Liquor use should withhold annuities
Hey savvy news reader! Thanks for choosing local.
You are now reading
3 of 3 free articles.
Editor,
I’m confused. Is a treaty like a restaurant menu where you order your entree and then choose two sides and a dessert or is it a complete contract; all terms and conditions inclusive?
Is a treaty really the supreme law of the land? If so, like our Constitution, don’t all Articles contained within it receive equal force unless superseded or nullified by a later document?
I have not yet found anything that supersedes Article IX of the Hellgate Treaty of 1855: “The said confederated tribes desire to exclude from their reservation the use of ardent spirits, and to prevent their people from drinking the same; and therefore it is provided that any Indian belonging to said confederated tribes of Indians who is guilty of bringing liquor into said reservation, or who drinks liquor, may have his or her proportions of the annuities withheld from him or her for such time as the President may determine.”
What am I missing here? Annuities, what annuities? Why are they not being withheld? Oh, that’s right, this confederated tribe of Indians doesn’t have to report tribal DUIs to the state or feds. Interesting. Isn’t that “taking monies under false pretenses”?
The terms of this treaty are: no booze, annuity; booze, no annuity. When will this term/condition of the “supreme law of the land’” be enforced?
They are willing to attempt to enforce a myth-interpretation of the “right to take fish” as a “water right” and steal our water, but overlook this no alcohol stipulation.
Michael Gale
Ronan