WPCK 2BBcR Z3#|o"m^36Gff%==\o3=33ffffffffff33oooQzKfzztzp=o=o\%ffQi\=bp:6m:p\ifQUGpbbbX=o=o=3============i:fffffQ\\\\K:K:K:K:p\\\\ppppbfi\\b\zifffQQQQi\\\\bbbbbbppK:K:K:K:fmz:z:z:z:z:pppp\\QQQtUtUtUtUzGzGzGppppppbpXpXpXiz:pQtUzGbbi\pNo3o\6QNNfff=7f=f=%GGf//\\pp%G=ooee3o<gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR"m^*2gwZZskkkkB{sssZZcJRRRkkkl_dRZ>\J\B\JlZoN21mRgR\lNaJlRsRSRYZB\BhVrNlRwgsg_BZ11RVVg_]Zk___________________BBBBBBBZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ111111111111RRRRRRRVVVVVVVVVVVVggggggggggggggggggggl\l2lhs2hR2/#c!c"m^3=Iff%==\o3=3offffffffff33oooQzKpzzz~~z=o=o\%ifQpQ=bp=:f=p\ifQQAp_\\U=o=o=3============f=iiiiiQQQQQK=K=K=K=p\\\\pppp~\ip\\~\\ziiiiQQQQpQQQQbbbbbbppK=K=K=K=pfz=z=z=z=z=pppp\\QQQzQzQzQzQ~A~A~Apppppp~\zUzUzUpz=pQzQ~A~\~\p\pNo3w\=QNNfffMDf=f=3GG\==\\pp%G=ooee3o<>RRR1,zzR1llRz199R&&IIZZ91YYQQi)Y00QQQiqiiYXX;Y(yiH$<euXXqiiii@yqqqXXaHQQQiiij]bQXgn|g|n|SR}{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS"X^?S}}SSS}?S?F}}}}}}}}}}SS}a}SFS}S}ooS}FSF}oaS}}}oc7cS?SS*SSSSSSSSSSF}}}}}oooooaFaFaFaF}}}}}}}}}}}}}oooooooo}}}}}}aFaFaFaF}FFFFF}}oooaaaaSSS}oooFoaS}}}NX?}S}}}}}}KS}K}KF}}}SS}}S}KF*RRdE|>gn|g|n|SR{nnnRRnnnnnnnRRRRRRRRRRRRSS2&a## w$ %H1HEADER Level 1 (I)3: )I.؃  C H2HEADER Level 2 (A)3D)A.؃  C H3HEADER Level 3 (1) 3)1.؃  C Outline-DftftTo set up outline text o_ I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a) 1. a. i.(1)(a)(i) 1) a)Ҳ2I+ & V()*OutlneB-DftOutline with Bullets  I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a)-*+x-*+x-*+xҲOutlneN-DftOutline with numbers [ I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) 1. 1.(1) 1.(1) 1. 1) 1. 1. 1.(1) 1.(1) 1. 1) 1. 1. 1.(1) 1.(1) 1. 1) 1.ҲH1-AHEADER 1&2 Combined (I-A) - DftY%^)I.؃ )A.؃  C H2-AHEADER 2&3 Combined (A-1) - DftYr f)A.؃ )1.؃  C 20{+. ,2;-om/BQck QuoteSingle spaced indented quotev C   (  Cd  ( ( ( Opin InitInitial Opinion codes pЊ #  ( (    П I. A. 1. a.(1)(a) i) a) I A 1 a (1)(a) i) a)5 EllipsisParagraph Ellipsis<;X` hp x (#%'0*,.8135@8:HYYY66^E@@@@(JEEE66;,1N11@@@A9<16%7,7(7,A6C/A1>1P7A/:,A1E12156(7(>4E/A1H>E>9(6144>986@9999999999999999999(((((((666666666666666666661111111444444444444>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>A7AA>E>1"m^!+==\Z%%7C%==========CCC1QOOOVOIV\-=VIhZVIVOEIZOlMMC%C%C7==1?7%;C#!A#bC7?=13+C;V;;5%C%C%%%n%%%%%%%%%%?#O=O=O=O=O=nXO1O7O7O7O7-#-#-#-#ZCV7V7V7V7ZCZCZCZCM;O=V?V7V7M;V7I?O=O=O=O1O1O1O1V?O7O7O7O7V;V;V;V;V;V;\C\C-#-#-#-#=VAI#I#I#I#I#ZCZCZCZCV7V7n\O1O1O1E3E3E3E3I+I+I+ZCZCZCZCZCZClVM;C5C5C5V?I#ZCO1E3I+M;M;V?V7ZCNCC7!1//===%!\\=%QQ=\%++=n77nCCn+n%CC<.!4;5 Ellipsis!X @d XgEp   ! `You say that [the Reservation boundary] line is very heavy and that the reservation is nailed down upon the border. That is very true as applying to the past many years and up to now, but congress has provided legislation which will pull up the nails  J which hold down that line and after next year there  J will be no outside boundary line to this reservation.' !  Minutes of Councils Held by James McLaughlin, U.S. Indian Inspector, with the Uintah and White River Ute Indians at Uintah Agency, Utah, From May 18 to May 23, 1903, excerpted in App. to Brief for Respondent 4a5a (emphasis added).BQ d   ( , , Inspector McLaughlin's picturesque phrase reflects the contemporaneous understanding, by him conveyed to the Indians, that the Reservation would be diminished by operation of the 1902 and 1903 Acts notwithstanding the failure of the Indians to give their consent.  The Secretary of the Interior informed Congress in February 1904 that the necessary surveying could not be completed before the date set for the opening, and requested that the opening be delayed. Letter from E.A. Hitchcock to the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs (Feb. 6, 1904), reprinted in S. Doc.  