phone: 202 630 8439
|
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana
Proposed Federal Acknowledgment Finding
Quick Read: A finding in favor of federal recognition
of the Little Shell Tribe.
Satisifaction of Mandatory Criteria:
Identification as an Indian entity - The tribe
lacks evidence from 1900 to 1935.
Evidence as a distinct community - The tribe
lacks evidence from historical times to the 1930s.
Maintenance of political influence - The tribe
lacks evidence from historical times to the 1930s.
Membership criteria - Satisfied
Descendancy from an historic tribe -
The tribe has shown less than 80 percent of current
membership descends from historic tribe.
Members not already part of acknowledged tribe - Satisfied
Recognition has not been disallowed by Congress - Satisfied
-------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Proposed Finding for Federal Acknowledgment of the Little Shell
Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of proposed finding.
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), notice is hereby given that the
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs proposes to acknowledge that the
Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana, P.O. Box 1384, Great
Falls, Montana 59403, exists as an Indian tribe within the meaning of
Federal law. This notice is based on a determination that the
petitioner meets the requirements for a government-to-government
relationship with the United States.
DATES: As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(i), any individual or organization
wishing to comment on the proposed finding may submit arguments and
evidence to support or rebut the proposed finding. This material must
be submitted within 180 calendar days from the date of publication of
this notice. As stated in the regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(i), interested
and informed parties who submit arguments and evidence to the Assistant
Secretary must also provide copies of their submissions to the
petitioner. The names and addresses of commenters on the proposed
finding will be available for public review. Commenters wishing to have
their name and/or address withheld must state this request prominently
at the beginning of their comments. Such a request will be honored to
the extent allowable by law.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed finding or requests for a copy of
the report which summarizes the evidence and analyses that are the
basis for this proposed finding should be addressed to the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, Branch of Acknowledgment and Research, 1849 C Street
NW, Mailstop 4660-MIB, Washington, D.C. 20240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Chief, Branch of
Acknowledgment and Research, (202) 208-3592.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in accordance with
authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant
Secretary by 209 DM 8.
Documentation for this proposed finding was submitted by the Little
Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana (Little Shell, or
petitioner) or obtained by the independent research of the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA), Branch of Acknowledgment and Research (BAR).
The evidence shows that a substantial portion of the petitioner's
members have ancestry from either the historical Pembina Band of
Chippewa Indians prior to a treaty of 1863, or from a successor, the
Turtle Mountain Band. The petitioner asserts to have its origins in a
Chippewa band which had been led by a succession of three hereditary
chiefs, all known as Little Shell. The petitioner is a combination of
historical Metis, or ``mixed blood,'' groups. Before 1870, many of the
petitioner's ancestors were part of the Metis populations along the Red
River of the north at the Red River Settlement (now Winnipeg) in Canada
and at Pembina and St. Joseph in North Dakota. These Metis populations
of the mid-19th century were described by contemporary observers as
socially and culturally distinct from both the European settlers and
tribal Indians in the same area, but also as being related to and
sometimes acting together with Indian tribes. In the early 1890's, some
ancestors were listed on censuses of the Turtle Mountain Band.
In Montana, the petitioner's ancestors settled originally in two
regions, migrating there by different routes between the 1860's and
1930's. One settlement region was north-central Montana, including both
the Lewistown area and the Highline, the area along the railroad line
from Wolf Point to Havre. Some ancestors of the petitioner's members
began settling this region as early as the late 1860's and early
1870's. The other settlement region was the Front Range, the area along
the eastern edge of the northern Rocky Mountains. Those ancestors of
the petitioner who settled in this region arrived mostly after the
failure of the Metis rebellion led by Louis Riel in Saskatchewan in
1885. The petitioner's ancestors settled originally in rural areas of
Montana. Beginning in the 1910's and continuing into the depression of
the 1930's, some of them began moving into neighborhoods on the fringes
of the rural towns on the Front Range and along the Highline, or into
Great Falls and Helena. Many of the petitioner's ancestors lived in
segregated areas of these towns at some time before the mid-1950's or
early 1960's. Those areas were not limited to the petitioner's
ancestors, except on the Front Range, and other Metis and Indians also
lived in these neighborhoods.
An organization was formed in 1927 in Hays, the petitioner's first
formally organized predecessor in Montana. Joseph Dussome was elected
in 1927 to lead the organization formed that year, and to lead
organizations of different names in 1935, 1939, and 1949. The
consistent leadership of Dussome and the consistent geographical region
represented by his officers and area representatives demonstrate
continuity from these organizations to the petitioning group. From the
mid-1930's until the mid-1950's, two organizations advocated on behalf
of the Montana Metis. Dussome's organization, known as the Landless
Indians of Montana after 1939, largely drew support from the Highline
and Lewistown area, while the Montana Landless Indians largely drew its
support from urban areas and the Front Range. Since approximately 1955,
the petitioner's members and ancestors have been part of the common
political process of a single organization.
The Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana adopted its
current organizational name and its current constitution in 1977. Its
membership requirements provide membership eligibility to individuals
who can trace their ancestry to the Roe Cloud Roll, a list of
unenrolled Indians in Montana which was prepared by the Office of
Indian Affairs about 1938. The Little Shell petitioner had 3,893
members as of 1992. Its members are now geographically dispersed,
mostly within Montana. The petitioner currently maintains an office in
Great Falls, Montana.
The petitioner has not provided substantial evidence of unambiguous
previous Federal acknowledgment. The evidence available for this
finding does
not demonstrate that the petitioner meets the requirements of previous
Federal acknowledgment in sections 83.1 and 83.8 of the regulations.
Therefore, the petitioner was not evaluated under the provisions of
section 83.8(d) which modify the mandatory criteria for Federal
acknowledgment.
This proposed finding departs from practice in previous
acknowledgment decisions in certain respects, principally in giving
different amounts of weight to various types of evidence than had been
done in prior determinations. Precedent from earlier decisions are not
binding on Department conclusions, but are useful as guidance for
interpreting the regulations. This finding departs from prior decisions
for meeting criteria (b) and (c) which depended upon specific evidence
showing the continuity of tribal existence substantially without
interruption. This finding departs from prior decisions for meeting
criterion (a) which required evidence of specific identification of the
petitioner as an Indian entity during each decade. This finding departs
from prior decisions in which all previous petitioners who met
criterion (e) demonstrated that at least 80 percent of their members
descended from a historical tribe.
We believe such departures from previous practice on these matters
are permissible and within the scope of the existing acknowledgment
regulations. Those regulations do not specifically address these
questions. Public comment is invited on these various matters,
including the consistency of these proposed findings with the existing
regulations. The petitioner and third parties may respond by submitting
additional evidence or arguments relating to these matters during the
comment period on this proposed finding. Such supplementary evidence
may create a different record and a more complete factual basis for the
final determination, and thus eliminate or reduce the scope of these
contemplated departures from precedent.
Based on a review of the technical report, the charts prepared for
each criterion, and some primary documents and background materials,
and after consideration of the historical situations faced by this
petitioner, the Department proposes to find that, although there is no
specific evidence in the documentary record in this case for every time
period, the evidence as a whole indicates that the Little Shell
petitioner is a tribe.
The available documentation permits a proposed finding that the
petitioner meets criterion (a). There are several examples of the
identification of a group led by Joseph Dussome during the late 1930's
and the decade of the 1940's as an Indian entity. Since 1949, the
Little Shell petitioner has been consistently identified by various
external observers as an Indian entity. It is noteworthy that several
nearby tribes support the recognition of the Little Shell. There is
limited evidence that the petitioner's ancestors were identified
between 1900 and 1935 by external observers as Indians. This proposed
finding accepts as a reasonable likelihood that references to the
petitioner's individual ancestors as Indians and references to portions
of their ancestors as residents of Indian settlements before the 1930's
are consistent with the identifications of these and other ancestors of
the petitioner as Indian groups after 1935. In order to have this
proposed finding affirmed in the final determination, it would be in
the petitioner's interest to provide during the comment period further
evidence that external observers identified it as an Indian entity at
various times between 1900 and 1935.
The available documentation permits a proposed finding that the
petitioner meets criterion (b). The evidence indicates that at present
there are portions of the petitioner's members residing within each of
the two traditional rural regions of settlement in Montana who have
been demonstrated to have social cohesion among themselves, and to have
their respective ties to the members residing within the two
traditional urban centers of settlement in the state. There is evidence
that, after their migration to Montana, the petitioner's ancestors
married other ethnic Metis individuals almost exclusively, and that
those early intermarriages in Montana formed kinship ties that created
social cohesion among the petitioner's ancestors. The available
evidence does not show clearly that immigrants to Montana from Dakota
or Canada necessarily moved together as a community or in a pattern of
migration that maintained old community ties. This proposed finding
accepts as a reasonable likelihood that patterns of social
relationships among the Metis residents of settlements in North Dakota
and Canada during the mid-19th century persisted among their
descendants who migrated to Montana and appeared on the Federal census
records of Montana for 1910 and 1920. The petitioner is encouraged to
provide during the comment period further evidence that their ancestors
continuously existed as social communities between the 1860's and
1930's.
