Opinion ID: 414382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: nature of this tribe's usufructuary rights

Text: 66 The first principal issue relevant to the LCO appeal concerns the legal effect of the usufructuary rights enjoyed by the tribe pursuant to the Treaties of 1837 and 1842. Those rights derive in part from Article 5 of the Treaty of 1837 which states: 67 The privilege of hunting, fishing and gathering the wild rice upon the lands, the rivers and the lakes included in the territory ceded, is guarantied [sic] to the Indians during the pleasure of the President of the United States. 68 Article II of the Treaty of 1842 similarly states: 69 The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the ceded territory, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until required to remove by the President of the United States. 6 70 The Supreme Court precedent relating to Indians' rights has drawn a distinction between aboriginal title and treaty-reserved title. Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 277-78, 285, 75 S.Ct. 313, 316-17, 320, 99 L.Ed. 314 (1955); accord, United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371, 415 n. 29, 100 S.Ct. 2716, 2740 n. 29, 65 L.Ed.2d 844 (1980). By analogy, aboriginal rights of use enjoy a different legal status than a treaty-recognized rights of use. Compare United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, 314 U.S. 339, 358, 62 S.Ct. 248, 257, 86 L.Ed. 260 (1941), with Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 413, 88 S.Ct. 1705, 1711, 20 L.Ed.2d 697 (1968). For purposes of this appeal, the difference is significant in determining how explicit a subsequent Congressional enactment must be in order to abrogate the Indians' usufructuary rights. 71 The defendants in LCO have conceded that the tribe possessed treaty-recognized rights of use to the land ceded pursuant to the Treaties of 1837 and 1842. They suggest, however, that the qualifying treaty language pertaining to those rights eradicates any distinction from aboriginal rights for purposes of analysis. 72
73 Although title is not at issue on this appeal, an understanding of the legal distinction between aboriginal and treaty-recognized title provides a foundation for the discussion that follows. 74 Aboriginal title is the right of native people in the new world to occupy and use their native area. The United States' sovereign rights to the land within its borders was subject to the aboriginal title of the various Indian tribes. The United States could, however, extinguish aboriginal title at any time and by any means. The United States did not need to compensate the Indians for the taking of such title. Essentially, aboriginal title was title good against all but the United States. E.g., Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 288-89, 75 S.Ct. 313, 321-22, 99 L.Ed. 314 (1955). 75 Treaty-recognized title is a term that refers to Congressional recognition of a tribe's right permanently to occupy land. It constitutes a legal interest in the land and, therefore, could be extinguished only upon the payment of compensation. E.g., United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371, 415 n. 29, 100 S.Ct. 2716, 2740 n. 29, 65 L.Ed.2d 844 (1980). The Supreme Court has made clear that abrogation of treaty-recognized title requires an explicit statement by Congress or, at least, it must be clear from the circumstances and legislative history surrounding a Congressional act. Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 505, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 2258, 37 L.Ed.2d 92 (1973). 76
77
78 Both aboriginal and treaty-recognized title carry with them a right to use the land for the Indians' traditional subsistence activities of hunting, fishing, and gathering. Treaty-recognized rights of use, or usufructuary rights, do not necessarily require that the tribe have title to the land. For instance, in the seminal case of United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905), the Yakima Indians had ceded, pursuant to the Treaty of 1859, to the United States all of their lands in Washington State except for a specifically reserved tract. The same treaty reserved to the Indians the  'right of taking fish at all usual and accustomed places, in common with citizens of the Territory.'  Id. at 378, 25 S.Ct. at 663. One of the accustomed fishing sites of the Indians was the Columbia River. The land along the shores of the river was not included in the Indians' reservation. This land subsequently passed, pursuant to contracts and patents with the State of Washington, to the Winans defendants. The defendants were generally unwilling to let the Indians cross their lands to reach the river. 7 79 The Winans Court characterized the Treaty of 1859 as not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them--a reservation of those not granted. Id. at 381, 25 S.Ct. at 664. Relying on this framework of analysis, the Court held that the Indians were given a right in the land--the right of crossing it to the river--the right to occupy it to the extent and for the purpose mentioned. Id. 80 Winans illustrates a treaty-recognized right that was not dependent on either the Indians' title or right to occupy permanently the land in which it was to be exercised. 81 The scope of treaty-recognized non-reservation fishing rights was quite recently at issue before the Supreme Court in Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979). The Fishing Vessel Association case refers at length to the previous disposition in Winans, thus reaffirming that treaty-recognized rights of use depend neither on title nor right of permanent occupancy; rather, they are similar to a profit a prendre. See Kennedy v. Becker, 241 U.S. 556, 562, 36 S.Ct. 705, 707, 60 L.Ed. 1166 (1916); United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 381, 25 S.Ct. 662, 664, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905). 82
83 The primary relevance of the distinction between aboriginal rights of use and treaty-recognized usufructuary rights to the instant case lies in the degree of explicitness required to abrogate such rights. Reflecting the ease with which Congress may extinguish aboriginal title, the Supreme Court required only an implicit abrogation of off-reservation usufructuary rights in United States v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, 314 U.S. 339, 62 S.Ct. 248, 86 L.Ed. 260 (1941). In Santa Fe, the Walapai Indians held aboriginal title, as well as the related aboriginal rights of use, to their tribal lands. The Government had made several unsuccessful efforts to remove the Walapais and there had been repeated suggestions for settling the tribe on a reservation. [V]iolent problems, id. at 358, 62 S.Ct. at 257, existed between the Walapais and an increasing contingent of white settlers. In 1881, the Indians requested that they be settled on a reservation because white men were overrunning their other lands. In 1883, the Walapais' reservation was created. The Act by which the reservation was established made no explicit mention of whether the tribe retained any rights in the non-reservation lands. 84 The Supreme Court found that the off-reservation tribal rights were implicitly extinguished, stating: 85 They were in substance acquiescing in the penetration of white settlers on condition that permanent provision was made for them too. In view of this historical setting, it cannot now be fairly implied that tribal rights of the Walapais in lands outside the reservation were preserved. That would make the creation of the 1883 reservation, as an attempted solution of the violent problems created when two civilizations met in this area, illusory indeed. We must give it the definitiveness which the exigencies of that situation seemed to demand. Hence, acquiescence in that arrangement must be deemed to have been a relinquishment of tribal rights in lands outside the reservation and notoriously claimed by others. 86 Id. at 358, 62 S.Ct. at 257 (citations omitted). 87 By contrast, the abrogation of treaty-recognized rights, like the extinguishment of treaty-recognized title, appears to require something more explicit. The parties disagree as to precisely what is required. Both parties, however, recognize the importance of Menominee Tribe v. United States, 391 U.S. 404, 88 S.Ct. 1705, 20 L.Ed.2d 697 (1968), to this inquiry. 88 The Menominee Tribe had been granted a reservation in Wisconsin pursuant to the Treaty of Wolf River (1854), 10 Stat. 1064. As interpreted, this treaty included the traditional hunting and fishing rights on reservation land. 391 U.S. at 406, 88 S.Ct. at 1707. In 1954, Congress passed an act which, as amended, granted designated states, including Wisconsin, jurisdiction over offenses committed in specified areas of Indian country. Pub.L. No. 280, 67 Stat. 588 (1954) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1162). That Act explicitly provided, however, that  'Nothing in this section ... shall deprive any Indian or any Indian tribe, band, or community of any right, privilege or immunity afforded under Federal treaty, agreement, or statute with respect to hunting, trapping, or fishing or the control, licensing, or regulation thereof.'  391 U.S. at 410-11, 88 S.Ct. at 1709-10 (quoting Pub.L. No. 280, 67 Stat. 588 (1954) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1162)). That same year, Congress passed the Menominee Indian Termination Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 250 (codified as amended at 25 U.S.C. Secs. 891-902). The Termination Act provided for the withdrawal of federal supervision over the members and property of the tribe. The reservation became a Wisconsin county and a Wisconsin corporation was formed to hold the property of the tribe. The Act provided that, after the termination of federal supervision, the laws of the State would apply to the tribe and its members. 391 U.S. at 410, 88 S.Ct. at 1709. The Termination Act became fully effective in 1961. In 1962, Wisconsin declared that the Menominees were subject to state hunting and fishing regulations. The state prosecuted three Indians for violating those regulations. The Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld the convictions, holding that the hunting and fishing rights of the Menominees had been revoked by the Termination Act. 89 The Menominees subsequently brought suit against the United States, claiming an entitlement to compensation for the extinguishment of their rights. The Supreme Court, upholding the Court of Claims, held that the Termination Act had not cancelled the Menominees' rights and that they could bring an injunctive suit against Wisconsin's disturbing their hunting and fishing rights. The Court concluded: 90 We find it difficult to believe that Congress, without explicit statement, would subject the United States to a claim for compensation by destroying property rights conferred by treaty, particularly when Congress was purporting by the Termination Act to settle the Government's financial obligations toward the Indians. 91 391 U.S. at 413, 88 S.Ct. at 1711 (footnotes omitted) (emphasis added). 92 The defendants contend that Menominee permits an implicit abrogation of treaty-recognized rights so long as there is supporting evidence that the parties to the later legislation intended and understood that the extinguishment of rights would result. The tribe, by contrast, asserts that only an explicit Congressional statement permits cancellation of rights consistent with Menominee. We have stated the facts of Menominee at some length because we find merit in the defendants' assertion that the factual situation in that case is quite different from the instant case. 8 93 Mattz v. Arnett, 412 U.S. 481, 93 S.Ct. 2245, 37 L.Ed.2d 92 (1973), a more recent Supreme Court case, is helpful in determining the scope of Menominee. In Mattz, the issue was whether the Act of June 17, 1892 should be read as an implicit termination of an Indian reservation that had been created by an earlier executive order. The Court held that the reservation was not terminated, stating: A congressional determination to terminate must be expressed on the face of the Act or be clear from the surrounding circumstances and legislative history. Id. at 505, 93 S.Ct. at 2258 (citations omitted). 94 Although Mattz dealt with cancellation of treaty-recognized title rather than treaty-recognized usufructuary rights, we believe the distinction is irrelevant to the determination as to how explicit a subsequent Congressional Act must be in order to extinguish Indians' treaty-recognized rights. An abrogation of treaty-recognized rights subjects the United States to a claim for compensation, Menominee, 391 U.S. at 404, 88 S.Ct. at 1705, 20 L.Ed.2d at 697, just as a rescission of treaty-recognized title does, United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371, 415 n. 29, 100 S.Ct. 2716, 2740 n. 29, 65 L.Ed.2d 844 (1980). The Menominee Court found no explicit statement regarding cancellation of the tribe's hunting and fishing rights; further, it found such a termination inconsistent with the purpose of the Termination Act, 391 U.S. at 413, 88 S.Ct. at 1711, and with the Congressional intent evidenced by reading the Termination Act in pari materia with Public Law 280, id. at 410-11, 88 S.Ct. at 1709-10. We believe that the proper reading on Menominee is consistent with Mattz: a termination of treaty-recognized rights by subsequent legislation must be by explicit statement or must be clear from the surrounding circumstances or legislative history. 95
96
97 Initially, we note that the tribe contends the Chippewas held treaty-recognized title to their lands pursuant to the Treaty of August 19, 1825, 7 Stat. 272 (Treaty of Prairie du Chien). They reason that this recognized title included the right to use the land for traditional pursuits and, that absent specific language in the Treaties of 1837 and 1842 extinguishing such rights, they were impliedly reserved to the Indians. 98 The state defendants assert that the Treaty of Prairie du Chien was not before the district court and should this court deem it relevant, a remand is essential. We do not believe a remand is mandated on that issue. 99 We need not rely on an implicit reservation of rights because the usufructuary rights of the LCO tribe were explicitly addressed in the Treaties of 1837 and 1842. United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371, 25 S.Ct. 662, 49 L.Ed. 1089 (1905), on which the appellants correctly rely as involving treaty-recognized usufructuary rights, does not appear to depend on any treaty prior to that in which the cession of land and simultaneous reservation of usufructuary rights were made. Although the tribe may indeed be correct in stating both that the Treaty of Prairie du Chien conferred recognized title on the tribe, e.g., Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United States, 19 Indian Cl. Comm'n 514, 524 (1968) (1837 treaty); Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United States, 19 Indian Cl. Comm'n 319, 330 (1968) (1842 treaty), and that usufructuary rights were implicitly reserved in later treaties, this line of analysis is not essential to our disposition of this case. 100
101 Even though the parties agree that there was an explicit reservation of usufructuary rights in the two treaties, they disagree as to the impact of the qualifying language in the treaties: the statement in the Treaty of 1837 that the enumerated rights are guaranteed during the pleasure of the President of the United States and the language in the 1842 treaty indicating that the stipulated rights would endure until the Indians were required to remove by the President of the United States. The limiting language raised two questions. The first is whether these non-permanent usufructuary rights recognized by treaty can be abrogated by a less explicit showing of intent than permanent treaty-recognized rights. The second is the meaning of the qualifying language in the two relevant treaties. We discuss each in turn. 102 The defendants strenuously urge that because the LCO's treaty-reserved usufructuary rights were temporary, they could be extinguished by implication. The defendants support the district judge's characterization of the recognized rights as analogous to permissive occupation and rely on language in Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United States, 315 F.2d 906, 911 (Ct.Cl.1963), and Tee-Hit-Ton Indians v. United States, 348 U.S. 272, 278-79, 75 S.Ct. 313, 316-17, 99 L.Ed. 314 (1955). Essentially the defendants are arguing that non-permanent treaty-recognized rights are like aboriginal rights. 103 The term permissive occupation is more misleading than helpful in analyzing the case at bar. In Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, 348 U.S. at 278-79, 75 S.Ct. at 316-17 (1955), the Supreme Court employed the term in concluding that the rights of the Indian plaintiffs to Alaskan land were not legal rights and therefore no compensation was due for the taking of timber from those lands. The Court rejected the argument that treaty-recognized title had been conferred on the Indians by either of two Congressional acts, noting that the intention of those acts had been to retain the status quo until further congressional or judicial action was taken. Id. at 278, 75 S.Ct. at 317 (footnote omitted). The status quo was the Indians' aboriginal title. 104 In Minnesota Chippewa Tribe v. United States, 315 F.2d 906, 911 (Ct.Cl.1963), the court's reference to permissive occupation was a direct quote from Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, and was relevant to the court's conclusion that the Indians indeed had recognized title to disputed land. As used in both Tee-Hit-Ton Indians and Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, permissive occupation is synonymous to aboriginal title. 105 The judge below first used the term permissive occupation in the Ben Ruby case, 464 F.Supp. at 1348, which was a quiet title action decided in the same opinion with the LCO case. He relied on Mole Lake Band v. United States, 139 F.Supp. 938 (Ct.Cl.1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 892, 77 S.Ct. 130, 1 L.Ed.2d 86. In Mole Lake, the Court of Claims had found that the intention of the parties to the cession Treaties of 1837 and 1842 was to pass title in the land to the United States and that the Indians were to have only a revocable license to use the land until the President required them to vacate it. 139 F.Supp. at 940. 9 106 We concur with the general proposition that if the Indians' right of occupancy is temporary, their interest in the land is more similar to a revocable license than it is to title. Even so, we do not think it necessarily follows that an expressly granted revocable license to use land confers no greater rights than aboriginal title which carries no legal right at all against the United States, Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, 348 U.S. at 279, 75 S.Ct. at 317. Even in the context of the Ben Ruby case, therefore, the term permissive occupation would appear less than an exact statement of the rights enjoyed by the Indians. 107 The term permissive occupation is especially inapplicable, however, to the LCO case which involves the reservation of usufructuary rights rather than a claim of title. Tee-Hit-Ton Indians, Ben Ruby, Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, and Mole Lake all concerned questions of title. It is perfectly consistent with the basic tenets of property law that one may enjoy a right of use that is limited in duration. The fact that it is so limited makes it no less of a legal right. 108 We are not persuaded, therefore, that the rights of the LCO band pursuant to the Treaties of 1837 and 1842 were other than treaty-recognized rights of use which are of legal significance. Despite his use of the term permissive occupation, the district judge apparently reached the same conclusion on this point. The fact that the rights enjoyed by the LCO band were legally enforceable against the United States compels the conclusion that they should not be extinguished by mere implication. 109 The second dispute between the parties concerns the meaning of the limiting language. During the pleasure of the President and until required to remove by the President would appear to confer unbridled discretion on the Government to extinguish the usufructuary rights. As the district court recognized, however, Indian treaties must ordinarily be construed as they were understood by the Indians. Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 582, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832) (McLean, J., concurring); accord, e.g., Choctaw Nation v. Oklahoma, 397 U.S. 620, 630-31, 90 S.Ct. 1328, 1334-35, 25 L.Ed.2d 615 (1970); see Section III, supra. 110 The judge below found that the Chippewas understood the treaties to mean that they enjoyed the use of their lands for an unlimited time unless they misbehaved by harassing white settlers. In reaching this conclusion, the district judge relied on the Indians' statements during the negotiations preceding the Treaty of 1837 indicating that they wished to continue hunting and fishing on the ceded lands and that they envisioned their grandchildren negotiating for further annuities in sixty-years time. He also noted that both Indians and non-Indians present at the 1842 treaty negotiations later wrote that the Indians had been assured they would not have to remove unless they misbehaved. 111 The defendants challenge Judge Doyle's conclusion as going beyond his discretion and argue that both treaties were made pursuant to the removal policy which contemplated placing the Indians on lands farther west. They also argue that Judge Doyle should not have relied on the writings of persons present at the negotiations because this is evidence of low quality. 112 The difficulty with the defendants' argument is that it does not really address what the Indians believed the treaty to mean. The fact that the treaties were conceived pursuant to a policy of removal is not inconsistent with either the assertion that the treaties were unacceptable to the Indians unless modified by an oral understanding that allowed them to stay on the land so long as they did not harass white settlers or the Government's recognition that this concession was therefore essential. Further, whether those persons who wrote of their recollections provided only low quality evidence for a trial over a hundred years later is somewhat irrelevant given that it is the only evidence of the Indians' understanding of the treaty. 113 One further point must be made although it is not explicitly argued by the defendants. A finding as to the intent of the Indians is arguably a factual finding that is inappropriate to a disposition by summary judgment. Because this aspect of the case was decided adversely to the defendants, we construe all inferences in favor of the defendants in determining whether a genuine issue of material fact exists. Pharo v. Smith, 621 F.2d 656, 664 (5th Cir.1980), remanded on reh'g on other grounds, 625 F.2d 1226 (5th Cir.). Because the defendant's evidence on this point does not address what the Indians believed the treaty to mean but, rather, the motive of the Government in seeking the treaty, we conclude that no genuine issue of fact existed. 114 We concur therefore in the district judge's conclusion that the qualifying language in the two treaties did not confer the unlimited discretion on the Executive that it appears to; rather, it required that the Indians be denied their usufructuary privileges only if the Indians were instrumental in causing disturbances with white settlers.
115 Two cases that involve a reservation of usufructuary rights by qualified treaty language support our conclusion that an abrogation of such rights should not be found without compelling evidence that such an extinguishment was intended. In both United States v. Michigan, 471 F.Supp. 192 (W.D.Mich.1979), aff'd in relevant part, 653 F.2d 277 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1124, 102 S.Ct. 971, 71 L.Ed.2d 110 (1981), and People v. LeBlanc, 399 Mich. 31, 248 N.W.2d 199 (1976), Chippewa bands claimed the right to fish, free from State regulation, in portions of the Great Lakes. Pursuant to the Treaty of 1836, 7 Stat. 495, the tribes had ceded land to the United States. The treaty stated that: The Indians stipulate for the right of hunting on the lands ceded, with the other usual privileges of occupancy, until the land is required for settlement. 116 After concluding that the above-quoted language of Article XIII embraced the right to fish, United States v. Michigan, 471 F.Supp. at 259, People v. LeBlanc, 248 N.W.2d at 206, both courts addressed the question whether the rights had been extinguished by subsequent settlement of the land. The LeBlanc court found that the qualifying language was included in the treaty in order to allow white settlement of the land. Because the Great Lakes themselves weren't required for settlement the fishing rights were not terminated. 248 N.W.2d at 207. The Michigan court noted that the language of limitation was ambiguous as to any definite period of Indian occupancy, 471 F.Supp. at 259, and relying on LeBlanc, concluded that the fishing rights were not terminated by operation of the language, id. 117 Both the Michigan and LeBlanc courts also rejected claims that the Treaty of 1855 had abrogated the treaty-recognized fishing rights. United States v. Michigan, 471 F.Supp. at 262-65; People v. LeBlanc, 248 N.W.2d at 210-12. In so concluding, both courts relied on the language in Menominee that is discussed supra. 471 F.Supp. at 262; 248 N.W.2d at 212. 118 The treaties relevant to the Michigan and LeBlanc cases are not identical to those before this court. We do not suggest that either Michigan or LeBlanc is dispositive of the instant controversy. It is important, however, that both the Michigan district court and the Supreme Court of that state found that conditional usufructuary rights could be abrogated only by an extremely strong showing that such was the intent of Congress. It is also significant that the courts were careful not to construe the language of limitation so as to prejudice the Indians. 10 E. Summary 119 A treaty is essentially a contract between two sovereign powers. Washington v. Washington State Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Association, 443 U.S. 658, 675, 99 S.Ct. 3055, 3069, 61 L.Ed.2d 823 (1979). It is not surprising, therefore, that the rule we find emerging from prior cases dealing with Indian rights is a rather straightforward statement of contract law. If the Government explicitly promised the Indians a property interest in land, the Government would be subject to a claim for compensation if it breached the terms of the agreement. If the United States promised a tribe that it would enjoy certain rights either for a specified period or until a specified event or events occurred, those rights were legally enforceable by the Indians. When the period expired or the contemplated event or series of events occurred, the rights could be extinguished by the Government without liability. 120 If the LCO case involved a property interest that by its very nature contemplated permanence, such as title, the argument of the defendants would be more persuasive. What was given the Indians pursuant to the Treaties of 1837 and 1842, however, was a right of use for a period, the duration of which was determined by the Indians' behavior. 121 If harassment of white settlers occurred, the Executive could extinguish the Indians' rights without the Government's incurring liability. If the Chippewas' rights were abrogated for any other reason, however, the Government would potentially be subject to a claim for compensation. An act of Congress should therefore be construed as extinguishing usufructuary rights only if the legislation expressly stated that such was the intent of Congress or if the legislative history and surrounding circumstances made clear that abrogation of treaty-recognized rights was intended by Congress.