WSP08807 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

28 representatives of New Mexico, which both Reynolds and Mecham were? Federal Representative Aspinall put the words in Mecham's mouth. But it can be argued that he was acting more as a representative of Colorado, whose interests he was protecting to the sharp exclusion of concern for Navajo interests, than he was acting as a federal legislator. Aspinall's position relative to the Navajo exemplifies a fundamental dynamic in Indian affairs--that of state antagonism to Indian interests. Taking Aspinall's state- oriented view as congressional intent also contradicts a fundamental principle in Indian law-that the federal government is the site of authority over Indians.72 Calling /! ~', w ~f .' -'f,~ I Aspinall's statement the intent of Congress masquerades truly state interests as federal ones. Hearing records contain many things that do not constitute congressional intent; it is entirely possible that these two statements are examples of remarks that must "be used with discrimination.un (-\ r-. These two less than fully clear and consistent statements represent the entire legislative record on section 12( a) that uses express language of limiting Indian claims. But Winters rights are mentioned elsewhere in the record where sharing shonages is discussed. Understanding whether Navajo Winters claims were quantified with the ~~, ;:.!\. :_~$ .;... NIIP legislation requires a close look at that pan of the :ecord, too. Sharing Shonages A shonage-sharing provision first appears in NIIP's negotiation history in 1957; . , -~ -. i . i , i 72~ Wilkinson, ~ note 46 at 24. 73~ M. Cohen, Legal Research 164 (1985).