Although I am an American citizen and a citizen of Alaska,
and I accept the responsibilities given to me as a legislator in the Alaska House
of Representatives, I speak now as an Eskimo, as an Alaska Native, within the
framework of our controversy with the State of Alaska and the United States of
America. My purpose in this paper is to inform you of the present controversy
in Alaska relating to the claims of the Eskimo, Indian and Aleut people to land
that we have occupied for centuries.
Although we recognize the fact that there is presently little
that we can do to secure totally all of the land we occupied in pre-Russian and
American times, we do not believe that the simple planting of a flag on our soil
secures that land for any country at no cost to it. We are now seeking to secure
a settlement with the United States, through the Congress, of our land rights.
We recognize that when European nations secured colonies in
parts of the world already inhabited by indigenous peoples, there never was gentle
treatment of the aborigines. The European vanguards came to exploit the new land,
and to civilize its peoples.
The Alaskan experience was no different. When Alaska was first
sighted in 1741, the Native population numbered about 74,700. Thirteen years
after Alaska was sold by the Russians, the population was decimated to 33,000.
The Eskimo population went from about 54,000 to about 18,000, in just 150 years.
Although this Congress is considering the future of Eskimo
societies in relation to Arctic development, I will speak of the "Native" people
of Alaska, Indians and Aleuts, as well as Eskimos, since we are all subject to
the effects of the many changes brought to our ancient lands through industrialization
an technological advances. Furthermore, if the Eskimos are to be successful in
trying to influence public policy in Alaska and in the United States Congress,
it is necessary that we Eskimos work with the Indians and Aleuts, which, in fact,
we are doing, as will be described later.
Most of the world is now aware of the fact that vast
deposits of oil have been found on the Arctic Slope of Alaska. It may be less
well known that there is presently a great controversy as to whom that land and
other lands actually belong. Since Alaska is the homeland of 55,000 Eskimo, Indian,
and Aleut people; and since the land has never been specifically taken from by
act of the United States Congress, or in battle, or by abandonment; we declare,
indeed, proclaim, that by reason of historic use and occupancy, this is our land.
In order to see our problem in accurate perspective, one must
know the historical approach of the United States in dealing with the Indians
of the main body of what is now the United States, what necessitated the encroachment
of Indian territory, how the acquisitions took place, what the Indians received,
and why it is that our present situation is so different in approach and in substance.
The American Indian;Theory of Indian Title
The American colonists came in search of a new life. They
were not numerous and had to depend, to some extent, on the good will of the
American Indian. Following the separation of the colonies from England, the new
government had to deal with the Indian tribes as separate nations. They sign,
ed treaties with them and negotiated with them as equals. However, the number
of Americans increased greatly and the pressures of settlement created greater
demand for lands held by the Indians. Consequently, the Indians resisted American
efforts at gaining more land, since they did not care to be pushed further west,
and the period of the Indian Wars took place. Being numerically inferior and
having less firepower, the Indians were defeated and had to cede large areas
of land to the United States. Usually a small area was left to each tribe for
its use and held in trust for them by the federal government.
Today, the Indians of the mainland hold only 50 million acres
of land and it is the poorest land in the nation. The Indians, however, have
been allowed access to the courts to sue the federal government for compensation
of the land they lost, whether in battle or by act of Congress. In court the
Indians have had to prove that they had "Indian Title" to the land, that is,
that they used and occupied the entire area claimed. They have had to prove that
this land was taken from them at a particular time. Once proved, compensation
was paid to them for the taking, with compensation based upon the value of the
land at the time of taking. The United States set up the Indian Claims Commission
for the sole purpose of trying to pay money for depriving the Indian of his lands.
To date, about 251 million dollars has been paid to the Indian tribes.' The litigation
usually takes many years and pits the Indian against the federal government.
The compensation for millions of acres of land is usually a small sum, when compared
with the true value of the land.
It should be noted that the United States Constitution reserves
to the federal government the responsibilities of dealing with the Indian tribes
and the United States through executive order.
Tribe after tribe succumbed to the power of the United States.
The Indian could not protect his land. How did the Eskimo fare? What about the
Aleut and Indian in Alaska?
The Arrival of the Russians;Treatment of the Natives
The Russians first sighted the Alaskan land mass in 1741.
At the time of their arrival, it is estimated that there were about 74,000 Alaskan
Natives. Russia wanted the sea otter, the fur seal and other resources of our
lands. There was little penetration into the populous portions of the giant territory.
Ports were established and trade ensued. The Aleuts were subjugated and made
to gather food and work for the Russians. The Russians were under orders not
to move into new territories among the Eskimo and Indian without consent. In
practice, this was generally ignored. Nevertheless, the Russians exploited Alaska
from 1741 to 1867, and by the time of the transfer to the United States there
were about 35,000 Native people in the territory.
The Treaty of Cession; 1867
Without consultation with the Eskimo, Indian and Aleut people,
the Russian government, for 7.2 million dollars, sold Alaska to the United States.
Russia was in a war in the Crimea, and was in danger of losing
Alaska to other countries. The treaty of Cession did not provide for the citizenship
of the Native people as it did for the white inhabitants. Section 3 of the Treaty
stated that, "the uncivilized Native tribes will be subject to such laws and
regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal
tribes of that country.",
There was no confirmation of title to lands used and occupied
by the Native people. Among some Natives there was discontent, but as the historian
Bancroft put it:
"The discontent arose, not from any antagonism to the Americans but from the
fact that the territory had been sold without their consent, and that they had
received none of the proceeds of the sale. The Russians, they agreed, had been
allowed to occupy the territory mostly for mutual benefit, but their forefathers
had dwelt in Alaska long before any white man had set foot in America. Why had
not the 7 1/2 million dollars been paid to them instead of the Russians?"
There was not then, nor has there ever been any agreement
by the Eskimo, Indian and Aleut people to the extinguishment of their ownership
of lands in Alaska. At the time of the sale there were about 400 whites in Alaska;
for all practical purpose, Alaska was still Native land, but encumbered by the
law between nations following "discovery" and the transfer of money.
The Organic Act of 1884
The Organic Act of 1884 was passed by the U.S. Congress in response to the
clamor by whites, who needed to receive title to lands upon which they had discovered
gold, and for the purpose of establishing civil government. Military detachments
had governed the territory between 1867 and 1884. This Act is the first specific
policy pronouncement by the United States regarding the land of the Eskimos,
Indians and Aleuts. It provided in strong terms for the protection of Native
land rights:
"Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed in the possession
of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them, but
the terms under which such per, sons may acquire title to such lands is reserved
for future legislation by the U.S. Congress."
Although limited legislation has been enacted to allow for
the acquisition of title by individual Natives or villages, there has not been
specific congressional action to determine completely the extent of Native "use
and occupation" and whether we should be granted title to those areas.
Statehood Act;The Built in Conflict
1959, Alaska's total population had grown to about 200,000
persons, including about 43,000 Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts. The Alaskan population
sought and received Statehood. The Constitution of the newly admitted State of
Alaska provided protection to the Native people by stating that:
"The State and its people further disclaim all right or title in or to any
property, including fishing rights, the right or title to which may be held by
or for any Indian, Eskimo or Aleut, or co-unity thereof, as that right is defined
in the Act of Admssion."
There was hope that the Act of Admission to Statehood would
dispose of the Native land issue, but it did not:
"As a compact with the United States, said State and its people do agree and
declare that they forever disclaim all right title . . . to any lands or other
property (including fishing rights), the right or title to which may be held
by any In, dians, Eskimos or Aleuts or is held by the United States in trust
for said Natives; that all such lands or other property, belonging to the United
States or which may belong to said Natives, shall 'be and remain under the absolute
jurisdiction and control of the United States until disposed of under its authority. "
The new state allowed the Congress to retain jurisdiction
over the disposition of the Native Land rights issue. But a potential conflict
was created when the Congress authorized the new state to select 130 million
acres from the land mass of Alaska, land that was being used and occupied by
Native people. How could the new state, on one hand, disclaim all right or title
to our land and at the same time be allowed to select it under another provision
of the Statehood Act?
This issue is being tested in the courts and it is the Native
position that the Native title has not been specifically extinguished and the
State must await congressional action to determine further the allocation of
lands between the State and the Native people.
The Eskimo, Indian and Aleut populations we, adversely affected
first by the Russians, who came in search of valuable furs, then by the whalers
and fishermen from ports around the world, and beginning in the 1890's, for several
decades, by fortune seekers during the great gold rush. Because of the vast influx
of foreigners, the Native people suffered disease and later, starvation due to
the taking of much game and fish that the villagers utilized.
Furthermore, the Native people were not citizens. They could
not hold land or stake mining claims. Consequently, the Native people were pushed
off valuable lands that they used and lived on, because they did not hold deeds
or other written recognized evidence of ownership.
To this day, so little attention has been paid by government
officials to the need for formal ownership of land by the Native people, that
only a tiny fraction of the privately held land in Alaska is owned by the first
inhabitants; of the State's 375 million acres, Alaska Natives possess fee title
to only 500 acres.' As a result, in part, of the inability of the Native to hold
title to land, or to acquire title, economic development has taken place, but
little benefit has accrued to the Eskimo and Indian people. This has been true
of the gold rush period, the period of copper, tin and other minerals, and it
will be true of the oil era, unless a change is brought about through federal
legislation. It is just such action that the Alaska Federation of Natives is
seeking to promote, and is the major reason for its creation.
The Alaska Federation of Natives
As the State of Alaska began to make its firtst selections
of land under the State, hood Act, it was plain that these selections were be,
ing made in areas used and occupied by us, the Native people. As a consequence,
village councils began to protest the State selections and appealed to the Secretary
of Interior (who is manager of America's public lands, and "guardian" of the
Native people) to stop the granting of Native-claimed lands to the State.
Regional organizations of Native villages sprung up and, in
a unified manner, claimed whole regions which were used and occupied by the village
people. This process continued and virtually the entire state was blanketed by
Native claims. The Secretary of the Interior was initially at a loss as to what
should be done in view of the unclear legal directions provided in the Act of
Admission to statehood and his role as " guardian" of the Native people. At this
point in time, the Alaska Federation of Natives was organized.
The Alaska Federation of Natives emerged as a moving force
in 1966 because of the threat to Native lands. Initially the Federation consisted
of 19 regional and village groups. It presently is a vehicle through which the
various regional groups are pushing for a settlement.
The creation of the Federation changed the political face
of Alaska. Eskimos, Indians and Aleuts comprise about 30 percent of the voting
public in Alaska. The year 1966 marked a turning point for the Native people,
in that this was the first time in history we had a unified effort to promote
an equitable land settlement, and organized to change public policy that was
adverse to us.
The Federation was seen by the political leaders of the State
as a vehicle with which they could work to become elected. In fact, 1966 was
the year the present Secretary of the Interior was elected Governor of Alaska,
in part, by appealing to the Native vote.
The Federation now has programs in economic development planning,
on-the-job training, health care and village leadership training.
The Land Freeze
The Federation immediately began to work for a halt to disposition
of land to the State, until the U.S. Congress could make a determination regarding
Native rights to the land. Of course, the State continued to seek to secure land
for sale and development. Secretary Udall ordered the Bureau of Land Management,
an agency in the Department of the Interior, to cease processing of application.
for patent in lands that were being claimed by Eskimo, Indian and Aleut people.
This came to be known as the "land freeze." This administrative order was later
formalized by Secretary Udall, by withdrawal of all Alaskan land. from disposal
to the State, or to any others, until the U.S. Congress has an opportunity to
act on the matter. But the "freeze" will be lifted at the end of 1970, if no
action is taken.
The importance of the "land freeze" to the Native people is
that it prevents anyone, including the State, from taking lands that may be granted
to villages in a congressional settlement. Furthermore, the pressure for a settlement
continues on all parties so long as the status quo on land disposition remains.
The Native people, the State, the Interior Department, and the Committees of
Congress are all actively working toward a settlement.
Were it not for the "freeze," the State would go its merry
way selecting Native-claimed lands, and would not lift a finger to help us obtain
justice, unless some enlightened administration saw a value in doing so.
The Major Proposals Before the U.S. Congress
Three legislative proposals are now pending before the United
States Congress. Before this year ends, it is likely that in one house of the
Congress, the Senate, the committee considering the land claims will have completed
its work, and a bill will have begun its way to becoming law.
The first proposal, and the one to which the Alaska Federation
of Natives and the Department of the Interior have proposed amendments, is based
upon elements of a legislative settlement suggested by the Federal Field Committee,
a small federal research organization in Alaska. This bill includes conveyance
of one township of land (23,040 acres) to each of 209 listed Native villages,
payment of 100 million dollars from funds appropriated by the Congress in a lump
sum, and payment of a ten percent share of the revenues derived from federal
lands within Alaska, and outer continental shelf lands off the shore of Alaska,
for a period often years. (It is important here to understand that the State
of Alaska now shares in 90 percent of the revenues from on, shore federal lands
in Alaska.) AR mineral rights under the village townships are to be given to,
and administered by, a statewide Native corporation, which is also charged with
the management and disbursement of appropriated funds and shared revenues. During
its first ten years the corporation, whose stockholders are to be all Alaska
Natives, is to be rather closely controlled. At the end of that time, it is to
become an ordinary business corporation with its shares of stock freely bought
and sold.
Very important to the content and form of any legislative
proposal is the viewpoint of the executive branch of the national government.
This viewpoint is expressed in an amendment submitted by the Secretary
of the Interior, Walter J. Hickel. This provides for conveyance of one township
of land to each of 13 named villages, now located in a National Forest, and two
townships (46,080 acres) of land to each of an additional 192 villages. Locatable
minerals, that is, gold, silver, lead, zinc, etc., are also conveyed with the
surface title to the land, but leaseable minerals, that is, oil, gas and sulfur,
are retained by the national government. As compensation for Native land use
rights extinguished in the past, and by this settlement, a total sum of 500 million
dollars is to be appropriated by the Congress in twenty equal annual sums. The
closely controlled, statewide, Native owned corporation to administer funds is
adopted in this proposal, but the period of its control is extended to twenty
years.
