Post by mdenney on Apr 6, 2007 22:49:33 GMT -5
10 Ind. C l . Comm. 137
BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
THE SISSETON AND W.AHPETON BANDS 1
OR TRIBES, ETC., 1 Docket No. 142
1
THE LOWER SIOUX INDIAN CO>IPNNITY, ETC . , 1 Docket Nos. 359 - 363
1
THE YANKTON SIOUS TRIBE, 1 Docket No. 332-A
1
Petitioners, 1
1
v. 1
1
THE UNITED STfEES OF APIERICA, )
)
Defendant. 1
Decided: January 12, 1962
Appearances :
Docket No. 142 - Marvin J. Sonosky;
Docket Nos. 359-363 --Emerson Hopp,
John S. White, Louis Rochmes;
Docket No. 332-A - Ernest L. Wilkinson,
and John W. Cragun, Attorneys
for Petitioners .
James J. Monogue, with whom was Mr.
Assistant Attorney General Ramsey
Clark, Attorneys for Defendant.
OPINION OF THE COMMISSIOH
Watkins, Chief Commissioner, delivered the opinion of the Commission.
There are five principal Sioux claimants i n t h i s consolidated matter
who are seeking additional coinpensation for lands zllegedly taken by the
United States by treaty or otherwise. In Dockets 359 through 363, there
are set forth the claims of the Medadcanton and Wahpdcoota bands of Sioux,
e
and Docket 142 embodies the claim of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of
Sioux. Collectively these four bands are more readily identified as the
10 Ind. C l . C ~ n m . 137
Mississippi Sioux. Docket 332-A involves the claims of the Yankton Sioux
tribe, who along with the Yanktonai and Teton Sioux t r i b e s , are known as
the Missouri Sioux. me subject areas in the respective dockets are
contiguous. They have a combined acreage in the neighborhood of some
thirty five million acres, and are located for the most part i n the s t a t e
of Minnesota with some areas extending into Wisconsin and Iowa.
With respect to Medawakanton and Wahpakoota claims asserted i n
Dockets 359 through 363, there are five separate petitioning Indian communities,
to-wit, the Santee Sioux Tribe of the Santee Reservation in
Nebraska, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, the Lower Sioux
Indian Community in Mimesota, the Prairie Island Indian Commu~ity in
Minnesota, and the 'iipper Sioux Indian Community i n Minnesota. Their
present membership is comprised chiefly of descendants of the original
bands of Medawakanton and Wafipakoota bands of Mississippi as they existed
during the t i m e s pertinent to the claims asserted herein. There are also
several individual petitioners who are blood descendants of the original
members of the Medawakanton and Wahpakoota Sioux bands. These f i v e
communities are entitled to bring and maintain the Medawakanton and
Wahpakoota Sioux claims on behalf of a l l their members as well as a l l
descendants of the original Medawakanton and Wahpakoota bands similarly
situated. In like manner the individual petitioners are e n t i t l e d t o
bring and maintain these s u i t s on behalf of themselves and a l l other
descendants of the original Medawakanton and Wahpakoota Sioux bands
similarly situated.
10 Ind. C l . C m . 137
There are two petitioning Indian Communities, to w i t , the Sisseton
and Wahpeton Tribe of Sioux Indians of the Sisseton Reservation in South
Dakota, and the Sisseton and Wahpeton Tribe of Sioux Indians of the Fort
Totten Reservation in North Dakota, whose membership comprises descendants
of the original members of the Sisseton and Wallpeton bands of Mississippi
Sioux as they existed during the times pertinent to the claims asserted
in Docket 142. As such the two petitioning communities are e n t i t l e d . t o
bring and maintain the claims i n Docket 142 under the provisions of the
Indian Claims Commission Act, for and on behalf of i t s members and a l l
other descendants of the original bands of Sisseton and Wallpeton Sioux
similarly situated.
The petitioner, the Yankton Sioux Tribe, in Docket 332-A is authorized
under the prwisions of our Act t o bring that s u i t orr behalf of its members.
We shall, however, a t . t h i s time t r e a t f i r s t with the Mississippi Sioux clzims
in Dockets 142, 359 through 363.
The traditional association of the Mississippi Sioux bands with tke
early development and growth of the Minnesota t e r r i t o r y , arrd the adjacent
northwest areas has been presented to the Commission with great emphasis
i n the abundance of historical documents now in the record. These Indians
were no strangers to the white man. As early as 1670 the French had corrtacted
the "Nadaiesiotrx" along w i t h the other tribes that roamed the vast
expanse that lay to the west and southwest of Green Bay and Lake Superior.
Beginning with Finding 8, the Commission has evaluated the numerous reports
of the FrencS and English explorers and traders that spelled out continuous
Sioux activity and occupancy of the Minnesota lands along the upper
. ,. -
LO Ind. C l . Corm. 137
Mississippi River and the neighboring rivers and lakes. It seems unnecessary
to repeat again these h i s t o r i c a l facts as s e t down in our findings. A t the
time the United States established i t s jurisdiction over the Upper Mississippi
region in 1803, the Sioux and the Chippewa t o the north had pretty well divided
up the Minnesota territory between them.
In 1805 Zebulon Pike reached the Upper Mississippi Valley where he had
no difficulty finding Sioux villages along the west bank of the Mississippi
River. t i t t l e Crow, the Medawakanton Chief, was encamped i n the only v i l l a g e
of any consequence situated on the east side of the Mississippi. Pike had
been instructed among other things to look for suitable positions that would
accommodate military outposts. He decided upon two small t r a c t s , one situated
a t the mouth of the St. Croh River, the other at the f a l l s of St. Anthony
.\I
further up the Mississippi, The St, Croix River t r a c t was nine m i l e s square
and contained 51,840 acres. The t r a c t beginning a t the collfluence or' the
St. Peters and Mississippi River, and extending up the Mississippi t o include
the f a l l s of St. Anthony, was 9 miles by 18 m i l e s and contained 103,680 acres.
Pike lost no time i n concluding an agreement on September 23, 1805, for the
conveyance of Sioux interest in the two t r a c t s . He dealt exclusively with
the Medawakantons whose chief, L i t t l e Crow, signed the agreement. On
April 16, 1808, the United States Senate r a t i f i e d "Pike's Purchase", while
a t the same time fixing the consideration to be paid to the Sioux at $2,000
or its equivalent in goods and merchandise. The Commission finds precious
little i f any thing in the record that would contravene the facts pointing
to Medawakanton aboriginal ownership of the two t r a c t s conveyed t o the
United States under the 1805 agreement. The Commission therefore finds
10 fad. C l . Comm. 137
and concludes that as of the effective date of the 1805 agreement the
Medawakanton Sioux had Indian t i t l e to the two t r a c t s involved in "Pike's
Purchase" which are the subject of the claims asserted in Docket
BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
THE SISSETON AND W.AHPETON BANDS 1
OR TRIBES, ETC., 1 Docket No. 142
1
THE LOWER SIOUX INDIAN CO>IPNNITY, ETC . , 1 Docket Nos. 359 - 363
1
THE YANKTON SIOUS TRIBE, 1 Docket No. 332-A
1
Petitioners, 1
1
v. 1
1
THE UNITED STfEES OF APIERICA, )
)
Defendant. 1
Decided: January 12, 1962
Appearances :
Docket No. 142 - Marvin J. Sonosky;
Docket Nos. 359-363 --Emerson Hopp,
John S. White, Louis Rochmes;
Docket No. 332-A - Ernest L. Wilkinson,
and John W. Cragun, Attorneys
for Petitioners .
James J. Monogue, with whom was Mr.
Assistant Attorney General Ramsey
Clark, Attorneys for Defendant.
OPINION OF THE COMMISSIOH
Watkins, Chief Commissioner, delivered the opinion of the Commission.
There are five principal Sioux claimants i n t h i s consolidated matter
who are seeking additional coinpensation for lands zllegedly taken by the
United States by treaty or otherwise. In Dockets 359 through 363, there
are set forth the claims of the Medadcanton and Wahpdcoota bands of Sioux,
e
and Docket 142 embodies the claim of the Sisseton and Wahpeton bands of
Sioux. Collectively these four bands are more readily identified as the
10 Ind. C l . C ~ n m . 137
Mississippi Sioux. Docket 332-A involves the claims of the Yankton Sioux
tribe, who along with the Yanktonai and Teton Sioux t r i b e s , are known as
the Missouri Sioux. me subject areas in the respective dockets are
contiguous. They have a combined acreage in the neighborhood of some
thirty five million acres, and are located for the most part i n the s t a t e
of Minnesota with some areas extending into Wisconsin and Iowa.
With respect to Medawakanton and Wahpakoota claims asserted i n
Dockets 359 through 363, there are five separate petitioning Indian communities,
to-wit, the Santee Sioux Tribe of the Santee Reservation in
Nebraska, the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota, the Lower Sioux
Indian Community in Mimesota, the Prairie Island Indian Commu~ity in
Minnesota, and the 'iipper Sioux Indian Community i n Minnesota. Their
present membership is comprised chiefly of descendants of the original
bands of Medawakanton and Wafipakoota bands of Mississippi as they existed
during the t i m e s pertinent to the claims asserted herein. There are also
several individual petitioners who are blood descendants of the original
members of the Medawakanton and Wahpakoota Sioux bands. These f i v e
communities are entitled to bring and maintain the Medawakanton and
Wahpakoota Sioux claims on behalf of a l l their members as well as a l l
descendants of the original Medawakanton and Wahpakoota bands similarly
situated. In like manner the individual petitioners are e n t i t l e d t o
bring and maintain these s u i t s on behalf of themselves and a l l other
descendants of the original Medawakanton and Wahpakoota Sioux bands
similarly situated.
10 Ind. C l . C m . 137
There are two petitioning Indian Communities, to w i t , the Sisseton
and Wahpeton Tribe of Sioux Indians of the Sisseton Reservation in South
Dakota, and the Sisseton and Wahpeton Tribe of Sioux Indians of the Fort
Totten Reservation in North Dakota, whose membership comprises descendants
of the original members of the Sisseton and Wallpeton bands of Mississippi
Sioux as they existed during the times pertinent to the claims asserted
in Docket 142. As such the two petitioning communities are e n t i t l e d . t o
bring and maintain the claims i n Docket 142 under the provisions of the
Indian Claims Commission Act, for and on behalf of i t s members and a l l
other descendants of the original bands of Sisseton and Wallpeton Sioux
similarly situated.
The petitioner, the Yankton Sioux Tribe, in Docket 332-A is authorized
under the prwisions of our Act t o bring that s u i t orr behalf of its members.
We shall, however, a t . t h i s time t r e a t f i r s t with the Mississippi Sioux clzims
in Dockets 142, 359 through 363.
The traditional association of the Mississippi Sioux bands with tke
early development and growth of the Minnesota t e r r i t o r y , arrd the adjacent
northwest areas has been presented to the Commission with great emphasis
i n the abundance of historical documents now in the record. These Indians
were no strangers to the white man. As early as 1670 the French had corrtacted
the "Nadaiesiotrx" along w i t h the other tribes that roamed the vast
expanse that lay to the west and southwest of Green Bay and Lake Superior.
Beginning with Finding 8, the Commission has evaluated the numerous reports
of the FrencS and English explorers and traders that spelled out continuous
Sioux activity and occupancy of the Minnesota lands along the upper
. ,. -
LO Ind. C l . Corm. 137
Mississippi River and the neighboring rivers and lakes. It seems unnecessary
to repeat again these h i s t o r i c a l facts as s e t down in our findings. A t the
time the United States established i t s jurisdiction over the Upper Mississippi
region in 1803, the Sioux and the Chippewa t o the north had pretty well divided
up the Minnesota territory between them.
In 1805 Zebulon Pike reached the Upper Mississippi Valley where he had
no difficulty finding Sioux villages along the west bank of the Mississippi
River. t i t t l e Crow, the Medawakanton Chief, was encamped i n the only v i l l a g e
of any consequence situated on the east side of the Mississippi. Pike had
been instructed among other things to look for suitable positions that would
accommodate military outposts. He decided upon two small t r a c t s , one situated
a t the mouth of the St. Croh River, the other at the f a l l s of St. Anthony
.\I
further up the Mississippi, The St, Croix River t r a c t was nine m i l e s square
and contained 51,840 acres. The t r a c t beginning a t the collfluence or' the
St. Peters and Mississippi River, and extending up the Mississippi t o include
the f a l l s of St. Anthony, was 9 miles by 18 m i l e s and contained 103,680 acres.
Pike lost no time i n concluding an agreement on September 23, 1805, for the
conveyance of Sioux interest in the two t r a c t s . He dealt exclusively with
the Medawakantons whose chief, L i t t l e Crow, signed the agreement. On
April 16, 1808, the United States Senate r a t i f i e d "Pike's Purchase", while
a t the same time fixing the consideration to be paid to the Sioux at $2,000
or its equivalent in goods and merchandise. The Commission finds precious
little i f any thing in the record that would contravene the facts pointing
to Medawakanton aboriginal ownership of the two t r a c t s conveyed t o the
United States under the 1805 agreement. The Commission therefore finds
10 fad. C l . Comm. 137
and concludes that as of the effective date of the 1805 agreement the
Medawakanton Sioux had Indian t i t l e to the two t r a c t s involved in "Pike's
Purchase" which are the subject of the claims asserted in Docket