336

26 I n d . C 1 . C;omn. 336
TURTLE MOUXTAIN BAED OF C H I P F T J A
INDImS,
)
1
D o c k e t K O . 113
D x k e t No. 246
D o c k e t No. 1 9 1
D o c k e t No. 2 2 1
TIiE THREE AFFILIATET! TRIBES OF l"E
FORT BERTHOLD RESEF.iTt?'T1.CX,
Dock2 t Nos. 350-B
and 350-C
THE LWITED STATES OF AX!T.ICh,
THE THREE AFFILIATED TRIBES OF T115
FORT BERTHOLD RESERVATION,
D o c k e t Nos. 350-B
and 350-C
TURTLE MOUNTAIN BAED OF CKIPPEWA
INDIANS,
D o c k e t No. 113
RED WCE BAND M D FETEK G!XVES,
ET AL. , EX. REL , l?Eb ' L S E BAliD,
PEPBINA RIHD AJD fC4'!XEX~IME CAI&
BARRETT , ET AJJ , EX E L . ,
PEIBINA BMJD,
JOHN B. -AZURE, ET AL., EX PZL.,
CHIEF LITTLE SHELL'S E22il? 0"
PEMBIKA CHIPPEWA mnrxxs,
.
.
THE LITTLE SHELL BANb SF CHIPI'E'2A
INDIANS, QiD JOSEF3 II. XJSSOFE,
ET Pi. , EX R'CL. , SALT) SLWD,
D o c k e t No. 246.
D o c k e t No. 1 9 1
26 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 336
CHIPPEWA C F S E TRIBE OF TEiE ROCKY
BOY ' S RESERVATION, MOIiTANA,
JOE CORCORAN, EX. PSL., CHIPTEWA
CREE TRIBE OF TXE ROCKY BOY ' S
RESERVATION,
BLANCHE PATENAUDE, ET AL., EX. REL.
LITTLE SHELL BAND OF mDIA!!S ARD
THE CHIPPEWA CREE T R I B E ,
)
)
)
)
1
Docket No. 221
,)
)
1
)
Docket No. 74
THE SIOUX MATIOK, ET AL.,
THE CHIPPEiJA C E E TKIEE OF ROCKY
BOY'S RESERVATION,
Plaintiffs,
)
Docket No. 221-A
)
)
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
)
Decided:
November 11, 1971
Appearances :
Glen A . Wilkinson, Attorney f o r P l a i n t i f f i n Docket No. 113.
John A . Storman, J. Howard Storman, Frances L. Horn, and
Wilkinson, Cragun & Barker were on t h e b r i e f s .
Rodney 3 . Edwards, Attorney f o r P l a i n t i f f s i n Docket No. 246.
Marvin J . Sonosky w a s on t h e b r i e f .
Lawrence C . M i l l s , Attorney f o r P l a i n t i f f s i n Docket Nos.
M i l l s and Garrett were on the b r i e f s .
191, 221 and 221-A.
Jonathan C . Eaton, J r . , Attorney f o r P l a i n t i f f i n
Docket Nos. 350-B and 350-C.
Arthur L a z a r u s , Wil.liam Howard Payne , and Marvin J . Sonosky,
Attorneys f o r P l a i n t i f f s i n Docket No. 74.
Willim H. Donham, Gordon W. D a i g e r , and Howard G. Campbell,
w i t h whom was Plr. A s s i s t a n t Attorney G e n e r a l S h i r o Kashiwa,
Attorneys f o r Defendant.
26 Ind. C 1 . Corn. 336
OPIKION OF TKE COMMISSION
Conmissioner Vance d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n of t h e C o m i s s i o n .
The Commission has b e f o r e it two motiocs f o r r e h e a r i n g a r i s i n g o u t
o f i t s o p i n i o n , f i n d i n g s of f a c t , and i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r e n t e r e d i n
c o n s o l i d a t e d Docket Kos. 113, 191, 221, 246, 350-By and 350-C,
on June 3 0 ,
1970, T u r ~ l eMountain Rand of Chippewa I n d i a n s v. United S t a t e s , 23 I n d .
C 1 . Corn. 315, and twn motions f o r r e h e a r i n g a r i s i n g o u t of i t s o p i n i o n ,
f i n d i n g s of f a c t , and o r d e r e n t e r e d i n c o n s o l i d a t e d Docket NOS.
350-C,
113, 246, 191, 221, 74, and 221-A,
350-By
on March 30, 1971, Three
A f f i l i a t e d T r i b e s of t h e F o r t B e r t h o l d R e s e r v a t i o n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s ,
25 I n d . C l . Comm. 179.
I n t h e f i r s t of t h o s e d e c i s i o n s t h e Commission
found t h a t t h e Plains-Ojibwa had a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o a t r a c t of l a n d i n
n o r t h c e n t r a l North Dakota, which t r a c t was ceded t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
by t h e McCumber Agreement which became e f f e c t i v e February 15, 1905.
In
t h e second d e c i s i o n , t h e Commission found t h a t t h e Mandan, H i d a t s a , and
A r i k a r a T r i b e s had a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o a t r a c t of l a n d i n N o r t h Dakota,
..
southwest of t h e Ojibwa t r a c t , which t r a c t was a c q u i r e d by t h e U n i t e d
1/
S t a t e s on A p r i l 12, 1870.
Because t h e second p a i r of n o t i o n s r e q u e s t
I / The p l a i n t i f f s i n Docket No. 350-C have f i l e d a motion f o r r e h e a r i n g
r e q u e s t i n g t h a t t h e Commission r e c o n s i d e r t h i s f i n d i n g of a n 1870 t a k i n g
d a t e . Rehearing on t h a t i s s u e has been g r a n t e d . T h r e e A f f i l i a t e d T r i b e s
of t h e F o r t B e r t h o l d R e s e r v a t i o n v . United S t a t e s , 26 I n d . C 1 . C O ~ R I .326
(1971).
26 Ind. C 1 .
Comm. 336
s u b s t a n t i v e r e l i e f i d e n t i c a l t o p a r t of t h e r e l i e f a l r e a d y r e q u e s t e d i n
2/
t h e f i r s t p a i r of m o t i o n s , we s h a l l t r e a t t h e s e l a t e r motions a s b e i n g
incorporated i n t o the e a r l i e r ones.
rehearing ask
The Docket N O .
246 motions f o r
t h e Commission t o amend i t s d e c i s i o n s o a s t o ( 1 ) redraw
t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e Ojibwa a b o r i g i n a l , t i t l e . a r e a , and ( 2 ) d e c l a r e
t h a t t h e Pembina Band r a t h e r than t h e Plains-Ojibwa was t h e landowning
entity.
The m o t i o n s f o r r e h e a r i n g i n Docket N O . 1 1 3 a s k
t h e Commission
t o amend i t s d e c i s i o n s o 2s t o (1) redraw t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e Ojibwa
a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e a r e a , ( 2 ) d e c l a r e t h a t t h e T u r t l e Mountain Band r a t h e r
t h a n t h e Plains-Ojibwa was t h e landowning e n t i t y , and ( 3 ) f i n d t h a t t h e
p l a i n t i f f s i n Docket Nos. 1 9 1 and 2 2 1 are n o t i d e n t i f i a b l e g r o u p s and
a r e not entitled t o participate i n t h i s s u i t a s separate parties.
For
t h e r e a s o n s i n d i c a t e d below we f i n d t h a t t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e a b o r i g i n a l
t i t l e a r e a must b e m o d i f i e d as i n d i c a t e d i n our amended f i n d i n g number 19
2 / I n t h e f i r s t p a i r of m o t i o n s t h e Chippewa p l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e
w e s t e r n boundary of Chippswa a b o r i g i n a l l a n d f o l l o w e d a l i n e drawn from
Dog Den B u t t e t o t h e mouth of t h e L i t t l e K n i f e R i v e r on t h e M i s s o u r i and
t h e n due n o r t h t o t h e Canadian b o r d e r , and t h a t t h e Commission was i n
e r r o r i n f a i l i n g t o award t h i s w e s t e r n a r e a t o t h e Chippewas.
In the
s e c o n d p a i r of motions t h e Chippewa p l a i n t i f f s c o n t e n d f o r t h e same
w e s t e r n boundary, and t h a t t h e Commission was i n e r r o r i n a w a r d i n g t h e
w e s t e r n a r e a t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n Docket No. 350-C.
26 Ind. C 1 . Ccm. 336
i n Docket Nos. 113, e t a l . , and anended f i n d i n g number 26 i n Docket Nos.
350-B,
e t a l . , e n t e r e d t o d a p ; tha:
o p i n i o n was t h e proper lzfidn:mj.r!=
Docket Nos. 191 an2 2 2 1
2
t h e flairs-Ojibwa a s defined i n t h i s
,-.~!t_:ty; a n d t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n
sqlr:.te
i d e n t i f i a b l e group and t h u s have
I n i t s d e c i s i o n of June 3 0 , 1379, i n fiocket Nos. 113, e t a l . , t h e
bounded a s f o l l o w s :
Beginning a t t h e 9 8 t h p a r a l l e l where i t c r o s s e s t h e
I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary, runnizg due s o u t h a l o n g t h e 98th
p a r a l l e l t o t h e p o i n t a t which i t i n t e r s e c t s t h e Middle Branch
of t h e F o r e s t o r S a l t R i v e r ; then southwest t o t h e n o r t h e a s t e r n most p o i n t on Stuinp Leke, which is t h e p o i n t where S t y n p Lake
i s i n t e r s e c t e d by t h e s t r e a m running between Stump Lake and
Coon Lake; then w s s t e r l y through t h e D e v i l ' s Lake complex t o
t h e s o u t h e a s t e r n c o r n e r of the town of Minnewaukan; t h e n i n
2 s o u t h w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n t o Dog Den B u t t e , which is p a r t of
t h e Missouri Coteau; then i n a . n o r t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n t o t h e
southwest t i p of B u f f a l o Lo6gs Lake, which is where t h a t
Lake is i n t e r s e c t e d by South Eeg Creek; t h e n due w e s t t o t h e
w e s t e r n branch of t h e S o u r i s o r Mouse R i v e r ; t h e n up the
S o u r i s R i v e r through t h c c e n t e r of Lske D a r l i n g , t h e n
c o n t i n u i n g up t-he S o u r i s River t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l
Boundary; t h e n e a s t a l o n g t h e I n t e r n a t i o r a l Boundary t o
( 2 3 Ind. C 1 . Comm. a t 336-37.)
t h e p l a c e of beginning.
26 I n d . C 1 .
Corn. 336
The n o t i o n s f o r r e h e a r i n g c h a l l e n g e t h e e a s t e r n , s o u t h e a s t e r n , and
3/
w e s t e r n b o u n d a r i e s of t h e omm mission's f i n d i n g .
Plaintiffs allege that
t h e c u r r e n t e a s t e r n boundary of t h e t i t l e area--the 9 8 t h meridian--causes
4/
between t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s and t h e
e i t h e r an o v e r l a p o r a l l o w s a void
l a n d s ceded by t h e Red Lake and Pembina Bands i n t h e T r e a t y of October 2 ,
1863, 1 3 S t a t . 667, t i t l e t o which land t h e Commission found i n t h e
Red Lake and Pembina Bands, Red Lake, Pembina and White E a r t h Bands v .
U n i t e d S t a t e s , Docket 18-A, 6 Ind. C 1 . Corn. 247 (1958).
In describing
t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e a b c r i g i n a l t i t l e a r e a i n i t s T u r t l e Mountain d e c i s i c .
t h e Commission i n t e n d e d t h e e a s t e r n b o r d e r t o c o i n c i d e w i t h t h e w e s t e r n
b o r d e r of t h e a b o r i g i n a l a r e a i n Docket 18-A.
316.
See 23
I n d . C 1 . Comm. a t
The Commission was of t h e b e l i e f t h a t t h a t w e s t e r n boundary w a s t h e
98th meridian.
I t now a p p e a r s t h a t t h e 9 8 t h m e r i d i a n may n o t b e i d e n t i c a l
w i t h t h e w e s t e r n boundary of t h e Docket No. 18-A a b o r i g i n a l l a n d s .
T h e r e f o r e , we s h a l l amend o u r f i n d i n g number 19 i n Docket 113, e t a l . ,
s o t h a t t h e f i r s t c a l l is a s f o l l o w s :
3/
-
I n t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e o p i n i o n , t h e term " p l a i n t i f f s " r e f e r s t o t h e
p l a i n t i f f s i n Docket Nos. 113, 191, 221, and 246.
a
4 / The motion i n Docket No. 246 s t a t e s t h a t t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s a s
-
d e s c r i b e d o v e r l a p t h e l a n d s ceded i n 1863, w h i l e t h e motion i n Docket
No. 1 1 3 a l l e g e s t h a t t h e r e i s a v o i d between t h e two a r e a s .
26 Ind. C1. Comm. 336
(1) Beginning a t t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary where
i t is i n t e r s e c t e d by t h e w e s t e r n boundary of the l a n d s
d e s c r i b e d i n A r t i c l e 2 of t h e T r e a t y of October 2 , 1863,
1 3 S t a t . 667, with t h e Red Lake and Pembina Bands of
Chippewa I n d i a n s , scuiher].;: .XI :hat boundary t o t h e p o i n t
a t which i t intersects t h e Middle Branch of t h e F o r e s t o r
S a l t River
.L/
P l a i n t i f f s challenge t h e soucheas t e r n boundary of t h e Commission's
f i n d i n g , a s s e r t i n g t h a t c h i s boundary should c o i n c i d e w i t h t h e n o r t h e r n
b o r d e r of t h e l a n d s d e s c r i b e d in A r t i c l e 2 of t h e T r e a t y of February 1 9 ,
1867, between t h e United S t z t e a s n 4 t h e S i s s e t o n and Wahpeton S i o u x ,
1 5 S t a t . 505.
That b o r d e r , a s r e l e v a n t t o t h i s o p i n i o n , r u n s from
the s o u r c e of Goose River ta the wes:ernpost
p o i n t of D e v i l ' s Lake.
It is a p p a r e n t from an examination of c u r r e n t maps t h a t t h i s b o r d e r
o v e r l a p s t h e s o u t h e a s t e r n boundary of
l a n d s as found by t h e C c m i s s i o n .
o v e r l a p n e c e s s i t a t e s our
i n o u r f i n d i n g number 19.
t h e Plains-Ojibwa
aboriginal
W e do n o t b e l i e v e , however, c h a t t h i s
changing t h e s o u t h e a s t e r n boundary as d e s c r i b e d
The c l a i m i n t h e s e dockets is based on Chippewa
a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o the subject lands.
I n determining t h e e x t e n t of
l a n d t o which t h e Chippewa had t i t l e t h e Commission examined and weighed
a l l of t h e evidence in t h e r e c o r d r e l a t i n g t o use and occupancy of t h e
s u b j e c t lands.
Based on t h i s c v i d e n c e t h e Commission concluded t h a t
Chippewa e x c l u s i v e use and occupancy i n t h e s o u t h e a s t e r n p o r t i o n of t h e
5/
-
p l a i n t i f f s have urged t h a t t h e Commission use t h e 1863 t r e a t y d e s c r i p t i o n
main branch of S a l t River1' rather t h a n "Middle Branch of t h e F o r e s t
o r S a l t River".
The Conmission i s of t h e o p i n i o n , however, t h a t t h e
name of t h i s r i v e r a s i t a p p e a r s on modern maps a i d s i n l o c a t i n g t h e
boundary and we thus choos? not t o change t h i s p a r t of t h e d e s c r i p t i o n .
11
26 Ind. C1. Corn. 336
s u b j e c t a r e a extended a s f a r south a s t h e northeasternmost p o i n t on Stump
Lake.
The motiocs f o r r e h e a r i n g do not a l l u d e t o any new evidence which
would i n d i c a t e t h a t Chippewa occupancy did not extend t h a t f a r s o u t h .
The Commission does not b e l i e v e t h a t the boundary of t h e l a n d s claimed
by t h e Sioux in 1867 i s conclusive i n e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e southernmost e x t e n t
of Chippewa occupancy i n t h e D e v i l ' s Lake a r e a .
Therefore, t h e s o u t h e a s t e - ,
boundary of t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s s h a l l remain a s a l r e a d y d e s c r i b e d by t h e
6/
Commission.
P l a i n t i f f s a l s o c h a l l e n g e the western boundary of t h e Commission's
finding.
They urge t h a t the boundary should proceed from Dog Den B u t t e
n o r t h w e s t e r l y i n a d i r e c t l i n e t o t h e confluence of t h e L i t t l e K n i f e and
Missouri r i v e r s , and then c o n t i n u e n o r t h t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary.
P l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h a t in i t s o r i g i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h e Commission f a i l e d
t o consider a l l t h e evidence and t h e r e f o r e e r r o n e o u s l y excluded from t h e
Plains-Ojibwa a b o r i g i n a l a r e a l a n d s west and southwest of t h e S o u r i s R i v e r .
6/
-
P l a i n t i f f s have urged t h a t t h e Commission use t h e 1867 t r e a t y d e s c r i p t i c
most w e s t e r l y p o i n t of D e v i l ' s Lake" i n l i e u of " s o u t h e a s t e r n c o r n e r of
t h e town of Minnewaukan." P l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t t h e former d e s c r i p t i o n
i s more e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e than t h e l a t t e r . A comparison of modern maps
w i t h those drawn i n t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y , however, i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e westernmost p o i n t of D e v i l ' s Lake has moved s i g n i f i c a n t l y over t h e l a s t 100 y e a r s
+nd is t h e r e f o r e a l o c a t i o n which i s q u i t e d i f f i c u l t t o i d e n t i f y . The
Commission has concluded t h a t t h e town of Minnewaukan is l o c a t e d where
t h e westernmost p o i n t of D e v i l ' s Lake w a s i n t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y and h a s
chosen i t a s t h e proper terminus of t h e t h i r d c a l l .
II
344
26 I n d . C 1 . Corn. 336
The evidence which p l a i n t i f f s a l l e g e t h e C o m i s s i o n ignored c o n s i s t s
of e x h i b i t s which F n d i t a t e t h a t the O f f i c e of I n d i a n A f f a i r s "recognized"
t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s a s b e l s n g i n ? to t h e Chippewa,
I n t h e proposed f i n d i n g s
of f a c t f i l e d by t h e Docket No. 113 and t h e Docket Nos. 1 9 1 and 221
p l a i n t i f f s t h i s evidence vas saici to s u p p o r t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Chippewa
had recognized t i t l e t o t h e a r e s .
The p l a i n t i f f s i n Docket NO. 246, i n
t h e i r proposed f i n d i n g s , a s s e r t e d that t h i s e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t e d a f i n d i n g
t h a t t h e land was " a d ~ i i i i ~ t r a t i v e i : :recognized1' by t h e Department of t h e
I n t e r i o r a s b e i n g Chipp~wsproperzy.
Based on t h e s e proposed f i n d i n g s ,
t h e Commission assumed i h ~ t h e s e e x h i b i t s were i n evidence f o r t h e
Purpose of e s t a b l i s h i n g recognized t i t l e t o t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s .
Plaintiffs
now a s s e r t t h a t t h i s evidence s u p p o r t s t h e i r c l a i m of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e
t o l a n d s w e s t of t h e S o u r i s Xiver.
I n the additional findings entered
today i n Docket Nos. 113, e t a l . , w e have examined t h i s evidence.
The ~ & i s s i o n has p r e v i o u s l y found t h a t a p o r t i o n of the a d d i t i o n a l
l a n d b e i n g claimed in t h e s e ori ions was p o s s e s s e d a b o r i g i n a l l y by t h e Mandan,
H i d a t s a , and A r i k a r a T r i b c s .
See Three
-
A f f i l i a t e d T r i b e s of t h e F o r t
B e r t h o l d R e s e r v a t i o n v. United S t a t e s , s u p r a , a t 209-10.
The second p a i r
of motions now under c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e q u e s t t h e Commission t o r e c o n s i d e r
t h a t decision.
We have reexamined our f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n t h a t d e c i s i o n
and t h e e v i d e n c e of record 2nd conclude t h a t , w i t h one e x c e p t i o n , o u r
c o n c l u s i o n w i t h regard t o t i t l e was c o r r e c t .
The e x c e p t i o n is o u r f i n d i n g
t h a t t h e Mandan, Hidatsa and Arikara had t i t l e t o a t r i a n g u l a r tract of
l a n d n c r t h and e a s t of t h e S o u r i s R i v e r .
Our f i n d i n g s of f a c t i n t h a t
26 I n d . C 1 .
Comn.
335
d e c i s i o n s u p p o r t a c o n c l u s i o n of Mandan, H i d a t s a , and A r i k a r a u s e and
71
occupancy o n l y on t h e s o u t h o r wes: s i d e of t h e S o u r i s R i v e r .
Our
r e e x a m i n a t i o n of t l i ~eyidellce f ; ; i i e d t o d i s c l o s e any e v i d e n c e of Mandan,
H i d a t s a , and A r i k a r a ?:s? of t h e t r i a n g u l a r t r a c t d u r i n g t h e h i s t o r i c a l
p e r i o d under c o n s i 2 c r a t i o n .
26 i n Docket 350-B,
c- t a l . ,
~ c c o r d i n g l yw e s h a l l amend f i n d i n g number
SQ
t h a t t h e second and t h i r d c a l l s r e a d a s
follows :
( 2 ) Then i.. r r h r - r l y i ? a d i r e c t l i n e through Dog Den
B u t t e t o t h e S b u r i s o r Mcusz 3 i v e r ;
( 3 ) Then w e s t e r l y a l o n g t h e S o u r i s River t o a p o i n t
due w e s t of t h ? s o ~ t h v e s tt i p of B u f f a l o Lodge Lake ( t h e
p o i n t where t h a i l a k e i s i n t e r s e c t e d by South Egg C r e e k ) ;
Based on t h e a d 5 i : i o n a l
f i n d i n g s e n t e r e d today and t h e f i n d i n g s
p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d t h e Conmission now c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e P l a i n s - O j i b w a
e x c l u s i v e l y used and occupied l a n d s t o t h e w e s t of t h e S o u r i s R i v e r as
w e l l a s t h e l a n d i n t h e t r i a n g u l a r t r a c t n o r t h and e a s t of t h e r i v e r .
T h e r e f o r e we s h a l l f u r t h e r amend o u r f i n d i n g number 19 i n Docket 1 1 3 ,
e t a l . , s o t h a t t h e l a s t f i v e c a l l s r e a d as f o l l o w s :
( 5 ) Then i n a n o r t h e r l y d i r e c t i o n t o t h e S o u r i s o r
Mouse R i v e r ;
( 6 ) Then w ~ s t s ~ al lyo n g t h e S o u r i s R i v e r t o a p o i n t
due west of t h e southwest t i p of B u f f a l o Lodge Lake ( t h e
p o i n t where t h a t i a k e i s i n t e r s e c t e d by South Egg C r e e k ) ;
7 1 Both t h e Gasman Coulee s i z e and t h e "Drive F i s h Between t h e Rocks"
s i t e m e n t i o n e d i n f i n d i n g n u ~ b e r22 were on t h e S o u r i s R i v e r .
w a s i n t h e a r e a n o r t h and e a s t of th2 r i v e r .
Neither
26 Ind. C 1 . Corn. 336
( 7 ) Then i n a w e s t - n o r t h w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n along t h e
n o r t h e r n boundary of t h e l a n d s d e s c r i b e d i n c a l l number ( 4 )
of f i n d i n g number 26 e n t e r e d i n Docket Nos. 350-B, e t a l . ,
Plarch 30, 1971, (Three
A f f i l i a t e d T r i b e s of t h e F o r t
----B e r t h o l d R e s e r v a t i o n v . United S t a t e s , 25 I n d . C 1 . COW. 179,
2 @ 9 ) , u n t i l i t i n t e r s e c ~ st h e s h o r e l i n e of Lover L ~ s t w o o d
Lake, i n Township 158 North, Bange 9 1 West;
--
(8)
Then due n o r t h t o t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary;
(9) Then e a s t on t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l Boundary t o t h e
p o i n t of b e g i n n i n g .
Landowning E n t i t~
I n o u r d e c i s i o n of June 30, 1970, we r e f e r r e d t o t h e group of
Chippewas which had a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s a s
Ojibwa."
11
Plains-
S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n f i n d i n g numbers 4 and 5 we s a i d :
4 . Around t h e end of t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y , p r i o r t o
t h e a d v e n t of w h i t e t r a d e r s i n t h e a r e a , t h e f o r m e r l y
woodland o r i e n t e d group of Chippewas moved o u t beyond t h e
b o r d e r of t h e p l a i n s i n p u r s u i t of t h e b u f f a l o . They
s u c c e s s f ~ l l yr e o r i e n t e d t h e i r c u l t u r e t o l i f e on t h e p l a i n s ,
d e v e l o p i n g t h e bison-hide t i p i , t h e Red River c a r t , h a r d
s o l e d footwear and new ceremonial p r o c e d u r e s . Around 1800,
t h e s e I n d i a n s were h u n t i n g i n t h e T u r t l e Mountain a r e a .
These I n d i a n s who adapted t o t h e p l a i n s formed a group
which may b e s t be i d e n t i f i e d a s t h e Plains-Ojibwa.
5 . The Plains-Ojibwa a r e a n i d e n t i f i a b l e group of
American I n d i a n s on whose b e h a l f a n a c t i o n may b e m a i n t a i n e d
under t h e I n d i a n Claims omm mission Act. The Plains-Ojibwa
have a l s o been known by many c t h e r names, among which are
Bungi, S a u l t e a u x , T u r t l e Mountain Band, L i t t l e S h e l l Band,
Chippewa and Chippewa-Cree.
(23 I n d . C 1 . Comm. a t 328.)
Both motions f o r r e h e a r i n g c h a l l e n g e t h e Commission's d e t e r m i n a t i o n
81
t h a t t h e Plains-Ojibwa was t h e landowning e n t i t y . P l a i n t i f f s
claim
3 / The p l a i ~ t i f f si n Docket Nos. 191 and 221 a r e i n agreement w i t h t h e
-
~ o n u n i s s i o n ' s f i n d i n g s on landowning e n t i t y . The term " p l a i n t i f f s " ,
z h e r e f o r e , r e f e r s h e r e only t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n Docket Nos. 1 1 3 and 2 4 6 .
26 Ind. C 1 .
Comm. 336
t h a t "Plains-Ojibwal' i s merely a term used by a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s t o d i s t i n g u i s h
t h e Chippewa who l i v e d on t h e p l a i n s from t h o s e who l i v e d i n t h e f o r e s t s .
The " P l a i n s - ~ j i b w a " , argue the p l a i n t i f f s , were not a landowning e n t i t y ,
b u t r a t h e r a c u l t u r a l s e g x e n t of t h e Chippewa N a t i o n .
The Docket N O . 246
p l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t the Pembinn Band was t h e landowning e n t i t y .
In
s u p p o r t of t h i s c o n t e n t i o n they a r g u e t h a t t h e s u b j e c t land was merely
t h e w e s t e r n p o r t i o n of a l a r g e r Pexnbina c o u n t r y , t h e e a s t e r n p o r t i o n of
which was ceded t o t h e United S t a t e s by t h e Pembina Band and t h e Red
Lake Band i n t h e T r e a t y of October 2 , 1863, 1 3 S t a t . 667.
They f u r t h e r
a r g u e t h a t a g e n t s of t h e d e f e n d a n t acknowledged t h a t t h e Pembinas were
n o t ceding a l l t h e i r l a n d i n 1863, b u t w e r e r e t a i n i n g t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n
l a n d s west of t h e c e s s i o n .
Docket No. 246 p l a i n t i f f s f i n a l l y r e l y upon
t h e Connnission's f i n d i n g i n Docket No. 18-A--that
members of t h e T u r t l e
Mountain Band o r t h e L i t t l e S h e l l Band were a l l p a r t of t h e Pembina Band
i n 1863 (Red Lake, Pembina and White E a r t h Bands v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , s u p r a ,
a t 250)--as
e s t a b l i s h i n g t h a t t h e Pembina Band was t h e landowning e n t i t y .
The p l a i n t i f f i n Docket No. 113, on t h e o t h e r hand, c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e
T u r t l e Mountain Band was t h e landowning e n t i t y .
I n s u p p o r t of t h i s
c o n t e n t i o n , t h i s p l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s acknowledged
t h e T u r t l e Mountain Band a s t h e landowning e n t i t y when i t n e g o t i a t e d
w i t h t h a t band f o r t h e c e s s i o n of t h e s u b j e c t l a n d s .
It f u r t h e r r e l i e s
on t h e Commission's s t a t e m e n t i n Docket No. 18-A t h a t t h e Pembina
Chippewas who d i d n o t m i g r a t e t o Ninnesota i n 1873 became known as and
were r e c o g n i z e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t a s t h e T u r t l e Mountain Band of Chippewas
26 Ind. C1. Comm. 336
348
(Red Lake, Pembina and White E a r t h Bands, s u p r a , a t 309).
Although t h e
c o n t e n t i o n s of b o t h of t h e s e p l a i n t i f f s have m e r i t , t h e
Commission has
decided t o a b i d e by i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t " p l a i n s - ~ j i b w a " i s t h e b e s t
d e s i g n a t i o n f o r t h e Chippewa landowning e n t i t y i n t h e s e d o c k e t s .
I n f o r m u l a t i n g i t s judgments t h e C o r ~ i s s i o nmust be c a r e f u l t o avoid
p r e d e t e r m i n i n g t h e persons who w i l l b e n e f i t from i t .
Cherokee Freedmen
v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , App. No. 5-70 ( c t . C 1 . June 11, 1971), s l i p op. a t 11,
-
( a f f ' g , Docket 173-A, e t a l . , 22 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 417 (1970)) ; Red Lake
and Pembina Bands v. United S t a t e s , 173 C t . C 1 . 928, 943, 355 F.2d, 936,
944, (1965) ( a f f ' g i n p a r t , r e v ' g i n p a r t , Dockets 18-A, e t a l . ,
C 1 . Comm. 574 (1963)).
1 3 Irid.
Thus, i n choosing a d e s i g n a t i o n f o r t h e landowning
e n t i t y i n t h i s c a s e t h e Cornmission had t o a v o i d u s i n g any name which might
r e s u l t i n such a p r e d e t e r m i n a t i o n .
The name by which t h e Chippewa
landowning e n t i t y i n t h e s e dockets has been known v a r i e d g r e a t l y d u r i n g
t h e 1 9 t h and e a r l y 20th c e n t u r i e s .
E a r l y i n t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y t h i s group
w a s r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e People of t h e Red R i v e r , t h e Bungi, o r t h e S a u l t e a u x .
By t h e middle of t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y t h i s group was g e n e r a l l y r e f e r r e d t o and
d e s i g n a t e d by t h e United S t a t e s a s t h e Pembina Band of Chippewas.
Later
i n t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y and c o n t i n u i n g t o t h e d a t e of c e s s i o n t h e group was
d e s i g n a t e d t h e T u r t l e Mountain Band of Chippewas.
A t various t i n e s t h i s
group was a l s o known a s t h e L i t t l e S h e l l Band of Chippewas.
Therefore,
t h e Commission a g r e e s w i t h t h e Docket Eo. 246 p l a i n t i f f s t h a t i n 1863 t h e
If
Pembina Band" was t h e landowning e n t i t y .
Docket NO.
Likewise, we a g r e e w i t h t h e
113 p l a i n t i f f s t h a t l a t e r i n t h e 1 9 t h Century t h e landowning
26 Ind. C1. Comm. 336
e n t i t y was known a s t h e " T u r t l e Mountain Band.It
The Commission, however,
was and i s of t h e o p i n i o n t h a t i f i t chose e i t h e r of t h e s e names a s t h e
proper d e s i g n a t i o n f o r t h e landowning e n t i t y i t might be p r e d e t e r m i n i n g
t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s i n any p o t e n t i a l award.
I f we c a l l e d t h e landowning
e n t i t y "Pembina Band" our language might be m i s i n t e r p r e t e d as r e f e r r i n g
only t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s i n Docket No. 246.
Likewise, i f we c a l l e d t h e
e n t i t y " T u r t l e Mountain Band" i t might be t h o u g h t , i n c o r r e c t l y , t h a t we
r e f e r r e d only t o t h e p l a i n t i f f i n Docket go. 113.
T h e r e f o r e , we c h o s e
t h e term " P l a i n s - ~ j i b w a " as t h e p r o p e r d e s i g n a t i o n f o r t h e landowning
entity.
I n a d o p t i n g t h a t name t h e Comnission d i d n o t i n t e n d i t t o be
synonomous w i t h t h e term used by a n t h r o p o l o g i s t s t o r e f e r t o a l l p l a i n s
Chippewa.
Rather we intend
lain ins-0jibwaS' t o r e f e r o n l y t o t h a t group
of Chippewa which was known i n 1863 a s t h e Pembina Band, and was l a t e r
recognized by t h e United S t a t e s as t h e T u r t l e Mountain Band.
