[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 50 (Tuesday, March 15, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-5901]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: March 15, 1994]


_______________________________________________________________________

Part IV





Department of the Interior





_______________________________________________________________________



Bureau of Indian Affairs



_______________________________________________________________________




Final Determination That the Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut, Inc., 
Does Exist as an Indian Tribe; Notice
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

 
Final Determination That the Mohegan Indian Tribe of Connecticut, 
Inc., Does Exist as an Indian Tribe

March 7, 1994.
Agency: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

Action: Notice of final determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.9(h), notice is hereby given that the 
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs has determined that the Mohegan 
Indian Tribe of Connecticut, Inc., (Mohegan) 27 Church Lane, 
Uncasville, Connecticut 06382 does exist as an Indian tribe within the 
meaning of Federal law.
    This notice is based on a determination, following a review of 
public comments on the proposed finding, that the Mohegan satisfies all 
of the criteria set forth in 25 CFR 83.7, and, therefore, meets the 
requirements for a government-to-government relationship with the 
United States.

DATES: This notice is final and will become effective 60 days after the 
date on which this notice appears in the Federal Register unless the 
Secretary of the Interior requests a reconsideration by the Assistant 
Secretary--Indian Affairs pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(a)-(c).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Reckord, (202) 208-3592.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This notice is published in the exercise of 
authority delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant 
Secretary--Indian Affairs by 209 DM 8.
    Notice of the proposed finding to decline to acknowledge the tribe 
was published in Vol. 54, No. 216, pages 47136-47137, of the Federal 
Register on November 9, 1989. This finding was based on a determination 
that the tribe met criteria a, d, e, f, and g, but did not meet 
criteria b and c of part 83.7 of the Acknowledgment regulations (25 CFR 
Part 83). In accordance with 25 CFR 83.9(g), interested parties were 
given 120 days in which to submit factual or legal arguments and 
evidence to rebut or support the evidence relied upon in the finding. 
Pursuant to a request by the Mohegan and the Connecticut Attorney 
General's Office (CTAG), the Department of the Interior (Department) 
extended the comment period from March 9, 1990, until October 30, 1990.
    During the comment period, a rebuttal containing substantive new 
evidence and arguments challenging the proposed finding was submitted 
by the Mohegan and another was submitted on behalf of the Mohegan by 
Mr. Robert B. Cohen. Comments were also received from June Hatstat, 
also known as ``Princess Chikara,'' of the Mohegan Tribe and Nation; 
Laurie Weinstein-Farson, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Anthropology at 
Western Connecticut State University, Danbury, Connecticut; and Ann 
McMullen, Department of Anthropology, Brown University, Providence, 
Rhode Island. The comments of Weinstein-Farson and McMullen were 
critical of the proposed finding from an anthropological and historical 
standpoint.
    Short comments were submitted by Kevin A. McBride, Assistant 
Professor, Department of Anthropology, University of Connecticut, 
Storrs, Connecticut; Trudie Lamb Richmond, Director of Education, 
American Indian Archaeological Institute, Washington, Connecticut; 
James D. Wherry, Socio-Economic Development, Mashantucket Pequot Tribe; 
and Joan Lester, Chief Curator, Boston Children's Museum, Boston, 
Massachusetts. The CTAG submitted extensive evidence opposing the 
Mohegan's response, and the Mohegan submitted a final reply.
    All submissions were carefully considered, the new evidence was 
evaluated, and data and conclusions in both the tribe's original 
petition and the proposed finding were reconsidered in light of the 
arguments presented. The tribe's response and the response submitted by 
Mr. Cohen presented substantive new evidence and arguments which served 
to greatly strengthen the petition. It has been found that this 
evidence, when considered along with the arguments and observations 
presented by the other interested parties and a reconsideration of the 
evidence presented in the proposed finding, warrants a final 
determination that the tribe does meet criteria Sec. 83.7 (b) and (c) 
of the Acknowledgment regulations.
    The proposed finding concluded that the Mohegan did not meet 
criterion 83.7(b) because the presence of extensive social contact 
within the extended Mohegan community since 1941 had not been 
documented. The finding noted that a substantial portion of the Mohegan 
did live within an area that comprised the Mohegan aboriginal 
territory, that they are descendants of an Indian tribe which 
historically inhabited the area, and that they had retained a minimal 
cultural distinction from the surrounding population. Yet, at the time 
the finding was being prepared, evidence to support a positive 
determination for social interaction and social cohesion was 
insufficient.
    The Mohegan's response to the proposed finding, along with 
responses received from other interested parties, has provided 
information previously lacking and documentation demonstrating social 
interaction and social cohesion, as well as political communication, 
linking the major family lines and the tribal officers.
    Extensive new information was supplied about the importance of the 
Mohegan Congregational Church as a focus of tribal activity and 
community in the modern period. This evidence demonstrated that the 
period when the church was closed was much shorter than assumed in the 
proposed finding, that some activities had continued during the period 
when the building itself was not usable, and that the restoration and 
reopening had the support of the wider Mohegan community, including 
members who belonged to other religious faiths.
    The Mohegan also supplied additional information about the tribe's 
interaction at such significant events as funerals, focusing 
particularly upon the continued usage, until the present day, of the 
traditional burial ground at Fort Shantok by all but one of the major 
family lines. The proposed finding concluded that interaction at such 
times had not been documented, but the new evidence submitted 
demonstrates that it was substantial.
    These new data, when taken collectively and conjoined with those 
originally provided by the Mohegan and those obtained by the 
Acknowledgment staff in the course of their research, are deemed 
sufficient to conclude that the Mohegan maintain the requisite degree 
of social interaction to meet criterion (b).
    The proposed finding concluded that the tribe did not meet 
criterion 83.7(c) because it could not demonstrate that it had 
maintained political influence or other authority over all of its 
members since 1941. The proposed finding concentrated on the role of 
those men identified as ``chiefs'' in the documentation. New evidence 
submitted in response to the proposed finding indicated that the 
Mohegan leadership structure was much more complex. The office of 
chief, while largely representational, was supported by various working 
officials such as the president of the League of the Descendants and 
the president of the Mohegan Ladies Sewing Society. The proposed 
finding also focused upon the formal, male, leadership of the tribe, 
and ignored the traditional importance of its informal, female, 
leadership.
    Additionally, analysis of the new evidence submitted indicated that 
the influence of the chief could be exerted without the formality of 
holding meetings at which a vote was taken. This was particularly 
demonstrated by the fact that the tribe undertook no claims activity 
from 1952 to 1966 because Harold Tantaquidgeon, the chief recognized by 
most Mohegan, opposed it. Under the leadership of John E. Hamilton, who 
returned from the west in 1966, the majority of Mohegan adults from all 
of the major family groups became involved with land claims once again. 
The lack of claims activities from 1952 to 1966 is a demonstration of 
the exercise of political authority by Tantaquidgeon from 1952 to 1966, 
since the other two most influential leaders of the tribe during this 
period were interested in pursuing claims. The focus of the group on 
non-land claims activity under Tantaquidgeon was a purposeful action 
taken by a widely respected leader and supported by the membership.
    After the Mohegan's repudiation of Hamilton and election of 
Courtland Fowler to replace him in 1970, Fowler continued to defer to 
Tantaquidgeon on the claims issue. No claims work was undertaken by the 
tribal leadership until a 97% favorable membership vote required it in 
1980. Therefore, land claims as a political issue also demonstrates 
there is a bilateral relationship between the Mohegan tribe and their 
leaders.
    The Mohegan's response to the proposed finding presented convincing 
new evidence that the Council of the Descendants did not die for lack 
of interest in 1970. Rather, it was dissolved after a leadership 
dispute. Until 1970, both John Hamilton and Harold Tantaquidgeon were 
supported by the Mohegan in their roles as land claims representative 
and chief, respectively. In 1970, there was a dispute over the 
leadership of the Council of the Descendants which resulted in the 
repudiation of John Hamilton as a Mohegan leader and the election of 
Courtland E. Fowler as council president and chief by the Mohegan 
majority. The Council of the Descendants was dissolved soon thereafter 
and Hamilton started a new organization, which only a very small 
minority of the Mohegan followed. By 1973, Native Mohegans, Inc. began 
functioning as a tribal council for the majority of the Mohegan. Native 
Mohegans, Inc. continued in this capacity until the incorporation of 
the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut in 1980.
    We find the contention of the CTAG, that the Mohegan do not qualify 
for Federal recognition under 25 CFR Part 83 on the grounds that the 
Mohegan were subject to the Pequot for a period prior to the year 1650, 
is not grounds for rejection within the meaning of the regulations. 
Therefore, we conclude that the tribe has maintained political 
influence or other authority over its members, independent of the 
control of any other Indian governing body, throughout history until 
the present.
    There was a fluctuation in social and political activity among the 
Mohegan from 1941 to 1966, compared to the eras before 1941 and after 
1966. The Mohegan response to the proposed finding provided more data 
on the exercise of political authority from the late 1930's to the 
present. The level of data submitted on social community, political 
process, the exercise of leadership, and the bilateral political 
relationship during the late 1930's and from 1966 to the present was 
high. The evidence for the period from 1941 to 1966 remains thin and 
uneven. We find that two factors caused the fluctuation from 1941 to 
1966: A temporary migration from Mohegan Hill to perform military 
service, and the dying out of three family lines that had been central 
to Mohegan social and political life through the 1940's and 1950's. 
Even during the fluctuation period there is evidence for some social 
and political activities and exercise of authority by individual 
leaders. With a better understanding of the causes of the fluctuation, 
and the strengthening of evidence for the period before 1941 and after 
1966, we conclude that the Mohegan Tribe of Connecticut meets criteria 
b and c of 83.7 of the Acknowledgment regulations. Consequently, the 
petitioner satisfied all of the mandatory criteria for Federal 
acknowledgment and, therefore, meets all of the requirements for a 
government-to-government relationship with the United States.
    A report summarizing the Department's response to the evidence and 
arguments submitted to refute the proposed finding is available to 
interested parties upon request. Requests for copies of this supplement 
report or the proposed finding published earlier should be addressed to 
the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
    Requests to the Secretary for reconsideration may be made by any 
party and must be received within 60 days of the publication of this 
notice. Requests should be accompanied by a detailed statement of the 
grounds for the request and should include any new evidence to be 
considered. If necessary, the 60-day time limit in 83.10(a) may be 
extended to allow the Secretary a period of 90 days from the receipt of 
a request in which to review and act, on any requests.
    Under the regulations, the Secretary may request reconsideration of 
any decision but shall request reconsideration of any decision which in 
his opinion meets the requirements of 25 CFR 83.10(c)(1-3). If the 
Secretary receives a request for reconsideration, the Assistant 
Secretary--Indian Affairs will recommend that such a request be 
referred to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA) and that the 
IBIA be authorized (pursuant to 43 CFR part 4) to determine whether 
reconsideration is merited on the grounds stated in 83.10(c)(1-3) of 
the Acknowledgment regulations (25 CFR 83). The IBIA will be further 
authorized to either affirm this determination or, if the 
reconsideration request is merited, vacate the decision and return it 
to the Assistant Secretary for reconsideration. The IBIA will be 
authorized to request comments or technical assistance from the 
Assistant Secretary concerning the final determination and may, at its 
discretion, require a hearing conducted by an administrative law judge 
of the Office of Hearings and Appeals if the IBIA determines that 
further inquiry is necessary to resolve a genuine issue of material 
fact concerning the final determination.
    This determination will become final and effective upon receipt by 
the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs of a decision by the IBIA to 
affirm the determination unless the Secretary in his discretion has 
otherwise requested reconsideration. If the determination is vacated by 
IBIA and returned to the Assistant Secretary for reconsideration and/or 
if the Secretary has requested reconsideration, the Assistant Secretary 
shall, in accord with 83.10(a), issue a reconsidered determination 
within 60 days of receipt of the IBIA's decision or the Secretary's 
request, whichever is later. The reconsidered determination shall be 
final and effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 94-5901 Filed 3-14-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P