[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 188 (Thursday, September 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50501-50503]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-24688]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Final Determination Against Federal Acknowledgment of the Golden
Hill Paugussett Tribe
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with authority
delegated by the Secretary of the Interior to the Assistant Secretary-
Indian Affairs (Assistant Secretary) by 209 DM 8.
Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(m), notice is hereby given that the
Assistant Secretary declines to acknowledge that the Golden Hill
Paugussett Tribe, P.O. Box 1645, Bridgeport, Connecticut 06601-1645,
exists as an Indian tribe within the meaning of Federal law. This
notice is based on the determination that the group does not satisfy
one of the criteria set forth in 25 CFR 83.7, namely: 83.7(e).
DATES: This determination is final and is effective December 26, 1996,
pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(l)(4), unless a request for reconsideration is
filed pursuant to 25 CFR 83.11.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Holly Reckord, Chief, Branch of
Acknowledgment and Research, (202) 208-3592.
A notice of the Proposed Finding to decline to acknowledge the
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe (GHP) was published in the Federal
Register on June 8, 1995 (60 FR 30430, June 8, 1995), pursuant to 25
CFR 83.10(e) of the revised Federal acknowledgment regulations, which
became effective March 28, 1994. Under 25 CFR 83.10(e), prior to active
consideration the Assistant Secretary shall investigate any petitioner
whose documented petition and response to the technical assistance
review letter indicate that there is little or no evidence that
establishes that the group can meet any one of the mandatory criteria
in paragraphs (e), (f), or (g) of Sec. 83.7.
The GHP received one obvious deficiency (OD) letter dated August
26, 1993, and a second technical assistance (TA) letter dated October
19, 1994. Both OD/TA letters addressed the issue of the undocumented
parentage of William Sherman, the only ancestor through whom the
petitioner claimed Golden Hill Paugussett ancestry. They also addressed
the problem posed under criterion 83.7(e) of the claimed Indian descent
of the present-day GHP membership through one person, William Sherman,
rather than descent from a historical tribe. The GHP responded to both
TA letters and on November 15, 1994, requested the petition be placed
on active consideration. The GHP petition was not placed on active
consideration, but on November 21, 1994, was added to the ``ready''
list of petitioners waiting to be placed on active consideration.
The Assistant Secretary concluded after the responses to the TA
letters that there was little or no evidence that the GHP met criterion
83.7(e). Preliminary genealogical analysis by the BIA indicated that
there was little or no evidence that the petitioner could establish
descent from a historical tribe. Under 25 CFR 83.10(e), the Federal
acknowledgment regulations call for
[[Page 50502]]
issuance of an expedited Proposed Finding by the Assistant Secretary
when there is little or no evidence that the petitioner can meet
criterion 83.7(e). Expedited findings may only be done after the
petition is complete and before the petition has been placed on active
consideration. In the regulations themselves, the time frame and the
requirements for issuing an expedited Proposed Finding are clearly
delineated:
(e) Prior to active consideration, the Assistant Secretary shall
investigate any petitioner whose documented petition and response to
the technical assistance review letter indicate that there is little
or no evidence that establishes that the group can meet the
mandatory criteria in paragraphs (e), (f) or (g) of Sec. 83.7
(83.10(e)).
The standard under which the Proposed Finding is made is stated as
follows:
83.10(e)(1) If this review finds that the evidence clearly
establishes that the group does not meet the mandatory criteria in
paragraphs (e), (f) or (g) of Sec. 83.7, a full consideration of the
documented petition under all seven of the mandatory criteria will
not be undertaken pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section. Rather,
the Assistant Secretary shall instead decline to acknowledge that
the petitioner is an Indian tribe and publish a Proposed Finding to
that effect in the Federal Register. The periods for receipt of
comments on the Proposed Finding from petitioners, interested
parties and informed parties, for consideration of comments
received, and for publication of a final determination regarding the
petitioner's status shall follow the timetables established in
paragraphs (h) through (l) of this section (83.10(e)(1)).
The Proposed Finding was issued in accord with 83.10(e), which
requires a conclusion that the petitioner clearly does not meet the
requirements of criterion 83.7(e). To make a Proposed Finding under
83.10(e), the burden of proof is on the government to show that the
petitioner clearly does not meet the criterion. The Proposed Finding
demonstrated that the GHP clearly did not meet criterion 83.7(e),
descent from a historical tribe, meeting the burden of proof required
of the government for making a proposed finding under 83.10(e).
Once a Proposed Finding has been issued, however, the burden of
proof shifts to the petitioner for rebuttal. The standard of proof
which must be met in the petitioner's response to the Proposed Finding
is a lesser one, the ``reasonable likelihood of the validity of the
facts'' standard described in section 83.6, the same standard used for
all acknowledgment determinations. If, in its response to the Proposed
Finding, the petitioner can show that it meets the criterion under
which the expedited negative Proposed Finding was issued under the
``reasonable likelihood of the validity of the facts'' standard, then
the BIA will undertake a review of the petition under all seven
mandatory criteria before the Assistant Secretary issues the Final
Determination. The petitioner's response to the Proposed Finding did
not establish under the ``reasonable likelihood of the validity of the
facts'' standard that the GHP met criterion 83.7(e). No new evidence
was submitted or found which rebutted the conclusions of the Proposed
Finding. Therefore, the GHP response did not trigger a BIA evaluation
of the GHP petition under all seven mandatory criteria.
The Associate Solicitor has responded to the petitioners concerning
legal issues raised by their attorney about the acknowledgment process
as it operated in this matter and to inquiries from the state of
Connecticut pertaining to post-comment period meetings between the
petitioners and their attorney with him and with the Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs.
This Final Determination is based upon a new analysis of all the
information in the record. This includes the information available for
the Proposed Finding, the information submitted by the petitioner in
its response to the Proposed Finding, evidence and documentation
submitted by interested and informed parties during the comment period,
the petitioner's response to the third party comments, and new evidence
and documentation collected by the BIA staff for evaluation purposes.
None of the evidence submitted by the petitioner, submitted by
interested parties, or located by the BIA during the acknowledgment
process demonstrated that William Sherman was of Paugussett or other
Indian ancestry.
The petitioner continued to claim ancestry from the historic
Paugussett tribe through a single individual, William Sherman, a common
ancestor of the entire present membership. Extensive research by the
petitioner, third parties, and the BIA has failed to document, using
acceptable genealogical methods, that William Sherman was Paugussett or
Indian. The evidence submitted in the GHP Response focussed on William
Sherman's ancestry. No document was submitted or located for the Final
Determination that identified the parents of William Sherman. No
document was submitted or found for the Final Determination that
provided sufficient evidence acceptable to the Secretary that William
Sherman was descended from a historical Indian tribe. Considerable
circumstantial evidence was submitted and located to indicate that
William Sherman did not live in tribal relations during his lifetime
(ca.1825-1886).
There was insufficient documentation to demonstrate who William
Sherman's mother was, and thus his maternal lineage remains
undocumented. William Sherman's paternal lineage is unknown. There was
no evidence concerning who his father was, nor his earlier ancestors on
his father's side. The petitioner did not claim that William Sherman
was Indian, or Paugussett, through his father's family. It was not
documented that he was the descendant of either Ruby Mansfield or of
Nancy Sharpe, alias Pease, who were identified in historical records as
Golden Hill Paugussett Indians and whom the petitioner claims were the
ancestors of William Sherman.
By most accounts, William Sherman, the GHP ancestor, was born in
New York in 1825. On Federal census records, his age varied somewhat.
He apparently spent his youth as a sailor on whaling ships, and first
appeared in records relating to Trumbull, Connecticut, in 1857. While
documentation pertaining to William Sherman's ethnicity in Federal
census records and state vital records was inconsistent, he was not
identified as Indian until 1870 or later, nor were his children
identified as Indian in records predating the 1870 Federal census. The
documents do not indicate that he interacted with known Paugussett
descendants who lived elsewhere in Connecticut during the 19th century.
Most accounts of his supposed Paugussett ancestry have depended upon
internally inconsistent descriptions provided in books published by two
local historians, D. Hamilton Hurd in 1881 and Samuel Orcutt in 1886.
For purposes of this determination, evidence has also been examined
to determine if the group's membership otherwise meets the requirements
of criterion 83.7(e) of descent from a historic tribe. The present-day
membership of the GHP descends from two of William Sherman's nine
children. Neither William Sherman nor his children married Paugussett
Indians or other Indians; therefore, the membership does not have
Indian ancestry through any other possible Indian ancestors.
A substantial body of documentation was available about the
petitioning entity and its ancestors. None of the documentation
demonstrated descent from the historic Paugussett tribe or from any
other tribe for the GHP. The
[[Page 50503]]
available documentation did not demonstrate any American Indian
descent, regardless of tribal affiliation. Even if Paugussett or other
Indian ancestry could be determined for William Sherman, descent
through one person with Indian ancestry does not meet the requirements
of criterion 83.7(e) for tribal descent.
The Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe has not demonstrated that its
membership is descended from a historic tribe, or tribes that combined
and functioned as a single autonomous political entity. Therefore, the
Golden Hill Paugussett Tribe does not meet criterion 83.7(e).
This determination is final and will become effective 90 days from
the date of publication, unless a request for reconsideration is filed
pursuant to Sec. 83.11. The petitioner or any interested party may file
a request for reconsideration of this determination with the Interior
Board of Appeals (Sec. 83.11(a)(1)). The petitioner's or interested
party's request must be received no later than 90 days after
publication of the Assistant Secretary's determination in the Federal
Register (Sec. 83.11(a)(2)).
Dated: September 16, 1996.
Ada E. Deer,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-24688 Filed 9-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P