[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 238 (Wednesday, December 11, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76184-76189]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-31229]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Proposed Finding Against Federal Acknowledgment of the
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation
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 decline to acknowledge
that the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation (STN), c/o Mr. Richard L. Velky, 33
Elizabeth Street, 4th Floor, Derby, Connecticut 06148, exists as an
Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on
a determination that the petitioner does not satisfy all seven of the
criteria set forth in 25 CFR 83.7, specifically criteria (b), and (c),
and therefore does not meet 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. The time periods and
some of the procedures in 25 CFR part 83 for considering the STN
petition are modified by a court-approved negotiated agreement in
pending litigation. Parties to the litigation have six months from the
service of the proposed finding to provide comments, documents and
arguments on the proposed finding to the Department. Interested and
informed parties who are not also parties to the litigation have 180
days from the date of publication of this notice of the proposed
finding to provide comments to the Department. These comment periods
are virtually identical. The petitioner and all interested and informed
parties commenting on the proposed finding must provide copies of their
comments to all parties and amici curiae to the litigation at the same
time. 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, reasoning, and analyses that
are the basis for this proposed finding, or a list of parties in the
litigation, should be addressed to the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Branch
of Acknowledgment and Research, 1849 C Street NW., Mailstop 4660-MIB,
Washington, DC 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
[[Page 76185]]
the Interior to the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.
The STN petition (petition 79) is being considered under a
court-approved negotiated agreement in pending litigation which
modifies the time periods in 25 CFR part 83 and some of the procedures,
superceding the regulatory provisions for these time periods and
procedures. This order, entered May 8, 2001, and modified by court
order on February 14, 2002, established time lines for submission of
materials to the Department and deadlines for submission of comments,
issuance of a proposed finding and issuance of a final determination.
The agreement does not modify the criteria nor the standards required
to demonstrate that the criteria are met.
The petitioner's letter of intent to petition, under the name the
``Schaghticoke Indian Tribe,'' was filed with the Department on
December 14, 1981. The petitioning group changed its name to
Schaghticoke Tribal Nation of Kent when it amended its governing
document at a membership meeting in 1991.
The Schaghticoke have been a state-recognized tribe, with a state
reservation, from colonial times until the present. However, the
specifics of the State of Connecticut's dealings with state-recognized
tribes differed from tribe to tribe in at least one important respect
that is relevant to the extent to which state recognition provides
additional evidence for the community and political influence criteria
in 25 CFR 83.7(b) and 25 CFR 83.7(c). In this instance, there are
substantial periods of time, from the early 1800's until 1875 and from
1885 until the late 1960's, when the State did not deal with or
identify formal or informal leaders of the Schaghticoke, and did not
consult with members concerning issues which concerned the entire
group. The State's relationship here thus differs materially from that
with the historical Eastern Pequot tribe, where there were recognized
leaders with whom the State or state-authorized officials dealt.
While continuous State recognition with a reservation can provide
evidence to be weighed in combination with the specific evidence that
is present, it is not a substitute for direct evidence concerning
community and political processes. In the historical Eastern Pequot
case, the continuous state recognition provided evidence which, when
added to the specific evidence for community and political processes,
provided the basis for criteria 83.7(b) and 83.7(c) to be met for some
limited time periods for which the specific evidence itself was
insufficient. Because of the narrower quality of the state relationship
with the Schaghticoke petitioner, the state relationship provides a
more limited amount of additional evidence than it did in the case of
the historical Eastern Pequot, especially with regard to demonstrating
criterion 83.7(c), consistent with the reasoning in that final
determination.
From 1900 onwards, the Schaghticoke petitioner and its antecedents
have been regularly identified as an American Indian entity in Federal
and State documents, by local historians, by academic scholars, and in
newspaper articles. Federal identifications include the special Indian
Population schedules for the 1900 and 1910 Federal censuses, the 1934
Tantaquidgeon Report on New England Indians prepared for the U.S.
Indian Service, and the 1947 Gilbert report on surviving Eastern Indian
groups prepared for the Smithsonian Institution. The State
relationship, which has been uninterrupted from 1900 to the present,
generated large quantities of documentation in each decade. These
documents include legislative acts, legislative appropriations,
appointment of overseers, minutes and correspondence of State agencies,
and the assignment of a seat on the Connecticut Indian Affairs Council
(CIAC) to the Schaghticoke. Identifications by academic scholars during
the 20th century begin with a 1903 visit to the Schaghticoke
reservation by ethnographer Frank G. Speck, and exist for each decade
from the 1960's through the 1990's. Identifications by local historians
also appear consistently in the 20th century, with publications from
1903 through the 1990's. Multiple newspaper articles appeared in every
decade from 1900 to the present.
There is no question that the many identifications, which fall
under multiple categories of the types of evidence that may be used
under criterion 83.7(a), pertain to the petitioner and its antecedents.
The petitioner meets criterion 83.7(a).
The evidence indicates that the settlement at Schaghticoke
developed primarily as an amalgamation of the Weantinock and Potatuck
Indian tribes which existed at the time of first sustained contact with
non-Indian settlers. Section 83.6(f) of the regulations provides that
the criteria in 83.7(a) through (g) shall be interpreted as applying to
tribes or groups that have historically combined and functioned as a
single autonomous political entity. The combination of Indians from two
or more related settlements into a single group under the pressure of
non-Indian settlement does not mean that a petitioner fails to meet
criterion 83.7(b) or 83.7(c) during the colonial period.
The Colony of Connecticut reserved lands for the Schaghticoke in
1736 and confirmed the reservation in 1752, appointing an overseer in
1757. Throughout the period from 1743 through 1771, the Moravian
mission records, which are both descriptive and genealogical, provide
sufficient evidence of a Schaghticoke community--more than has existed
for the colonial period in some prior decisions. From 1771 through
1801, the evidence for community is less ample, consisting primarily of
the continued existence of a distinct residential settlement, the
presentation of petitions by the group to the Colony and State, and a
detailed external enumeration of all members by name and age in 1789.
The majority of the residents during this period descended from the
already closely-related Indians who resided at Schaghticoke during the
Moravian era. On the basis of precedent, the evidence is sufficient.
The petitioner meets criterion 83.7(b) during the colonial and early
Federal periods.
For the period from 1800 through 1860, in addition to the data
provided by the overseers who were appointed by the State of
Connecticut through the Litchfield County Superior Court and the
applicable data from the Federal census records, there continued to be
a settlement identified and described by outside observers. The
existence of a distinct geographical settlement to which off-
reservation residents frequently returned and the close kinship
relations between the resident and the non-resident members, in
combination with the other evidence, provide sufficient evidence of
community to meet criterion 83.7(b) from 1801 through 1860.
Throughout the period from 1861 through 1899, the existence of a
residential settlement on the Schaghticoke reservation continued to be
described by outside observers and identified by the State's overseers,
appointed through the Litchfield County Superior Court or after 1883,
the Litchfield County Court of Common Pleas. The Schaghticoke who
resided off the reservation during this period, as documented through
genealogical and census records, had close kin ties to those families
that remained on the reservation. The combination of these forms of
evidence is sufficient for the petitioner to meet criterion 83.7(b) for
the period 1861-1899.
The Schaghticoke group meets criterion 83.7(b) in 1900, based on
the existence of the small geographically distinct community (on the
reservation),
[[Page 76186]]
whose members maintained social relations with each other, and evidence
that at that point in time the kinsmen of the residents living nearby
in the region were maintaining contact with the reservation residents.
The existence of a geographically distinct community is evidence to
demonstrate community, when used in combination with other evidence,
even where it does not reach the 50 percent of the membership necessary
to be sufficient in itself under section 83.7(b)(2)(i).
Supportive evidence for community after 1900, up until 1996, is
that the ``membership,'' in the sense of who was involved, came to
meetings, was mentioned in interviews and the like, was only a limited
portion of the total number of Schaghticoke descendants. At least from
the mid-1800's onwards, only certain descendants maintained contact
with each other and the reservation. In each generation, only some of a
given set of siblings had descendants who appeared on subsequent lists
and in descriptions of the Schaghticoke. This selectivity provides
evidence of social cohesion among this portion of the descendants of
earlier Schaghticokes, and evidence that the Schaghticoke were not a
group based on descent alone.
Three family lines had emerged as distinct lines by the beginning
of the 20th century, Cogswell, Kilson and Harris. With one important
exception, there were no marriages between these lines after the mid
19th century although there were kinship links to each other from
intermarriages earlier in the 19th century or in the 18th century.
There is sufficient evidence from 1900 to 1940 to demonstrate that
criterion 83.7(b) is met. The primary bases are the reservation
community, which encompassed the three main family lines, and the
extant kinship ties with others living nearby. Many of these off
reservation individuals were former reservation residents whose
residence nearby continued the 19th century Schaghticoke pattern where
the community was centered on but not limited to the reservation.
Additional evidence for community is that the Schaghticoke have not
been a descent group up until 1996, but have only included individuals
who were maintaining social relations. Although the direct evidence
concerning community after 1920 is limited, the continuous state
recognition with a reservation provides additional evidence for
community, which, when added to the specific evidence in the record, is
sufficient to demonstrate that criterion 83.7(b) is met between 1900
and 1940.
The available interview data provides conflicting evidence
concerning social community, especially visiting across family lines,
from the late 1930's into the 1960's. Some of the data from interviews
does not show social relations extending beyond immediate family groups
or includes statements which specifically deny contacts across family
lines. Evidence from other interview accounts suggests broader
contacts, including some social gatherings and visiting of reservation
residents across family lines. There was conflicting evidence from
interviews concerning the maintenance of broad social contacts after
1940 to 1967. Descriptions of the initial meetings of the Schaghticoke
organization created in 1967 indicated that the participants were not
well acquainted with each other at that time.
There is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that criterion
83.7(b) is met between 1940 and 1967. The conflicting data from the
1930's into the 1960's cannot be resolved with the presently available
sources and the analysis conducted by the petitioner or by the
Department. The present analysis of this data was sufficient to
conclude that the petitioner's claims to have demonstrated community in
from 1940 to 1967 were not established. The evidence also did not
demonstrate that the third party comments that community did not exist
in this time period were valid. State recognition does not provide
sufficient additional evidence for the period between 1940 and 1967
because of the conflicting nature of the specific evidence for that
period.
As evidence to demonstrate community from 1967 to the present-day,
the petitioner's reports describe the holding of political meetings,
the practice of traditional crafts, the current geographic settlement
pattern, work parties on the reservation, and the continued existence
of social networks. The formal political meetings do not in themselves
show significant social contact or a political relationship because any
kind of organization can hold meetings. The petitioner presented only
limited evidence to substantiate the present existence of social
networks outside of family sublines. The evidence in the record does
not show that work parties have been frequent or that they drew broadly
from the membership. There was no showing that the practice of crafts
represented a distinct cultural tradition or that it involved more than
a few individuals. The geographic distribution of the membership is not
so broad as to provide evidence against the existence of community, but
neither does it provide significant evidence for community.
The Schaghticoke Tribal Nation meets the requirements of criterion
83.7(b) from 1967 to 1996. The primary body of evidence for community
is in the data which describe the intense patterns of political
conflict in these years, described under criterion 83.7(c). This
information demonstrates frequent mobilization of most of the
membership, most often along the lines of the major families or their
subdivisions. Evidence for criterion 83.7(c) can be used as well for
criterion 83.7(b), where that evidence describes circumstances that
indicate that social communication is occurring and that social ties
exist which influence the patterns of political conflict.
The evidence from political events, membership definition and other
sources provides sufficient direct evidence to demonstrate that
criterion 83.7(c) is met between 1967 and 1996. Additional, supporting
evidence, is the selective nature of the membership of the STN in this
period, as well as the preceding decades. State recognition provides
additional evidence for community between 1967 and 1996.
The present-day community, as defined by the 2001 STN membership
list, does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(b). The
community so defined differs substantially from the community described
for period from 1967 to approximately 1996. Important segments of the
group as it existed prior to 1996 have resigned membership in the
petitioner or do not appear on the current membership list because they
declined, for internal political reasons, to participate in the
enrollment process which led to the current STN list. There are
approximately 60 such individuals, compared with the present STN
membership of 317. The absence of these individuals, who were a part of
the social and political relations within the group between 1967 to
1996, means that the current petitioner, as defined by its most recent
enrollment, is substantially less than the entire community. In the
Department's final determination to acknowledge the Eastern Pequot and
the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot petitioners as a single tribe, the
historical Eastern Pequot, the Department concluded that it did not
have the authority to acknowledge petitioners which were parts of
unrecognized tribes.
Criterion 83.7(b) for the present-day community is also not shown
because substantial numbers of descendants of one subline of the Kilson
family were enrolled for the first time beginning in 1996. There is
little evidence of their
[[Page 76187]]
association with the rest of the Schaghticoke families, including other
Kilsons, after the early 1900's. They constitute 110 of the 317 who are
presently enrolled in the STN, more than a third of the total STN
membership.
State recognition does not provide sufficient additional evidence
for criterion 83.7(b) to be met from 1996 to the present, because of
the substantial questions concerning the composition of the community
as defined by the current STN membership list.
The evidence available for this finding indicates that the
Schaghticoke meet criterion 83.7(c) during the colonial period and
during the early Federal period, to 1801. The actions of the local
authorities in regard to the tribe were in accordance with the existing
Connecticut statutes. On the basis of precedent, governance of an
American Indian group by a colony or state does not negate the
existence of tribal autonomy within the meaning of the 25 CFR part 83
regulations, which only require autonomy in relation to other Indian
entities.
In regard to 18th century political authority, the Schaghticoke
settlement developed between the 1720's and 1740's, primarily from the
Weantinock and Potatuck tribes that existed at the time of first
sustained contact with non-Indian settlers. When the Moravian
missionaries first arrived at Schaghticoke (which they called
Pachgatgoch) on January 26, 1743, Martin Mack and his wife ``were
lodg'd by Captain Mawessman * * *.'' This leader, who was baptized with
the name of Gideon later the same year, is generally known as Gideon
Mauwee and continued to head the settlement until his death in 1760,
when he was succeeded by his son, Josua Job Mauwee, until the latter's
death in 1771. Throughout the period from 1743 through 1801, the
sequence of Schaghticoke petitions to the colony, with their content
focused upon preservation of the land base, and with a substantially
stable sequence of signers that changed only gradually over the course
of time as the older men died and younger ones became household heads,
provides sufficient evidence of the existence of political authority or
influence within the group for the colonial and early Federal period.
For the period from 1801 to 1860, there is no evidence in the
record pertaining to political authority or influence. There are no
leaders named either by outside observers or in internal documents. The
State or the overseer did not deal with leaders. The evidence available
for the proposed finding does not show that the group submitted any
petitions to the State authorities. While a single man served as
overseer from 1801 to 1852, thus reducing the number of occasions for
petitions, the evidence submitted did not include any data showing that
the group expressed its views or was consulted with regard to the 1852
or 1861 overseer appointment. Although, in a certain sense, Eunice
Mauwee represented the group to outsiders through the interviews that
she granted, there is no evidence that she did so in ``matters of
consequence,'' as required under the definition of political influence
in the regulations. Although the overseers' records and descriptions by
outside observers reflect the existence of a continuing geographical
community which maintained continuing ties with non-resident relatives,
many of whom received disbursements from the tribal fund when in need,
the record provides no data beyond the fact of this continuous
existence and descriptions of a few selected members. There is no
direct information in regard to political process.
The state relationship by itself does not provide sufficient
additional evidence to meet criterion 83.7(c) in the absence of other,
specific evidence of political influence. The regulations state at
section 83.6.(d) that: ``a petitioner may also be denied if there is
insufficient evidence that it meets one or more of the criteria.'' The
petitioner does not meet criterion 83.7(c) from 1801 through 1860.
There is very limited evidence for political authority or influence
under criterion 83.7(c) in the period from 1861 through 1899 in the
form of two petitions, submitted in 1876 and 1884, each of which was
signed by more than half of the Schaghticoke's adult members. The
evidence does not show that there were petitions submitted in
connection with the overseers' appointments of 1865 and 1870 or that
the State authorities consulted with the group in making them. By
themselves, these two documents within a period of 40 years do not
provide sufficient evidence to support a finding that the petitioner
meets criterion 83.7(c) for this full period.
The two petitions, in combination with the continuous state
relationship since colonial times and the continuous existence of the
reservation lands held in trust by the State, with oversight function,
show that the Schaghticoke meet criterion 83.7(c) for the period from
1876 through 1884. The state relationship here provides additional
evidence because in this period there was a specific political dealing
with the group in that the Litchfield County Superior Court and Court
of Common Pleas did act in response to the petitions. Additional
evidence for criterion 83.7(c) in this period is provided by the
demonstration that the Schaghticoke have shown community under Sec.
83.7(b)(1) at more than a minimal level. Under Sec. 83.7(c)(1)(iv),
this provides supporting evidence for demonstrating criterion 83.7(c).
The evidence does not demonstrate that the Schaghticoke meet criterion
83.7(c) from 1861 to 1875 or from 1885 to 1899. The state relationship
does not provide additional evidence for these dates because there is
an absence of specific evidence of the exercise of political influence
within the group within the meaning of the acknowledgment regulations.
There is almost no specific evidence of Schaghticoke political
activity from 1900 to 1949. The evidence available for the proposed
finding does not show that the group submitted a petition in connection
with the overseers' appointments of 1904-1905, 1914, or 1932, or that
State authorities consulted with the group in making these
appointments. The several accounts of the Schaghticoke around the turn
of the century, including one by ethnographer Frank Speck, do not name
anyone as a leader. Though they describe some individuals who were well
known to non-Indians for various reasons, the accounts do not identify
them as leaders. There was no significant evidence from documents or
interviews to support the petitioner's position that James Harris (died
1909) and George Cogswell (died 1923) were leaders. Although they were
well known, none of the contemporary descriptions of their activities
described roles as leaders of the Schaghticoke or provided substantial
evidence that they exercised political influence or carried out
activities which meet the definition of political influence in Sec.
83.1 of the regulations.
There is no good evidence to support the petitioner's statements
that Howard Nelson Harris was chief from approximately 1920 until 1954,
when he was appointed to that position by the Schaghticoke council
initiated by Franklin Bearce in 1949. Interview data from the Harris
family itself did not provide any significant evidence that he was a
leader before 1954, and little specific evidence to demonstrate he
exercised political influence from 1954 until his death in 1967. Some
Schaghticoke, from a different family line than Harris, specifically
denied that he was chief at all, and stated that different individuals,
with the title of
[[Page 76188]]
Sagamore, were chief from the 1930's until 1967. Evidence of Howard
Harris' contacts with the state in the mid-1920's and in 1950 provided
no indication that he was considered to be a leader or that he had
presented himself to State officials as a leader.
There was little or no evidence to support the petitioner's claims
that various other individuals exercised leadership on the reservation
between 1900 and the 1950's or that that various individuals listed by
the petitioner as being ``culture keepers,'' from 1900 to the present
actually functioned as informal leaders who influenced significant
numbers of members.
There are no named Schaghticoke leaders with whom the state dealt
between 1900 and 1967. One state report, in 1934, said that there were
no leaders recognized by the Schaghticoke. This is evidence which
specifically indicates that there were no leaders in the period between
1900 and 1949.
Between approximately 1949 and 1959, there was a council with named
officers which pursued a claim before the Indian Claims Commission and
attempted to deal with the State on the issue of providing more housing
on the reservation. This council came about through the efforts of
Franklin Bearce, a non-Schaghticoke. There is not good evidence that
those holding office in this time period had a following or significant
duties for any extended period of time. There is some evidence to
indicate that Bearce consulted regularly with various Schaghticoke
individuals, including especially Howard Harris, and that his efforts
tapped into an existing set of issues and relationships, but the
present evidence is insufficient to demonstrate that criterion 83.7(c)
is met for this period. It was not shown that the claims issue itself,
involving losses that had occurred over a hundred years before, was of
importance to the membership in general and thus evidence for criterion
83.7(c) under Sec. 83.7(c)(1)(ii).
There is either no direct evidence to show political influence, or
only a small amount of direct evidence, between 1900 and 1967. State
recognition in the form it takes in relation to the Schaghticoke does
not provide enough additional evidence which, added to the limited
specific evidence in the record, demonstrates that criterion 83.7(c) is
met for that time period.
From 1967, until approximately 1996, there is substantial evidence
of political involvement of much or most of the Schaghticoke
membership. There was a continuing series of conflicts that showed
consistently broad involvement of members of the group. The several
family line groups and sublines have formed a framework for political
conflict, as the units which have mobilized for and against certain
issues, and in support of or against specific leaders. These conflicts
occurred multiple times over a period of more than 30 years, showing
involvement in political processes by most of the group's members. They
indicate that knowledge of issues and events were being communicated
within the membership, evidence described in Sec. 83.7(c)(1)(iii),
that there was controversy over valued group goals, evidence described
in Sec. 83.7(c)(1)(v), and that most of the membership considered the
issues acted upon to be of importance, the form of evidence described
in Sec. 83.7(c)(1)(ii). Overall, there is sufficient evidence to
demonstrate that the petitioner meets the requirements of criterion
83.7(c) from 1967 to approximately 1996.
The STN does not meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(c) from
approximately 1996 to the present. Changes in the STN's membership
starting around 1996 and culminating in the 2001 membership list
preclude a finding that political processes continued within the group.
Former STN members who are not presently members have a strong history
of past involvement in Schaghticoke political processes and are clearly
part of the same group. The conclusion of this proposed finding is that
in the present-day there continues to be a single Schaghticoke
political system encompassing the STN and a substantial number of
former members who are not presently members of the STN. Consequently,
the present petitioner's membership does not substantially encompass
the complete political system. The regulations do not permit
acknowledgment of only part of a group. The Secretary does not have the
authority to acknowledge parts of tribes.
In addition, there is not evidence to show whether the substantial
portion of the currently enrolled STN membership who have only been STN
members for a few years are maintaining significant social contact or
more than a pro forma political relationship with each other or with
the rest of the present membership. These descendants comprise a third
of the present STN membership.
Because the state relationship here lacks a substantial political
component, it does not add substantial evidence concerning political
processes. In the absence of any specific, direct evidence of political
processes and leadership, the state relationship does not in itself
provide sufficient evidence for the Schaghticoke to meet criterion
83.7(c) between 1800 and 1876, 1884 and 1949, and 1960 to 1967. The
state relationship does not add sufficient additional evidence to the
specific evidence in the record for the period from 1949 to 1959 to
demonstrate that criterion 83.7(c) is met for that time period.
The Schaghticoke Tribal Nation does not meet the requirements of
criterion 83.7(c) from 1800 to 1875, from 1885 to 1967, and in the
present-day group. Therefore the petitioner does not meet the
requirements of criterion 83.7(c).
The petitioner submitted ample evidence to demonstrate that 100
percent of its membership descends from the historical Schaghticoke
tribe. All persons on the petitioner's current membership list, dated
August 30, 2001, descend from Indians who were identified as
Schaghticoke Indians by the State of Connecticut in the 19th century.
The petitioner's continuity of descent has been maintained through
three families: Cogswell, Kilson and Harris, who, along with their
collateral relatives, were named as Schaghticoke Indians throughout the
19th century overseers' reports. Everyone on the petitioner's current
membership list descends from at least one of the Schaghticoke Indians
who signed an 1884 petition for a new overseer.
The Federal census records from 1870 to 1910, including the 1900
and 1910 separate Indian Population Schedules, show that the
petitioner's direct ancestors lived on the reservation at least during
some part of their lives, although some periodically moved off to seek
employment elsewhere.
The petitioner has provided a copy of its current membership list,
dated August 30, 2001, and certified by its governing body, by a letter
dated October 14, 2002, as well as previous membership lists.
