The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1892-12-15
RED MEN AT LAW.
Passamaquoddies Appeal to Their White
Brothers of the Bay State.

BOSTON, December 14.-Sebattis JOS
eph, governor of the Passamaquoddy In
dians of Maine, and Lemery Mitchell,
who represented the tribe, appeared be !
fore the governor and council of Massa-
chusetts today.
They claim that the rights granted to
them to take fish and game in considera-
ton for the cession of their lands in
what was then Massachusetts. has been
infringed upon by Maine laws. AS their
contract was made with Massachusetts.
they appeal to this state for what they
consider justice.
At the hearing today all were present
and Governor Russell presided. The
case of the petitioners was presented by
their counsel, ex-Mayor George NJ. Han
son of Calais, Me-, and his associate
James A. McGeough of Boston. The
state was legally represented by Assist
ant Attorney General Travis.
Mr.. McGeough claimed that there was
a moral obligation upon the state to re-
store to his clients their original rights.
Mr.. Hanson presented copies of the
documents showing that those docu-
| ments and treaties were' unanimous in
preserving to the Indians their rights
of hunting, fishing, and fowling. The
State of Maine had failed to recognize
these rights and he asked the
council therefore to give to the Indians
their rights by legislative procedure. ).
The chief objection to the case which
the Maine court thought of most I'M
portance is that one party to the original
treaty, the Indians, had lost their politi-
cal and tribal organization and hence
were Jasnctus ofscio, the treaty therefore
not being in force.
To this is opposed the admission to
the contrary BY Hon. Charles A. Little
field, attorney general of Maine. Mr..
Hanson contended that the declaration
that these rights shall be continued so
long as the Indians shall maintain their
tribal relati MS and political organiza-
ton had been disregarded. A contract
with the State of Massachusetts, had
been broken by Maine, and Massachu-
setts should insist upon it's observance.
He then proceeded to give a history of
the case.
The petitioners before the Governor
and Executive Council represented all
the male members of the Passamaquod-
dy tribe of Indians over q years. They
told the council that they had been resi-
dents of the reservation set apart for
them ever since they could remember.
This was originally given to them by the
general court, in consideration that they
would give up their lands in the other
portions of the then united territory of
Maine and Massachusetts. They claimed
that their ancestors had always observed
their treaty obligations to the colonies
and to this state; that their ancestors
were not parties to the agreement of
separation between Maine and Massa-
chusetts, but that they evidently acqui-
esced in it in the belief that the former
state would carry out the agreement
made with Massachusetts in the act of
separation, which was to perform all the
obligations of Massachusetts toward the
tribe. whether the same should arise
through treaty or otherwise. These
rights, they claimed, included the free
right to hunt and fish at all seasons, and
for time, they said, Maine did observe
the agreement, but in 1869 passed a
statute forbidding them to fish or hunt
at certain seasons OF the year. They
now hold that this was a direct violation
of the agreement.