June 29, 1973 Shelton said he had found 250 Navajos living within the boundaries of the proposed area, but no white settlers, except three traders, that the Indians had lived there many years, using the range for grazing their stock, and "although it is very poor grazing land, it would be cruel not to protect their rights and permit them to remain there unmolested." He found no evidence of Indian depredations, only strong exchanges of words between an Indian sheep grazer and a white grazer about sheep. He stated "if whites would stay away and leave the Indians alone there would be no complaints." The President by Executive Order of March 19, 1905, approved the extension as described by Antes, an area bounded on the north by a line extending from the mouth of the Montezuma Creek eastward to the Colorado state line (Nav. Ex. 399). Because of difficulties involved in surveying the boundary of the extension of the reservation as described in that order, a new executive order modifying the description was recommended to conform to survey lines (Nav. Exs. 415, 416), and approved as Executive Order No. 324A of May 15, 1905. 2 NAVAJO TRIBAL CODE 342 (1970). Protests against the 1905 Executive Order addition to the Navajo reservation were made by the Commissioners of San Juan County, Utah (Nav. Ex. 420), and the two senators from Utah, George Sutherland and Reed Smoot (Nav. Ex. 421). One of the concerns of the Utah people was that further reservations in Utah would be created and Indians from Colorado and Arizona would be moved in as had happened years previously when a large number of White River Utes were taken out of Colorado and brought into Utah in the Uncompahgre Reservation in Uintah County. The Acting Commissioner responded by saying: The office is not aware that any steps have been taken looking to the withdrawal from sale and settlement and setting apart for Indian purposes, any other small reserves or reservations of any kind *** Should application be made for such purpose upon the part of the Indians or those interested in their welfare, the matter would receive thorough investigation and very careful consideration before presenting the subject to the Department. It may be added that there is no information now before the office to justify the setting aside of other reserves for Indian purposes in San Juan County, Utah, and that the Office has no present intention of recommending such action (Nav. Ex. 426). This statement belies any contention that the manifested governmental policy at that time envisaged any withdrawal or governmental appropriation of public lands for Navajos in Utah outside the reservation limits as extended by the 1884 and 1905 Executive Orders. Instead, the necessity for individual Indians to make settlements in accordance with the laws is manifested in a report by Shelton during that same year (Nav. Ex. 423).14 14 14 Shelton visited Aneth and Bluff following charges made by Harriet Peabody and her friend J. M. Holly, (whom she was trying to get employed as an additional farmer for the Indian Agency at Aneth), that Mormons He described two Indian settlements, one by a Navajo Tom, and Jim Joe's camp, 10 miles below Bluff, as follows: There is not more than 50 acres in either of these tracts and they are practically cultivated in comomn by the Indians. The farms at both of these camps are mixed up, the Indians farming patches here and there without regard to lines, and it will take some time with a good interpreter to get them to understand that they should each choose a certain amount of land and locate on it permanently in order that it may be legally held by them. Each of the Indians who have farms, with improvements, at these camps should be taken care of when these locations are made, but it will be a difficult matter and will take considerable time to get them to understand the importance and necessity of having their lands laid out to conform to the section lines or in a more regular manner. I have requested the Surveyor General and the Register of the U.S. Land Office not to permit any white settlers to locate on any of these lands; and will take steps as early as possible to locate the Indians permanently upon the lands. In addition to giving notice to the Land Office of Indian settlements, notices were also given to Indians who made settlements outside the reservation, warning others not to interfere with their rights.15 from Bluff were removing Indian fences and house logs and blocking their roads (Nav. Exs. 408, 411). After investigating the charges, Shelton reported July 25, 1905, that there had been no such trouble, that the Indians said they had no trouble about roads or fencing, and that they had sold some poles and old logs to the people at Bluff (Nav. Ex. 423). 15 See, e.g., Nav. Ex. 427 of that same year. Similar notices had been issued earlier to protect Navajos outside the reservation in other areas who had settled and made improvements deemed in compliance with the homestead laws, e.g., Nav. Exs. 301, 304-306, in 1894, and Nav. Exs. 174, and 181 in 1883. The understanding that the extension of the reservation by the executive order would not affect prior rights and also the fact that there had been exploratory mining activities along the San Juan River is reflected by a report by Shelton in that year (Nav. Ex. 419).16 Proposals for schools for the Navajo children in Utah gave two locations: one at Bluff where the citizens offered to sell the town improvements to the Agency (Nav. Ex. 430), and at Aneth, where Antes maintained his small school. In 1905 Superintendent Shelton had recommended the establishment of a boarding school at Aneth, saying that there were "something near a thousand Indians living in the section contiguous to this point," that those Indians were more ignorant and less progressive than those on other parts of the reservation (Nav. Ex. 407). No action was then taken. 16 On June 13, 1905, Shelton reported to the Commissioner that there were 113 placer mining claims within the new addition to the reservation which he would investigate (Nav. Ex. 419). On July 24, 1905, he reported that the mining claims were located in 1904, except for two groups of claims of 160 acres each on March 9th and 10th, 1905. He recommended that if the claimants had filed on the property in accordance with the laws they be permitted to work their claims as they were not located on the lands occupied and used by the Indians. He believed the mining claimants would soon give up, as "numerous attempts" had been made to extract flaked and flour gold from the sand and gravel in the river. He also believed the claimants were interested in obtaining eastern capital and then selling the claims, but felt that if they were required to do their assessment work and to comply strictly with the mining laws, they would not be on the reservation longer than one year. June 29, 1973 In 1907 Antes closed his mission school (Nav. Ex. 433) and requested the Government to protect his property from the erosion by the river (Nav. Ex. 434). Of course, at this time, the area was within the 1905 Executive Order reservation. On February 13, 1907, Shelton described the Aneth area at the mouth of McElmo Creek as 500 acres of river bottom land on which 30 families of Indians lived year round with permanent homes and improvements and 200 acres cultivated. He requested $1,000 for riprapping to prevent river erosion (Nav. Ex. 436). However, on April 16, 1907, Shelton recommended against the preventive work as the river had already carried away much of the land and property, only one Indian would be affected and it was cheaper to move him than to take protective action against the river (Nav. Ex. 441). On June 10, 1907, Shelton reported only one family remained at Aneth, the rest were all scattered (Nav. Ex. 495). Sometime prior to 1916 a government school was built at Aneth, but at least as of June 20, 1918, the school was not being used and an inspector recommended against its use, suggesting it would be better to transport the pupils to the San Juan school (Nav. Ex. 554).17 17 A report of a special agent's inspection of the reservation in 1916 indicated that a school had been built at Aneth, apparently to get rid of Antes by buying his old house. The agent criticized the location because of the proximity to the river and its location on the "most barren, desolate and desert looking spot one could find anywhere, ** far away from the world." He stated that the Indians were anxious to have the school open 508-212-73-12 In 1907 more complaints were made concerning Indians off the reservation. In response to a letter complaining that the Utes and Navajos were monopolizing the stock range on Montezuma Creek, Shelton stated it had been impossible for him to handle the Indians. properly in that section, being located so far away, and he was not in a position to say just "what rights the Indians have off the reservation, or that whites have any more rights than Indians, as he had never been advised" (Nav. Ex. 497). On July 9, 1907, the supervisor of the then Monticello National Forest, which is north of the 1933 extension area, complained of about 50 and were in favor of educating their children, "although they are the poorest, most backward and most neglected Indians on the Reservation" (Nav. Ex. 551). Antes by that time was considered a troublemaker. As early as 1899 Antes' reputation was questioned (Nav. Ex. 363). Later Shelton reported he was not to be believed and that he made money presumably from donations to his mission for very little appeared to have been expended on the Indians (Nav. Ex. 472). In 1907 Antes had made charges against employees of the Indian Office, from the Commissioner to the Superintendent, his wife, the farmer at Aneth, and military personnel and Mrs. Peabody. After an investigation he retracted these charges. Col. Scott of the Army investigated the charges. He found that Antes had a bad reputation, was a troublemaker and had caused some of the unrest among the Navajos at that time. (Nav. Ex. 474.) Antes' reputation apparently was also not favorable among some of the Indians. In statements many indicated they had never heard of him bringing or sending any provisions to the settlement for the Indians, he had not treated the children at his school well, and had lied concerning conditions of the Indians in that area (Nav. Ex. 442a and Encs.). Antes left the reservation after retracting his charges, but later returned. In 1911, the Superintendent reported Antes was trading with the Indians without authorization, getting their sheep and then grazing them within the reservation without a permit (Nav. Exs. 538a, 543). "renegade" Utes and Navajos committing depredations (Nav. Ex. 499). Many of the archival materials from 1907-1909 concern incidents involving a band of Navajos led by Bai'alilii (By-a-lil-le), and Polly, their arrest on the reservation by military forces about four miles from Aneth south of the river, their imprisonment, and subsequent release (Nav. Exs. 442, 445, 446, 474, 489, 514-518). As reflected from these documents this group and their leaders were considered by Government officials to be the major source of trouble between the Navajos and the non-Indians and among other Navajos.18 In one of the reports of the military expeditions into San Juan County, Utah, following these difficulties, on August 12, 1908, military personnel stated that the merchant at Bluff had traded with about 950 adult Navajos and 65 Utes at his store the past year (Nav. Ex. 478). 