long as there is a joint use concept, because of their disregard for law and regulations and of their domination through numbers. The boundary line which has been drawn by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior as the partition boundary in H.R. 5647 is acceptable to the Hopi Tribe to the extent that we believe it to be a fair attempt and the only one ever made to give the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Tribe an equal share of all types of land which they now hold jointly. We are aware that there are areas of Navajo population concentration. We believe that the proposed partition boundary puts such areas of Navajo population concentrations in the area designated for the Navajo Tribe. We have no objection to drawing a line which will exclude these Navajo population concentrations from the area designated for the Hopis so long as the division is equitable as to land area, quality of land, one that is adequately defensible and that will necessitate the relocation of the least number of people. There can be no more compromise of the human rights and dignity of a small and politically insignificant people, that the Hopis are, in order to satisfy the territorial ambitions of the powerful Navajo tribe. There is only one solution to this problem. That solution is the partitioning of Hopi land interests from the Navajo. We come here seeking only that just solution, so that our people will have the right as other free men to determine destiny and live their own way of life. We call upon the Congress to do that which we all know is right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. MEEDS. Thank you, sir. Without objection, your full statement will be made a part of the record. I think you read it almost in its entirety. [The material referred to follows:] STATEMENT OF ABBOTT SEKAQUAPTEWA, CHAIRMAN OF THE HOPI NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE My name is Abbott Sekaquaptewa. I am the Chairman of the Hopi Negotiating Committee that was appointed by the Hopi Tribe in 1963 to negotiate with the Navajo Negotiating Committee in an effort to resolve the land dispute between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes. I am also a former chairman of the Hopi Tribal Council. I reside in Oraibi, Arizona, on the Hopi Reservation. The transcript of the hearing before this Subcommittee last year graphically illustrates the lingering history of Navajo-Hopi conflicts from their very first encounter little over 100 years ago to the present day. You are aware, and I am sure you appreciate, that this has been a continuing problem which existed long before the Hopi Reservation was created in 1882 for the express purpose of protecting Hopi lands from marauding Navajo tribesmen, which has always been a time of trial and tribulation for my people. Particularly during my own lifetime, the relentless Navajo dominance and forcible occupation of Hopi land has become a creature of the night, a living nightmare. I need not remind this Committee of the constant protestations and objections of the Hopi people for over 100 years to the onslaught of Navajo trespasses and other excesses in the destruction of life and property that have been a way of life with them since their arrival on this land. Recognizing the continuing nature of this problem, Congress in 1958 enacted legislation intended to solve the land use problems between the Hopi and the Navajo Tribes once and for all. A special. federal Three Judge Court was empowered to determine the rights, title and interests of the Navajo and Hopi Tribes to the 1882 Hopi Executive Order Reservation. The decision in this case, commonly known as Healing v. Jones, was handed down by the Three Judge Court in 1962. Both Tribes appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of the United States and the District Court decision was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1963. We do not propose here to discuss a redetermination of the issues already settled by that Court in Healing v. Jones. We believe Congress meant that that Court decision should be final, and it is wrong for the Navajo Tribe to attempt to reopen the case time and again just because they are the biggest and most powerful tribe in the Country and are therefore entitled to more than their fair share, in spite of the decision of the highest court in the land. One hundred years of federal oversight of Navajo excesses has led that tribe to believe that they can ignore the decrees of the courts with impunity and dictate their will to the Congress and the Government. The Navajo Tribe has systematically by use of force, threat, coercion, and intimidation excluded the Hopi people from the lands secured to them by the Federal Court in Healing v. Jones. We cannot understand how this state of affairs can be condoned by the federal government in the face of court orders to the contrary. Violence and destruction are common today as they have been historically in this conflict. It is not beyond imagination that open warfare will once again become the order of the day. Hopi people are peaceful by nature, but our patience is not inexhaustible. Because of our long history of non-aggression we are penalized and forced to endure conditions under the heel of the mighty Navajo Tribe which could be avoided if Congress would promptly take action. No other people on the face of this land have been required to negotiate for the implementation of a decree handed down by the federal courts. It seems to us that the Navajos are not subject to the same laws as the rest of the people in this Country and can move at will in open defiance of Federal Court decrees. Negotiations following the decision in Healing v. Jones between the Navajo and Hopi Tribes have been unproductive from their inception and have deteriorated to the point where we are embarrassed to receive Navajo proposals which seem to regard us as if we are gullible children ready to believe anything. The nearly ten-year history of those negotiations makes it perfectly clear that there is no prospect of an agreement between the Hopi and Navajo Tribes. The Hopi Tribe wants the use and possession of the land decreed to be theirs by the Court in Healing v. Jones. The Navajo Tribe is not satisfied with Hopi land compromised to them in Healing v. Jones, but it greedily wants the lands owned by the Hopi Tribe. Consider this in light of the fact that the Navajo is the only tribe in the United States to our knowledge