The proposal prepared by the Alaska Federation of Natives
provides for either four townships (92,160 acres) or 500 acres of land per person,
whichever is greater, for each of 242 listed villages as well as four sections
(640 acres each) in each township in the state to the appropriate regional Native
corporation. These conveyances include all mineral rights. As compensation, 500
million dollars is to be granted by the Congress, payable 100 million dollars
the first year, and 50 million dollars each of the eight years following. Because
much of the land of Alaska is stiff occupied and used by Alaska Natives, as their
ancestors used the land, it is also proposed that two percent of the proceeds
from the lease or sale of federal lands in Alaska be paid to Alaska Natives,
for the extinguishment of this present right of use and occupancy. It is this
part of our proposal, and its extension to the lands, which the State of Alaska
is entitled to chose under the terms of the Act admitting Alaska to the United
States as a state, which some say is alienating many non-Native Alaskans.
There are other obvious differences of degree in the three
proposals: between five million acres and 40 million acres; between 500 million
dollars and 500 million dollars plus a two percent royalty in perpetuity; between
ten and twenty years of governmental supervision. But, from one of these proposals,
or from part. of all of them, it is anticipated there will emerge the terms of
settlement of a century-old claim.
The Consequences of a Poor Settlement or No Settlement
The Native people of Alaska have had to be realists in dealing
with the state and federal officials concerning the land issue. In terms of the
legal theory relating to Indian Title, we know that we still retain the land,
but only Congress can confirm, or extinguish, our ownership.
Our initial reaction in 1966 was to ask for confirmation to
all lands we use and occupy today. But we knew this was impossible under the
political circumstances. Our position has been to go for what we feel is within
reason, but not to buckle when pressure is brought to bear before we reach Capitol
Hill.
Great pressure can be exerted to try to force us into going
through the courts, which is a costly and lengthy route to go, and would result
in no land grants and small money amounts. But, we feel that a Congressional
settlement is within reach, and are putting our efforts in that direction.
The Senate and House Interior and Insular Af, fairs Committees
have both been to Alaska for hearings, and we have traveled to Washington (as
did the Indians a century ago) to present our case.
We are testing the American political system. We have found
it responsive up to this time, and have hope. We know the history of our country
in dealing with the American Indian, and want to see a final chapter not written
in blood, or in deception, or in injustice. We are not umerous, and recognize
the pitfalls in securing this unprecedented kind of legislation.
We are seeking an alternative to wardship. We seek to offer
alternatives to Eskimo and Indian people, rather than a one-way ticket into the
confused mainstream. We feet our people cannot convert to a cash economy overnight,
and will continue to fish and hunt for many years. On the other hand, we see
that the young Natives seek education and new places. These should be available
. We want to be able to live longer and more decently, without having to stoop
in indignity because of a degrading welfare system. We feel this is possible,
if we can secure the kind of land settlement we are proposing.
If there is no settlement, or a poor one, we will have a generation
of leaders, who fought for years to protect their land and lost. This may start
a chain of events, in which it is seen by future generations of Natives as a
disaster for us, an injustice that will mar the relations between Natives and
whites for may years. It may bring defeatism to the people, and will prevent
us from becoming an integral part of Alaska's social and economic development.
Our present political influence will diminish and the efforts to develop our
communities will falter. Such would be the consequences of a poor settlement
or no settlement. Not only that, but America will have lost an opportunity to
right old wrongs and for once, allow the first Americans a fair deal.
William Hensley is an Inupiaq from the NANA Region. He was
instrumental in focusing attention on the issue of Alaska Native land claims.
He was also a key figure in organizing the Alaska Federation of Natives, the
first statewide Native organization. He and other Alaska Natives within AFN fought
for the settlement of land claims, which resulted in the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act.
Today, William Hensley is a former Chairman of the Board for
United Bank of Alaska and is a past President of NANA Regional Corporation and
member of the Alaska Legislature. He continues to play an active role concerning
state and Alaska Native issues.
Reprinted courtesy of the Department of Native Studies,
the University of Alaska, Fairbanks.
- Annual Report of 1968, Indian Claims Commission 1968, p. 12.
- Alaska's Population & Economy Statistical Handbook, , Vol. II,
1903, p. 7.
- Treaty of Cession, 1867, Section 3.
- The Works of Hubert Howe Bancroft, Vol. XXXII, 1730-1887, San Francisco,
Bancroft Co., p. 609.
- The Organic Act of 1884, May 17, 1884-23 Stat. 24.
- Constitution of Alaska, Art. 12, Sec. 12.
- Alaska Statehood Act, 1959, Sec. 4
- Alaska Natives and the Land, Federal Field Committee for Development Planning
in Alaska, Oct. 1, 1969.
