Walk in his shoes

In reference to Darold L. Bennett’s letter about Barry Beach, I am wondering if he ever went to Poplar and asked questions about this case. Did he read any of the transcript of the trial? Did he see any evidence pertaining to this case? Did he talk to the two officers in Louisiana who got his so-called confession? Did he talk to any of the jurors at Beach’s trial? Where did get his information that led him to the conclusion that Beach was, in fact, guilty?

Is Barry Beach Native American? If he is, why wasn’t he tried in federal court? Was the crime committed on or off the reservation? Why are there witnesses who never came forward because of fear? I believe there are entire families on and off the reservations who have been able to put the fear of God in people to keep them from testifying. Has Bennett checked to see if that happened in this case? The people in Poplar know what really happened on the night Kimberly Nees got killed. My suggestion is Bennett become a fact checker before he steps in and gives an uninformed opinion.

It is my understanding that Marc Racicot, the prosecutor of the trial, stated he had hair as evidence but never produced it at the trial. What else didn’t he produce? Beach was only 17 when the Nees girl got killed.

Walk a mile in his shoes before judging him.

— Sandra Dunham,

Great Falls

Consider 1862 law

Opponents of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes Water Compact have cited two important arguments in opposition, namely Article II, Section 18 of the Montana Constitution, which requires a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Montana Legislature for passage of said compact, and the “just compensation” clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

However, none seem to have mentioned the 1862 Homestead Act’s impact and, as a U.S. statute, how it outranks treaties and compacts — see the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1956 Reid v. Covert decision. Promising at least 160 acres to homesteaders if they would build on and cultivate said land for which a water right was and is implicit, the Homestead Act encouraged immigration to America’s vast western portion.

Moving on, one is puzzled as to how a fishing right for an indigenous people in 1855 can affect a subterranean water right where no fish dwell. But opportunists, developers, speculators and federal agencies like the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Environmental Protection Agency anticipate a land bonanza should the U.S. Senate ratify the CSKT Water Compact in defiance of the forgoing legal obstacles, reminding this homesteader of the justice meted out to the Nisei in the 1942 land grab.

Finally, and with due respect to the Montana Legislature, one is reminded of the shenanigans there during the “War of the Copper Kings” preceding the Seventeenth Amendment’s switch to a popular vote of U.S. senators, the better to avoid voting “inducement.” Of course, after 100 years, human nature must have improved.

— Kenneth C. Smith,


Read or Share this story: