Bia Tejon Tribe Kern Co Calif Status Confirm

7/22/2019 Bia Tejon Tribe Kern Co Calif Status Confirm

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bia-tejon-tribe-kern-co-calif-status-confirm 1/46

fl

5

THE TEJON INDIAN TRIBE

REQUEST FOR C ONFIR MAT ION OF STATUS

Submitted June 30, 0 06

Prepared byArlinda F.Locklear

PO.Box 605

Jefferson,MD 2 1 7 5 5

301) 0 1 -4873

V eather Sibbison

Lawrence S.Roberts

Suzanne R.Schaeffer

Patton Boggs LLP2 5 5 0 M Street,NW

Washington, DC 2 0 0 3 7202) 5 7 -6148

4813657c5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



TABLE O F CONTENTS

nroducon

Executive .....................................................................

PartI:elevant History of the Tejon Indian Tribe ...................................................... ...............................6

1846 —1853: The Bureau of IndianAffairs'Early Acknowledgment of the Tribe ....................

1853 —1862: The Establishment of a Mil i tary Reservation for the Tejon Indians .....................

1862 —1 9 1 4 : T h e G r a d u a l T r a n s fe r of R e s e r v e d L a n d s t o P r iv a te O w n e r s h i p ;

Continued Occupancy by the Tejon Indian Tribe ............................................. .............................11

1914 —

1 9 2 4 : P r i v a t e L a n d o w n e r s D i s c o u r a g e T e jo n O c c u p a tio n of A b o r ig i n a l L a n d s ;Interior Efforts to Establish the Tribe'sitle toTejon .................................... .............................12

1920 —1 9 3 0 : T h e U n i t e d S t a t e s E x e r c i s e s I t s T r u s t R e s p o n s i b i l i t y b y B r i n g i n g L a n d

Claim Lit igat ion on Behalf of the Tribe;Alternative Means Considered to EstablishLand Base for Tribe —Purchase orCondemnation ........................................... .............................

16

1920s — 1940s: Interior Continues to Acknowledge t h e Tribe After the 1 9 2 4Supreme Court Decision ...................................................................................... .............................

19

1916 —1 9 5 3 : I n t e r i o r A s s u m e s a n d E x e r c i s e s R e s p o n s i b i l i t y for E d u c a t i o n of T e j o nC den1

1952 —1962: Continued Federal Assistance .................................................... ...............................25

1962 —2006: .........................................................................................................................................28

2006: The Tejon Indian Tribe Today ................................................................ ...............................3

Part 11: Interior Must Confirm the Tribe'status as a Federally -Acknowledged Tribe .......................9

Acknowledgment of the Tribe has been Clearly Established ......................... ...............................39

The Tejon Indian Tribe Has Never Been Terminated .................................... ...............................41

T h e T e jo n I n d ia n T r ib e M u s t B e A d d e d t o t h e C u r r e n t L i s t of F e d e r a l l y A c k n o w l e d g e de 1

Additionally, The Indian Reorganization Ac t Entitles Hal f - lood Tribal Members to BIASr v i c e s , and Enables Them to O rgan i z e a Tribal Government ................... ...............................3

Conclusion ............................45

4813657v52

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



THE TEJON INDIAN TRIBE

REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF STATUS

INTRODUCTION

T h e T e j o n I n d i a n T r i b e (the Tribe)h e r e b y r e q u e s t s t h a t th e D e p a r t m e n t of th e I n t e r i o rc o r r e c t i t s l i s t o f tribal e n t i t ie s r e c o g n iz e d a s e l i g i b l e t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e s from t h e United S t a t e s

B u r e a u o f I n d i a n A f f a i r s ' t o r e f l e c t t h e D e p a r t m e n tsi s t o r i c a n d c o n t i n u i n g a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o ft h e T e j o n T r i b e . A s d i s c u s s e d in m o r e d e t a i l b e l o w , h e T e j o n In d ia n T r ib e h a s b e e n a c k n o w l e d g e dt h r o u g h t r e a t y n e g o t i a t i o n s , b y t h e f e d e r a l c o u r ts (i n c l u d i n g t h e S u p r e m e Court), n d b y t h e B u r e a uof I n d i a n A f f a i r s . At n o t im e h a s t h e T r i b e b e e n t e r m i n a t e d b y C o n g r e s s io n a l a c t i o n , a n d a t n o t im eh a s t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e I n t e r i o r a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e T r i b est a t u s h a s b e e n t e r m i n a t e d o r l a p s e d .Hence, h e United S t a t e s ' a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f t h e Tejon Indian Tribe,d e s c e n d e d from t h e historic

I i t a n e m u k T r ib e , m u s t b e r e f l e c t e d o n t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e I n t e r i o rsis t o f f e d e r a l l y r e c o g n i z e dtribes.

T h e K i t a n e m u k T r ib e l i v e d f r o m t i m e im m e m o r i a l in a c a n y o n i n s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n ia n o wk n o w n a s t h e T e jo n C a n y o n . B e c a u s e o f t h e K i t a n e m u k I n d i a n s ' c l o s e a s s o c i a t i o n w i t h T e j o nC a n y o n , th e D e p a r t m e n t of th e I n t e r i o r h a s l o n g r e f e r r e d t o th e K i t a n e m u k a s t h e Tejon I n d i a nTribe r t h e Tejon Band. v e r t h e c o u r s e of t i m e th e T r i b e a d o p t e d th e n a m e T e jo n In d ia n

T

T r i b e , a s i s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e T r i b eso n s t i t u t i o n a n d B y l a w s (a t t a c h e d a s T a b A)'.e nc e th e T e j o nf In d ia n T r ib e i s t h e h i s t o r i c K i t a n e m u k T r i b e , w h i c h o c c u p i e d t h e a r e a k n o w n t o d a y a s t h e T e j o n

R a n c h , h u g e p r i v a t e l y o w n e d a r e a o f l a n d v a r i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d in t h e h i s t o r i c a l d o c u m e n t s a s T e j o nC a n y o n ,Tejon P a s s , Tejon Valley,ors imply Tejon. HGiffen & A.Woodward, T h e Slog o f 'El Tjon,at 3 (Los Angeles 1942). ee also Smilhsoman Handbook o fNorth ,1i l e r i c a n Ind ians , Vol.8 at 564 —569

1978). e f l e c t i n g t h e t r a n s l i t e r a t i o n of t h e n a m e f r o m e a r l y S p a n i s h , e a r l y s p e l l i n g s of th e w o r dTejon"n c l u d e d t h e v a r i a n t Texon (e e d i s c u s s i o n a t f o o t n o t e 6),i m i la r t o t h e v a r i a n t s of t h ewords Texas" n d Tejas ro m t h e s a m e t im e period.

T h e T r i b e i s l o c a t e d in K e r n C o u n t y , C a l if o r n i a , (w h i c h c o u n t y e n c o m p a s s e s th e T r i b esa b o r i g i n a l h o m e l a n d ) w i th t h e m a j o r i t y of i t s m e m b e rs l i v i n g in t h e B a k e r s f i e l d a r e a . B a k e r s f i e l d is

t h e m e t r o p o l i t a n a r e a m o s t c l o s e l y l o c a t e d t o t h e T e j o n c a n y o n a r e a . T h e T r i b e i s g o v e r n e d b y aT r i b a l G e n e r a l C o u n c i l (a l l a d u lt m e m b e rs voting), n d a T r i b a l E x e c u t i v e C o m m it te e (c o m p o s e d o fa n e l e c t e d C h a i r m a n a n d s e v e n o t h e r C o u n c i l m e m b e r s ) h a t h a s c e r t a i n d e l e g a t e d a u t h o r i t i e s . S e eth e T r i b eso n s t i t u t i o n a n d B y l a w s (Ta b A). h e T r i b esu r r e n t C h a i r m a n i s K a t h r y n M o n t e sM o r g a n , a l i n e a l d e s c e n d a n t o f C h i c o , w h o w a s a T e jo n t r ib a l s i g n a t o r y t o t h e 1 8 5 1 t r e a t y d i s c u s s e d

T h is lis t i s p u b l i s h e d b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t o f t h e I n t e r i o r in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s e c t i o n 1 0 4 o f t h e A c t o f N o v e m b e r 2 ,1 9 9 4 , P .L. 0 3 4 5 4 (a m e n d m e n ts t o th e I n d i a n R e o r g a n i z a t i o n A c t of 1 9 3 4 ) . h is l i s t i s r e f e r r e d t o h e r e i n a f t e r a s th e l i s tof federal ly recognized Indian tribes.

T h i s R e q u e s t c o m p r i s e s t h r e e b i n d e r s o f m a t e r i a l s . H i s t o r i c a l e x h i b i t s , s u c h a s f e d e r a l r e p o r t s a n d c o r r e s p o n d e n c e , a r ep r o v i d e d in V o l u m e s I a n d I I (T a b s o r g a n i z e d n u m e r i c a l ly , E x h i b i ts 1 t h r o u g h 72) . e g a l d o c u m e n t s , s u c h a s s t a t u t e sa n d c o u r t d e c i s i o n s , a r e p r o v i d e d in V o lu m e I I I (T a b s o r g a n i z e d a l p h a b e t i c a l l y , T a b s A t h r o u g h N D .

4813657v53

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



below. T h e T r i b e 'su r r e n t membership' c o n s i s t s of 2 1 1 c l o s e l y r e l a t e d d e s c e n d a n t s of t h e h i s t o r i cT e jo n I n d ia n Tribe, h e m a j o r i t y o f whom r e s i d e within a thirty-mile r a d i u s a r o u n d B a k e r s f i e l d .

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

F r o mn e a r l y

t h e m o m e n tt h e

U n i t e dS t a t e s

t o o k p o s s e s s i o n of t h e t e r r i t o r y of California,h e

f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t a s s e r t e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r , a n d e s t a b l i s h e d a w a r d s h i p r e la t io n s h i p with, h eTejon Indian Tribe.

O n J u l y 7, 1 8 4 6 t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a c q u i r e d f r o m M e x i c o t h e t e r r i t o r y n o w c o m p r is in g t h eS t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a p u r s u a n t t o t h e T r e a t y of G u a d a l u p e H i d a l g o . 9 S t a t . 9 2 2 , T.S.No. 2 0 7 (18 48 ) .U n d e r t h a t t r e a t y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s "c o n t r a c t e d t o p r e s e r v e a n d p r o t e c t a ll e x i s tin g r ig h t s of p r o p e r t yr e c o g n i z e d b y Mexico, n c l u d i n g t h e f o r e g o in g t it le a n d r i g h t p o s s e s s e d b y th e T e j o n I n d i a n s a t t h ed a t e of t h a t treaty. e e U n i t e d S t a t e s ' Brief a t 18, i l e d in U n i t e d S t a t e r v . T i t l e L a u r a n c e 6 T n a t Co.,2 65 U.S.472 (1924) e e Exhibit 71. T he U n ited States' duties to the California tribes under the

T r e a t y of G u a d a l u p e H i d a l g o w e r e n o t m e r e l y f o r m a l o r t h e o r e t ic a l , b u t r a t h e r s a w p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t .I n th e c a s e of t h e T e jo n I n d ia n Tribe, h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a s s e r t e d a c t i v e a n d c o n t in u o u s s u p e rv i s io n

o v e r r e l a t i o n s with t h e T e jo n I n d ia n T r i b e t h r o u g h t r e a t y n e g o t i a t i o n s , t h r o u g h t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n ta n d s u p e r v i s i o n of a m i li ta r y r e s e r v a t i o n f o r t h e T r i b e 'se n e f i t , a n d t h r o u g h r e p e a t e d e f fo r ts t os e c u r e a permanent home fo r the Tribe o n its aboriginal lands (which effor ts included i s s u a n c e of a

D e p a r t m e n t a l O r d e r w i t h d r a w i n g n e a r b y l a n d s f r o m t h e p u b l i c d o m a i n f o r t h e u s e of t h e T e j o nI n d i a n T r i b e i n 1 9 1 6 , a n d r e p e a t e d a t t e m p t s t o p u r c h a s e f o r t h e T r ib e p o r t io n s of a b o r i g i n a lt e r r i t o r y t h a t h a d b e c a m e t h e p r i v a t e l y -held T e j o n Ranch). e e d i s c u s s i o n a t pp. -15 below.

I n 1 9 2 0 , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a c t in g t h r o u g h t h e D e p a r t m e n t s of t h e Interior a n d J u s t i c e ,proclaimed a n d a c t e d upon i t s guardian relationship with t h e Tribe when t h e United S t a t e s filed suitinaneffort toprotect the Tribe'scont inuing abor ig ina l title toland in the Tejon Canyon - - a suit the

U n i t e d S t a t e s p r o s e c u te d a l l t h e w a y t o t h e S u p re m e Court. U n i t e d S t a t e s o fA n w i c a v . T i t l e I n s u r a n c e

T m s t C o n i p a g y , 2 6 5 U.S.4 7 2 (192 4 ) . e e Ta b C. n t h a t c a s e , I n t e r i o r p l a i n l y a c k n o w le d g e d i t sobligation a s guardian fo r s u n d r y Indians known a s t h e Tejon B a n d or Tribe o f Indians now a n dfrom time immemorial residing oncertain premises ... in what is n ow K ern County,Cal i fo rn ia .On I n t e r i o r 'sehalf, h e D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e T e j o n I n d i a n s n o w a n d from t im ei m m e m o r i a l h a v e b e e n t r i b a l Indians,a n d a t a l l t i m e s s i n c e J u l y 7, 1 8 4 6 , h a v e b e e n a n d n o w a r ewards of the United States ...." United States Complaint at I,nited S t a t e s r)Title I n s u r a n c e d a m ' Tn'stC o m p a n y , (S.D.Calif.),iled Dec. 2 0 , 1920. S e e Exhib i t 71. Hence, n 1 9 2 0 t h e United States'

explicitly,affirmatively,a s s e r t e d t h a t it h a d a t r u s t r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e T e jo n I n d ia n T r i b e a n d t h a tit h a d h e l d s u c h a r e l a t i o n s h i p d a t i n g b a c k to 1 8 4 6 . S e e d i s c u s s i o n a t pp. -19 below.

s A s it s b a s e roll, h e T r i b e u s e s th e C a l i f o r n i a I n d i a n Roll,w h i c h w a s p r e p a r e d i n 1 9 3 3 b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t of th eI n t e r i o r a t C o n g r e s s ' d i r e c t i o n . S e e 4 5 S t a t . 6 0 2 (Ta b B).ll e n r o l l e d m e m b e r s a l s o d e s c e n d f r o m a T e j o n c e n s u sprepared by s p e c i a l federal Indian a g e n t J J.Terrell in 1 91 4.

a T h e D e p a r t m e n t of J u s t i c e f i l e d th e T e j o n l a w s u i t a t t h e e x p l i c i t r e q u e s t o f th e D e p a r t m e n t of t h e Interior a n d

r e p r e s e n t e d th e v i e w of th e D e p a r t m e n t of t h e I n t e r i o r r e g a rd in g th e T e jo n In d ia n T r i b e t h r o u g h o u t th e l i t i g a t i o n . S e eUnited States'Briefat 2, iled in United Stales LTitle Insurance & T r u s t Co., 6 5 U.S. 7 2 (1 9 2 4 ) (Exhibit 71). s a result,t h e v i e w s e x p r e s s e d therein reflected t h e views o f t h e Department o f t h e Interior.

44R13657v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



U n f o r t u n a t e l y , h e S u p r e m e C o u r t f o u n d t h a t th e T e jo n In d ia n T r i b esi t le t o i t s a b o r ig i n a lt e r r i t o r y h a d b e e n e x t i n g u i s h e d b y t h e C a l i f o r n i a C l a i m s Act of M a r c h 3 , 1 8 5 1 , 9 S t a t . 631,w h i c he f f e c t i v e l y r e q u i r e d C a l i f o r n i asn d i a n t r i b e s t o p e r f e c t a b o r ig in a l t i t le c l a i m b y 1 8 5 3 o r f o r f e i t t h o s ec l a im s . N e v e r t h e l e s s , e v e n a f t e r t h e l o s s in t h e S u p re m e C o u r t o n T e j o n l a n d i s s u e s , Interiorc o n t in u e d t o a s s e r t a n d e x e r c i s e it s g e n e r a l g u a r d i a n r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e T e jo n I n d ia n Tribe.

Interior s o u g h t t o p r o t e c t t h e T r i b e in i t s continued, p e a c e f u l o c c u p a t i o n o n t h e s a m e l a n d s o nw h i c h th e T r i b e a lw a y s h a d l i v e d e v e n t h o u g h t h o s e l a n d s w e r e n o w s u b s u m e d w i t h i n a h u g ep r i v a t e l y -held a r e a k n o w n a s t h e T e j o n R a n c h . I n t e r i o r a u t h o r i z e d it s f ie l d o f f ic e r s t o e x pe n d fu n d sfo r t h e p u rc h a s e o f l a n d from t h e Tejon Ranch,a n d if a n d w h e n t h a t failed,a u t h o r i z e d t h e

e x p e n d i t u r e of f u n d s f o r a c q u i s i t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e l a n d s f o r t h e T r i b e . W h ile I n t e r i o r u l t i m a t e l ya c c e p t e d a s s u r a n c e s from t h e b u s i n e s s c o n s o r t i u m t h a t o w n e d t h e T e j o n R a n c h t h a t t r ib a l m e m b e r sw o u ld n o t b e d i s t u r b e d i n t h e o c c u p a t i o n of t h e i r h o m e s o n t h e T e jo n R a n c h , Interior c o n t in u e d t oo v e r s e e th e T r i b ese n e r a l w e l f a r e , e x p e n d i n g f e d e r a l l y a p p r o p r i a t e d I n d i a n p r o g r a m m o n e y t osupport a school built o n Tejon R a n c h u s e d fo r t h e e d u c a t i o n o f Tejon children a n d fo r other tribalc o m m u n i t y p u r p o s e s . I n 1 9 4 5 , t h e T e j o n s c h o o l t e a c h e r r e t i r e d a f t e r t w e n t y -one y e a r s , w h i c hr e s u l t e d i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l I n t e r i o r r e p o r t s d o c u m e n t i n g f e d e r a l s u p e r v i s i o n o v e r t h eTejon I n d i a n Tribe during t h e period. e e d i s c u s s i o n a t pp. 1 8 -2 5 below.

O v e r t h e y e a r s , h e b u s i n e s s c o n s o r t i u m t h a t o w n e d t h e T e j o n R a n c h d is c o u ra g e d t r i b a lm e m b e r s f r o m c o n t in u e d o c c u p a t io n of t h e i r t r a d i t i o n a l h o m e s . A s w a s d o c u m e n t e d b y t h e U n i t e dS t a t e s i n it s 1 9 2 0 s u i t o n th e T r i b ese h a l f , th e o w n e r s of th e T e j o n R a n c h fo r c e d r e lo c a t io n b yb u r n i n g h o u s e s u p o n t h e d e a t h of a h e a d of f a m i ly a n d b y s e v e r e l y r e s t r i c t i n g t h e a b i l i t y of a llfamilies to support themselves. Over t h e c o u r s e o f time, tribal members w e r e forced to move o fft h e T e j o n R a n c h , g e n e r a lly s e t t l in g in n e a r b y B a k e r s f i e l d . A c r u s h i n g b l o w w a s d e a lt t h e T r i b e i n1 9 5 2 w h e n a s e r i o u s e a rt h q u a k e d e s t r o y e d m a n y of t h e r e m a i n i n g t r i b a l m e m b e r s ' h o m e s . T h eB u r e a u of I n d i a n Affairs a c t e d t o a s s i s t t h e T e jo n I n d ia n T r ib e a f t e r t h i s n a t u r a l d i s a s te r ,

c o o r d i n a t i n g e f f o r t s w i t h l o c a l a g e n c i e s a n d o t h e r s t o e n s u r e t h a t e m e r g e n c y a s s i s t a n c e w a s p r o v i d e dt o t h e T r i b e . D e s p i t e B I A 'sf f o r t s , h o w e v e r , m a n y of t h e T e j o n f a m i li e s t h a t h a d m a n a g e d t o

m a i n ta i n t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s o n t h e T e j o n R a n c h w e r e f o r c e d t o r e l o c a t e t o j o i n t h e i r f e l l o w t r i b e s m a ni n t h e B a k e r s f i e l d a r e a , w h e r e t h e y r e m a i n t o d a y . N o n e t h e l e s s , I n t e r i o r c o n tin u e d t o p r o v id ee d u c a t i o n a l s e r v i c e s to t h e Tribe. e e d i s c u s s i o n a t pp. 2 5 -2 8 below.

In 1961, Interior investigated the condition of the 8 8 0 a c r e s that h a d b e e n withdrawn from

th e p u b l i c d o m a i n i n 1 9 1 6 f o r th e T r i b e . I n t e r i o r f o u n d th e l a n d t o b e of p o o r q u a l i t y a n d l o c a t e do n s t e e p h i l l s i d e s . R e a l i z i n g t h a t a s a p ra c t ic a l m a t te r th e w i t h d r a w n l a n d w a s la r g e ly u n u s a b le b y th eTribe, nterior r e s t o r e d t h e l a n d t o t h e p u b l i c d o m a i n i n 1 9 6 2 b y P u b l i c L a n d O r d e r 2738. e ediscussion below at pp.28 -33.

I n 1 9 6 9 , u s t a f e w s h o r t y e a r s a f t e r t h e 1 9 6 2 P u b l i c L a n d O r d e r r e s t o r i n g t o t h e p u b l i cd o m a i n t h e la n d o r i g i n a l l y w i t h d r a w n f o r t h e T r i b e 'ss e , I n t e r i o r b e g a n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n of a l i s t off e d e r a lly r e c o g n iz e d t r i b e s . I n e x p l i c a b l y , t h e T e j o n I n d ia n T r i b e w a s n o t i n c l u d e d o n t h a t list, o r t h el i s t s w h i c h h a v e f o l l o w e d it. e i t h e r B I A a g e n c y n o r c e n t r a l o f f i c e f i l e s r e v e a l a n y e x p l a n a t i o n f o rt h i s o v e r s i g h t . M o s t likely, o n l y t r i b e s with f e d e r a l l y - r o t e c t e d l a n d b a s e s w e r e listed, a n d of c o u r s ethe Tejon Indian Tribe a t that time had no s u c h land base. S i n c e it is well e s t a b l i s h e d that neither

f e d e r a l r e c o g n i t i o n n o r th e t ru s t r e la t io n s h i p h i n g e s o n th e e x i s t e n c e of t r u s t o r r e s t r i c t e d p r o p e r t y ,it is c l e a r that a s a matter o f law the Tribe should h a v e b e e n included on t h e list. e e discussionbelow at pp. 3 -45.

r

4813657v55

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



T h e U n it e d S t a t e s ' r e c o g n i t i o n of t h e T e j o n I n d i a n T r i b e h a s s p a n n e d a c e n t u r y a n d a h a l f .At n o t im e h a s t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s w i t h d r a w n o r t e r m in a te d t h a t r e c o g n i ti o n . H e n c e , t h e T r i b econtinues to h a v e federally recognized s t a t u s a n d that s t a t u s must b e ref lected on I n t e r i o r 'sis t o ffederally recognized tr ibes.

PART I

RELEVANT HISTORY O F THE TEJON INDIAN TRIBE

1846-1853

The Bureau of Indian Affairs' Early Acknowledgement of the Tribe

After it s a c q u i s i t i o n of C a l i f o r n i a b y th e T r e a t y of G u a d a l u p e H id a l g o i n 1 8 4 6 , t h e U n i t e dS t a t e s moved quickly to a s s e r t its authority over California tribes. President Millard Fillmore

appointed a B o a r d o f P e a c e C o m m i s s i o n e r s to n e g o t i a t e t r e a t i e s with California t r i b e s in a n effort tor e lo c a te th e t r ib e s t o r e s e r v a tio n s , t h e r e b y s e rv in g th e d u a l p u rp o s e s of p r o t e c t i n g t h e t r i b e s f r o mw h i t e i n c u r s i o n s ' a n d o p e n i n g u p I n d i a n l a n d s f o r n o n - n d i a n s e t t l e m e n t . S e e g e n e r a l l y , T h e S l o g o f ElT O M , s i o r a . T h e d i s c o v e r y of g o l d i n 1 8 4 9 l i k e l y h a s te n ed s u ch e f f o r t s . S e e g e l r e r a l l y , G e o r g eH a r w o o d P h i l l i p s , B r i n g i l r g T h e m U i r d e r S u b j e c t i o n : C a l i f o n d a s Tj o n L y d i a n R e r e m a t i o n a l y d B e y o n d , 1 8 5 2 —1 8 6 4 , c h a p t e r s 2 a n d 3 [ h e r e i n a f t e r Phillips]. h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n tst r a t e g y w a s t o n e g o t i a t ew i t h m u l t ip l e t r ib e s s im u l t a n e o u s ly in o r d e r t o a c h i e v e a n a g r e e m e n t t o lo c a te th o s e m u l t ip l e t r i b e su p o n a s i n g l e c o l l e c t i v e r e s e r v a t i o n . T h e v a r i o u s C a l i f o r n i a t r e a t y n e g o t i a t i o n s it e s a re i d e n t i f i e d o nthe ma p provided at Figure 1 below.

5 C o n f l i c t w a s p a r t i c u l a r l y v i o l e n t n e a r m i n i n g s i t e s . S e e P h i l l i p s , a t c h a p t e r 2 . M i n e r s fo rm e d t w o g r o u p s t o d r i v eI n d i a n s f r o m t r i b a l l a n d s in t h e S i e r r a N e v a d a . G o v e m o r J o h n M c D o u g a l of C a l i f o r n i a t h e re a f te r o r d e r e d th e f o r m a t io no f a militia which w a s o r g a n i z e d into t h r e e c o m p a n i e s o f 5 5 to 7 2 men. d. a t 22 . While f e d e r a l c o m m is s io n e r s w e r e

a t t e m p t i n g to n e g o tia t e t r e a t i e s w i t h th e v a r i o u s t r i b e s , t h e m i l it i a w a s e n g a g i n g i n v i c i o u s b a t t l e s t o r e m o v e t r ib e s fromr

their abor iginal areas d.at 26 —32.

4 8 1 3 6 5 7 .56

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



il,""mp F A e a r r o n r o +

M a r a .d1 1 9

q 2. Camp Bai

yru; 29

M

y

ee'

3

V

4„t l & aauAk °G r 6 9 sr +

May 3s

C a mp K ey es1 Ma y 30

V I , Camp Buktoo

j1. 1 " @3

20

h y n ef k 1 a u B ]5

e 6 a ' l " ' " k iX

3 Bepaember ' IB

C

m

L

r.,

n

Ip a w

w X,'

,...._

,., All io d a m ,

8 I W

FIG. 1:TREATY NEGOTIATION S ITES

FROM PHILLIPS, AT 34.

O n J u n e 1 0 , 1 8 5 1 , G e o r g e B a r b o u r , o n e of t h e C o m m i s s i o n e r s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r n e g o t i a t i n gC a l i f o r n i a I n d i a n t r e a t i e s , n e g o t i a t e d a t r e a t y w i t h e l e v e n s o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a t r i b e s , n c l u d i n g t h eTejon Indian Tribe,' (he "1851 Treaty ) a t C a m p P e r s i f e r F .Smith (site number 7 o n t h e m a pabove).Of n o t e , C a m p P e r s if e r F.S m i t h a p p e a r s t o b e l o c a t e d i n t h e h e a r t of T e j o n t e r r i t o r y . S e em a p a t Fig. 3 . Article 1 of t h e 1 8 5 1 T r e a t y a s s e r t s t h a t t h a t t h e s i g n a t o r y t r i b e s a r e u n d e r t h ee x c l u s i v e jurisdiction, c o n t r o l a n d m a n a g e m e n t of t h e g o v e r n m e n t of th e U n i t e d States[. ] r t i c l e3 of t h e 1 8 5 1 T r e a t y d e s c rib e d t h e m e t e s a n d b o u n d s of a t e r r i t o r y t o b e r e s e r v e d a n d set a p a r t a n d

f o r e v e r h e l d fo r t h e s o l e u s e a n d o c c u p a n c y of s a i d t r i b e s of Indians[.]"e e T r e a t y M a d e a n d C o n c l u d e d

G T h e 1 8 5 1 T r e a t y u s e s th e o l d e r s p e l l i n g Texon. e d e ra l c o r re s p o n d e n c e c o n f i r m s t h a t T e x o n n th e 1 8 5 1 T r e a t yi s s i m p l y a s p e l l i n g v a r i a t i o n of t h e T e j o n I n d i a n T r i b e . F o r e x a m p l e , n d i a n a g e n t A s b u r y w r o t e in 1 9 1 4 t h a t e a r l yr e p o r t s d e s c r i b e d a n 1 8 5 1 t r e a t y w i t h th e T e jo n In d ia n T r i b e . S e e A u g u s t 1 8 , 1 9 1 4 L e t t e r f r o m S p e c i a l I n d i a n A g e n tA s b u r y to C o m m i s s i o n e r of I n d i a n A f f a i r s (Exhibit 8). i m i la r l y , S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t t o th e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l G e o r g eF r a s e r , t h e a t to r n e y r e s p o n s ib le fo r t h e p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h e s u i t f i l e d in 1 9 2 0 , a l s o n o t e d t h a t t h e T e j o n I n d i a n T r i b et r e a t e d w i t h th e U n i t e d S t a t e s in 1 8 5 1 . S e e J u n e 29, 9 2 1 M e m o r a n d u m f r o m G e o r g e F r a s e r , S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t t o t h eAttorney General to the Attorney General (Exhibit 25).

74813657x5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



a t C a m p P e r s i f e r F.Skid), t t h e T e x a n P a s s , S t a te o f C a l i f o r n i a , J a n e 1 0 , 1 8 5 1 , B e t w e e n G e o r g e W. B a r b o u rUnited States Conlnrissioner, and th e Chiefs, Captains andHeadMen o f the `Castake, " Texon, 6c:, ibes ofI n d i a n s (Exhibit 1).his is t h e c l a s s i c la n g u a g e u s e d b y t h e United S t a t e s in Indian t r e a t i e s to

e s ta b lis h a n d confirm t h e e x is te n c e of a n I n d i a n r e s e r v a t io n . Indeed, h e f e d e r a l p o l i c y ofc o n c e n t r a t i n g I n d i a n t r i b e s o n r e s e r v a t i o n s t o b e t t e r control a n d m a n a g e r e l a t i o n s with t h e m w a s

f i r s t i m p l e m e n t e d in C a l i f o r n i a , a s r e f l e c t e d i n t h e 1 8 5 1 T r e a t y . S e e C o h e nsa n d b o o k o f F e d e r a l I n d i a nLary, §1.3 [6 [],t 6 5 (2 0 0 5 ed.) [e r e i n a f t e r C o h e ns].h o s e r e s e r v e d l a n d s i n c l u d e d T e j o n C a n y o na n d environs, h e a b o r i g i n a l h o m e of t h e T e jo n I n d ia n Tribe. S i x c h ie f s s i g n e d t h e t r e a t y fo r t h eTejon, ncluding tw o brothers know n a s Vincente and Chico.

Although Commissioner Barbour submitted the treaty —a s well a s 1 7 others negotia ted thatyear in California —to t h e United S t a t e s S e n a te for rat if icat ion, n o n e o f t h e s e w a s ratif ied. Rather,C a l i f o r n i ase n a t o r s p e r s u a d e d their c o l l e a g u e s to c o n s i d e r t h e p r o p o s e d t r e a t i e s in s e c r e t s e s s i o n ,wherein t h e S e n a t e no t only f a i l e d to ratify them but a c t u a l l y d i r e c t e d that t h e t re a t ie s b e locked

a w a y a n d s h ie ld e d f r o m p u b l i c d i s c l o s u r e . T h e v e r y e x i s t e n c e of t h e t r e a t i e s w a s f o r g o t t e n u n t i l t h e ywerediscovered a half -century later. S ee Kan & Tribe o f Califon a v. Ammon, 20 9 F.d 1366, 1 3 7 1

C.A. ed. 2 0 0 0 ) (TabD).s d e m o n s t ra t e d b y t h e Tejon litigation d i s c u s s e d below, h e S e n a t es

r e f u s a l t o r a t i f y t h e t r e a t i e s u l t im a t e l y h a d d e v a s t a tin g e f fe c t s o n I n d i a n t i t le t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t a t e . InM a r c h of 1851, C o n g r e s s e n a c t e d le g i s la t io n t o a s c e r t a i n a n d a d j u d i c a t e p r iv a t e la n d c l a i m s withinCalifornia. e e 9 Stat. 6 3 1 (TabE).he 1 8 5 1 Ac t provided fo r t h e creation o f a Board o fC o m m is s io n e r s t o d e t e r m in e which t i t l e c la im s h a d b e e n r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e M e x ic a n g o v e rn m e n ta n d t h u s w o u l d b e r e c o g n i z e d b y t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . I t f u r t h e r r e q u i r e d t h a t a ll c la im s b e p r e s e n t e dto t h e C o m m i s s i o n within t w o y e a r s . C l a i m s not f i l e d within t h e two -ea r d e a d l i n e w e r e t o b er e g a r d e d a s a b a n d o n e d . T h e C o m m is s io n f a i l e d t o notify t h e C a l i f o r n i a t r i b e s of t h e r e q u i r e m e n t sof t h e A c t a n d a s r e s u l t , m a n y y e a r s la t e r th e S u p r e m e C o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t l a n d p a t e n t s i s s u e d b ythe Commission to non - ndians fo r aboriginal tribal lands could not b e disturbed where tribal

a b o r i g i n a l t i d e h a d n o t b e e n p e r f e c t e d i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e 1 8 5 1 Act. H e n c e , h e v a s t m a j o r it y ofIndian aboriginal title in California w a s extinguished.

1853-1862

The Establishment o f a Military Reservation fo r the Tejon Indians

Now t h a t m o s t C a l i f o r n i a Indian t i t l e h a d b e e n e x t i n g u i s h e d , C o n g r e s s a c te d in 1 8 5 3 t oa u t h o r i z e t h e c r e a t i o n of u p t o f i v e m i li ta r y r e s e r v a t i o n s in C a l i f o r n i a for I n d i a n purposes[ . ] 0S t a t . 2 3 8 , ch. 1 0 4 (Ta b F).u p e r i n t e n d e n t of I n d i a n A f f a i r s i n C a l i f o r n i a E .F. e a l e i m m e d i a t e l yproceeded to meet with California tribes to establish these reservat ions, on e of which would come

t o b e known a s t h e Tejon r e s e r v a t i o n . Originally c a l l e d t h e Sebastian Military Reservation, h eT e j o n R e s e r v a t i o n i n c l u d e d t h e T e jo n In d ia n T r i b e 'si l l a g e s i n t h e T e jo n C a n y o n . S e e Aug. 1 8 ,1 9 1 4 , L e t t e r f r o m A s b u r y t o C o m m is s io n e r of I n d i a n Affairs, a t 2 (Exhibit 8);hilips,a t 1 2 0noting t h a t t h e official n a m e of t h e T e j o n R e s e r v a t i o n w a s t h e S e b a s t i a n Military Reserve).

In a r e p o r t t o C o m m i s s io n e r of I n d i a n A f f a i r s M a n y p e n n y , B e a l e d e s c r i b e d t h e t w o -da ym e e t i n g h e h a d h e ld a t T e j o n P a s s with t h e l o c a l t r i b e s prior t o s e t t i n g u p t h e m i li ta r y r e s e r v a t i o n .M a n y p e n n y h a d e x p l a i n e d t o t h e l o c a l t r ib e s a t t h a t m e e ti n g t h a t t h e fe d e r a l g o v e r n m e n tsntentionw a s t o t a k e c o n t r o l o v e r t h e t r i b e s ' a f f a i r s a n d t o p r o v i d e t h e m w i t h m e a n s t o s u p p o rt t h e m s e l v e s b yf a r m i n g . A c c o r d i n g t o B e a l e , t h e t r ib e s a c c e d e d t o t h e plan, s o l o n g a s t h e y w e re n o t r e q u i r e d t oleave the Tejon Val ley. Beale noted:

84R13G57v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



To a ll t h i s I h a d n o difficulty in bringing t h e m t o a s s e n t . A difficulty,however, a r o s e here,which it w a s very h a r d to overcome. This was,t h e i r d i s i n c l in a t io n t o l e a v e t h e i r o l d h o m e s a n d hunting g r o u n d s a n dt o s e t t l e s o f a r a w a y from them,a n d I found it utterly impossible toovercome this difficulty until I ha d p ro mis ed th em th at the R e s e r v e

s e l e c t e d fo r t h e m w o u l d b e s o m e w h e r e in t h e vicinity of t h e p la c ewhere that conference w a s held.

The Tejon Valley or a t le a s t a l a r g e port ion o f it,s s a id to b e coveredb y a S p a n i s h grant but a s I found no s e t t l e r s o n it or a n y e v i d e n c ethat it ha d b ee n sett led, a nd under the fact tha t there wa s n o other

p l a c e w h e r e t h e Indians c o u l d b e p l a c e d without t h e s a m e objections,I concluded to g o o n with t h e farming s y s t e m a t that point,a n d l e a v eit t o C o n g r e s s t o p u rc h a s e t h e land,s h o u l d t h e t i d e p r o v e good, o rremove the Indians to s o m e l e s s suitable locality.

S e e S e p t e m b e r 3 0 , 1 8 5 3 L e t t e r f r o m S u p e r i n t e n d e n t B e a l t o C o m m i s i o n e r M a n y p e n n y (Exhibit 2).T h u s w a s e s t a b l i s h e d in p r a c t i c e a reservation or t h e Tejon Indian Tribe, a n d t h u s w a s confirmedt h e t r u s te e -ward r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d th e T e j o n I n d i a n Tribe. e e m a p s of t h eTejon Reservation at Figures 2 and 3 below.

i \ ® ,a capo.,

f I M G r e N 9 f i l ' ,rhw

tt

j

aVl'A b P k R Q ,p

M' f V u :W

xlrwfw w HodA "II

y

f f w

oh t o -

Ada

r

X r r r " '9 rr

F I G . 2: MAP O F THE TEJON (SEBASTIAN)MILITARY RESERVATIONF RO M PHILLIPS, AT 1 2 1 .

T h e t e r m reservation' g e n e r a l l y r e f e r s t o a n a r e a s e t a s id e u n d e r f e d e r a l p r o t e c t i o n fo r t h e r e s id e n c e o r u s e of t r i b a lIndians. Coben%34[2[c,t 1 8 9 . DO I c e r t a i n l y a c t e d t o s e t a s i d e w h a t it r e f e r r e d t o a s th e T e j o n R e s e r v a t i o n fo r t h ep u r p o s e of p r o t e c t i n g th e r e s i d e n c e of th e T e jo n In d ia n T r i b e . T h u s , it w a s a r e s e r v a t i o n f o r a ll p r a c ti c a l p u r p o s e s .

94813657x5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



roar

I N .ito sP

1

w^

v J l " "d

fkx,N..,s..... u....

a

S Y . . . .

Figure 3: Ma p o f California Showing the Tejon Reservationand others ) n the 1850s. From Phillips,at 151.

T. .Henley,who s u c c e e d e d E.F. e a l e a s S u p e r i n t e n d e n t o f I n d i a n Affairs in California,m a d e a n o t h e r r e p o r t t o C o m m i s s i o n e r of I n d i a n A f fa i r s M a n y p e n n y t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r i n 1 8 5 4 .S u p e r in te n d e n t H e n le y a g a i n c o n f i r m e d fe d e r a l s u p e r v is io n of th e r e s e rv a t io n a nd th e t r i b e s l i v i n gthere when he repor ted:

M h a v e visited t h e Indian reservation a t Tejon, (he only reservationa t which, a s yet,a n y Indians h a v e b e e n collected,) n d h a v e taken

p o s s e s s io n a n d supervision o f t h e public property, s c h e d u l e s o fwhich will a c c o m p a n y m y report a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n o f t h e quarter.