The petitioner claims two sources for determining eligibility for
membership: (1) Descent from Gideon Mauwee (ca. 1687 to 1760), which is
apparently based on long-standing Schaghticoke traditions of the
relationships between Gideon's granddaughter Eunice Mauwee (who died in
1860), Parmelia (Mauwee) Kilson, Abigail (Mauwee) Harris, and Truman
Bradley a.k.a. Truman Mauwee. However, the records of the late 18th
century and early 19th century do not show the exact genealogical
connection among these Schaghticoke Indians; or (2) descent from ``any
person identified on the 1910 U.S. Federal Census as a Schaghticoke
Indian.'' This definition of eligibility contains a slight
terminological problem, in that, although the reservation was
identified as Schaghticoke in 1910, its residents were identified as
``Pequot.''
[[Page 76189]]
Nonetheless, all of the petitioner's 317 current members, have
satisfied the petitioner's own criteria for membership: 202 have a
direct ancestor listed on the 1910 census of the Schaghticoke
reservation, and the remaining 115 individuals descend from Joseph D.
Kilson (110) or from Julia M. Kilson (and her husband Truman Bradley)
(5), who descend from the Parmelia (Mauwee) Kilson, and thus by
tradition from Gideon Mauwee.
More importantly, the petitioner's descent from Schaghticoke
Indians of the early 1800's, as identified by the State records, is
well documented. While the exact ``blood-line'' connections to the
previous generations in the 1700's are less sure, there is more than
enough evidence to show the reasonable likelihood of the connection as
well. Therefore, based on the evidence available at this time, the
petitioner has demonstrated that it descends from the historical
Schaghticoke tribe as identified by the State in the early 1800's and
therefore meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(e).
The petitioner meets the requirements of criterion 83.7(d) because
it has submitted a governing document, including a description of its
membership criteria, criterion 83.7(f) because its members are not
enrolled with federally recognized tribes, and criterion 83.7(g)
because the group or its members have not been the subject of
congressional legislation which has expressly terminated or forbidden
the Federal relationship.
The evidence available for this proposed finding demonstrates that
the Schaghticoke Tribal Nation does not meet all seven criteria
required for Federal acknowledgment. In accordance with the
regulations, failure to meet any one of the seven criteria requires a
determination that the group does not exist as an Indian tribe within
the meaning of Federal law (83.6(c), 83.10(m)).
A copy of this proposed finding, which summarizes the evidence,
reasoning, and analyses that are the basis for decision is available
upon written request (83.10(h)).
During the comment period, the Assistant Secretary shall provide
technical advice concerning the proposed finding (83.10(j)(i)). Under
the court-approved agreement any interested party, including any
parties or amici curiae to the litigation, who wishes to request a
formal on-the-record technical assistance meeting under 25 CFR
83.10(j)(2), must make their request not later than 30 days after
service of the proposed finding. A formal technical assistance meeting
will be held within 60 days of the first such request. The proceedings
of this meeting shall be on the record. The meeting record shall be
available to any participating party and will become part of the record
considered by the Assistant Secretary in reaching a final determination
(83.10(j)(2)).
Parties to the litigation have six months from the service of the
proposed finding to provide comments, documents and arguments on the
proposed finding to the Department. Interested and informed parties who
are not also parties to the litigation have 180 days from the date of
publication of this notice in the Federal Register to provide comments
to the Department. Comments on the proposed finding should be submitted
in writing to the Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs,
1849 C Street, NW., Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Branch of
Acknowledgment and Research, Mail Stop 4660-MIB. The petitioner and all
interested and informed parties commenting on the proposed finding must
provide copies of their comments to all parties and amici curiae to the
litigation at the same time. The addresses of the petitioners, parties
and amici curiae are available from the Department upon request.
The petitioner shall file any reply to these comments with the
Department within 30 days of the close of the comment period. After
consideration of the written arguments and evidence submitted during
the comment period and the petitioner's response to the comments, the
AS-IA will make a final determination regarding the petitioner's status
within four months of the end of the petitioner's reply period and
publish notice of this final determination in the Federal Register.
Dated: December 5, 2002.
Neal A. McCaleb,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 02-31229 Filed 12-6-02; 3:18 pm]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P