In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

[First Page] [79], (1) Lines: 0 to 50 ——— 0.0pt PgVar ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [79], (1) 5 The Lemhi icc Claim, 1962–72 The belief the natives have is that we are so related to the mother earth, and that’s why we, like myself, I would reject that offer of four and a half million. . . . As I think about our little ones, where are they going to go? Our little ones, our babies, where are they going to go if we sell out? That’s my own thinking. Udale Tendoy, 1971 Attorney Robert Barker telephoned Tribal Business Council chairman Edward Boyer on October 25,1962,with the news of the icc’s favorable decision, and Boyer announced it to the Fort Hall tribes at a special council meeting that day. The claim was one of the largest awarded by the icc, involving fifty to sixty million acres. It followed that a large monetary recovery could be expected. Barker cautioned,however,that the next stage in the process would be even more time consuming and costly for the tribes than the first.1 By the end of March 1963 the General Council of the ShoshoneBannock Tribes had passed Resolution 1667, authorizing the Tribal Business Council to enter into negotiations with the experts recommended by Wilkinson, Cragun, and Barker. The resolution also authorized the council to use tribal funds “to obtain the services of competent historians, general valuation consultants, possibly timber consultants and mineral consultants and other expert witnesses necessary to conduct such valuation”for the Shoshone and Lemhi claims. In addition, Resolution 1667 requested the tribal attorneys and the tribal council to cooperate with the Wind River Shoshones in selecting and financing witnesses for the Shoshone claim.2 On September 30, 1964, Barker attended a special council meeting to discuss appraisal options with tribal members. He explained that the tribes could choose between two general approaches or appraisal options, one considerably more expensive than the other. For the Lemhi claim, for example, a detailed appraisal would cost $64,750, while the less detailed “quick and dirty approach” would cost only $26,500. The virtue of the more expensive option, Barker pointed out, was that it would be more detailed and therefore would be likely to 79 [80], (2) Lines: 50 to ——— 0.0pt PgV ——— Normal Page PgEnds: TEX [80], (2) produce a larger settlement than the less expensive route. In addition, a more detailed appraisal would be more difficult for the government to refute. The disparity in cost, Barker rationalized, would not be so intimidating when compared to the size of the claims. A few cents’ difference in accepted appraised value, he explained, could translate into hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars of difference in the award settlement. Barker realized that the budget was an issue, and he maintained that he was not trying to advocate one alternative over the other but merely advising the tribes of their options.3 Funding was indeed an issue in the second stage of land claims, and not only at Fort Hall. In response to widespread hindrance to claims caused by the expense of hiring expert witnesses, a bill was introduced in Congress in 1963 to establish a revolving fund from which tribes could draw loans to pay the expenses incurred in undertaking appraisals. Arthur Watkins, who was no longer in the Senate and served as chief commissioner of the icc, lobbied in support of the bill. Watkins lamented the fact that “there is almost a complete stoppage now of hearings which require the testimony of expert witnesses . . . mostly because of no funds.” The bill was passed, establishing a revolving fund of $900,000. Tribes could draw loans at 5 percent interest in order to hire expert witnesses to complete the appraisal process.4 Loans were to be repaid from monies received in the settlement of claims, and Watkins estimated that the revolving fund would shorten the life of the icc by five years. Because of the high cost of appraisals and the fact that over six hundred claims were still pending, the sum of money provided proved to be inadequate, prompting subsequent augmentation of the fund.5 AttheSeptember30,1964,specialcouncilmeeting,Barkerproposed several strategies for facilitating the appraisal process for the Fort Hall claims, including the possibility of receiving a loan from the revolving fund. He advised that the Lemhi and Shoshone claims be pursued first because they were the largest. To reduce costs, he suggested conducting the appraisals for these...

Share