that has gained five times more land than they had at the time of signing their treaty with the Government. Most of this has been at the expense of the Hopi Tribe. Throughout the negotiations the Navajo Tribe has persisted in its proven strategy of forceful occupation which will ultimately result in the complete take over of all the lands of the weaker Hopi Tribe. The Navajo proposals have been and always will be to have the federal government buy out the birthright of the Hopi people by giving money to the Hopi Tribe for its land interests whether it be through arbitration, presidential appointment or otherwise. The bills that have been introduced in Congress on behalf of the Navajo or that are sponsored by the Navajo Tribe lead to one inescapable conclusion: that the Navajos will not respect the decision in Healing v. Jones but will continue to use their influence, power and force to overrule the District Court decree and take from us, what little lands the Hopis have left. The only possible solution to such unscrupulous behavior, and one that has been made clear by the history of this conflict, is to partition the land between the two tribes and protect the Hopi Tribe from further tragedy and violation of their human dignity. The essential key to the solution of this problem requires that all Navajo people be relocated from the area designated for the Hopi. The question of relocation is not one open to arbitration or one that needs to be resubmitted to the courts. The law is clear. The Hopis are entitled to one-half and have the right to the use and enjoyment of that one-half free from interference and encroachment by the Navajos. 26-110-74- -3 A great issue is raised about the fact that some Navajos will need to be relocated to other areas. It should be remember that the Navajos are a nomadie people and are not settled in any one particular place. Even today, they are moving about. For a Navajo family to move and change their place of residence is not the tragedy that some would have us believe. It is inconceivable that the Navajo Indians cannot find a place to reside, in light of their 15 million acre reservation, without appropriating more Hopi lands. The question is not whether there is room to build a home; the real question is the surface use of the land for grazing purposes, which the tribes are equally entitled to use in their own way and according to their own desires. We do not want the Navajo to continue to damage our share through overgrazing and misuse as they are doing now, and which they will continue to do as long as there is a joint use concept, because of their domination through numbers. The boundary line which has been drawn by the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of the Interior as the partition boundary in H.R. 5647 is acceptable to the Hopi Tribe to the extent that we believe it to be a fair attempt and the only one ever made to give the Hopi Tribe and the Navajo Tribe an equal share of all types of land which they now hold jointly. We are aware that there are areas of Navajo population concentration. We believe that the proposed partition boundary puts such areas of Navajo population concentrations in the area designated for the Navajo Tribe. We have no objection to drawing a line which will exclude these Navajo population concentrations from the area designated for the Hopis so long as the division is equitable as to land area, quality of land, adequately defensible and that will necessitate the relocation of the least number of people. Mr. MEEDS. Do you mind if I call you Abbott ? Mr. SEKAQUAPTEWA. No, sir. Mr. MEEDS. Do any of the gentlemen accompanying you have a statement to make? Mr. SEKAQUAPTEWA. I would like to have Mr. Hamilton introduce the next witness, Mr. Chairman. That next witness is Mr. John Boyden, general counsel for the Hopi Tribe. Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman? Mr. MEEDS. Pardon me just one moment, sir. [Pause.] We will proceed to hear all of the witnesses for the Hopis, and then ask questions. Please proceed. Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Clarence Hamilton. I'm chairman of the Hopi Tribe. At this point, I would like to introduce the Hopi tribal attorney, Mr. John Boyden. Mr. MEEDS. Mr. Boyden, do you have a prepared statement? Mr. BOYDEN. I do not. Mr. MEEDS. Very well. Please proceed, sir. Mr. BOYDEN. We were instructed that we would have one witness, and that the counsel would be here to argue the case. That was the way that we had prepared it. Mr. MEEDS. Fine. Mr. BOYDEN. I would like first of all for the new members of the committee, without in any way intending to rehash what has been done, just in a few short sentences pose the question the way it is at the present time. I show you here an enlarged page from the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collection, volume 100, page 514. Mr. MEEDS. Would you mind coming forward a little bit. Mr. Boyden, in front of the witness table and bring the map in front also, please? Mr. BOYDEN. This was prepared long before any lawsuit, or any of the matters were before Congress, except maybe in an indirect way. This indicates the Navajo limits at different dates as far as they had reached out. And so in 1600, they were way over here in Mexico [indicating]. By 1700, they moved slightly toward the west but weren't very much larger. By 1800, they had extended their area, extending east of the area we're talking about now, but that's where they were [indicating]. They were all east of Keams Canyon, as you can see, perhaps extending just a little bit into what is now the Executive Order Reservation. By 1870, they were then extending, as indicated here [indicating]. Then by 1939, they had completely surrounded the Hopi Indians. That gives you a rough idea of what the situation has been." This is not what the Hopis are arguing. This is what the Smithsonian Institution has recorded long ago. Mr. MEEDS. Do you have a smaller map of that, sir? Mr. BOYDEN. I do not, but one can certainly be prepared, and we would be glad to leave this one with the committee. Mr. MEEDS. Let us attempt to get one of those. Counsel, would you please see if you could find one. Mr. SIGLER. If they will leave that map, Mr. Chairman, I will have it reduced. Reduction might not be very clear, but we'll do the best we can. Mr. BOYDEN. We'll take that responsibility. Mr. MEEDS. We'll try to get Smithsonian to reduce it. Mr. SIGLER. Yes. [The map referred to follows:] |