Valley Journal
Valley Journal

This Week’s e-Edition

Current Events

Latest Headlines

What's New?

Send us your news items.

NOTE: All submissions are subject to our Submission Guidelines.

Announcement Forms

Use these forms to send us announcements.

Birth Announcement
Obituary

Our land not Indian Country

Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local. You are now reading
1 of 3 free articles.



Subscribe now to stay in the know!

Already a subscriber? Login now

Editor,

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Clairmont v. US (1912), declared: “Our conclusion must be that the right of way had been completely withdrawn from the reservation by the surrender of the Indian title and that in accordance with the repeated rulings of this court, it was not Indian Country.”

Once reservation land (held in trust for an Indian tribe) is removed from trust status, by tribal members or the trustee, and the tribe or individual tribal member is compensated for it, it is no longer part of Indian Country or part of a reservation. It “comes under the jurisdiction of the then territory, and later under that of the state.”

Really? A US Supreme Court decision that says our non-tribal, fee patent land is no longer Indian Country? Interesting, wouldn’t you say? Nearly 83 percent of the population on the Flathead Indian Reservation is non-tribal and nearly 50 percent of the land within the historical, external boundary is non-trust land (i.e., patent fee or fee simple); so what’s the question concerning water rights or property rights? It’s already been decided by the US Supreme Court and the US Congress to be out of trust, out of Indian Country status and out of the Reservation.

Gee, I guess that makes my five acres, held in fee-simple deed (without encumbrances or restrictions), with property taxes paid to the State of Montana through the Lake County Tax office since March of 1959, non-trust, non-federal, non-tribal, non-Indian Country, non-Reservation property. It’s state based, private property, no longer under the Tribal government control or jurisdiction. I guess that means the CSKT should be receiving no funds, no revenues, no grants, no income whatsoever related to my five acres. This Reservation is diminished by my five acres, how about yours? Has the CSKT received any funds from the State or the Feds that may actually belong to you, the owners of the land? Might be worth investigating; I could use a windfall about now to fight for my property rights and the water rights appurtenant to it.

Michael Gale
Ronan

 

Sponsored by: