Petition — Hannahville Indian Community v. United States

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Anited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

No. 79-1669

HANNAHVILLE INDIAN COMMUNITY, et al,

Petitioners,

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent.

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS

ROBERT C. BELL, JR.

528 Main Street

New Canaan, Connecticut 06840

Attorney for Hannahville Indian

Community, and other Eastern

Potawatomi petitioners

DAVID L. KILEY

300 West Third Street

Marion, Indiana 46952

Attorney for Eastern

Miami petitioners

Of Counsel:

ALBERT C. HARKER

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM, 1980

No.

HANNAHVILLE INDIAN COMMUNITY, et al.,

Petitioners,

¥.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

THE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS

Petitioners (Potawatomi and Miami Indian tribes which were

parties to the treaty of Greenville of August 3, 1795, 7 Stat. 49, or

their representatives) pray that a writ of certiorari issue to the United

States Court of Claims to review the judgment of that Court entered

in this case on January 23, 1980 in Appeal No. 11-78, (Ind. Cl.

Comm. Dockets 29-C and 130).

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Court of Claims, (Appendix A) rendered on

January 23, 1980 by a three-judge panel of that Court, on appeal

from the Indian Claims Commission, reversed in part the decision of

the Indian Claims Commission, 43 Ind. Cl. Comm. 687, 747 (Sep-

tember 29, 1978) entered only one day prior to the expiration of the

statutory life of the Commission. Request for rehearing by defendant

and requests for rehearing and oral argument by plaintiffs were

denied March 28, 1980.

Nw

JURISDICTION

Jurisdiction is invoked under the Indian Claims Commission

Act, 60 Stat. 1049, 27 U.S.C. §70s(c), and 28 U.S.C. §1255.

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

Have the plaintiffs received fair and reasonable or an “uncon-

scionable consideration” in “fair and honorable dealings”’, as

“recognized by any existing rule of law or equity” in either con-

tract or in tort or “any other ground cognizable by a court of

equity”’’, as provided by the Indian Claims Commission Act.

TREATIES AND STATUTES INVOLVED

Pertinent statutes are the Treaty of Greenville of August 3,

1795, 7 Stat. 49 (Appendix B); and the Indian Claims Commis-

sion Act of 1949, 60 Stat. 1049, as amended, 25 U.S.C. § §70 et

seq (Appendix C); and the Decree of George III, dated October 7,

1763 (Appendix D).

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The occupants of the ‘“‘Northwest Territory” lying north of

the Ohio River and east of the Mississippi River held “Indian title”

to this vast and valuable area (U.S. v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks,

329 U.S. 40 (1946). Such title and ownership was recognized by

the British crown in the “Proclamation of 1763”. Under the Treaty

of Paris of September 3, 1783 ending the Revolutionary War, the

United States obtained no greater rights than the British held at that

time.

The “Miami Tribe” and the affiliated ‘‘Wea’’ sub-tribe once

owned and controlled most of the southern three-quarters of the

State of Indiana. These Indians ceded to the United States three

strategically located tracts in northern Indiana, including Fort

Wayne, Indiana (see Article III, §§5, 6 & 7 of the Greenville

Treaty). These contained a total area of 48,640 acres. The total

consideration for these cessions was $44,337.50, or about 91 cents

an acre. For this the Indian Claims Commission recognized a value

of $1.08 an acre, or $52,531.20, but declined to make an award

because the difference between the value found of $1.08 an acre

and 91 cents an acre was not “unconscionable”. For the eight mile

portage road from Fort Wayne to a branch of the Wabash River, the

award was a TOTAL of $2.50. There was NO award for the approxi-

mately four hundred (400) miles of river easements tlhirough Indian

country in Ohio and Indiana. The Court of Claims AFFIRMED this

judgment!!!

The ‘Potawatomi Nation” owned and controlled over

30,000,000 acres of much of the finest land in the Northwest Terri-

tory extending from Cleveland and Detroit to the Mississippi River

and from Green Bay, Wisconsin, and Grand River, Michigan to the

Wabash River and St. Louis. The Indian Claims Commission awarded

the Potawatomi $1.17 an acre, or $26,956.80, for the 23,040 acres

(six miles square or 36 square miles) of Chicago “where a fort for-

merly stood” (Article III, §14); $1.08 per acre for 7,460 acres

($7,948.80) at Peoria, Illinois ‘tat the old Piorias fort and village,

near the south end of the Illinois lake on said Illinois river” (Article

III, §16); and $1.08 an acre for 22,000 acres ($23,760.00) ‘‘at

or near the mouth of the Illinois river emptying into the Missis-

sippi” (Article III, §15). For the approximately ten mile portage

from Chicago to the Illinois River the Indian Claims Commission

awarded a TOTAL of Ten Dollars ($10). The defendant’s own

witness had conceded $1,000. The Court of Claims increased this

to $9,600, which was the evaluation as of 1795 by the plaintiffs’

witness. There was NO award for the more than 300 miles of river

easements through the Potawatomi country from Chicago to the

Mississippi River near St. Louis, and NO award for interest since

1795 or other consideration for delayed payment or for any change

in the value of the U.S. dollar!!!

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

1. The failure to make any award whatsoever to the Miami Tribe

was unconscionable.

A

2. The awards to the Potawatomi Tribe or Nation were arbitrary,

unreasonable, capricious, inadequate, and in respect to important

river easements were skipped or omitted in their entirety.

3. The use and misuse of the Greenville enclaves, portages, and

particularly the river routes (for which no awards were granted)

enabled intruders, both military and white settlers, by their tortious

acts, trespasses, treaties and infractions of treaties, to oust the Indian

owners and remove them west of the Mississippi or cause them to

flee to northern Wisconsin or beyond within 40 years.

4. “Fair and honorable dealings” or “any other ground cogni-

zable by a court of equity”’, as required by the statute, necessitates

that interest or other appropriate consideration be awarded for the

nearly 200 years which have elapsed in righting the wrongs which

Congress intended to be adjudicated here.

5. The change in the value of the dollar due to interim inflation,

especially since August 13, 1949 when the Indian Claims Commis-

sion Act became law, should be part of the fair, honorable and equit-

able consideration extended in this case.

CONCLUSION

For said reasons, the writ of certiorari to the United States Court

of Claims should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT C. BELL, JR.

528 Main Street

New Canaan, Connecticut 06840

Attorney for Hannahville Indian

Community, and other Eastern

Potawatomi petitioners in ICC

Docket 29-C

DAVID L. KILEY

300 West Third Street

Marion, Indiana 46952

Attorney for Eastern Miami

petitioners in ICC Docket 130

Of Counsel:

ALBERT C. HARKER

-la-

Gn the United States Court of Claims

(Decided January 23, 1980)

Appeal No. 9-78

Ind. Cl. Comm. Docket No. 252

THE MIAMI TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA, Appellant, v. THE

UNITED STATES, Appellee.

Appeal No. 10-78

Ind. Cl. Comm. Docket No. 338

THE PEORIA TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA Appellant, v. THE

UNITED STATES, Appellee.

Appeal No. 11-78

Ind. Cl. Comm. Docket No. 29—C

HANNAHVILLE INDIAN COMMUNITY, FOREST

COUNTY POTTAWATOMIE COMMUNITY, THE

POTTAWATOMIE INDIANS OF INDIANA AND

MICHIGAN, INCORPORATED, and POTTAWATOMIE

NATION OF INDIANS, Appellant, v. THE UNITED

STATES, Appellee.

Appeal No. 11-78

Ind. Ct. Comm. Docket No. 130

IRA SYLVESTER GODFROY, et al., ex. rel., THE MIAMI

INDIAN TRIBE, Appellant, v. THE UNITED STATES,

Appellee.

APPENDIX "A"

-2a-

Edwin A. Rothschild, attorney of record for appellant in

Docket No. 252.

Jack Joseph, attorney of record for appellants in Docket

No. 338.

Robert C. Bell, Jr., attorney of record for appellants in

Docket No. 29-C.

Robert L. Kiley, attorney of record for appellants in

Docket No. 130.

D. Lee Stewart, with whom was Assistant Attorney

General James W. Moorman, for appellee.

Before FRIEDMAN, Chief Judge, COWEN, Senior Judge,

and KUNZIG, Judge.

ON APPEALS FROM THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION

KUNZIG, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court:

This Indian Claims case return to us! on several issues

involving valuation by the Indian Claims Commission

(Commission) of lands ceded by appellants to the United

States in the 1795 Treaty of Greenville, 7 Stat. 49, and the

effect upon appellants’ claims of consideration they re-

ceived from the Government under the treaty. Appellants

contest the Commission’s decision denying the additional

compensation to the Miami Tribe of Oklahoma (Docket No.

252), the Miami Indian Tribe (Docket No. 130), and the

Peoria Tribe of Oklahoma (Docket No. 338) (suing on behalf

of the Wea Tribe of Indians) (hereinafter collectively

referred to as Miami-Weas). Pottawatomie Tribe of Indians

v. United States, 43 Ind. Cl. Comm. 687, 747 (1978).

Appellants Pottawatomie Indians of Indiana (Docket No.

29-C) question the amount awarded them by the Commis-

1 This case was previously before the court on the question of which tribes) held

aboriginal title to the various lands ceded. Strong v. United States, 207 Ct.Cl. 254.

518 F. 2d 556 (1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1015 (1975). The court affirmed the

Commission except as to its determination of title to the Ouatanon enclave. Id. at

282, 518 F. 2d at 571. The case was remanded to the Commission on this issue and to

determine the amount, if any, which the various claimants were entitled to recover.

-3a-

sion. Id. For the reasons discussed below, we affirm, with

one exception, the Commission’s decision since its findings

of fact are based upon substantial evidence and _ its

conclusions of law are correct.

In 1795, appellants’ ancestors ceded land in Illinois,

Indiana and Ohio to the United States in the Treaty of

Greenville, supra. The treaty also provided that the

Government would give the tribes $20,000 worth of goods

and perpetual annuities of $500 or $1000 per tribe. Treaty

of Greenville, Article IV, 7 Stat. 49, 51. See, Pottawatomie

Tribe v. United States, 43 Ind. Cl. Comm. 687, 707 (1978).

After passage of the Indian Claims Commission Act (Act) in

1946, 25 U.S.C. §§ 70-70v (1976), the tribes claimed that the

consideration they received for their cessions in 1795 was

unconscionable within the meaning of the Act. Id. at §

70a(3). Consequently, they sought adequate compensation

for the cessions as provided in the Act.

Initially, the Commission determined which tribes held

aboriginal title to the various tracts of land ceded.? It also

determined the land and consideration should be assessed

as of the effective date of the treaty, August 3, 1795. Strong

v. United States, 31 Ind. Cl. Comm. 89 (1973). The

Commissioners then determined, in the decision presently

before us on appeal, the value of the lands ceded, the value

of consideration received by the tribes, and whether that

consideration was unconscionable within 25 U.S.C. § 70a(3)

(1976).

As to appellants Miami-Weas (Docket Nos. 130, 252 and

338), the Commission found that the consideration received

by appellants was not unconscionable.’ Thus, these claims

2 See note 1, supra, and Strong v. United States, 31 Ind. Cl. Comm. 89 (1973). The

Commission has decided title to the Ouatanon enclave, as directed, in the decision

below. No appeal! was taken from that new determination. See Pottawatomie Tribe v.

United States, 43 Ind. Cl. Comm. 687, 689-91 (1978).

3 The Commission valued the lands ceded and consideration received as follows:

Value of Cessions Value of Consideration

Miami Tribe $35,022.47 $33,220.00

Weas (Peoria Tribe) $17,511.23 $11,120.00

Pottawatomies $58,675.60 $22.100.00

The Pottawatomies were considered to have received unconscionable consideration,

but not the Miamis or Weas. These determinations as to unconscionability are in line

with our cases. See, e.g., Lummi Tribe of Indians v. United States, 181 Ct.Cl. 753

-4a-

were dismissed. Pottawatomie Tribe v. United States, 43

ind. Cl. Comm. 687, 747-48 (1978). We consider, with the

exception of the portages discussed below, the Commis-

sion’s findings of facts supported by substantial evidence in

the record and conclusions of law in this regard correct.

The Commission also examined the claims of appellant

Pottawatomie Indians (Docket No. 29-C) and determined

that they received unconscionable consideration. Thus,

payment of $58,675.60 to the Pottawatomi, less any offsets

to which the Government is entitled, was ordered. Id.

Again, with the exception of portages ceded, we affirm the

decision of the Commission as supported by substantial

evidence and encompassing correct conclusions of law.

As stated, both the Miami-Weas and Pottawatomie

challenged the Commission’s decision on various grounds.

Since we affirm for substantially the reasons stated by the

Commission in its opinion, 43 Ind. Cl. Comm. 687 (1978),

except as to the two portages, we will limit our discussion

to the issues involving these portages.4

(1967); Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 150 Ct.Cl. 725, 281 F. 2d 202

(1960), cert. denied, 366 U.S. 924 (1961).

4 We note briefly two contentions raised by appellants.

First, we reject summarily appellant Pottawatomie Tribe's argument that it is

entitled to an increased award because of the dollar’s devaluation since 1795. The

court has repeatedly rejected such arguments absent specific direction by Congress

to allow interest or account for the effects of inflation. Nooksack Tribe of Indians v.

United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 712, 718 (1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 993 (1964). See also,

United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians, 207 Ct. Cl. 234, 518 F. 2d 1298 (1975), cert.

denied, 423 U.S. 1016 (1975); United States v. Delaware Tribe, 192 Ct Cl. 385, 427 F.

2d 1218 (1970).

Second, the Miami-Wea complain that the Sioux Amendments, 25 U.S.C. § 70a

(1976) as amended by Pub. L. No. 93-494, 88 Stat. 1499, 1500 (1974), prohibit the

Commission from taking goods delivered to the tribes into account as consideration

received for their cessions. In this case, the Commission determined that it could

take the value of goods delivered to the Indians into account in order to determine

whether the tribes received unconscionable consideration. Once the Commission

determined that the consideration was unconscionable, however, it did not deduct

the value of the goods from the ultimate award. That is the proper procedure under

the Sioux Amendments.

Congress amended section 2 of the Indian Claims Commission Act, 25 U.S.C. § 70a,

to provide that “expenditures for food, rations, or provisions shall not be deemed

payments on the claim.” Pub.L. No. 93-494, 88 Stat. 1499, 1500 (1974). Chief Judge

Friedman, writing for this court in Sioux Nation of Indians v. United States, 220

Ct.Cl. _, 601 F. 2d 1157 (1979), stated, “The legislative history of the 1974

amendment indicates that the amendment was intended to apply to the calculation

of offsets following an award, and not to the initial determination whether plaintiff

is entitled to recover. . .” Id. at 1163, note 4 (emphasis added). While the Sioux case

involved a Fifth Amendment taking issue, we consider the statute to apply exactly

Miami-Wea Portage

The Miami-Wea portage is a two-mile strip running form

Royce Area 16 to Royce Area 17 in Indiana.5 The

Commission found that the two-acre area’s highest and best

use was as a portage and valued it at a total of $2.50. By

contrast, the Government’s expert valued the land at $1500

and appellants’ evidence showed the land was worth $2400.

We conclude that the Commission’s finding as to the value

of this portage is not supported by substantial evidence, see,

Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs Reservation v. United

States, 177 Ct.Cl. 184 (1966), or adequate explanation.

Thus, we must correct the Commission in chis aspect.® 25

U.S.C. § 70v (1976). See, Strong v. United States, 207 Ct.Cl.

254, 518 F. 2d 556, cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1015 (1975).

The Commission’s error must also be sufficiently materi-

al as to result in prejudicial error. 25 U.S.C. § 70s(b\ 1976);

Yakima Tribe v. United States, 158 Ct.Cl. 672, 695 (1962).

As we will explain, while the Commission valued the

Miami-Wea portage improperly, even accepting appellants’

figure as correct, appellants are still not entitled to an

unconscionable consideration award. Thus, we must affirm

the Commission’s dismissal of the Miami-Wea claims

(Docket Nos. 130, 252 and 338). 25 U.S.C. § 70s(b) (1976).

The decision below found that the Miamis ceded land

worth $35,022.47 for consideration of $33,220.00. The

alike in an unconscionable consideration case. As the court stated in Sioux, the

legislative history aptly supports this conclusion. Id. at 51.

The Conference Report, for instance, states that the amendments provide: “that

expenditures of the United States of funds for food, rations or provisions could not be

offset by the United States against any award of the Commission to an Indian tribe

or other claimant.” Conf. Rep. No. 93-1446, reprinted in [1974] U.S. Code. Cong. &

Admin. News 6118-19. Thus, we affirm the methodology used by the Commission.

The value of “food, rations or provisions” may not be deducted from an award.

Prairie Band of Pottawatomie Tribe v. United States, 215 Ct.Cl. 1, 564 F. 2d 38 (1977),

but the value of such goods may be considered in determining whether the

Government owes any award to begin with. Sioux Nation, supra.

5 The term “Royce Area” refers to numberings made by Charles C. Royce in

mapping the Indian Nations. See, Royce, Indian Land Cessions in the United States,

18th Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology (1899).

6 Previously, we were constrained to remand all errors to the Commission for

correction. Lummi Tribe of Indians v. United States, 181 Ct.Cl. 753 (1967). With the

expiration of the Commission in 1978, however, Congress conferred full jurisdiction

upon this court to adjudicate all aspects of these cases. 25 U.S.C. § 70v (1976). as

amended by Pub.L. No. 94-465, § 2, 90 Stat. 1990 (1976). Thus, we have full

jurisdiction to decide these matters here.

-6a-

Miamis owned two-thirds of the portage and the Weas the

remaining one-third. Accepting the Miami’s valuation of

the portage as correct, the value of their land should have

been increased by $1600. In other words, their total land

value should have been $36,620.80.7 The corresponding

figure for the Weas is $18,310.40.8 Thus, the Miami-Wea

lands were worth 4.6 per cent more than the Commission’s

evaluation.’ This relatively minor change does not alter

the Commission’s conclusion that the consideration re-

ceived for the ceded lands was not so grossly dispropor-

tionate as to be unconscionable. Compare, Lummi Tribe of

Indians v. United States, 181 Ct.Cl. 753 (1967); Osage

Nation of Indians v. United States, 119 Ct.Cl. 592, 97 F.

Supp. 381, cert. denied, 342 U.S. 896 (1951). Consequently,

the Commission’s error in evaluating the portage did not

result in prejudicial error and its dismissal of Docket Nos.

130, 252 and 338 is affirmed.

Pottawatomie Portage

Similarly to the Miami-Wea claim, the Commission

improperly valued the Pottawatomie portage from Royce

Area 16 to the Illinois River. The appellants’ portage was

valued at a total of $10 by the Commission, whereas the

Government’s and appellants’ experts valued the lands at

$1000 and $9600 respectively. Pottawatomie Tribe v.

United States, 43 Ind. Cl. Comm. 687, 702 (1978). Since the

Pottawatomies are entitled to recover, less any allowable

offsets, however, their award must be adjusted to reflect

the appropriate value of the portage.

7 $35,022.47 minus $2.50 value of portage accounted for in that figure plus the

“true value” of $1600.

* For the Weas, they ceded land worth $17,511.23 for $11,120.00 in consideration.

Increasing their figure by one-third of the $2400 yields them a new total land value

of $18,310.40.

)

$36,620.80 - $35,022.47 x 100% = 4.6%

$35,022.47

$18,310.40 - $17,511.23 x 100% = 4.6%

$17,511.23

These proportions should be the same since both tribes had a constant proportional

interest in the lands valued.

-7a-

As we stated in note 6, supra, Congress gave this court

full jurisdiction to deal with these Indian claims. 25 U.S.C.

§ 70v (1976). In this case, we see no need to create further

delay by referring valuation of the Pottowatomie portage

to the trial division. Rather, this court has determined the

appropriate amount to add to appellants’ award after an

extensive review of the record, facts and applicable law.

There is a substantial number of factors which we must

consider in determining the value of appellants’ land,

United States v. Emigrant New York Indians, 177 Ct. Cl.

263, 285 (1966), including population, accessibility, proximi-

ty to seitled areas and cthers. The Commission properly

determined that this land’s highest and best use was as a

passage yvetween two enclaves. 43 Ind. Cl. Comm. 687, 737

(1978). Nonetheless, while the enclave’s potential as a toll

road does not have a separate value, United States v.

Northern Paiute Nation, 16 Ind. Cl. Comm.215 (1965), aff'd

183 Ct.Cl. 321 (1968), it is worth more than the other areas

where the highest and best use is subsistence farming. This

is amply evidenced by the fact that even the Government

estimated the value of this portage at considerably more

than did the Commission, supra.

Examining the arguments and record in light of the

relevant factors, we find that appellants’ expert, in this one

instance, valued the land most appropriately.'!° Hence,

appellant Pottawatomie tribe’s award is increased by $9600

minus the $10 which the Commission previously awarded

for the portage. Thus, the Pottawatomie’s total award is

$68,265.60 less any offsets to which the government is

entitled.

In summary, we affirm the decision of the Commission

except as to the value of the portage in Docket No. 29-C.

The Miami-Wea’s portage was improperly valued, but since

no prejudicial error resulted, the dismissal of Dockets Nos.

10 All told, the Commission's basic error was in using the same procedure to value

portages as it did for farmland. See, Pottawatomie Tribe v. United States, 43 Ind. Cl

Comm. 687, 705 (1978). Even the Commission, however, found that appellants’

portage had some strategic value. Id. at 737. Since appellants’ expert took this factor

into account, it is a better figure to use than the Government's. The appellee's expert

discounted the values by too much for this portage. Id. at 699, 704. The flaw which

the Commission found in the tribe's expert's valuation as to the subsistence farming

tracis (i.e., that the acres he compared appellants’ land with were more highly

populated), does not have such an adverse effect upon the valuation of the portages

-8a-

130, 252 and 338, is affirmed. The Pottawatomie portage

also was value improperly and they are entitled to an

additional $9600 making their total award $68,265.60 less

any offsets allowable to the government. Accordingly, upon

thorough consideration of the record, parties’ submissions,

and after oral argument, we affirm the decision of the

Indian Claims Commission except as to the Pottawatomie

portage in Docket No. 29-C. Appellant’s award in Docket

No. 29-C is hereby modified: Appellants are awarded

$68,265.60 less any offsets to which the Government is

entitled.

Additionally, the Commission’s order that Docket No.

29-C proceed to “a determination of the amount of any

gratuitous offsets allowable,” 43 Ind. Cl. Comm. 687, 748

(1978), is modified under the new statutes, see note 6,

supra. Hence, this case is referred to the trial division

under Rule 131 to determine the amount, if any, of

gratuitous offsets to which the Government is entitled.

-9a-

APPENDIX "'B"'

TREATY OF GREENVILLE, 7 Stat. 49, BETWEEN

THE WYANDOT, DELAWARE, SHAWNEE, OTTAWA,

CHIPPEWA, POTAWATOMI, MIAMI, EEL RIVER,

WEA, KICKAPOO, PIANKESHAW AND KASKASKIA

TRIBES OF INDIANS AND THE UNITED STATES OF

AMERICA

GEORGE WASHINGTON

President Of The United States Of America

To All To Whom These Presents Shall Come, Greting.

Whereas a Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the

United States of America and the Tribes of Indians called

the Wvandots, Delawares, Shawanoes, Ottawas, Chipewas,

Potawatimes, Miamis, Eel River, Weea’s, Kickapoos, Pian-

kashaws, and Kaskaskias, was made and concluded on the

Third day of August one thousand seven hundred and

ninety five by Anthony Wayne, Major General Command-

ing the Army of the United States, duly authorized there-

to, on the one part, and the Sachems and war chiefs of

the before mentioned Nations and Tribes of Indians

whose names are thereunto signed on the other part:

which Treaty is in the form and words following viz:

49 A TREATY OF PEACE

Between the United States of Anvrerica and the tribes of

Indians, called the Wyandots, Delawares, Shawanoes,

Ottawas, Chipewas, Putaaatimes, Miamis, Eel-river,

Waea’s, Kickapoos. Piankashaws, and Kaskaskias.

To put an end to a destructive war, to settle all contro-

versies, and to restore harmony and a friendly inter-

course between the said United States, and Indian tribes;

Anthony Wayne, major-general, commanding the army

-10a-

of the United States, and sole commissioner for the good

purposes above-mentioned, and the said tribes of Indians,

by their Sachems, chiefs and warriors, met together at

Greeneville, the Head quarters of the said army, have

agreed on the following articles, which, when ratified by

the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate

of the United States, shall be binding on them and the

said Indian tribes.

Argticie I.

Henceforth all hostilities shall cease; peace is hereby

established, and shall be perpetuated; and a friendly

intercourse shall take place, between the said United

States and Indian tribes.

Articie ILI.

All prisoners shall on both sides be restored. The

Indians, prisoners to the United States, shall be imme-

diately set at liberty. The people of the United States,

still remaining prisoners among the Indians, shall be de-

livered up in ninety days from the date hereof, to the

general or commanding officer at Greeneville, Fort Wayne

or Fort Defiance; and ten chiefs of the said tribes shall

remain at Greeneville as hostages, until the delivery of

the prisoners shall be effected.

Articie III.

The general boundary line between the lands of the

United States, and the lands of the said Indian tribes,

shall begin at the mouth of Cayahoga river, and run

thence up the same the portage between that and the

Tuscarawas branch of the Muskingum; thence down that

branch to the crossing place above Fort Lawrence; thence

westerly to a fork of that branch of the great Miami river

running into the Ohio, at or near which fork stood Loro-

mie’s store, and where commences the portage between the

Miami of the Ohio, and St. Mary’s river, which is a branch

-lla-

of the Miami, which runs into Lake Erie; thence a west-

erly course to Fort Recovery, which stands on a branch

of the Wabash; then south-westerly in a direct line to the

Ohio, so as to intersect that .*ver opposite the mouth of

Kentucke or Cuttawa river. And in consideration of the

peace now established; of the goods formerly received

from the United States; of those now to be delivered,

and of the yearly delivery of goods now stipulated to be

made hereafter, and to indemnify the United States for

the injuries and expenses they have sustained during the

war; the said Indian tribes do hereby cede and relinquish

forever, all their claims to the lands lying eastwardly

and southwardly of the general boundary line now de-

scribed; and these lands, or any part of them, shall never

hereafter be made a cause of pretence, on the part of the

said tribes or any of them, of war or injury to the United

States, or any of the people thereof.

[50] And for the same cc>gjderations, and as an evi-

dence of the returning friendship of the said Indian tribes,

of their confidence in the United States, and desire to

provide for their accommodation, and for that convenient

intercourse which will be beneficial to both parties, the

said Indian tribes do also cede to the United States the

following pieces of land; to wit. (1.) One piece of land

six miles square at or near Loromie’s store before men-

tioned. (2.) One piece two miles square at the head of

the navigable water or landing on the St. Mary’s river,

near Girty’s town. (3.) One piece six miles square at the

head of the navigable water of the Au-Glaize river. (4.)

One piece six miles square at the confluence of the Au-

Glaize and Miami rivers, where Fort Defiance now stands.

(5.) One piece six miles square at or near the confluence

of the rivers St. Mary’s and St. Joseph’s, where Fort

Wayne now stands, or near it. (6.) One piece two miles

square on the Wabash river at the end of the portage

from the Miami of the lake, and about eight miles west-

ward from Fort Wayne. (7.) One piece six miles square

at the Ouatanon or old Weea towns on the Wabash river.

(8.) One piece twelve miles square at the British fort on

-l2a-

the Miami of the lake at the foot of the rapids. (9.) One

piece six miles square at the mouth of the said river

where it empties into the Lake. (10.) One piece six miles

square upon Sandusky lake, where a fort formerly stood.

(11.) One piece two miles square at the lower rapids of

Sandusky river. (12.) The post of Detroit and all the land

to the north, the west and the south of it, of which the

Indian title has been extinguished by gifts or grants to

the French or English governments: and so much more

land to be annexed to the district of Detroit as shall be

comprehended between the river Rosine on the south,

lake St. Clair on the north, and a line, the general course

whereof shall be six miles distant from the west end of

Lake Erie, and Detroit river. (13.) The post of Michilli-

mackinac, and all the land on the island, on which that

post stands, and the main land adjacent, of which the

Indian title has been extinguished by gifts or grants to

the French or English governments; and a piece of land

on the main to the north of the island, to measure six

miles on Lake Huron. or the streight hetween lakes [Turon

and Michigan, and to extend three miles back from the

water of the lake or streight. and also the island DeBois

Blane, being an extra and voluntary gift of the Chipewa

nation. (14.) One piece of land six miles square at the

mouth of Chikago river emptying into the southwest end

of Lake Michigan, where a fort formerly stood. (15.) One

piece twelve miles square at or near the mouth of the

Illinois river, emptying into the Mississippi. (16.) One

piece six miles square at the old Piorias fort and village,

near the south end of the T[llinois lake on said Illinois

river. And whenever the United States shall think vroper

to survey and mark the boundaries of the lands hereby

ceded to them, they shall give timelv notice thereof to the

said tribes of Indians, that they may appoint some of

their wise chiefs to attend and see that the lines are run

according to the terms of this treaty.

And the said Indian tribes will allow to the people of

the United States a free passage by land and by water,

-l3a-

as one and the other shall be found convenient, through

their country, along the chain of posts herein before men-

tioned; that is to say, from the commencement of the

portage aforesaid at or near Loromie’s store, thence along

said portage to the St. Mary’s, and down the same to

Fort Wayne, and then down the Miami to lake Mrie:

again from the commencement of the portage at or near

Loromie’s store along the portage from thence to the

river Au-Glaize, and down the same to its junction with

the Miami at Fort Defiance: again from the commence-

ment of the portage aforesaid, to Sandusky river, and

down the same to Sandusky bay and lake Erie, and from

Sandusky to the post which shall be taken at or near the

foot of the rapids of the Miami [51] of the lake: and

from thence to Detroit. Again from the mouth of Chikago,

to the commencement of the portage, between that river

and the Illinois, and down the Illinois river to the Missis-

sippi, also from Fort Wayne along the portage aforesaid

which leads to the Wabash, and then down the Wabash

to the Ohio. And the said Indian tribes will also allow

to the people of the United States the free use of the

harbours and mouths of rivers along the lake adjoining

the Indian lands, for sheltering vessels and boats, and

liberty to land their cargoes where necessary for their

safety.

Articie [V.

In consideration of the peace now established and of

the cessions and relinquishments of lands made in the

preceding article by the said tribes of Indians, and to

manifest the liberality of the United States, as the great

means of rendering this peace strong and perpetual; the

United States relinquish their claims to all other Indian

lands northward of the river Ohio, eastward of the Mis-

sissippi, and westward and southward of the Great Lakes

and the waters uniting them, according to the boundary

line agreed on by the United States and the king of Great-

Britain, in the treaty of peace made between them in the

year 1783. But from this relinquishment by the United

-l4a-

States, the following tracts of land, are explicitly ex-

cepted. Ist. The tract of one hundred and fifty thousand

acres near the rapids of the river Ohio, which has been

assigned to General Clark, for the use of himself and his

warriors. 2d. The post of St. Vincennes on the river

Wabash, and the lands adjacent, of which the Indian title

has been extinguished. 3d. The lands at all other places

in possession of the French people and other white set-

tlers among them, of which the Indian title has been

extinguished as mentioned in the 3d article; and 4th. The

post of fort Massac towards the mouth of the Ohio. To

which several parcels of land so excepted, the said tribes

relinquish all the title and claim which they or any of

them may have.

And for the same considerations and with the same

views as above mentioned, the United States now deliver

to the said Indian tribes a quantity of goods to the value

of twenty thousand dollars, the receipt whereof they do

hereby acknowledge; and henceforward every year for-

ever the United States will deliver at some convenient

place northward of the river Ohio, like usefull goods,

suited to the circumstances of the Indians, of the value

of nine thousand five hundred dollars; reckoning that

value at the first cost of the goods in the city or place

in the United States, where they shall be procured. The

tribes to which those goods are to be annually delivered

and the proportions in which they are to be delivered,

are the following.

Ist. To the Wvandots, the amount of one thousand

dollars. 2d. To the Delawares, the amount of one thousand

dollars. 3d. To the Shawanese, the amount of one thousand

dollars. 4th. To the Miamis, the amount of one thousand

dollars. 5th. To the Ottawas, the amount of one thousand

dollars. 6th. To the Chippewas, the amount of one thousand

dollars. 7th. To the Putawatimes, the amount of one

thousand dollars. 8th. And to the Kickapoo, Weea, Eel-

river, Piankashaw and Kaskaskias tribes, the amount of

five hundred dollars each.

