100 years later: The Clallam Relief Act
A century of broken promises
The Clallam Relief Act of 1925 offered compensation to the Clallam Tribe, but the true cost went beyond the dollar amount.
Tomorrow marks the 100th anniversary of the Clallam Relief Act, a piece of legislation passed by Congress on March 3, 1925, appropriating funds for the relief of the Clallam Tribe of Washington State. The Indian Affairs Committee recommended an amendment to the bill to authorize per capita payments to Clallam tribal members, which was ultimately approved.
As a result, $400,000 was allocated for distribution among enrolled tribal members. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs directed the Superintendent of the Tulalip Reservation, Walter F. Dickens, to compile a roll of eligible Clallam Indians, marking the first step in disbursing the funds.
Eligibility and final settlement
In April 1926, Clallam tribal members were instructed to gather in Jamestown, their ancestral beach village north of Sequim, to undergo the enrollment process. According to historical newspaper accounts, the primary requirement for payment was proven tribal lineage.
“The test of tribal membership is by blood,” the article stated. “The act provides that before payment to the individual Indians is made, they shall relinquish in writing all claims of any nature against the United States under any treaty, agreement, or act of Congress, and agree to accept such payment in full satisfaction of any and all claims against the government.”
This meant that eligible Clallam Indians would receive monetary compensation in exchange for permanently surrendering any legal claims against the U.S. government. In effect, this was considered a final settlement of promises made under the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point.
How much did the Clallam receive?
At the time, Superintendent Dickens estimated 350 Clallam Indians in Washington, meaning each person would receive approximately $1,000—the equivalent of $18,000 in today’s money.
However, after legal fees and the completion of the final tribal roll, the total appropriation was reduced to $385,000, resulting in individual payments of $722.33 per person.
The exclusion of women from payments
A 1921 Western Union telegram outlined the U.S. government’s intent for Tribal Council settlements, stating that “any organization should be effected only by a council of adult men and women composed of a majority of the claimants.”
In 1926, the Department of the Interior sent Dickens a notice outlining eligibility for the appropriation:
“That all children born of a marriage heretofore solemnized between a white man and an Indian woman by blood and not by adoption, where said Indian woman is at the time or was at the time of her death, recognized by the tribe shall have the same rights and privileges to the property of the tribe to which the mother belongs, or belonged at the time of her death, by blood, or any other member of the tribe…”
This meant that children born to a white father and an Indian mother (by blood, not adoption) in a recognized marriage had the same property rights within the mother's tribe, provided the mother was recognized by the tribe during her life or at her death.
Yet, a 1926 document sent to the Office of Indian Affairs reveals a deliberate effort to reduce the number of Clallam claimants and maximize individual payouts. The proposal sought to exclude Clallam women who had married outside the tribe—whether to a white man or a member of another tribe—along with their children. “Realizing that there will be hundreds of people claim[ing] relationship to the Clallams and probably more with shadowy claims on account of the $400,000 appropriated by Congress,” the committee argued for their disqualification.
Despite the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ directive to convene a committee of both men and women, the request was signed exclusively by four men: Joseph Allen, William Hall, David Prince, and Wilson Johnson. Their petition to bar these women from receiving their rightful allotments concluded with a telling phrase: “Thanking you for this and past favors.”
These “past favors” amounted to a systemic exclusion—deliberately omitting Clallam women and children from the 1926 Base Roll to ensure larger payments for the remaining claimants.
Unresolved disputes
While the Clallam Relief Act was meant to finalize all claims, by 1933, complaints emerged that the payments were not properly distributed.
A letter dated March 26, 1933, from Wm. Bruce to Senator Homer T. Bone in Washington, D.C., revealed that many Clallam tribal members were left off the roll entirely.
“Many of the Clallam Indians were left off the roll and have to date received absolutely nothing from the government. About 533 of them participated, whereas there are about 700 remaining in the tribe.”
Bruce urged Senator Homer to sponsor a new bill to appropriate additional funds for Clallam Indians who had been excluded.
The land I lost
I live in the 1869 farmhouse my great-great-grandparents purchased, a home rich with history and perseverance. But the land that once stretched across 160 acres—half a mile of pristine, no-bank waterfront—is now just 3.1 acres.
Before I was born, in the early 1960s, my great-grandparents were struggling. Dairy farming no longer covered the bills, and overdue taxes loomed. Like many Sequim-area farmers at the time, they made a difficult choice: they sold to developers.
According to family members, my great-grandparents weren’t just struggling—they were outmatched. A group of savvy Seattle investors took advantage of their trusting nature and lack of business experience. With a single signature, our family's land shrank by 98% and sold for about $1,000 per acre—just enough to settle their debts.
More of that land was sold in the 1970s to keep afloat, leaving only a small slice of our family's legacy. What was once a thriving farm, complete with a hog shed, milking parlor, and hay barn, is now a neighborhood dotted with a hundred homes.
Sure, I sometimes dream about what it would be like to have a half-mile of beach to myself or to raise animals on wide-open pastures. But I don’t dwell. My great-grandparents made a decision that shaped my reality, just as your ancestors likely shaped yours. I’m not here to knock on my neighbors’ doors, demanding acknowledgment of an unfair deal or special treatment. That’s not who I am.
Instead, I choose to honor the past while looking forward. Because the legacy I carry isn’t just about land—it’s about perseverance.
Why does this still matter today?
The Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe has consistently maintained that they were not adequately compensated for the lands ceded under the 1855 Treaty of Point No Point. In the 1950s, the Tribe filed a claim with the Indian Claims Commission seeking compensation for these lands, underscoring their assertion of insufficient original compensation.
Given the historical record, questions arise:
If the ancestors of today’s Jamestown S’Klallam members received compensation and legally signed documents relinquishing all claims against the U.S. government, why do they continue to assert claims of unfair treatment?
Why do they require special sea and land wildlife harvesting rights, special gaming rights, special federal assistance, and special tax advantages not afforded to others in Clallam County while maintaining they were not fairly compensated for their land?
These unresolved questions linger a century later, making the 100th anniversary of the Clallam Relief Act a time for renewed scrutiny, historical reflection, and perhaps, a deeper examination of who was truly left out—and why.
Subscriber poll
Last week, subscribers were asked if Sequim Good Governance League’s influence would affect their vote in any upcoming elections. Of 164 votes:
64% said they would vote differently.
32% said it wouldn’t impact their decision.
4% were undecided.
Want to support CC Watchdog? All you have to do is…
There is a big difference between taking lands back and taking over an economy. Joining the United Nations broke the treaty. Tribes cant make agreements with foreign Nations. The Cherokee Nation v. the State of Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831).
By continuing to take money from the federal government and then creating an illegal foreign agreement, the tribes broke the 1855 Point No Point treaty.
Consider that in 2009 Tribal members did not even have to work. They were already being paid enough to live on and some. Now its even more ridiculous to claim a broken relationship. That claim now goes the other way. They wanted more than just land they want revenge.
The start of this show is not the fault of local citizens. When the territory and Governor Stevens made the treaty the enforcement and following tribal relations was taken over by the federal government after the Walla Walla Constitution was re-written. https://www.historylink.org/File/7648 Under the new Washington Corporate constitution , the U.S. Constitution, and Congress was given authority under the Commerce clause to regulate tribal affairs. Taxpayers are essentially paying for the BIA to manage tribal affairs through a trust fund created by taxpayers. I already knew from past experience in helping tribes that the BIA, and the federal government were derelict in their duty to properly take care of the tribes.
In 2009, the tribes made a $3.4 billion settlement with the federal government. After that settlement, the statement by federal official was “With the settlement now final, we can put years of discord behind us and start a new chapter in our nation-to-nation relationship,” https://www.doi.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2024-04/110804-amended-final-judgment.pdf
Whether or not the Jamestown tribe or any other S' Klallam Tribe were compensated remains a mystery. 42 tribes were awarded that 3.4 billion. A total of 95 tribes were paid off. Ironically, that same year the NODC and SERN was created, under the premise that there was still a "broken relationship." To the S'Klallams the discord obviously remained.
The problem for me is that the tribe chose to join an international world governing body to deal with that discord, rather than proceed again against the federal government. The federal government had the responsibility and obligation not Clallam County citizens. Jefferson County, Clallam County, Port Angeles, Sequim, and State of Washington engaged in the international ICLEI "action plan" to create a "compensation mechanism" for the tribes at the expense of the local community.. It is clear from the available data that the S'Klallams did benefit to the tune of millions. Before NODC and SERN, the tribes were making around $150,000- $200,000 a year in profit. Now the Jamestown Tribe makes a 13 million dollar a year profit. The Lower Elwha around 4 million. Clallam County has flat lined since then.
To go after local citizens for "compensation" under ICLEI "action plans" was the worst thing the tribes could do. I believe their actions broke the treaty for good. They made a conscious decision to re-negotiate a treaty, while the local tax payer still paid for the BIA to manage the tribes affairs and trust fund. This is double dipping and agreeing to "build and serve' a world governing body was against the law. If I had any federal authority, I would be arresting over a thousand ICLEI Charter members to heal my broken relationship.