[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 63 (Friday, March 31, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17299-17304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8041]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Proposed Finding for Federal Acknowledgment of the Eastern Pequot
Indians of Connecticut
AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 CFR 83.10(h), notice is hereby given that the
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs proposes to determine that the
Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut, Holly Green Plaza Unit 2A East,
391 Norwich Westerly Road, PO Box 208, North Stonington, Connecticut
06359, c/o Ms. Mary E. Sebastian, exists as an Indian tribe within the
meaning of Federal law. This notice is based on a determination that
the historical Eastern Pequot tribe satisfies criteria 83(b) and
83.7(c) through 1973 and that the petitioner satisfies the remainder 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. A specific finding concerning whether one tribe or two
tribes, as successors to the historical Eastern Pequot tribe, have
occupied the reservation since 1973 will be made as part of the final
determination, after receipt of comment on this proposed finding.
DATES: As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(i), any individual or organization
wishing to challenge the proposed finding may submit factual or legal
arguments and evidence to rebut the evidence relied upon. This material
must be submitted within 180 calendar days from the date of publication
of this notice. As stated in the regulations, 25 CFR 83.10(i),
interested and informed parties who submit arguments and evidence to
the Assistant Secretary must also provide copies of their submissions
to the petitioner.
ADDRESSES: Comments on the proposed finding and/or requests for a copy
of the report of the summary evaluation of the evidence should be
addressed to the Office of the Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs,
1849 C Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240, Attention: Branch of
Acknowledgment and Research. Mail Stop 4660-MIB.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Lee Fleming, Chief, Branch of
Acknowledgment and Research, (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.
Introduction
The Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut submitted a letter of
intent to petition for Federal acknowledgment on June 28, 1978, and was
assigned #35. Both the Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut and
another petitioner, the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of
Connecticut, assert descent and tribal continuity from the historical
Eastern Pequot tribe. Both petitioners are derived from families which
have been associated with the Lantern Hill reservation since the 19th
century.
The Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs (AS-IA) placed the Eastern
Pequot Indians of Connecticut (EP, #35) petition on active
consideration January 1, 1998. After consideration and notification of
#35 and other petitioners on the ``ready, waiting for active
consideration'' list, the AS-IA on April 2, 1998, waived the priority
provisions of 25 CFR 83.10(d) in order to consider the petition of the
Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut (Petitioner #113)
simultaneously with the petition of the Eastern Pequot Indians of
Connecticut (Petitioner #35). This waiver was made under the authority
granted to the Secretary in 25 CFR 1.2, and delegated to the Assistant
[[Page 17300]]
Secretary in 290 DM 8.1, based on a finding that the waiver was in the
best interest of the Indians.
This finding has been completed under the terms of the AS-IA's
directive of February 7, 2000, published in the Federal Register on
February 11, 2000 (65 FR 7052). Under the terms of the directive, this
finding focuses on evaluating the specific conclusions and description
of the group presented by the petitioner to show that it has met the
seven mandatory criteria and maintained a tribal community up until the
present. Because evaluation of this petition was begun under the
previous internal procedures, this finding includes some analyses which
go beyond evaluation of the specific positions of the petitioner.
Consistent with the directive, draft technical reports, begun under
previous internal procedures, were not finalized.
The evaluation of these petitions pertains to Indian groups which
have had both continuous recognition by the State of Connecticut and
continuous existence of a state reservation since the colonial period.
These unique factors provide a defined thread of continuity through
periods when other forms of documentation are sparse or do not pertain
directly to a specific criterion. State recognition under these
circumstances is more than the identification of an entity, because it
reflects the existence of a tribe. The general body of evidence has
been interpreted in the context of the tribe's relationship to the
colony and state.
The Eastern Pequot and Paucatuck Eastern Pequot petitioners are the
continuation of a historically state-recognized tribe whose
relationship with the State of Connecticut goes back to the early
1600's, possessing a common reservation. Members of the tribe occupied
a somewhat different status than non-Indians within Connecticut. This
evidence provides a common backbone and consistent backdrop for
interpreting the evidence of continued tribal existence. When weighed
in combination with this historical and continuous existence, evidence
on community and political influence carries greater weight that would
be the case under circumstances where there was no evidence of a
longstanding relationship with the state based on being a distinct
community. The greater weight is assigned for the following reasons in
combination:
The historical Eastern Pequot tribe has maintained a continuous
historical government-to-government relationship with the State of
Connecticut since colonial times;
The historical Eastern Pequot tribe had a state reservation
established in colonial times, and has retained its land area under the
protection and administration of the state to the present;
The historical Eastern Pequot tribe had members enumerated
specifically as tribal members on the Federal Census, Special Indian
Population Schedules, for 1900 and 1910.
Past Federal acknowledgment decisions under 25 CFR Part 83 provide
no precedents for dealing with a tribe which is presently state
recognized with a state reservation and has been so continuously since
early colonial times. The closest parallel is the Penobscot and
Passmaquoddy Tribes of Maine. The Federal Government in the
Passmaquoddy case stipulated to tribal existence, based on the
historical state relationship (Joint Tribal Council of the Passmaquoddy
Tribe v. Morton 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1975)). That precedent provides
guidance in this matter. A different standard of tribal existence is
not being applied here. Rather, the evidence, when weighed in the
context of this continuous strong historical relationship, carries
greater weight.
Evaluation Under the Criteria in 25 CFR 83.7
Criterion 83.7(a) requires that the petitioner have been identified
as an American Indian entity on a substantially continuous basis since
1900. The majority of the external identifications specifically
included the petitioner's direct or collateral ancestors as members of
that entity. There were no external identifications of the entity as
other than Indian or other than Eastern Pequot. From the 1970's through
the present, almost no external identifications mentioned the existence
of only one or the other of the two current petitioners. Almost every
identification mentioned both and described them as rival groups within
the context of the Lantern Hill reservation and the historical Eastern
Pequot tribe.
In this case, identifications of the petitioner exist frequently
and appear concurrently in multiple forms of evidence. Briefly,
examples include Federal identifications on the Special Indian
Population schedules of the 1900 and 1910 census, a 1934 Bureau of
Indian Affairs report, and two reports in 1947 and 1948 published by
the Government Printing Office; records generated by a continuous
relationship with the State including overseer's reports, documents
generated by the State Parks and Forests Commission, documents
generated by the Office of the Commissioner of Welfare and Department
of Environmental Protection, documents generated by the Connecticut
Indian Affairs Council, and legislation pertaining to Connecticut's
tribes; descriptions by anthropologists and other scholars; and
numerous descriptive, feature-type newspaper articles from 1924 to the
present. A significant example of identification of the Eastern Pequot
was the June 9, 1933, order from the Superior Court of New London
County, Connecticut, which defined the tribal membership and regulated
residency on the Lantern Hill reservation (In re Ledyard Tribe 1933)
(3/26/1938).
The combination of the various forms of evidence, taken in
historical context, provides sufficient external identification of the
Eastern Pequot as an American Indian entity from 1900 until the
present, and of the petitioner as a group which has existed within that
entity. Therefore, the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(a).
The evidence for 83.7(b) and 83.7(c) have been evaluated in the
light of the essential requirement of the Federal acknowledgment
regulations under 83.7 to show tribal continuity. Particular documents
are evaluated by examination in the context of evidence of continuity
of existence of community and political processes over time and descent
from the historical tribe. For earlier historical periods, where the
nature of the record limits the documentation, the continuity can be
seen more clearly by looking at combined evidence than by attempting to
discern whether an individual item provides the level of information to
show that the petitioner meets a specific criterion at a certain date.