-15a-

Provided, That if either of the said tribes shall here-

after at an annual delivery of their share of the goods

aforesaid, desire that a part of their annuity should be

furnished in domestic animals, implements of husbandry,

and other utensils convenient for them, and in compen-

sation to useful artificers who may reside with or near

them, and be employed for their benefit, the same shall

at the subsequent annual deliveries be furnished accord-

ingly.

[52] Articte V.

To prevent any misunderstanding about the Indian lands

relinquished by the United States in the fourth article,

it is now explicitly declared, that the meaning of that

relinquishment is this: The Indian tribes who have a

right to these lands, are quietly to enjoy them, hunting,

planting, and dwelling thereon so long as they please,

without any molestation from the United States; but when

those tribes, or any of them, shall be disposed to sell

their lands, or any part of them, they are to be sold only

to the United States; and untill such sale, the United

States will protect all the said Indian tribes in the quiet

enjoyment of their lands against all citizens of the United

States, and against all other white persons who intrude

upon the same. And the said Indian tribes again acknowl-

edge themselves to be under the protection of the said

United States and no other power whatever.

ArtTicLe VI.

If any citizen of the United States, or any other white

person or persons, shall presume to settle upon the iands

now relinquished by the United States, such citizen or

other person shall be out of the protection of the United

States; and the Indian tribe on whose land the settlement

shall be made, may drive off the settler, or punish him

in such manner as they shall think fit; and because such

settlements made without the consent of the United States,

will be injurious to them as well as to the Indians, the

-l6a-

United States shall be at liberty to break them up, and

remove and punish the settlers as they shall think proper,

and so effect that protection of the Indian lands herein

before stipulated.

Articite VII.

The said tribes of Indians, parties to this treaty, shall

be at liberty to hunt within the territory and lands which

they have now ceded to the United States, without hind-

rance or molestation, so long as they demean themselves

peaceably, and offer no injury to the people of the United

States.

Articte VIII.

Trade shall be opened with the said Indian tribes; and

they do hereby respectively engage to afford protection

to such persons, with their property, as shall be duly

licensed to reside among them for the purpose of trade,

and to their agents and servants; but no person shall be

permitted to reside at any of their towns or hunting

camps as a trader, who is not furnished with a license for

that purpose, under the hand and seal of the superin-

tendent of the department north-west of the Ohio, or

such other person as the President of the United States

shall authorise to grant such licenses; to the end, that

the said Indians may not be imposed on in their trade.

And if any licensed trader shall abuse his privilege by

unfair dealing, upon complaint and proof thereof, his

license shall be taken from him, and he shall be further

punished according to the laws of the United States. And

if any person shall intrude himself as a trader, without

such license, the said Indians shall take and bring him

before the superintendent or his deputy, to be dealt with

according to law. And to prevent impositions by forged

licenses, the said Indians shall at least once a year give

information to the superintendent, or his deputies, of

the names of the traders residing among them.

-l7a-

ARTICLE IX.

Lest the firm peaee and friendship now established

should be interrupted by the misconduct of individuals,

the United States, and the said Indian tribes agree, that

for injuries done by individuals on either side, [55] ne

private revenge or retaliation shall take plaee; but in-

stead thereof, complaint shall be made by the party in-

jured, to the other: By the said Indian tribes, or any of

them, to the President of the United States, or the super-

intendant by him appointed; and by the superintendant

or other person appointed by the President, to the prin-

cipal chiefs of the said Indian tribes, or of the tribe to

which the offender belongs; and such prudent measures

shall then be pursued as shall be necessary to preserve

the said peace and friendship unbroken, until the Legis-

lature (or Great Council) of the United States, shall make

other equitable provision in the case, to the satisfaction

of both parties. Should any Indian tribes meditate a war

against the United States or either of them, ayd the

same shall come to the knowledge or the before-mentioned

tribes, or either of them, they do hereby engage to give

immediate notice thereof to the general or officer eom-

manding the troops of the United States, at the nearest

post. And should any tribe, with hostile intentions against

the United States, or either of them, attempt to pass

through their country, they will endeavor to prevent

the same, and in like manner give information of such

attempt, to the general or officer commanding, as soon as

possible, that all causes of inistrust and suspicion may be

avoided between them and the United States. Ino like

manner the United States shall give notiee to the said

Indian tribes of any harm that may be meditated against

them, or either of them, that shall come to their knowl

edge; and do all in their power to hinder and prevent

the same, that the friendship between them may be un

interrupted.

-l18a-

ARTICLE X.

All other treaties heretofore made between the United

States and the said Indian tribes, or any of them, since

the treaty of 1783, between the United States and Great

Britain, that come within the purview of this treaty,

shall henceforth cease and become void.

[7 Stat. 49, 53]

In Testimony whereof, the said Anthony Wayne, and

the Sachems and War-Chiefs of the before-mentioned

Nations and Tribes of Indians, have hereunto set their

Hands, and affixed their Seals. Done at Greeneville,

in the Territory of the United States, north-west of the

river Ohio, on the third Day of August, one thousand

and seven hundred and ninety-five.

Joseph 40-A

Wyandots.

Tar-he, (or Crane)

J. Williams, jun.

Tey-yagh-taw,

Ha-ro-en-you,

(or half King’s Son)

Te-haaw-to-rens,

Aw-me-yee-ray,

Staye-tah,

Daugh-shut-tay-ah,

Sha-aw-run-the,

Sha-tey-ya-ron-yah,

(or Leather Lips)

Delawares.

Teta-boksh-ke,

(or Grand Glaize King)

Le-man-tan-quis,

(or Black King)

Wa-bat-thoe,

Magh-pi-way,

(or Red Feather)

ANTHONY WAYNE.

Kik-tha-we-nund,

(or Anderson)

Bu-kon-ge-he-las,

Pee-kee-lund,

Welle-baw-kee-lund,

Pee-kee-tele-mund,

(or Thomas Adams)

Kish-ko-pe-kund,

(or Captain Buffaloe)

Ame-na-he-han,

(or Captain Crow)

Que-Shawk-say,

(or George Washington)

Wey Win-quis,

(or Billy Siscomb)

Moses,

Shawanoes.

Mis-qua-coo-na-caw,

(or Red Pole)

Cut-the-we-ka-saw,

(or Black Hoof)

Kay-se-wa-e-se-kah,

Wey-tha-pa-mat-tha,

Nia-nym-se-ka,

Way-the-ah,

(or Long Shanks)

Wey-a-pier-sen-waw,

(or Blue Jacket)

Ne-que, taugh-aw,

Hah-goo-see-kaw,

(or Captain Reed)

Ottawas.

Au-goosh-away,

Kee-no-sha-meek,

La Malice,

Ma-chi-we-tah,

‘Tho-wo-na-wa

Se-caw,

[54] Chippewas.

Mash-i-pi-nash-i-wish,

(or Bad Bird)

Nah-sho-ga-she,

(from Lake Superior)

Ka-tha-wa-sung,

Ma-sass,

Ne-me-kass,

(or Little Thunder)

Pe-shaw-kay,

(or Young Ox)

Nan-guey,

Mee-ne-doh-gee-sogh,

Pee-wan-she-me-nogh,

Wey-me-gwas,

Gob-mo-a-tick,

Ottawa.

Che-go-nickska.

(an Ottawa from

Sandusky)

-19a-

Putawatames of the River

Saint Joseph.

Thu-pe-ne-bu,

Naw-ac,

(for himself and brother

A-si-me-the)

Ne-nan-se-ka,

Kee-sass,

(or Sun)

Ka-ba-ma-saw,

(for himself and brother

Chi-sau-gan )

Sug-ga-nunk,

Wap-me-me,

(or White Pigeon)

Wa-che-ness,

(for himself and bypther

Pe-da-go-shok)

Wab-shi-caw-naw,

La Chasse,

Me-she-ge-the-nogh,

(for himself and brother

Wa-wa-sek)

Hin-go-swash,

A-ne-wa-saw,

Naw-budgh,

Mis-se-no-go-maw,

Wa-we-eg-she,

Thaw-me,

(or le Blanc)

Cee-que,

(for himself and brother

She-win-se )

-20a-

Putawatames of Huron. Miamis.