S e e August 28, 1 8 5 4 letter from Thomas Henley, Superintendent o f Indian Affairs in California toG e o r g e W .M a n y p e n n y (Exhibit 3).mportantly, n t h i s s a m e r e p o r t H e n l e y o b s e r v e d t h a t e v e nt h o u g h a n u m b e r of t r ib e s o c c u p ie d th e r e s e r v a t i o n , e a c h w a s g o v e r n e d u n d e r th e a u t h o r i t y of t h e i rs e p a r a t e chiefs,who, a t t h e i r o w n r e q u e s t , w e r e p e r m i t te d t o e x e r c i s e p o l i c e a u t h o r i t y o v e r t h e i rrespective tr ibes. Id.

In 1 8 6 2 , t h e n e w T e j o n R e s e r v a t i o n S u p e r i n t e n d e n t , J o h n Wentworth r e p o r t e d t o t h eC o m m i s s i o n e r of I n d i a n A f fa i rs W i l l i a m P. D o l e t h a t t h e t r i b e s i n o c c u p a t io n of t h e T e j o nr e s e r v a t i o n c o n t i n u e d t o prosper, a n d t h a t t h e y i n c l u d e d t h e Kitanemuk,u n d e r t h e i r chief,Vincente,w h o h a d s ig n e d th e 1 8 5 1 T r e a t y . S e e A u g u s t 30, 1 8 6 2 L e t t e r f r o m J o h n W e n t w o r t h , S u p e r i n t e n d e n t

8 A s B e a l e r e p o r t e d , B IA. e l o c a t e d o t h e r t r i b e s to T e j o n a s w e l l . H o w e v e r , th e T e jo n I nd ia n T r i b e i s th e o n ly t r ib e t oc o n t in u o u s ly o c c u p y th e a r e a a n d , s r e s u l t , th e o n l y t r i b e t h a t c o u l d c la im a b o r ig in a l t i t l e - a c la im la te r m a d e b y th e

yUnited States itself on the T r i b e 'sehalf.

4813657e510

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



to Commissioner o f Indian Affairs (Exhibit4).s h is p re d e c e s s o rs h a d done, SuperintendentWentworth noted the claimed Spanish grant to the area, and again recommended that the Tejon

e reservation be surveyed and s e t a s i d e by a n act of Congress fo r the exclusive u s e of the Indiansliv in g t he r e . Id

1862-1914

The G r adua l Transfer of Reserved Lands to Private Owner sh ip ;Cont inued Oc c up a n c y b y th e Tejon IndianTribe

As often mentioned in Bureau o f Indian Affairs reports, Spanish grant to the region hadb ee n m a de in 1 8 4 3 . T he g r a nt expressly fo rbade inter fe rence with the Indians established in the

region. The Board o f Commissioners la ter established by Congress to perfect private land tit les inCalifo rn ia con firmed the gran t , but also noted the restriction in favor of Indian u s e and concluded,

t]is,however, s a question cognizable before another tribunal." e e United S t a t e s Complaint a t Vand VI,UnitedStater aTitle hisnrance & Tntst Compaiy, (S.D.Calif.),iled Dec.20,1920 (Exhibit 71).Nevertheless, former Indian a g e n t B e a le h a d begun to buy fo r himself port ions o f the Tejon Valley

a s land b e c a m e a v a i la b le through patents i s s u e d by the federa l Board o f Commissioners to privateparties. By 1867, Beale had acquired 2 6 5 ,2 15 a c r e s of the Tejon Val ley, encompassing most or all of

the T ejo n Ind ia n T r i b e 'sboriginal terr i tory. T h e S t o r y ofEl Tjon, upra; Phil l ips, a t 2 5 4 .

f

r t

F

i

w

s

us II

1

4do

f m

FIGURE 4:MAP O F THE LAND ACQUISITIONS O F

FORMER BIACOMMISSIONER BEALE.

From Phillips,a t 255.

114813G57v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



A s long a s t h e B e a l e family h e l d t it le to l a n d s within t h e Tejon P a s s , t h e T r i b e 'so s s e s s i o no f its home an d farming s i t e s remained undisturbed and peaceable. S e e Ma y 23 , 1 9 1 4 Letter fromC.E.Kelsey to S p e c i a l Agent Asbury (Exhibit 5);ctober, 1 9 1 6 Department of the InteriorLitigation R e q u e s t to Department o f J u s t i c e to protect t h e El Tejon Indians, a t 2 (Exhibit 20).Things c h a n g e d dramatically, however,when Former Commissioner B e a l e 'so n c o n v e y e d title tothe ranch to a Los Ange les business consort ium a r ou nd 1 9 1 1. S e e Exhibit 20,at 2,3.

1914-1924

Private Landowners Discourage Tejon Occupat ion of Abor ig ina l Lands;

In te r io r Effor ts to Estab l i sh the T r i b e 'sitle to Tejon

Almost immediately after the s a l e of Tejon l a n d s to a Los Angeles b u s i n e s s consortiumknown a s the Tejon Ranch Syndicate, fficials a t the Department o f t h e Interior b e g a n to r e c e i v efrantic reports from sympathetic local non - ndians that t h e new owners o f t h e Tejon Ranch were

t ry ingtoevict

the Tejon Indian Tribe from its abor ig ina l ter r itory — rom the lands the Tribe had

o c c u p i e d s i n c e t im e immemorial. e e August 19, 1 9 1 4 Letter from S p e c i a l Indian Agent Asbury toMr.Harry Chandler ,Lo s Angeles Times (Exhibit 9);eptember 8, 9 1 4 Letter from S p e c i a l IndianAgent Asbury t o Commissioner o f Indian Affairs (Exhibit 10 ) (nclosing reply from Tejon Ranch).

Interior r e a c t e d immediately, a s is documented b y a lengthy internal d i s c u s s i o n among i t so wn s ta ff a bout how b e s t to protect t h e Tribe. B I A 'sCentral Office inquired from affected localBIA of fices about the advisability o f withdrawing land from the public domain fo r the benefit o f theTejon Indian Tribe,and it instructed special Indian agents to investigate the conditions of the Tribe.T h e s e inquiries g e n e r a t e d numerous letters a n d reports between s p e c i a l Indian a g e n t s a n d t h eCommissioner o f Indian Affairs. As a protective measure, on May 15, 1914, the Department i s s u e da n order temporarily reserving all vacant l a n d s in the a r e a (approximately 10, 0 0 acres)but the

following y e a r r e v o k e d t h e Order. e e Exhibit 20 , a t 3 . A little m o r e t h a n a y e a r a f t e r revoking thatOrder, nterior requested that the Department o f Justice institute l it iga t ion to protect the T r i b e 'sinterests. Id The report from t h e Department o f the Interior requesting litigation noted tha t theTribe m a i n t a i n [edribal relations a n d t h e record e v i d e n c e s a continued o c c u p a n c y o f t h e s e l a n d sfo r a t l e a s t 1 0 0 y e a r s . d a t 1. As d i s c u s s e d herein, h e s e reports unanimously reflected the B u r e a uo f Indian Affairs ' view that public lands should b e withdrawn fo r the Tribe if necessary. These

reports a l s o document t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n tsu m e r o u s a n d u n s u c c e s s f u l a t te m p t s to p u r c h a s es o m e portion o f t h e Tejon R a n c h fo r t h e Tribe, a n d a l l r e p e a te d t h e n u m e r o u s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s b yt h e r a n c h o w n e r s that t h e T ribe wou ld n ot b e disturbed in i t s occupation o f t h e ranch,s o long a sn o m i n a l rents' w e r e p a i d a n d t r i b a l m e m b e r s w e re c o m p l i a n t a n d a v a i la b le t o work a s e m p l o y e e s of

I Upon learn ing that the Syndicate h a d r e q u e s t e d tribal members to enter into l e a s e s o f their aboriginal l a n d s fo r anominal rent, Assistant Commissioner Meritt wrote to the Syndicate requesting nformat ion a s to the nature an d termso f t h e l e a s e into which your company would b e willing to enter, n o r d e r t h a t th e O f f i c e m a y t a k e p r o m p t a c t i o n t h e r e o n in th e

i n t e r e s t of t h e s e Indians. e e November 23, 1 9 1 5 Letter from A s s i s t a n t Commissioner E.B.Meritt t o 'fir. arry Chandler,Los Angeles Times (Exhibit 12). he Ranch responded curtly emphasizing that t h e y would no t s e l l a n y of the R a n c h tot h e Department fo r t h e benefit of t h e Tribe. e e December 4, 9 1 5 Letter f ro m H a rr y Chandler to .AssistantCommissioner E.B.Aleritt (Exhibit 13).

124 8 1 3 6 5 7 .5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



the Tejon Ranch. S e e s e r i e s of Bureau correspondence provided at Exhibits 6,7,8,14, 15 , 16 , 17 ,19.'

While this correspondence together demonstrates a pattern of guardianship behav io r towardthe T ejon I ndia n Tribe, hree specia l Indian agent reports warrant par t icular ment ion. Th e f i rst of

these,written by Special Agent C.H.As bu ry o n Au gu st 18, 1914, recounts the history of Tejonsummarized a bo ve a nd I n t e r i o r 'sctive supervision of the T r i b e 'sf fairs. S e e Exhibit 8. Asburyexpressed the v iew th a t itwa s unlikely that the owners of the Tejon Ranch would be willing to sell

any land to the Government fo r the Tribe and s o recommended that the federa l governmentconsider withdrawing lands nearby f rom the publ ic domain fo r the Tribe.

The second repor t of pa r t icu la r ment ion wa s written by Indian agent J J. errel l on

December 12, 1915 (Exhibit 14).n it, errell detailed the harsh condit ions imposed by the TejonR a nc h o w ne rs o n the Tejon I n d ian Tribe:

tr ibal m e m be rs w e re n o t p e r m it te d t o increase their l ivestockh old in g s to any extent ;

t r ibal members w ere no t p e rm itte d to o w n any catt le, ncluding milkcows;

th e Tejon Ranch ha d locked a nd forbidden us e of a smal l church

built by the Catho lic Church for th e T r i b e 'ss e;

the Tejon Ra n ch ha d d en ie d the Tribe u s e of a school house built byth e county;

Chief L o z a d a 'so us e ha d been burned to the g r o un d durin g hisabsence; and

by written notice delivered to Chief Lozada on June 28,1 9 1 5 , the

Tribe wa s instructed no t to p la ce a ny improvements or bu ild ings onthe land unless they f i rst signed a l e a s e with the ranch giving thempermiss ion to do s o .

Terrell also included a c e n s u s of tr ibal members at the t ime, dentify ing 8 1 in total. (Whi le Terrell infact lists 8 1 t riba l members, h e miscounted them when h e identif ied them a s totaling 7 9 in number.)

S e e Terrell Census at Exhibit 14. Shortly after T e r r e l l 'secember 12, 1915 report , the Tejon

Exhibit 6 is a Ma y 14, 1914 Letter f rom Commissioner of the General Land Office Clay Tallman to First AssistantSecretary A.A. ones. Exhibit 7 is a s lay 2 1 , 1914 Letter f rom Assistant Commissioner E.B.Aferitt to Special AgentCalvin Al.Asbury . Exhibit 8 is a August 18, 1914 Repor t from Special Indian A g e nt A s bu r y to Commissioner of Ind ianAffa irs . Exhibit 1 4 is a December 12, 1915 Report an d c e n s u s f rom special I ndian Ag ent John Terrell toCommissioner of Indian affairs. Exhibit 15 is a December 15,1 9 1 5 Letter from Assistant Commissioner E.B.Meritt

to Special I n d ia n A g e n t J.J.Terrell. Exhibit 16 is a January 7,1916 Letter f rom Assistant Commiss ioner E.B.Merit t to

Superintendent Tule River School Frank A.Vir tue. Exhibit 1 7 is a March 6,1916 Letter f rom Special I ndian Ag entJohn Terrell to Commissioner of Indian Affairs. Exhibit 1 9 is a September 21,1916 Letter f rom Special Commiss ionerInd ian Service John J.Terrel l t o C o m m is s io n e r of Ind ian affairs.

1.34 8 1 3 6 5 7 .5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



Ranch demanded that Chief Lozada l e a v e the ranch a n d thereafter initiated litigation to evic t him.S e e Compla int Elliott v . Lotiada, at Exhibit 18 .

Th e th ird noteworthy report , also written by Terrel l ,was addressed to the Commissioner on

Indian Affairs a n d d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 21, 1 9 1 6 (Exhibit 19). his report confi rmed t h e futility o fefforts to purchase land fo r the Tribe elsewhere in l ight of the T r i b e 'sirm attachment to itsabor ig ina l territory:

The Office should understand all the older and middle a g e d Indiansof this band, n f ac t a ll but a fe w of the younger children, a r e fullbloods, a nd e xce pt Chief Lozada, a r e without any education and butfew have even a slight knowledge o f the English language; that allhave lived on present locations , or very close, n sight, all their l ives;knowing no other locali ty,but little of other people or environments;and Ind ian -ike, nd more under the c ircumstances with these,are

more ignorantly an d persistently attached than ordinarily to the TejonCanyon and its nar row thread of valley land where nestles their little

cabin homes. It is but natural that in and around this sp ot o f a longlife -ime association clusters many sacred memories of, o them,

eventful past. Their d e a d a s f ar back a s they know a r e sleeping theirlast sleep within their every da y s ight .

It will un ques t io n ab ly p ro ve a m o s t difficult task to remove these

Indians very fa r f rom present location, evidently it would requireforce to remove them.

A copy o f this letter is provided a t Exhib i t 19. The effect o f t h e s e reports w a s two -old: h eDepartment o f the Interior would recommend litigation a g a i n s t the private owners o f t h e TejonRanch, and it would make e ff o rts to purchase o r set as ide alternative land fo r the Tribe.

As d i s c u s s e d above, Interior worke d to try to protect the T r i b e 'sight to occupy itsaboriginal territory a t Tejon Ranch by recommending to the Department o f Justice that a suit b e

filed to protect t h e s e Indians [the El Tejon b a n d o f Indians] n t h e l a n d s no w o c c u p i e d b y them."S e e Exhib i t 2 1 a t 1. The October l it igat ion request recounted the D e p a r t m e n t 'sff or ts to r e s e r v eland fo r the Tribe and indicated that e v e n if litigation were unsuccessful, the pending suit couldfacilitate land acquisition fo r the Tribe by placing t h e Syndicate in a position where it would b e

willing to compromise t h e matter b y a s a l e to t h e United S t a t e s a t a r e a s o n a b l e price o f t h e l a n d soccupied b y t h e Indians. The Office h a s funds a v a i l a b l e from which s u c h a p u r c h a s e might b emade, if it should b e recommended by the Department ofJustice." e e Exhibit 2 0 a t 6.

Shortly af ter I n t e r i o r 'sequest to t h e Department o f Justice, Interior tr ied to provide furtherprotection to t h e Tribe by ordering 8 8 0 a c r e s o f l a n d b e withdrawn from t h e public domain for t h euseof the El Tejon band of Indians,Kern County,California (Wthdrawal Order ). Se e Exhibit

21. The Withdrawal Order w a s intended to b e a backstop in t h e event t h e litigation w a sunsuccessful:

Attention i s also invited to the letter of the Department dated

October 2 5 , 1916, to the Attorney G enera l ,recommending theV`

144A13G57v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



institution of a suit to p r o te ct these Indians in the lands n o woccupied by them. However , should the United States be

unsuccessful in this suit, the Office believes it would b e advantageousto have the foregoing lands reserved fo r the us e of the I nd ians. Since

it i s not now certa in that they wil l be ejected, the Office believes thatat present only a temporary withdrawal is necessary.

Id.

In the months fol lowing I n t e r i o r 'sequest to the Depar tment ofJustice to file aff irmativelitigation to protect the T r i b e 'sights to its aboriginal lands, the United S t a t e s Indian Irr igationService prepared a report and map of Tejon lands . Th e m ap, shown below, depicts lands used bythe Tribe a s well a s lands tha t could be irr igated by the Tribe. This map wa s eventually includedwith the United States' filings in its litigation before the Supreme Court. The accompanying reportsummarized the history of the Tribe and its abor ig ina l lands." e e Exhibit 2 2 . As described inmore detail below, th is s u it was an extraordinari ly st rong expression of the United States'g u a rd ia n s hip o v er the Tribe.

P a g e s 5 an d 6 of the Report appear to b e forever lost a s they a r e missing from the microfilm copy of the Report.

154813657x5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



w r

rr

w u

I . ... .. .. ...

e

c%%iH R w sl %i

i warza i U ror

O

a

am

i

ppM

m

WCDL +Sw+r v ; " ?

Y'YVhY+m ahm*F,;w

unwVmriwSrmuFN&m,Nr .®+ Mr btlddJG'C

l 13O W V INSa „r Gnm

qYRR NkM1J9/tf

futoA

y v a+

777=

F I G U RE 5:DEPARTMENT OF TH E INTERIOR,U.S.NDIAN IR R IG A T ION SERVICE

M AP OF THE L AND S OC CU P IE D BY TEJON INDIANSKERN COUNTY,CALIFORNIA

From Case Appendix for United States vTide Insurance & Trust Co.,

Supreme Court of the United States, October Term,1 9 2 3 .

1920-1930

The United States Brings Land ClaimLitigation o n Behalf of th e Tribe;Alternative M e a nsConsidered toEstablish Land Base for Tribe — urchase or Condemnation

O n December 20,19 2 0 the Uni ted States Depar tment ofJustice filed the suit in federal

district court to try to s e c u r e t h e T r i b e 'sights to i t s aboriginal territory.''n i t s bill o f complaint t h e

1— 'efore it filed the suit, he Department ofJustice made on e f inal ef for t to sett le the claim with Tejon Ranch and

acquire title to land for the Tribe. A special ass is tan t to the Attorney Genera l assigned to the c a s e wrote the ranch

owners , advising of the T r i b e 'sbor ig inal t it le claim, complaining that the ranch effectively treated tribal members a s

peons, nd threatening possible condemnat ion if the l i t igation fai led. Still, he r a nc h r ef us e d t o s el l a n y land to the

164813657x5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



United Sta tes set out the history of the Tribe and explicit ly asserted that the Tejon Band o r Tribe of

Indians were presently and ha d be en wards of the United States since the s ign ing of the Treaty of

Guadalupe Hidalgo in 1 84 6 ,and it main ta ined that the tribe o r band of Tejon Indians became,

were and are entitled to the full,undisturbed, and continuous occupancy, p os se ss ion a nd us e of the

premises hereinabove described[.]"e e Complaint at Exhibit 71. T he U n ited States explained thatit filed the l it igation at the request of the Secretary of the In ter ior

in furtherance of its Indian policy and also in its capacity, and todischarge its obl igat ions, a s guardian for s u nd ry I n dia n s k n o w n a s theTejon Band or Tr ibe of Ind ians now a nd from t ime immemo r ia l

residing on certain premises hereinafter described in what i s n owK e r n County,California[.]

The United S t a t e s further recounted t h e Tejon R a n c h 'sistreatment o f t h e Tejon IndianTribe and its a c tive a nd coercive efforts to c ircumscr ibe through the us e of force the T r i b e 'sse of

its abor iginal lands. The United States' compla int asserted that its action w a s filed pursuant to the

United States' general obligat ion to Indians. T he U n ite d States' compla int also cited the specific

t rust obl igat ion imposed by Congress on the Attorney Genera l of the United States, upon request ofthe Depar tment of the Interior, o defend tr ibal rights to lands occup ied by them located within any

confirmed p r iva te g rant o r to bring any suit, n the n am e of the United States....ha t may befound necessary to the full protection of the lega l or equitable rights of any Indian o r tribe of

Indians in any of such lands." ct ofJanuary 12, 1 8 9 1 (26 Stat. 712). e e United States' Compla intat ¶ 1I (Exhibit 71); copy of the Act of 1 8 9 1 i s a ttached a t Tab G. Th e l it igation sought an orderquieting t it le in the Tribe, ncluding water r ights, and a declaration that the Tribe maintained a fulland perpetua l r i gh t and title tooccupy,possess,useand enjoy said premises . .. but without a n y right t o

s e l l , d i s p o s e of or e n a m J G e r s a i d t it le to s a i d p r e m i s e s or a i y p a r t t h e r e o f , e x c e p t t o or infavor of or with th e c o n s e n t ofthe United States ee United States'Complaint, equested reliefat ¶ 2 (emphas is added) (Exhibit71).

