35 I n d . C1. Corzxn. 321
BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
nlECADW)TRIBEOFOKWUIOMA, I N I T S O W N
RIGHT AND DAN MADRANO, LLOYD TOUNWIN AND
ANDREW DUNLAP ON RELATION OF THE CADDO
TRIBE OF INDIANS AND THE CADDO TRIBE OF
OKLAHOMA EACH ON BEHALF OF OTHERS
SIMILARLY SITUATED AND ON BEHALF OF THE
CADDO TRIBE AND VARIOUS BANDS AND GROUPS
OF EACH OF THEM COMPRISING THE CADDO
TRIBE AND NATION,
)
1
1
)
)
1
1
)
Plaintiffs,
THE ALABAMA-COIISNATTA TRIBES OF TEXAS AND
THE COUSHATTA INDIANS OF LOUISIANA,
Intervenors,
THE WICHITA INDIAN T R I B E OF OKLAHOMA AND
BANDS AND G R O W S OF INDIANS WHICH HAVE
BEEN OR W H I C H ARE AFFILIATED WITH THE
WICHITA INDIAN TRIBE OF OKLAHOMA,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE
WICHITA, WACOS, KEECHfS AND TOWACONIES,
)
)
1
1
)
)
)
)
)
1
)
1
Second
Intervenors, )
1
THE T O N U W A TRIBE OF INDIANS OF OKLAHOMA
AMALCAMA'I'ED WITH AND SUCCESSORS IN
INTEREST TO THE TEXAS TONUWA TRIBE AND
THE TEAMS LIPAN TRIBE AND THE TEXAS
KARANKAWA TRIBE,
Third Intervenors,
)
1
)
1
)
)
)
v.
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.
1
1
1
1
Docket No. 226
35 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 321
Appearances :
Rodney J. Edwards, A t t o r n e y f o r t h e P l a i n t i f f s .
Tom Diamond and Alan M i n t e r , A t t o r n e y s f o r t h e
~ l a b a m a - ~ o u s h a t t a T r i b eof
s Texas, I n t e r v e n o r s ,
and f o r t h e T h i r d I n t e r v e n o r s .
Jim D. Bowmer, A t t o r n e y f o r t h e Coushatta
I n d i a n s of L o u i s i a n a , I n t e r v e n o r s .
Orner L u e l l e n , A t t o r n e y f o r t h e Second I n t e r ,venors. P a u l M. N i e b e l l was on t h e brief.
Bernard M. S i s s o n , w i t h whom was M r . A s s i s t a n t
A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l Kent F r i z z e l l , A t t o r n e y s f o x
Defendant.
OPINION OF THE COMMISSION
Yarborough, C o m i s s i o n e r , d e l i v e r e d t h e o p i n i o n of t h e Commission.
T h i s s u i t was brought by t h e Caddo T r i b e of Oklahoma, e t a l . , under
t h e I n d i a n Claims Commission Act of August 1 3 , 1946, 60 S t a t . 1049,
s e e k i n g compensation f o r t h e a l l e g e d t a k i n g by t h e United S t a t e s of
l a n d s l o c a t e d i n t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e s of Arkansas, L o u i s i a n a , Oklahoma,
and Texas, which l a n d s t h e p l a i n t i f f s c l a i m t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s held
under a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e .
The p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r o r i g i n a l complaint i n t h i s d o c k e t on
August 8 , 1951, c l a i m i n g compensation f o r l a n d s i n t h e present S t a t e s
of Arkansas and L o u i s i a n a t h a t were ceded t o t h e United S t a t e s under t h e
T r e a t y of J u l y 1, 1835, 7 S t a t . 470.
The o r i g i n a l complaint a l s o s o u g h t
compensation, under Count 11, f o r l a n d s i n t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e of Texas
from which i t was a l l e g e d t h e Caddo T r i b e was e v i c t e d and, under Count
323
35 I n d . C 1 . Comm. 321
IV, f o r lands a l l e g e d l y a b o r i g i n a l l y owned by t h e Caddo T r i b e i n
Arkansas, Louisiana,and Oklahoma o u t s i d e t h e t e r r i t o r y ceded under t h e
1835 t r e a t y .
T r i a l on t h e i s s u e of t i t l e t o t h e c l a i m s i n t h e o r i g i n a l comp l a i n t was h e l d b e f o r e t h e Commission commencing March 1, 1955.
By t h e
Commission's o r d e r of t h a t d a t e , Counts 11 and IV of t h e c o m p l a i n t were
d i s m i s s e d a f t e r t h e plaintiffs informed t h e Commission t h a t t h e y had no
e v i d e n c e t o o f f e r i n s u p p o r t of t h e a l l e g a t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s e two
counts.
O n March 8 , 1956, t h e
Commission e n t e r e d i t s d e c i s i o n t h a t
t h e Caddo T r i b e had h e l d a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o a t r a c t of s l i g h t l y more
that1 600,000 acres located in what is now s o u t h w e s t e r n Arkansas and
n o r t h w e s t e r n L o u i s i a n a , which t r a c t was a portion of t h e lands ceded
by t h e Caddo t o t h e United States under t h e 1 8 3 5 t r e a t y .
1/
-
The l a n d s
t h e Commission h e l d to have been s o owned by t h e Caddo T r i b e were
d e s c r i b e d i n f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 1 2 of t h e Commission's d e c i s i o n .
4 I n d . C1. Comrn. 201, a t 212-13 (1956).
See
-
By s e p a r a t e o r d e r s e n t e r e d
January 2 , 1957, the Commission amended said finding of fact No. 1 2 and
a l s o amended i t s i n t e r l v c u t o r y order e n t e r e d in c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h i t s
d e c i s i o n of March 8 , 1956, t o s p e c i f y w i t h more p a r t i c u l a r i t y t h e
b o u n d a r i e s of t h e t r a c t found by t h e Cormnission t o have been
The
I/
e n t i r e t r a c t ceded a t t h e 1835 t r e a t y i s i d e n t i f i e d as Area
202 on Royce's Maps Arkansas 1 and L o u i s i a n a i n P a r t 2 of t h e E i g h t e e n t h
Annual Report of t h e Bureau of American Ethnology, 1896-97.
35 Ind. C l . Comm. 321
owned a b o r i g i n a l l y by t h e Caddo Tribe.
P l a i n t i f f s t a p p e a l of t h e
Commission's d e c i s i o n was d i s m i s s e d by t h e Court of Claims a s premature.
See 140
-
C t . C 1 . 63 (1957).
The Commission t h e n proceeded t o make de-
t e r m i n a t i o n s on t h e v a l u e of t h e t r a c t and on t h e p r o p e r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n
of one of t h e i t e m s claimed by t h e d e f e n d a n t as a g r a t u i t o u s o f f s e t .
See 1 9
-
I n d . C1. Comm. 385 (1968); 9 I n d . C 1 . Corn. 557 (1961); and 8
I n d . C 1 . Comm. 354 ( 1 9 6 0 ) .
On February 1 2 , 1969, t h e p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a motion s e e k i n g t o
v a c a t e t h e Commission's o r d e r of March 1, 1955, which had d i s m i s s e d
Counts I1 and IV of t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t .
By o r d e r of t h e Commission
d a t e d December 5 , 1969, 22 I n d . C 1 . Corn. 181, 1 8 5 , t h e omm mission's
o r d e r of March 1, 1955 was v a c a t e d , and t h e p l a i n t i f f s were g i v e n 30
d a y s t o f i l e a n amended c o m p l a i n t .
On J a n u a r y 6 , 1970, t h e p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d t h e i r amended complaint
i n which t h e y claimed compensation under Count 11, on t h e b a s i s of
a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e , f o r a l l of t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e of Texas e a s t of Area
478 a s d e l i n e a t e d on Royce's "Map of Texas and P o r t i o n s of Adjoining
S t a t e s " and, on t h e b a s i s of r e c o g n i z e d t i t l e , f o r Areas 512 and 513
shown on s a i d map t o be l o c a t e d i n t h e r e g i o n of t h e Upper Brazos R i v e r *
Count I V of t h e amended c o m p l a i n t claimed compensation f o r t e r r i t o r y
i n t h e p r e s e n t s t a t e s of Arkansas, L o u i s i a n a and Oklahoma, which
t e r r i t o r y was a l l e g e d t o have been a b o r i g i n a l l y owned by t h e p l a i n t i f f s
and t a k e n by t h e United S t a t e s w i t h o u t t h e payment of any compensation
a t some t i m e a f t e r t h e United S t a t e s a c q u i r e d s o v e r e i g n t y over s a i d
325
35 I n d . C1. Comm. 321
t e r r i t o r y and b e f o r e the 1835 t r e a t y between t h e Caddo and t h e United
States.
The t e r r i t o r y s o claimed is described in the amended complaint
a s follows:
Commencing a t a p o i n t where t h e Red R i v e r boundary l i n e
of the s t a t e s of Oklahoma and Texas i n t e r s e c t s t h e M e r i d i a n
of 98' West Longitude; t h e n c e due n o r t h on s a i d M e r i d i a n t o
t h e n o r t h boundary l i n e of t h e s t a t e of Oklahoma; t h e n c e east
a l o n g t h e n o r t h boundary l i n e of t h e s t a t e of Oklahoma t o a
p o i n t where t h e Arkansas R i v e r i n t e r s e c t s s a i d boundary;
t h e n c e down t h e Arkansas R i v e r t o t h e M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r ; t h e n c e
down t h e M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r t o t h e mouth o f t h e Red R i v e r a t
31' n o r t h l a t i t u d e ; thence weat on s a i d l a t i t u d e t o t h e
boundary l i n e between t h e s t a t e s of L o u i s i a n a and Texas; t h e n c e
n o r t h and west a l o n g t h e boundary l i n e of t h e s t a t e o f Texas
t o p o i n t of b e g i n n i n g .
The t r a c t ceded t o t h e United States under t h e T r e a t y of July 1, 1835,
s u p r a , i s l o c a t e d e n t i r e l y w i t h i n t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e t e r r i t o r y
d e s c r i b e d above.
On A p r i l 9 , 1971, t h e d e f e n d a n t moved t o c o n s o l i d a t e t h i s d o c k e t f o r
t r i a l w i t h Docket 257, Kiowa, Comanche and Apache T r i b e s v. United S t a t e s ,
and Docket 22-C,
Lipan Apache T r i b e v. United S t a t e s , on t h e ground t h a t
the c l a i m s i n t h e t h r e e d o c k e t s o v e r l a p p e d .
However, t h e omission's
d e c i s i o n s i n t h e Kiowa case, s u p r a , were a p p e a l e d t o t h e C o u r t o f C l a i m s ,
and t h e Commission was w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o r u l e on t h e motion f o r
c o n s o l i d a t i o n d u r i n g t h e pendency of t h e a p p e a l .
It was n o t u n t i l A p r i l 1 5 ,
1974, when t h e Supreme Court d e n i e d a p e t i t i o n f o r c e r t i o r a r i , t h a t t h e
Commission r e g a i n e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r Docket 257.
See United S t a t e s
V.
Kiowa, Comanche and Apache T r i b e s , 202 Ct. C1. 29 (19731, c e r t . d e n i e d ,
416 U. S. 936 (1974) ( r e v 1 a D o c k e t 257, 24 Ind.
26 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 101 (1971)).
C 1 . Comm. 405 (1971);
35 Xnd. C1. Comm. 321
326
By Commission o r d e r of J u l y 1 7 , 1974, t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion was
denied i n s o f a r as i t sought c o n s o l i d a t i o n of Docket 257 w i t h Dockets 22-C
and 226.
See 34
Ind. C1. Corn. 287.
Our a c t i o n today i n connection w i t h
t h e claims i n i n t e r v e n t i o n herein,and t h e a c t i o n of the Caddo p l a i n t i f f s
a t t r i a l i n l i m i t i n g t h e i r p r o o f s of a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o a n a r e a s m a l l e r
t h a n t h a t claimed i n t h e amended complaint have e l i m i n a t e d any o v e r l a p
of c l a i m s under Dockets 22-C and 226 and t h u s made moot t h a t p o r t i o n of
d e f e n d a n t ' s motion which h a s remained pending seeking c o n s o l i d a t i o n of
Dockets 22-C and 226.
W e w i l l t h e r e f o r e e n t e r an o r d e r today i n conjunc-
t i o n w i t h our d e c i s i o n h e r e i n , denying t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o c o n s o l i d a t e
Dockets 2 2 4 and 226.
By Commission o r d e r s d a t e d January 1 2 , 1972, 27 Ind. C 1 . Cow. 8 ,
February 2 , 1972, 27 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 35,
Comm. 74,
t h e Alabama-Coushatta
and March 1, 1972, 27 Ind. C 1 .
T r i b e s of Texas and t h e Coushatta I n d i a n s
o f Louisiana, t h e Wichita I n d i a n T r i b e of Oklahoma and A f f i l i a t e d Bands,
and t h e Tonkawa T r i b e of I n d i a n s of Oklahoma, r e s p e c t i v e l y , were permitted
t o i n t e r v e n e h e r e i n f o r the purpose of a s s e r t i n g c l a i m s of compensation
f o r t h e t a k i n g by t h e United S t a t e s of l a n d s p a r t i a l l y overlapping t h e
area claimed by t h e Caddo i n t h e i r amended complaint, which l a n d s t h e s e
i n t e r v e n o r s claimed were h e l d by t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s under a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e .
The t r i a l on t h e i s s u e of t i t l e t o t h e a r e a s s o claimed was held
b e f o r e t h e Commission on March 27, 28, and 29, 1972.
I n t e n r e n t i o n h e r e i n by t h e Alabama-Coushatta T r i b e s of Texas and
t h e Coushatta I n d i a n a of Louisiana, by t h e Wichita I n d i a n T r i b e of
35 Ind. C1. Corn. 321
327
Oklahoma and A f f i l i a t e d Bands, and by t h e Tonkawa T r i b e of I n d i a n s of
Oklahoma, was p e r m i t t e d by t h e C o m f a s i o n on t h e basis o f t h e Counniclsion'e
r a t i o n a l e i n i t s p r i o r d e c i s i o n p e r m i t t i n g t h e Tigua I n d i a n s t o i n t e r v e n e
under t h e c l a i m o f t h e Lipan Apache T r i b e i n Docket 22-C,
I n d , C 1 . Comm. 1 (1969).
supra, a t 22
There t h e Commission h e l d t h a t a common a l l e g e d
s o u r c e of i n j u r y , namely t r a n s f e r of p u b l i c l a n d s by t h e United S t a t e s t o
t h e S t a t e of Texas w i t h o u t r e q u i r i n g t h e s t a t e t o p r o t e c t a b o r i g i n a l
p r o p e r t y r i g h t s of t h e I n d i a n o c c u p a n t s , was s u f f i c i e n t t o permit i n t e r v e n t i o n , and t h a t t h e f i l i n g o f t h e o r i g i n a l claim t h e r e i n had t h e e f f e c t
of p u t t i n g t h e Government on n o t i c e t h a t i t might be r e q u i r e d t o l i t i g a t e
t h e q u e s t i o n of t i t l e t o a l l t h e land i n Texas i n t h e o r i g i n a l c l a i m ,
which land included t h a t claimed by t h e Tigua a p p l i c a n t s f o r i n t e r v e n t i o n ,
The C o m i s s i o n followed i t s Lipan d e c i s i o n i n Kiowa, Comanche and Apache
T r i b e s v . United S t a t e s , Docket 257. 24 Ind. C 1 . Corn. 405, s u p r a , i n
p e r m i t t i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n t h e r e i n by t h e Wichita I n d i a n T r i b e of Oklahoma.
However, t h e omm mission's d e c i s i o n t o p e r m i t t h e Wichita t o i n t e r v e n e
under Docket 257 was r e v e r s e d by t h e Court of Claims.
a t 43-45,
supra.
See 202
C t . C 1 . 29,
Following t h e Court of Claims' Kiowa, Comanche d e c i s i o n ,
t h e Commission has r e c e n t l y dismissed t h e c l a i m i n i n t e r v e n t i o n of the
Tigua I n d i a n s under Docket 22-C.
See 35
Ind. C1. Comm. 302 (1975).
On Mav 10, 1 9 7 4 , t h e defendant filed a motion i n t h i s d o c k e t t o
dismiss all complaints i n i n t e r v e n t i o n .
Defendant c i t e d t h e d e c i s i o n of
t h e Court of C l a i m s d i s m i s s i n g t h e c l a i m i n i n t e r v e n t i o n of t h e Wichita
Tribe i n t h e Kiowa, Comanche c a s e , s u p r a .
I n t h e l a t t e r c a s e i t was h e l d
t h a t t h e Indian C l a i m s Commission is w i t h o u t j u r i s d i c t i o n t o p e r m i t a n
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 321
328
i n t e r v e n t i o n a f t e r August 13, 1951, i n a timely f i l e d claim by a p a r t y
claiming a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e adversely t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s .
The s e p a r a t e
i n t e r v e n o r s each f i l e d a response i n o p p o s i t i o n seeking t o d i s t i n g u i s h t h e
Kiowa, Comanche c a s e , s u p r a , and r a i s i n g o t h e r arguments a g a i n s t d i s m i s s a l .
It i s our o p i n i o n t h a t t h e r u l e enunciated i n t h e Kiowa, Comanche case
i s d i s p o s i t i v e h e r e and t h a t t h e c l a i m s i n i n t e r v e n t i o n must be dismissed.
Each of t h e s e c l a i m s i n i n t e r v e n t i o n was, a t t h e t i m e of f i l i n g , a d v e r s e
t o t h e c l a i m of t h e p l a i n t i f f s , who opposed each claim.
That t h e p l a i n t i f f s
may have subsequently c o n t r a c t e d t h e boundaries of t h e i r claim i s i r r e l e v a n t .
Furthermore, t h e p l a i n t i f f s have never a s s e r t e d t h a t they were r e p r e s e n t i n g
t h e i n t e r e s t s of any o t h e r t r i b e s t h a n themselves o r t h a t t h e y held j o i n t
a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e w i t h any o t h e r t r i b e s .
The r e f e r e n c e i n t h e p l a i n t i f f s '
o r i g i n a l complaint t o p o s s i b l e j o i n t occupancy of c e r t a i n l a n d s w i t h
o t h e r t r i b e s was simply a f a c t u a l a l l e g a t i o n .
claim of j o i n t a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e .
It was c e r t a i n l y not a
A s s e r t i o n s by c e r t a i n of t h e i n t e r v e n o r s
t h a t t h e y f a i l e d t o r e c e i v e n o t i c e of t h e I n d i a n Claims Commission Act
are n o t proved.
See Commission E x h i b i t
evidence by t h e accompanying o r d e r .
Nos. 1 and 2 , admitted i n
Even i f l a c k of n o t i c e were proved,
w e do n o t f e e l t h e Conrmission could t h e r e b y f i n d a c u r e f o r t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l d e f e c t determined by t h e Court of C l a i m s .
Finally, i n the l i g h t
of t h a t c o u r t ' s r u l i n g , w e cannot a c c e p t t h e argument t h a t t h i e Commission
may adopt a p r o c e d u r a l r u l e and t h e r e b y circumvent t h e e x p r e s s l i m i t a t i o n
on t h e Commission's j u r i s d i c t i o n contained i n s e c t i o n 1 2 of our a c t , 60
S t a t . 1049, 1052.
W
e t h e r e f o r e hold t h a t w e must deny t h e motions t o i n t e r -
vene and must d i s m i s s t h e complaints i n i n t e r v e n t i o n .
W
e w i l l e n t e r such a n
329
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 321
order today and will proceed t o t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of t h e t i t l e phase of
t h i s docket w i t h o n l y the Caddo T r i b e and t h e United S t a t e s remaining as
parties.
A t t h e t r i a l of t h e i r c l a i m s under Counts 11 and I V of t h e i r amended
complaint t h e Caddo p l a i n t i f f s submitted evidence s e e k i n g t o e s t a b l i s h
a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o a l a r g e contiguous a r e a l o c a t e d i n s o u t h w e s t e r n
Arkansas, n o r t h w e s t e r n L o u i s i a n a , n o r t h e a s t e r n Texas, and s o u t h e a s t e r n
Oklahoma.
The a r e a s o claimed i s d e s c r i b e d i n t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' proposed
f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 56, filed w i t h t h e Commission on September 28, 1972.
The boundaries of this area a r e t h o s e which t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' e x p e r t w i t n e s s ,
D r . Helen Hornbeck Tanner, o f f e r e d as h e r o p i n i o n of t h e b o u n d a r i e s of
t h e Caddo a b o r i g i n a l t e r r i t o r y a s of 1804.
See P1. Ex. T-216,
The T e r r i t o r y of t h e Caddo T r i b e of Oklahoma, a t 48-66,
Helen Tanner,
and Appendix A.
G e n e r a l l y d e s c r i b e d , t h e a r e a s o clairned,on t h e b a s i s of D r . T a n n e r ' s
o p i n i o n , i n c l u d e s all of t h e p r e s e n t S t a t e s o f Arkansas, L o u i s i a n a , Oklahoma,
and Texas circumscribed by a l i n e beginning n e a r t h e headwaters o f t h e
S a l i n e River i n Garland County, Arkansas, and running d i r e c t l y s o u t h t o
t h e Louisiana line i n southwestern Union County, Arkansas, and t h e n proceeding s o u t h i n L o u i s i a n a as f a r as t h e town of Colfax, i n Grant P a r i s h .
The l i n e t h e n t u r n s west and proceeds a l o n g t h e e n t i r e l e n g t h of t h e r i d g e
o f t h e K i s a t c h i e Wold from t h e Red River west t o t h e watershed between
t h e T r i n i t y and Navasota Rivers, p a s s i n g i n t o Texas j u s t below t h e
Toledo Bend R e s e r v o i r on t h e Sabine River and c o n t i n u i n g a s f a r west
35 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 321
i n Texas a s t h e town of B e d i a s i n n o r t h e a s t e r n Grimes County.
It t h e n
t u r n s n o r t h and p r o c e e d s by n o r t h and n o r t h w e s t meanders t o t h e TexasOklahoma b o r d e r on Red River a t S i v e l l ' s Bend n e a r M a r i e t t a , i n Love
County, Oklahoma.
I n Oklahoma t h e l i n e c o n t i n u e s n o r t h t o t h e Washita
River a t t h e mouth of Cherokee and Sandy Creeks east of P a u l ' s Valley
i n Garvin County, Oklahoma, where i t t u r n s e a s t f o l l o w i n g t h e d i v i d e
between t h e w a t e r s of t h e Arkansas and Red R i v e r s i n t o Arkansas and t o
t h e p l a c e of b e g i n n i n g ,
Much of t h e h i s t o r y of t h e a n c e s t o r s of t h e Caddo T r i b e of Oklahoma
h a s been s e t o u t i n p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g s i n t h i s d o c k e t d e a l i n g w i t h t h e
p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m a r i s i n g o u t of t h e c e s s i o n of l a n d s under t h e 1835
treaty.
The p r e s e n t Caddo c l a i m i n v o l v e s c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e u s e and
occupancy of a much l a r g e r a r e a t h a n t h a t ceded under t h e 1835 t r e a t y ,
which l a r g e r a r e a c o m p l e t e l y s u r r o u n d s t h e a r e a s o ceded a t t h a t t r e a t y .
To i n s u r e a c o h e r e n t c h r o n o l o g i c a l and g e o g r a p h i c a l a n a l y s i s of t h e
h i s t o r y of I n d i a n u s e and occupancy of t h e e n t i r e a r e a claimed by t h e
Caddo i n t h i s proceeding we have i n c o r p o r a t e d and r e i t e r a t e d c o n s i d e r a b l e
p o r t i o n s of t h e c om mission's p r e v i o u s f i n d i n g s i n our present findings of
f a c t and i n t h e summary of t h e h i s t o r y of t h e Caddo p e o p l e which a p p e a r s
i n t h i s opinion.
We have made new f i n d i n g s h e r e i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h
t h e h i s t o r y of t h e Caddo i n a r e a s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y Texas) now a t i s s u e
b u t o u t s i d e t h e s c o p e of t h e p r e v i o u s p r o c e e d i n g s under t h i s d o c k e t .
The Caddo T r i b e of Oklahoma c o n s t i t u t e s t h e remnants of t h r e e
c o n f e d e r a c i e s of Caddoan I n d i a n s who once h e l d dominion o v e r an immense
35 Ind. C1. Comrn, 321
331
t e r r i t o r y comprising what i s now e a s t e r n Texas, s o u t h e a s t e r n Oklahoma,
southweatern Arkansas, and n o r t h w e s t e r n L o u i s i a n a .
White men f i r s t
encountered the Caddo i n t h i s r e g i o n i n t h e mid-16th c e n t u r y .
Subsequent
and more f r e q u e n t e n c o u n t e r s by Spanish and French e x p l o r e r s and t r a d e r s
d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d up t o t h e e a r l y 1 8 t h c e n t u r y i n d i c a t e c o n t i n u e d and
e x c l u s i v e Caddo u s e and occupancy of t h i s r e g i o n .
The Kadohadacho Confederacy of Caddo t r i b e s l i v e d i n t h e a r e a o f t h e
b i g bend of t h e Red River i n
p r e s e n t southwestern Arkansas.
These tribes
a l s o u t i l i z e d t h e a r e a n o r t h and s o u t h of the Red River i n s o u t h e a s t e r n
Oklahoma, southwestern Arkansas, and n o r t h e a s t e r n Texas w i t h o u t any known
c o m p e t i t i o n from o t h e r I n d i a n s .
F a r t h e r down Red River s e v e r a l Caddo
t r i b e s comprising t h e N a t c h i t o c h e s Confederacy l i v e d in t h e a r e a from
p r e s e n t S h r e v e p o r t , L o u i s i a n a , down-river t o beyond p r e s e n t N a t c h i t o c h e s .
West of t h e N a t c h i t o c h e s Caddo l i v e d a Caddo t r i b e , t h e A i d a i , between
t h e Red and Sabine R i v e r s , while west of t h e Sabine a n o t h e r Caddo t r i b e ,
t h e A i s , o r Eyeish, lived a l o n g t h e p r e s e n t Texas s i d e of t h e middle
Sabine R i v e r .
In e a s t Texas between t h e T r i n i t y River and t h e Attoyac
Bayou i n p r e s e n t Nacogdoches, Cherokee, Rusk, and Houston C o u n t i e s , l i v e d
t h e l a r g e s t Caddo confederacy--the
H a s i n a i , whose p o p u l a t i o n may have
been as high as 4,000 o r 5,000 i n the e a r l y 1 8 t h c e n t u r y .
The evidence presented i n t h i s proceeding e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t from
time immemorial u n t i l t h e l a t t e r h a l f of t h e 1 8 t h c e n t u r y , the Caddo,
comprised o f t h o s e s u b d i v i s i o n s of t h e Caddo people d e s c r i b e d above, had
332
35 Lnd. C1. Comm. 321
c o n t i n u o u s l y and e x c l u s i v e l y used and o c c u p i e d a n a r e a of t h e p r e s e n t
S t a t e s of Arkansas, L o u i s i a n a , Oklahoma,and Texas a p p r o x i m a t e l y bounded on the
east by a l i n e g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w i n g t h e 9 3 r d M e r i d i a n o f West ~ o n g i t ~from
d ~
Hot S p r i n g s , Arkansas, s o u t h t o C o l f a x , L o u i s i a n a ; on t h e s o u t h by a l i n e
g e n e r a l l y f o l l o w i n g the 3fst P a r a l l e l of North Latitude from C o l f a x , L o u i s i a n a ,
westward t o t h e T r i n i t y R i v e r i n Texas; on t h e w e s t by a l i n e g e n e r a l l y
f o l l o w i n g t h e c o u r s e of t h e T r i n i t y River northward t o i t s i n t e r s e c t i o n
w i t h t h e 9 6 t h M e r i d i a n and t h e n northward a l o n g s a i d l o n g i t u d i n a l
l i n e t o a p o i n t n e a r Ashland, i n P i t t s b u r g County, Oklahoma, where i t
meets t h e d i v i d e between t h e w a t e r s of t h e Arkansas and Red Rivers;
and on t h e n o r t h by a l i n e f o l l o w i n g s a i d d i v i d e eastward t o t h e p l a c e
of b e g i n n i n g a t H o t S p r i n g s , Arkansas.
I n t h e y e a r 1 7 7 7 a s e v e r e epidemic ravaged
M i s s i s s i p p i River.
and had
t h e a r e a west of t h e
T h i s epidemic r e a c h e d t h e e n t i r e Caddo p o p u l a t i o n
c a t a s t r o p h i c r e s u l t s f o r t h e Caddo o v e r t h e long range.
It was t h e l o s s of p o p u l a t i o n caused by t h e epidemic,coupled
w i t h t h e a p p e a r a n c e w i t h i n t h e Caddo t e r r i t o r y a t about t h e same time
of s e v e r a l a g g r e s s i v e Indian t r i b e s w h i c h , o v e r t h e remaining y e a r s
of t h e 1 8 t h c e n t u r y and t h e e a r l y y e a r s of t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y , r e s u l t e d
i n an i r r e v e r s i b l e d e c l i n e i n t h e f o r t u n e s of t h e Caddo and t h e conseq u e n t l o s s of a l a r g e p o r t i o n of t h e i r a b o r i g i n a l t e r r i t o r y .
During t h e 1 8 t h c e n t u r y t h e Osage I n d i a n s had been s t e a d i l y adv a n c i n g i n a g e n e r a l l y s o u t h and s o u t h w e s t e r l y d i r e c t i o n across Kansas
and Oklahoma.
During t h e f i r s t h a l f of t h e c e n t u r y t h e Osage had f o r c e d
35 I n d . C 1 . Comm. 321
t h e Wichita o u t of Kansas and n o r t h e r n Oklahoma, pushing them i n t o
s o u t h w e s t e r n Oklahoma and northcentral Texas i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e
Red R i v e r .
Kadohadacho.
By t h e l a t e 1 8 t h c e n t u r y t h e Osage had begun t o a t t a c k the
The s u c c e s s of t h e s e a t t a c k s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e Kadohadacho
p o p u l a t i o n l o s s e s caused by t h e 1777 e p i d e m i c , u l t i m a t e l y c a u s e d t h e
Kadohadacho, a b o u t t h e y e a r 1790, t o abandon t h e i r v i l l a g e n e a r t h e
b i g bend of t h e Red R i v e r and t o move southward t o a n o t h e r p r e v i o u s l y
e x i s t i n g Kadohadacho v i l l a g e a t Lake Caddo on t h e p r e s e n t Texas-Louisiana
border.
A t a b o u t t h e same t i m e ,
t h e Caddo t r i b e s of t h e N a t c h i t o c h e s Con-
f e d e r a c y , a l s o d e p l e t e d a f t e r t h e 1777 e p i d e m i c , were b e s e t by t h e
a r r i v a l on t h e i r b o r d e r s of s e v e r a l t r i b e s who had m i g r a t e d from e a s t
of t h e M i s s i s s i p p i R i v e r .
The Alabama T r i b e a r r i v e d f i r s t n e a r t h e
w e s t e r n banks of t h e M i s s i s s i p p i i n t h e 1760's,and was
joined late i n
t h e c e n t u r y by a c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t r i b e , t h e C o u s h a t t a s .
By t h e f i r s t
d e c a d e of t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y t h e s e Alabamas and C o u s h a t t a s had moved i n t o
w e s t e r n L o u i s i a n a a s f a r as t h e S a b i n e R i v e r and beyond i n t o Texas and
a l s o had a village v e r y n e a r t h e Caddo a t Caddo Lake.
During t h e f i r s t
decade of t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y t h e Alabama and C o u s h a t t a p o p u l a t i o n i n L o u i s i a n a
had s u r p a s s e d t h a t of t h e Caddo,who, a c c o r d i n g t o John S i b l e y , t h e f i r s t
United S t a t e s I n d i a n a g e n t i n L o u i s i a n a , were s e v e r l y d e c l i n i n g i n popul a t i o n a t t h e time.
The Alabamas and C o u s h a t t a s were on f r i e n d l y terms w i t h t h e Caddo
b u t a n o t h e r of t h e m i g r a n t t r i b e s , t h e Choctaw, were h o s t i l e .
From
334
35 I n d . C1. Comm. 321
t h e time t h e Choctaw a r r i v e d i n Louisiana i n 1792 u n t i l 1807 they waged
war upon t h e Caddo.
I n t h e e a r l y y e a r s of t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y t h e Choctaw
are known t o have been s e t t l e d on t h e Red River n e a r Alexandria, which i s
below t h e Caddo t e r r i t o r y , and a t v a r i o u s p o i n t s west of t h e Red River
above and below Natchitoches w i t h i n t h e claimed Caddo t e r r i t o r y .
And
t h e r e were groups from s e v e r a l o t h e r t r i b e s s e t t l e d a l o n g t h e Red River
between Natchitoches and Alexandria i n t h e v e r y e a r l y 1 9 t h c e n t u r y , some
of whom, a c c o r d i n g t o S i b l e y , had been t h e r e f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s .
A s a r e s u l t of a l l t h i s , t h e Louisiana Caddo, a t t h e t i m e of t h e
Louisiana Purchase i n 1803 o r v e r y s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , were a l l l i v i n g
w i t h i n t h e a r e a subsequently ceded by them t o t h e United S t a t e s i n 1835
and were, i n f a c t , by t h e year 1825 a l l l i v i n g n e a r Caddo Lake.
f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 57, i n f r a .
See
A f t e r 1805, t h e r e a r e no r e f e r e n c e s t o
t h e Caddo using o r occupying any l a n d s i n L o u i s i a n a o u t s i d e t h e a r e a
ceded by them i n 1835, o t h e r t h a n t o a t t e n d c o u n c i l s w i t h t h e Americans a t
Natchitoches.
It was n o t u n t i l t h e 1820's and 30's, many y e a r s a f t e r t h e
Caddo had so l o c a t e d themselves, t h a t t h e r e was any s i g n i f i c a n t white
s e t t l e m e n t i n t h e r e g i o n s of s o u t h e a s t e r n Oklahoma, southwestern Arkansas,
and northwestern Louisiana a b o r i g i n a l l y claimed h e r e by t h e Caddo.
Shortly
a f t e r t h e c e s s i o n of t h e i r l a n d s t o t h e United S t a t e s i n 1835, t h e remnants
of t h e Kadohadacho and Natchitoches Caddo went t o Texas where they
amalgamated w i t h t h e H a s i n a l Caddo.
The breakdown o f H a s i n a i ascendancy i n e a s t Texas occurred l a t e r ,
between t h e y e a r s 1810 and 1838, and was caused by a combination of
w h i t e s e t t l e m e n t i n Texas and t h e a r r i v a l t h e r e of s e v e r a l I n d i a n
35 I n d . C1. Corn. 321
335
tribes migrating westward t o emxpe w h i t e settlement i n t h e then
a d j a c e n t United S t a t e s .
The H a s i n a i Caddo remained w i t h i n t h e i r
a b o r i g i n a l t e r r i t o r y u n t i l 1 8 3 8 o r 1839 when t h e y w e r e d r i v e n off t h e i r
l a n d s by m i l i t i a m e n
o f t h e Texas R e p u b l i c ,
However, during t h e a u a r t e r -
c e n t u r y p r e c e d i n g t h e i r d e p a r t u r e e a s t Texas had ceased t o be t h e i r s .
By t h e l a t e 1 8 2 0 ' s o b s e r v e r s were r e p o r t i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f m i g r a n t
I n d i a n s a l l o v e r e a s t T e x a s , p a r t i c u l a r l y n e a r t h e town o f Nacogdoches
which was i n t h e h e a r t of t h e c l a i m e d Caddo t e r r i t o r y .
S o u t h of t h e
Caddo t e r r i t o r y t h e Alabama and C o u s h a t t a T r i b e s had c o m p l e t e l y t a k e n
o v e r a p o r t i o n of what i s known a s t h e Big T h i c k e t , w i t h s e t t l e m e n t s
a c r o s s t h e p r e s e n t T e x a s C o u n t i e s o f Polk, T y l e r , S a n J a c i n t o , T r i n i t y ,
and A n g e l i n a .
The r e c o r d p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g d e m o n s t r a t e s
t h a t by 1830, t h e H a s i n a i had been r e l e g a t e d t o t h e s t a t u s o f o n e
g r o u p among t h e many
c o m p e t i n g t r i b e s who o c c u p i e d e a s t Texas.
The early 1 9 t h c e n t u r y a l s o saw t h e a r r i v a l i n e a s t T e x a s o f
s i g n i f i c a n t numbers of w h i t e s e t t l e r s f r o m t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s .
By t h e
e a r l y 1830's t h e r e were more t h a n 1 0 , 0 0 0 w h i t e s s e t t l e d e a s t o f t h e
Brazos River.
Nacogdoches and San A u g u s t i n e had become l a r g e towns.
I n d i a n s of t h e s e v e r a l t r i b e s t h e n l i v i n g i n e a s t T e x a s c a r r i e d o n
e x t e n s i v e t r a d i n g w i t h t h e w h i t e s a t t h e s e towns.
With t h e w h i t e
s e t t l e r s came a n e x t e n d e d p e r i o d o f c i v i l s t r i f e which d i d n o t f i n a l l y
end u n t i l t h e Llnited S t a t e s annexed Texas i n 1845.
D u r i n g much o f t h e
f i r s t q u a r t e r of t h e c e n t u r y , Mexico had b e e n engaged i n i t s War o f
I n d e p e n d e n c e from S p a i n .
When i n d e p e n d e n c e w a s won i n 1821, t h e new
Mexican Government a c t i v e l y e n c o u r a g e d i m m i g r a t i o n by Anglo s e t t l e r s
336
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 321
i n t o Texas.
It soon became a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e l a r g e number of s e t t l e r s
who had e n t e r e d Texas d u r i n g t h e 1820's favored r u l e o v e r Texas by t h e
United S t a t e s , r a t h e r t h a n by Mexico.
I n 1830, t h e r e f o r e , Mexico forbade
f u r t h e r immigration from t h e United S t a t e s .
However, t h e Anglo p o p u l a t i o n
of Texas had become s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e and powerful t o r e v o l t , and t h e y
achieved independence from Mexico i n 1836.
Texas remained a sovereign
r e p u b l i c u n t i l December 29, 1845, when i t was annexed by t h e United S t a t e s .
During t h e p e r i o d of t h e Texas War f o r Independence and i n t h e y e a r s
immediately f o l l o w i n g , t e n s i o n s i n c r e a s e d to t h e b r e a k i n g p o i n t between
I n d i a n s and w h i t e s .
Mexican a g e n t s attempted t o o r g a n i z e t h e I n d i a n s
a g a i n s t t h e Texans.
I n d i a n r a i d s on w h i t e s e t t l e m e n t s became more common
and widespread, w i t h t h e Caddo and s e v e r a l of t h e migrant e a s t Texas
t r i b e s r a i d i n g a s f a r a s w e s t of t h e Brazos River.
I n 1838, t h e Republic
of Texas began a campaign t o r i d east Texas o f i t s I n d i a n population.
In
t h e f a c e of Texas m i l i t i a m e n t h e I n d i a n s of east Texas were s c a t t e r e d f a r
and wide i n t o northwestern Texas, Oklahoma, and Mexico.
of t h e Caddo were d r i v e n i n t o Louisiana.
Caddo were d i s p e r s e d .
i n Oklahoma.
A large portion
For t h e next s e v e r a l y e a r s t h e
Some were r e p o r t e d i n Arkansas and Texas, o t h e r s
T r a d i t i o n a l accounts i n d i c a t e t h a t p a r t of t h e Caddo went
t o Cross Timbers, t h e n t o Mexico, and f i n a l l y r e t u r n e d t o Cross Timbers.
The l a s t r e f e r e n c e t o Caddo i n t h e claimed a r e a of e a s t Texas is i n t h e
y e a r 1839.
I n 1843 and 1844, t h e Caddo, and s e v e r a l o t h e r t r i b e s , were p a r t i e s
t o two s e p a r a t e treaties w i t h t h e Texas Republic, which t r e a t i e s t o g e t h e r
337
35 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 321
w i t h t h e proceedings of t h e second t r e a t y demonstrate t h a t t h e Republic
considered e a s t Texaa no l o n g e r open t o I n d i a n occupancy and t h a t t h e
I n d i a n s were o n l y t o occupy l a n d s i n Texas west o f t h e line of t r a d i n g
p o s t s t o be e s t a b l i s h e d on a l i n e running s o u t h from Red River a l o n g t h e
Cross Timbere t h e n w e s t of Austin and San Antonio t o t h e Rio Grande River.
See f i n d i n g of
-
f a c t No. 60, i n f r a .
A t t h e t i m e of t h e a n n e x a t i o n of
Texas by t h e United S t a t e s i n 1845, t h e Caddo, t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e Wichita
and several o t h e r t r i b e s , were gathered a l o n g t h e middle and upper Brazos
River f a r t o t h e west of t h e i r a b o r i g i n a l l a n d s i n e a s t Texas.
On February 6 , 1854, t h e Texas S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e passed an a c t
providing f o r r e s e r v a t i o n s f o r t h e Texas I n d i a n s and a u t h o r i z i n g t h e
United S t a t e s t o s e l e c t and survey twelve l e a g u e s of l a n d f o r t h e s e
reservations.
A s soon a s t h e l a n d was surveyed and marked, t h e F e d e r a l
Government was t o s e t t l e t h e r e o n I n d i a n s of Texas and t o have c o n t r o l of
them, and e s t a b l i s h such a g e n c i e s and m i l i t a r y p o s t s as were n e c e s s a r y .
The act provided f o r t h e r e v e r s i o n of t h e l a n d t o t h e s t a t e when i t was
no longer used f o r t h e I n d i a n s .
Later t h a t year and e a r l y i n t h e n e x t
t h e Federal Government s e l e c t e d and surveyed tvo r e s e r v a t i o n s i t e s on t h e
Brazos River above Waco.
settled.
On one, a number of s o u t h e r n Comanches were
On t h e o t h e r , c a l l e d t h e Brazos Agency, s e v e r a l tribes were
s e t t l e d , i n c l u d i n g t h e Caddo, Waco, Towakoni, K i c h a i , and Tonkawa.
Brazos Agency c o n s i s t e d of 37,152 a c r e s .
The
The I n d i a n s remained on these
r e s e r v a t i o n s u n t i l 1859, when t h e United S t a t e s was f o r c e d t o r e l o c a t e
them t o t h e I n d i a n T e r r i t o r y t o p r e v e n t t h e i r massacre a t the hands o f
338
35 I n d . C 1 . Comm. 321
t h e Texas settlers.
The l a n d s comprising t h e Brazos r e s e r v e s t h e n r e v e r t e d
t o t h e S t a t e of Texas,
The p l a i n t i f f s have p r e s e n t e d an uncomplicated, s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d
argument i n seeking t o e s t a b l i s h t h e v a l i d i t y of t h e i r c l a i m s f o r compensation.
They assert t h a t t h e Caddo had used and occupied t h e a r e a claimed
by them h e r e from time immemorial, t h a t t h e y continued i n such use and
occupancy a f t e r t h e assumption of s o v e r e i g n t y by t h e United S t a t e s over
t h e s e l a n d s and t h a t , a t s p e c i f i c times a f t e r United S t a t e s s o v e r e i g n t y
had s o a t t a c h e d , a c t i o n by, and i n a c t i o n on t h e p a r t o f , t h e United S t a t e s
caused t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o l o s e t h e i r a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e r i g h t s t o t h e s e
2/
lands.
Our r e s o l u t i o n of t h e merits of t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m s h e r e i s
-
e q u a l l y uncomplicated.
W
e b e l i e v e t h a t when t h e United S t a t e s acquired
s o v e r e i g n t y over t h e l a n d s claimed by t h e p l a i n t i f f s , t h e Caddo had
a l r e a d y l o s t whatever a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e r i g h t s t h e y may p r e v i o u s l y have
held i n such l a n d s and, consequently, t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s do n o t now have
a cornpensable claim a g a i n s t t h e United S t a t e s f o r t h e t a k i n g of t h e s e
lands.
2/
-
The p l a i n t i f f s ' e x p e r t , D r . Tanner, h a s drawn boundaries f o r t h e
Caddo which, i n our o p i n i o n , r e p r e s e n t t h e boundaries of Caddo a b o r i g i n a l
t i t l e a t a time much e a r l i e r t h a n t h e 1 9 t h century. Dr, Tanner's
h y p o t h e s i s i n drawing h e r boundaries a p p e a r s t o have been t h a t i n s t a n c e s
of Caddo u s e and occupancy a t any t i m e i n h i s t o r y e s t a b l i s h t i t l e a t t h e
advent o f American s o v e r e i g n t y . Thus D r . Tanner's boundaries are drawn
by r e f e r e n c e t o i n s t a n c e s of Caddo u s e and occupancy a t d i f f e r e n t times,
and t h e s e boundaries, i n our o p i n i o n , r e p r e s e n t maximum boundaries of
t h e Caddo over t h e e n t i r e h i s t o r i c a l period r a t h e r than Caddo boundaries
a t t h e beginning of American s o v e r e i g n t y .