()-ki-a, Wa-pa-man-gwa,

Cha-mung, (or the White Loon)

Se-ga-ge-wan,

Na-naw-me,

(for himself and brother

Amgin)

Mar-chand,

We-na-me-ac,

Weea's, for themselves

and the Piankashaws.

A-ma-eun-sa,

(or Little Beaver)

A-coo-la-tha,

(or Little Fox)

Miamts. Francis.

Na-goh-quan-gogh,

(or le Gris)

Me-she-kin-nogh-quoh,

Kickapoos and Kaskaskias.

Kee-aw-hah,

(or Little Turtle) Ne-migh-ka,

(or Josey Renard)

Miamis and Kel-River. Pai-kee-ka-nogh,

Pee-jee-wa,

(or Richard Ville)

Coch-ke-pogh-togh,

Delawares of Sandusky.

Ilaw-kin-puim-is-ka,

Pey-a-mawk-say,

Kel-River Tribe. Revn-tue-co-

Sha-me-kin-ne-sa, (of the Six Nations,

(or Soldier) living at Sandusky)

In presence of, (the word “goods” in the 6th line of

the 3d article; the word “before” in the 26th line of the

3d article; the words “five hundred” in the 10th line of

the 4th article; and the word “Piankashaw” in the 14th

line of the 4th article, being first interlined.)

H. DeButts, first A. D. C. and Sec’y to M. G. Wayne,

Wm. II. Harrison, Aid-de-camp to M. G. Wayne, T. Lewis,

Aid-de-camp to M. G. Wayne. James O’Hara, Quarter-

Master Genl. John Mills, Major of Infantry, and Adj.

Genl. Caleb Swan, . M. T. U. S. Geo. Demter, Lieut.

Artillery. Vigo. P. fri La Fontaine, Ant. Lasselle. Hf. La-

selle. Jn. Beau Bien. David Jones, Chaplain U.S. 1. Lewis

Beufait. R. Lachambre Jas. Pepon, Baties Coutien, P.

Navarre.

-2la-

Sworn Interpreters.

Wm. Wells, Jacques Lasselle, M. Morins, Bt. Sans

Crainte, Christopher Miller, Robert Wilson, Abraham

x Williams, Isaac x Zane.

To the Indian names are subjoined a mark and seal.

Now know Ye, that I having seen and considered the

said Treaty, do by and with the advice and consent of

the Senate of the United States, Accept, Ratify, and Con-

firm the same, and every article and clause thereof. In

Testimony whereof, I have caused the Seal of the United

States to be hereunto affixed and signed the same with

my hand.

Given at the City of Philadelphia the Twenty second

day of December, in the year of our Lord one

[Seal] thousand seven hundred and ninety five, and in

the Twentieth year of the Sovereignty and Inde-

pendence of the United States.

G. Washington.

By the President:

Timothy Pickering.

-22a-

APPENDIX "'c"

EXCERPTS FROM THE INDIAN CLAIMS

COMMISSION ACT

60 Stat. 1049 et seq., 25 U.S.C. § 70 et seq.

§ 1 (25 U.S.C. § 70) Creation of Commission

§ 2 (25 U.S.C. § 70a) Jurisdiction; claims considered;

Offsets and counterclaims

§ 3 [as amended] (25 U.S.C. § 70b) Members of

Commission-Appointment Qualifications-Oath

§ 12 (25 U.S.C. § 70k) Limitation of Time for presenting

claim

§ 19 (25 U.S.C. § 70r) Final Determination of

Commission

§ 20 (25 U.S.C. § 70s) Review by Court of Claims and

Supreme Court

§ 70. Creation of Commission

There is created and established an Indian Claims Com-

mission, referred to in this chapter as the Commission.

Aug. 13, 1946, c. 959, § 1, 60 Stat. 1049.

§ 70a. Jurisdiction; claims considered; offsets and coun-

terclaims

The Commission shall hear and determine the following

claims against the United States on behalf of any Indian

tribe, band, or other identifiable group of American Indians

residing within the territorial limits of the United States

or Alaska: (1) claims in law or equity arising under the

Constitution, laws, treaties of the United States, and

Executive orders of the President; (2) all other claims

in law or equity, including those sounding in tort, with

respect to which the claimant would have been entitled

to sue in a court of the United States if the United States

was subject to suit; (3) claims which would result if the

treaties, contracts, and agreements between the claimant

and the United States were revised on the ground of

-23a-

fraud, duress, unconscionable consideration, mutual or

unilateral mistake, whether of law or fact, or any other

ground cognizable by a court of equity; (4) claims arising

from the taking by the United States, whether as the

result of a treaty of cession or otherwise, of lands owned

or occupied by the claimant without the payment for

such lands of compensation agreed to by the claimant; and

(5) claims based upon fair and honorable dealings that

are not recognized by any existing rule of law or equity.

No claim accruing after August 13, 1946, shall be con-

sidered by the Commission.

All claims under this chapter may be heard and de-

termined by the Commission notwithstanding any statute

of limitations or laches, but all other defenses shall be

available to the United States.

In determining the quantum of relief the Commission

shall make appropriate deductions for all payments made

by the United States on the claim, and for all other off-

sets, counterclaims, and demands that would be allowable

in a suit brought in the Court of Claims under section

250 of Title 28; the Commission may also inquire into

and consider all money or property given to or funds

expended gratuitously for the benefit of the claimant and

if it finds that the nature of the claim and the entire course

of dealings and accounts between the United States and

the claimant in good conscience warrants such action,

may set off all or part of such expenditures against any

award made to the claimant, except that it is declared

to be the policy of Congress that monies spent for the

removal of the claimant from one place to another at the

request of the United States, or for agency or other ad-

ministrative, educational, health or highway purposes, or

for expenditures made prior to the date of the law, treaty

or Executive Order under which the claim arose, or for

expenditures made pursuant to sections 461, 462, 463, 464,

465, 466-470, 471-473, 474, 475, 476-478 and 479 of this title,

save expenditures made under section 465 of this title,

or for expenditures under any emergency appropriation

or allotment made subsequent to March 4, 1933, and

-24a-

generally applicable throughout the United States for

relief in stricken agricultural areas, relief from distress

caused by unemployment and conditions resulting there-

from, the prosecution of public work and public projects

for the relief of unemployment or to increase employ-

ment, and for work relief (including the Civil Works Pro-

gram) shall not be a proper offset against any award. Aug.

13, 1946, c. 959, § 2, 60 Stat. 1050.

§ 70b. Members of Commission—Appointment ;

qualifications ; oath

(a) The Commission shall consist of five Commis-

sioners who shall be appointed by the President, by

and with the advice and consent of the Senate. The

President shall designate one Commissioner as Chairman.

At all times at least three Commissioners shall be mem-

bers of the bar of the Supreme Court of the United States

in good standing. No more than three Commissioners

shall be of the same political party. Each Commissioner

shall take an oath to support the Constitution of the

United States and to discharge faithfully the duties of his

Office.

The persons holding the offices of Chief Commissioner

and Associate Commissioner of the Indian Claims Com-

mission on April 9, 1967, shall continue in office serving

as Commissioners of the Indian Claims Commission until

June 30, 1968, unless prior to that date the President

shall appoint them pursuant to this section.

(b) The Commissioners shall hold office during their

good behavior until the dissolution of the Commission as

provided in this chapter. Vacancies shall be filled in the

same manner as the original appointments. Members of

the Commission may he removed by the President for

cause after notice and opportunity to be heard.

(c) No Commissioner shall engage in any other busi-

ness, vocation, or employment during his term of office

nor shall he, during his term of office or for a period

of two vears thereafter, represent any Indian tribe,

-25a-

band, or group in any matter whatsoever, or have any

financial interest in the outcome of any tribal claim. Any

person violating the provisions of this subsection shall

be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more

than two years, or both.

Quorum

(d) Three Commissioners shall constitute a quorum,

and the agreement of three Commissioners shall be neces-

sary to any and all determinations for the transaction

of the business of the Commission, and, if there be a

quorum, no vacancy shall impair or affect the business of

the Commission, or its determinations.

§ 70k. Limitation of time for presenting claims

The Commission shall receive claims for a period of five

years after August 13, 1946, and no claim existing before

such date but not presented within such period may there-

after be submitted to any court or administrative agency

for consideration, nor will such claim thereafter be en-

tertained by the Congress. Aug. 13, 1946, c. 959, § 12, 60

Stat. 1052.

§ 70r. Final determinations of Commission

The final determination of the Commission shall be in

writing, shall be filed with its clerk, and shall include

(1) its findings of the facts upon which its conclusions

are based; (2) a statement (a) whether there are any

just grounds for relief of the claimant and, if so, the

amount thereof; (b) whether there are any allowable off-

sets, counterclaims, or other deductions, and, if so, the

amount thereof; and (3) a statement of its reasons for

its findings and conclusions. Aug. 13, 1946, ¢. 959, § 19,

60 Stat. 1054.

-26a-

§ 70s. Review by Court of Claims and Supreme Court

(a) In considering any claim the Commission at any

time may certify to the Court of Claims any definite and

distinct questions of law concerning which instructions are

desired for the proper disposition of the claim; and there-

upon the Court of Claims may give appropriate in-

structions on the questions certified and transmit the

same to the Commission for its guidance in the further

consideration of the claim.

(b) When the final determination of the Commission

has been filed with the clerk of said Commission the clerk

shall give notice of the filing of such determination to the

parties to the preceeding in manner and form as directed

by the Commission. At any time within three months

from the date of the filing of the determination of the

Commission with the clerk either party may appeal from

the determination of the Commission to the Court of

Claims, which Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to

affirm, modify, or set aside such final determination. In

similar manner- and with like effect either party may

appeal to the Court of Claims from any interlocutory de-

termination by the Commission establishing the liability

of the United States notwithstanding such determination

is not for any reason whatever final as to the amount of

recovery; and any such interlocutory appeal shall be taken

on or before January 1, 1961, or three months from such

interlocutory determination, whichever is later: Provided,

That the failure of either party to appeal from any such

interlocutory determination shall not constitute a waiver

of its right to challenge such interlocutory determina-

tion in any appeal from any final determination sub-

sequently made in the case. On said appeal the Court shall

determine whether the findings of fact of the Commission

are supported by substantial evidence, in which event

they shall be conclusive, and also whether the conclusions

of law, including any conclusions respecting “fair and

honorable dealings”, where applicable, stated by the Com-

mission as a basis for its final determination, are valid

-27a-

and supported by the Commission’s findings of fact. In

making the foregoing determinations, the Court shall re-

view the whole record or such portions thereof as may be

cited by any party, and due account shall be taken of the

rule of prejudicial error. The Court may at any time

remand the cause to the Commission for such further pro-

ceedings as it may direct, not inconsistent with the fore-

going provisions of this section. The Court shall pro-

mulgate such rules of practice as it may find necessary

to carry out the foregoing provisions of this section.

(c) Determinations of questions of law by the Court of

Claims under this section shall be subject to review by the

Supreme Court of the United States in the manner

prescribed by section 288 of Title 28. Aug. 13, 1946, ce.

959, § 20, 60 Stat. 1054; Sept. 8, 1960, Pub.L. 86-722, 74

Stat. 829.

-28a-

APPENDIX ''D"

Proclamation of 1763

October 7, 1763

(Annual Register for 1763, pp. 208-13)

The Proclamation of 1763, forbidding white settlement be-

yond a line drawn roughly along the crest of the Appala-

chians, was a carefully planned element in British imperial

policy. It was designed to place North American posses-

sions on a more stable footing following the defeat of the

French in the Great War for Empire. The Indians of the

interior, who regarded themselves as allies rather than sub-

jects of the French, were startled to hear rumors that the

English now claimed sovereignty over their territory. Dur-

ing the summer of 1763, the Indians — now stirred to

action — seized post after post on the frontier from Bri-

tish troops. The British foreign ministry, under the lead-

ership of Charles Wyndham, Second Earl of Egremont, one

of the King’s two principal Secretaries of State, sought to

reassure the Indians that their lands were secure and that

they would be acquired by the English through fair pur-

chase only. The Proclamation, against which American

frontiersmen would later rail, was vital in safeguarding the

security of the newly won empire, While the Proclama-

tion proved in fact, as George Washington phrased it in

1767, a “temporary expedient to quiet the minds of the

Indians,”’ it was also an attempt to develop a more civi-

lized policy toward the Indian.

By The King A Proclamation

WHEREAS WE HAVE taken into our royal consideration

the extensive and valuable acquisitions in America secured

to our Crown by the late definitive treaty of peace

-29a-

concluded at Paris the 10th day of February last; and be-

ing desirous that all our loving subjects, as well of our

kingdom as of our colonies in America, may avail them-

selves, with all convenient speed, of the great benefits and

advantages which must accrue therefrom to their commerce,

manufactures, and navigation; we have thought fit, with the

advice of our Privy Council, to issue this our Royal Pro-

clamation, hereby to publish and declare to all our loving

subjects that we have, with the advice of our said Privy

Council, granted our letters patent under our Great Seal

of Great Britain, to erect within the countries and islands

ceded and confirmed to us by the said treaty, four distinct

and separate governments, styled and called by the names

of Quebec, East Florida, West Florida, and Grenada, and

limited and bounded as follows, viz:

First, the government of Quebec, bounded on the Labra-

dor coast by the river St. John, and from thence by a line

drawn from the head» of that river, through the lake St.

John, to the South end of the lake Nipissim; from whence

the said line, crossing the river St. Lawrence and the Lake

Champlain in 45 degrees of North latitude, passes along

the High Lands, which divide the rivers that empty them-

selves into the said river St. Lawrence, from those which

fall into the sea; and also along the North coast of the

Bayes des Chaleurs, and the coast of the Gulph of St.

Lawrence to Cape Rosieres, and from thence crossing the

mouth of the river St. Lawrence by the West end of the

island of Anticosti, terminates at the aforesaid river St.

John.

Secondly, The governments of East Florida, bounded to

the Westward by the Gulph of Mexico and the Apalachi-

cola river; to the Northward, by a line drawn from that

-30a-

part of the said river where the Catahoochee and Flint ri-

vers meet, to the source of St. Mary’s river, and by the

course of the said river to the Atlantic Ocean; and to the

East and South by the Atlantic Ocean, and the Gulph of

Florida, including all islands within six leagues of the sea

coast.

Thirdly, The government of West Florida, bounded to

the Southward by the Gulph of Mexico, including all is-

lands within six leagues of the coast from the river Apa-

lachicola to lake Pontchartrain; to the Westward by the

said lake, the lake Maurepas, and the river Mississippi; to

the Northward, by a line drawn due East from that part

of the river Mississippi which lies in thirty-one degrees

North latitude to the river Apalachicola, or Catahoochee;

and to the Eastward by the said river.

Fourthly, The government of Grenada, comprehending

the island of that name, together with the Grenadines,

and the islands of Dominico, St. Vincent, and Tobago.

And to the end that the open and free fishery of our

subjects may be extended to, and carried on upon the

coast of Labrador and the adjacent islands, we have thought

fit . . . to put all that coast, from the river St. John’s to

Hudson’s Streights, together with the islands of Anticosti

and Madelane, and all other smaller islands lying upon the

said coast, under the care and inspection of our governor

of Newfoundland.

We have also . . . thought fit to annex the islands of

St. John and Cape Breton, or Isle Royale, with the lesser

islands adjacent thereto, to our government of Nova Scotia.

We have also . . . annexed to our province of Georgia, all

the lands lying between the rivers Atamaha and St. Mary’s.

-3la-

And ... we have. . . given express power and direc-

tion to our governors of our said colonies respectively,

that so soon as the state and circumstances of the said

colonies will admit thereof, they shall, with the advice and

consent of the members of our council, summon and call

general assemblies within the said governments respectively,

in such manner and form as is used and directed in those

colonies and provinces in America, which are under our

immediate government; and we have also given power to

the said governors, with the consent of our said councils,

and the representatives of the people, so to be summoned

as aforesaid, to make, constitute, and ordain laws, statutes

and ordinances for the public peace, welfare, and good

government of our said colonies, and of the people and

inhabitants thereof, as near as may be, agreeable to the

laws of England, and under such regulations and restric-

tions as are used in other colonies; and in the mean time,

and until such assemblies can be called as aforesaid, all

persons inhabiting in, or resorting to, our said colonies,

may confide in our royal protection for the enjoyment of

the benefit of the laws of our realm of England: for which

purpose we have given power under our great seal to the

governors of our said colonies respectively, to erect and

constitute, with the advice of our said councils respectively,

courts of judicature and public justice within our said co-

lonies, for the hearing and determining all causes as well

criminal as civil, according to law and equity, and as near

as may be, agreeable to the laws of England, with liberty

to all persons who may think themselves aggrieved by the

sentence of such courts, in all civil cases, to appeal, under

the usual limitations and restrictions, to us, in our privy

council.

And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to

-32a-

our interest and the security of our colonies, that the sev-

eral nations or tribes of Indians with whom we are con-

nected, and who live under our protection, should not be

molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of

our dominions and territories as, not having been ceded

to or purchased by us, are served to them, or any of

them, as their hunting-grounds; we do therefore, with the

advice of our Privy Council, declare it to be our royal will

and pleasure, that no Governor or commander in chief, in

any of our colonies of Quebec, East Florida, or West Flo-

rida, do presume upon any pretence whatever, to grant

warrants of survey, or pass any patents for lands beyond

the bounds of their respective governments, as described

in their commissions; as also that no Governor or com-

mander in chief of our other colonies or plantations in

America do presume for the present, and until our fur-

ther pleasure be known, to grant warrants of survey or

pass patents for any lands beyond the heads or sources

of any of the rivers which fall into the Atlantic Ocean

from the west or northwest; or upon any lands whatever,

which, not having been ceded to or purchased by us, as

aforesaid, are reserved to the said Indians, or any of them.

And we do further declare it to be our royal will and

pleasure, for the present as aforesaid, to reserve under our

sovereignty, protection, and dominion, for the use of the

said Indians, all the land and territories not included with-

in the limits of our said three governments, or within the

limits of the territory granted to the Hudson’s Bay Com-

pany; as also all the land and territories lying to the west-

ward of the sources of the rivers which fall into the sea

from the west and northwest as aforesaid; and we do here-

by strictly forbid, on pain of our displeasure, all our loving

subjects from making any purchases or settlements whatever,

-33a-

or taking possession of any of the lands above reserved with-

out our special leave and license for that purpose first ob-

tained.

And we do further strictly enjoin and require all per-

sons whatever, who have either wilfully or inadvertently

seated themselves upon any lands within the countries

above described, or upon any other lands which, not hav-

ing been ceded to or purchased by us, are still reserved

to the said Indians as aforesaid, forthwith to remove them-

selves from such settlements.

And whereas great frauds and abuses have been commit-

ted in the purchasing lands of the Indians, to the great

prejudice of our interests, and to the great dissatisfaction

of the said Indians; in order, therefore, to prevent such

irregularities for the future, and to the end that the In-

dians may be convinced of our justice and determined

resolution to remove all reasonable cause of discontent,

we do, with the advice of our Privy Council, strictly en-

join and require, that no private person do presume to

make any purchase from the said Indians of any lands

reserved to the said Indians within those parts of our co-

lonies wnere we have thought proper to allow settlement;

but that if at any time any of the said Indians should be

inclined to dispose of the said lands, the same shall be

purchased only for us, in our name, at some public meet-

ing or assembly of the said Indians, to be held for that

purpose by the Governor or commander in chief of our

colony respectively within which they shall lie: and in

case they shall lie within the limits of any proprietary

government, they shall be purchased only for the use and

in the name of such proprietaries, conformable to such

directions and instructions as we or they shall think proper

to give for that purpose. And we do, by the advice of

our Privy Council, declare and enjoin, that the trade with

-34a-

the said Indians shall be free and open to all our subjects

whatever, provided that every person who may incline to

trade with the said Indians do take out a license for car-

rying On such trade, from the Governor or commander in

chief of any of our colonies respectively where such per-

son shall reside, and also give security to observe such

regulations as we shall at any time think fit, by ourselves

or commissaries to be appointed for this purpose, to di-

rect and appoint for the benefit of the said trade. And

we do hereby authorize, enjoin, and require the Governors

and commanders in chief of all our colonies respectively,

as well those under our immediate government as those

under the government and direction of proprietaries, to

grant such licenses without fee or reward, taking especial

care to insert therein a condition that such license shall

be void, and the security forfeited, in case the person to

whom the same is granted shall refuse or neglect to ob-

serve such regulations as we shall think proper to proscribe

as aforesaid.

And we do further expressly enjoin and require all of-

ficers whatever, as well military as those employed in the

management and direction of Indian affairs within the ter-

ritories reserved as aforesaid, for the use of the said In-

dians, to seize and apprehend all persons whatever who,

standing charged with treasons, misprisions of treason, mur-

ders, or other felonies or misdemeanors, shall fly from jus-

tice and take refuge in the said territory, and to send them

under a proper guard to the colony where the crime was

committed of which they shall stand accused, in order to

take their trial for the same.

Given at our Court at St. James’s, the 7th day of Oc-

tober 1763, in the third year of our reign.

GEORGE, R.

r-

[4s ho oe

a a — set ——

THE BRITISH

GOVERNMENTS

in

INTH AMERICA] - ~

FoWL.rat toms agreeable to the ’

® dans oy the Matse

Padé isstaATi gn err |||

Ba Con ayaa

| oy

Oct® 7. 1783 : =

s

70 |

aS

Es

7 ie | \ 4: ee (ra "

? / a ST, yet we:

23 Ja EF xX TF O \ asf

|

cra NS

-=ys de tse 5. fades) a / ~~

o- |

l J

) fe |73 lee West Lonatude of from Pere

-36a-

BERMUDA

er

SUMMER ISLANDSJS

!

47. £ .

we Lat. 3.0 W. Lon.

-37a-

The 24-Cent Dollar

How higher prices have

reduced the value of the dollar—

President by President —since

the end of World War II

Value of

1945 Dollar

: : q . Value of

Nov. 1963 9, = BRE 1945 Dollar

Thus far in his term,

Value of Carter has been hit

Jan. 1969 1945 Dollar

more severely by infla-

tion than any President

since Roosevelt's day. From

the time that Carter took office

in January 1977, consumer prices

have gone up at an average annual

rate of 9.5 percent. By contrast, prices

Value of

1945 Dollar rose by an annual rate of only | 2

percent during the Presidency of John

Kennedy Rates for other Presidents

oO Na ae cue of kaman, 5.3 percent, Eisenhower, | 4

Aug. 1974 1945 Dollar

Jan. 1977 4

1945 Dollar percent: Johnson, 2.8 percent: Nixon,

pt 6.3 percent. and Ford. 6.7 percent

U.S. NEWS 6 WORLD REPORT (OCTOBES 29. 79)

© 1979 BY US. NEWS & WORLD REPORT, INC Img

2300 N ST... N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C 20037

APPENDIX "E"

THE READER'S DIGEST February 1980

-38a-

STAMFORD, CONN.

_— .

The Advocate, Friday, March 14, 1980. —3

- - -= -” -

aweraee.

$81.5 million proposed

to settle Indians’ claim

AUGUSTA, Maine (AP) — Maine’s at-

torney general announced an $81.5 mil-

lion proposed settlement yesterday of

the large land claims by Indians against

the state. It includes money for the

tribes to buy 300,000 acres of privately ©

owned forest land.

The settlement, which would bring

years of often bitter negotiations to an:

end, has yet to be approved by the Pe-.

nobscot and Passamaquoddy tribes, the.

Maine Legislature or Congress, accord-

ing to Attorney General Richard S.

Cohen. :

Acceptance of the settlement would

' extinquish the tribes’ claini to 12.5 mil-

lion acres — roughly two-thirds of the

state — which they say was taken from

them illegally.

As Cohen outlined it, the federal gov-

ernment would pay for the settlement. It

would:

—Create a $54.5 million land acquisi-

tion fund for the tribes to buy 300,000

acres at ‘‘fair market value’”’ from pri-

» vate landowners, mostly multi-national

. pulp and paper companies. A third tribe,

| the Maliseets, would get $900,000 from

that fund to buy 5,000 acres.

; | —Set up a $27 million trust fund to be

invested by the iribes.

; | ~—Delineate legal jurisdiction on the

newly acquired Indian land.

} Gov. Joseph E. Brennan, who headed

j the state's negotiating team as attorney

general unti! he was sworn in as gover-

nor last year, expressed confidence the

State could have defended itself in a

court battle over the claims.

But ‘‘there are some risks to a trial,”

and when cases can be settled ‘‘it is de-

sirable to settle,’' he said.