Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

NATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICAN INDIANS

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

PRESIDENT

Susan Masten

Yurak Tribe

FIRST VICE-PRESIDENT

W. Ron Allen

Jamestown 5'Klallam

RECORDING SECRETARY

Juana Majel
Paura-Yuima

TREASURER

Emie Stevens, Jr.
Oneida of Wisconsin

AREA VICE PRESIDENTS

ABERDEEN

Tom Ranfranz

Flandreau Santee Sioux

ALBUQUERQUE
Joe A. Garcia

San Juan Pueblo

ANADARKO

Merle Boyd

Sac & Fox Nation of OK

BILLINGS

Jonathan Windy Boy Chippewa Cree Tribe of Rocky Boy

JUNEAU

Mike Williams
Yupik

MINNEAPOLIS
Bemida Churchill
Mille Lacs Band
of Ojibwe

MUSKOGEE

S. Diane Kelly
Cherokee Nation

NORTHEAST Alma Ransom

St Regis Mohawk Tribe

PHOENIX

A. Brian Wallace

Washoe Tribe of NVICA

PORTLAND

Emie L. Stensgar
Couer d'Alene Tribe

SACRAMENTO
Mervin E. Hess
Lone Pine Paire
Shoshone Tribe
SOUTHEAST
A. Bruce Jones
Lumbee

NCAI HEADQUARTERS

1301 Connecticut Ave., NW

Suite 200

Washington, DC 20036

202.466.7767

202.466.7797 fax

www.ncai.org

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 (NCAI) 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

NCAI 2001 MID-YEAR SESSION

RESOLUTION #MSH-01-021

WHEREAS, the Solicitor of the Department of the Interior has acknowledged the legitimacy of at least one of the Tribe's claims making H.R.791 and S.533 mere political tools introduced as a desperate effort to circumvent justice and impede potential fruitful discussions with the state of Illinois and fair resolution of the claim; and

WHEREAS, such targeted attacks will disallow Tribes to exercise their governmental authority to pursue claims to lands which were reserved to them in treaties with the United States, but are now illegally in the hands of non-Indians and allows the United States to breach its treaty commitments, thus eroding the sovereignty of all tribes as well as the value of the United States' promises and the relationship between the United States and the 561 Indian nations within its borders.

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that NCAI hereby opposes H.R. 791 and S. 533 and asks the sponsors of the bills to withdraw their legislation; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that if the sponsors fail to withdraw the legislation, NCAI hereby urges the Members of the House Resources Committee and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs and all other Members of Congress to condemn this legislation as an egregious attack on tribal treaty and aboriginal rights and work to defeat the legislation in committee and otherwise; and

BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that NCAI calls upon the Administration to oppose H.R. 791 and S. 533 and requests that the President of the United States veto such legislation if it ever comes before him to be enacted.

CERTIFICATION

The foregoing resolution was adopted at the 2001 Mid-Year Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held at Foxwoods Resort Casino in Mashantucket, Connecticut on May 13-16, 2001, with a quorum present.

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

Adopted by the General Assembly during the 2001 Mid-Year Session of the National Congress of American Indians, held in Mashantucket, Connecticut on May 13-16, 2001.

PAGE 2

Mr. HAYWORTH. And, Ms. Johnson, we thank you for your testimony and the willingness of all three of you now to answer questions from the Chair.

Just one thing at the outset, Chief Angelo. You offered a statement that I think was disturbing to every member of the Committee, and I just want some amplification on it. And I may be paraphrasing a bit. You said in the minds of some in Illinois, and I do not know if this is a direct quote or not; maybe you are talking about overriding sentiment, we got rid of the Indians 100 years ago. We do not want that back.

Mr. ANGELO. Yes.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Or that situation back, something along those lines.

Chief Angelo, was that said to you specifically by any governmental official in the State of Illinois, by any Federal officeholder? Mr. ANGELO. Yes.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Could you name the person who made that statement and in what forum that came?

Mr. ANGELO. His name was Mark Warnstein. He was a special counsel or counsel to the Governor. It occurred in my last meeting, our last meeting, in the company of others, and that the situation-let me give you some background on how it occurred-he was questioning whether or not Shab-eh-nay was truly-and his band were truly Ottawa, and of course, this has been a question in the minds of the Illinois people, and I gave him a string of documents bringing out where Shab-eh-nay is listed as an Ottawa and even during the 1829 treaty, in the minutes of that treaty, where he actually received the land, he is documented as an Ottawa chief.

And he got upset during that exchange, and I assume he was embarrassed, and he fired out this line to me, and my attorney or ex-attorney was present as well as another witness, and also a BIA agent from Miami Agency was present. And I was offended by this, deeply offended, and I terminated our-basically our meeting at that point. But it was definitely offensive to us.

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, Chief Angelo, I just wanted to say that in the opinion of the Chair, I think every member of this Committee regardless of political label or partisan division that, you know, we all share your concern about that statement. But I just wanted that amplified if, in fact, that was made to you. And I think you will certainly find, sir, that on this Committee, regardless of some disagreements about public policy, that is not the sentiment sharedthe Chair feels confident in saying that-for anyone here, and I thank you for amplifying exactly how and under what circumstances such a comment was made.

Mr. ANGELO. Well, I appreciate your concern and am grateful that you are making this stance.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And I will call on the gentleman from Illinois later. The Chair would reserve the right as Chairman to first handle questions, and then, we will go alternating with the majority and the minority sides.

Let me turn now to Vice Chairman Mitchell. And in listening to the testimony this morning from both you, Mr. Vice Chairman, and Second Chief Angelo, the Potawatomi and Ottawa Tribes' land claim rests on the theory that the 1829 treaty created a recognized

title and a permanent reserve that could only be extinguished by Congress and that Congress has failed to validly extinguished that

reserve.

Now it is this Committee's understanding that in 1852, Congress appropriated $1,600 for payment to Indians claiming descent from Shab-eh-nay and that Congress intended that this payment would extinguish the 1829 treaty reserve. How is this not a valid extinguishment of the 1829 reserve to which you are claiming title?

Mr. MITCHELL. Well, we spent two and one half years gathering all of this research material together, and we relied on the academic professionals and all of this to develop material, and all of the even the Leshy opinion said that we were the sole successor to the property there. And as far as the details of any settlement, the other land that we lost in the Illinois area, we were compensated for that, but it was never anything done with that portion of the Shab-eh-nay land.

So I would have to go back and look at our research to fully answer that question.

Mr. HAYWORTH. OK; and Mr. Vice Chairman, you will have the option-in fact, in writing, to respond with a more formal and more complete assessment. The Chair and the Committee would certainly welcome that.

Chief Angelo, you mentioned in your testimony the opinion letter from John Leshy that he rendered on his final day as solicitor. Aside from that opinion, has the tribe received any formal determinations regarding the validity of its claim?

Mr. ANGELO. We have not submitted to the solicitor yet. We are within 45 to 60 days from submitting our final report. We are in a rough draft form currently, and new and material evidence has surfaced that, without a doubt, puts us in as a successorship. I might add that one of the issues that we had which we wanted to confirm was a band list, and I think the Potawatomis would agree that-and even the solicitor's office would agree that it was very difficult to find that.

We have found a band list that outlines who was on his—who was in his tribe or in his village, and our report will display that as well as how they came into our tribe in Kansas at the time.

I would also like to answer your previous question. What was that asked to Vice Chief Mitchell?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Well, to return to that, the Potawatomi and Ottawa Tribes' land claim rests on the theory that the 1829 treaty created a recognized title and a permanent reserve that could only be extinguished by Congress and that Congress has failed to validly extinguish that reserve.

Now, we understand-the Committee's understanding is that in 1852, Congress appropriated $1,600 for payment to Indians claiming descent from Shab-eh-nay and that Congress intended that this payment would extinguish the 1829 treaty reserve.

So the question becomes, Chief, how is this not a valid extinguishment of the 1829 reserve to which you are claiming title?

Mr. ANGELO. Well I think in our instance, you mentioned descendants of Shab-eh-nay. Remember, this treaty in 1829 says Shab-eh-nay and his band, and you are forgetting about the band. They are not descendants of Shab-eh-nay. So it is not strictly to de

scendants of Shab-eh-nay; it also includes his band, and that has been our issue, and that we have uncovered the band list.

They are not necessarily descendants of Shab-eh-nay. There were eight to nine heads of family listed on an 1833 annuity role that were part of his village. And clearly, the 1829 treaty says Shab-ehnay and his band, not his descendants. So to me, the 1852 documentation or legislation did not clearly clear the band. Do you have any information where it did that?

Mr. HAYWORTH. Chief, just wanted to get your perspective on it for the record.

Mr. ANGELO. OK.

Mr. HAYWORTH. And I thank you for that.

Mr. ANGELO. Thank you.

Mr. HAYWORTH. The Chair would now turn to the minority side, and I see my good friend, the Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus, the gentleman from Michigan.

Mr. KILDEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Co-Chair of the Native American Caucus, one of the founders.

I think this Congress should be extremely reluctant to do anything that sets aside the treaties. Our Constitution says that this Constitution and all treaties entered into are the supreme law of the land, and that is very, very, important. John Marshall's decision equated Indian treaties with treaties with France or any other country. There are three types of sovereignties that the Constitution recognizes: the sovereign states, sovereign nations overseas, and sovereign Indian tribes.

And these treaties have the same validity as the Constitution, as this Constitution. And all treaties entered into are the supreme law of the land, so Congress should be most reluctant to do anything that would infringe upon the strength and the sovereignty of those treaties.

I yield back the balance of my time, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HAYWORTH. I thank the gentleman from Michigan and turn to my friend from Illinois, the sponsor of the legislation, for any questions or comments he might have for the panel.

Mr. JOHNSON. I will be very brief, and I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, and the Committee your indulgence in allowing me to sit on the panel. This is my honor.

I will point out first of all they certainly had very credible presentations; that Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Angelo represent tribes that are not involved in the claim for which I am advocating. That is a different claim, different year, different issues. And so, with all due respect, any responses that may have been made to you in that regard, while I certainly do not in any way validate any claims or statements that may in any way be racist, I would simply say that our claim is something that stands of its own footing and also simply point out to you, ladies and gentlemen, as members of the Committee, that our attempt in this bill is as narrow an attempt as one could possibly effect to obtain justice for everyone.

We are not in any way claiming that this is an invalid treaty, although I believe that in our case, the Miami Indians actually have dismissed their case without prejudice. This is simply an attempt to bring closure to the situation in fairness to the landowners. We are simply saying that if, in fact, there is a valid claim,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »