuslaw, 7; traps and weirs, 7, 70, 92, 192–93 fishing rights, 70–71, 107, 147, 151, 185, 190, 192–94, 203 Fixico, Donald L., Termination and Relocation, xiii Flathead Agency, 42 Flathead Reservation, xiii, 123, 155 Florence or, 28, 36, 60, 80, 81–82, 83, 86, 90, 111, 112, 166, 174–75, 200 flounder, 92 Fort Umpqua, 14, 101, 103 Foster, Don C., 156, 161, 166, 169 Frachtenberg, Leo, xvii; on Coos class distinctions, 9; on Coos hunting and fishing, 5; Lower Umpqua linguistic studies, 15; on Lower Umpqua territory, 3; on scattered Indian populations, 65–66; on wife purchase practices, 84

index

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

307

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Frazier, Lynn Joseph, 100 Fredenberg, Ralph, 107, 109, 110 furs, 7, 9, 10, 89–90. See also fur trade fur trade, 10, 12, 13, 14, 27, 89–90 Gagnier, Jean, 14, 30 game, 27, 32, 38, 41–42, 61, 64, 70, 89, 90, 101, 103–4 game warden, 193 Gardiner or, 91 Garry, Joseph R., 153, 154 Geary, Edward R., as Oregon Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 32–33 geese, 104 General Allotment Act, 61, 79–80, 165, 179 generosity, 5–6 George, as Siuslaw, 53 Georgia-Pacific (g-p), 188 Gibbs, George, 1 Gishgiu: escaping removal, 40; on reservation life, 38 gold, 17, 18, 23, 25, 27, 42; mining on Alsea Reservation, 42–43 Gold Beach or, 111 Goldwater, Barry, 125 Gover, Kevin, 209 Governors’ Interstate Council on Indian Affairs, 137, 138 Grand Ronde Reservation: Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs members, 138; consolidating other reservations with, 64; delegates of, 44; hunting and fishing rights, 129; impact of termination, 172–73; off-reservation Indian members of, 132, 160; readiness for federal termination, 122; recognition of Oregon tribes, 110; tribal members of, 37, 40, 61; tribal rolls of, 107; views on federal termination policy, 124, 126, 129, 140, 149, 150, 163, 213–14 Grand Ronde–Siletz Agency, 107, 110, 121, 124, 131, 132, 138, 141, 152 graves. See cemeteries and graves Great Britain, fur trade in Oregon coast area, 12 Great Plains Indian conflicts, 46, 63 Green, James, as legal representation, 114

Greenwood, W. Barton, 166 Grorud, Albert, 143 grouper, 92 Guterson, David, Snow Falling on Cedars, xii halibut, 5, 92 Hamilton, Alexander, on national documents, xi Hanby, Victor J., 211–12 Hanis language, 2, 3, 8, 22, 73, 102. See also Coos Indians: Hanis language group of Harjo, Suzan, 204 Harmon, Alexandra, xiii Harney, George: on starving Indians, 69; as tribal leader, 57, 59 Harney family, land allotment to, 82 harpoons, 8 Harrington, John Peabody, xvii; ethnographic studies by, 2, 3, 30, 42, 114; on Indian garden-farms, 88; notes on baskets, 94; notes on hunting and fishing, 90, 91; on tribal homelands, 103 Harris, Fred, 197, 198 Harris, LaDonna: as aio founder, ix, 197, 198, 215; letters supporting restoration, 201 Harris, W. H., as captain of white volunteers, 26, 28 Harrison, William H., 148 Harvey, Amos, as Alsea subagent, 37–38 Haskell Institute, 77, 78 Hatch, Hattie, 116 Hatch, Nick, 116, 127, 180 hatchet, burying of, 22 Hatfield, Mark, xix, 177, 186, 201, 207–8 Hayward, Dan, 39 hazelnuts, 5 health, 9, 31–32, 92–93, 117, 190–91, 208. See also doctors; medicine Heceta Head or, 34, 90 Hedden, J. N., 101–2 Hedges, Abraham F., as Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 31 Helms, Eddie, 185, 196 Helms, Ida, 112, 196 Henderson, Daniel B., 99, 100, 101

308

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

index

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Hermann, Binger, 80, 81 hides, 9, 10, 15, 89–90, 101 higher education, 170–71, 182, 183, 202, 213 Hinch, Mrs., 38 History of Oregon, A (Clark), 210–11 Holden, C. H., attorney for Indian rights, 83, 84–85 Hollis, Tom: on scattered Coos populations, 65–66; as Splitnose Tom, 66 Holmes, Merle, 162 Hoover, Herbert, 122 Hopkins-Dukes, Amos A., 179 House Concurrent Resolution 108 (hcr 108), 125, 142–46, 148, 153, 154, 161, 179, 255n35 House of Representatives. See U.S. House of Representatives houses, 4–5, 33, 35, 38, 81–82; of or for the Alsea, 37, 58, 75–76; Siuslaw, 71; whites moving into, 40 housing, 31, 48, 69, 93, 190–91 huckleberries, 7, 92 “Hudson Bay,” as lingua franca, 22, 225n19 Hudson’s Bay Company, 12, 14, 30, 186 hunting, 5–8, 32, 35, 41, 46, 51, 58, 64, 67, 68, 89, 90, 104, 116, 129, 190, 193 hunting rights, 107, 111, 129, 147, 151, 185, 190, 192, 193 Huntington, J. W. Perit: as Oregon superintendent of Indian Affairs, 43; removing land from Coast Reservation, 40 Hutchins, Joe, 44–45 Idaho, oversight of northern tribes, 117 “Ideology and the Indians” (Orfield), xiii Ignace, Coos killing of, 13 Indian Bureau. See Bureau of Indian Affairs; Office of Indian Affairs Indian Citizenship Act, 136 Indian Claims Commission (icc), 112, 113–14, 157, 166, 180, 201 Indian Education Act, 200 Indian farm labor, 29, 89 Indian Health Service, 190 Indian Parent Committee, 200 Indian Reorganization Act (ira), 105, 107–8, 111, 119, 123, 139

Indian Rights Association, 155, 156 Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 212 Indian Service. See Bureau of Indian Affairs; Office of Indian Affairs Indians of Southern Oregon, 111 Indians of Western Oregon, The (Beckham), xiv, 200 Jackson, Accumnia, 83 Jackson, Boyd, 152 Jackson, Chief, 22, 225n18 Jackson, Daloose, 164-1; as Coos tribal chief, 84, 216, 243n50; fishing business of, 92; land allotment to, 82 Jackson, George, 101 Jackson, Henry, 178 Jackson, Hoi, or Fanny, 242n49 Jackson, Lottie, 83 Jackson, Michael, 205 Jackson, Nellie, 87 Jackson, Tom, 164-6 Jackson family, land allotment to, 82 Jackson Hotel (Empire), 84 Jacobs, Melville, 9, 216 Jeff, as Coos headman, 54 Jenkins, Homer, 153–54 Jenny, trade with Lower Umpqua, 10 John, as Siuslaw leader, 26, 53 John family, land allotment to, 82 Johnson, Agnes, 5 Johnson, Andrew, 40 Johnson, Frank, 109 Johnson, Hank, 5 Johnson, Harry, 174 Johnson, James, as chief of joint government, 97 Johnson, Old Dan, 89, 90 Johnson family, land allotment to, 82 Johnson-O’Malley Act, 139 Jordan, Len, 178 Jordan, Peter, 97, 104 Kalapuya Indians, 5 Kalawatset, 4, 29, 146 Kawamoto, Walter, 191 kelp, 93 Kemble, Edward C., 47, 48, 49

index

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

309

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Kennedy, Robert, 180, 181 Kentuck Inlet, 87 kinnikinnick, 93 Kitzn-jin-jn, Coos headman, 38 Klamath Indians: Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs members, 138; judgment payments to, 153; Public Law 587 and, 159; restoration of, 213; timber resources of, 116, 172; views on federal termination policy, 115, 118, 122, 124, 126, 133, 152, 162–63, 213 Klamath Reservation, 100 Klamath termination bill, ix Klickitat Indians, 5 Knowles, George O., 81 Kootenai Indians, 155 LaFarge, Oliver, 167 Lakeside or, 116 Lane, Joseph, 18, 224n3 Lane County (Oregon), 66, 97, 184, 191, 202 LaPier, Rosalyn, x Lapp, Clara, 128 Layfette family, land allotment to, 82 Lee, Rex, 143–44, 158, 159 Leon family, land allotment to, 82 Lesina family, land allotment to, 82 Lewis, Orme: as Assistant Secretary of the Interior, 125, 128–29, 148, 152, 157; on federal termination policy, 161–62 Lewis and Clark expedition, 12, 37 Libby, escaping removal, 39 Lincoln County Leader, 135, 142 Litchfield, George: as Alsea subagent, 45–46; on Indians and whites coexisting, 63; opposing appropriation of reservation lands, 49, 51, 52, 57, 233–34n37; on removing Alsea Indians, 58–59, 62–63 Little Chief, fur trade by, 12–13 Logan, Elmer, as tribal chairman, 127, 131 Loggie Hall, 100 logging. See timber and logging industries Lower Coquille Indians, 17 Lower Umpqua Indians, 164-10; adapting to life at Yachats, 41; application for federal recognition, 184–85; burial

