Word is now circulating that when Congress reconvenes in January, Nevada Congressman Jim Gibbons plans to move “The Western Shoshone Claims Distribution Act,” (H.R. 884) forward. (A Senate version of the same bill, S-958, has already passed in the Senate). Meanwhile, within the Western Shoshone communities, events continue to unfold on the ground that challenge past and present efforts to win final passage of the Western Shoshone Claims Distribution bill.
Both Congressman Gibbons and Nevada Senator Harry Reid worked closely with former Te-Moak Chairman Felix Ike on H.R. 884 (S-958). Ike was their point man to do the heavy lifting in the Western Shoshone communities in an effort to create the impression that the bill is supported by a majority of Western Shoshones. Yet the questionable standing of the man these members of Congress were working with is now fully being revealed with Ike’s loss of power in his own community.
As reported previously in this column, Ike was voted off the Te-Moak Band Council in October, leaving him with only a seat on the Elko Band Council. However, on Dec. 30, 2003, the Elko Band Council voted to remove Ike from the Elko Band Council for “gross neglect of his duties.” Having lost his power base, Ike refused to attend meetings. Additionally, the newly elected Te-Moak Tribal Council has taken a very definite step to counteract what the new Council sees as the very damaging, unofficial, and unilateral past actions on Ike’s part. (Ironically, Reid and Gibbons are still able to capitalize on Ike’s past actions in their efforts to gain passage of H.R. 884).
Thus, on Nov. 23, 2003, the newly elected Western Shoshone Te-Moak Tribal Council unanimously passed a resolution concerning the recently ousted Te-Moak Chairman, Mr. Felix Ike. “It is believed,” reads the resolution, “that former Tribal Chairman, Felix Ike had one on one dealings with the Bureau of Land Management, Mining and Energy Companies, State and Federal Politicians without informing his Tribal Council or the people of the Te-Moak Tribe of issues that could directly or indirectly affect Western Shoshone land, cultural sites or the best interests of the Western Shoshone Nation.”
The document continues: “this resolution puts the Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, the State of Nevada, State and Federal Congressmen and Senators, Mining and Energy Corporations on notice that any past third party correspondence or communications between Felix Ike, as an individual or in official capacity shall be null and void.”
Therefore, “information in regard to such matters shall be forwarded to the Te-Moak Tribal Council Administration offices.” The document further resolves that, “any new activities or expansions of current activities of the entities named above shall seek the consent of the new elected Te-Moak Tribal Council in order to be permitted to do so.”
The present Te-Moak Council unequivocally states its position in the resolution that “the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley is a binding contract between the Western Shoshone Nation and the United States of America which identifies the boundaries of Western Shoshone Territory as 60 million acres covering parts of the states of Idaho, Utah, Nevada and California.”
Furthermore, said the resolution, “the title of the Treaty of Ruby Valley has never been litigated in a court of law and the Tribe has made numerous attempts to resolve and retain its ancestral lands based on the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley and to collect money therein.” Indeed, “the Te-Moak Tribal Council strongly believes the land within the Treaty territory still belongs to the Western Shoshone people who still use and occupy lands within the territory for hunting, fishing, gathering and ceremonial purposes.” Moreover, “destruction to the land over the last one hundred and forty years to our Mother earth, has had bearing on water, plant and animal life which affects the traditional and cultural lives of Western Shoshone people.”
It remains to be seen how Gibbons and Reid will respond to the new Te-Moak resolution, and the Te-Moak Council’s repudiation of Chairman Ike’s past actions with the two members of Congress, and with other government officials and agencies.
In a recent statement regarding the capture of former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein and the war in Iraq, Congressman Gibbons spoke of U.S. “servicemen and women ? achieving great success in fighting for freedom and liberty.” U.S. troops, he said, are working to “rebuild Iraq and bring security to the Iraqi people,” while “fighting for freedom around the world.”
So, we might ask, does Congressman Gibbons believe that the Western Shoshone people deserve security in their ancestral homeland just as much as the Iraqi people do? Don’t the Western Shoshone also deserve to have their “liberty and freedom” upheld pursuant to their existence in their homeland long prior to the time the United States was formed, and pursuant to the 1863 Treaty of Ruby Valley? Given that the U.S. Constitution itself defines a treaty such as the treaty of Ruby Valley to be the “supreme law of the land,” such questions are made all the more poignant.
In the 1787, “Northwest Ordinance,” Congress laid down a set of standards for dealing fairly and honorably with Indian nations. This is the document whereby Congress pledged to observe “the utmost good faith towards the Indians,” and that their “lands and property” shall never be taken from them without their consent,” and that “in their property, rights, and liberty, they shall never be invaded or disturbed, unless in just and lawful wars authorized by Congress.” How do the actions of Gibbons and Reid measure up to these standards with regard to the Western Shoshone legislation?
Would passage of H.R. 884 create the erroneous presumption that the Western Shoshone Nation possesses no remaining land rights within their treaty boundaries? Yes. Would passage of H.R. 884 demonstrate the “utmost good faith” toward the Western Shoshone people? No. Would passage of H.R. 884 purport to take “lands and property” from the Western Shoshone people without their consent? Yes. Would passage of H.R. 884 invade and disturb the “property, rights, and liberty” of the Western Shoshone Nation. Yes.
At the same time that Congressman Gibbons praises U.S. servicemen and women for fighting for “freedom around the world,” it would seem he is doing his level best to rob the Western Shoshone people of their freedom within their ancestral homeland, and to deprive them of security within the country where they have lived for thousands of years. Gibbons and Senator Reid’s efforts, if successful, would further dishonor and violate a treaty duly ratified in 1869 by the United States Senate, the very same institution where Senator Reid now serves.
On a related note, Congressman Gibbons has also sponsored the “Northern Nevada Rural Economic Development and Land Consolidation Act of 2003 (H.R. 2869), which, if passed, will direct the Secretary of the Interior to sell certain “public lands” (i.e., Western Shoshone lands) subject to mining in Nevada. Basically, the bill would serve to sell and privatize Western Shoshone lands to such corporations as Placer Dome Mining that operates the Crescent Valley Pipeline Mine. This bill would allow Placer Dome and other private corporations to by-pass a federal permitting process. Western Shoshone sacred cultural areas such as Mount Tenabo would definitely be affected by this bill’s passage. The bill characterizes such lands as “disposal lands.”
Steven Newcomb, Shawnee and Lenape, is director of the Indigenous Law Institute, and Indigenous Law research coordinator at D-Q University at Sycuan, on the Reservation of the Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation and is a columnist for Indian Country Today.