Between first sustained contact and 1883 much of the specific evidence
cited is evidence for both community and political influence. Under the
regulations, evidence about historical political influence can be used
as evidence to establish historical community (83.7(b)(1)(ix)) and vice
versa (83.7(c)(1)(iv)). The evaluation is done in accord with the
provision of the regulations provide that, ``Evaluation of petitions
shall take into account historical situations and time periods for
which evidence is demonstrably limited or not available. * * *
Existence of community and political influence or authority shall be
demonstrated on a substantially continuous basis, but this
demonstration does not require meeting these criteria at every point in
time.'' (83.6(e)).
This proposed finding and that being issued simultaneously for
petitioner #113 conclude that both of the
[[Page 17301]]
petitioners before the Department, the Eastern Pequot Indians of
Connecticut (#35) and the Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of
Connecticut (#113), have evolved in recent times from the historical
Eastern Pequot tribe which has existed continuously since first
sustained contact with Europeans. Positive proposed findings to
acknowledge both petitioners are therefore being issued. However, for
the period from 1973 to the present, with regard to criteria 83.7(b)
and 83.7(c), the Department finds that the petitioners and third
parties have not provided sufficient information and analysis to enable
the Department to determine that there is only one tribe with political
factions.
The acknowledgment regulations provide that: ``A petitioner may be
denied acknowledgment if the evidence available demonstrates that it
does not meet one or more criteria. A petitioner may also be denied if
there is insufficient evidence that it meets one or more of the
criteria'' (83.6(d)). The reason that this provision of the regulations
is not now resulting in two proposed negative findings is that the
major question currently remaining to be decided does not pertain to
the availability of evidence that the petitioners meet the criteria,
but to the nature of the potentially acknowledgeable entity for the
period from 1973 to the present. Following an evaluation of evidence
and argument submitted during the comment period, the Department, as
part of the final determination, will complete the analysis from 1973
to the present under criteria 83.7(b) and (c).
There is no serious dispute as to the existence of the historical
Pequot tribe at the time of first contact, so the proposed finding has
discussed and analyzed early colonial developments only insofar as they
provide context for the development of the current petitioners. The
division of the historical Pequot tribe into the modern Eastern and
Western groups stemmed from the establishment of separate reservations,
in close (less than two miles from one another) geographic proximity,
during the later 17th century. There is no question that the Eastern
Pequot, or Lantern Hill reservation, purchased by the Colony of
Connecticut for the use of the Pequots under the leadership of Mamoho
in 1683, has continued to exist under Connecticut state supervision and
jurisdiction, and to be inhabited, until the present day.
Criterion 83.7(b) requires that a predominant portion of the
petitioning community comprise a distinct community and have existed as
a community from historical times until the present.
Records of colony actions and actions of other tribes from first
contact through 1637 clearly identify a distinct Pequot tribal body,
which occupied a defined territory acted in concert in opposing or
making alliances with other tribes and the English through the end of
the Pequot War. Under precedents for evaluating tribes in early years
of contact with Europeans, before substantial cultural and political
changes had occurred (Narragansett PF 1982, 1; Mohegan PF 1989, 2;
Miami PF 1990, 3-4, 7-8), this is sufficient evidence to demonstrate
that 83.7(b) is met for the undifferentiated historical Pequot tribe as
a whole, predecessor group to the later historical Eastern Pequot
tribe, for the period prior to 1637.
From 1638 through 1654, the records of the United Colonies referred
to the Pequots frequently and specifically referred to the Pequots
assigned to the custody of the Eastern Niantic sachem Ninigret. The
Commissioners of the United Colonies removed them from Ninigret as a
body in 1654 and assigned Harmon Garret as governor over that body in
1655. After the death of Harmon Garret, colonial authorities appointed
Momoho as his successor over a specific, named, group, ``Momohoe [sic]
and the Pequots with him in those parts,'' which then undertook efforts
to have a specific piece of land set aside for its use (Hurd 1882, 32;
Wheeler 1887, 16; Trumbull 1859, 8n, 81-82 117n, 809). Under precedents
for evaluating tribes in early years of contact with Europeans, before
substantial cultural changes had occurred, even after tribes had become
politically subject to colonial authorities, the material cited is
sufficient evidence to show that criterion 83.7(b) is met.
From the establishment of the Lantern Hill reservation in 1685 to
the end of the Civil War, the documents show a continuous reservation
community, with a distinct land base. There was an essentially
continuous population, allowing for normal processes of inmarriage, out
marriage, off-reservation work, and interaction with neighboring
tribes.
Petitions in 1723 and 1749 reflected both the existence of an
ongoing residential community of Eastern Pequot Indians on the Lantern
Hill reservation and a broader community of off-reservation Eastern
Pequot. Descriptions in 1749-1751 indicate specifically that the tribal
affiliation of these individuals was recognized by the tribe itself.
That off-reservation residency does not negate the existence of
community has been established by precedent in prior findings
(Narragansett PF 1982, 9; Gay Head PF 1985, 2).
Community in the late 18th and 19th centuries is shown by a variety
of evidence. This included petitions from the group to the overseers,
the consistency of membership in the tribe, descriptions of a distinct
community at several points and other data which taken together show a
distinct community which self-identified as Pequot. A portion of the
group occupied the reservation continuously. Occupation of a distinct
territory by a portion of a group provides evidence for community, even
where it is not demonstrated that more than 50 percent of the total
group resides thereon (Snoqualmie PF). By comparing a wide variety of
documents, it does not appear that in the colonial and early Federal
period the Eastern Pequot tribe, or its overseers, added to the
membership lists any persons who were not qualified to be included and
who were not accepted by the continuing tribal population.
Documentation throughout this period contributes to a showing of
community under 83.7(b)(1)(vii), ``The persistence of a named,
collective Indian identity continuously over a period of more than 50
years, notwithstanding changes of name,'' whether they are called
Momoho's band, or the Pequots at Stonington, or by other phrases.
From the end of the Civil War through the early 1880's, the
overseers' reports were highly consistent in their listing of Eastern
Pequot individuals associated with the Lantern Hill reservation.
Consistency of membership by itself does not demonstrate community but
provides supporting evidence when weighed together, as here, with other
factors.
At a number of points from 1763 through 1883, the Eastern Pequot
presented petitions to the state, indicating a coordinated group
action. Because the community as a whole, throughout this period, had a
residential focus on the reservation, and maintained a very high rate
of intermarriage and patterned out marriage, particularly with the
Western Pequot and with the Narragansett, the Eastern Pequot tribe
meets criterion 83.7(b) for the period through 1883.
Additional evidence for community until the 1930's is found in the
overseers' reports, although these were not available for the years
between 1891 and 1910. The overseers were knowledgeable observers of
the group, because of their interaction with it.
[[Page 17302]]
Allegations by petitioner #113 and the third parties that the overseers
were not knowledgeable, or were corrupt, were not sustained by the body
of data in the record. Although their reports provide few details, they
are premised, particularly the identification of who was and who was
not a member, on knowledge that a social group existed.
The Eastern Pequot tribe as a whole, including the ancestors of
petitioner #113 as well as petitioner #35, meets the requirements of
criterion 83.7(b) between 1883 and 1920. Important evidence for this is
the kinship based social ties which derive from the substantial number
of marriages in existence in this time period which linked the several
family lines. Between 1880 and 1920 the Pequot family lines were linked
together both by extant marriages and by ties from marriages in the
preceding two generations. They formed a set of families linked by many
different kinship ties. In addition, because marriages occurred between
Eastern Pequot individuals who were not living in the same town, this
provides evidence that social contact was being maintained, and was the
basis for locating marriage partners. The documentation throughout the
period from 1883 to the 1920's shows ``The persistence of a named,
collective Indian identity continuously over a period of more than 50
years, notwithstanding changes of name'' evidence for community under
83.7(b)(1)(vii).
Supporting evidence to that based on kinship is the geographical
concentration of much of the membership on or near the reservation at
Lantern Hill. While not forming a distinct settlement, except for the
small proportion living on the reservation, much of the membership was
close enough that, consistent with past decisions, social interaction
was easily possible. This geographical pattern thus supports more
direct evidence of social ties.
The Eastern Pequot meet the requirements of criterion 83.7(b) for
the time period between 1920 and 1940. There continued to be kinship
based social ties which derived from the number of marriages in
existence in this time period which linked the several family lines and
from marriages in the previous generations. In this period also, that
evidence is supplemented by the substantial number of marriages with
neighboring tribes, particularly the Narragansett. These provide
additional evidence that the group was part of the Indian society of
the region.
Important additional evidence for community were the ``Fourth
Sunday'' gatherings on the reservation. These were held regularly, and
drew a substantial number of members, from different parts of the
several family lines. They were both social and political gatherings,
and were claimed as activities by both petitioners.
Supporting evidence to that based on kinship and the ``Fourth
Sunday'' gatherings for this time period is that there continued to be
a geographical concentration of much of the membership on or near the
reservation at Lantern Hill. While not forming a distinct settlement,
except for the small proportion living on the reservation, much of the
membership was still close enough that, consistent with precedents of
past decisions, social interaction was easily possible. This
geographical pattern thus supports more direct evidence of social ties.
Additional evidence for community is found in the overseers'
reports, which was useful evidence until 1936, when the overseer system
ended, and to a lesser extent through the end of the 1930's, as the
former overseer continued to act as agent for the State Park and
Forests Commission. Although their reports provide few details, they
are premised, particularly the identification of who was and who was
not a member, on knowledge that a social group existed.
As evaluated under the standard articulated for a historical state
recognized tribe, the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(b) from 1940 to
1973, based on the conclusion that there was a single community,
including the Sebastians. Although there is evidence of divisions,
there was not evidence to show whether and, if so, when, the historical
tribe separated into two communities.
There is insufficient evidence in the record to enable the
Department to determine that the petitioners formed a single tribe
after 1973. The Department consequently makes no specific finding for
the period 1973 to the present because there was not sufficient
analysis and information provided by the petitioners or third parties
to determine if there is only one tribe with political factions (see
for example, Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut et al. v.
Connecticut Indian Affairs Council et al. 555 A.2d 1003 (App. Ct.
1989), decided March 28, 1989, which describes each current petitioner
as a ``faction of the tribe''). This question reflects in part the
apparent recentness of the political alignments reflected in the
petitioners after their formal organization in the early 1970's.
The historical Eastern Pequot tribe, which includes the petitioner
as one of its component subgroups, meets criterion 83.7(b) through
1973. A specific finding concerning community from 1973 until the
present will be presented in the final determination after receipt of
comments from the petitioner and interested parties.
Criterion 83.7(c) requires that the petitioner has maintained
political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous
entity from historical times until the present.
Throughout its history, the context for administration of the
Lantern Hill reservation has been set by the legislation passed by
Connecticut and the administrative systems established by that
legislation. The documents generated showed tribe's external
relationships with the non-Indian administrative authorities, providing
evidence that there was a political relationship between an Indian
political entity and the non-Indian government, although they provided
little information about internal political processes. These individual
political documents have been interpreted in light of the general
continuity of the reservation population as shown by a wide variety of
other documents. The major specific evidence for political authority or
influence between first sustained contact and 1883 is to be read
together with the overall evidence of tribal existence and the
discussion of the evidence for criterion 83.7(b).
The evidence submitted for the early contact period, 1620-1637,
consisted primarily of historical narratives, written mainly by modern
anthropologists based in part on colonial era documents which described
dealings with the tribe by the colonial authorities and listed some
leaders. Precedent does not required detailed information concerning
the internal political processes of the historical tribes which were
predecessors of New England petitioners in the early contact period
(Narragansett PF 1982, 11; Gay Head PF 1987, 10; Mohegan PF 1989, 5).
This material meets 83.7(c) for the undifferentiated historical Pequot
tribe as a whole, predecessor group to the later historical eastern
Pequot tribe, for the period prior to 1637.
The evidence indicates that the modern Eastern Pequot evolved
primarily from those Pequot subject neither to the Mohegan nor the
Narragansett after the Pequot War, but rather those who were placed in
charge of the Eastern Niantic. The precedents clearly indicate that the
acknowledgment process allows for the historical combination and
division of tribal subgroups and bands, and that temporary subjection
to another Indian
[[Page 17303]]
tribe does not result in a permanent cessation of tribal autonomy
(Mohegan PF 1989, 26-27; Narragansett FD, 48 Federal Register 29 2/10/
1983, 6177; Narragansett PF 1982, 2). The events of this period do not
indicate that the petitioner fails to meet the ``autonomous entity''
requirement under 83.7(c).
Historical records and narratives indicate that for approximately
330 years, the predecessors of the Eastern Pequot tribe antecedent to
the current petitioners were under supervision of non-Indian
authorities, appointed Indian governors from 1655 to 1695 and under
colony-appointed and state-appointed non-Indian overseers through much
of the 18th through the 20th centuries. From its establishment in 1683
until 1989, the Eastern Pequot reservation was under the direct
administration of Connecticut, first as a British colony and then,
after the American Revolution, as a state. The AS-IA concluded in the
Mohegan case that: ``[T]he autonomy requirement is solely concerned
with autonomy from other Indian tribes, not non-Indian systems of
government that were imposed on the Mohegan by the State of
Connecticut.'' (Mohegan PF 1989, 26-27; for related precedents, see
Narragansett PF 1982, 11; Narragansett PF 1982, 2; Gay Head PF, 4). The
petitioners meet the ``autonomy'' requirement of 83.7(c) as long as the
state was dealing with a group as a group which had named leaders or
the evidence shows that the group was acting in concert and thus was
exercising political influence internally.
Documents from the period through 1751 named the leaders with whom
the colony of Connecticut was dealing and provided limited information
concerning internal political processes identifying both a leader and
the existence of a group actively defending its land base.
Precedents also indicate that the defense of a tribe's economic
position is a significant indicator of political processes (Snoqualmie
PF 1993, 25; Tunica-Biloxi PF 1980, 4). On the basis of precedent, this
material is adequate to meet 83.7(c) during the colonial period.
After 1751, there is no evidence in Eastern Pequot petitions that
any one individual held the position of sachem, or a comparable office.
Precedent indicates no requirement under the regulations that such a
formal office have been maintained (Mohegan PF 1989, 5), and the
petitions from the tribe to the colony and stated indicate that the
tribe did maintain some type of political structure capable of
representing its wishes in dealing with colonial authorities. The
appointment of overseers for the Eastern Pequot reservation by the
colony of Connecticut in itself provides data about the continuous
existence of the tribal entity, but no specific information about
internal political leadership or influence. However, the initiative of
the Eastern Pequot Indians in requesting particular persons as
overseers in 1763 and 1788, combined with the signatures on the
petitions, indicates that the Indians on the Lantern Hill reservation
at this time did have internal political processes and that they
utilized the overseers appointed by the state to serve certain purposes
which they themselves desired. On the basis of precedent, this material
is adequate to meet 83.7(c) for a tribe during the second half of the
18th century.
The evidence of petitions from overseers for group purposes,
together with accounts which identified ``principal men'' and a
religious leader, in the context of a group with a distinct territory,
is adequate to show that the petitioner meets criterion 83.7(c) for the
period from 1800 to 1822.
Petitions from the group in 1839 and 1841, sought the appointment
of a new overseer and objected to the actions of the existing one. The
1839 initiative of the Indians in requesting the replacement of an
inadequate overseer indicated that the Indians themselves still, as in
the later 18th century, expected the state-appointed overseers as
agents to carry out their wishes in some matters. Of the four men who
signed, two (Cyrus Shelly and Samuel Shuntaup) had been identified as
``principal men'' of the Eastern Pequot by Jedediah Morse nearly 20
years earlier. The regulations do not require that in order to
demonstrate political process, a petition must be signed by the entire
tribe. Petitions which show a portion of the tribe expressing an
opinion or preference are also evidence of political process (Mohegan
PF 1989, 6).
Petitions and lists generated by a proposed sale of reservation
land are evidence indicating that from 1873 through 1883 the tribe was
able to generate organized protests against a governmental initiative
which they regarded as contrary to its economic interests, and to
present documents to this effect to the non-Indian authorities. This
evidence shows that the petitioner meets 83.7(c) for the period from
1873-1883.
There was no information in the record which specifically named or
identified formal or informal leaders between 1883 and 1920 with the
single exception of a 1913 obituary of Calvin Williams, a petition
signer from the 1870's and early 1880's, who continued to serve as
reservation preacher until his death in 1913. There is evidence from
oral history and some records that he may have continued as tribal
preacher, holding religious and social meetings on the reservation in
the first decade of the 20th century. Under the regulations, evidence
about community may be used as supporting evidence to demonstrate
political processes, especially where a community is closely knit and
distinct (see 83.7(c)(1)(iv)). Given the extensive intermarriage within
the tribe and with neighboring tribes, the petitioner has strong
evidence demonstrating community in this time period. The evidence is
sufficient to demonstrate that criterion 83.7(c) is met between 1883
and 1920 as evaluated under the principle that it is entitled to
greater weight because the petitioners are, singly and together, a
continuously existing state-recognized tribe and with a continuous land
base since colonial times.
The amount of data concerning political authority and influence in
the record overall, including conflicts between the two groups, is
considerably more extensive than that relating to internal political
processes within petitioner #35 alone. As evaluated under the standard
articulated for a historical state recognized tribe, the petitioner
meets criterion 83.7(c) from 1883 to 1973, based on the conclusion that
there was a single tribe, the entirety of whose actions reflected
political influence, including the Sebastians as one subgroup, rather
than as the entire entity evaluated.
Because the two petitioners derive from a single historical tribe
with a continuous state relationship since colonial times, the
conflicts between the two, which have focused on their relationship
with the State of Connecticut, are relevant evidence for political
influence. However, it is unclear if the conflict is within one tribe,
or between two. Both groups derive from the historical Eastern Pequot
tribe which was recognized by the State of Connecticut. The State
continues to recognize a successor to the historical Eastern Pequot
tribe, but has not taken a position as to the present leaders of that
successor. The petitioners and third parties have failed to provide
adequate evidence and analysis to permit the Department to determine if
the political processes since 1973 are those of factions of one tribe.
There is insufficient evidence and analysis in the record to enable
the Department to determine that the petitioners formed a single tribe
in this
[[Page 17304]]
time period. The Department consequently makes no specific finding for
the period 1973 to the present because there was not sufficient
information to determine that there is only one tribe with political
factions (see for example, Paucatuck Eastern Pequot Indians of
Connecticut et al. v. Connecticut Indian Affairs Council et al. 555
A.2d 1003 (App. Ct. 1989), decided March 28, 1989, which describes each
current petitioner as a ``faction of the tribe''). This question
reflects in part the apparent recentness of the political alignments
reflected in the petitioners after their formal organization in the
early 1970's.
The historical Eastern Pequot tribe, which includes the petitioner
as one of its component subgroups, meets criterion 83.7(c) through
1973. A specific finding concerning political influence from 1973 until
the present will be presented in the final determination after receipt
of comments from the petitioner and interested parties.
Criterion 83.7(d) requires that the petitioner provide copies of
the group's current constitution and bylaws. The Eastern Pequot meets
criterion 83.7(d).
