And now:Ish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Date: Sun, 2 May 1999 14:51:43 EDT >Subject: "State, Sioux disagree on Lone Wolf, Laramie treaties." >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >CC: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >X-Mailer: AOL 3.0 16-bit for Windows sub 41 > >Dear Amy Bennett: > >Thank you for the well reported article. I note Gov. Janklow's unique legal >theory re the invalidation of the Treaty of 1868. > >Congruent with his formula, the Constitution of the United States is no >longer valid either, because he did not sign it, and no one present signed >it. . . > >Martha E. Ture >----------------- >-- >Conflict Stems from Treaty Interpretations >"State, Sioux disagree on Lone Wolf, Laramie treaties." > >by Amy Bennett >Freeman Courier-Freeman SD >Saturday, May 1, 1999 > >Freeman Courier-Freeman SD >Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >URL: http://members.tripod.com/freecour > >One of the issues being protested is the Mitigation Act. The act involves >taking nearly 200,000 acres of land along the Missouri riverbanks from >the Army Corps of Engineers and transferring it to the state of South >Dakota and two tribes. > >The Sioux want the return of land that is rightfully theirs as promised >by the Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868. The Mitagation Act gives some of >that land to the state - which goes against the 1868 treaty. > >Sen. Tom Daschle (D-SD) and Gov. William Janklow (R-SD) crafted the >Mitigation Act. It was passed in October 1998 as part of the 1999 Omnibus >Appropriations Act. The Mitagation Act came out of an inquiry made by >Daschle into riverbank jurisdiction in the mid-'90s, said Bob Mercer, >Janklow's press secretary. > >At first, Daschle backed away from the issue because of its controversy, >Mercer said. But then, Mercer said Daschle and Janklow wondered what >it would take to have the riverbanks that are controlled by the Army >Corps of Engineers back in the control of the state and the tribes. > >Negotiations began and all the river tribes were invited to participate, >Mercer said. Both the Crow Creek and Standing Rock reservations >declined to be a part of the transfer. > >The act was defeated when introduced to the House of Representatives >as a bill. But when included in the Appropriations Bill, it passed Oct. >21, 1998. Mercer said the bill had problems passing in the House because >the Army Corps is powerful politically. When an opportunity presented >itself to reintroduce the bill as part of the Appropriatons Bill, Daschle >took it, Mercer said. > >Both the Lower Brule and Cheyenne River Sioux tribes were offered >Missouri riverbank land along their reservation boundaries, which are >presently controlled by the Army Corps of Engineers. The two tribes were >also offered $57 million to share. In return for the land transfer, South >Dakota would gain nearly 200,000 acres of land to use for hydro-electric >power, wildlife and recreational development, control of the land on both >sides of the Missouri River the entire length of the state, including >jurisdiction over American Indian fishing rights. > >Some members of the tribes claim the legislation was added as a budget >rider without a hearing and against the wishes of the five S.D. Sioux >tribes who opposed the land transfer because it violates the Treaty of >1868. And according to the campers on LaFramboise Island, the land >transfer is not valid unless three-fourths of the males of all of the >Sioux tribes in the Great Sioux Nation agree to any changes in the treaty. > >Before the act was passed, only the Cheyenne River and Lower Brule >Sioux tribes agreed. The others - the Oglala, Standing Rock, Rosebud, >Yankton, Crow Creek, Sisseton and Flandreau Sioux tribes - continue >to oppose the act. The Cheyenne River, Lower Brule, Standing Rock >and Crow Creek reservations all have land along the riverbanks although, >according to an 1868 treaty, all of the Sioux tribes have water and >mineral rights to the land in question. > >A history lesson > >South Dakota is home of the Great Sioux Nation, which consists of Dakota, >Lakota and Nakota tribes. > >By the early 19th century, the Great Sioux Nation dominated the northern >Plains, which included most of the Dakotas, northern Nebraska, eastern >Wyoming and southeastern Montana. With the U.S. government's purchase >of land in 1803 - the Louisiana Purchase - westward expansion began. The >Great Sioux Reservation system was established in 1868 at Fort Laramie. >The reservation encompassed much of present-day South Dakota west of >the Missouri River, including the Black Hills. This treaty essentially >prohibited non-American Indians from entering reservation territories >and diminished the amount of land available to a culture