Search

Top News

Billions owed Native Americans debated

Previous Next
Previous Page
Share
Print
Email

WASHINGTON -- The Interior Department is doing all it can to account for billions of dollars owed to Native American landholders, a department official told a federal court Wednesday in legal arguments over the Indians' 11-year-old lawsuit against the government.


The suit claims the government has mismanaged more than $100 billion in oil, gas, timber and other royalties held in trust from their lands dating back to 1887.

At a hearing in U.S. District Court, James Cason, associate deputy Interior secretary, defended the government's accounting of the Native American trust lands. The department says it has spent more than $127 million on historical accounting of the trust lands since 2003 and is not delaying or trying to limit government liability, as the plaintiffs suggest.


But Cason said the department has a difficult job when Congress is appropriating limited funds for the accounting.


"There is only so much money we can get out of Congress to do this job," he said. The government contends that the Interior Department has developed a reasonable process for accounting for the money owed and that the lawsuit should not go forward.


But lawyers for the Naitve Americans argued that the department is not properly accounting for the money owed to thousands of trustees.


"Hopefully, your honor, after 120 years some of our clients are going to see justice," said Dennis Gingold, the plaintiffs' lead attorney.


Filed in 1996 by Elouise Cobell of the Blackfeet tribe, the lawsuit deals with individual Indians' lands. Several tribes have sued separately, claiming mismanagement of their lands.


The government proposed paying $7 billion partly to settle the Cobell lawsuit in March, but that was rejected by the plaintiffs, who estimate the government's liability could exceed $100 billion.


Judge James Robertson is presiding in the case after Judge Royce Lamberth was removed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which said he had lost his objectivity.


The government had asked that Lamberth be replaced after the judge lambasted the Interior Department, writing in a decision that it "is a dinosaur -- the morally and culturally oblivious hand-me-down of a disgracefully racist and imperialist government that should have been buried a century ago."

Rapid Reply

Send us your Rapid Reply

(optional)
   
The preceeding are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the views of the Rapid City Journal or Lee Enterprises.

The opinions above are from readers of rapidcityjournal.com and in no way represent the views of the Rapid City Journal or Lee Enterprises.

Rapidcityjournal.com provides this community forum for readers to exchange ideas and opinions on the news of the day. Passionate views, pointed criticism and critical thinking are welcome. Name-calling, crude language and personal abuse are not welcome. Moderators will monitor comments with an eye toward maintaining a high level of civility in this forum. Our comment policy explains the rules of the road for registered commenters.

If you don't see your comment, perhaps...

  • you called someone an idiot, a racist, a dope, a moron, etc. Please, no name-calling or profanity (or veiled profanity -- #$%^&*).
  • you rambled, failed to stay on topic or exhibited troll-like behavior intended to hijack the discussion at hand.
  • YOU SHOUTED YOUR COMMENT IN ALL CAPS. This is hard to read and annoys readers.
  • you named a business or identified a business in a way good or bad. Contact the business directly with your customer service concerns or your praise – they’ll likely appreciate your feedback.
  • you believe the newspaper's coverage is unfair. It would be better to write Jerry Steinley at jerry.steinley@rapidcityjournal.com or call him at 394-8427. This is a forum for community discussion, not for media criticism. We'd rather address your concerns directly.
  • you included an e-mail address or phone number, pretended to be someone you aren't or offered a comment that makes no sense.
  • you accused someone of a crime or assigned guilt or punishment to someone suspected of a crime.
  • your comment is in really poor taste.

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy

Top Jobs

Featured Dealers

Newspaper Ads

RCJ Extras

Advertisement