grounds and graveyards of, 110, 196; Chemawa Indian School attendance, 77; claims cases of, 96, 112, 157, 166; class distinctions in, 9–10; confederating with other tribes, 95, 96–114; conflicts with fur traders, 14; Empire Treaty quasirecognition of, 24; everyday life of, xvii; federal services to, 70; first contact with white populations, 1, 11, 12; first mention in termination legislation, 148–49; forced relocation to Yachats, 32, 36; garden-farms of, 88; government rations issued to, 31; health problems and health care of, 9, 31, 190–91; hiding from removal, 33, 40, 69; homelands of, xi, 1, 2, 18–19, 191; hunting and fishing rights of, 92, 111, 192–93, 203; impact of termination, 167–81, 210; intermarriage of, 67; land allotments to, 80; long-standing efforts for recognition, 214; lost lands and resources, 208–9, 214; marriage and divorce practices of, 10; material culture of, 4, 5, 7–8, 93–94; ncai membership of, 198, 204; offreservation populations and subsistence of, 72, 76, 86; opposition to federal termination, x, 126–27, 136, 164, 168; opposition to national seashore park, 173–74; oral traditions of, 1, 36, 106; as Oregon coastal tribe, ix, 1; Our Hearts Beat as One, 200; participation in local economies, 94–95; petition to un, 168–69; plant and berry food sources, 92–93; populations of, 16, 51, 72, 76; poverty rates in, 189; removal to reservation lands, xi, xii, 29, 32, 34–35, 36, 40, 229n73, 230n89; repudiating Empire Treaty, xi; restoration of, 201, 214, 217; return to homelands, 40, 230–31n91; reversing termination, 179; salmon ceremonies of, 203; scattering of, 65; shift to tribe-defined society, 84–85; signing of Empire Treaty, xi, xii, 22, 31; Siuslaw language of, 2; survival of, 42, 61, 96; trade with foreign ships, 10; tribal government of, 126; tribal leadership of, 8–9, 84–85; tribal rights

310

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

index

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

of, xv; in Umpqua Subagency, 20; unemployment rates of, 187–88, 190; U.S. recognition of, 105–6; villages and territory of, 3; as wage labor, 94–95, 116; white settlement in lands of, xi, 18, 21. See also Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians; Coos Indians; Siuslaw Indians Lower Umpqua River: Barrett’s Landing, 88; Fort Umpqua established on, 30; fur trading along, 12; Hudson’s Bay trading post on, 30 lumber. See timber and logging industries Macey, Charles, 97 Macey family, land allotment to, 82 Malone, George W., 134 Manpower Agency, 187 Manypenny, George: as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 19, 21, 28, 31; forwarding Empire Treaty to McClelland, 31 Mapleton or, 3, 6, 81, 88, 89 Marshall, John, 211 Marshfield Tom, 33 marten, 101 Martin, Joseph W., Jr., 152 Martin, William, 19–20 Mason, Jimmy, 91 Matson, Albert, 109 McCall, Tom, as Oregon governor, 175, 201 McClelland, Robert: forwarding Empire Treaty to president, 31; as Secretary of Interior, 21, 31 McFarland, C. D., 87 McKay, Douglas: favoring federal termination, 137, 138, 140, 141, 160; on Oregon as national model of termination, 156–57; as Oregon governor, 134, 136, 137, 201; as Secretary of the Interior, 156, 188; as Senator, 129 McLeod, Alexander, 12–13 McMann family, land allotment to, 82 McMillen, Christian, 106 McNary, Charles, 98 McNickle, D’Arcy, 123, 178 Meacham, Alfred, as Oregon Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 43, 44, 45

Mecum, Ida, 5, 9 Mecum family, land allotment to, 82 medicine, 92–93 Medicine Rock Timber Reserve, 130 Menominee Indians: federal termination of, ix, 115, 133, 142, 213; financial assets and termination, 172; impact of termination, xiii, 176; restoration of, ix, xiv, 185, 197, 211, 213, 215; timber resources of, 172 Menominee Tribe of Indians v. United States, 180 Metcalf, Ed, 110 Metcalf, Ira, 110 Metcalf, Lee, 155 Metcalf, R. Warren, Termination’s Legacy, xiii Milhau, John, 4 Miller, A. L., 128 Miller, Mary, 109 Miller family, land allotment to, 82 Miluk language, 2, 3, 8, 26, 73, 78, 102. See also Coos Indians: Miluk language group of mineral resources, 125. See also gold: mining on Alsea Reservation mineral rights, 151 mining. See coal; gold mink, 101 Mitchell, John H., on Oregon Indian removal, 48, 49, 58, 59, 64, 69, 70 Modoc Indians, 46, 69 Moore, Dave, 60 Moore family, land allotment to, 82 Morris, E. E., 112 Morris, Joe, Jr., 81, 84 Morris, Toby, 142 Morse, Wayne, 113, 166, 182–83 Mosher, L. F., 70 Mullen, John, as legal representation, 112, 113, 186 Murray, James E., 166–67 mussels, 7 Myer, Dillon S.: as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 131, 133–34, 136; proposed termination program of, 140, 141–42, 143, 145 myrtle nuts, 5

index

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

311

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Myrtle Point or, 200 Nader, Ralph, 167 National Anthropological Archives, Smithsonian Institution (naa-si), xvi, 65 National Congress of American Indians (ncai): opposition to federal termination policy, 121, 122, 152, 161, 163; southwestern Oregon tribe memberships, 198 National Museum of the American Indian, 209 National Office of Jesuit Social Ministries, 201 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 196 Native American Research Center (narc), 189, 190, 191, 196 Native American Rights Fund (narf), 202 Ned, Charles Edward, 109 Ned family, land allotment to, 82 Neely Mountain, 81 Nesmith, J. W., as Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 31, 59 Nestucca Indians, 61 Nestucca River, 47 Neuberger, Maurine B., 175 Neuberger, Richard, 173 Newport or, 60, 200 Nez Perce Indians, 69, 121 Nichols, John, as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 124, 140 Nixon, Richard M.: as senator, 152; on tribal self-determination, 181, 182, 212; views on hcr 108, 184, 212 Norblad, Walter, 147 North Bend or, 100, 109 North Slough, 86, 87 North Spit, 175 nuts. See hazelnuts, myrtle nuts Odeneal, T. B.: as Oregon superintendent of Indian Affairs, 45, 46; pressure to appropriate reservation lands, 46–47, 48 Office of Indian Affairs, 23, 95, 98; tracking allottees and non-allottees, 83–84. See also Alsea Subagency; Chemawa Agency; Grand Ronde–Siletz Agency; Oregon Superintendency; Roseburg