Th e Distr ict Court dismissed the complaint because the Tribe ha d failed to p e rf ec t its Indiantitle cla ims under the Cali fornia Claims Act of March 3,1 8 51 , 9 Stat. 631. S e e a l s o United States v.TitleInsurance & T n r s t Co., 8 8 F.821, 8 2 3 (9 ir. 192 3 ) (iscussing District C o u r t 'sa s i s fo r dismissal)

Government fo r the Tribe a nd th e lawsuit w a s f i led. Ma y 2 8 , 1920 Letter f rom Special Assistant to the AttorneyGenera l George Fraser to Mr.Har r y C han d le r , T e jo n Ranch Syndicate, at 5 (Exhibit 23);uly 1 2 , 1920 Letter f romSpecial Assistant to the Attorney G e ne ra l G e orge Fraser to Mr.Har ry Chandler , Te jon Ranch Syndicate (If urcontempla ted suit should ... fail, t is our purpose to suggest to the Depar tment of the In te r ior to a cq uire b ycondemnation enough of the terr i tory in controversy fo r a permanent home fo r the Ind ians ) .

1 3 Although commonly referred to a s Tejon Ranch or the Tejon Ranch Syndicate, n its complaint the United S t a t e sexpla ined that s in ce 19 16 the Title Insurance and Trust Company wa s the alleged named owner in fee of at least a

portion of the Ranch an d that the United S t a t e s believed that Harry Chandler an d others wh o comprised the Syndicateclaimed some right, itle or interest in the estate. S e e Exhibit 71, United States' Compla int at I IN'. hus , the TitleInsurance and Trust Company an d the Tejon Ranch Syndicate for all practical p u rp o ses were funct ioning a s the same

entity.

1 4 While the l it igation wa s pending, the Inter ior in formed the Attorney Genera l that funds were available to purchase the

T r i b e 'sands if the Syndicate would sell. If the Syndicate refused to sell, nterior requested that the Departmentcontinue with the l i t igation. S e e January 12, 1 9 2 1 Letter f rom the Assistant Secretary to the Attorney General (Exhibit24).

174 8 1 3 6 5 7 .5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



Ta b I-);n d s e e d i s c u s s i o n s a n p r a a b o u t t h e C a l i f o r n i a C l a i m s Act a n d h o w it w a s u se d t o e x t i n g u i s ha l m o s t a l l Indian title in Cali fornia. The Ninth Circuit Court o f A p p e a l s affirmed t h e DistrictC o u r t 'si s m i s s a l o n t h is ground, but s p e c i f i c a l l y o b s e r v e d t h a t t h e United S t a t e s h a d brought t h es u i t [i]t h e c a p a c it y of g u a r d i a n o f a b a n d o f m i s s i o n I n d i a n s incompetent t o m a n a g e their ownaffairs, known a t t h e T e j o n Indians, e s id in g o n a d e s c r i b e d t r a c t of l a n d in Kern County,California[.]"n i t e d S l a t e s v . T i l l e I n s u r a n c e d a m T n t s l Co., 8 8 F . 821, 8 2 2 (9 i r. 192 3) . he UnitedS t a t e s , refusing to a b a n d o n t h e Tejon Indian Tribe, h e n s o u g h t review in t h e S u p r e m e Court. O n c eagain,before t h e S u p r e m e Court, h e United S t a t e s e x p r e s s l y a c k n o w l e d g e d i t s role a s t r u s t e e fo r t h eTribe:

A] t h e request o f t h e S e c r e t a r y o f lb e Interior i n f i r r l h e r a n c e of th e I n d i a np o l i c y of th e G o v e n m e n l , w b i c b is h e r e a c l i n n g a s g n a r d i a n of a b a n d o r t r i c e ofM i s s i o n I n d i a n s , w a r d s of lb e U n i t e d S l a t e s , a n d incompetent to m a n a g etheir own af fa i rs , known a s the Tejon Indians....

United S t a t e s ' Brief a t 2, iled in U n i l e d S l a t e s v. T i l l e I n s u r a n c e 6 T n i s l Co., 6 5 U .S. 7 2 (1 9 2 4 )emphasis added) (Exhibit 71). nfortunately, the Supreme Court aff irmed a rationale which h a s

b e c o m e f a m o u s (or infamous) for h a v i n g f i n i s h e d t h e n e f a r i o u s work s t a r t e d b y t h e 1 8 5 1 S e n a t e .T h e S u p r e m e C o u r t c o n f i r m e d t h a t t h e T r i b e 'sb o r i g i n a l t i t l e h a d b e e n e f f e c t i v e l y e x t i n g u i s h e d b yv i r t u e of t h e T r i b e 'sa i lu re t o c o m p ly with t h e a r c a n e t it le p e r f e c t io n r e q u i r e m e n t s i m p o s e d b y t h e1 8 5 1 California Claims Act (regardless of whether the Tribe ha d actual o r construct ive not ice of

those requ i rements ) . 65 U.S.472 (1924).

Throughout t h i s litigation, h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a s s e r t e d , a n d n e i t h e r t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y no r a n ycourt disputed, h e United States' t rust responsib il ity on behalf o f t h e Tejon Band o f Indians. Theopening sentence of the Sup r eme C o u r t 'secision confi rms a s much,wherein the Cour t stated:

This is a suit by the United S t a t e s a s guardian of certain Mission

I n d i a n s to q u i e t in them a "perpetual right"o occupy, u s e a n d e n jo ya par t of a confirmed M ex ic an la n d g r an t in southern California, fo rwhich the defendants hold a patent f rom the United States.

U n i t e d S l a t e s v. Tille I n s u r a n c e d a m T n n s t Co., 6 5 U.S.472, 4 8 1 (1 9 2 4 ) (ab C).

Within a w e e k after t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t 'se g a t i v e decision, nterior b e g a n efforts topurchase land fo r the Tribe. n a n e x c h a n g e o f correspondence between the Commissioner o fI n d i a n Affairs' Office a n d l o c a l BIA S u p e r i n t e n d e n t L a f a y e t t e A.Dorrington,Dorrington w a sa u t h o r i z e d t o e x p e n d u p to $70 0 from a p p r o p r i a t e d f u n d s o f t h e f i s c a l y e a r beginning July 1 9 2 4 t op ro c ure a h o m e site for th e Tribe. e e Exhibits 2 6 and27 s s i s ta n t Co m m iss io n er E.B.Meritt

im m e d i a t e l y a u t h o r iz e d S u p e r in t e n d e n t Dorrington t o n e g o t i a t e t h e p u rc h a s e o f o p t i o n s fo r a h o m e

s i t e fo r t h e Tribe. Exhibit 27. Dorrington first t r i e d t o b u y b a c k s o m e of t h e T r i b e 'sb o r i g i n a lterritory f rom the Tejon Ranch owners, but eventually h e ha d to advise the Commissioner of Indian

1 5 Exhibit 26 is a June 14, 1924 Telegram f rom Assistant Commissioner E.B.Meritt to F.G.Collett (Decis ion of LowerCourt in El Tejon c a s e affirmed. mmediate s t e p s will b e taken fo r the relief of Indians to extent of funds available. ;

Exhibit 2 7 is a J u n e 19, 1 9 2 4 Letter from A s s i s t a n t C o m m i s s i o n e r Meritt t o S u p e r i n t e n d e n t L.A.Dorringtonconfirming that Dorrington is a l r e a d y authorized to u s e $70 0 fo r acquisition o f l a n d a n d that the conditions willjustify ou r u s i n g [the]entire [f iscal y e a r 1925] appropriation fo r t h e Tejon Indians[.]"

184 8 1 3 6 5 7 .5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



Affairs t h a t t h e T e j o n R a n c h o w n e r s r e f u s e d t o s e l l a t r a c t t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . Dorringtonr e p e a t e d t h e T e j o n R a n c h owners' a s s u r a n c e s t h a t t h e T r i b e c o u l d r e m a i n o n R a n c h l a n d s s o l o n g a sn o f u r t h e r c la im s w e r e m a d e a g a in s t t h e R a n c h a n d t h e I n d i a n s l i v e d i n a c c o r d a n c e with r u l e s s e t b ythe Ranch. Further, Dorr ington found that the Tr ibe i tse l f refused to m ov e f rom its traditional

lands. Hence,Dorrington c o n c lu d e d t h a t while a n o t h e r attempt might b e m a d e in t h e future, h es t a t u s quo a p p e a r e d to b e t h e b e s t arrangement fo r t h e time

being. e eOctober

18,1 9 2 4 Letter

from S u p e r i n t e n d e n t L.A.Dorrington t o C o m m i s s i o n e r of I n d i a n Affairs (Exhib i t 29).

On S e p t e m b e r 12, 1924, h e S e c r e t a r y o f t h e Interior informed t h e Attorney Genera l thatthe superintendent who h a s jurisdiction over the Tejon Band of I n d ian s ha d been instructed to

a s c e r t a i n whether a written agreement could b e r e a c h e d with t h e Tejon Ranch to s e c u r e t h econtinued occupation o f t h e Tribe; h e S e c r e ta r y a l s o indicated a w i l l i n g n e s s to c o n s i d e rcondemnation a s a m e a n s to s e c u r e t h e Tribe on i t s land. e e S e p t e m b e r 12, 1 9 2 4 Letter fromS e c r e t a r y o f t h e Interior Hubert Work to t h e Attorney G e n e r a l (Exhibi t 28). n c e again, h eowners o f the Tejon R a n c h declined to sell. The BIA Superintendent continued to a s s u r e InteriorC e n t r a l Office t h a t t h e I n d i a n s w e r e a llo w e d t o r e m a in on t h e s a m e l a n d o c c u p i e d b y t h e m fo rmany years, a n d without a n y objection. e e October 18, 1 9 2 4 Letter from Superintendent L.A.

Dorrington t o C o m m i s s io n e r of I n d i a n Affairs (Exhibit 29). ventually, h e Acting S e c r e t a r y E.C.Finney a d v is e d t h e Attorney General that, n lig ht o f present conditions, no immediate actionn e e d e d to b e t a k e n to condemn a portion o f t h e land fo r t h e Tejon Indian Tribe. e e November 8,

1 9 2 4 L e t t e r from Acting S e c r e t a r y of t h e Interior E.C. i n n e y t o Attorney G e n e r a l (Exhibi t 30).

1920s —940s

Inter ior Continues to Acknowledge the Tribe after the 1 9 2 4 Supreme Court Decis ion

During t h i s period, n terior c o n t i n u e s explicitly t o a c k n o w le d g e t h e Tribe, e g a r d l e s s of t h e

S u p r e m e C o u r t 's9 2 4 l a n d c l a i m d e c i s i o n in U n i t e d S t a t e s v . T i t l e I n s u r a n c e a n d T r u s t C o . Of p a r t i c u l a rnote, n 1929, n t e r i o r 'sffice o f Indian Affairs compiled a n d published a list entitled nd ian tribeso f t h e United States. n d i a n T r i b e s of th e U n i t e d S t a t e s , Bulletin No. 3 (1929). h e Tejon IndianTribe is s p e c i f i c a l l y identified o n t h a t l i s t u n d e r t h e jurisdiction o f t h e S a c r a m e n t o a g e n c y . S e eExhibit 33. n 1 9 3 8 a n d a g a i n in 1941, h e Office o f Indian Affairs compiled l i s t s o f r e s e r v a t i o n sa n d r a n c h e r i a s , identifying Kern County a s a r a n c h e r i a location. e e J a n u a r y 18, 1 9 3 8 A g e n c i e su n d e r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h e Office of I n d i a n A f f a i r s b y R e s e r v a t i o n a n d C o u n t y (Exhibit 37);pril1, 1 9 4 1 A g e n c i e s under t h e jurisdiction o f t h e Office o f Indian Affairs by r e s e r v a t i o n or area, a n dcounty (Exhibit 38). s d i s c u s s e d below,BI A b y t h i s d a t e h a d c o m e to refer to Tejon a s El TejonRancheria. nder t h e S a c r a m e n to Agency , California,both l i s t s identify t h e e x is te n c e o fRancherias in K ern County, no doubt referring to the El Tejon Rancheria.

Also during t h i s period, nterior continued to monitor t h e living conditions o f t h e Tribe a n dits treatment by the Tejon Ranch. S e e Apr i l 3, 9 2 5 Letter f rom Assistant Commissioner E.B.

Meritt to S u p e r i n t e n d e n t Dorrington a n d M a y 8 , 1 9 2 5 r e s p o n s e f rom Dorr ington (Exhibit 31). noccasion, the BIA Superintendent investigated the s t a t u s o f the T r i b e 'sondit ion, and after e a c h

such occasion h e reported along the following l ines:

Th e Tejon Band, a s y ou know,ar e al lowed to con tinue their home

s t a t u s on the land they have occupied fo r many years,by the Tejon

194A13G57v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



Ranch Company, and a r e given preference fo r the ir labor by theranch people, so long a s they do no t make further claims to th e la n dso occupied.

December 16, 1 9 2 5 Letter from L.A.Dorrington to Commissioner o f Indian Affairs (Exhibit 32);s e e a l so Exhibits 31 and 34.

S o m e t i m e in 1930, e d e r a l concerns about t h e welfare o f t h e Tribe r e a c h e d a s high a s t h eOffice o f t h e Vice President. On J u n e 26 , 1930, h e S e c r e t a r y o f t h e Interior r e s p o n d e d to a ninquiry f rom the Vice -President o f the United S t a t e s regarding the welfare o f the Tejon IndianTribe. The S e c r e t a r y recounted t h e United States' effort to e s t a b l i s h aboriginal title to l a n d s fo r t h eTribe by a l awsui t , a nd also described the T r i b e 'sur rent condition:

In regard to purchasing some of these lands fo r the E l Tejon Indiansit may b e s a id that b y a decision of the United S t a t e s Supreme Court

title to the lands occupied by these Indians wa s in the TitleInsurance and Trust Compa ny . . . and that th e Tejon Ind ians ha d no

legal or val id t it le thereto or occupancy thereof. The c om p a ny d idn o t care to sell any of its l ands .

However , the owners have been leas in g to the Tejon Band thepar t icu lar tracts ... fo r a nomina l considerat ion of $1.0 per year .The procedure is, of course, merely fo r the purpose of having theIndians recognize the lessors a s owners of the p r o p e r t y .

Correspondence in our files indicates that the Indians of the TejonRancho are free to do a s they please without le t or hinderance inregard to the pr iva te ly owned lands which they occupy. As the

situation in this c a s e i s viewed t h e s e Indians a r e generally industrious,self - upport ing and contented under present condit ions, and havenot made any request or demand that lands be purchased fo r the m o rthat conditions be changed, conseq uently, I question the wisdom of

disturbing them in their present occupancy o f the pr ivately ownedlands or in a n y wa y disrupting their evidently orderly and peacefulmode of living.

J u n e 26 , 1 9 3 0 letter from S e c r e t a r y o f t h e Interior R a y Wilbur to V ice President Curtis (Exhibit 34).Unfortunately w e h a v e not b e e n a b l e to locate t h e original letter from t h e Vice President.)

In March 1938, h e Assistant Commissioner o f Indian Affairs responded to a n inquiry from

a Bakersfield attorney about the purchase of lands fo r the T e jo n I n dia n Tribe. The AssistantC o m m i s s i o n e r 'sesponse observed that the Tribe peacefully occupied a rancheria" nd that

the owners of the El Tejon Rancheria permit the I nd ia n s to reside

peacefully on the lands occupied by them fo r a rental of $1.0 p eryear, [hence] it i s not believed that the exist ing re la t ionship should b e

disturbed at this t ime;nor is it deemed advisable to a s k Congress fo r

204813657v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



legislation such a s you sugges t, especially a s it would necessitate the

appropr iat ion of a la rg e s um of money to pay fo r the lands involved.

March 28,1938 Letter f rom Assis tan t Commissioner W i llia m Z im m e r m a n to G eo rge W.Hurley,

Esq. (Exhibit36). 'f course, the B u r e a u 'seluctance to s p e n d appropriated funds in 1 9 3 8 must b eunders tood in the context of the l imited resources available during the G r e a t Depress ion. At no

time does the Bureau of Ind ian Affairs raise lack of federal r e co g n i tio n o r cessation of the t rustresponsibil ity a s a reason no t to acquire trust land fo r the Tribe.

1916-1953

Interior As s um es a n d E x er cis e s Responsibility for th e Education ofTejon Children.

Throughout much of the twentieth century, the Bureau of the Indian Affairs assumed

responsibil ity fo r the education of Tejon children. In 1915 , Special Indian Agent Asburyr ec om m e n de d to the Commiss ioner of Ind ian Affa i rs that th e B ur ea u c oo p er a te with K e r n County

to p r ov ide educational facil it ies fo r the Tejon children. At the same time,Asbury w ro te to theSuperintendent of Schools fo r K ern County, proposing to contract with the county fo r the paymentof tuition for Tejon children. In 1 9 1 5 , th e Bureau ha d n o t ye t decided to pursue l i t igation to secure

the T r i b e 'sitle to its abor ig inal hom e. Accord ing l y ,Asbury also wrote to the Tejon Ranch o w n e r s ,

expressing concern about the education of Tejon children and offering to work with the Ranch andthe County to establish a school within the Tejon village (and of fer ing, again, to purchase land fo rt h e Tribe from t h e Ranch). e e Exhibits 11,4 6 and 47. n 1 9 1 6 a n d 1917, h e Departmentapproved contracts with Kern County and provided funding to educate Tejon students at a school

approximately s i x m i le s from t h e T r i b e 'sillage. e e Exhibits 4 8 , 4 9 , 5 0 ,and 51." owever, ChiefLozada objected to the removal of Tejon children to county schools, and s o after tw o y e a r s of

negotiat ions, the Bureau a nd the County entered into a contract whereby the Bureau paid tuitionc o s t s fo r a s c h o o l o p e r a t e d by t h e county on t h e Tejon Ranch. S e e Exhibits 5 2 and 53.

16

Nonethe less , here is evidence that the BIA expended h ou s in g f un ds in s u p po rt of the T r ib e d u rin g this period. A

newspaper a r ticle reported that in 1935 , the government added tw o r oo m s to each house [on Tejon ranch ] fo r thefamilies that wanted more room[.]1936 letter f rom a t ri ba l member to the Sacramento Agency request ing assistance

with housing similar to that p rov id e d to o the r tr iba l members corroborates this article. Th e article and the 1936 letterar e provided at Exhibit 35.

1 7 Exhibit 1 1 is a January 25,1915 L e tter f rom Special I n dia n A g en t A s bu ry to Mr.Har ry Chandler ,Lo s Angeles Times.Exhibit 46 is a n Apri l 13, 1915 Letter f rom Special I ndian Ag ent Asbury to Commissioner of Indian Affa irs . Exhibit

47 is a Ma y 6,1915 L e tter f rom Special Indian Agent Asbury to Mr.Har ry Chand le r ,Lo s Angeles Times.

1 Exhibit 48 is a December 18, 1916 Letter f rom Special Agent Asbury to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs.

Exhibit 4 9 is a Nove m b e r 22,1916 Letter f rom M in n ie M cK e n zie to Special A ge nt Asbury. Exhibit 5 0 is a January 8,1917 Letter f rom Assistant Commiss ioner E.B.Meritt to Special I n dia n A g en t L.A.Dorrington. Exhibit 51 is an April

30,1917 L et te r f rom Acting Assis tant Commiss ioner C.F.Hauke to Secreta ry of the Interior, ransmitt ing contract fo reducat ion of T ejo n t rib a l m e m b er s .

1 9 Exhibit 5 2 is a June 25,1917 Lette r f rom Special I n dia n A g en t Dorr ing ton to C om m iss ion e r of Indian Affa i rs.Exhibit 5 3 is a June 15 , 1917 Letter f rom :Minnie ;McKenz ie to Special I n dia n A g en t L.A.Dorrington.

