the JoLt fRoM BoLdt 129
“Congress has full authority over relationships with Indian tribes, and
Congress has abolished reservations and created new reservations. I
think it’s very divisive as far as society is concerned to have these rights
that really depend on race, even with or without the treaties. For the federal
government as trustee and the Indian tribes and other tribal authorities,
that’s a fundamental difference. As long as they can portray themselves
as discriminated-against minorities they’re going to create a tremendous
amount of sympathy. I think that it has actually been hurtful to Indians
because they have not had the same motive to integrate and to get an edu-
cation and to go to be a part of the wider world that every other minority
has. Vietnamese refugees who have been here for only 40 years are higher
in economic status than most Indians. Indians isolate themselves because
that brings some immediate benefits. But if you’re an Indian living on an
Indian reservation you don’t own your home. It’s trust property. It’s built
by the federal government, and you don’t have title to it.”^23
Al Ziontz says Gorton still doesn’t get it, but he’s not a bigot—just in-
tellectually stubborn. “I know Slade personally. I’ve gone on a long bike
ride with him and his wife. He’s a very principled guy. He’s not a racist.
But his principles don’t include a society in which Indians have a separate
existence.^24
Atoeyst Rn foR the tRiBes exulted in 1973 when the Supreme Court af-
firmed tribal immunity from state taxes.^25 The arguments of the Attor-
ney General’s Office in a 1975 hunting rights case—with assistant AG
Larry Coniff at bat—also were rejected.^26 But to the Indians’ chagrin,
Gorton’s persistent genius as a litigator was italicized in one of the last
cases he argued before the high court. While the state was still barred
from directly taxing Indian merchants, the court ruled in 1980 that it
could tax non-Indians purchasing cigarettes on the reservation.^27
The outcome of Oliphant v. Suquamish Indian Tribe in 1978 was also “a
severe blow to tribal authority” nationwide.^ In a 6–2 decision, the U.S.
Supreme Court backed Gorton’s assertion that the tribes had no criminal
jurisdiction over non-Indians.^28
Unresolved issues spawned by the 1974 Boldt Decision, including the
scope of the state’s obligation to protect fish habitat and other environ-
mental concerns—“Boldt II”—made their way through the courts for de-
cades and were still percolating well into the 21st Century. In 2007, the
U.S. District Court in Seattle ruled that the Stevens treaties imposed a
duty on the state to fix thousands of highway culverts—from Neah Bay to
Walla Walla—that hinder fish passage.^29