The available documentation permits a proposed finding that the
petitioner meets criterion (c). The attempt of the Little Shell group
in Montana to achieve IRA status during the 1930's indicates its desire
to obtain recognized status when the ``landless'' policies of the
Federal Government were prohibitive. Many of the petitioner's ancestors
participated in the activities of one or the other of two political
organizations of ``landless Indians'' between the mid-1930's and the
early 1950's. Since the mid-1950's the petitioner's members and
ancestors have been part of the common political process of a single
organization. The political processes of the petitioner's organization
at present draw interest and support from both geographical regions of
traditional settlement as well as the two main cities where members
reside. Area representatives communicate political information and
concerns between the council and the general membership. Several recent
internal political conflicts indicate that current members are aware of
the actions of the council and officers, and consider those actions to
be important. This proposed finding concludes that evidence of some
local leadership among a minority of the petitioner's ancestors in the
past demonstrates a reasonable likelihood that patterns of political
influence existed among many of the petitioner's ancestors before the
1930's. The petitioner is encouraged to provide during the comment
period additional evidence to demonstrate more fully its political
influence or authority over its members from historical times until the
1930's.
The petitioner meets criterion (d). The petitioner has a
constitution, dated September 10, 1977, and resolutions which define
its membership criteria and the procedures by which it governs its
affairs and its members.
The available documentation permits a proposed finding that the
petitioner meets criterion (e). A minority of the petitioner's members
descend from individuals who received land scrip as ``mixed-blood''
relatives of the Pembina Band under the provisions of the treaties of
1863 and 1864, and therefore descend from a member of the band in a
generation earlier than the treaty. A minority of the petitioner's
members were on the judgment roll prepared by the Government in 1994
for the distribution of an Indian Claims Commission award for the
taking of Indian territory in North Dakota. The available evidence
indicates that about 48 percent of the petitioner's members trace their
ancestry back to the historical Pembina Band of Chippewa or to its
successor the Turtle Mountain Band. An additional 14 percent of the
petitioner's members descend from a member of
Rocky Boy's Band with Chippewa ancestry. If Pembina ancestry is assumed
for the Chippewa element of the Rocky Boy's Band, as was done by the
Indian Claims Commission and by the BIA in preparing the 1994 judgment
roll, then possibly 62 percent of the petitioner's members have Pembina
Chippewa descent. Genealogical information is missing for many of the
petitioner's newest members, and it would be in the petitioner's
interest to provide during the comment period further evidence that
additional members descend from ancestors with established Pembina
Chippewa descent.
The petitioner meets criterion (f). The evidence shows that less
than 1 percent of the members of the petitioning group are members of a
federally recognized tribe. Therefore, its membership is composed
principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged Indian
tribe.
The petitioner meets criterion (g). There is no evidence that the
petitioning group was the subject of congressional legislation that
prohibited or terminated a relationship between it and the Federal
Government.
For these reasons, the petitioner should be acknowledged to exist
as an Indian tribe.
This proposed finding is based on the available evidence and does
not preclude the submission of other evidence to the contrary. Such new
evidence may result in a change in the conclusions reached in the
proposed finding.
A report summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are
the basis for the proposed decision will be provided to the petitioner
and interested parties, and is available to other parties upon written
request (83.10(h)).
During the 180-day comment period (83.10(i)), the Assistant
Secretary shall provide technical advice concerning the proposed
finding and shall make available to the petitioner in a timely fashion
any records used for the proposed finding not already held by the
petitioner, to the extent allowable by Federal law (83.10(j)(1)). In
addition, the Assistant Secretary shall, if requested by the petitioner
or any interested party, hold a formal meeting for the purpose of
inquiring into the reasoning, analyses, and factual bases for the
proposed finding. The proceedings of this meeting shall be on the
record. The meeting record shall be available to any participating
party and become part of the record considered by the Assistant
Secretary in reaching a final determination (83.10(j)(2)).
If third party comments are received during the comment period, the
petitioner shall have a minimum of 60 days to respond to these
comments. This period may be extended at the Assistant Secretary's
discretion if warranted by the extent and nature of the comments
(83.10(k)).
At the end of the comment and response periods, the Assistant
Secretary shall consult with the petitioner and interested parties to
determine an equitable time frame for consideration of written
arguments and evidence submitted during the comment and response
periods, and notify the petitioner and interested parties of the date
such consideration begins (83.10(l)). The Assistant Secretary has the
discretion to request additional information from the petitioner or
commenting parties, and to conduct additional research (83.10(l)(1)).
After consideration of the written arguments and evidence submitted
during the comment period and the petitioner's response to the
comments, the Assistant Secretary shall make a final determination
regarding the petitioner's status. A summary of the final determination
will be published in the Federal Register (83.10(l)(2)).
Dated: July 14, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary-Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-18490 Filed 7-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P
|
|
|
|