Agency; Umpqua Subagency; Washington Superintendency Old Jackson, 91 Olney, Nathan, 29 oral history, xvi Oregon: Cape Perpetua, 32, 38; census of Indians on public domain, 108–9, 110; citizenship of Indians in, 136; combined superintendency with Washington, 32; disease epidemics in indigenous populations, 4, 14, 37, 78; evidence of coastal tribe occupation, 1; foreign ships visiting, 10; fur trade in regions, 10, 12, 13, 14, 89–90; Governor’s Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs, 134, 138, 147, 177; Governor’s Conference on Indian Affairs, 138; growing economic system, 68; growth in population, 43; Homestead Law, 66; Indians of Southern Oregon, 111; natural resources in, 68; Northwest tribes meeting in Pendleton, 1947, 122; off-reservation Indian populations, 72, 76, 77, 86, 132, 160, 164; poverty in coastal tribes, 116; “Program for the Early Termination of Selected Activities and Withdrawing Federal Supervision over the Indians at Grand Ronde–Siletz and Southwestern Oregon,” 131–32; “Proposed Withdrawal of Federal Responsibilities Over the Property and Affairs of the Indians in Western Oregon,” 151; public school attendance, 79; recognized tribes and confederacies, 212; Southwest Indians of, 127; statehood of, 24; Sunset Bay, 164-10, 166, 193; survival of coastal Indians, 68; Tarheel Point, 39; termination legislation, 137– 64; tourist industry, 189; tribal hunting and fishing rights in, 192–93; tsunami destruction of, 2; Western Oregon Termination Act, 165, 171; Willamette Valley, 132; Yaquina Bay, 40. See also Cape Arago or and lighthouse; Cape Foulweather or; Cape Lookout or; Cape Perpetua or; Coos Indians; Heceta Head or; Lower Umpqua Indians; North Spit; Perpetua Mountain; Portland Area

312

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

index

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Office: oversight of tribes; Rogue River War; Sea Lion Caves; Siuslaw Indians; Tenmile Creek; Winchester Bay Oregon Council of Churches, 177 Oregon Daily Journal, 161 Oregon Donation Land Act, 15, 28 Oregon Dunes National Seashore, 173–74 Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission, 203 Oregon Fish Commission, 193 Oregon Historical Society (ohs), xvii Oregonian: on closing of Alsea Reservation, 62; comments on possible Indian uprisings, 69; on federal termination policy, 140–41, 167, 168; on Indian burial grounds, 196; on Indian claims cases, 97–98, 99, 100; on Oregon Dunes National Seashore, 173, 174; on restoration of coastal tribes, 208 Oregon Indian policy, 61 Oregon Journal, 140 Oregon Legal Services Corporation: Native American Program, 204 Oregon state legislature, 202–3 Oregon Statesman, 159–60 Oregon State University, 116, 182 Oregon Superintendency, 32 Oregon Territory: conflicts between white settlers and Indians, 17–18; establishment of, 14; gold discovery in, 17; Oregon Donation Land Act and, 15, 28; “Oregon fever” migrations, 24; Organic Act and, 15; statehood of, 24; Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 18; U.S. Indian Service, 15; white settlements in, 15, 18, 224n3 Oregon Wildlife Federation and Northwest Steelheaders, 203 Orfield, Gary Allen, xiii Osage Indians, federal termination of, 141, 142, 155 otters, 8, 101; hides or furs of, 9, 10, 90 Our Hearts Beat as One, 200 oysters, 40 Oysterville or, 89 Pacific Power and Light Company, 188 Packwood, Robert, 186, 201 Palmer, Joel, xi; on closing Alsea

Reservation, 51; on expanding white settlements, 24–25; expectations of Empire Treaty, 30–31, 104; on extermination of Indians, 28; federal policy toward Oregon Indians, 21; on humanitarian treatment of Indians, 19, 21; leaving office, 28; negotiating Empire Treaty, 21–22; order for relocating coastal Indians, 29–30; as Superintendent of Indian Affairs, 18 Palmer Treaty. See Empire Treaty Palous family, land allotment to, 82 Panama Canal, 42 The Papers of John Peabody Harrington in the Smithsonian Institution, xvii “Paradox of a House Divided, The” (Arnold), xiv Parker, Ely, as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 43, 44 parsnip, wild, 93 Patterson, Paul, 147–48, 152 pelican, 104 perch, 92 Peroff, Nicholas C., xiv Perpetua Mountain, 34 Perry, Hulda, 102 Peterson, Annie Miner: barnacle toothpick holder of, 93; childhood on reservation, 73–74; on Collins care of Indians, 42; on Coos tribal leadership, 8–9; on Coos village life, 2; as Hanis and Miluk speaking, 8–9; marriages of, 87; testimony of, 103–4 Peterson, Helen, 161, 165 Philp, Kenneth R., xiii, 121; Termination Revisited, xiii Phinney, Archie, 121 Pierce, Franklin, 28 Piggot, Michael, 80, 81 Pike family, land allotment to, 82 Pioneer Hotel (Empire), 97 Poarch Band of Creeks, 197, 214 Pomley, as Coos ferryman, 55, 92 Portland Area Office (Bureau of Indian Affairs), 123, 127, 131, 142–49, 152, 155, 161, 164, 171, 184, 192; oversight of tribes, 117, 176

index

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

313

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Portland Bulletin, 49 Portland District Office. See Portland Area Office Portland or, 70, 78, 169 Port Orford, 74 Port Orford Post, 74 potatoes, 32, 33, 38, 69, 89, 109 Power in the Blood (Sabean), xviii Powers or, 111 president of the United States, 20, 48, 56. See also Eisenhower, Dwight D.; Hoover, Herbert; Johnson, Andrew; Nixon, Richard M.; Pierce, Franklin; Reagan, Ronald; Rogue River War: Roosevelt, Franklin D. Price, Hiram, as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 75, 76 “Program for the Early Termination of Selected Activities and Withdrawing Federal Supervision over the Indians at Grand Ronde–Siletz and Southwestern Oregon,” 131–32 Pryse, E. Morgan: as area director, 122, 135; on judgment monies and termination, 153; long-range termination plans by, 123–24, 134, 139, 140, 145, 148, 150–51, 159, 163; tiered list of, 138 public domain allotments and allottees, 81–84, 88, 95, 107, 110, 111, 126, 128, 132, 135, 146, 151, 179–80. See also allotment; General Allotment Act; family, individual, and tribal listings Public Law 280, 117 Public Law 587. See Klamath termination bill Public Law 588. See Western Oregon Termination Act Puget Sound, trade potential of, 18 Puisto, Jaakko, xiii Quakers, 198, 204 raccoon, 101 Reagan, Ronald, signing Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration Act, 207 Reed, Elmer, 130 Reedsport or, 36, 86, 174, 194, 200 Reid, Thomas, 161 religion, 84; Christian, 76, 78; traditional,

8–9, 22, 196. See also Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions; education: mission schools in; Oregon Council of Churches; Quakers restoration: federal acknowledgment of, xiv, 184, 186, 215; as U.S. recognition, ix, 207–17. See also specific tribe or confederation Ricks, Pauline, 163 Robertson, W. G., 105 Rodgers, Jack, as Coos chief, 56, 60 Roe Cloud, Henry, 113 Rogers, Harrison G., 14 Rogue River: forced removal from, 30; gold discovery in, 17–18; Rogue River Indian War, The (Schwartz), xiv Rogue River War: impact on Empire Treaty, 23–24, 31; response to white encroachments, 17–18, 23, 24–25, 226n29; Roosevelt, Franklin D., 119 roots, as food source, 4, 57, 92–93 Rose, William, 70 Roseburg Agency, 82, 99 Roseburg or, 70, 99 Roy, Howard, x Royce Indian Land Cessions maps, 107 Running Foxe, Jerry, 185, 205 Sabean, David Warren, Power in the Blood, xviii Sac and Fox Indians, opposition to termination, 155 salal berries, 7 Salish Indians, 155 salmon, 5, 6, 7, 10, 15, 58, 70, 82, 86, 89, 92, 99, 109, 116, 174, 185, 189, 193, 196, 199, 203; eggs, 7, 89, 93 Salmon River, 47, 51, 61 Sandberg, Fred, 109 Sanders, Everett, as legal representation, 112 sardines, 92 Schoolcraft, Henry Rowe: on coastal Indian populations, 37; report on Indian relations, 16 schools. See Bullard’s School; Carlisle Indian Industrial School; Chemawa Indian School; Coos Bay School District;

314

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

index

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

education; Haskell Institute; South Slough: schools Schwartz, E. A., The Rogue River Indian War, xiv Scott, Joe, as Lower Umpqua chief, 42, 44, 54 Scott, Spencer: gathering seafood and fish, 91; hauling freight on Siuslaw River, 88; as hired hand, 88–89; on material culture of Lower Umpqua, 5, 94; on relocating to reservation, 67; trapping and trading furs, 89–90 Scottsburg or, 3, 20, 33, 70, 101 seafood, 5, 27, 41, 61, 67, 72, 90, 91, 99, 116; industry, 87, 188, 190. See also chiton; clams; crabs; fish; sea lions; seals; sea urchins; whales seafood and fishing industry, 87, 91 Sea Lion Caves, 34, 38 sea lions, 6, 8, 90, 91 seal oil, 91 seals, 4, 8, 90–91 Seaton, Fred A., 167 sea urchins, 91 seaweed, 7, 93 section four allotments. See public domain allotments and allottees Senate. See U.S. Senate Severy, Marguerite: application for allotment, 179–80; on hunting and fishing rights, 193; at tribal meetings, 127 shark oil, 91 sharks, 91 Shasta Indians, 17 Shoup, Walter C., representing U.S., 101 Siestreem, James, 109 Siletz Agency: federal termination plans for, 124–25; recognition of Oregon tribes, 110; Siuslaw former lands, 3; tribal members of, 47; tribal rolls of, 107 Siletz Reservation: Advisory Committee on Indian Affairs members, 138; Alsea removal to, 74, 75; claims meetings held, 99; creation of, 28; federal funding of, 63, 75; General Council of, 131; Government Hill at, 127; hunting and fishing rights of, 129; impact of termination,

172–73; Indian Reorganization Act (ira) of, 105; moving Indians to, 50; off-reservation boarding schools, 77; off-reservation Indian members of, 132, 160; opening up to white settlement, 61, 79; proposed closing of, 51; timber resources of, 130–31, 155, 165, 172, 176; tribal cemetery, 176; Tribal Council of, 130; tribal members of, 37; tribal resolution for termination, 126, 129, 131, 149–50, 213–14 Siletz River, 40, 61 silver, 25, 84 Simmons, Hardy, 162 Simpson, Benjamin: on closing Alsea Reservation, 51, 57, 62–63, 69; proposing reduction of reservation lands, 58, 59; as surveyor and Indian agent, 49 Simpson, L. J., 105 Simpson, William Robert, 101 Sinnott, P. B., as Grand Ronde agent, 64 Siuess, Jane, 109 Siuslawan language family. See Lower Umpqua Indians: Siuslaw language of; Siuslaw Indians: Siuslaw language of Siuslaw Indians, 164-10; burial grounds of, 110, 196; Chemawa Indian School attendance, 77; claims cases of, 96, 112, 157, 166; class distinctions in, 9; confederating with other tribes, 95, 96–114; Death March to Coast Reservation, 30; everyday life of, xvii; federal services to, 70; first mention in termination legislation, 148–49; garden-farms of, 88; government rations issued to, 31; health problems and health care of, 31, 190–91; hiding from removal, 40, 69; homelands of, xi, 2, 18–19, 29, 35, 65, 76, 191; hunting and fishing subsistence of, 6, 89, 92, 111, 192–93, 203; impact of termination, 167–81, 210; interactions with white populations, 1, 11, 12, 18, 26; intermarriage of, 67; Little Chief, 12–13; long-standing efforts for recognition, 214; lost lands and resources, 208– 9, 214; marriage and divorce practices of, 10; material culture of, 4, 5, 7–8,

index

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

315

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

Siuslaw Indians (cont.) 93–94; mention in House Report 2503, 146; ncai membership of, 198, 204; northernmost territory of, 3; off-reservation populations and subsistence of, 72, 76, 86; opposition to federal termination, x, 126–27, 136, 164, 168, 179; opposition to national seashore park, 173– 74; oral traditions of, 1, 106; as Oregon coastal tribe, ix, 1; Our Hearts Beat as One, 200; participation in local economies, 94–95; petition to un, 168–69; plant and berry food sources, 92–93; political leadership of, 84–85; populations of, 16, 51, 72, 76; poverty rates in, 189; removal to reservation lands, xi, xii, 40, 230n89; repudiating Treaty of Empire, xi; restoration of, 201, 214, 217; return to homelands, 40, 230–31n91; reversing termination, 179; salmon ceremonies of, 203; shift to tribe-defined society, 84–85; signing of Empire Treaty, xii, 22, 24, 31; Siuslaw language of, 2; survival of, 61, 96; transported to Fortuna ca, 30; treating sickness, 9; tribal leadership of, 8–9, 126; tribal rights of, xv; in Umpqua Subagency, 20; unemployment rates of, 187–88, 190; U.S. recognition of, 105–6; as wage labor, 35, 94–95, 116; white settlement in lands of, xi, 1, 11, 12, 21. See also Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians; Coos Indians; Lower Umpqua Indians Siuslaw National Forest, 174 Siuslaw River: canneries, 92; canoe travel on, 88; eel fishing in, 6, 90; fur trading along, 12; seal hunting on, 91; Siuslaw territory along, 3, 41; sturgeon in, 91; tribal fishing and hunting rights on, 60, 90, 91, 193 skunk cabbage, 5, 93 Slyter, Carolyn, testimony of, 204 smallpox epidemics, 4, 14, 37 Small Tribes Organization of Western Washington (stoww), 186 smelt, 92 Smith, Edward: on closing Alsea