18 war is By-a-lil-le was reported to be a medicine man and many of the Indians considered him to be a witch and were afraid of him (Nav. Ex. 474, Tr. 419). The Superintendent reported By-a-lil-le tried to influence other Indians against sending their children to school, against restrictions on selling their sheep, and against changes in Navajo marriage customs (primarily to do away with polygamy) (Nav. Ex. 437, see also Tr. 580). Col. Scott reported that the capture of By-a-lil-le was well handled and was ranted as he had made threats to kill the superintendent and farmer, had terrorized neighboring Indians, "had interfered with the peace, order and progress of the community," and he and his followers were well armed. "If therefore the Government desired to maintain its supremacy and give protection to the white settlers in Utah, Colorado and New Mexico, as well as to the law abiding and progressive Indians, the arrest of By-a-lil-le and his supporters was imperative" (Nav. Ex. 474). He reported the Utes lived in the vicinity and caused trouble, but the Navajos were well-behaved and did not. One-half of the Navajos had houses within a radius of 60 miles from Bluff, but the remainder roamed from place to place having no "permanent section." This could include an area within and without the reservation then established. In 1910, in addition to minor complaints such as an Indian having a non-Indian's pony (Nav. Ex. 529), while non-Indians took an Indian's cow (Nav. Ex. 526), the Utah Fish and Game Commission complained that Navajos and Utes were violating the State's laws, especially by killing deer in large numbers by driving them over ledges (Nav. Ex. 530). The Commissioner advised local agency authorities to warn the Indians against violating the State's game laws and to tell them they were liable to arrest if they did so. Id. Superintendent Shelton promised to cooperate with the State authorities and to continue to warn Indians not to violate the State laws. He gave some Indians permits to hunt outside the reservation, however (Nav. Ex. 531). During the next decade, the archival material sheds little light on Navajo occupancy in this area, except for a report by the Navajo Superintendent on November 15, 1917 (Nav. Ex. 553), that a number of Indians were living outside the reservation in Utah, at least four of whom had made considerable improvements and had constructed irrigation work of some value, but June 29, 1973 white settlers were beginning to crowd them out (Nav. Ex. 553). He suggested they file Indian homesteads on their improved lands. There is no indication as to just where those Indians were located.19 Between 1914 and 1923, the most serious trouble between Indians and non-Indians in San Juan County, Utah, appears to have been with a group of "renegade" Utes and Paiutes led by Polk and Posey (Nav. Exs. 552, 556, 560, 562). This group in the past had continually refused to go to the Ute reservation. A proposed solution was to give them allotments. In 1923 a special allotting agent recommended allotments for the Posey Band in Allen Canyon (which he identified as meaning the creek named Allen Canyon, Hammond Canyon, and Cottonwood Creek) (Nav. Ex. 562). These are north and west of the area in question here. About 125 to 150 Utes in the Polk band claimed Montezuma Creek as their home. He stated they had nothing in the nature of improvements, some had raised corn on Montezuma Creek in the past, but they had gone away and the land had been filed on by non-Indians, some had sold what they called their homes to white men, but at present they had nothing, and he did not think a contest could be successful against white men filed on land occupied by the Indians. 19 In 1911 the Superintendent of the Ute Navajo Springs Agency complained to the Commissioner that Navajos were grazing on the diminished Ute reservation, which adjoins this area to the east (Nav. Ex. 536). Of most interest here, he indicated that from the Rentz's store in T. 39 S., R. 24 E., south to the mouth of Montezuma Creek the land was occupied by Navajos who lived there all the time and made good use of the land. Id. He made no recommendations for the Polk band as the land in Montezuma Creek north of the store for seven miles was homesteaded. Pressure for land in the area was increasing by 1921 for the Farmer at McElmo reported that white stockmen were encroaching upon the reservation (Nav. Ex. 559). He stated that the oldtime stockmen had been very reasonable and had a tendency to observe the range rights of others, but because the open range was being taken by settlers, the sheep and cattlemen were engaged in a scramble for what range was left. He stated the new and younger elements had decided to defy them claiming they could not be forbidden from herding their stock on the reservation because there was no fence separating the reservation land. The Superintendent advised the Farmer of statutory authority to remove non-Indians from the reservation and to prevent them from trespassing upon it. Id. Much of the archival material in the late 20's and early 1930's pertains to meetings, letters, and reports which led up to the 1933 Act extending the boundaries of the Navajo reservation. |