Opinion ID: 173328
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Circumstances Surrounding Passage of the Act

Text: If the statute is ambiguous, we turn to the circumstances surrounding the passage of the act, in particular the manner in which the transaction was negotiated and its legislative history, for evidence of a contemporaneous understanding that the affected reservation would be diminished or disestablished as a result of the proposed legislation. Solem, 465 U.S. at 471, 104 S.Ct. 1161. The Court sometimes considers whether there was tribal consent. Compare DeCoteau, 420 U.S. at 448, 95 S.Ct. 1082 (the reservation was found to have been terminated, and the Court found importance in the fact that the tribe consented to the agreement) with Rosebud Sioux, 430 U.S. at 587, 97 S.Ct. 1361 (the reservation was disestablished although there was no tribal consent). The manner in which the Osage Allotment Act was negotiated reflects clear congressional intent and Osage understanding that the reservation would be disestablished. The Act was passed at a time where the United States sought dissolution of Indian reservations, specifically the Oklahoma tribes' reservations. See Francis Paul Prucha, The Great Father 737-57 (1984) (Aplee.Supp.Add.104-24). In preparation for Oklahoma's statehood, the Dawes Commission had already implemented an allotment process with the Five Civilized Tribes that extinguished national and tribal title to lands within the territory and disestablished the Creek and other Oklahoma reservations. See H.R.Rep. No. 59-496, at 9, 11 (1906) (Aplee. Supp. Add. at 28, 30). While the Osage were excepted from the Dawes Commission process, the Osage felt pressure having observed the Commission's activities with respect to other tribes, and [f]or several years, the Osage ... ha[d] been considering the question of asking the Government to divide its lands and moneys among the members of the tribe. S.Rep. No. 59-4210, at 1 (1906) (Aplee. Supp. Add. at 42). In 1905, the Osage approached Congress to begin negotiating a bill to abolish their tribal affairs and to get their lands and money fairly divided, among themselves, so that every individual will be there to give his views in the matter, and the majority agree upon a plan. 1 Division of the Lands and Moneys of the Osage Tribe of Indians: Hearings on H.R. 17478 Before the H. Subcomm. of the Comm. on Indian Affairs, 58th Cong. 8 (1905) (Division Hearings) (Aplt. Add. at 9). The Osage were very anxious to bring about the allotment at the earliest possible time. 40 Cong. Rec. 3581 (1906) (Statement of Sen. Dillingham) (Aplee. Supp. Add. at 51). Congress and the Osage recognized that allotment may result in loss of much of the tribal land. See, e.g., W. David Baird, The Osage People 68 (1972) (2 Aplt. App. at 237) (James Bigheart and Black Dog, for example, noted that, like Indians of other tribes, the Osage may very well lose their allotments after dissolution of the reserve.). The Osage also recognized that the allotment process would terminate reservation status. 1 Division Hearings, at 6 (Aplt. Add. at 12) (statement of Black Dog, Osage Representative) (Indians in Oklahoma living on their reservations who have had negotiations with the Government[,] since they have been compelled to take their allotments[,] they are not doing as well as the Indians who live on the reservations.). The Osage themselves presented an allotment act to Congress in February 1906, and by June of that year, Congress passed the Osage Allotment Act. Baird at 70 (2 Aplt.App. at 238). A primary concern during the negotiations was a desire to ensure that some tribal members were not unfairly enriched at the expense of other tribal members. These concerns were addressed by allotting land in several rounds, severing the mineral estate and placing it in trust for the tribe, and providing for a form of tribal government. See, e.g., 1 Division Hearings, at 11-14, 55-56 (Aplt. Add. at 17-20, 54-55); Osage Allotment Act at §§ 2, 3, & 9. The Osage tried to prevent their land from becoming alienable through certificates of competency, but Congress rejected this approach. See 2 Division Hearings, at 4 (Aplt. Add. at 59). They also attempted to prevent a large portion of their lands, the surplus lands, from being taxed; this was also rejected by Congress. S.Rep. No. 59-4210, at 8 (Aplee. Supp. Add. at 49). The legislative history and the negotiation process make clear that all the parties at the table understood that the Osage reservation would be disestablished by the Osage Allotment Act, and uncontested facts in the record provide further evidence of a contemporaneous understanding that the reservation had been dissolved. Historian Lawrence Kelly concludes that [t]reatises and articles in professional journals that have considered the history of the former Osage Reservation have acknowledged that, after the Osage Allotment Act and Oklahoma's admission to the Union in accordance with the Oklahoma Enabling Act, the Osage Reservation no longer existed and that area became Osage County, a subdivision of the State of Oklahoma. Kelly Aff., ¶ 10 (2 Aplt.App. 244). Historian Francis Prucha has thoroughly discussed the United States' persistent efforts to end tribal control in the Indian Territory, which eventually became part of Oklahoma. Prucha at 738-57 (Aplee. Supp. Add. at 105-24). He notes, The Indians of Oklahoma were an anomaly in Indian-white relations.... There are no Indian reservations in Oklahoma.... [T]he reservation experience that was fundamental for most Indian groups in the twentieth century was not part of Oklahoma Indian history. Prucha at 757 (Aplee. Supp. Add. at 124). Another historian, Berlin Chapman, states that while Congress had established many reservations before Oklahoma's statehood, [t]he last of these reservations to be dissolved by allotments was that owned and occupied by the Osage[], embracing about 1,470,059 acres, now comprising Osage county. Berlin B. Chapman, Dissolution of the Osage Reservation, 20 Chrons. Okla. 244, 244 (1942) (1 Aplt.App. at 98). Historian W. David Baird concurs, stating [w]ith their land allotted and their reserve an Oklahoma county ... [the Osage] no longer existed as an independent people. Kelly Aff., ¶ 10 (2 Aplt.App. at 244) (quoting Baird at 72). Instead of presenting evidence regarding widely held understanding of the Osage Allotment Act at the time it was passed, the Osage Nation primarily presents evidence of continued existence of their reservation contemporaneous to this litigation including: (1) the legislative history of the 2004 Osage Act, which refers to the Osage as a federally recognized tribe with a nearly 1.5 million-acre reservation in northeast Oklahoma, H.R.Rep. No. 108-502, at 1 (2004); (2) the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs' certification of an Osage Tribe Liquor Control Ordinance in 2005, Aplt. Add. at 95-100; (3) a 2005 National Indian Gaming Commission opinion letter concluding that certain parcels of fee land in Osage County are part of the tribe's reservation, 1 Aplt.App. at 166-72; (4) a 1997 gubernatorial proclamation declaring October 25, 1997 as Osage Day, 1 Aplt.App. at 174; (5) the 2005 compact between the Osage Nation and the state of Oklahoma authorizing the Nation to conduct gaming on its Indian lands which has resulted in the operation of casinos on fee lands in Osage County, Aplt. Add. at 101-03; (6) the Osage Nation's compacts with the state regarding sharing of revenue from gaming activity and cigarette sales, Atkinson Aff. (2 Aplt. App. at 411-12); Mashunkashey Aff. (2 Aplt.App. at 414-15); (7) a reservation sign on a state highway, 1 Aplt.App. at 141; and (8) a map by the Dept. of the Interior and the U.S. Geological Survey depicting the boundaries of an Osage reservation as Osage County, 1 Aplt.App. at 182. Such evidence is too far removed temporally from the 1906 Act to shed much light on 1906 Congressional intent. See, e.g., Hagen v. Utah, 510 U.S. 399, 420, 114 S.Ct. 958, 127 L.Ed.2d 252 (1994) (subsequent legislative record is less illuminating than the contemporaneous evidence because it does not contain `deliberate expressions of informal conclusions about congressional intent [at the time of enactment]').