[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