J| No. 159, supra, at 17. In the 1904 Act, Congress accordingly extended the time for opening until March 10, 1905, and appropriated additional funds to enable the Secretary of the Interior to do the necessary surveying of the Reservation lands. 33 Stat. 207. The Secretary of the Interior subsequently informed Congress that a further extension would be necessary because the surveying and allotments could not be completed during the winter. Letter from E.A. Hitchcock to the Chairman of the House Committee on Indian Affairs (Dec. 10,  J 1904), reprinted in S. Doc. No. 159, supra, at 21.  The House of Representatives took up the matter on"   January 21, 1905. The bill on which debate was held provided that so much of said lands as will be under the provisions of said acts restored to the public domain shall be open to settlement and entry by proclamation of the President of the United States, which proclamation shall prescribe the manner in which these lands may be settled upon, occupied, and entered. H.R. 17474, quoted in 39 Cong. Rec. 1180 (1905). Representative Howell of Utah offered as an amendment [t]hat for one year immediately following the restoration of said lands to the public domain said lands shall be subject to entry only under the homestead, townsite,  J and mining laws of the United States. Ibid. Significantly, Representative Howell offered his amendment as an addition to, not a replacement for, the language in the bill that explicitly referred to the lands' restoration to the public domain. He explained: BQ XC  , , (  In the pending bill these lands, when restored to the public domain, are subject to entry under the general land laws of the United States, coupled with such rules and regulations as the President may prescribe. In my humble judgment there should be some provision such as is embodied in my amendment, limiting the lands in the reservation to entry under the homestead, townsite, and mining laws alone for one year from the date of the opening.... Congress should see to it that until such time as those lands easy of access, reclamation, and irrigation are settled by actual home makers the provisions of the homestead law alone shall prevail. This policy is in accord with the dominant sentiment of the time, viz, that the public lands shall be reserved  JC for actual homes for the people. Id., at 1182.'BQ Cd   ( , ,  Although the amendment was rejected in the House of  JW Representatives, id., at 1186, the Senate substituted the current version of the 1905 Act, which is similar to the/"   amendment offered by Representative Howell but omits the restoration language of the House version. 39 Cong. Rec. 3522 (1905). In the hearings on the Senate bill, Senator Teller of Utah had stated that I am not going to agree to any entry of that land except under the homestead and townsite entries, because I am not going to consent to any speculators getting public land if I can help it. Indian Appropriation Bill, 1906, Hearings before the Senate Subcommittee of the Committee on Indian Affairs, 58th Cong., 3d Sess., 30 (1905). Thus, although we have no way of knowing for sure why the Senate decided to limit the manner of opening, it seems likely that Congress wanted to limit land speculation. That objective is not inconsistent with the restoration of the unallotted lands to the public domain: Once the lands became public, Congress could of course place limitations on their entry, sale, and settlement.  The Proclamation whereby President Roosevelt actually opened the Reservation to settlement makes clear that the 1905 Act did not repeal the restoration language of the 1902 Act. In that document, the President stated that the 1902 Act provided that the unallotted lands were to be restored to the public domain, that the 1903, 1904, and 1905 Acts extended the time for the opening, and that those lands were now opened for settlement under the homestead laws by virtue of the power in  J [him] vested by said Acts of Congress. 