WSP04759 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

of the government, entitled to its fostering care and protection."(Cohen 1982:106). This Federal policy embodied the philosophical precept of manifest des- tiny that was so integral to the westward expansion movement. On March 3, 1849, Congress passed legislation that established a new executive department of the gov- ernment of the United States, the Department of the Interior, and created the position of the Secretary of the Interior. Section 5 of this Act declared in part: "[T]he Secretary of the Interior shall exercise the supervisory and appellate powers now exercised by the Secretary of the War Department in relation to all the acts of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs...". This transfer of authority over Indian affairs to the Department of Interior marked the termination of direct War Department control over Native American affairs (Cohen 1982:119). It also implied that the Department of the Interior was the exten- sion of the federal government to fulfill the trust responsibility of the United States to the Native American tribes. The Supreme Court first recognized the existence of this trust relationship between the federal government and Native Americans in its early decisions interpreting treaties. As stated above, in almost all of these treaties, the Native Americans gave up land in exchange for promises. These promises included a guarantee that the United States would create a permanent reservation for the tribe and would protect the safety and well-being of all tribal members. The Supreme Court has held that such promises create a trust relationship and a duty of protection toward the Native Americans. This relationship is marked by peculiar and cardinal distinc- tions which exist nowhere else in government and resembles that of a ward to his guardian. 24 The: central tenet of this unique relationship is one of ! trust: the Native Americans trust the United States to , , ful~ll the promises which were given in exchange for their land. The federal government's obligation to h090r this trust relationship and to fulfill its treaty conlmitments is know as its trust responsibility (Pevar , 199~:26). This relationship and trust responsibility should be thought of not only in the terms of a moral an~ legal duty, but also as a partnership agreement to ins+e that Native American tribes have available to theft the tools and resources to survive as distinct political and cultural groups (Pevar 1992:31). Yet, the , United States government has been notoriously unf~ithful in observing its commitments to Native Am~rican tribes (Pevar 1992:32). , , Fedbrallndian trust law, as expressed by both Congress I ane! the courts, calls for federal protection, not domi- natJon of Native American tribal lands or affairs. The profection of tribal lands) natural resources) and rights) an~ the fulfillment of the trust responsibility, is also I fur\hered by the rule that treaties and statutes affecting Na1ve American interests are to be liberally construed in frvor of the Native Americans. For example, any Fe~eral activity off reservation lands that would dimin- ish pn-reservation water supplies or pollute reservation property have been determined to violate this trust d09trine (Pevar 1992:30). The Court has, however, only rar~ly said what consequences follow from the govern- meft's failure to fulfill its trust obligations. I Th~ Federal government's trust responsibility to Native Anjericans is not limited in application to only the Del' artment of the Interior. The Ninth Circuit upheld the application of the trust responsibility to the United Sta es Navy, Pvramid Lake Paiute Tribe v. U.S. Dept. of ~898 F.2d 1410, 1420 (9th Cir. 1990) stating that it ap~lies to "any federal government action)) and has also