in its legislative history remotely suggests that Congress meant the Act’s extension of civil jurisdiction to the States should result in the undermining or destruction of such tribal governments as did exist and a conversion of the affected tribes into little more than ‘private, voluntary organizations.’ ” Id., 426 U.S. at 388, 96 S.Ct. at 2110. One court with Public Law 280 jurisdiction has suggested that it, too, must determine whether state exercise of jurisdiction infringes the Indian right to self-government, as set forth in Williams v. Lee, 358 U.S. 217, 79 S.Ct. 269, 3 L.Ed.2d 251 (1959). Duluth Lumber and Plywood Co. v. Delta Development, Inc., 281 N.W.2d 377 (Minn. 1979). See Note, State Jurisdiction Over Indians as a Subject of Federal 93 S.Ct. 1267, 36 L.Ed.2d 114 (1973) (<HOLDING>); Warren Trading Post v. Arizona Tax Comm’n,
holding that the state has no jurisdiction to pursue an indian onto an indian reservation for criminal offenses committed off the reservation holding that an action against a tribal enterprise is an action against the tribe itself holding that state has standing to appeal an action initiated by a tribe based on its statutory obligation to oversee the  reservation which made it responsible under the statute for damage to the reservation and misuse of tribal funds  and thus authorized to appeal holding gross receipts provision provides exception for trade or business to general meaning of gross income provided in section 61a so reporting of gross proceeds alone from sales of commodities would not prevent application of irc  6501e1a holding the state can tax gross receipts of tribal enterprise operated off the reservation