that was once >nomadic. If any land were to be transferred, three-quarters of the males >of the entire Great Sioux Nation would have to agree on the transfer. > >In 1889, the Great Sioux Reservation was split into six smaller >reservations. Heads of households and single people older than 18 >years were given parcels of land according to the General Allotment >Act of 1887, or Dawes Act. The Dawes Act opened up West River for >settling and allowed individual Indians to settle their own land or sell >it, as some did. > >While the 1868 treaty recognized the Great Sioux as a sovereign >nation, the Lone Wolf case of 1903 says otherwise. In the Lone Wolf >case, the Supreme Court decided that Indian tribes were "wards of the >nation" and "communities dependent upon the United States." The >court said after 100 years of treaty-making, no Indian nation or tribe >should be recognized as an independent nation, tribe or power that >the government could contract by treaty; therefore, any treaty lawfully >made and ratified with any nation or tribe prior to 1871 was considered >invalidated. Lone Wolf also said that if Congress takes any land from >tribes, the tribes must be fairly compensated. > >The conflict > >The Fort Laramie Treaty of 1868 is what the stand at LaFramboise is >about. The Sioux say the treaty gave them all the land west of the east >bank of the Missouri River. "To be more specific, it said they would not >encroach upon our land and mentioned specifically the east bank of >the Missouri River," Robert Quiver said. Quiver, an Oglala Sioux from >the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, was one of the original protesters >on the island. But the state says the Lone Wolf decision has set a >precedent and only an act of Congress or the Supreme Court can >recognize the Fort Laramie Treaty. "Even if the state wanted to >recognize the treaty of 1868, it can't," Mercer said. > >Mercer said Daschle's bill marks the first time that tribes would be >able to regain land and jurisdiction along the riverbanks. The land >along the banks of the Missouri River is often callded "take land" >because it was taken by the Army Corps of Engineers when the dams >on the river were built. Both the tribes and individual landowners who >had land along the riverbank received compensation for the land, as >required by Lone Wolf. > >"The tribes signed settlements; they (the ACE) may not have been as >fair with the settlements as they could have been," Mercer said. And >the Mitigation Act came out of an inquiry as to how the tribes along >the river could get back jurisdiction of their land. > >State's position > >Some Sioux met with Janklow after the initial March 22 demonstration. >Janklow's told them was the Treaty of 1868 is no longer valid because >he did not sign the treaty and none of the people present signed the >treaty. "He has to deal with things the way they are today," Mercer >said. And the governor thinks transferring the land to the state and >the tribes would be a way for both entities to move forward, together. > >With South Dakota, instead of the Army Corps of Engineers, in >control of the riverbanks, Janklow envisions a river more accessible >to the average South Dakotan. Mercer said Janklow thinks the state >can better manage recreation and better protect cultural resources >along the Missouri River. The corps doesn't spend a lot of time on >recreational development, Mercer said, and the state would make >development of recreation a priority, although Janklow doesn't want >10,000 condos along the riverbanks, either, Mercer said. > >The protesters are calling for an environmental impact statement; >Mercer said if it's necessary by federal standards, it will be done. >It would be more than one year before any changes along the river >would take place, he said. The state is hoping to get boat ramps in >the water in the next 18 months, depending on surveying. It could >be five to six years before a marina could be built. > >The state intends to fund a cultural resource commission to protect >indigenous gravesites along the riverbanks. Mercer said the way the >commission is envisioned now is that tribes will have representation. >Three affiliated tribes from Fort Berthold in North Dakota will also be >involved because the majority of the burial sites along the river are of >their ancestors. > >"There's no fight here between the state and the tribal governments," >Mercer said. "We're trying to move forward together." Reprinted under the fair use http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html doctrine of international copyright law. &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Tsonkwadiyonrat (We are ONE Spirit) Unenh onhwa' Awayaton http://www.tdi.net/ishgooda/ &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&