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 321
Aboriginal t i t l e r i g h t s e x t i n g u i s h e d p r i o r t o t h e i n c e p t i o n of
United S t a t e s s o v e r e i g n t y a r e n o t compensable c l a i m s a g a i n s t t h e United
States.
See Sac and Fox T r i b e v. United S t a t e s , 179 C t . C1. 8 , 22
(1967), c e r t . denied, 389 U. S. 900 (1967) ( a f f ' g i n p a r t , r e v ' g i n
p a r t Docket 135, 1 5 Ind. C 1 . Comrn. 248 (1965). 12 Ind. C 1 . Comrn. 487
(1963), 6 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 464 (1958)).
With r e s p e c t t o t h e p o r t i o n of t h e claimed a r e a p r e s e n t l y included
w i t h i n t h e S t a t e s of L o u i s i a n a , Arkansas and Oklahoma, t h e evidence
now i n t h e r e c o r d , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t p r e v i o u s l y made
by t h e Commission under t h i s d o c k e t , e s t a b l i s h t o o u r s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t
t h e Caddo, a t t h e time of t h e commencement of United S t a t e s s o v e r e i g n t y
over t h i s t e r r i t o r y , possessed no a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e r i g h t s t o any
t e r r i t o r y o u t s i d e t h a t a r e a ceded t o t h e United S t a t e s under t h e T r e a t y
of J u l y 1, 1835, s u p r a .
The n o r t h e r n e x t r e m i t y of Caddo e x c l u s i v e u s e and occupancy i n
1803 was a t Caddo Lake which i s w e l l s o u t h of t h e n o r t h e r n boundary of
t h e 1835 c e s s i o n .
C 1 . Comm. 216-18,
The Commission h a s p r e v i o u s l y determined, a t 4 Ind.
and r e i t e r a t e d s a i d d e t e r m i n a t i o n , a t 8 Ind. C l .
Comm. 374, t h a t , due t o d i m i n i s h i n g p o p u l a t i o n and p r e s s u r e from t h e
Osage, t h e Caddo had by 1800 abandoned a l l t e r r i t o r y i n Arkansas n o r t h
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 321
of t h e Sulphur R i v e r , which i s w i t h i n t h e a r e a subsequently ceded,
and t h a t t h e y never a t t e m p t e d t o r e t u r n t o t h e s e l a n d s t h e r e a f t e r .
I n t h e l a t e 1 8 t h and e a r l y 1 9 t h c e n t u r i e s t h e Caddo a p p a r e n t l y
hunted p e r i o d i c a l l y i n s o u t h e a s t e r n Oklahoma, b u t o t h e r t r i b e s a l s o
hunted and r a i d e d i n t h i s same a r e a .
See 2nd I n t . Ex. 1 a t 49; Caddo
T r i b e v. United S t a t e s , 4 Ind. C 1 . Comm. a t 218-19;
a t 376.
8 Ind. C 1 . Corn.
W e have found no r e f e r e n c e s t o Caddo h u n t i n g i n s o u t h e a s t e r n
Oklahoma between 1790 when t h e Caddo abandoned t h e Big Bend on Red
River and t h e beginning of t h e second q u a r t e r of t h e 1 9 t h century.
By t h e 1830's s o u t h e a s t e r n Oklahoma was a c o m o n hunting ground.
( P l . Ex, T-46,
a t 98.)
The evidence p r e s e n t e d h e r e and t h e p r e v i o u s Commission f i n d i n g s
likewise e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e l a n d s i n p r e s e n t Louisiana surrounding
t h e a r e a s ceded by t h e Caddo i n 1835 on t h e e a s t , s o u t h , and west, were
n o t a b o r i g i n a l l y owned by t h e Caddo when United S t a t e s s o v e r e i g n t y
attached t o these lands.
By t h e year 1805 t h e r e remained but two
pockets of Caddo s e t t l e m e n t on t h e Red River; each, according t o John
S i b l e y , c o n t a i n i n g very small and c o n t i n u a l l y d e c r e a s i n g numbers of
Caddo.
There were no known Caddo s e t t l e m e n t s e a s t of Red R i v e r , nor
any evidence t h a t t h e Caddo were u s i n g t h i s a r e a a t a l l .
Along the
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 321
Red River from Alexandria on t h e s o u t h t o Caddo Lake on t h e n o r t h
t h e r e were s e v e r a l s e t t l e m e n t s of migrant e a s t e r n t r i b e s , some of
whom had been i n Louisiana f o r many y e a r s .
I n the region of disputed
s o v e r e i g n t y between t h e Sabine and Red R i v e r s there a r e no r e f e r e n c e s
t o Caddo presence a f t e r 1805, w h i l e i t i s known t h a t o t h e r t r i b e s ,
n o t a b l y t h e Coushattas and Choctaw, were u s i n g and occupying t h i s a r e a
a t t h e time.
By 1819, when t h e United S t a t e s and Spain s e t t l e d t h e
boundary q u e s t i o n , t h e r e g i o n was empty of Caddo.
Finally, available
p o p u l a t i o n e s t i m a t e s show t h a t a t t h e t i m e United S t a t e s s o v e r e i g n t y
a t t a c h e d t o t h e s e l a n d s i n L o u i s i a n a , t h e Caddo t h e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t l y
outnumbered by o t h e r Indians.
The p l a i n t i f f s have urged t h a t t h e Alabamas, t h e C o u s h a t t a s , and
t h e Choctaws, a l l of whom migrated t o western Louisiana b e f o r e t h e end
of t h e 1 8 t h c e n t u r y , and t h o s e o t h e r t r i b e s - - t h e
Apalachees, B i l o x i s ,
Boluscoe, Pascagoulas, and Taensas--who migrated d u r i n g t h e f i r s t
decade of t h e 1 9 t h c e n t u r y were a l l , t o t h e e x t e n t t h e y may have used
and occupied l a n d s claimed by t h e p l a i n t i f f s , u s i n g and occupying
s a i d l a n d s a s g u e s t s , o r p e r m i s s i v e u s e r s , of t h e Caddo.
The d o c t r i n e of p e r m i s s i v e u s e i s one which i s narrowly a p p l i e d t o
s i t u a t i o n s where one dominant t r i b e p e r m i t s a n o t h e r t r i b e t o u s e t h e
35 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 321
f o r m e r ' s l a n d s w i t h t h e e x p r e s s understanding by both t h a t t h e l a t t e r i s
t h e g u e s t of t h e former.
C 1 . Comm. 232, 278-79
Iowa T r i b e v. United S t a t e s , Docket 135, 22 Ind.
(1969).
Such a d o c t r i n e may n o t , however, be used
t o b u t t r e s s a crumbling empire a s p l a i n t i f f s have attempted t o do h e r e .
Plz!ntiffsl
argument f o r p e r m i s s i v e use i s baaed upon s c a t t e r e d s t a t e m e n t s
I n t h e evidence whereby Caddo c h i e f s voiced c l a i m s t o l a r g e a r e a s long
a f t e r t h e Caddo had evacuated t h e s e a r e a s .
See, e.g.,
P1. Ex. T-91, a t
257, W. A. Trimble, Report t o t h e S e c r e t a r y of War, 1822.
Nowhere,
however, i s t h e r e a contemporaneous acknowledgement by any member of t h e
immigrant t r i b e s t h a t t h e i r u s e and occupancy was a t t h e p l e a s u r e of t h e
Caddo.
(finding
I n 1805, John S i b l e y , t h e I n d i a n Agent a t Natchitoches, r e p o r t e d
of f a c t No. 57, i n f r a ) t h a t t h e Natchitoches Confederacy of
Caddo were i n d e s p e r a t e s t r a i t s and t h a t t h e southernmost u n i t of t h e
confederacy i n 1805 was l i v i n g 25 m i l e s n o r t h of Natchitoches.
w i t h i n t h e 1835 c e s s i o n a r e a .
T h i s was
-31
We b e l i e v e t h a t t h e s t a t u s of t h e Louisiana Caddo i n 1800 h a s been
w e l l summarized by a n h i s t o r i a n of t h e Caddo, a s follows:
-3/
P l a i n t i f f s 1 e x p e r t , D r . Helen Tanner, has w r i t t e n of S i b l e y i n h e r
report as follows:
...
S i b l e y ' s h i s t o r i c s k e t c h e s of t h e I n d i a n T r i b e s ,
w r i t t e n i n 1805, i s probably t h e b a s i c document f o r unders t a n d i n g t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e t r i b e s and t h e r e l a t i o n between
(PI. Ex.
t h e t r i b e s a t t h e beginning of t h e American p e r i o d .
T-216, a t 49.)
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 321
343
By t h e beginning of t h e n i n e t e e n t h c e n t u r y t h e importance
of t h e Cadodacho as a d i s t i n c t t r i b e was a t a n end, t h e people
became merged w i t h the o t h e r t r i b e s of,the confederacy and
shared t h e i r m i s f o r t u n e . I n 1776 De ~ e z i e r &recommended t h a t
p r e s e n t s no l o n g e r be given t o t h e Natchitoches and Yatasi
t r i b e s , s i n c e t h e y had diebanded and s c a t t e r e d among o t h e r bands.
I n 1805 t h e Natchitochea numbered fifty. S h o r t l y a f t e r w a r d s ,
t h e y ceased t o e x i s t a s a d i s t i n c t t r i b e , having been completely
amalgamated w i t h t h e o t h e r t r i b e s of t h e Caddo Confederacy.
The Y a t a s i t r i b e was p r a c t i c a l l y d e s t r o y e d by t h e wars and new
d i s e a s e s of t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y . These had such a n e f f e c t
on t h e Y a t a s i t h a t by 1805, according t o S i b l e y , t h e y had been
reduced t o e i g h t men and twenty women and c h i l d r e n . They, t o o ,
merged w i t h t h e o t h e r members o f t h e Caddo Confederacy. All of
t h e Adai, Natsoos, and Nasonnites disappeared a s d i s t i n c t t r i b e s
by t h e c l o s e of t h e e i g h t e e n t h c e n t u r y . The Adai were absorbed
by t h e Caddo, and it i s thought t h e Natsoos, and Nasonnites were
a l s o merged w i t h t h e i r kindred. By t h e c l o s e of t h e e i g h t e e n t h
c e n t u r y w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of a few s c a t t e r e d bands, t h e Caddo
v i l l a g e s i n t h e v i c i n i t y of t h e p r e s e n t Caddo P a r i s h , L o u i s i a n a ,
r e p r e s e n t e d t h e remnants of t h e o l d Caddo Confederacy. T r i b a l
wars and d i s e a s e s had spread havoc among them, and t h e y , who
were once a t h r i f t y and numerous people, had become demoralized
and were more o r less wanderers i n t h e i r n a t i v e l a n d .
[ P l . Ex.
T-53, a t 898, W i l l i a m Glover, A H i s t o r y o f t h e Caddo I n d i a n s ,
La. H i s t . Q . , Vol. X V I I I , No. 4 , Oct. 1935.1
It can be r e a d i l y seen t h a t a t t h e beginning of t h e n i n t e e n t h c e n t u r y
t h e Caddo i n Louisiana were n o t powerful enough t o deny e n t r y t o o t h e r
t r i b e s even if t h o s e o t h e r t r i b e s had asked.
numbered t h e Caddo.
The immigrant t r i b e o u t -
They roamed a s they p l e a s e d i n w e s t e r n Louisiana.
Thus t h e d o c t r i n e of permissive use i s wholly i n a p p o s i t e .
Turning t o the S t a t e o f Texas, we have been guided i n our a n a l y s i s
of t h e s t a t e of Caddo a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e r i g h t s a s of December 29, 1845,
t h e d a t e United S t a t e s s o v e r e i g n t y a t t a c h e d t o Texas, by t h e c r i t e r i a
set o u t by t h e Court of Claims i n t h e c a s e of Lipan Apache T r i b e v. United
S t a t e s , 180 C t . C1. 487 (1967) (rev1& Docket 2 2 4 , 15 Ind. C1. Comm. 532
(1965)).
I n that case, t h e court described t h e proper a n a l y s i s as follows:
344
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 3 2 1
...
I n d i a n t i t l e based on a b o r i g i n a l p o s s e s s i o n does
n o t depend upon s o v e r e i g n r e c o g n i t i o n o r a f f i r m a t i v e
acceptance f o r i t s s u r v i v a l . Once e s t a b l i s h e d i n f a c t , i t
endures u n t i l e x t i n g u i s h e d o r abandoned. United s t a t e s v.
Santa Fe Pac. R.R., s u p r a , 314 U.S. a t 345. 347. It is
" e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e s p e c t of a l l c o u r t s u n t i l i t should be
l e g i t i m a t e l y extinguished
Johnson v. M'Intosh, s u p r a ,
21 U.S. (8 Wheat .) a t 592.
...."
...
The c u r r e n t i n q u i r y is, n o t whether t h e Republic of
Texas accorded o r g r a n t e d t h e I n d i a n s any r i g h t s , but
whether t h a t s o v e r e i g n e x t i n g u i s h e d t h e i r p r e - e x i s t i n g
occupancy r i g h t s . Extinguishment can t a k e s e v e r a l forms;
i t can be e f f e c t e d "by t r e a t y , by t h e sword, by purchase,
by t h e e x e r c i s e of complete dominion a d v e r s e t o t h e r i g h t
United S t a t e s v. Santa Fe
of occupancy, o r o t h e r w i s e
Pac. R.R., s u p r a , 314 U.S. a t 347. While t h e s e l e c t i o n of
a means i s a governmental p r e r o g a t i v e , t h e a c t u a l act ( o r
a c t s ) of extinguishment must be p l a i n and unambiguous. I n
t h e absence of a " c l e a r and p l a i n i n d i c a t i o n " i n t h e p u b l i c
r e c o r d s t h a t t h e s o v e r e i g n "intended t o e x t i n g u i s h a l l of
the [claimants'] r i g h t s " i n t h e i r property, Indian t i t l e
c o n t i n u e s . (180 C t . C 1 . a t 492)
...."
I n t h e Lipan Apache c a s e , t h e Court of Claims decided t h a t t h e
I'
... r e q u i r e d
c l e a r and p l a i n i n d i c a t i o n t h a t t h e Republic [of Texas]
ended c l a i m a n t s ' r i g h t s i n t h e i r a n c i e n t l a n d s
strated.
... " had
n o t been demon-
However, i n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s now we b e l i e v e t h a t t h e h i s t o r i c a l
r e c o r d of t h e a c t i o n s t a k e n by t h e Texas Republic toward t h e Caddo
demonstrates a n unambiguous i n t e n t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e Republic t o
e x t i n g u i s h Caddo a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o t h e e a s t Texas a r e a claimed i n t h i s
proceeding.
The c l e a r and p l a i n i n d i c a t i o n of such i n t e n t i o n was t h e
s u c c e s s f u l e v i c t i o n of t h e Caddo from t h e i r l a n d s i n e a s t Texas i n 1838
and 1839.
I t would b e d i f f i c u l t t o f i n d a c l e a r e r i n t e n t i o n t o e x t i n g u i s h
Caddo r i g h t s i n t h e i r l a n d s t h a n t h e c o u r s e of f o r c i b l e e v i c t i o n followed
35 Ind, C 1 . Comm. 321
345
F u r t h e r , t h e 1843 and 1844 treaties between the Texas
by t h e Texans.
Republic and s e v e r a l of t h e Texas I n d i a n t r i b e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e Caddo,
t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e r e c o r d o f proceedings under t h e second of t h e s e t r e a t i e s ,
r e v e a l unmistakably t h a t t h e Texas Republic c o n s i d e r e d a l l I n d i a n r i g h t s
of u s e and occupancy t o t h e whole of e a s t Texas t o have been p r e v i o u s l y
terminated.
The t r e a t y proceedings a l s o show t h a t t h e I n d i a n s understood
4/
t h i s t o be s o .
Thus Caddo a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e t o t h e Texas lands claimed
-
h e r e had been e x t i n g u i s h e d s e v e r a l y e a r s b e f o r e Texas came under United
S t a t e s s o v e r e i g n t y , and t h e Caddo c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e United S t a t e s f o r
t h e s e l a n d s i s without merit.
There remains t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m t h a t t h e y h e l d recognized t i t l e
t o Royce Areas 512 and 513 i n Texas.
I n t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t accompanying
t h i s o p i n i o n , we have s e t o u t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s r e l a t i n g t o t h e p r e s e n c e
of t h e Caddo from 1854 t o 1859 on one of t h e two r e s e r v e s s e t a s i d e f o r
the Texas t r i b e s on t h e upper Brazos River.
On May 15, 1846, t h e United
S t a t e s and s e v e r a l Texas t r i b e s , i n c l u d i n g t h e Caddo, Wichita and
a f f i l i a t e d t r i b e s , Comanche, K i c h a i , and Tonkawa, concluded a g e n e r a l
peace t r e a t y (9 S t a t . 844) under which t h e t r i b e s acknowledged themselves
t h e r e a f t e r t o be under t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s .
made no land c e s s i o n s and g r a n t e d no r e s e r v a t i o n s .
-4/
The t r e a t y
Subsequently t h e Texas
Even p l a i s t l f f s ' e x p e r t , D r . Tanner, does n o t a s s e r t t h a t t h e Caddo
were u s i n g and occupying e a s t Texas a f t e r 1839 b u t only t h a t they cont i n u e d t o possess a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e r i g h t s t o l a n d s i n e a s t Texas a f t e r
1839 based upon u s e and occupancy p r i o r t o 1839. (PI. Ex. T-216, a t
84-85. )
346
35 Znd. C1. Comm. 3 2 1
S t a t e L e g i s l a t u r e i n 1854 a u t h o r i z e d t h e United S t a t e s t o l o c a t e t h e
v a r i o u s Texas t r i b e s on s t a t e p u b l i c l a n d ,
Under t h i s l e g i s l a t i o n Texaa
agreed t o r e l i n q u i s h t o t h e Federal Government i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n over a l l
I n d i a n s r e s i d i n g on such land.
