Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

3

possession of his band's reservation. Furthermore, burial records indicate that Shab-eh-nay died in Grundy County, Illinois in 1859.

Conclusion: Shab-ch-nay and his Band obtained recognized land title to a reservation of 1,280 acres near Paw-Paw Grove, Illinois in the Treaty of Prairie-du-Chien of 1829. The reservation became known as Assiminikon, Through the unauthorized acts of Department of the Interior officials, the United States purported to sell the Shab-eh-nay Band Reservation in fee to non-Indian settlers as part of the public domain. The sales were conducted by the General Land Office and fee patents were issued on the mistaken assumption that the Reservation had been abandoned by Shab-eh-nay's Band, thereby merging legal and equitable title in the United States. Shab-eh-nay's Band was forced to remove in the fall of 1836 and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma mombers are descendents of this Band. Sho-bo-nier and Shab-ehnay are two different individuals with land reserves in two different States. Because the Congress of the United States has not extinguished the recognized title of Shab-ch-nay's Band, the Reservation still exists.

Respectfully,

Larry Angelo Second Chief,
Ottawa Tribe

Mr. HAYWORTH. Thank you, Chief Angelo. I appreciate your testi

mony.

And finally in panel two, we hear from the Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians, Jacqueline L. Johnson. Ms. Johnson, welcome. We look forward to hearing your testimony.

STATEMENT OF JACQUELINE L. JOHNSON, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS Ms. JOHNSON. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. As stated, my name is Jacqueline Johnson. I am the Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians, and I thank you for inviting us to testify for you today on H.R. 791, a bill regarding certain Indian land disputes in Illinois. The National Congress of American Indians, NCAI, was established in 1944 and is the largest and the oldest, most representative national American Indian-Alaskan Native tribal government organization. We appreciate the opportunity to be able to participate on behalf of our member Indian nations in this legislative process of the U.S. Congress to provide this Committee with our views.

NCAI is opposed to H.R. 791 and requests this honorable Committee, after giving this bill full and fair consideration, not to report H.R. 791 to the full House of Representatives. In support of this request, we ask that NCAI Resolution MSH-01021, opposing H.R. 791, which is attached with my testimony, which was passed at the 2001 mid-year session of the National Congress of American Indians, be made part of the record of this hearing.

We oppose H.R. 791 because it would extinguish any and all claims to land within the State of Illinois by three tribes whose

claims arise from treaties entered into with the United States. These tribes are the Potawatomi Tribes of Kansas; the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma, who entered into the 1829 Treaty of Prairie-Du-Chien, the Treaty of Grouseland and the 1816 Treaty with the United States, Tribes of the Ottawas, Chippewas and Potawatomis.

The Indian tribes party to these treaties believe that the United States made solemn commitments, legally binding both to the tribes and to the United States. They believe that they would be able to live forever upon these lands reserved as their homelands from the vast areas that they once occupied.

The faith of these tribes proved to be unfounded. The tribes never ceded these lands but were forcefully driven from them, and these lands were sold to others in the United States. I will not here address the particular facts of these three tribes named in H.R. 791. In particular, the history of each tribe and treaty named in this bill differ in each case and underscores the inequity of sweeping all of the claims together and dealing with them exactly in the same manner with this legislation.

I want to emphasize that there is an appropriate role for Congress' involvement in and oversight of Indian land claims, including land claims in Illinois. But that is not at this early stage. The Federal courts and the legal process is there for a reason: because Indian land claims are extremely fact-specific and based on treaties and historical circumstances, Congress is not in a good position to declare what is fair until there has been a full development of the record and an effort to settle by the parties.

The better process is one that first allows the validity of the land claim to be legally tested, and we should note that the land claims are very difficult to prosecute. It also becomes clear that a claim is a valid claim, and when the tribe should have a chance to work with the state and the local government and the land owners through settlement discussions to come to a resolution. Everyone gets a hearing; all the issues are placed on the table, and the parties can forge relationships, resolve issues and hopefully come to a resolution that everyone can live with.

Alternative dispute resolution is a very good option, because parties have the ability to create solutions to fit unique circumstances and because parties have a much better chance of coexisting over a long period of time with a negotiated resolution than with one that is dictated by the court or by Congress. This is a process that has been working for the last 25 years and has been effective in coming to resolution on quite a number of very significant Indian land claims. There has never been an Indian land claim that went all the way to a final judgment where a Federal court has thrown non-Indians off their land.

There are incentives for parties to work together and to come to a resolution. We should encourage Congress and the administration to stay the course and to continue to strive for equitable settlements of Indian land claims. Congress must ratify any settlement involving land claims, so Congress always retains the ultimate control over the land claim process as outlined above.

After the parties have had a chance to develop a record and come to a resolution, that is when Congressional action is appropriate.

In Illinois, that has not had the chance to occur. H.R. 791 would short-circuit the legal process and the settlement process and perpetuate even more injustices against these three tribes. Even if H.R. 791 were to become law, the tribes would be back here next year and for the next thousand years attempting to resolve their claims.

Congress cannot simply resolve Indian land claims in this onesided fashion. It is my hope that there will be agreement among the parties in Illinois that the tribes will receive fair resolution of their claims, and there will be no harm to the people who have done no wrong. I sincerely believe this would happen if the parties would set down together and work to resolve their issues. I know that at least one of the tribes has withdrawn its lawsuit, and the others are working to resolve their issues in the fairest way possible.

However, I also think that the controversy that has been raised in Illinois should be placed in its proper context. Indian people were thrown out of their homes, and their treaty lands were taken from them. Now, we are going through some minor amount of legal discussion in Illinois regarding these lands and fair resolution of the tribal claims, and in balancing the equities, Congress should not choose to undermine the legal rights of tribes.

Thank you for this opportunity to be able to appear before you today, and I appreciate the work of the Chairman and the members of this Committee, and we would be willing to assist if there is anything that we can possibly do. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Johnson follows:]

Statement of Jacqueline Johnson. Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Jacqueline Johnson. I am the Executive Director of the National Congress of American Indians. Thank you for inviting us to testify before you on H.R. 791, a bill regarding certain Indian land disputes in Illinois. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) was established in 1944 and is the oldest, largest, and most representative national American Indian and Alaska Native tribal government organization. We appreciate the opportunity to participate on behalf of our Member Indian Nations in the legislative process of the United States Congress to provide this Committee with our views.

NCAI opposes H.R. 791 and requests that this honorable Committee, after giving the bill full and fair consideration, not report H.R. 791 to the full House of Representatives. In support of this request, we ask that NCAI Resolution MSH-01-021 opposing H.R. 791, which passed at the 2001 Mid-Year Session of the National Congress of American Indians, be made a part of the record of this hearing.

We oppose H.R. 791 because it would extinguish any and all claims to land within the State of Illinois by three tribes whose claims arise from treaties entered into with the United States. The tribes are the Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas, the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma and the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma who entered into the 1829 Treaty of Prairie du Chien, the Treaty of Grouseland and the 1816 Treaty with the United Tribes of the Ottawas, Chipawas and Pottowotomees. The Indian tribes party to these treaties believed that the United States made solemn commitments, legally binding upon both the tribes and the United States. They believed that they would be able to live forever upon the lands reserved as their homelands from the vast areas they once occupied.

The faith of these tribes proved to be unfounded. The tribes never ceded these lands, but were forcefully driven from them, and the lands were sold to others by the United States. I will not address the particular facts of each of the three tribes named in H.R. 791. The particular history of each tribe and treaty named in this bill differ in each case. These circumstances underscore the inequity of sweeping all

of the claims together and dealing with them in exactly the same manner in one piece of legislation.

I want to emphasize that there is an appropriate role for Congress in involvement in and oversight of Indian land claims, including land claims in Illinois, but that it is not at this early stage in the process. The Federal courts and the legal process are there for a reason. Because Indian land claims are extremely fact-specific and based on treaties and historical circumstances, Congress is not in a good position to determine what is fair until there has been a full development of the record and an effort to settle by the parties. The best process is one that first allows the validity of the land claim to be legally tested (and we should note that land claims are very difficult to prosecute). If it becomes clear that a claim is a valid claim, then the tribe should have a chance to work with the state and local governments and the landowners through settlement discussions to come to a resolution. Everyone gets a hearing, all the issues are put upon the table, and the parties can forge relationships, resolve issues, and hopefully come to a resolution that everyone can live with.

Alternative dispute resolution is a very good option because the parties have the ability to create solutions to fit unique circumstances, and because the parties have a much better chance of co-existing over a long period of time with a negotiated resolution than with one that is dictated by a court or by Congress. This process has been working for the past twenty-five years and it has been effective in bringing to resolution a number of very significant Indian land claims. There has never been an Indian land claim that went all the way to a final judgment where a Federal court has thrown non-Indians off their land. There are incentives for the parties to work together and come to a resolution. We would encourage Congress and the Administration to stay the course and continue to strive for equitable settlements of Indian land claims.

Congress must ratify any settlement involving Indian land. Thusly, Congress always retains ultimate control over the land claims process outlined above. The appropriate time for Congressional actions is after the parties have had a chance to develop the record and come to a resolution. In Illinois, that has not had a chance to occur. H.R. 791 would short-circuit both the legal and the settlement processes and would perpetrate even more injustices against these three tribes. Even if H.R. 791 were to become law, the tribes would be back here next year and for the next one thousand years attempting to resolve their claims. Congress cannot simply resolve Indian land claims in this one-sided fashion.

It is my hope that there will be agreement among the parties in Illinois, that the tribes will receive fair resolutions of their claims, and that there will be no harm to people who have done no wrong. I sincerely believe this will happen if the parties sit down together and work to resolve the issues. I know that least one tribe has withdrawn its lawsuit, and that the others are working to resolve issues in the fairest way possible. However, I also think that the controversy that has been raised in Illinois should be placed in its proper context. Indian people were thrown out of their homes and their treaty lands were taken from them. Now we are going through some minor amount of legal discussion in Illinois regarding those lands and the fair resolution of the tribal claims. In balancing the equities, Congress should not choose to undermine the legal rights of the tribes.

H.R. 791 would refer the named claims to the United States Court of Federal Claims with money damages as the only remedy. If, indeed, any of the treaty tribes or their successors in interest believes that money is the appropriate and preferred remedy, they are certainly entitled to support H.R. 791. NCAI has been advised that the factual situations of each claim differ and we strongly urge you to hear what the tribes testifying before you today have to say and to give their circumstances your respect.

Thank you for the opportunity of appearing before you today. We greatly appreciate the work of the Chairman and the Committee on Indian issues, and would request that our written testimony and the aforementioned resolution be made a part of the record.

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PRESIDENT

Sun Masten

Turok Libe

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

THE NATIONAL CONGRESS OF

AMERICAN INDIANS

RESOLUTION #MSH-01-021

Title: To Oppose H.R. 791 and S. 533 Which Would Extinguish
Indian Land Claims in the State of Illinois

WHEREAS, we, the members of the National Congress of American Indians of the United States, invoking the divine blessing of the Creator upon our efforts and purposes, in order to preserve for ourselves and our descendants the inherent sovereign rights of our Indian nations, rights secured under Indian treaties and agreements with the United States, and all other rights and benefits to which we are entitled under the laws and Constitution of the United States, to enlighten the public toward a better understanding of the Indian people, to preserve Indian cultural values, and otherwise promote the welfare of the Indian people, do hereby establish and submit the following resolution, and

WHEREAS, the National Congress of American Indians (NCA) was established in 1944 and is the oldest, largest, and most representative national American Indian and Alaska Native tribal government organization; and

WHEREAS, H.R. 791 and S. 533 have been introduced by certain members of the Illinois congressional delegation to extinguish any and all claims to land within the state of Illinois by the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma, the Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma and the Potawatomi Tribe of Kansas or their members or predecessors or successors in interest arising out of Article IV of the Treaty of Grouseland, Article II of the 1816 Treaty with the United Tribes of the Ottawas, Chipawas and Pottowotomees, or Article III of the 1829 Treaty of the Prairie du Chien, and

WHEREAS, the bills would also extinguish all claims for land within Illinois of the named tribes and allow treaty and aboriginal claims by the named tribes to be brought only against the United States as the defendant and only in the United States Court of Federal Claims with monetary damages as the only available remedy, and

WHEREAS, H.R.791 and S. 533 are politically motivated targeted attacks against certain tribes to stop them from exercising their legal rights and pursuing justice based upon prior treaty commitments of the United States which are solemn promises and the supreme law of the land; and

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »