Preliminary Plan for Distribution of Judgment Funds to the Loyal Mdewakantons, 59963-59967 [2012-24120]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Notices
their habitats, CCPs identify wildlifedependent recreational opportunities
available to the public, including
opportunities for hunting, fishing,
wildlife observation and photography,
and environmental education and
interpretation. We will review and
update the CCP at least every 15 years
in accordance with the Administration
Act.
CCP Alternatives, Including the
Selected Alternative
Our draft CCP/EA addressed several
key issues. To address these issues and
develop a plan based on the refuge’s
establishing purposes, vision, and goals,
we evaluated three alternatives for John
Heinz NWR in the draft CCP/EA. The
draft CCP/EA describes each alternative
in detail and relates them to the issues
and concerns that arose during the
planning process. Below, we provide
summaries for the three John Heinz
NWR alternatives evaluated in the draft
CCP/EA.
Management Alternatives
Alternative A (Current Management)
Alternative A (current management)
satisfies the National Environmental
Policy Act (40 CFR 1506.6(b))
requirement of a ‘‘No Action’’
alternative, which we define as
‘‘continuing current management.’’ It
describes our existing management
priorities and activities, and serves as a
baseline for comparing and contrasting
alternatives B and C. It would maintain
our present levels of approved refuge
staffing and the biological and visitor
programs now in place. We would
continue to focus on providing native
tidal marsh habitat for migrating and
nesting wading birds; wintering
marshbirds, waterfowl, and shorebirds;
and other wildlife. We would also
continue to actively control invasive
species, manage grassland habitats, and
maintain dikes and water levels in the
impoundment. Our environmental
education program would continue to
focus on providing training for teachers
so they could guide field trips on refuge
property.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Alternative B (Focus on Environmental
Education for Urban Youth)
This is the Service-preferred
alternative. It combines the actions we
believe would best achieve the refuge’s
purposes, vision, and goals, and the
intent of NWRS policy on Biological
Integrity, Diversity, and Environmental
Health (601 FW 3). This alternative
would also best respond to the issues
that arose during the planning process.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 28, 2012
Jkt 226001
Under alternative B, we would
expand our freshwater tidal marsh
restoration efforts, implement additional
forest habitat restoration and
management efforts, and increase
monitoring efforts for species and for
climate change effects. Our
environmental education program
would focus on expanding staff-led and
volunteer-led programs for urban youth.
We would also develop environmental
education programs that focus on this
audience, and work to develop longterm relationships with schools and
school districts. We would work to
expand environmental interpretation
opportunities and infrastructure on the
refuge as well.
Alternative C
Alternative C would focus on
restoring degraded forests and
converting specific grassland areas to
shrubland habitat. As in alternative B,
we would emphasize invasive species
management, freshwater tidal marsh
restoration, and monitoring for climate
change adaptation. However, under
alternative C, we would delay much of
these efforts to more fully assess the
potential effects of climate change and
propose restoring all of the
impoundment to tidal marsh. Under
alternative C, environmental
educational programming would
concentrate on providing high school
and college-level programs focused on
encouraging and training the next
generation of conservation professionals
and environmentally concerned
citizens. We would also focus on
playing a more regional role in
conservation efforts.
We solicited comments on the draft
CCP/EA for John Heinz NWR from
March 22 to April 23, 2012 (77 FR
16854). During the comment period, we
received 19 sets of responses including
comments from public meetings, a
phone call, electronic mail, and letters.
We evaluated all of the substantive
comments we received, and include a
summary of those comments, and our
responses to them, as appendix K in the
final CCP.
Selected Alternative
We have selected alternative B for
implementation, with the following
modifications:
• We highlighted that we will be
working closely with the Philadelphia
International Airport to assess any
wildlife hazards prior to implementing
any wetland restoration under objective
1.1 in chapter 4.
Frm 00076
• We incorporated updated
information on species provided by the
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission into section 3.3 of chapter
3 and section 2.5 of appendix C.
• We added the following strategy to
objective 2.1 in chapter 4: ‘‘Work with
partners to identify and obtain resources
to replace the water control system in
the impoundment.’’
• We modified the bicycling
compatibility determination in
appendix B to open one additional trail
to bicycling.
• We corrected all format and
typographical errors that were brought
to our attention.
We have selected alternative B to
implement for John Heinz NWR, with
these minor changes, for several
reasons. Alternative B comprises a mix
of actions that, in our professional
judgment, work best towards achieving
the refuge’s purposes, vision, and goals,
NWRS policies, and the goals of other
State and regional conservation plans.
We also believe that alternative B most
effectively addresses key issues raised
during the planning process. The basis
of our decision is detailed in the FONSI
(appendix L in the final CCP).
Public Availability of Documents
You can view or obtain the final CCP,
including the FONSI, as indicated under
ADDRESSES.
Dated: August 27, 2012.
Deborah Rocque,
Acting Regional Director, Northeast Region.
[FR Doc. 2012–24046 Filed 9–28–12; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Comments
PO 00000
59963
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Preliminary Plan for Distribution of
Judgment Funds to the Loyal
Mdewakantons
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of hearings and request
for comments.
AGENCY:
The Department of the
Interior is developing a plan for
distribution of judgment funds to the
Loyal Mdewakantons if funds are
appropriated in satisfaction of a final
judgment. The distribution plan
includes a determination of the criteria
for eligibility to participate in any
award.
DATES: Comments on the preliminary
plan must be received by November 1,
2012. The Department will hold inperson hearings on the preliminary plan
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM
01OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
59964
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Notices
on October 30, 2012, from 6 p.m. to 10
p.m. in Sioux Falls, South Dakota at the
Best Western Plus Sioux Falls Ramkota
Hotel, 3200 W. Maple Street, and on
November 1, 2012, from 6 p.m. to 10
p.m. in Bloomington, Minnesota at the
Ramada Mall of America, 2300 East
American Boulevard.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to David
Christensen, Tribal Operations Officer,
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Midwest
Regional Office, Norman Pointe II, 5600
West American Boulevard, Suite 500,
Bloomington, MN 55437.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David Christensen, Tribal Operations
Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Midwest Regional Office, Norman
Pointe II, 5600 West American
Boulevard, Suite 500, Bloomington, MN
55437; telephone (612) 725–4554.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August
5, 2011, as corrected by Order dated
August 18, 2011, the Court of Federal
Claims directed the Secretary of the
Interior to prepare and submit to the
Court a roll of eligible claimants and a
distribution plan for funds arising from
the judgment in Wolfchild, et al. v.
United States, Docket Nos. 03–2684L &
01–568L, under the Indian Tribal
Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act
(25 U.S.C. 1401–1407). The Secretary
has developed a preliminary plan for
distribution of the $673,944 judgment
among an estimated 20,750 or more
potential beneficiaries. Based on the
estimated 20,000 or more potential
claimants represented in the court
action, individual payments are likely to
be in the $20.00-$40.00 range. The
underlying judgment of the Court is the
subject of appeals by the parties and, as
such, no funds have yet been made
available for any distribution.
Interested parties should note that the
individual Plaintiffs and the Defendant
in the underlying litigation have
appealed the CFC’s judgment to the
United States Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit. (See, Fed. Cir. Case Nos.
2012–5035, -5036, -5043 (consolidated),
Appeal from the United States Court of
Federal Claims in Consolidated Case
Nos. 03–CV–2684 and 01–CV–0568.)
Because the parties have filed appeals to
the Federal Circuit, the CFC’s judgment
is not final and the Department of the
Treasury has not appropriated any
funds to be distributed.
In furtherance of complying with the
Court’s order to ‘‘complete preparation
of such roll and plan satisfying the
criteria specified in 25 U.S.C. 1403’’ the
Department, in accordance with 25 CFR
87.3(b), will hold hearings on the record
in Sioux Falls, South Dakota on October
30, 2012, and in Bloomington,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 28, 2012
Jkt 226001
Minnesota on November 1, 2012 to
receive testimony on the preliminary
plan. Written testimony will also be
accepted at the hearings or can be sent
to the address in the ADDRESSES section
of this notice. Please be advised that
your testimony, whether oral or written,
may be made publicly available at any
time. While you can request that any
personal identifying information
contained in your testimony be
withheld from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The preliminary plan for the
distribution of these funds reads as
follows:
Draft Report and Preliminary Plan
For the Use and Distribution of
Judgment Funds Awarded to the
Descendants of the Loyal Mdewakanton
in Docket Nos. 03–2684L & 01–568L,
Before the United States Court of
Federal Claims
Background
The Department of the Interior
respectfully submits this plan for the
distribution of $673,944.00, awarded by
the Court of Federal Claims in the case
of Wolfchild v. United States, Dockets
No. 03–2684L & No. 01–568L, August 5,
2011. Wolfchild v. United States, 101
Fed. Cl. 54 (2011) (as corrected August
18, 2011). The court remitted and
remanded to the Secretary the work of
preparing a plan for the distribution of
the funds, setting forth the criteria for
eligibility, and then developing a roll of
eligible claimants.
This case was brought in 2003 by a
group of individuals who claim to be
the lineal descendants of the 1886
Mdewakantons, called the ‘‘loyal
Mdewakantons.’’ Over time, more
individuals have joined the suit as
plaintiffs or plaintiff-interveners, and
this number is now estimated as
exceeding 20,750. The litigation has
yielded various and sometimes
competing theories and definitions of a
‘‘loyal Mdewakanton’’ that would be
eligible to share in an award.
In August 1862, the Minnesota
Sioux 1, then living on two reservations
in Southern Minnesota, rebelled against
the United States. The uprising resulted
from the needless delay in distributing
promised treaty annuities, including
food, to the starving Indians. The United
States responded with military force,
and many of the Indians were expelled
1 The Minnesota Sioux consisted of 4 bands: The
Sisseton, Wahpaton (upper bands), Wahpakootas
and Mdewakantons (lower bands).
Contemporaneous accounts put most of the blame
for the rebellion on the lower bands. [Report of the
Secretary of the Interior, 1866; Joint Appendix, Ex.
32]
PO 00000
Frm 00077
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
from Minnesota or captured. After the
rebellion was quelled, Congress
abrogated and annulled the treaties that
had established the reservations and
that had provided an annuity to be paid
to the tribes. The Minnesota Sioux
reservation lands in Minnesota were
confiscated, and most of the Sioux were
forced to relocate further west.
Even in the aftermath of the uprising,
when the Congress was debating the bill
that would investigate the hostilities
and impose punitive measures,
recognition was given to the existence of
a group of Indians who ‘‘have been
faithful to the whites, have defended
them, and who have saved their lives in
Minnesota.’’ Many of those individuals,
because of their actions, severed their
ties to the tribe and remained in
Minnesota. The government’s
confiscation of the Sioux lands in
Minnesota and the forfeiture of the
annuities that had been paid pursuant to
the abrogated treaties left those
individuals poverty-stricken and
homeless. In acknowledging the
contributions of this group, consisting of
about 200 individuals, Congress
authorized the Secretary of the Interior
to convey 80 acres of public land to
‘‘each individual of the before-named
bands who exerted himself in rescuing
the whites from the late massacre of said
Indians.’’ Act of February 16, 1863, 12
Stat. at 654. Two weeks later, Congress
enacted another statute providing: [I]t
shall be lawful for [the] Secretary [of the
Interior] to locate any meritorious
individual Indian of [the four] bands,
who exerted himself to save the lives of
the whites in the late massacre, upon
[the former Sioux reservation lands] on
which the improvements are situated,
assigning the same to him to the extent
of eighty acres, to be held by such
tenure as is or may be provided by law
. . . [provided] [t]hat no more than
eighty acres shall be awarded to any one
Indian, under this or any other act.’’ Act
of March 3, 1863, ch. 119, section 4, 12
Stat. at 819.
The Secretary never exercised the
authority granted by the 1863 legislation
to provide lands to the friendly Sioux,
due to the intense opposition of the
white settlers. In regard to the friendly
Sioux remaining in Minnesota, the 1866
Report of the Secretary of the Interior
noted ‘‘it is noticeable that Congress
has, by several enactments, made
attempts to provide for them by
donations of land and money; but it has
been found impracticable to accomplish
anything under those acts, on account of
the hostility manifested by the white
people of that region towards everything
in the form of an Indian. Many of these
men have, for the past three years, been
E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM
01OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Notices
homeless wanderers, and actually
suffering from want: A very poor return
for services rendered to the whites for
the risk of their lives.’’
Efforts to provide for the Minnesota
Sioux who had aided the settlers during
the Sioux Uprising continued. In 1888,
1889, and 1890, Congress enacted
legislation appropriating funds for the
support of a number of designated
Indian tribes. Motivated by the failure of
the 1863 Acts to provide relief, Congress
included in each of these statues,
known collectively as the
‘‘Appropriations Acts’’, a paragraph
allocating a small sum to be used for the
benefit of the Mdewakantons who had
remained in Minnesota after the 1862
revolt or had returned to Minnesota in
the following years.
The 1888 Act appropriated $20,000
‘‘to be expended by the Secretary of the
Interior’’ in purchasing land, cattle,
horses, and agricultural implements for
the ‘‘full-blood Indians in Minnesota
belonging to the Mdewakanton band of
Sioux Indians, who have resided in
[Minnesota]’’ since May 20, 1886, and
who have ‘‘severed their tribal
relations.’’ Act of June 29, 1888, ch. 503,
25 Stat. 217, 228–29. In 1889, Congress
appropriated a further sum of $12,000
‘‘to be expended by the Secretary of the
Interior’’ for the ‘‘full-blood’’ loyal
Mdewakanton residing in Minnesota
since May 20, 1886, or ‘‘who were then
engaged in removing to said State.’’ Act
of March 2, 1889, ch. 412, 25 Stat. 980,
992–93. The 1889 Act was substantially
similar to the 1888 Act but included
three additional provisions not included
in the 1888 Act. Unlike the 1888 Act,
the 1889 Act required the Secretary to
expend the appropriated funds in a
manner such that each loyal
Mdewakanton received as close to an
equal amount as practicable.
Additionally, the 1889 Act mandated
that any money appropriated in the
1889 Act not expended within the fiscal
year would not be recovered by
Treasury, but rather would be carried
over to the following years and
expended for the benefit of the loyal
Mdewakanton. The 1889 Act made the
‘‘equal amount’’ requirements
applicable to the money appropriated
under the 1888 Act as well. In 1890,
Congress appropriated an additional
$8,000 and adopted the same
substantive provisions as the 1889 Act,
except that it expressly stated that the
further appropriated amount was to
support Indians of both ‘‘full and mixed
blood.’’ Act of August 19, 1890, 26 Stat.
336, 349. The 1889 and 1890 Acts also
differed from the 1888 Act by granting
the Secretary discretion based on what
‘‘may be deemed best in the case of each
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 28, 2012
Jkt 226001
of these Indians or family thereof.’’ Id.
at 992 (emphasis added). The 1888 Act,
on the other hand, made no explicit
mention of the loyal Mdewakantons’
families as beneficiaries of the
appropriations. See 25 Stat. at 228–29.
The Department of the Interior used
approximately $15,600 of the $40,000
appropriated under the three
Appropriations Acts to purchase parcels
of land in various parts of southern
Minnesota where the Mdewakantons
had settled. Because of difficulties in
determining which of the
Mdewakantons qualified as ‘‘loyal’’
during the 1862 uprising, the
Appropriations Acts provided that the
appropriations would be designated for
the benefit of all Mdewakantons who
were living in or in the process of
removing to Minnesota as of May 20,
1886. As a result, the lands purchased
with funds from the three
Appropriations Acts are known as ‘‘the
1886 lands,’’ and the Mdewakantons
who were statutorily eligible for benefits
under the Acts are commonly referred to
as ‘‘the 1886 Mdewakantons.’’ The
Department of the Interior assigned
individual plots from those lands to
qualifying Mdewakantons for their use
and occupancy, so long as they resided
on or otherwise used the land.
The text delineating the beneficiary
class in each Appropriation Act varied
in minute respects, but the essential
thrust of the Acts was Congress’ desire
that loyal Mdewakanton would be
identified as those Mdewakanton who
had severed their tribal relations and
who had either remained in, or were
removing to, Minnesota as of May 20,
1886. To determine the persons who
would be considered ‘‘loyal’’
Mdewakanton under Congress’
definition and thus would receive the
benefits of the Appropriations Acts, the
Department of the Interior relied upon
two censuses: The McLeod listing and
the Henton listing. The McLeod listing
was generated in 1886 by U.S. Special
Agent Walter McLeod and listed all of
the full-blood Mdewakantons remaining
in Minnesota at the time. Under the
Secretary’s direction, on January 2,
1889, a supplementary census was taken
by Robert B. Henton, Special Agent for
the Bureau of Indian Affairs (‘‘BIA’’), of
the Mdewakanton living in Minnesota
since May 20, 1886. That listing
included some mixed bloods. Together,
these listings were used to distribute the
benefits of the Appropriations Acts to
those persons whose names appeared on
the lists, and subsequently, to lineal
descendants of those listed persons.
Over time, funds were generated by
the use, sale and leasing of the 1886
lands, which were placed in Treasury
PO 00000
Frm 00078
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
59965
trust fund accounts. Some of these
funds were obtained from a transfer of
a portion of the 1886 lands by the
United States to the Upper Mississippi
River Wildlife and Fish Refuge (‘‘the
Wabasha Land Transfer’’). The
remaining portion of the money,
however, stemmed from Interior’s
policy of leasing or licensing 1886 lands
for fair market value where no eligible
Mdewakanton or lineal descendant was
available for a land assignment. In 1975,
the BIA performed a detailed accounting
of all funds derived from the 1886 lands
then held by the Treasury. After
deduction of the Wabasha Land Transfer
funds, the sum remaining attributable to
the 1886 lands amounted to $60,464.02.
Pursuant to the Indian Reorganization
Act of 1934, three Mdewakanton
communities were formed in the three
areas where the 1886 lands were
located. The three communities are the
Prairie Island Indian Community, the
Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux
Community, and the Lower Sioux
Indian Community. The enrolled
membership of the three communities
consists largely of lineal descendants of
the Mdewakantons who were living in
Minnesota in 1886, but some enrolled
members are not descendants of the
1886 Mdewakantons, and many of the
descendants of the 1886 Mdewakantons
are not enrolled members of any of the
three communities. Over time, the
government purchased additional land
for the Prairie Island and Lower Sioux
communities. Those lands were
regarded as reservation lands and as
such were held in trust for those two
communities. Prior to 1980, those
reservation lands were treated as having
a legally distinct status from the 1886
lands, even though parcels of the two
classes of property were intermingled in
the same areas within the geographical
boundaries of the Prairie Island and
Lower Sioux communities.
In 1980, Congress enacted legislation
designed to give the three communities
political control over all the property
within the communities that had been
set aside for Indians, including the 1886
lands. See Public Law 96–557, 94 Stat.
3262 (1980) (the ‘‘1980 Act’’). The 1980
Act provided that the 1886 lands, which
‘‘were acquired and are now held by the
United States for the use or benefit of
certain Mdewakanton Sioux Indians’’
under the Appropriations Acts, would
henceforth be ‘‘held by the United
States * * * in trust for’’ the three
communities. Id. That legislation did
not address the funds derived from the
1886 lands then being held by the
Treasury. However, in 1981 and 1982
those funds were distributed to the three
communities.
E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM
01OCN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
59966
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Notices
The Court of Federal Claims found
that the transfer of monies derived from
the 1886 lands to the three communities
was not authorized by the 1980 statute,
and that the ‘‘loyal Mdewakantons’’
referenced in the Appropriations Acts
should have been the beneficiaries. As
referenced above, the Department of the
Interior is directed to determine which
claimants are the proper beneficiaries of
the Appropriations Acts, and who are
therefore entitled to share in the
judgment. This process also entails
consideration of the various theories of
recovery advanced by the plaintiffs in
the court case in order to establish the
proper criteria for determining the class
of persons the Appropriations Acts were
intended to benefit.
Various iterations have emerged as to
how to define ‘‘loyal Mdewakanton’’
and how to determine the lineal
descendants of such loyal
Mdewakantons with respect to who
should be the intended beneficiaries of
the Appropriations Acts. The
contentions fall into three general
categories:
One iteration is that loyal
Mdewakantons are limited to those
individuals appearing on censuses
carried out at the direction of the
Secretary of the Interior in 1886 (the
McLeod census) and 1889 (the Henton
census) specifically to identify the
intended beneficiaries of the Acts. The
criteria specified in the Acts are
Mdewakanton residing in Minnesota on
May 20, 1886 (or who were in the
process of removing there), and who
had severed their tribal relations. As
noted above, the 1890 Act made
provisions to include both full and
mixed blood Mdewakantons.
A second iteration goes beyond the
McLeod and Henton censuses to define
eligibility and would also rely on lists
of individuals who were scouts, or who
rescued whites, or who performed other
meritorious services to aid the settlers
during the uprising. This position is
supported by the fact that legislation
enacted in 1863 pertaining to
Mdewakantons employed other
standards. Those acts were not
restricted to the Mdewakanton, and
spoke of ‘‘meritorious’’ or ‘‘friendly’’
Indians who had ‘‘exerted themselves’’
to rescue the white settlers. This
position would counsel toward the use
of additional source documents that
reflect individuals not listed in the 1886
and 1889 censuses who had been
‘‘loyal’’ or ‘‘friendly’’ and therefore in
the class that Congress intended to
benefit. These other sources might
include:
1862 Indian Camp Census, Report No.
156 in Report of U.S. Commissioner of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:48 Sep 28, 2012
Jkt 226001
Indian Affairs, 1863. This list consists of
the Sioux Indians and ‘‘half-breeds’’
under the surveillance of the U.S.
military authorities at Camp Snelling,
Minnesota during the winter of 1862.
The list included the families of Indians
accused of fomenting the uprising jailed
at Davenport, Iowa; Indians who had
been acquitted of responsibility, and a
number of scouts.
Camp Release Census 1863, Stephen
Riggs Family Papers, Box 1, Minnesota
Historical Society. This census was of
captives released to Colonel Sibley,
which included 162 mixed bloods.
Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 3D
Session at 514. The Globe contains the
transcription of a discussion on the floor
of Congress on January 26, 1863,
regarding the 1862 uprising.
Correspondence from the Commissioner
of Indian Affairs is introduced,
containing a petition for assistance from
Indians who had rescued whites in the
uprising, and suffered ill-treatment from
both whites and other Indians.
Sibley Sioux Scout List—1863 Sibley
Expedition, May 28, 1863, Sibley
Papers, Minnesota Historical Society
Collections, 10:611. This list is of Indian
scouts who were retained and recruited
for the Sibley Expedition to pursue
hostile Indians that left the State of
Minnesota to escape any penalties for
their participation in the 1862 uprising.
1866 Report of the Secretary of the
Interior. This report, dated April 20,
1866, includes the names of individuals
that deserve the ‘‘gratitude of the
American people for having been
principally instrumental in saving the
lives of white women and children
during the late Indian war.’’
Payroll to Soldiers and Scouts 1891–
92 (S.H. Elrod Scout and Soldier List)
(National Archives and Records
Administration). This document is a
listing of scouts for the United States
military of Sioux descent during and
subsequent to the uprising, who
received per capita payments under
Congressional appropriations in 1893
and 1895.
1891 Samuel Brown Scout List—
Census. A list of the frontier Scout Force
of Fort Wadsworth, Dakota Territory
was found in the personal papers of
Samuel Brown, who served there as an
interpreter and the superintendent of
government scouts. The list was
apparently compiled for the distribution
of back annuities for members of the
Sioux tribe who had served as scouts in
the Indian Wars, provided for in the
Indian Appropriations Act of 1891.
A third iteration recognizes that
‘‘mixed blood’’ Mdewakantons were not
included on the 1886 and 1889 censuses
used to determine receipt of benefits
PO 00000
Frm 00079
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
under the Appropriations Acts, but
these mixed bloods were specifically
mentioned as beneficiaries in the 1890
Act. This position would counsel
toward consideration of later censuses
that were perhaps more likely to include
mixed bloods and those who may not
have been present for the 1886 and 1889
counts but were ‘‘in the process of
removing to Minnesota.’’ Later
enumerations of Mdewakanton in
Minnesota include:
Birch Cooley Census of Mdewakanton
Indians, Robert B. Henton, 1891–93,
1895–98.
Robert Henton was commissioned by
the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
the census of 1889 of Mdewakanton
Indians in Minnesota. These subsequent
lists of full and mixed-blood
Mdewakantons at the Birch-Cooley
Agency appear to be a continuation of
his earlier work, given the inclusion of
mixed-bloods as recipients of the 1890
Appropriations Act.
Census of Mdewakanton Sioux of
Minnesota, James McLaughlin, 1899.
An 1899 letter from the Commissioner
of the BIA references this census as a
refinement of the earlier work done by
Robert Henton to enumerate the
Mdewakantons entitled to the benefits
of the Appropriations Acts.
1917 Census of Mdewakanton Sioux
Indians. This census was created by
Interior as part of a Court of Claims
judgment in favor of the Mdewakanton
and Wahpekoota Band of Sioux Indians.
Proposed Finding on Criteria for a
‘‘Loyal Mdewakanton’’ Eligible To
Receive an Award
The Appropriations Acts defined the
loyal Mdewakantons and intended
beneficiaries of the Act as (1) Indians in
Minnesota, belonging to the
Mdewakanton Band of Sioux Indians,
(2) who resided in the state on May 20,
1886, or were in the process or
removing to Minnesota, and (3) who
have severed their tribal relations. A
review of Interior Department
memoranda, correspondence and
administrative determinations dating
from 1886 through 1982 shows these as
the criteria consistently applied in
making or evaluating assignments for
the 1886 Lands. Because the funds that
form the basis of the proceeds in this
case derive from those lands, the same
criteria should apply in determining
who is eligible to share in any funds
awarded pursuant to the judgment.
Over the 100 years between the 1880s
to the 1980s, the Department of the
Interior made official eligibility
determinations for 1886 Land
assignments, created various rolls of
eligible individuals, and often issued
E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM
01OCN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 190 / Monday, October 1, 2012 / Notices
certificates to assignees. We adopt these
documents as probative of eligibility for
1886 Land Assignments and proxy for
membership in the group of intended
beneficiaries of the Appropriations Acts.
Documents which have previously been
sanctioned by the Department for this
purpose are:
(1) The 1886 McLeod Census
(2) The 1889 Henton Supplemental
Census
(3) The 1917 McLaughlin Roll (with
additional proof of Mdewakanton
descent for persons appearing on that
roll)
(4) Certificates assigning 1886 lands
We now add to this list of probative
documents:
(5) the Birch Cooley Censuses
prepared by Robert Henton; and
(6) the 1899 roll prepared by Inspector
McLaughlin.
These additional rolls also were
prepared at the direction of the
Secretary of the Interior for the purpose
of determining eligibility under the
Appropriations Acts.
We determine that the class of
persons eligible to participate in any
final judgment of the Court of Federal
Claims are those who can submit proof
of descent from any individual listed on
the documents adopted as probative
above.
California State Director, Bureau of
Land Management, 2800 Cottage Way,
Sacramento, California 95825.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Chief, Branch of Geographic Services,
Bureau of Land Management, California
State Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room
W–1623, Sacramento, California 95825,
(916) 978–4310.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These
surveys were executed to meet the
administrative needs of various federal
agencies; the Bureau of Land
Management, Bureau of Indian Affairs
or Bureau of Reclamation. The lands
surveyed are:
DATES:
Mount Diablo Meridian, California
T. 35 N., R. 6 W., dependent resurvey and
subdivision of sections accepted July 18,
2012.
T. 35 N., R. 7 W., dependent resurvey,
subdivision, and metes-and-bounds survey
accepted August 3, 2012.
T. 31 S., R. 32 E., amended plat of the
dependent resurvey and metes-and-bounds
survey accepted August 20, 2012.
T. 30 N., R 6 E., dependent resurvey and
metes-and-bounds survey accepted
September 12, 2012.
Nancy Haug, BLM Northern California
District manager, (530) 224–2160; or
Joseph J. Fontana, public affairs officer,
(530) 252–5332.
The 12member council advises the Secretary of
the Interior, through the BLM, on a
variety of planning and management
issues associated with public land
management in Northwest California. At
this meeting the RAC will discuss
planning efforts for the Lost Coast
Headlands and Lacks Creek areas of
Humboldt County, discuss the
preplanning process for an update of the
Redding Field Office Resource
Management Plan, hear information on
marijuana eradication on BLM-managed
public lands and discuss a work plan for
assisting the BLM. All meetings are
open to the public. Members of the
public may present written comments to
the council. Each formal council
meeting will have time allocated for
public comments. Depending on the
number of persons wishing to speak,
and the time available, the time for
individual comments may be limited.
Members of the public are welcome on
field tours, but they must provide their
own transportation and meals.
Individuals who plan to attend and
need special assistance, such as sign
language interpretation and other
reasonable accommodations, should
contact the BLM as provided above.
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting.
BILLING CODE 4310–W7–P
Dated: September 12, 2012.
Joseph J. Fontana,
Public Affairs Officer.
In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act of 1976 (FLPMA), and the Federal
Advisory Committee Act of 1972
(FACA), the U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) Northwest California Resource
Advisory Council will meet as indicated
below.
[FR Doc. 2012–24133 Filed 9–28–12; 8:45 am]
San Bernardino Meridian, California
T. 16 N., R. 14 E., supplemental plat of a
metes-and-bounds parcel in sections 11,
12, 13, 14, and 23 accepted July 31, 2012.
T. 4 S., R. 4 E., supplemental plat of a portion
of W1⁄2 SW1⁄4 NW1⁄4 section 24 accepted
August 7, 2012.
T. 7 N., R. 29 W., dependent resurvey,
subdivision, and metes-and-bounds survey
accepted August 23, 2012.
Authority: 43 U.S.C. chapter 3.
Dated: September 14, 2012.
Lance J. Bishop,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor, California.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
[FR Doc. 2012–24134 Filed 9–28–12; 8:45 am]
[LLCA 942000 L57000000 BX0000]
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P
Filing of Plats of Survey: California
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
Notice.
[LLCAN01000.L18200000.XZ0000]
The plats of survey of lands
described below are scheduled to be
officially filed in the Bureau of Land
Management California State Office,
Sacramento, California, thirty (30)
calendar days from the date of this
publication.
SUMMARY:
A copy of the plats may be
obtained from the California State
Office, Bureau of Land Management,
2800 Cottage Way, Sacramento,
California 95825, upon required
payment.
Protest: A person or party who wishes
to protest a survey must file a notice
that they wish to protest with the
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
16:48 Sep 28, 2012
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
ACTION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
Jkt 226001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
AGENCY:
[FR Doc. 2012–24120 Filed 9–28–12; 8:45 am]
ADDRESSES:
The meeting will be held
Wednesday and Thursday, Nov. 14–15,
2012, at the Bureau of Land
Management King Range Project Office,
768 Shelter Cove Rd., Whitethorn, Calif.
On November 14, the council will
convene at 11 a.m. and depart for a field
tour of public lands in the King Range
National Conservation Area. Members of
the public are welcome. They must
provide their own transportation, food
and beverages. On November 15, the
council meets from 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. at
the King Range Project Office. Public
comments will be accepted at 11 a.m.
Notice of Public Meeting: Northwest
California Resource Advisory Council
Dated: September 21, 2012.
Diane Rosen,
Midwest Regional Director.
AGENCY:
59967
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00080
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
BILLING CODE 4310–40–P
E:\FR\FM\01OCN1.SGM
01OCN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 190 (Monday, October 1, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59963-59967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-24120]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Preliminary Plan for Distribution of Judgment Funds to the Loyal
Mdewakantons
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of hearings and request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of the Interior is developing a plan for
distribution of judgment funds to the Loyal Mdewakantons if funds are
appropriated in satisfaction of a final judgment. The distribution plan
includes a determination of the criteria for eligibility to participate
in any award.
DATES: Comments on the preliminary plan must be received by November 1,
2012. The Department will hold in-person hearings on the preliminary
plan
[[Page 59964]]
on October 30, 2012, from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota at the Best Western Plus Sioux Falls Ramkota Hotel, 3200 W.
Maple Street, and on November 1, 2012, from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. in
Bloomington, Minnesota at the Ramada Mall of America, 2300 East
American Boulevard.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to David Christensen, Tribal Operations
Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Midwest Regional Office, Norman
Pointe II, 5600 West American Boulevard, Suite 500, Bloomington, MN
55437.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Christensen, Tribal Operations
Officer, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Midwest Regional Office, Norman
Pointe II, 5600 West American Boulevard, Suite 500, Bloomington, MN
55437; telephone (612) 725-4554.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 5, 2011, as corrected by Order
dated August 18, 2011, the Court of Federal Claims directed the
Secretary of the Interior to prepare and submit to the Court a roll of
eligible claimants and a distribution plan for funds arising from the
judgment in Wolfchild, et al. v. United States, Docket Nos. 03-2684L &
01-568L, under the Indian Tribal Judgment Funds Use or Distribution Act
(25 U.S.C. 1401-1407). The Secretary has developed a preliminary plan
for distribution of the $673,944 judgment among an estimated 20,750 or
more potential beneficiaries. Based on the estimated 20,000 or more
potential claimants represented in the court action, individual
payments are likely to be in the $20.00-$40.00 range. The underlying
judgment of the Court is the subject of appeals by the parties and, as
such, no funds have yet been made available for any distribution.
Interested parties should note that the individual Plaintiffs and
the Defendant in the underlying litigation have appealed the CFC's
judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
(See, Fed. Cir. Case Nos. 2012-5035, -5036, -5043 (consolidated),
Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims in Consolidated
Case Nos. 03-CV-2684 and 01-CV-0568.) Because the parties have filed
appeals to the Federal Circuit, the CFC's judgment is not final and the
Department of the Treasury has not appropriated any funds to be
distributed.
In furtherance of complying with the Court's order to ``complete
preparation of such roll and plan satisfying the criteria specified in
25 U.S.C. 1403'' the Department, in accordance with 25 CFR 87.3(b),
will hold hearings on the record in Sioux Falls, South Dakota on
October 30, 2012, and in Bloomington, Minnesota on November 1, 2012 to
receive testimony on the preliminary plan. Written testimony will also
be accepted at the hearings or can be sent to the address in the
ADDRESSES section of this notice. Please be advised that your
testimony, whether oral or written, may be made publicly available at
any time. While you can request that any personal identifying
information contained in your testimony be withheld from public review,
we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The preliminary plan for the distribution of these funds reads as
follows:
Draft Report and Preliminary Plan
For the Use and Distribution of Judgment Funds Awarded to the
Descendants of the Loyal Mdewakanton in Docket Nos. 03-2684L & 01-568L,
Before the United States Court of Federal Claims
Background
The Department of the Interior respectfully submits this plan for
the distribution of $673,944.00, awarded by the Court of Federal Claims
in the case of Wolfchild v. United States, Dockets No. 03-2684L & No.
01-568L, August 5, 2011. Wolfchild v. United States, 101 Fed. Cl. 54
(2011) (as corrected August 18, 2011). The court remitted and remanded
to the Secretary the work of preparing a plan for the distribution of
the funds, setting forth the criteria for eligibility, and then
developing a roll of eligible claimants.
This case was brought in 2003 by a group of individuals who claim
to be the lineal descendants of the 1886 Mdewakantons, called the
``loyal Mdewakantons.'' Over time, more individuals have joined the
suit as plaintiffs or plaintiff-interveners, and this number is now
estimated as exceeding 20,750. The litigation has yielded various and
sometimes competing theories and definitions of a ``loyal Mdewakanton''
that would be eligible to share in an award.
In August 1862, the Minnesota Sioux \1\, then living on two
reservations in Southern Minnesota, rebelled against the United States.
The uprising resulted from the needless delay in distributing promised
treaty annuities, including food, to the starving Indians. The United
States responded with military force, and many of the Indians were
expelled from Minnesota or captured. After the rebellion was quelled,
Congress abrogated and annulled the treaties that had established the
reservations and that had provided an annuity to be paid to the tribes.
The Minnesota Sioux reservation lands in Minnesota were confiscated,
and most of the Sioux were forced to relocate further west.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Minnesota Sioux consisted of 4 bands: The Sisseton,
Wahpaton (upper bands), Wahpakootas and Mdewakantons (lower bands).
Contemporaneous accounts put most of the blame for the rebellion on
the lower bands. [Report of the Secretary of the Interior, 1866;
Joint Appendix, Ex. 32]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even in the aftermath of the uprising, when the Congress was
debating the bill that would investigate the hostilities and impose
punitive measures, recognition was given to the existence of a group of
Indians who ``have been faithful to the whites, have defended them, and
who have saved their lives in Minnesota.'' Many of those individuals,
because of their actions, severed their ties to the tribe and remained
in Minnesota. The government's confiscation of the Sioux lands in
Minnesota and the forfeiture of the annuities that had been paid
pursuant to the abrogated treaties left those individuals poverty-
stricken and homeless. In acknowledging the contributions of this
group, consisting of about 200 individuals, Congress authorized the
Secretary of the Interior to convey 80 acres of public land to ``each
individual of the before-named bands who exerted himself in rescuing
the whites from the late massacre of said Indians.'' Act of February
16, 1863, 12 Stat. at 654. Two weeks later, Congress enacted another
statute providing: [I]t shall be lawful for [the] Secretary [of the
Interior] to locate any meritorious individual Indian of [the four]
bands, who exerted himself to save the lives of the whites in the late
massacre, upon [the former Sioux reservation lands] on which the
improvements are situated, assigning the same to him to the extent of
eighty acres, to be held by such tenure as is or may be provided by law
. . . [provided] [t]hat no more than eighty acres shall be awarded to
any one Indian, under this or any other act.'' Act of March 3, 1863,
ch. 119, section 4, 12 Stat. at 819.
The Secretary never exercised the authority granted by the 1863
legislation to provide lands to the friendly Sioux, due to the intense
opposition of the white settlers. In regard to the friendly Sioux
remaining in Minnesota, the 1866 Report of the Secretary of the
Interior noted ``it is noticeable that Congress has, by several
enactments, made attempts to provide for them by donations of land and
money; but it has been found impracticable to accomplish anything under
those acts, on account of the hostility manifested by the white people
of that region towards everything in the form of an Indian. Many of
these men have, for the past three years, been
[[Page 59965]]
homeless wanderers, and actually suffering from want: A very poor
return for services rendered to the whites for the risk of their
lives.''
Efforts to provide for the Minnesota Sioux who had aided the
settlers during the Sioux Uprising continued. In 1888, 1889, and 1890,
Congress enacted legislation appropriating funds for the support of a
number of designated Indian tribes. Motivated by the failure of the
1863 Acts to provide relief, Congress included in each of these
statues, known collectively as the ``Appropriations Acts'', a paragraph
allocating a small sum to be used for the benefit of the Mdewakantons
who had remained in Minnesota after the 1862 revolt or had returned to
Minnesota in the following years.
The 1888 Act appropriated $20,000 ``to be expended by the Secretary
of the Interior'' in purchasing land, cattle, horses, and agricultural
implements for the ``full-blood Indians in Minnesota belonging to the
Mdewakanton band of Sioux Indians, who have resided in [Minnesota]''
since May 20, 1886, and who have ``severed their tribal relations.''
Act of June 29, 1888, ch. 503, 25 Stat. 217, 228-29. In 1889, Congress
appropriated a further sum of $12,000 ``to be expended by the Secretary
of the Interior'' for the ``full-blood'' loyal Mdewakanton residing in
Minnesota since May 20, 1886, or ``who were then engaged in removing to
said State.'' Act of March 2, 1889, ch. 412, 25 Stat. 980, 992-93. The
1889 Act was substantially similar to the 1888 Act but included three
additional provisions not included in the 1888 Act. Unlike the 1888
Act, the 1889 Act required the Secretary to expend the appropriated
funds in a manner such that each loyal Mdewakanton received as close to
an equal amount as practicable. Additionally, the 1889 Act mandated
that any money appropriated in the 1889 Act not expended within the
fiscal year would not be recovered by Treasury, but rather would be
carried over to the following years and expended for the benefit of the
loyal Mdewakanton. The 1889 Act made the ``equal amount'' requirements
applicable to the money appropriated under the 1888 Act as well. In
1890, Congress appropriated an additional $8,000 and adopted the same
substantive provisions as the 1889 Act, except that it expressly stated
that the further appropriated amount was to support Indians of both
``full and mixed blood.'' Act of August 19, 1890, 26 Stat. 336, 349.
The 1889 and 1890 Acts also differed from the 1888 Act by granting the
Secretary discretion based on what ``may be deemed best in the case of
each of these Indians or family thereof.'' Id. at 992 (emphasis added).
The 1888 Act, on the other hand, made no explicit mention of the loyal
Mdewakantons' families as beneficiaries of the appropriations. See 25
Stat. at 228-29.
The Department of the Interior used approximately $15,600 of the
$40,000 appropriated under the three Appropriations Acts to purchase
parcels of land in various parts of southern Minnesota where the
Mdewakantons had settled. Because of difficulties in determining which
of the Mdewakantons qualified as ``loyal'' during the 1862 uprising,
the Appropriations Acts provided that the appropriations would be
designated for the benefit of all Mdewakantons who were living in or in
the process of removing to Minnesota as of May 20, 1886. As a result,
the lands purchased with funds from the three Appropriations Acts are
known as ``the 1886 lands,'' and the Mdewakantons who were statutorily
eligible for benefits under the Acts are commonly referred to as ``the
1886 Mdewakantons.'' The Department of the Interior assigned individual
plots from those lands to qualifying Mdewakantons for their use and
occupancy, so long as they resided on or otherwise used the land.
The text delineating the beneficiary class in each Appropriation
Act varied in minute respects, but the essential thrust of the Acts was
Congress' desire that loyal Mdewakanton would be identified as those
Mdewakanton who had severed their tribal relations and who had either
remained in, or were removing to, Minnesota as of May 20, 1886. To
determine the persons who would be considered ``loyal'' Mdewakanton
under Congress' definition and thus would receive the benefits of the
Appropriations Acts, the Department of the Interior relied upon two
censuses: The McLeod listing and the Henton listing. The McLeod listing
was generated in 1886 by U.S. Special Agent Walter McLeod and listed
all of the full-blood Mdewakantons remaining in Minnesota at the time.
Under the Secretary's direction, on January 2, 1889, a supplementary
census was taken by Robert B. Henton, Special Agent for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (``BIA''), of the Mdewakanton living in Minnesota since
May 20, 1886. That listing included some mixed bloods. Together, these
listings were used to distribute the benefits of the Appropriations
Acts to those persons whose names appeared on the lists, and
subsequently, to lineal descendants of those listed persons.
Over time, funds were generated by the use, sale and leasing of the
1886 lands, which were placed in Treasury trust fund accounts. Some of
these funds were obtained from a transfer of a portion of the 1886
lands by the United States to the Upper Mississippi River Wildlife and
Fish Refuge (``the Wabasha Land Transfer''). The remaining portion of
the money, however, stemmed from Interior's policy of leasing or
licensing 1886 lands for fair market value where no eligible
Mdewakanton or lineal descendant was available for a land assignment.
In 1975, the BIA performed a detailed accounting of all funds derived
from the 1886 lands then held by the Treasury. After deduction of the
Wabasha Land Transfer funds, the sum remaining attributable to the 1886
lands amounted to $60,464.02.
Pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, three
Mdewakanton communities were formed in the three areas where the 1886
lands were located. The three communities are the Prairie Island Indian
Community, the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community, and the Lower
Sioux Indian Community. The enrolled membership of the three
communities consists largely of lineal descendants of the Mdewakantons
who were living in Minnesota in 1886, but some enrolled members are not
descendants of the 1886 Mdewakantons, and many of the descendants of
the 1886 Mdewakantons are not enrolled members of any of the three
communities. Over time, the government purchased additional land for
the Prairie Island and Lower Sioux communities. Those lands were
regarded as reservation lands and as such were held in trust for those
two communities. Prior to 1980, those reservation lands were treated as
having a legally distinct status from the 1886 lands, even though
parcels of the two classes of property were intermingled in the same
areas within the geographical boundaries of the Prairie Island and
Lower Sioux communities.
In 1980, Congress enacted legislation designed to give the three
communities political control over all the property within the
communities that had been set aside for Indians, including the 1886
lands. See Public Law 96-557, 94 Stat. 3262 (1980) (the ``1980 Act'').
The 1980 Act provided that the 1886 lands, which ``were acquired and
are now held by the United States for the use or benefit of certain
Mdewakanton Sioux Indians'' under the Appropriations Acts, would
henceforth be ``held by the United States * * * in trust for'' the
three communities. Id. That legislation did not address the funds
derived from the 1886 lands then being held by the Treasury. However,
in 1981 and 1982 those funds were distributed to the three communities.
[[Page 59966]]
The Court of Federal Claims found that the transfer of monies
derived from the 1886 lands to the three communities was not authorized
by the 1980 statute, and that the ``loyal Mdewakantons'' referenced in
the Appropriations Acts should have been the beneficiaries. As
referenced above, the Department of the Interior is directed to
determine which claimants are the proper beneficiaries of the
Appropriations Acts, and who are therefore entitled to share in the
judgment. This process also entails consideration of the various
theories of recovery advanced by the plaintiffs in the court case in
order to establish the proper criteria for determining the class of
persons the Appropriations Acts were intended to benefit.
Various iterations have emerged as to how to define ``loyal
Mdewakanton'' and how to determine the lineal descendants of such loyal
Mdewakantons with respect to who should be the intended beneficiaries
of the Appropriations Acts. The contentions fall into three general
categories:
One iteration is that loyal Mdewakantons are limited to those
individuals appearing on censuses carried out at the direction of the
Secretary of the Interior in 1886 (the McLeod census) and 1889 (the
Henton census) specifically to identify the intended beneficiaries of
the Acts. The criteria specified in the Acts are Mdewakanton residing
in Minnesota on May 20, 1886 (or who were in the process of removing
there), and who had severed their tribal relations. As noted above, the
1890 Act made provisions to include both full and mixed blood
Mdewakantons.
A second iteration goes beyond the McLeod and Henton censuses to
define eligibility and would also rely on lists of individuals who were
scouts, or who rescued whites, or who performed other meritorious
services to aid the settlers during the uprising. This position is
supported by the fact that legislation enacted in 1863 pertaining to
Mdewakantons employed other standards. Those acts were not restricted
to the Mdewakanton, and spoke of ``meritorious'' or ``friendly''
Indians who had ``exerted themselves'' to rescue the white settlers.
This position would counsel toward the use of additional source
documents that reflect individuals not listed in the 1886 and 1889
censuses who had been ``loyal'' or ``friendly'' and therefore in the
class that Congress intended to benefit. These other sources might
include:
1862 Indian Camp Census, Report No. 156 in Report of U.S.
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1863. This list consists of the Sioux
Indians and ``half-breeds'' under the surveillance of the U.S. military
authorities at Camp Snelling, Minnesota during the winter of 1862. The
list included the families of Indians accused of fomenting the uprising
jailed at Davenport, Iowa; Indians who had been acquitted of
responsibility, and a number of scouts.
Camp Release Census 1863, Stephen Riggs Family Papers, Box 1,
Minnesota Historical Society. This census was of captives released to
Colonel Sibley, which included 162 mixed bloods.
Congressional Globe, 37th Cong., 3D Session at 514. The Globe
contains the transcription of a discussion on the floor of Congress on
January 26, 1863, regarding the 1862 uprising. Correspondence from the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs is introduced, containing a petition for
assistance from Indians who had rescued whites in the uprising, and
suffered ill-treatment from both whites and other Indians.
Sibley Sioux Scout List--1863 Sibley Expedition, May 28, 1863,
Sibley Papers, Minnesota Historical Society Collections, 10:611. This
list is of Indian scouts who were retained and recruited for the Sibley
Expedition to pursue hostile Indians that left the State of Minnesota
to escape any penalties for their participation in the 1862 uprising.
1866 Report of the Secretary of the Interior. This report, dated
April 20, 1866, includes the names of individuals that deserve the
``gratitude of the American people for having been principally
instrumental in saving the lives of white women and children during the
late Indian war.''
Payroll to Soldiers and Scouts 1891-92 (S.H. Elrod Scout and
Soldier List) (National Archives and Records Administration). This
document is a listing of scouts for the United States military of Sioux
descent during and subsequent to the uprising, who received per capita
payments under Congressional appropriations in 1893 and 1895.
1891 Samuel Brown Scout List--Census. A list of the frontier Scout
Force of Fort Wadsworth, Dakota Territory was found in the personal
papers of Samuel Brown, who served there as an interpreter and the
superintendent of government scouts. The list was apparently compiled
for the distribution of back annuities for members of the Sioux tribe
who had served as scouts in the Indian Wars, provided for in the Indian
Appropriations Act of 1891.
A third iteration recognizes that ``mixed blood'' Mdewakantons were
not included on the 1886 and 1889 censuses used to determine receipt of
benefits under the Appropriations Acts, but these mixed bloods were
specifically mentioned as beneficiaries in the 1890 Act. This position
would counsel toward consideration of later censuses that were perhaps
more likely to include mixed bloods and those who may not have been
present for the 1886 and 1889 counts but were ``in the process of
removing to Minnesota.'' Later enumerations of Mdewakanton in Minnesota
include:
Birch Cooley Census of Mdewakanton Indians, Robert B. Henton, 1891-
93, 1895-98.
Robert Henton was commissioned by the Secretary of the Interior to
conduct the census of 1889 of Mdewakanton Indians in Minnesota. These
subsequent lists of full and mixed-blood Mdewakantons at the Birch-
Cooley Agency appear to be a continuation of his earlier work, given
the inclusion of mixed-bloods as recipients of the 1890 Appropriations
Act.
Census of Mdewakanton Sioux of Minnesota, James McLaughlin, 1899.
An 1899 letter from the Commissioner of the BIA references this
census as a refinement of the earlier work done by Robert Henton to
enumerate the Mdewakantons entitled to the benefits of the
Appropriations Acts.
1917 Census of Mdewakanton Sioux Indians. This census was created
by Interior as part of a Court of Claims judgment in favor of the
Mdewakanton and Wahpekoota Band of Sioux Indians.
Proposed Finding on Criteria for a ``Loyal Mdewakanton'' Eligible To
Receive an Award
The Appropriations Acts defined the loyal Mdewakantons and intended
beneficiaries of the Act as (1) Indians in Minnesota, belonging to the
Mdewakanton Band of Sioux Indians, (2) who resided in the state on May
20, 1886, or were in the process or removing to Minnesota, and (3) who
have severed their tribal relations. A review of Interior Department
memoranda, correspondence and administrative determinations dating from
1886 through 1982 shows these as the criteria consistently applied in
making or evaluating assignments for the 1886 Lands. Because the funds
that form the basis of the proceeds in this case derive from those
lands, the same criteria should apply in determining who is eligible to
share in any funds awarded pursuant to the judgment.
Over the 100 years between the 1880s to the 1980s, the Department
of the Interior made official eligibility determinations for 1886 Land
assignments, created various rolls of eligible individuals, and often
issued
[[Page 59967]]
certificates to assignees. We adopt these documents as probative of
eligibility for 1886 Land Assignments and proxy for membership in the
group of intended beneficiaries of the Appropriations Acts. Documents
which have previously been sanctioned by the Department for this
purpose are:
(1) The 1886 McLeod Census
(2) The 1889 Henton Supplemental Census
(3) The 1917 McLaughlin Roll (with additional proof of Mdewakanton
descent for persons appearing on that roll)
(4) Certificates assigning 1886 lands
We now add to this list of probative documents:
(5) the Birch Cooley Censuses prepared by Robert Henton; and
(6) the 1899 roll prepared by Inspector McLaughlin.
These additional rolls also were prepared at the direction of the
Secretary of the Interior for the purpose of determining eligibility
under the Appropriations Acts.
We determine that the class of persons eligible to participate in
any final judgment of the Court of Federal Claims are those who can
submit proof of descent from any individual listed on the documents
adopted as probative above.
Dated: September 21, 2012.
Diane Rosen,
Midwest Regional Director.
[FR Doc. 2012-24120 Filed 9-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-W7-P
