◆ SpookStack

Mr. . ay \ 2 Mr. - . ( : Mr. Mohr. Mr. Nease Me, Par ’ Mr. Ros » Mr. Tam Mr. Trotter 2 Mr. W.C.Sutfivan Tele, Room. Mr. Hollomam__ Miss Gandy.__ me Let's Give The | Devil His Due ” EvJot of Arizonans ‘are tossing © The high eourt noted that the Na- Pee Ga sae se Baa BLALE WARE Ee! i non) squishy verbal tomatoes at the U.S. vajo-Hopi rehabilitati ssed Supreme Court for saying a white by congress in 1949 was pul only reservation trader couldn't use state after a provision was dropped which courts to collect a bill from an In- would have given jurisdiction to diah, We think they’re throwing at state courts. Obviously congress did the wrong target. ‘e) not intend the state courts to have Heaven knows the supreme court automatic jurisdiction, else it would has been in hot wa ong mot have deleted the provision. The time, and fully deserves to be there. lawmakers did, however, pass a law The "justices deserve most of the in 1953 saying the states could take aeting thas waceived fo jurisdiction by state legislation or fambasting they have received for state constitutional amendment abitual sing legal precedent : aaa ad h ly tossing legal p whichever might be called for. Ari- he lai i out the window, ignoring the plain zona has never taken such action; pasa of the Constitution and con- therefore, in the opinion of the fed- blithely ahead creating “the law’ €ral supreme court, has not acquired as they individually think it should Jurisdiction. ho be. It is precisely because they did WE WOULD say that the nine — not do any of these things in the Ari- capy men in Washington have estab- smeared for it. we hate to see them [sted an airtight case for the propo- . Jsition that congress has said ‘‘no*’ The question in the Arizona case to automatie jurisdiction of state was whether Hugh Lee of the Ga- was Trading Pest on the Navajo courts over what happens on Indian REC- 75 Indian Reservation could sue and §reservations. That leaves the ques- collect in state courts for goods he [tion: Did congress have the constitu- by 4 Ps eT oa - “ sold to Paul and Lorena Williams, [ional right to say no? Is this nota =, X72 fo SY. 27 J? power which is ‘‘not delegated to the “ . nor prohibi it to the states,’’ ll7 cause no act of congress expressly and which therefore is ‘reserved to Fey 3 959 ~- prohibits state jurisdiction over civil s suits by non-Indians against Indians the states respectively"’? +hi ae involving dealings on a reservation. It would be, except for one thing. = a The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed, Congress acted under the treaty WE ARE NO oing to attempt to Signe y Genera erman — An referee RE Nor Fre EF urts, but one treaties rank equally with the Con- thing seems certain. The U.S. Su- titytion as the supreme law of the preme Court did not overstep ju- *87 oo dicial bounds this time. It stayed If we are right, and the federal! ROBERT BARRY, Managing with precedent and law, instead of supreme court has stayed four- Editor; PHOENIX GAZETTI trying to change them. It noted that square with precedent and the law 1/17/59 - page 6 the United States is still bound by a in this case, then let’s not pick on treaty with the Navelearsigned by the court for not doing that which RE: U SS COURT Gen. William T. Sherman in 1863 we previousiy—hgve criticized it for ve giving the tribal government exclu- doing—making its own law. If the “pects ION. CONCERN IN sive jurisdiction over internal af- law itself needs changing, let’s get SERVICE OF LEGAL fairs and prohibiting all but U.S. it changed by going to congress or PAPERS ON INDIAN | government personnel from entering the legislature. As we have main- (Information) 26VH the reservation. (Lee, the trader, op- tained all along, that is where law ° erated under a federal license.) ought to be made. PX 70-0 op ‘a v SSFEB 5 qosy