Criterion 83.7(e) states that the petitioner's membership must
consist of individuals who descend from a historical Indian tribe or
from historical Indian tribes which combined and functioned as a single
autonomous political entity. Extensive genealogical material submitted
by the petitioner, by petitioner #113, and by the third parties
indicates that the petitioner's current members are descendants of
Tamar (Brushell) Sebastian and of Laura (Fagins) Watson. As those
individuals were, during their lives, members of the Eastern Pequot
tribe as ascertained by evidence acceptable to the Secretary, the
descendants of these individuals, as well as the descendants of any
descendants of Abby (Fagins) Randall now included on the petitioner's
membership list, descend from the historical tribe.
The lines of descent for individual families have been verified
through Federal census records from 1850 through 1920; public vital
records of births, marriages, and deaths; and to a lesser extent
through church records of baptisms, marriages, and burials, as well as
through use of state records concerning the Lantern Hill reservation.
These are the same types of records which have been used to verify
descent for prior Federal acknowledgment decisions. Therefore, the
petitioner meets criterion 83.7(e).
Criterion 83.7(f) states that the petitioner's membership must be
composed principally of persons who are not members of any acknowledged
North American Indian tribe. The Eastern Pequot meets criterion
83.7(f).
Criterion 83.7(g) states that neither the petitioner nor its
members can have been the subject of congressional legislation that has
expressly terminated or forbidden the Federal relationship. The Eastern
Pequot meets criterion 83.7(g).
Based on this preliminary factual determination, the Eastern Pequot
should be granted Federal acknowledgment under 25 CFR Part 83.
This proposed positive finding for the Eastern Pequot and the
positive proposed finding for the Paucatuck petitioner which is being
issued simultaneously do not prevent the Department, in the final
determination stage, from recognizing a combined entity, or both
petitioners, or either one of the current petitioners but not the
other, or neither of the current petitioners, depending upon the
evidence and analysis developed during the comment periods by both
petitioners and all interested and informed parties, as verified and
evaluated by Bureau of Indian Affairs staff.
As provided by 25 CFR 83.10(h) of the regulations, a report
summarizing the evidence, reasoning, and analyses that are the basis
for the proposed decision will be provided to the petitioner and
interested parties, and is available to other parties upon written
request. Under the Assistant Secretary's directive, the technical
report prepared in addition to this summary evaluation report of the
evidence will not be completed but will remain in draft.
Comments on the proposed finding and/or requests for a copy of the
report of evidence should be addressed to the Office of the Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs, Bureau of Indian Affairs, 1849 C Street, NW,
Washington, DC 20240, Attention: Branch of Acknowledgment and Research,
Mail Stop 4660--MIB. Comments on the proposed finding should be
submitted within 180 calendar days from the date of publication of this
notice. The period for comment on a proposed finding may be extended
for up to an additional 180 days at the Assistant Secretary's
discretion upon a finding of good cause (83.10(i)). Comments by
interested and informed parties must be provided to the petitioner as
well as to the Federal Government (83.10(h)). After the close of the
180-day comment period, and any extensions, the petitioner has 60
calendar days to respond to third-party comments (83.10(k)). This
period may be extended at the Assistant Secretary's discretion if
warranted by the extent and nature of the comments.
The proposed finding takes into consideration only materials from
the petitioner and all interested parties submitted through April 5,
1999. Subsequent submissions have been held by the Bureau of Indian
Affairs and will be considered during preparation of the final
determination.
In addition to evidence and argument on the proposed findings in
general, petitioners, interested parties and informed parties may
submit comments as to the Secretary's authority, under the
circumstances of recent separation of the two petitioners, to
acknowledge two tribes or only one tribe which encompasses them both as
the continuation of the historical tribe.
After the expiration of the comment and response periods described
above, the Bureau of Indian Affairs will consult with the petitioner
concerning establishment of a time frame for preparation of the final
determination. After consideration of the written arguments and
evidence rebutting the proposed finding and within 60 days after
beginning preparation of the final determination, the Assistant
Secretary--Indian Affairs will publish the final determination of the
petitioner's status in the Federal Register as provided in 25 CFR
83.10(1).
Dated: March 24, 2000.
Kevin Gover,
Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. 00-8041 Filed 3-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-02-P