21.4 8 1 3 6 5 7 .5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



FIG.6: PHOTO OF TAKENBY EDWARD S CURTIs,ABO U T 1916

In 19 2 0 the T ru s te es of the Ind ian School District for K e r n County entered into a lease

agreement with the Tejon Ranch owners to arrange fo r the u s e of Ranch p ro p er ty o n which couldbe built a school fo r Tejon children. S e e Lease between the Title Insurance and Trust Company and

the Indian School District (Exhibit 56);ecember 2 7 , 1920 Justification (Exhibit 57). eflectingthe T r i b e 'snd the Ranch owners ' competing claims to the T r i b e 'sboriginal lands, n 1922 acont ract b etw e en th e B ur ea u a nd the T rus tee s of th e Ind ian School District (ofwhich Chief Lozada

w a s a trustee)provided fo r the u s e of the premises and the building by the County for and inconsideration of instruction given unto Indian children, w a r d s of th e F e d e r a l G o v e r n n s e w , by PublicSchool Distr ict El Tejon,Kern County." e e Lease between Jo e J.Tay lor , Superintendent &

Physician of the Tule River Indian School and Agency, Porterville, California on behalf o f theUnited States and the Trus tees of Ind ian School District (Exhibit 55) (mphas is added);e e a l s o

Apri l 24 , 1 9 2 0 Letter f rom Special Assistant to the Attorney General to the Attorney Generalexplaining concern that l e a s e not prejudice G o v e r n m e n t 'si t igation) (Exhibit 54). he school builton that proper ty is shown in the photograph below.

22481G5 7 v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



T e t i o l l In0nK e r ,xCouvxt

This f ede ra l a r ran gem en t for the educat ion of Tejon ch ildren co n tin ued for decades.

Indeed, the BIA-unded school at the Tejon Ranch continued to operate unti l 1948 , closing a fewyears after the long -ime teacher at the school ret ired. S e e December 28,1923 Letter f romSuperintendent Dor r ing ton to the Commissioner of Ind ian Affairs regard ing schoo l cont racts ;Exhibits 58,59);anuary 16, 1926 Letter f rom Assis tant Commiss ioner Merr i t to SuperintendentDorr ington authoriz ing funds fo r Tejon School (a n d related correspondence) (Exhibit 60);November 23,1926 Letter f rom Assistant Commissioner Merri t to Superintendent Dorr ingtonauthor iz ing funds for Tejon School (and related co r respo n den ce) (Exhibit 61). ' he retirement of

2 The collection includes a 1 9 2 0 letter f rom the Special Assistant to the Attorney General a s s i g n e d to handle the Tejonlawsuit addressed to the Attorney Gen era l . Among o the r m at te r s , the Special Assistant Attorney Genera l notes that the

county expects the Government to pa y a part of the costs of erecting a school building fo r the Tejon children. He urgedthat this be done in such a wa y that it not prejudice the G o v e r n m e n t 'sa s e agains t the ranch in the property claim itf iled o n the B a n d 'sehalf. Incidentally, the Special A s s is tant to the Attorney Genera l also n o te d t ha t he ha d consulted

with Mr.Virtue, he Superintendent of the T u le R ive r Indian Reservat ion,under whose jurisdiction these Tejon Indianscome. ee Exhibit 54.

234811657v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



t h e s c h o o l 'seacher (A nn a K n ow le s )generated yet another investigation by Interior to ascertain thestatus of th e Tejon sc h o o l a nd its s tudents .

In h is report to t h e Commissioner, t h e Superintendent o f S a c r a m e n t o Indian A g e n c y Q o h nRockwell)briefly recounted t h e history o f t h e Tribe a t Tejon a n d concluded that t h e El TejonSchool h a d b e e n buil t with f e d e r a l funds. He recommended that t h e school b e c lo s e d a n d a n ys a l v a g e a b l e m a t e r i a l b e t r a n s f e r r e d fo r u s e a t t h e S u n s e t S c h o o l (run b y t h e County) o which t h eTejon children would no w b e transported. Superintendent Rockwell a l s o m a d e t h e followingobservation about the Tribe:

It should, however,be bo rn e in mind that here is a s ta ble a n d s ma l l

Indian population o f p e r h a p s t e n or twelve families who h a v e a l w a y slived on El Tejon Ranch and would probably continue to live therefo r a considerable per iod of time. think it would be a better idea to

h a v e the school closed and the children transported to the SunsetSchool, a s i s now planned by Superintendent Hart.

May 2 9 , 1 9 4 5 Letter from Superintendent Rockwell to Commissioner o f Indian Affairs(Exhibi t 62);s e e a l s o September 12, 1 9 4 5 Letter from G uy Will iams, or t h e Commissioner to SuperintendentRockwell (Exhibit 63). fter 1948, Tejon children living a t Tejon Ranch were b u s e d to publicschools or attended BIA boarding schoo ls .

Over t h e years, a t le a s t 2 6 Tejon children a t t e n d e d S h e r m a n a n d C h e m a w a BI A boardingschools, s o m e a s l a t e a s 1953. T h e s e school records identify t h e s e individuals a s Tejon tribalmembers and also note their b lo o d q u a n tu m . S e e Exhibit 6 4 collection of Sherman and Chemawa

records). ejon tribal e l d e r s still alive today attended Sherman a s l a t e a s t h e spring o f 1948, whent h e S c h o o l 'se g u l a r e l e m e n t a r y a n d h i g h s c h o o l p r o g r a m s w e r e d i s c o n t i n u e d to a l l o w t h e facility t ob e u s e d s o l e l y fo r a s p e c i a l program fo r Navajo youth. e e History o f S h e r m a n Indian High School,a s found on t h e Sherman School website,www.sihs.ne /i s tory (Exhibit 65).

I t is c l e a r from t h e S h e r m a n School R e c o r d s that t h e S a c r a m e n t o Indian A g e n c y not onlyapp ro ved app l ica tio n s of t r ibal members to Sherman, but that the Bureau of I n d ia n A ff a ir s at times

arranged fo r t ransportat ion of t r ibal members to the Sherman Institute. S e e Exhibit 64.''heactive federal oversight of education fo r Tejon members is reflected in a recommendat ion fo rapproval of issued in 1947, wherein a BIA off icial explained:

The family home is on the El Tejon Ranch,where they h a v e a lw a y slived a s well a s their parents and grandparents before them. It is in a

remote a r e a with no nearby publ ic o r federal high school and is no treached by school bus service....he y a r e full degree Indian and

have never known any other students then Indian....overnmentBoarding School i s clearly the most feasible schooling that t h e s e

2 1 For example, h e r e c o r d s o f J o e R i v e r a M o n t e s a n d Albert M o n t e s r e fle c t f e d e ra l p a y m e n t o f t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o s t s tothe school. I ts readil y apparen t from a review of the Shermati School records that the T ejon I ndian School served a s af e e d e r school to t h e S h e r m a n Institute. N I a n y o f t h e f i le s contain correspondence a n d /or placement recommendationsf rom Anna Know les , the long • im e teacher at the Tejon Indian School.

244 8 1 3 6 5 7 .5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



children ca n have, and fo r this reason they should be admittedwithout quest ion in September .

Application of Nellie H in io w ith recommendation by Mildred V an Every, Sacramento IndianAgency Social W o r k e r (Exhibit 64).

By the mid 1 9 5 0 s all Tejon children by and large were being educated in non - ndian publicschools. B I A 'sventual shift to non - nd ian public schools fo r Tejon children reflected a broader

approach implemented by BIA in the 1 9 3 0 s to educate tribal children in C a l i f o r n i a 'sublic schoo ls .Indeed, a s i d e f rom the Sherman Indian Institute, the Tejon Indian school w a s the l a s t operatingIndian school in California. The next latest operating Indian school (Fort Mojave) closed a ful ldecade before T ejon I ndia n School. S e e H.Rep. No.2 5 0 3 , a t 15 72 (1952). e e Exhibit 6 6 .

Final ly , n the 1960s , 70s , and 80s , Tejon members cont inued to receive some BIA

educational services. In the early 1970s Juanita Montes ' son , Leonard Montes (who i s n o wdeceased) ,eceived BIA funding for vocat ional t ra in ing. In th e la t e 1 9 7 0 s , D o n n a Montes attended

Business School with the aid of B IA f un d in g . And in the 1980s ,Virgin ia Montes received BIA

support fo r vocational training."

1952-1962

Continued Federal Assistance

The pr iva te business consort ium which owned the Tejon Ranch cont inued to pressure Tejonmembers to move f rom the land. Pressure on tr ibal members ha d begun soon after the TejonRanch ha d been purchased by the private business consortium in 1911. The Department of J u s t i c e 's1920 bill of complaint in the Tit le I n s u r a n c e and T r x r s t C o n r p a r y case, supra, discussed t ha t p ressure ,recount ing the var ious actions of th e Tejon Ranch that ha d forced the relocat ion of t rib a l m e m b e rs .

The number of tribal members in residence at the Tejon Ranch wa s reduced f rom about 30 0 to 80by 1920 , figure corroborated in the 1 9 1 5 Terrell report. By the time of the 1 9 4 5 Rockwell repor t ,the tr ibal members in residence on the Tejon R a nc h w e re r ed u ce d to b etw ee n te n a nd twelvefamilies.

In 1952 , a serious ear thquake destroyed the homes of the Tejon families still l iving on TejonRanch. The earthquake resulted in a n additional forced shift in tribal membership away f rom TejonRanch tow ards Bakersf ield,where other tribal members ha d settled earlier. Only th ree famil ies w ereable to cont inue l iving at the Tejon Ranch after the earthquake, and m o s t of these t r ibal members

eventually also were forced to leave to p r ov ide fo r their famil ies. One of the last to leave was thefamily of Chief Vincente Montes, which left the Tejon Ranch upon the death of Chief Montes in

1 9 6 5 . Th e Tejon Indian T r i b e 'surrent Chair , Kathryn Montes M o r ga n , s the daughter of ChiefMontes ; she was eight years o ld w h en he r family left Tejon Ranch. (However,even af ter the Montesfamily wa s forced to leave Tejon Ranch, a fe w other t r ibal members continued to reside on a nd

work fo r the Ranch, e v e n today. Hence, there have been Tejon tribal members living a t what i s nowknown a s Tejon Ranch since t ime immemorial.)

2 2 2 B a s e d on interviews of tr ibal elders conducted by Dr. oh n R .Johnson, foremost e xper t on the Tejon Indian T r i b e 'shistory. S e e Exhibit 68 regarding Dr. o h n s o n 'sxpert quali f icat ions.

254813657x5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



T h e shift in t h e majority o f members' r e s i d e n c e from t h e Tejon R a n c h to n e a r b y B a k e r s f i e l da nd the surrounding a r e a did not alter relations among the Tejon t riba l members or the UnitedStates' obligation to them. ndeed, h e United S t a t e s implicitly acknowledged its continuedguardianship over the Tribe even after the residential shi f t to Bakersf ie ld in its 1920 bill of

complaint, w h e r e i n t h e D e p a r t m e n t of J u s t i c e e x p l i c i t l y d i s c u s s e d t h i s f o r c e d r e lo c a t i o n b y t h e T e j o n

R a n c h . In i t s p r a y e r fo r relief, h e D e p a r t m e n t o f J u s t i c e s o u g h t a d e c r e e t h a t said T e j o n Indians,including a l l living m e m b e r s o f s a i d b a n d h e r e t o f o r e d r i v e n or f o r c e d from s a i d p r e m i s e s b ydefendants ortheir predecessors, and the descendants of any and all said Indians . . ." h av e th e r ightto continue their occupancy o f t h e Tejon Ranch. S e e Exhib i t 71. And, a s d i s c u s s e d above, theBureau explicitly included Tejon on its list o f federally recognized tribes in 1929 .

Immediately after the 1952 earthquake, consistent with its role a s trustee, Interior made

inquiries regarding t h e welfare o f t h e Tribe a n d attempted to coordinate relief to tribal members,with the Commissioner o f Indian Affairs inquiring specifically about the welfare o f the Indiancommuni ty , o ca ted o n the El Tejon Ranch in K ern County." e e Exhibits 39,40.Unfor tunately , however , despi te the B u r e a u 'soncerns,it determined that it could no t assist the

Tribe at this time with t h e rebuilding o f t h e Tejon tribal h o m e s on t h e Ranch. S e e Exhibit 4 1 ,

Augus t 1 9 , 1952 Letter f rom Sacramento Area Office to Celestina Garc ia M o n t es .

That t h e B u r e a u continued t o a c k n o w l e d g e i t s r o l e a s t r u s t e e is a l s o e v id e n c e d b y a l e t t e r itwrote a y e a r l a t e r t o a p r iv a t e c i t i z e n who h a d inquired a b o u t t h e possibility o f providing e l e c t r i c i t yto tribal homes on Tejon Ranch, a n d h a d offered to p a y fo r the power used. The Area Directore x p l a i n e d that, he I n d i a n B u m a u h a s b e e n c o u c e m e d o v e r th e w e l f a r e of t h e s e I n d i a n s fo r malyyears:... "E m p h a s i s added.) e e J u n e 3 , 1 9 5 3 L e t t e r from A r e a Director L e o n a r d M .Hill t o P a u l E.H e r z o gExhibit 42). nfortunately, the Bureau again found that it wa s unable to a s s i s t the Tribe because

the l a n d occupied by t h e s e Indians is privately owned, h e government h a s no jurisdiction over t h eproperty a n d g o v e r n m e n t f u n d s a p p r o p r i a t e d t o Indian S e r v i c e c a n n o t b e u se d fo r improving t h efacilities of these Indians. d

Of course the 1 9 5 0 s ushered in the terminat ion era,"uring which both In ter io r a n d

C o n g r e s s b e g a n to turn towards a policy o f terminating t h e f e d e r a l relationship with Indian tribes.In 1958, C o n g re s s e n a c te d l e g i s l a t i o n providing a termination p r o c e s s fo r 4 1 s p e c i f i c a l l y identifiedCalifornia tribes. Act o f Aug. 18, 1958, Pub.L.No. 5 -671 (72 Stat. 619 ) (Ta bI).he TejonIndian Tribe w a s no t o n e of t h e 4 1 t r i b e s s o identified. According to t h e 1 9 5 8 A c t 'se g i s l a t i v ehistory, h e termination p r o c e s s w a s intended to b e voluntary." e e S. Rep. No. 1874, a t 2 (1 9 5 8 )Ta b J).n d e r s c o r i n g t h e voluntary n a t u r e of t h e Act, h e S e n a t e C o m m i t t e e R e p o r t e x p l a i n e d t h a tt h e l e g i s l a t i o n l i s t e d t h o s e t r i b e s that a d o p t e d resolutions r e q u e s t i n g termination. Id.n 1964,Congress amended this legislation to make the termination p r o c e s s available to all tribes in

California. Act o f Aug. 11, 1 9 6 4 , Pub.L.No. 88- 1 9 (78 Stat. 390 ) (Ta bI).he Tejon IndianTribe n e v e r c h o s e t o p a r t i c i p a te in t h e termination program s e t u p through t h e 1 9 6 4 legislation.

Ha d either Interior or C o n g r e s s s o u g h t to terminate t h e f e d e r a l relationship with t h e Tejon Indian

2 3 Exhibit 3 9 is a n August 13, 1 9 5 2 Letter from Area Director Leonard Hill t o Commissioner, B u r e a u o f Indian .af fa i rs ;Exhibi t 4 0 is a n undated memo to the Commissioner regarding the earthquake a t Tejon.

a Further u n d e r s c o r i n g t h e c o n s e n s u a l intent o f t h e process,s e c t i o n 2(b) f th e Act r e q u i r e d a p p r o v a l o f a n ydistribution p l a n through referendum b y a majority o f t h e adult Indians who would p a r t i c i p a t e in distribution o f t h eproperty.

264913657N5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



Tribe,such terminat ion could ha v e b ee n effectuated through the 19 58 o r 19 6 4 terminat ionprocesses. There ar e n o r ec or ds to suggest that the federal go vern men t s ou gh t or encouraged such

terminat ion for Tejon.

T h a t In ter ior did n o t view the Tejon Indian Tribe a s terminated is ref lected in a 1 962 Public

Lands Order by which the 880 acres of publ ic d o m a in la n d that ha d been set as ide fo r the Tribe in19 16 wa s r etu rn e d to the publ ic domain . An in te rnal i nves tiga t io n by the B u r e a u 'sa c ra me nto Are aOffice concluded that the 880 withdrawn acres were of p o o r qual i ty , without water,and of no

economic us e to the Tribe. e e September 29, 9 6 1 L e tte r f ro m Area Director Leonard Hill toCommiss ione r , Bureau of I n d ia n A ff a ir s (Exhibit 43). s a result, he Co mmiss io n er of Ind ian

Affa i rs recommended that the Bureau of Land Man agemen t revo ke the W i th d ra w a l O r d e r of

November 18 , 1916 . Inter ior did s o by issuing a Public Lands O r der w h ic h set forth, n te r a lia :

The depar tmenta l order of November 9,191 6, temporar i ly reservingand setting aside the fo l lowing described lands fo r us e of the El

Tejon Band of I nd ians , s hereby revoked....

The lands which have never be en us ed a nd are not needed by theIndians fo r any purpose , are in scattered t rac ts about 14 to 16 miles

southwest of the town of Tehachapi . T h e y a r e a c c e s s i b l e o n l y b y foot, and

a r e s t e e p and r o u g h in topograply.

S e e P u b lic L a n d Order 2 7 38 d ate d July 27,1 9 6 2 , 2 7 Fed.Reg. 7636 (Aug.2,1 9 6 2 ) (mphas i s added).Attached at Exhibit44.

In neither the underly ing reports n or in the actual Public Lands Order i tself is there even a

suggest ion that federa l guard ianship over the Tribe ha d been terminated,ha d l apsed, or otherwisewa s n o lo ng e r in effect notwi thstand ing the D e p a r t m e n t 's

o n te m p o ra n e ou s d elib er a tio n s o n the

terminat ion of California t r ibes. Indeed, the language of the Public Lands Order is simi lar to o th er

orders by which In ter ior restored la nd to the public domain that h ad b ee n withdrawn fo r o t h e rfederally acknonledged tribes. S e e Order dated March 22,1 9 5 6 , 21 Fed.Reg. 19 4 0 (March 29,1 9 5 6 )

revoking temporary withdrawal fo r Nava jo Nation); u blic L a nd Order 4157 dated Feb. 13,1 9 6 7 ,32 Fed. Reg. 3 0 2 0 -21 (Feb.17, 1 9 6 7 ) (estor ing lands in N ew Mexico withdrawn fo r Ind ian use);

P u blic L a nd O r de r 4 2 0 6 da ted April 24,1967 , 32 Fed. Reg. 6642 (April 29,1 9 6 7 ) (estor ing lands inNew Mexico withdrawn for Indian use). he abo ve P u b lic L a nd Orders a re inc luded with Exhibit44.

By stark cont rast , the Publ ic Land Order concerning the 880 acres i nc ludes n o n e of the

language associated with the terminat ion of tribes o r the disposal of the proper ty of terminatedt r ibes. Indeed,when In ter ior in tended to terminate the federal relat ionship with a tribe, t did so

express ly :

On and a f te r A ug u s t 13, 1 95 6 the t r ibes, bands ,g r o up s , or communit ies of Indians

located west of th e Cascade Mounta ins in Oregon, nclud ing the [listed tribes] and

the indiv idual members thereof,shall no t b e entitled t o a ly o f t h e s e r v i c e s performed b y th e

United S t a t e s for Indians b e c a u s e o f their s t a t u s a s Indians. roclamat ion ofTerminat ion of

federal Supervis ion over Proper ty of Western Oregon Tribes a n d Ba n ds of Indians

274813G57v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



of Oregon, a nd the Individuals Thereof, 2 1 Fed. Reg. 6244 (Aug.18 , 195 6 )emphasis added);

Notice is hereby given that the Ind ians named under the R a nche ria s listed below

a r e n o l o g g e r e n t i t l e d to a n y of t h e s e n 4 c e s p e r fo r m e d b y th e United S t a t e s fo r I n d i a n s b e c a u s e oftbeir s t a t u s a s I n d ia n s a n d a ll s t a t u t e s of t h e United S t a t e s l v b i c h a f f e c t I n d i a n s b e c a u s e of t b e i r

s t a t u s a s Indians shall b e i n a p p l i c a b l e t o tbem[.]"ermination of Federal Superv is ion overProperty of California Rancherias and Individual Members of Strawberry Va l ley ,Cache Creek, Buena Vista,Ruffeye,Mark West and Table Bluff Rancherias, 26 Fed .Reg. 3073 (April 1 1 , 1 96 1 ) ( mphasis added);

Notice i s hereby given that the Indians named in the Redding Rancheriadistribution plan ... are no longer ent it led to any of the services per formed by theUnited States for I n d ian s because of their status a s Indians,a nd a ll statutes of th eUnited States which affect Indians because of their status a s Indians sshall be

inapplicable to them[.]roperty of the California Rancherias and of the IndividualMembers Thereof,Termination of Federal Supervision, 27 Fed. Reg. 5840 - 1 Qune

20,1962);

Pursuant tothe prov is ions of [f ede ra l law] t is hereby proc la imed that ... the

Federal trustre la t ionship tothe Ponca Tribe ... and its individual members is

terminated. Hereafter,the tribe and the individual members ... shall not be entitled

to any of the s p ec ia l services per formed by the United States fo r Indians or Indiantribes b e cau se of their status as Indians;all statutes of the United States which affect

Indians or Indian tribes because of their status a s Indians shall be n o lo ng e ra p p lic ab le to th e tr ibe or its members[.]"otice of Terminat ion of Federa l Trus t

Relat ionship and Supervision over affa irs of indiv idual members of the Ponca Tribe,

3 1 Fed.Reg. 13810 (Oct.27, 1966).

Th e above examples (attached a t Exhibit 4 4 ) a r e Interior proclamations issued contemporaneouslywith the Tejon Public Land Order. Indeed, the notice of termination fo r Strawberry Val ley, Cache

Creek,Buena Vis ta , Ruffeye, Mark West and Table Bluff was issued more than a year pr ior to the

Tejon Public Land Order and the Redding Rancheria termination notice predated the T ejon O rd erby a few weeks. The T ejo n P u blic La n d O rd er u s e d vastly different language and clearly w a s notdesigned to terminate the fed er a l re lat ionship with the Tejon Ind ian Tribe.

1962 to 2006

During the f irst hal f of this time period the Bureau of Indian Affairs radical ly curtai ledfederal services to California tr ibes. Indeed, the S e n a t e Report accompanying the 1958 terminationlegislation speci f ical ly acknowledged that nofederalpmgranls a r e plannedfor th e b e n e f i t of CalifontiaIndians." . Rep. No.1874 (1958)at 4, (m p h a s is a d de d) (TabJ).

Like other recognized Cali fornia t r ibes, Tejon (which did n o t have t rust land)did no t receive

extensive federal services during this time period. nstructive a r e the B u r e a u 'swn descriptions ofthe services it was (not) roviding to the tribes that ha d opted fo r the termination process :

284 8 1 3 6 5 7 %5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



Auburn Rancheria (United Auburn Indian Community o f t h e Auburn Ranchria o fCalifornia Bureau Services. - - The Bureau renders virtually no regular services tot h e group. t s responsibility is primarily with t h e 4 0 a c r e s o f l a n d b e i n g h e l d in truststatus. Adequate roads have been built in the p as t a nd have been turned over to the

county fo r administration. There is a Johnson Oa l l e y educational contract with

t h e S t a t e o f California a n d t h e Auburn S c h o o l District r e c e i v e s f u n d s through t h i scontract because of the Indian children in the public school. ,1

Big S a n d y R a n c h e r ia (Big S a n d y R a n c h e r i a o f Mono Indians o f Cal i fornia) ureauServices. —T he o n ly service rendered by the Bureau is in connect ion with the t rust

s t a t u s o f t h e 2 8 0 a c r e s . The children o f s c h o o l a g e a t t e n d public s c h o o l in Auberry,which is a b o u t 2 miles from th e rncheria. T he lo ca l s ch oo l district does not receive

additional funds under the Johnson Oa l l e y Act between the Bureau and the S t a t eof California[.] "''

Blue Lake Rancheria (Blue Lake Rancheria,Cal i forn ia . ) BureauServices — The onlyservice that the Bureau renders the group i s in connection with the trust status of the

2 6 a c r e s of land. There i s a Johnson Oa l l e y educational contract with the S t a t e ofCalifornia,a nd the Blue Lake Schoo l District receives funds under this con t r a c tbecause of the Indian children attending its public school[.] ,

1

B u e n a Vista R a n c h e r ia (Buena Vista R a n c h e r i a o f M e -W uk I n d i a n s o f California)Bzmau Semices. —Bureau services a r e rendered only in connect ion with t rust statusof the lands.

E

Chicken Ranch Rancher ia (Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me -Wuk Indians ofCalifornia : Bureau se r v i ce s . — Bureau services a r e rendered only in connection withthe trust status of the land. ""'

Chico R a n c h e r ia (Mechoopda Indian Tribe o f Chico Rancheria,California) o u r c e so f Income. -- ... Mhey have never received any social services f rom the Bureau ofIndian Affairs because of their status as Indians. Bureau senvices. — The Bureau renders

s e r v i c e s only in connection with the trust s t a t u s of the land[.] ""

2 5 N a m e s in p a r e n t h e s e s a r e t h e n a m e s of t he r e sp e c ti v e t r i b e a s s h o w n i n t h e 2 0 0 5 l i s t of I n d i a n e n t i t i e s r e c o g n i z e d a n de l ig i b le t o r e c e i v e s e r v i c e s from t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s B u r e a u of I n d i a n af fairs. 7 0 Fed.R e g . 7 1 1 9 4 (Nov.25, 2 0 0 5 ) .

2 6 S.Rep.No.1874, a t 1 3 (1958).

2 7 Id.at 14.

Id.at 16.

2 9 Id.at 17.

3 1 1 Id at 19.

4 1 Id.at 20.

294 8 1 3 6 5 7 .5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



C l o v e rd a l e R a n c h e ria (Cloverdale R a n c h e r i a o f P o r n o I n d i a n s of California) un -a us en 4ees . - - Ff]he Bureau performs other s e r v i c e s n e c e s s a ry b e c a u s e the land i s in trust,bu t provides n o direct s e r v i c e to t h e p e o p l e living there. They r e c e iv e s o c ia l s e r v i c e sfrom the county and State on the same basis a s other cit izens. ' '

Cold S p r in g s R a n c h e r ia (Cold S p r i n g s R a n c h e r i a o f Mono Indians o f Cal i fornia)Bzrreau services. -- Services e xte nd ed b y th e Bu re au a r e l imited to the trust status of

t h e land;n o s o c i a l s e r v i c e s a r e p e r f o r m e d b y t h e B u r e a u fo r t h e p e o p l e l iving there. .All the children attend publ ic school .

ElkVal ley Rancheria (Elk Val ley Rancheria California) "Bureau services. —Services

ar e e xte nd ed b y th e Bureau because of the t rust status of the land;n o s oc ia l services

a r e performed by the Burea u fo r the people living on the rancheria. Del N o rteCounty r e c e i v e s payments under t h e Johnson-Oa l l e y educational contract b e c a u s e

Indian p u p i l s a re a t t e n d i n g i t s public schools. The c o u n t y f u r n i s h e s b u s service[.]

Graton R a n c h e r ia (Federated Indians o f Graton Rancheria,Cali fornia) ureausen4ces. —The B u r e a u r e n d e r s no s e r v i c e s to t h e group a s people; t is onlyresponsible for the t rus t status of th e land. ""

G r e e n v i l l e R a n c h e r i a (Greenville R a n c h e r i a of M a i d u I n d i a n s o f California) e o p l e .T]e s e p e o p l e h a v e b e e n independent o f direct B u r e a u s e r v i c e s fo r y e a r s , a n d a r e

accepted a s members o f the extended communi ty . '

f Hopland R a n c h e r ia (Hopland Band o f Porno Indians o f t h e Hopland Rancheria,California : Bureau s en 4ees . — The principal service performed by the Bureau i s inconnect ion with th e trust status of th e land...he s choo l district in th e town of

Hopland r e c e i v e s payments under the Johnson-Oa l l e y educational contract fo r t h e

Indian children attending the ir public schoo ls . Th e Bureau extends no social servicesto the g r o up .

Lytton Rancheria (Lytton Rancheria of California) Bureau services. —The Bureau

renders services because of th e trust status of th e land. There a re n o soc ia l services

rendered by the Bureau b e c a u s e t h e s e people a r e Indians. The loca l schoo l district

1 2 Id.at 21.

Id.at 22.

7 4 Id.at 23

1 5 Id.at 25.

3 e Id.

1 7 Id.at 27.

304813657c5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



receives funds under the Johnson-Oa l l e y educational contract b e c a u s e of theIndian children attending their publ ic schools[.] "'"

Middletown R a n c h e r ia (Middletown R a n c h e r i a o f Pomo Ind ians) `u r e a a i s e r v i c e s : —

It d o e s not provide a n y s o c i a l s e r v i c e s fo r t h e s e Indians. They r e c e i v e t h e s e

s e r v i c e s from t h e county. The s c h o o l district a t Middletown r e c e i v e s p a y m e n t su n d e r t h e Johnson-Oa l l e y Act b e c a u s e Indian c h i l d r e n a r e a t t e n d i n g their publicschools.

Potter Valley Rancheria (Potter Val ley Tribe,California) "ureau services: —The

Bureau renders services only because of the t rust status of the l and ;all other services

a r e provided to the p eo ple by the county....he local school distr ict receives

payments under the Johnson-Oa l l e y educational contract fo r the tw o childrenwho attend public school.

Q u a r tz V a l le y R a n c h e r ia (Quartz Valley Indian Community o f t h e Quartz V a l l e yReservation of California) "Bureau services: —Services e xte nd ed b y th e B ur ea u a r e

limited to t h e trust s t a t u s o f t h e land;n o s o c i a l s e r v i c e s a r e performed b y t h e B u r e a ufo r t h e p e o p l e living o n t h e Rncheria. The children a r e a t t e n d i n g public school.Health and welfare n e e d s of the Indians a r e m et by local off ices on the s a m e b a s i s a sthese services a re extended to non-ndians.s

Redding Rancheria (Redding Rancheria.California "Bureau services. —The Bureau

per fo rms services because the land is in t rus t s ta tus. It renders no services to these

p e o p l e b e c a u s e t h e y a r e I n d i a n s e x c e p t that t h e l o c a l s c h o o l district r e c e i v e s m o n e yunder the Johnson-Oa l l e y c o n t r a c t .s

Redwood Valley Rancheria (Redwood Valley Rancheria of Pomo Indians ofCalifornia . Bureau

services: —Services a r e rendered by the Bureau only b e c a u s e ofthe trust sta tus of the land.s

Robinson R a n c h e r ia (Robinson R a n c h e r i a of Pomo Indians o f California Bureausen)ces. —Th e Bureau renders no s e r v i c e s to this group b e c a u s e of their s t a t u s a sI nd ians . Realty services a r e extended because of the t rust status of the land.

Id.at 29.

1 9 Id.at 30.

4 d.at 36.

4 1 Id.at 37.

4 2 Id.at 38.

4 3 Id.at 39.

4 4 Id.at40.

3 14 8 1 3 6 5 7 % •5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



Rohnerville Rancheria (Bear River Band o f t h e Rohnerville Rancheria Cali fornia)Sources o f income. — [T]e y receive welfare aid f rom the county with no distinctionbeing made because they areIndians. Bureau services. —The Bureau renders services

only b e c a u s e the land is in a trust status[.]

S c o t t s Valley Rancheria (Scotts Valley Band o f Porno Indians o f Cali fornia) ureauserv ices — In the p as t 5 years, the Bureau spent $30 0 fo r building roads and $361.08to rehabil itate the water system. Expendi tures were made because of the trust status

o f t h e land. T h e B u r e a u d o e s no t r e n d e r s o c i a l s e r v i c e s t o t h e s e people,but t h e l o c a lschool district r e c e i v e s p a y m e n t s under t h e Johnson-Oa l l e y education contract.

Smith River Rancheria (Smith River Rancheria. Cali fornia) `ureau s e r v i c e s . —

Services r en de re d b y th e B ur ea u a r e l imited to the t rust status of the l and; no social

s e r v i c e s a r e performed by the Bureau fo r the people living on the rancheria. The

children a ll a t t e n d public school. Health a n d w e l f a r e n e e d s o f t h e I n d i a n s a r e m e t b yl oca l offices o n the same basis as these services are extended tonon-ndians. , 7

Table Bluff Rancheria OWiyot Tribe.California) "Bureau sen 4ces. —The Bureau

renders no services to these peop le excep t in connection with the t rust status of the

land....he l o c a l s c h o o l district r e c e i v e s p a y m e n t s under t h e Johnson-Oa l l e ycontract b e c a u s e o f the Indian children who attend their public schools.""

Table Mountain Rancheria (Table Mountain Rancheria o f Cali fornia) ureau s e r v i c e s .

The B u r e a u r e n d e r s no s e r v i c e s to t h e s e p e o p l e b e c a u s e t h e y a r e Indians. T h e yreceive social welfare services f rom the county and the S t a t e [ . ]s

D e s p i t e t h e B u r e a usx t r e m e curtailing of s e r v i c e s t o California t r i b e s during t h i s period, nthe d e c a d e s following the return of Tejon l a n d s to the public domain, Tejon members continued to

r e c e i v e s o m e BI A services. As ment ioned earlier, n the e a r l y 1 9 7 0 s Juanita Montes' son,LeonardMontes (w ho is now deceased), eceived BI A funding fo r vocational training; n the l a t e 1970s,Donna Montes a t t e n d e d B u s i n e s s S c h o o l with t h e a id o f BIA fund ing ; a n d in t h e 1 9 8 0 s , VirginiaMontes received BIA support fo r vocational training.""

Also o f note, n t h e l a t e 1 9 6 0 s a n d la te 1 9 7 0 s , t h e Tejon Indian Tribe w a s t h e s u b j e c t o fCongressional inquiries. n t e r i o r 'se s p o n s e s s e t forth a brief historical overview of the Tribe,

45Y t 41.

46M.at 43.

4 7 Md. at 44.

48M.at 46.

4M47

5 a s e d o n i n t e r v i e w s of tribal e l d e r s c o n d u c te d b y Dr. o h n R.Johnson. e e Exhibit 6 8 r e g a r d i n g Dr. o h n s o nsexper t qua l i f ica t ions.

324 8 1 3 6 5 7 %5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



explained that t h e United S t a t e s pursued litigation on behalf o f t h e Tribe to the S u p r e m e Court a n dthat t h e Tribe w a s permitted b y t h e R a n c h to remain on i t s aboriginal l a n d s after t h e lit igation. e eI n t e r i o r 'sorrespondence to C o n g r e s s a t Exhibit 45 . n this correspondence Interior never in a n ymanner s u g g e s t e d that federal guardianship over t h e Tribe h a d b e e n terminated,had lapsed, orotherwise was no longer in effect.

Finally, w e n o t e that t h e v a s t majority o f t h e documents on which t h e T r i b e 'se q u e s t fo rConfirmation of Status relies were obtained from th e National Archives a nd other federa l sources.

Unfortunately, h e National Archives d o e s not maintain f i l e s about tribes bey on d 1970 . S e exvwxy.archi _s nadve .acne n fa iii . For this reason, t ha s been more

difficult to r e c o n s t r u c t t h e d o c u m e n ta r y r e c o r d of t h e B u r e a use l a t i o n s h i p with t h e Tribe duringt h e la s t two or t h r e e d e c a d e s o f t h e twentieth century. Nevertheless, h e Tribe is continuing itssearch fo r copies of federal documents f rom this time per iod.

2006

The Tejon Indian Tribe T o d a y

The Tejon Ind ian T r i b e 'sresent d a y membership descends directly f rom the documentedmembership o f t h e historic El Tejon Band." IA 's9 1 5 c e n s u s o f Tejon tribal members (th eTerrel l Report discussed herein at pp.1 3 ) isted 8 1 t riba l members . All of the t r ibal members

a p p e a r in g o n t h e 1 9 1 5 BIA /Terrel l c e n s u s w e r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d a n d l ived together in a n all-e j o n

settlement. S e e Genealogical Relationships within t h e Tejon Band in 1915, p r e p a re d b y John R.Johnson,P h.D.,a n t a Barbara Museum o f Natural History John R. ohnson (Exhibit 68);able 1 :Genealogica l and Life History Data fo r Tejon Indian Tribe Members Listed on the 1 9 15 Ce ns us

Reported by Special Agent John J.Terrel l ,prepared by John R. ohnson, P h.D.,a n t a BarbaraMuseum of Natural History (Exhibit 68). signif icant majority of those on the 1 9 1 5 BIA list fo rwhom we know their buria l locat ion a r e now buried in the Tejon Indian cemetery. S e e Column I,Table 1:Genealogica l and Life History Data fo r T ejo n I nd ia n T rib e Members Listed on the 1915

Census Reported by Special Agent John J.Terrell (Exhibit 68); eath Certif icates collected at

Exhibit 67. This c e m e t e r y is located on t h e Tejon Ranch a n d in t h e heart o f t h e Tejon Indianvillage. Today, a ll m e m b e r s o f t h e modern Tejon Indian Tribe e a s i l y t r a c e their a n c e s t r y back tot r ibal members identif ied on the 1915 BIA /Terrell census. As s ho wn inTables 1 and 2, he v as t

majority o f those few members who do not h a v e descendants in Tejon today either died withoutchildren or s e p a r a t e d from t h e Tribe. n f ac t,a ll modern d a y m e m b e r s h a v e a t l e a s t two a n c e s t o r son the Terrell list and s o m e h a v e a s many a s ten a n c e s t o r s on the Terrell l ist. e e Exhib i t 6 8 (Table3.

The 1 9 1 5 BIA /Terrel l c e n s u s i s corroborated b y t h e 1 9 3 3 California Indian Roll listingTejon Indians. Th e California I n dia n R oll lists 4 6 full bloods,which constituted 62%f those l isted;a ll the rest,save three individuals,were one -half blood o r more. S in c e des cen t from th e Cali fornia

Indian Ro ll i s a membership requirement, all modern d a y Tejon members h a v e ancestors on theRoll. B e c a u s e Tejon tribal members were historically and a r e today closely related, there is a closecorrelation between those listed in 1 9 3 3 a n d the modern d a y members. As a result, theoverwhelming majori ty of those listed in 1933 w ho married and lef t issue have descendants on the

5 1 The a n a l y s i s contained herein w a s done b y Dr. oh n Johnson, wh o h a s spent his c a r e e r studying t h e Tejon IndianTribe. S e e Brief Biography ofJohn R. ohnson (Exhibit 68)His analysis of the Terrell census and its relation to the1933 Cali fornia rol l l is t ing Te jon Indians is se t o ut in Exhibit 68,attached.

334813657c5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



modern roll. e e Table 2:Tejon Indian Tribe Members L is ted on the 1933 California Indian Rollwi th In format ion about their marriages, Descendants,and Attendance a t Sherman Indian SchoolExhibit 68).

T h e p r e s e n t d a y T e j o n m e m b e r s no t o n l y a l l d e s c e n d from h is to r ic t r i b a l m e m b e r s , but t h e ya l s o exhibit multiple, a t e r a l k i n s h i p ties. T h i s is a r e s u l t of t h e h i s t o r i c a l l y h i g h in- a r r i a g e rate. Toexemplify this phenomenon, h e relationship o f Chair Mo rgan to t h e current enrolled members is

s h o w n in c a t e g o r y F of T a b l e 3 : G e n e a l o g i c a l a n d Life History Information R e g a r d i n g C u r r e n tM e m b e r s o f t h e Tejon Indian Tribe (Exhibi t 68). he C h a i r i s r e l a t e d to e v e ry s in g le member o ft h e Tribe a n d t h e most distant relation is that o f t h e s e v e n t h degree, or s e c o n d cousin, o n c e

removed. S h e is a l s o t h e g r e a t - reat g r a n d d a u g h t e r of Chico,who s i g n e d t h e 1 8 5 1 t r e a t y o n behalfof t h e Tribe. T h is h ig h l e v e l of i n t e r - e l a t i o n s h i p is t y p i c a l of T e j o n m e m b e r s . A s o n e w o u l d e x p e c twith a c lo s e l y r e la t e d community, h e m o d e r n d a y m e m b e r s a l s o r e s i d e in c l o s e proximity to e a c hother. As is d e m o n s t ra t e d in t h e m a p below a n d b y t h e a d d r e s s list provided a t Exhibit 6 9 ,55 o fthe current membership r e s i d e s within approximately 3 0 miles o f Bakersf ie ld. ' '

KarrAe

Wbffad

N @ , L 0 re

0 6 S P 0 ff

e fze P 9 ea n IMand

y I

20D5McrosoftCmNa PCsuvad rr.LLw„ w.,

FIG.8: MAP SHOWING TEJON RESIDENCESWITHIN 30 MILES OFBK E R S F I E L D

B e c a u s e o f t h e s e c l o s e r e la t io n s h ip s a m o n g t h e p re s e n t d a y m e m b e r s , s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n a m o n g t h e m o b v i o u s l y t a k e sp l a c e a n d is e v i d e n c e of c o m m u n i t y . Further, h e p e rs is te n c e of a n a m e d , c o l l e c t i v e I n d i a n i d e n t it y c o n s i s te n t lyacknowledged by DOI as the Tejon Band orTribe of Indians is evidence ofcommunity. §§837), (iii).

344 8 1 3 6 5 7 . •5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



T h e p r o f i l e of th e T e jo n In d ia n T r i b e i s t r u l y r e m a r k a b l e . N o t o n l y h a s I n t e r i o r h i s t o r i c a l l yand into modern times acknowledged the Tribe, but a substantial number of the tribal elders still

a li v e to d a y w e r e a l i v e d u r i n g m a n y of t h e I n t e r i o rsc t i o n s e v i d e n c i n g a c k n o w l e d g m e n t i n t h et w e n t i e t h c e n t u r y . Of th e c u r r e n t m e m b e r s h i p , a f u l l 25%f T e j o n t r i b a l m e m b e rs a liv e to d a y w e r ea l i v e i n 1 9 6 2 w h e n I n t e r i o r i s s u e d t h e P u b lic L a n d O r d e r a n d f e d e r a l r e g i s t e r n o t ic e c o n c e r n in g th eT r i b e 'sands. O f t h e current l iving membership, o v e r 20%e r e either born o n or r e s i d e d on t h e

T e j o n R a n c h a t s o m e p o in t in t h e i r l i v e s . A n d o v e r t h e y e a r s , p r e s e n t l y l i v i n g t r i b a l m e m b e r s w e r ee d u c a t e d a t t h e T e j o n I n d ia n s c h o o l a n d /or e n r o l l e d a t B I A b o a r d in g s c h o o ls . F o l l o w i n g i s ap h o t o g r a p h of t r i b a l e ld e r t a k e n la s t m o n t h i n f r o n t of t h e T e j o n I n d ia n S c h o o l h ea t t e n d e d a s a boy. (He a l s o a t t e n d e d B I A 'S S h e r m a n Institute.)

FIG.9: P H O T O O F A T T H E T E J O N S C H O O L , 2006. A T T E N D E DTHE T E J ON SCHOOL AND THE SHERMAN INSTITUTE.

4813657c535

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



1N%

0

t

IUIl : r

FIG.1 0 : PHOTO OF THE T E JO N S CH O O L,2 0 0 6

This i s not only the s a m e Tribe acknowledged by Interior through the twentieth century, bu tliterally t h e s e a r e many o f the s a m e individual tribal members who personally benefited from thefederal g o v e r n m e n t 'suardianship. This fact i s graphical ly reflected in the photograph below takenby John Harr ing ton in 1933. Three of the members in this photograph a r e today living tribal eldersCatar ino Montes , Eddie Montes, and Joseph Montes), nd tw o o f t h e s e (Catarino and Joseph)appear in the fol lowing photog raph taken in Ma y of this year a t the T ejo n I n dia n T r i b e 'snnualgather ing.

364813657x5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



i

FIG.11: 1933 FAMILY PHOTOGRAPH

374R13657v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



In sum, h e Tejon Indian Tribe r e m a i n s the highly inter-elated Indian community that it h a sb e e n historically. The present members all descend f rom the historic Tejon Indian Tribe, withmultiple kinship t i e s demonstrating intense relations among the members, a n d a majority r e s i d e inc l o s e proximity to their histor ic territory a t Tejon. n addition, the T r i b e 'sresent leadershipd e s c e n d s politically a n d g e n e a l o g i c a l l y from i t s historic leadership. Hence t h e p r e s e n t d a y Tribe isthe s a m e Tribe that h a s been historically and continuously acknowledged by Interior s i n c e 1851.h I n i t e d S t a t e s P . T i t l e I L t s u r a r n c e a n d T r u s t Co., 6 5 U .S. 7 2 (1924);7 Fed. Reg. 7 6 3 6 (1962).

S s As noted below, h e Tejon Indian Tribe f a lls o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f I n t e r i o r 'sr o c e d u r e s For Establishing That AnAmerican I ndian Group Exis ts As An Indian Tribe, 2 5 C.FRart 83. e e discussion a t pp. 4 1 -42. Were t h o s eregulations applicable, h e Tr ibe would plainly qualify fo r acknowledgment under the under t h e previous federalacknowledgment provisions of those regulations with the 1962 Public Land Order a s recent evidence of such

acknowledgment. S e e 2 5 C.FR83.8 3: vidence that the group h a s been treated by the Federal Government a s

having collective r ights in tribal l a n d s or f un ds constitutes previous federal acknowledgment. As a result,w e r e ther e g u l a t i o n s applicable, h e Tribe would only b e o b l i g e d t o d e m o n s t ra t e d e s c e n t from t h e previously a c k n o w l e d g e dgroup, contemporary community, a n d contemporary pol i tical leadership. §83.8(d.he profile o f t h e modern d a y tribese t out above pla inly fulfills these requ i rements .

/

384 8 1 3 6 5 7 %5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



PART II

INTERIOR MUST CONFIRM THE T R I B E 'STATUS AS

A FEDERALLY -ACKNOWLEDGED TRIBE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE TRIBE HAS BEEN CLEARLY ESTABLISHED

As demonstrated in the narrative above a n d by the original s o u r c e documents attached a s

Exhibits to t h i s Request, h e Department o f t h e Interior historically a n d continuously h a sacknowledged t h e Tejon Indian Tr ibe fo r more than a century and a half. Over the course o f t ime:

The f e d e r a l government s e n t Indian a g e n t s to n e g o t i a t e a land c e s s i o n t r e a t ywith th e Tribe;

The Bureau o f Indian Affairs s e t up,and fo r more than a d e c a d e managed, amilitary reservation l o c a t e d within t h e T r i b e 'sraditional territory fo r t h eT r i b e 'sse a n d benefit;

After t h e T r i b e 'sraditional territory w a s s o l d into private ownership,Interior negotiated (on multiple o c c a s i o n s over t h e c o u r s e o f many decades)with the private owners of the T r i b e 'so try to obtain reservation lands fo rth e Tribe there;

Interior monitored the welfare of and provided protect ion to tribal membersliving at the Tejon Ranch ;

Interior and the Department ofJustice instituted l i tigation a s federal trusteesto try to protect th e T r i b e 'srad i t ional l ands ;

Th e Supreme Court accepted the United States' assertion of that federal t rustre la t ionship ;

Interior provided educational funding and oversight to Tejon children;

Interior u s e d federal funds to provide fo r the genera l welfare of the Tribe;

Interior s e t a s id e lands f rom the public domain fo r the sole u s e and

occupancy of the Tribe;

Interior included the T ejo n I n dia n T rib e in official census rolls;a nd

Interior included th e Tejon Ind ian Tribe on l ist of Ind ian Tribes of theUnited States.

394813657x5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



Significantly, n t e r i o r 'scknowledgement o f t h e Tribe w a s explicitly authorized b y Congress.The establishment o f t h e Tejon (Sebastian) Military Reservation in t h e 1 8 5 0 s w a s done pursuant todirection from Congress. S e e 1 0 Stat. 238 (1853) (Tab F).imilarly, the United States' effort toregain fo r the Tribe s o m e of its lost aboriginal territory through the instigation o f the 1 9 2 0 lawsuitw a s premised on Congress' direction to t h e Attorney General, a t t h e r e q u e s t o f t h e Secretary, toprotect tr ibal r ights to land. e e Act o f J a n u a r y 12, 1891, 2 6 Stat. 7 1 2 (T a b G).ha t Act s p e c i f i c a l l yrequired t h e S e c r e t a r y to e s t a b li s h r e s e r v a t io n s fo r miss ion Ind ians in Cali fornia to encompass, a s fa ra s practicable, he la n d s a n d v i l l a g e s which h a v e b e e n in t h e a c tu a l occupation a n d p o s s e s s io n o fsaid Indans....Id., §2. Congress further imposed upon the United S t a t e s Department ofJusticethe duty to defend tr ibal rights to lands:

Mn c a s e s where the lands occupied by a n y band or village of Indiansa r e wholly or in part within the limits of a n y confirmed pr iva te grantor grants, it shall be the duty of the Attorney Genera l of the United

States, upon request of the Secretary of the Inter ior, through specialcounsel or o therwise, to defend such Indians in the r ights secured tothem in the or ig inal grants from the Mexican Government ... orto

br ing any suit, n the nameof the United States ... that may be f oundn e c e s s a r y to the full protection of the legal o r equitable rights of a n yInd ian o r tribe of Indians in a ny s uch l ands .

Id at § 6. n the litigation before the Supreme Court, the United S t a t e s expressly a s s e r t e d that it w a s

a c t i n g a s g u a r d i a n fo r t h e Tribe a n d that t h e litigation h a d b e e n authorized b y C o n g r e s s through t h e1891 Act. nterior has neverrepudiated that guard ian re lat ionship

14 —

to th e contrary,Interior

c o n s i s t e n t l y h a s a c t e d c o n s i s t e n t with its g u a r d i a n s h i p in multiple w a y s over t h e c o u r s e o f a longperiod of time."

5 4 In t h i s important respect, h is c a s e is different from t h a t o f t h e Miami Tribe o f I n d i a n a c o n s i d e r e d in Miami N a t i o n ofI n d i a n a , Inc. a U .S.Dept ofhaerior,2 5 5 F.d 3 4 2 (7 th Cir. 2 0 0 1 ) . here, h e Department h a d formally repudiated i t shistoric a c k n o w l e d g m e n t o f t h e tribe in a n 1 8 9 7 d e c i s i o n s o that t h e Department w a s a b le to inquire into t h e t r i b e 'scontinued existence since 1897.

5 5 There a r e two isolated, historica l documents that indicated a n y doubt about I n t e r i o r 'sontinuing relationship with t h eTribe,neither of which was authoritative o r f inal. Th e f i rst of t h e s e was a December 3 0 , 1 9 2 5 , etter f rom BIACommissioner Burke to Superintendent Dorrington suggesting that federal appropr iat ions could not b e u s e d fo r thebenefit of the T e jo n I n dia n Tribe since the tr ibal m e mb er s w er e n o n -ward citizens of the state w ho did n ot reside on a

reservation. e e Exhibit 70. T h i s s u g g e s t i o n w a s c l e a r l y wrong a s a matter o f law, s i n c e th e f e d e r a l trust r e l a t i o n s h i pd e p e n d s upon t h e maintenance of tribal relations, not the p r e s e n c e of a reservation or t h e l a c k o f citizenship. e eS o l i c i t o r 'spinion on applicability of the S o c i a l Security Ac t to the Indians (April 2 2 , 1936) (ab W);n i t e d S t a t e r tNice,2 4 1 U .S. 9 1 (1 9 1 6 ) (abL);e m n P . U n i t e d S t a te r , 2 3 2 U .S. 7 8 (1914). he Commissioner obviously r e c o n s i d e r e d

this position, s i n c e the v er y n ex t year h e authorized the expenditure of Indian education funds fo r the Tribe an d foury e a r s later included t h e Tribe in a list of recognized tribes. The second of t h e s e documents is a letter dated October 17,194 5 , n which the Sacramento Superintendent indicated that, he Government having lost the la n d c la im o n behalf oft h e Tribe, h e Tribe could no t b e considered wards of t h e Government justifying t h e expenditure o f Indian s e r v i c e

funds. S e e Exhibit 70. Again, h is w a s wrong a s a m a t t e r of law,b y th e s a m e authority c i t e d above. And,a g a i n , it w a snot t h e considered view of t h e Department s in c e t h e Department that very y e a r a n d later expended Indian educationfunds on Tejon members. Further,both documents a r e wrong a s a matter of fact b e c a u s e a t the time the Tribe did h a v e

a federally r e s e rv e d la n d b a s e until 1 9 6 2 when t h e Department i s s u e d t h e Public Land Order r e g a r d i n g t h e l a n d sreserved for the El Tejon Band of Indians.

4048136576

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



THE T EJ ON INDIAN TRIBE H AS N E V E R BEEN TE RM INA TE D

It is well established that it is fo r Congress and Congress alone to decide if a n d when tot e rm in a t e t h e United S t a t e s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p with a p a r t i c u l a r tribe. A s e a r l y a s 1 9 1 6 , t h e S u p r e m e Courtobserved:

O f course,w h e n t h e I n d i a n s a r e p r e p a r e d t o e x e r c i s e t h e p r i v i l e g e sa n d b e a r the burdens o f o n e s u i jur is, he tribal relation m a y b edissolved a nd the national guardianship brought to a n end; G z i t it r e s t swith C o n g r e s s to d e t e r m i n e w h e n and h o w this shall b e d o g e , and whether the

emancipation shall a t f irst b e complete o r only part ial .

U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Nice, s u p ra a t 5 9 8 (e m p h a s i s added) (Ta b L).e e a l s o C h i p p e w a I n d i a n s v. U n i t e d S t a t e s ,3 0 7 U .S.1 ,5 (1 9 3 9 ) (Court m a y no t a s s u m e that C o n g r e s s a b a n d o n e d g u a r d i a n s h ip a b s e n t c le a re x p r e s s i o n o f t h a t intent) (Ta b M);i g e r P . W l e s t e n i I n v e s t m e n t Co., 2 1 U .S.286, 3 1 5 (1 9 1 1 )Cn g r e s s in p u r s u a n c e of t h e long- s t a b l i s h e d policy of t h e government, h a s a right t o d e t e r m i n e

fo r itself when the guardianship which h a s been mainta ined over the Indian shall cease. It is fo r that

body, a n d no t t h e courts, to determine when t h e t r u e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e Indian r e q u i r e h is r e l e a s e fromsuch condition of tutelag e. ) (TabN.ence, federal c o m m o n la w dictates that the United States

o w e s a continuing duty to t h e Tejon Indian Tribe until a n d u n le s s s u c h t im e a s C o n g r e s s d e t e r m i n e sotherwise.

The federal common la w rule that only C o n g r e s s h a s authority to terminate a tribe w a s

a d o p t e d b y C o n g r e s s in Pub.L. 0 3 -4 5 4 , p o r t i o n s o f which a m e n d e d t h e Indian R e o r g a n i z a t i o n Actin 1 9 9 4 . I n P ub .L. 0 3 -45 4 C o n g r e s s d e c r e e d t h a t in t h e m o d e r n e ra t r i b e s t h a t h a v e b e e n (i)recognized by a n a c t of Congress, (ii)ecognized by Interior under its administrativeacknowledgment regulations, and (iii)ecognized by the decisions of U.S.courts cannot b eterminated without express congress iona l action. Pub.L. 03 -454 (§103(4)) (ab O).hus, naddition to b e in g p r o t e c t e d b y f e d e r a l c o m m o n law, h e Tejon Indian T r i b e 'se d e r a l ly -a c k n o w l e d g e d s t a t u s a l s o is p r o t e c t e d u n d e r t h i s s t a t u t o r y r u l e b y virtue o f t h e S u p r e m e C o u r t 'sdecision in United States v Title Insurance & T r u s t Co., u p r a , in which t h e S u p re m e Court a c c e p t e d t h eUnited States' assertion of its trust relationship with the Tejon Indian Tribe.

Both t h e j u d g e -made a n d s t a t u t o r y rules, then, e q u i r e a n Act o f C o n g r e s s to t e r m in a t e t h eUnited S t a t e s ' a c k n o w l e d g e d r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e Tejon Indian Tribe. B e c a u s e C o n g r e s sa u t h o r i z e d t h e relationship, Interior e s ta b lis h e d a n d h a s not r e p u d i a t e d t h e relationship, h eS u p r e m e Court h a s acknowledged t h e relationship, a n d C o n g r e s s h a s not terminated therelationship. Interior is obliged now to confirm that relationship.

THE T EJ ON INDIAN TRIBE M U S T BE ADDED TO TH E CURRENTLIST OF FEDERALLY ACKNOWLEDGED TRIBES

B e c a u s e the federal g o v e r n m e n t 'songstanding acknowledgement o f t h e Tribe is s o clear,a n d b e c a u s e C o n g r e s s h a s n e v e r t e rm in a t e d t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ' r e l a t i o n s h i p with or o b l i g a t i o n s t o t h eTribe, h e S e c r e t a r y m u s t confirm t h e T r i b e 'sc k n o w l e d g e d s t a t u s b y including it o n t h e List o fF e d e r a lly R e c o g n i z e d a n d A c k n o w l e d g e d Tribes. Interior h a s n o a l t e r n a t i v e , n t h a t it c a n n o t s u b j e c tt h e Tejon Indian Tribe to the administrative Federal Acknowledgment P r o c e s s s i n c e t h e Tribe,a l r e a d y a c k n o w l e d g e d b y Interior, a l l s o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e o f t h o s e regulations. S e e 2 5 C.FR

414813G57r5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



83.3(a:his p a r t a p p l i e s o n l y to t h o s e American Indian g r o u p s i n d i g e n o u s to t h e continentalU n i t e d S t a t e s w h i c h a r e n o t c o r n - n t l y a c k n o w l e d g e d a s I n d i a n t r i b e s b y t h e D e p a r t m e n t (m p h a s i s a d d e d ) (Ta bP). e i t h e r c a n Interior r e f u s e t o p l a c e t h e T r i b e o n it s l i s t of f e d e r a lly a c k n o w le d g e d tribes, s i n c et o d o s o w o u l d e f f e c t i v e l y t e r m in a t e t h e T r i b e i n c o n t r a v e n t i o n of f e d e r a l c o m m o n a n d s t a t u t o r ylaw.

Interior, o f course, m a i n ta i n s authority to confirm t h e f e d e ra l acknowledgment o f Indiantribes. 25USC §2 (Ta b P).ithin t h e p a s t t w e l v e y e a r s , t h e D e p a r t m e n t h a s e x e r c i s e d t h a tauthor ity to confirm the status of four tribes -- the Ione Band of Miwok, he Lower Lake Rancheria,t h e King S a l m o n T r i b e a n d t h e S h o o n a q ' T r i b e of Kodiak. e e 6 0 F e d . R e g . 9 2 5 0 (1 9 9 5 )confirming Ione B a n d of Miwok) ; 7 Fed. R e g . 4 6 3 2 8 (2 0 0 2 ) (onfirming Lower L a k e R a n c h e r i a ,t h e K i n g S a l m o n T r i b e a n d th e S h o o n a q ' T r i b e of Kodiak) (Ta b Q). c o m m o n t h r e a d a m o n gT e j o n a n d t h e s e t r i b e s is t h a t t h e D e p a r t m e n t a l a c t i o n c o n f i r m e d a c o n t i n u i n g relationship, a t h e rthan res to red recogn ition to a tribe that had been terminated.

