Plateau Indian Ways with Words: The Rhetorical Tradition of the Tribes of the Inland Pacific Northwest

5. Deliberating Publicly: 1955–1956

104 Deliberating Publicly 1955–1956 At the General Council meeting of the Yakama Nation on January 13, 1956, council officer Burdette Kent opened proceedings with a summary behind the “squabbling” that had dominated the assembly’s meetings since the previous July: We are here today because the progress we have made has been struck a blow. The Democracy we believed in turned into dictatorship. In the past it was a common foe. Now we fight amongst our own people. They are harder to fight. They strike from within. They split our issues. We do not give sufficient thought. The struggle now will be the longest and hardest. This grab for power brought by Indian breeds [off-reservation enrollees from Tacoma, on the west side of the state] will not end. It will be brought up again and again. As it is won should fix it so we never be attacked from that angle again. It seems the present administration [the federal commissioner from the Bureau of Indian Affairs] has chosen sides they wish to succeed. Those believe in termination. They are happy to see us squabbling among ourselves. It is up to everyone to think best and act accordingly. [Emphasis mine]1 Unlike previous chapters that have focused on intergroup communications, this 5 Deliberating Publicly, 1955–1956 • 105 one examines intragroup deliberations of one tribe group on the Plateau (the Confederated Tribes of the Yakama Nation) as it seemingly squabbles about one seemingly inconsequential matter: whether or not to postpone an election. Kent’s remarks succinctly capture the power dynamics behind not just this particular controversy but many others, both before and since in Indian Country: internal conflict exacerbated by federal intervention. While Kent characterized the threat from within as squabbling, the threat from without represented nothing less than an assault on tribal sovereignty. Ironically, the outside danger that threatened to pull the tribe apart served rhetorically to rally it back together. Also characteristic was the historic divide between the General Council (the general assembly of all enrolled tribal members) and the Tribal Council (a panel of selected officers that manages the tribe’s daily affairs and serves as liaison between the tribe and the federal government). The former follows the traditional Plateau Indian governance model of direct democracy; the latter, the American governance model of representative democracy. Because of the Tribal Council’s enormous and far-reaching power, its historical relationship with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), its structural differences with the General Council, and the inherent distrust of representative government generally, Tribal Council elections are often fraught with contention. One such election was at the center of this particular controversy. Originally slated for the July 1955 General Council meeting, the Tribal Council election was postponed for lack of quorum and rescheduled for November 28. Quorum was easily met at the November 28 meeting, but the election was once again postponed when the meeting was recessed for two funerals and rescheduled for December 5–7, with the Tribal Council election reslated for December 6. But at least one person, E. J. Wilton, representing off-reservation enrollees from Tacoma , wanted it rescheduled for thirty days hence; meeting again so soon would present a hardship for those coming from the coast over the Cascade Mountains. The Tacoma group had already complained back in July to the commissioner of Indian affairs in Washington, D.C., about that first postponement, and they renewed those complaints after the November postponement. In response, the commissioner sent word to the General Council to reschedule the Tribal Council elections for April, rather than December, to give all enrollees, including the Tacoma group, more advanced notice; better weather and road conditions in April would also likely improve attendance. He also wanted the General Council to put in writing the customs regarding elections of tribal officers. If the General Council did not comply in all these regards, the commissioner threatened to waive tribal customs and conduct an election using secret and ab- 106 • Deliberating Publicly, 1955–1956 sentee ballots instead of public voting by a show of hands, as was tradition. Even though the General Council did comply with the directive to write down customary procedures and requirements for meetings and Tribal Council elections, after much heated discussion, the General Council defied the commissioner’s other demand and elected their Tribal Council on December 6, as planned, rather than postpone it until April. The commissioner then...