Reservation, 63, 64, 65; as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 50, 58; reducing Indian fishing, 71 Smith, Jedediah, 13–14, 55 Smith, land allotment to, 82 Smith, Louisa, 15 Smith, William, 88 Smith River, 32 Smithsonian Institution, xvi; ethnological studies of, 2; historical documents, 114; National Museum of the American Indian, 209 snapper, 92 snipe, 89 Snow Falling on Cedars (Guterson), xii soldier potatoes, 89 Sommers family, land allotment to, 82 Sooner, the fish-catching dog, 82 Soperry, as Umpqua headman, 54 Sousa, John Philip, 96 South Slough, 2, 6, 27, 36, 38–39, 82, 102, 189; schools, 79 Southwest Indian wars, 63 spearfishing, 6, 92 spears, 7 Splitnose Tom, 66 Sprague, Ed, 109, 112 Sprague, Mrs. Alvin, 109 spruce, 20, 38, 116; roots of, 94 Squaw Island, 39 Stanford University, study of Klamath termination, 162 Starr, Linton, 65 St. Clair, Harry Hull II, ethnological studies by, 2 strawberries, 93 sturgeon, 5, 91, 92, 104 Stutzman, Esther, 196 Sunset Bay, 164-10, 166, 193 Sutton Creek, 82 swamp grass, 93 Swan, Edmund: care of off-reservation Indians, 74–75; moving Alsea to Siletz Reservation, 72–73; pressure for Alsea removal, 72; as Siletz agent, 72 Swan Island, 130, 149 swans, 104

316

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

index

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

sweathouses, 7 Sykes, Joshua, as subagent at Umpqua, 32 Takelma Indians, 17 Talbot family, land allotment to, 82 Tanner, Tony, 188 Tarheel, survival and subsistence of, 39, 40, 86 Tarheel Point, 22, 39 Tenmile Creek, 175 termination: U.S. federal policy of, ix, 115–36, 137–46. See also specific tribe or confederation Termination and Relocation (Fixico), xiii Termination Revisited (Philp), xiii Termination’s Legacy (Metcalf), xiii thimbleberries, 93 “This is My Reservation, I Belong Here” (Puisto), xiii Thomas, George, 112 Thomas, John, 87 Thompson, Coquelle, 175, 257–58n60 Thompson, Coquelle, Jr.: appointed to Interstate Council on Indian Affairs, 138; on federal termination policy, 131, 134, 135–36, 142, 257–58n60; views on national seashore park, 175, 201 Tillamook Indians: Alsea band of, 106, 112, 135; claims cases of, 106–7, 112; forced removal of, 37, 61; signing of Empire Treaty, 31 timber and logging industries, 49, 68, 83, 86, 87, 91, 188, 189 timber resources, 125 timber rights, 151, 185 Tipton family, land allotment to, 82 tobacco, 57 Todd, T. Hardy, 100, 101 Tolbert, Mrs., 38 Tom, as Lower Umpqua, 54 Towner, Elwood, 134 trade, 1, 5–6, 42. See also fur trade traditional doctors, 84 trapping, 6–7, 12–13, 15, 67, 89–90, 101 traps, 6, 89 Treaty of Empire. See Empire Treaty tribal hall. See Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw

Indians: community center and tribal hall of Tribal Indian Land Rights Association, 179 Tribalism in Crisis (Burt), xiii Tronson, Ellen, 5 Trouillot, Michel-Rolph, xv, 216 trout, 5, 70–71, 92 Tsiltcoos River, 28 tsunami. See Oregon: tsunami destruction of tule baskets, 6 tule mats, 5, 9 tules, 39 Tullis, Eddie, 197, 215 Tututana Dick, as tribal leader, 57 Tututni Indians: claims cases of, 106–7, 112; federal plans for termination, 134, 135, 136; removal to reservation lands, 37; signing of Empire Treaty, 31 Tveskov, Mark Axel, 15 Tyler, S. Lyman, 176–77 Udall, Morris, 189 Udall, Stewart, as Secretary of the Interior, 182, 192 Uintah-Ouray Reservation, xiii Umatilla Indian Reservation, 138, 177 Umpqua River: fishing in, 70, 91–92; foreign ships visiting, 10; Fort Umpqua established, 14; land allotments to Indians, 80; Lower Umpqua territory along, 3; tribe relocation near, 32 Umpqua Subagency: closing of, 32; government rations to tribal members, 31; medical and health care services, 31–32; school services provided, 31; white encroachments on, 20 Uncle Dave’s Cove, 60 United Nations (un), 168–69 United States: bill closing Siletz Reservation, 51; Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (ceta), 187; Congress authorizing tribes seeking redress, 98, 99; Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Restoration Act passed, 207; Dawes Act, 61, 79–80; decentralization of Indian Bureau, 117; Department of Justice,