T h e e x a m p l e s c i t e d a b o v e a re t h e m o s t r e c e n t confirmation a c tio n s t a k e n b y t h eDepartment, but t h e y a r e not t h e o n l y affirmations of s t a t u s d o n e s e p a r a t e l y from t h e F e d e ra l

A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t P r o c e s s (FAP) (5 C.F.Ra r t 8 3 ) . h o r t l y a f t e r e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e F A P i n A u g u s t1 9 7 8 , t h e D e p a r t m e n t substantiated h e continued e x i s t e n c e of t h e K a r u k T r ib e a s a f e d e r a l l ya c k n o w l e d g e d T r i b e b a s e d o n f i n d i n g s m a d e b y t h e C e n t r a l O f f i c e d u r in g a f i e l d t r i p i n N o v e m b e ro f 1978. In J a n u a r y 1 9 7 9 Acting Assistant S e c r e t a r y Rick Lavis wrote:

Based on the f indings collected by a member of the B u r e a u 'sentralOffice ... during a field last November, he continued existence of

the Karoks a s a federally recognized tribe o f Indians h a s been

s u b s t a n t i a t e d . I n light of t h i s finding, I a m h e r e b y directing that t h egovernment -to-overnment re la t ionship, with attendant Bureau

s e r v i c e s within a v a i l a b l e resources, b e re-stablished. Accordingly, I

a m further directing that t h e t r i b e b e a d d e d t o a ll l i s t s o f f e d e r a l l yrecognized tribes maintained by the Bur ea u of Indian Affa i r s .

J a n u a r y 15, 1 9 7 9 Memorandum from t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y fo r Indian Affia rs to t h e S a c r a m e n t oArea Director . (TabV).

T h e r e i s n o e x p l a n a t i o n i n I n t e r i o rse c o r d s fo r w h y t h e T e jo n I n d ia n T r ib e h a s n o t a l r e a d yb e e n i n c l u d e d . Interior b e g a n it s initial p r e p a r a t i o n of it s f i r s t l i s t of r e c o g n iz e d t rib e s in 1 9 6 6 , u s tf o u r y e a r s a f t e r I n t e r i o r h a d is s u e d i t s (non - e r m in a t io n ) o r d e r r e s to r in g l a n d s e t a s i d e f o r t h e T e j o nin 1 9 1 6 t o t h e public domain. According t o BI A staff r e s p o n s i b l e fo r t h e preparation o f t h e list, h ecentral office prepared a prel im ina ry lis t tha t wa s then circulated to a r e a offices f o r co mmen t. A

f in a l l i s t w a s p r e p a r e d b y c e n t r a l o f f i c e b a s e d o n t h o s e c o m m e n ts o n D e c e m b e r 5 ,1 9 6 9 . T e s t im o n yof P a t r i c i a S i m m o n s , b e f o r e A d m i n is t r a t i v e L a w J u d g e Torbett, Aug. 2 3, 1 9 9 4 , in G r e e n e v . B a b b i t t,

5 6 A s e x p la in e d a b o v e , 2 5 C.F.Ra r t 8 3 d o e s n o t a p p ly to t r ib e s c u r r e n t l y a c k n o w l e d g e d . 2 5 C.F.R §3 .3(a.v e n ifP a r t 8 3 a p p l i e d , h e D e p a r t m e n t m a y w a iv e o r m a k e e x c e p t io n s t o a n y a p p l i c a b l e r e g u l a t i o n if p e r m i tt e d b y la w a n dsuch waiver orexcept ion is in the best interest of the Indians. 5 CFR §1 .2 (Tab P). lear ly, if such a waiver is

n e c e s s a r y here, t is w h o l l y a p p r o p r i a t e g i v e n t h a t Interior is confirming a r e l a t i o n s h i p n o t o n l y with t h e s a m e T r i b e b u tl i t e r a l l y t h e s a m e p e o p l e a l i v e i n 1 9 6 2 (when t h e T r i b e 'sa n d s w e re r e s to re d t o th e p u b l i c d o m a i n ) a n d t h e i r i m m e d i a t edescendents.

424813657x5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



C a s e No. ndian 9 3 .1 (S D OI Office o f Hearings and Appeals ) . e e Exhibits P -3, -4 from G r e e r uB a b b i t t , a t ta c h e d hereto a t Ta b R.The final list w a s published fo r t h e first time in t h e F e d e ra l

R e g i s t e r o n J a n u a r y 31, 1 9 7 9 . 4 4 Fed. R e g . 7 2 3 5 (1 9 7 9 ) . h e T e j o n I n d ia n Tribe d o e s no t a p p e a ron the pub li shed l is t either.

Ms. Simmons notes in her testimony that virtually no adminis t rat ive record e x i s t s a s to ho w

o r w h y individual t r i b e s w e r e a d d e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l l i s t s in 1 9 6 6 a n d 1 9 6 9 . In r e s p o n s e t o F r e e d o mof Information Act r e q u e s t s , n e i t h e r t h e c e n t r a l n o r r e g i o n a l o f f i c e of t h e BIA w a s a b le t o l o c a t e a n yrecord regarding the a b s e n c e o f the Tejon Ind ian Tribe, n pa rticular, from t h e draft a n d final l i s t s o fr e c o g n i z e d tribes. W h e th e r d e e m e d a n o v e r s i g h t , g n o r a n c e o n t h e p a r t of s t a f f , o r i n a d e q u a t ei n v e s t i g a t i o n o r r e s e a r c h , a n e r r o r w a s p l a i n l y m a d e w h e n Interior f a i l e d t o i n c l u d e t h e Tejon I n d i a nTribe on the list of federally recognized tr ibes. On e possibility i s that the Tribe w a s overlookedb e c a u s e it no long er h a d a federally - rotected land base. I t is well established, however, that l a c k o fa r e s e r v a t i o n o r t r u s t l a n d d o e s no t j e o p a r d i z e a t r i b e 'sc k n o w l e d g m e n t s ta t u s . Indeed,C o n g r e s s ,through t h e Indian Reorganization Act (IRA),uthorized t h e S e c r e t a r y to t a k e l a n d into trust a n destablish reservations specif ically for landless tribes. Se e 25 USC §§4 6 5 , 467 (TabS). hel e g i s l a t i v e history o f t h e IRA confirms t h i s f a c t a n d u n d e r s c o r e s that i t s p u r p o s e is t o e s t a b l i s h a l a n d

b a s e fo r l a n d l e s s tribes. As e x p la in e d b y C o n g re s s m a n Howard (who w a s a s p o n s o r o f t h elegislation):

Section 5 s e t s up a land acquis i tion program to p rovide land fo rIndians w ho have n o la nd o r insuff icient land,and w ho ca n us e land

beneficially....have already s a i d that there a r e m ore th an 1 0 0 ,0 0 0landless Indians in America today.. ..his p ro gra m w o uld p e rm itthe purchase of land fo r many ba n ds a nd groups of landlessIndians[.]

Cong.Rec. H 1 1 7 3 0 .

Hence, if this w a s the r e a s o n fo r t h e oversight, it is not legally defensible.

ADDITIONALLY,THE INDIAN R E O RG A N IZ A TI O N A CT E NTITLE S

HALF -B L OOD TRIBAL MEMBERS TO BIA SERVICES,AN DENABLESTHEM T O ORGANIZE A TRIBAL GOVERNMENT

It should b e noted that a s i d e from the Tejon Indian T r i b e 'sight to b e included on I n t e r i o r 'slist o f federally recognized tr ibes, the Indian Reorganization Act m a k e s clear that half- lood"

m e m b e r s o f t h e Tribe a r e e n t it le d t o BIA s e r v i c e s a n d t h a t t h e IRA a l l o w s t h e m t o o r g a n i z e theiro w n tr ib a l government .

There a re 3 7 members o f t h e Tejon Indian Tribe wh o c a n prove that t h e y a r e o n e -half orm o r e I n d i a n blood."' T h e b lo o d q u a n t u m of t h e s e m e m b e r s i s e a s i l y d o c u m e n t e d b y t r a c in g h o w

5 7 C o p i e s o f t h e T r i b e 'sr e e d o m of Information Act r e q u e s t s a n d t h e D e p a r t m e n tse s p o n s e s a re p r o v i d e d a t Exhibit72.

5 8 It s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t t h e r e a re a n a d d i t i o n a l 3 9 m e m b e r s w h o a re 7/6 T e jo n b lo o d q u a n t u m , u s t b a r e l y b e l o wone -half.

434813657N 5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



t h e y a r e l i n k e d through their p a re n ts a n d g r a n d p a r e n t s t o full-l o o d Tejon I n d i a n s identified o nB I A 'sw n 1 9 3 3 roll of C a l i f o r n i a I n d ia n s (which i d e n t i f i e s t h e t r i b e a n d b l o o d q u a n t u m of a llindividual I n d i a n s l isted). e e T a b l e 2 (listing blood q u a n t u m a s s h o w n in 1 9 3 3 Roll)a n d T a b l e 3listing blood quantum of current members) at Exhibit 6 8 .

Section 19 of the Indian Reorganiza t ion Act of 1934 (IRA) (5USC §479)d ef in e s th e

t e r m Indian a s i n c l u d i n g all p e r s o n s of o n e -half o r m o re I n d ia n blood. e n c e t h e T e j o nm e m b e r s with a half o r m o r e I n d i a n q u a n t u m a re now,a n d a lw a y s h a v e b e e n , e l i g i b l e fo r BIA a n do t h e r f e d e r a l s e r v i c e s m a d e a v a ila b le t o Ind ians e c a u s e of t h e i r s t a t u s a s I n d i a n s . T h a t t h e T e j o nh a l f -lood c o m m u n i t y is e n t i t l e d t o BIA s e r v i c e s is t r u e r e g a r d l e s s of w h e t h e r t h e T e j o n I n d ia nT r i b e is d e e m e d t o b e r e c o g n i z e d (s e e M a y n o r v . M o r to n , 5 1 0 F.d 1 2 5 4 (D.C.Cir. 1 9 7 5 ) (Ta b q)n dr e g a r d l e s s of w h e t h e r t h a t recognition h a s o r h a s no t la p s e d (s e e U n i t e d S t a t e s v .J o l t n , 4 3 7 U .S.634,6 5 0 (1978) (abT)).

O n e of t h e b e n e f i t s fo r w h i c h half -lood I n d i a n s a re e l i g i b l e is t h a t t h e S e c r e t a r y isauthorized to acquire trustland for Indians under Section 5 of the IRA (25US0§465). (e note

a g a i n t h e l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y of S e c t i o n 5 ,w h e r e i n C o n g r e s s m a n H o w a r d e x p l a i n e d S e c t i o n 5 s e t s u pa land acquis i t ion program for Indians that have noland ... there are mor e than 1 0 0 ,0 0 0 landlessI n d i a n s i n A m e r i c a today[.]"o n g . R e c . H . 1 1 7 3 0 . F u r t h e r , t h e S e c r e t a r y is a u t h o r i z e d t o p r o c l a i msuch trust lands as a reservation for the half -lood communi ty under Section 7 (25USC §467).This is important because Section 16 of the Indian Reorganizat ion Act (IRA) (5USC §476)

e n t i t l e s [a]y I n d i a n t r i c e , o r t r i b e s , e s i d i n g o n t h e s a n e r e s e r v a t i o n t o o r g a n i z e a t r i b a l g o v e r n m e n t .Hence, o n c e t h e Tejon half blood community is provided with r e s e r v e d land, t is entitled underS e c t i o n 1 6 t o o r g a n i z e i t s o w n g o v e r n m e n t u n d e r t h e IRA. ( o p i e s of 2 5 U.S.C5 465 , 467, 476,a nd 4 79 provided at Tab S).

W h i le a t first g l a n c e t h i s a n a l y s i s m a y s e e m a t t e n u a t e d , in f a c t t h e i n t e r p l a y of t h e s eprovisions of t h e IRA, a n d t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f t h i s p r o c e s s to half -lood Indian communities, h a s

b e e n c o n f i r m e d b y b o t h C o h e nse d e r a l I n d i a n L a t e H a n d b o o k a n d b y th e D e p a r t m e n t of t h e Interior.In t h e m o s t r e c e n t edition o f C o h e nsa n d b o o k , t h e a u t h o r s explain:

R e a d together, h e s e [IRA]definitions [of "ndian tribe" ndIndian '] make three c l a s s e s of ndians residing on on e reservation'e l i g i b l e to o r g a n i z e under t h e IRA: (1) e m b e r s o f a n y r e c o g n i z e dIndian t r i b e now under f e d e r a l jurisdiction [footnote om itted]; (2)d e s c e n d a n t s o f members o f a n y s u c h recognized Indian tr ibe,whor e s id e d o n a n y r e s e r v a t i o n on J u n e 1,1934; a n d (3) []r s o n s o f o n e -half or more Indian blood. ndividuals fitting t h e s e defin it ions butnot res id ing on a reservation cannot organize under the IRA,but a r e

n e v e r t h e l e s s eligible to enjoy s o m e o f its provisions. [Footnote toM a y t t o r P . M o r t o n , s u p r a , omitted.] n e provision o f t h e IRA g i v e s t h eS e c r e t a r y discretionary authority to a c c e p t or p u r c h a s e land in trustfor `ndians ' included within its provisions. [Footnote to U n i t e d S t a t e s

v. o h n omitted. ] he Solicitor h a s held that t h e S e c r e t a r y m a yexercise this authority fo r a ll individuals of one -half o r more Ind ianblood. O n c e these individuals b ec om e th e beneficiaries of l and held

in t r u s t t r u s t they c a n organize themselves a s a government and a s a

4448136576

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



reservation' tribe or band, become eligible fo r organizat ion under theIRA.

Coens, t 152.

Interior e m b r a c e d t h e i n t e r p l a y of t h e s e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e IRA w h e n in July, 1 9 8 1 , n e a r l yt h r e e y e a r s a f t e r a d o p t i o n of t h e F e d e r a l A c k n o w l e d g e m e n t R e g u l a t i o n s , t h e D e p a r t m e n t a p p r o v e dt h e Constitution a n d b y -aws of t h e J a m u l Indian V i l l a g e of California,which o r g a n i z e d itself a s ahalf -lood c o m m u n i t y u n d e r t h e I n d i a n R e o r g a n i z a t i o n Act. T h e J a m u l B a n d s u b s e q u e n t l y w a sa d d e d t o t h e l i s t of a c k n o w le d g e d t r ib e s in 1 9 8 2 . S e e 4 7 Fed. Reg. 5 3 1 3 2 (1 9 8 2 ) ( a b V).he half -blood m e m b e r s o f t h e Tejon Indian Tribe would b e entitled to o r g a n i z e u n d e r t h o s e s a m eprovisions.

Also noteworthy is t h e c a s e of t h e Orleans Kar ok half -lood community. Thiscommunity a p p l i e d to BI A to o r g a n i z e t h e m s e l v e s under t h e half -lood provisions o f t h e IRA in t h e1 9 7 0 s . The B u r e a u originally informed t h e O r le a n s Karok t h a t t h e y n e e d e d t o a c q u i r e l a n d b e f o r et h e y c o u l d o r g a n i z e , but t h e B u r e a u a l s o m a d e c le a r t h a t a c q u i s i t i o n of l a n d fo r t h e g r o u p w a s

p o s s ib le a n d that a f t e r w a r d s t h e half -lood group could o r g a n i z e themselves. e e December 6, 9 7 6letter from t h e Commissioner o f Indian Affairs to C o n g r e s s m a n Do n Clausen, a n d November 18 ,1 9 7 7 M e m o r a n d u m from t h e S a c r a m e n t o A r e a Director from t h e A s s i s t a n t S e c r e t a r y fo r I n d i a nAffairs. Further, h e B u r e a u w a s a c t u a l l y willing to o ffer t o p r o v i d e a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e g r o u p a s itmoved through this process. S e e November 18 , 1977 Memorandum f rom the Sacramento Area

Director from t h e Assistant S e c r e t a r y fo r Indian Affairs. (The December 6, 9 7 6 letter a n d t h eNovember 18, 1 9 7 7 Memorandum a r e included a s exhibits to t h e Interior Ione Memorandum,provided a t Ta b V).

W h a t m a k e s t h e O r l e a n s Karok half -lood c o m m u n i t y c a s e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g , though,is t h a t t h e B u r e a u d e c id e d no t t o p r o c e e d with t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h a t half -lood c o m m u n i t y

b e c a u s e t h e B u re a u d e te r m in e d t h a t t h e O r l e a n s Karok c o m m u n i t y w a s a s u b g r o u p of t h e g r e a t e rKarok (today spelled Karuk )Ind ian Tribe. As discussed elsewhere in this document , the

B u r e a u found that t h e Karuk Tribe a l r e a d y h a d b e e n recognized a n d therefore t h e AssistantS e c r e t a r y re-stablished h e g o v e r n m e n t -to-o v e r n m e n t r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e g r e a t e r Tribe.J u s t prior t o t h a t r e e s t a b l is h m e n t , t h e B u r e a u informed t h e O r l e a n s Karok half -lood c o m m u n i t yt h a t it would not b e n e c e s s a ry fo r t h e m t o o r g a n i z e a s a half -lood community b e c a u s e t h e B u r e a ua n t i c i p a t e d t h e r e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f t h e United S t a t e s ' relationship with t h e g r e a te r Karuk Tribe. Int h e c a s e of t h e T e jo n In d ia n Tribe, s in t h e c a s e of t h e K a r u k Tribe, t w o u l d b e m o r e a p p r o p r i a t eand m o r e just) o f o c u s o n c o n f i r m in g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a n d t h e g r e a te rT e j o n I n d ia n Tribe, a t h e r t h a n forcing a c o m p o n e n t of t h e T e j o n I n d ia n Tribe t o a c t t o o r g a n i z ewithout their fellow tribal members.

CONCLUSION

T h e well- o c u m e n t e d r e c o rd of t h e T e jo n I n d ia n T r ib e d e m o n s t r a t e s a l e v e l of i n t e n s i t y a n db r e a d t h o f involvement with t h e f e d e r a l g o v e r n m e n t t h a t i s u n m is t a k a b le . I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t h a t t h eU n i t e d S t a t e s ' a s s u m p t i o n of a t r u s t e e r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e T r i b e h a s b e e n a u t h o r i z e d , im p le m e n t e da n d /or a c k n o w l e d g e d b y a ll t h re e b ra n c h e s of t h e f e d e ra l g o v e r n m e n t . I t is a l s o s ig n i f i c a n t t h a tt h e r e a r e a significant number o f tribal e l d e r s a l i v e today who w e r e a l i v e when BI A involvement

454813G57v5

00037414-AS-A-ATCH003-D000021-APP -20240



with t h e Tribe w a s more pronounced; ndeed, there a r e a s ign if icant number of tribal members still

a l i v e t o d a y who a c t u a l l y l i v e d o n t h e Tejon R a n c h l a n d s which w e r e t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e S u p r e m eCourt d e c i s i o n in which t h e United States' trust relationship w a s acknowledged.

There is no question bu t that t h e United S t a te s h a s fo r many years, n many ways,a c k n o w l e d g e d t h e Tejon Indian Tribe a n d t h e United S t a t e s ' trust d u t i e s to it. h e r e is n o q u e s ti o nthat C o n g r e s s h a s n e v e r a c t e d to terminate t h e Tribe. An d there is no quest ion that t h e Tribe thate x i s t e d historically a s t h e Kitanemuk Indians, hat t r e a t e d with t h e f e d e r a l government in 1851, thatwa s the subject of the United States' protective lawsuit in 1 9 20 , that continued to receive services

a n d supervision through much o f t h e twentieth century, a n d that until a g e n e r a t i o n a g o still l ived ini t s traditional v i l l a g e s it e a t Tejon Ranch, s t h e s a m e t r i b e t h a t r e q u e s t s t h e D e p a r t m e n tse lp today.

The Tejon Indian Tribe a s k s that the Department, with a ll due haste, confi rm the T r i b e 's

s t a t u s a s a f e d e r a l ly - c k n o w l e d g e d tribe b y including t h e Tribe o n I n t e r i o r 'sfficial list o f f e d e r a l l yrecognized a nd restored tribes.

Bia Tejon Tribe Kern Co Calif Status Confirm

Documents

Transcript of Bia Tejon Tribe Kern Co Calif Status Confirm