34 Stat. 3120 (emphasis added). President Roosevelt thus clearly understood the 1905 Act to incorporate the 1902 Act, and specifically the restoration language. This unambiguous, contemporaneous, statement, by the Nation's  J( Chief Executive, Rosebud, 430 U.S., at 602, is clear evidence of the understanding at the time that the Uintah Reservation would be diminished by the opening of the unallotted lands to nonIndian settlement.  The subsequent history is less illuminating than the contemporaneous evidence. Since 1905, Congress has`"   repeatedly referred to the Uintah Reservation in both the past and present tenses, reinforcing our longstanding observation that [t]he views of a subsequent Congress form a hazardous basis for inferring the intent of an  J` earlier one. United States v. Philadelphia National  J8 Bank, 374 U.S. 321, 348!349 (1963) (internal quotation  J marks omitted). The District Court in the Ute Indian  J Tribe case extensively cataloged these congressional references, and we agree with that court's conclusion: Not only are the references grossly inconsistent when considered together, they ... are merely passing references in text, not deliberate expressions of informal conclusions about congressional intent in 1905. 521 F.Supp. 1072, 1135 (Utah 1981). Because the textual and contemporaneous evidence of diminishment is clear, however, the confusion in the subsequent legislative record does nothing to alter our conclusion that the Uintah Reservation was diminished.  DH2 -C؃  C  Finally, our conclusion that the statutory language and history indicate a congressional intent to diminish is not controverted by the subsequent demographics of the Uintah Valley area. We have recognized that [w]hen an area is predominantly populated by nonIndians with only a few surviving pockets of Indian allotments, finding that the land remains Indian country seriously burdens the administration of state and local govern J ments. Solem, 465 U.S., at 471!472, n.12. Of the original 2 million acres reserved for Indian occupation, approximately 400,000 were opened for nonIndian settlement in 1905. Almost all of the nonIndians live on the opened lands. The current population of the area is approximately 85 percent nonIndian. 1990 Census of Population and Housing, Summary Population and Housing Characteristics: Utah, 1990 CPH1!46, Table 17, p. 73. The population of the largest city in the"   area"Roosevelt City, named for the President who opened the Reservation for settlement"is about 93  J percent nonIndian. Id., Table 3, p. 13.  The seat of Ute tribal government is in Fort Duchesne, which is situated on Indian trust lands. By  J8 contrast, we found it significant in Solem that the seat of tribal government was located on opened lands. 465 U.S., at 480. The State of Utah exercised jurisdiction over the opened lands from the time the Reservation  J was opened until the Tenth Circuit's Ute Indian Tribe decision. That assumption of authority again stands in  JH sharp contrast to the situation in Solem, where tribal authorities and Bureau of Indian Affairs personnel took primary responsibility for policing ... the opened lands during the years following [the opening in] 1908. 465 U.S., at 480. This jurisdictional history, as well as the current population situation in the Uintah Valley, demonstrates a practical acknowledgment that the Reservation was diminished; a contrary conclusion would seriously disrupt the justifiable expectations of the  J people living in the area. Cf. Rosebud, 430 U.S., at 604!605.  : H1 -V؃  @C  We conclude that the Uintah Indian Reservation has been diminished by Congress. Accordingly, the town of Myton, where petitioner committed a crime, is not in Indian country and the Utah courts properly exercised criminal jurisdiction over him. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Utah Supreme Court.  J `9So ordered.ă