index

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

317

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

United States (cont.) 104; Department of the Interior, 117, 118, 125, 133, 148; Federal Acknowledgement Project, 186, 215; federal policies toward Indians, 115–36, 137–64; funding Indian removal, 37, 229n76; General Accounting Office (gao), 104, 105; General Allotment Act, 61, 79–80, 165, 179; House Concurrent Resolution 108 (hcr 108), 125, 142–46, 148, 153, 154, 161, 179, 255n35; House Report 2503, 146; Indian Affairs Subcommittee, 118, 121, 134, 143, 158; Indian Citizenship Act, 136; Indian Claims Commission (icc) of, 112, 113–14, 157, 166, 180, 201; Indian Education program, 77–78, 185; Indian Health Service, 190; Indian Reorganization Act (ira) of, 105, 108, 119, 123; Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act, 212; Indian Service agency, 15, 37, 230n79; Johnson-O’Malley Act, 139; legislation closing Alsea Reservation, 51, 52; National Park Service, 175; Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 196; Office of Indian Affairs, 78, 107; Oregon Donation Land Act of, 15; Oregon Indian policy, 61; Organic Act of, 15; policies toward Indian assimilation, ix, xviii–xix, 76–78, 79–81; Public Law 280, 117; restoration and recognition of tribes, ix, 182–206; Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, 100; Task Force on Terminated and Nonfederally Recognized Tribes, 187; termination period of Indian policies, 115–36. See also Bureau of Indian Affairs (bia); Empire Treaty; Klamath termination bill; Western Oregon Termination Act; specific tribe or confederation University of Oregon, 127, 202, 210 U.S. Court of Claims, 98–107, 110, 112– 13, 129, 175, 201 U.S. House of Representatives, 128, 139, 142–46, 148, 152, 154, 158, 159, 160, 174, 207; Committee on Interior and

Insular Affairs, 128, 142–46, 154, 158, 174, 184; Committee on Public Lands, Subcommittee on Indian Affairs, 121, 143, 158 U.S. Senate, 98, 118, 142–45, 154–55, 157, 166, 174, 178, 186, 205, 207; Committee on Indian Affairs, 100; Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, 182; Post Office and Civil Service Committee, 121 Utes, xiii Vandever, William, 47, 50 Vierow, John, 99 Wadsworth, F. M.: census of reservation populations, 76; on federal funds for Indians, 75–76, 239n17; sending Indian children to boarding schools, 77; as Siletz agent, 75, 239n17 Waldport or, 88 Ward, Beverly, 33–34, 35, 82; White Moccasins, 33–34 Warm Springs Confederated Tribes, 138, 177 Warner Lumber Company, 130 Washington: Colville Reservation, xiv, 179; combined superintendency with Oregon, 32; Portland Area Office oversight of tribes, 117 Washington dc: and claims, 96, 104; bureaucracy, 46; control over Indian affairs, 52, 58–59, 63, 111, 117, 170–71; fate of Palmer treaty in, 22–23, 37, 55, 59, 96–101; remoteness from Oregon, 16, 37, 150 Washington Superintendency, 32 Washington Territory, 19 Wasson, Daisy, 87 Wasson, Fred, 78 Wasson, George, 86 Wasson, George Bundy: boarding school education of, 79; on Coos escaping removal, 39; on Coos seafood trade, 5; on cranberry harvests, 87; finding copy of Empire Treaty, 97, 100, 245–46n2; testimony of, 96–97, 104; as tribal chairman and delegate to Congress, 98–99,

318

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

index

Wilkinson, Charles, 202 Willamette River, 2 Willamette Valley, 17, 19 Willow River Benevolent Association (wrba), 187 Wilson, William, 91–92 Winchester Bay, 36, 91 Wooldridge, Earl, 110, 111, 130 Wooten, Cynthia, 204 World War I, 87 World War II, 88, 116, 118 Wright, Harvey, 138–39, 147, 160 Wyandotte Indians, termination and restoration of, 185 Yachats or, 3, 36, 41, 42, 90, 91, 93, 103, 174; removal to, 32, 36–38, 73, 101, 103 Yachats River: Alsea Subagency at, 32; farming at, 33; opening to white settlement, 66 Yakama Indians, 147 Yaquina Bay, 50 Younker, Jason, xiv, 38, 205 Youst, Lionel, 2 Youth Wants to Know program, 157 Zimmerman, William: as assistant commissioner of Indian affairs, 111, 121; on judgment monies and termination, 159; on postwar reservation system, 121; tiered list of tribes, 121–22, 124, 154–55 Zuern, Father Ted, 201, 202

Copyright © 2009. Nebraska. All rights reserved.

113, 147; on tribal legislative committee, 109, 110, 111 Wasson, George Bundy, Jr., 38 Wasson, Pauline, 87–88, 109 Wasson, Susan Adulsah: as daughter of Gishgiu, 38; land allotment to, 82; marriage to white man, 39; teaching at Indian school, 79 Wasson, Tom, 87, 97, 99 Wasson, Wilfred, 182 Wasson families, land allotment to, 82 Waters, John, on Coos losses, 55 Watkins, Arthur V., support of federal termination policy, 118, 142, 143, 144, 148, 153, 156 wealth, 9–10 Weaver, James, 201 Weaver, Jim, 208 Welch, James, xii Wells, John W., 42 Western Oregon Termination Act, 159, 165, 171, 210 Weyerhaeuser, 188 whales and whale blubber, 4, 5, 6, 57, 69, 91 Wharton, Donald, 202, 204 Wheeler-Howard Act. See Indian Reorganization Act Whereat, Don, 200, 204 White Moccasins (Ward), 33–34 Whittlesey, Dennis J., 205 wildcat, 5

index

Seeking Recognition : The Termination and Restoration of the Coos, Lower Umpqua, and Siuslaw Indians,

319