Parties
The p l a i n s i f f i n Docket No.
113 a g a i n c h a l l e n g e s t h e r i g h t of
p l a i n t i f f s i n Docket Nos. 1 9 1 and 221 t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s elaim, and
a g a i n asserts t h a t i t h a s t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t t o r e p r e s e n t t h e e n t i t y
which executed t h e McCumber Agreement.
These arguments of Docket No. 1 1 3
p l a i n t i f f were c o n s i d e r e d and r e j e c t e d by t h e Commission i n i t s d e c i s i o n
9/
of June 30, 1970, 23 I n d . C 1 . Comm. a t 318-20.
W
e must r e j e c t them a g a i n
9 / I n our f i n d i n g s i n t h a t d e c i s i o n we found as f o l l o w s :
-
11
Plaintiffs in
Dockets 191 and 221 c l a i m t o be s u c c e s s o r t o t h e i n t e r e s t s of L i t t l e S h e l l
and h i s f o l l o w e r s . L i t t l e S h e l l and h i s f o l l o w e r s l e f t t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s
w i t h t h e McCumber Commission and r e f u s e d t o s i g n t h e McCmnber Agreement.
We f i n d t h a t t h e s e p l a i n t i f f s t o g e t h e r c o n s t i t u t e an i d e n t i f i a b l e group of
American I n d i a n s , many of whose members a r e d e s c e n d e n t s of C h i e f L i t t l e
S h e l l and h i s followers." (23 I n d . C1. Corn. a t 327 .)
25 I n d . C 1 . Corn. 335
Docket K O .
1 1 3 p l z i n t i f f r e l i e s upon t h e d e c i s i o n s of t h e C o u r t of
C l a i m s i n Red L a k e , P e r S i n a , 2nd M h i t e E a r t h Bznds v . U n i t e d S -7t a t e s
164
C t - C 1 . 389 (1964) (---a f f ' g Dpckets I&-A, e t a l . , 9 I n d . C 1 . Corn. 457 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ) ,
Spokane T r i b e of I n d i s
-,I.
U n i t e d .S-:_;ir~s) 163 Ct. C 1 . 58 (1963)
(aff ' g
i n p a r t , r e v ' g i n p a r t , L k c k e t 331, 9 I n d . C 1 . Corn. 236 ( 1 9 6 1 ) ) ,
S t s t e s , 1 6 1 C t . C 1 . 258, 315 F.2d
v . -.G::j+.ed
M i n n e s o t a Chippewz Trih!?
-.
906 (1963) ( a f f
781 ( 1 9 6 0 ) ) .
In
in p n r t , rev'<
LI~CSI:
- ' % - - -
and
<q
p a r t , Docket 15-E, 8 I n d . C l . C O I ~ ~ .
, . ~ ; s c s th:2 c a u r t d e c i d e d t h a t n v a r d s n-ade p u r s u a n t
t o t h e I n d i a n C l a i m s C::rrmissior;
,IC+:
must r u n i n f a v o r c f a p r e s e n t t r i b a l
e n t i t y r a t h e r t h a n Ln f s v o r of i n d i v i d u a l d e s c e n d e n t s of t h e wronged t r i b e .
D o c k e t No. 1 1 3 p l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t b e c a u s e t h e
NOS.
lai in tiffs
i n Docket
1 9 1 and 2 2 1 a r e nierelr i n d i v i d u a l d e s c e n d e n t s of n m b t r s of t h e wronged
e n t i t y they cannot p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s clain;.
We c a n n o t a g r e e .
A s was
p o i n t e d o u t by t h e c o u r t i n Red Lake a n d P e n b i n a Bands v. U n i t e d S t a t e s
173 C t . C 1 . 928, suprn, t h e r u l e i z
he M i n n e s o t a Chippewa l i n e o f d e c i s i o n s
relates o n l y t o t h e a c t u a l form of t h e judgment e n t e r e d by t h e Commission.
The p r o b l e m we f a c e , on ttie o t h e r h a n d , r e l a t e s t o r e p r e s e n t a h o n a n d t h e
c o m p o s i t i o n of a n i d e n t i f i z b l e
The C o u r t i n Red Lake a n d Pembina,
s u p r a , made i t c l e a r t h a t these latter q u e s t i o n s are s t i l l c o n t r o l l e d by
t h e r u l e p r o n o u n c e d i n Thonpson v. K i t e d S t a t e s , 1 2 2 C t . C 1 . 348,
c e r t . d e n i e d , 344 U.S.
856 (1952) ( r e v ' p , Docket 3 1 , 1 I n d . C1. Conun. 358
( 1 9 5 0 1 1 , a n d c a s e s which f o l l m e d i t .
I n Thompson, t h s c o u r t s t a t e d t h e r u l e t o b e t h s t any g r o u p c o u l d
f i l e a c l a i m under t h e I n d i a n Claims Commission Act i f i t c o u l d be
26 Ind. C 1 .
Comm. 336
i d e n t i f i e d a s a group of d e s c e n d e n t s of I n d i a n s who were members of t h e
122 C t . C 1 . a t 357.
wronged e n t i t y a t t h e time t h e c l a i m a r o s e .
In
McGhee v. United S t a t e s , 122 C t . C 1 . 380 (1952) ( r e v ' g , Docket 2 1 , 1 I n d .
C 1 . Comm. 546 ( 1 9 5 1 ) ) , t h e c o u r t r u l e d t h a t a group i s an i d e n t i f i a b l e
group i f i t is composed of d e s c e n d e n t s of members of t h e t r i b e o r band
-4,
a s i t e x i s t e d a t t h e time t h e c l a i m a r o s e .
.
Id. a t
391.
Under t h e r u l e
s e t o u t i n Thompson and McGhee and r e s t a t e d more r e c e n t l y i n Red Lake and
Pembina, s u p r a , t h e ? l a i n t i f f s i n Docket Nos. 1 9 1 and 221 c l e a r l y a r e
i d e n t i f i a b l e groups i n t h a t many of t h e i r members a r e d e s c e n d e n t s of
members of t h e Plains-Ojibwa a s i t e x i s t e d when t h e c l a i m a r o s e .
T u r t l e Mountain Band p l a i n t i f f a r g u e s t h a t t h e r u l e of Thompson v .
U n i t e d S t a t e s , s u p r a , does n o t a p p l y when t h e landowning e n t i t y h a s b e e n
i n c o n t i n u o u s e x i s t e n c e from t h e d a t e of t h e a l l e g e d wrong.
I n such a
case, i t argues, t h e continuing e n t i t y is t h e s o l e successor i n i n t e r e s t
and h a s t h e e x c l u s i v e r i g h t of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .
merit.
T h i s argument i s w i t h o u t
A s i m i l a r c o n t e n t i o n was r e j e c t e d by t h e C o u r t of Claims i n
McGhee v. United S t a t e s , s u p r a .
The c o u r t t h e r e s t a t e d t h a t i t was t h e
a n c e s t r a l wronged e n t i t y which had t h e c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s .
I f t h a t e n t i t y d i v i d e s a f t e r t h e d a t e of t h e a l l e g e d wrong none o f t h e
r e s u l t i n g f a c t i o n s i s t h e s o l e s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t even i f t h e U n i t e d
S t a t e s h a s recognized i t a s t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n of t h e t r i b e .
a t 387.
122 C t . C 1 .
I n M i a m i T r i b e v . United S t a t e s , Docket 256, 1 4 I n d . C 1 . Comm.
375, 435-44
(1964), t h i s Commission a l s o r e j e c t e d a s i m i l a r argument.
I n t h a t c a s e we r u l e d t h a t any i d e n t i f i a b l e group of I n d i a n s h a s s t a n d i n g
2 5 I n d . C l . Comm. 336
t o make a c l a i m b e f o r e t h e Commission.
Furthermore, we s a i d , e v e r y
i d e n t i f i a b l e group has t h e r i g h t t o s u e on i t s own b e h a l f , even if an
o r g a n i z e d c r i b e o r band making t h e s a n e claim d e c l a r e s t h a t i t w i l l
r e p r e s e n t a l l i n d i v d u a l s e n t i t l e d ;o p a r t i c i p a t e .
We then s t a t e d :
We cannot say t h a t p e t i t i o n e r i n Docket 256 is t h e
s o l e s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o t h e o r i g i n a l Miami T r i b e even
if we assume t h a t s a i d p e t i t i o n e r has continued a s a t r i b a l
e n t i z y from t h e t r e a t y d a t e s of t h e s u b j e c t c a s e t o t h e
(14 I n d . C 1 . Comm. a t 443.)
present t i m e .
We concluded by s a y i n g t h a t s o long a s t h e r e a r e o t h e r i d e n t i f i a b l e g r o u p s
which c o n t a i n members whose a n c e s t o r s were p a r t of t h e wronged e n t i t y ,
t h e organized t r i b e is n o t t h e s o l e s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t , and e a c h of t h e
p r e s e n t e n t i t i e s i s e n t i t l e d t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e claim.
Id-a t
The C o m i s s i o n reached a similar r e s u l t i n Yakima T r i b e
United S t a t e s ,
V.
444.
Docket 161, 1 2 I n d . C 1 . Comm. 301, 364 (1963), and i n E a s t e r n band
of Cherokee I n d i a n s v. United S t a t e s , Docket 282, 7 Ind. C 1 . Corn. 1 4 0 ,
147 (1959).
W e conclude t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e
lai in tiff
i n Docket No. 113
i s n o t t h e f u l l s u c c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t t o t h e Plains-Ojibwa,
and t h a t t h e
p l a i n t i f f s i n Docket Nos'.
1 9 1 and 221, b e i n g i d e n t i f i a b l e g r o u p s , have
10 1
s t a n d i n g t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h i s claim.
1 0 1 Our c o n c l u s i o n is s u p p o r t e d by t h e r e c e n t d e c i s i o n of t h e C o u r t of
C l a i m s i n Cherokee Freedmen v. U n i t e d S t a t e s , s u p r a . I n t h a t c a s e t h e
c o u r t s e t o u t t h r e e p r o t e c t i v e d e v i c e s t h e Commission should u s e t o a v o i d
p r e d e t e r m i n i n g t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s of an award. The f i r s t of t h e s e d e v i c e s
i s t o a l l o w a l l i d e n t i f i a b l e groups which may have an i n t e r e s t i n t h e
c l a i m t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e claim. Secondly, t h e Commission s h o u l d a v o i d
r e f e r r i n g t o any organized e n t i t y a s t h e b e n e f i c i a r y o r t h e o n l y b e n e f i c i a r y
of t h e c l a i m . F i n a l l y t h e 'comqission s h o u l d make c l e a r , i n i t s o p i n i o n s
and i n i t s f i n a l judgment, t h e i d e n t i t y of t h e i n j u r e d t r i b a l e n t i t y .
I d . , s l i p op. a t 11-12.
-
26 Ind. C1. Comm. 336
For t h e r e a s o n s and t o t h e e x t e n t i n d i c a t e d above w e g r a n t i n p a r t
and deny i n p a r t t h e motions of p l a i n t i f f s f o r r e h e a r i n g .
>L
n c e , Commissioner
We Concur:
Richard W . Yarborough, Commissioner