The Texas s t a t u t e a l s o provided f o r
r e v e r s i o n of t h e land t o t h e s t a t e when no longer used f o r t h e Indians,
Later i n 1854, t h e Federal Government s e l e c t e d two r e s e r v a t i o n s i t e s on
t h e Brazos River above Waco and on one of t h e s e , a t r a c t of 37,152 a c r e s ,
persuaded t h e Caddo, the Wichita and a f f i l i a t e d t r i b e s , t h e Tonkawa, and
o t h e r smaller groups t o s e t t l e under t h e p r o t e c t i o n and supervision of
t h e United S t a t e s .
On t h e o t h e r r e s e r v a t i o n a number of southern
Comanches s e t t l e d .
Congress a p p r o p r i a t e d funds f o r surveying t h e s e
r e s e r v a t i o n s and s e t t l i n g the I n d i a n s thereon (10 S t a t . 315, 331 (1854)).
These t r i b e s remained on t h e Brazos River r e s e r v e s u n t i l 1859 when
they agreed, on t h e recommendation of t h e United S t a t e s , t o l e a v e Texas
f o r t h e i r own p r o t e c t i o n ,
The United S t a t e s supervised t h e i r removal and
placed them upon a three-quarter m i l l i o n a c r e t r a c t of land i n Oklahoma
which became known as t h e Wichita Reservation.
I n 1891 ( a t which time
they were s t i l l l i v i n g t h e r e ) t h e s e t r i b e s concluded an agreement with
t h e United S t a t e s under which they r e l i n q u i s h e d whatever r i g h t s they may
have had i n t h e Wichita Reservation i n r e t u r n f o r a l l o t m e n t by t h e United
S t a t e s of 160 a c r e s o u t of t h e Wichita Reservation t o each Indian.
This
1891 agreement was subsequently r a t i f i e d by t h e Indian Appropriation Act
of March 2, 1895, 28 S t a t . 876.
34 7
35 Ind. C1. Coumt. 321
I n p r i o r proceedings under t h i s docket r e l a t i n g t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n
of g r a t u i t i e s t o be o f f s e t a g a i n s t t h e award t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s a r i s i n g
o u t of t h e c e s s i o n of t h e i r l a n d s i n Arkansas and L o u i s i a n a under the
1835 t r e a t y , s u p r a , t h e Commission held t h a t t h e 1895 a c t , s u p r a , v e s t e d
t i t l e i n the c a d d o
t o t h e Wichita Reservation i n Oklahoma upon which
t h e y had been placed i n 1859
"
... by t h e United
States i n substitution
f o r t h e i r r e s e r v a t i o n l a n d s i n Texas, from which they were removed by
agreement w i t h the United S t a t e s . "
"
... Caddo p o s s e s s i o n of
The Commission f u r t h e r h e l d t h a t
a n i n t e r e s t i n t h e Wichita R e s e r v a t i o n was i n
s a t i s f a c t i o n of t h e o b l i g a t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s under t h e Treaty of
1846."
See 1 9 Ind.
C 1 . Cow. 385, and accompanying o r d e r d a t e d August 30,
1968.
The s t a n d a r d s for d e t e r m i n i n g recognized o r r e s e r v a t i o n t i t l e have
been s e t f o r t h i n numerous d e c i s i o n s of t h i s Commission, t h e Court of
Claims, and the Supreme Court.
I n t h e c a s e of Miami T r i b e of Oklahoma v.
United S t a t e s , 146 C t . C 1 . 421, 439 (1959), t h e Court of Claims summarized
these standards a s follows:
Where Congress h a s by treaty o r s t a t u t e c o n f e r r e d upon
t h e I n d i a n s o r acknowledged i n t h e I n d i a n s t h e r i g h t t o
permanently occupy and u s e l a n d , t h e n t h e I n d i a n s have a r i g h t
o r t i t l e t o t h a t land which h a s been v a r i o u s l y r e f e r r e d t o i n
c o u r t d e c i s i o n s as " t r e a t y t i t l e , " " r e s e r v a t i o n t i t l e , "
"recognized t i t l e , " and "acknowledged t i t l e . " As noted by
5 / Although not so s t a t e d , the Caddo t i t l e s o v e s t e d was o b v i o u s l y n o t
e x c l u s i v e b u t vested j o i n t l y i n t h e Caddo and o t h e r t r i b e s t h e n r e s i d i n g
upon t h e r e s e r v a t i o n .
C
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 321
t h e C o m i s s i o n , t h e r e e x i s t s no one p a r t i c u l a r form f o r
such Congressional r e c o g n i t i o n o r acknowledgement of a
t r i b e ' s r i g h t t o occupy permanently land and t h a t r i g h t
may be e s t a b l i s h e d i n a v a r i e t y of ways. Tee-Hit-Ton
v. United S t a t e s , 348 U.S. 272; H ~ e v.
s G r i m e s Packing
Co * 337 U.S. 86; Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373.
-.
See a l s o Minnesota
--
Chippewa T r i b e v. United S t a t e s , 161 C t . C 1 . 258,
267 (1963) ( r e v ' g i n p a r t Docket 18-B, 8 Ind. C1. Comm. 781 (1960));
Sac and Fox T r i b e v. United S t a t e s , 1 6 1 C t . C 1 . 189, 192-93, c e r t .
d e n i e d , 375 U. S. 921 (1963) ( a f f 'g Docket 83, 7 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 675
(1959)); Crow T r i b e of I n d i a n s v . United S t a t e s , 151 C t . C 1 . 281,
cert
. denied,
366 U. S. 924 (1961) (af f ' g and modifying Docket 54,
3 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 147 (1954) and 6 Ind. C 1 . Corn. 98 (1958)).
A t the
l e a s t , i t is s t a t e d , t h e r e must be some a f f i r m a t i v e g r a n t of more
t h a n permissive r i g h t s .
A b a r r i e r we f i n d h e r e t o a f i n d i n g of recognized t i t l e i s t h e
absence of any e x p l i c i t Congressional a c t i o n by t r e a t y o r s t a t u t e
g r a n t i n g any t e n u r e i n t h e s e t r a c t s t o any i d e n t i f i e d t r i b e s .
It
i s a r g u a b l e t h a t t h e o b l i g a t i o n s assumed by t h e United S t a t e s under
e
t h e 1846 t r e a t y , s u p r a , t o p r o t e c t t h e Texas I n d i a n s , t o g e t h e r w f t h
t h e a c t i o n s of t h e United S t a t e s i n a d m i n i s t e r i n g t h e r e s e r v e s
g r a n t e d f o r t h a t purpose by t h e S t a t e of Texas, may have c o n s t i t u t e d
acknowledgment i n t h e Texas t r i b e s of a b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e
35 Ind. C1. Comm, 321
two r e s e r v a t i o n s ,
But w h i l e t h a t i n t e r e s t plight i n c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c e s
be compeneable, see Seminole Nation v. United S t a t e s , Docket 73-A,
25 Ind. C1. Comm. 25 (1971), i t p l a i n l y f a l l s o u t s i d e t h o s e h e r e t o f o r e
c a t e g o r i z e d aa recognized t i t l e .
Here we cannot conclude t h a t t h e r e waa a cornpensable wrong i n
t h e s u b e t i t u t i o n of t h e t h r e e - q u a r t e r m i l l i o n a c r e Wichita R e s e r v a t i o n
i n Oklahoma f o r t h e 37,152 a c r e t r a c t i n Texas.
By t h e I n d i a n s '
agreement t h e y were given u n d i s t u r b e d p o s s e s s i o n of t h e l a r g e Oklahoma
tract i n 1859, and were g r a n t e d t i t l e i n 1895.
T h i s s u b s t i t u t i o n would
seem t o f u l f i l l any p o s s i b l e o b l i g a t i o n a r i s i n g under t h e 1846 t r e a t y
t o provide t h e Caddo a home and p r o t e c t them i n p o s s e s s i o n of i t .
The e l i m i n a t i o n of t h e claims in i n t e r v e n t i o n from c o n s i d e r a t i o n
under t h i s docket h a s o b v i a t e d t h e need t o make d e t a i l e d f i n d i n g s as t o
u s e and occupancy o f lands by t h e p r e d e c e s s o r s of the i n t e r v e n o r s .
How-
ever, we believe i t p r o p e r t o p o i n t o u t t h a t p r i o r l i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v i n g
the Wichita .mnd a f f i l i a t e d t r i b e s has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t Wichita p r e s e n c e
i n Texas and Oklahoma was p r i n c i p a l l y w e s t of Cross Timbers ( a t about t h e
98th Meridian of West Longitude) where t h e Wichita and a f f i l i a t e d t r i b e s ,
together w i t h o t h e r t r i b e s , used and occupied t e r r i t o r y a t t h e same time.
See Wichita and A f f i l i a t e d
-
Bands v. United States, 89 C t . C1. 378, 381
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 3 2 1
(1939).
The evidence in t h i s proceeding shows only s p o r a d i c , nonexclusive
Wichita use and occupancy of e a s t Texas.
The evidence w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e Tonkawa i n d i c a t e s t h a t while t h e s e
I n d i a n s may have c o n t r o l l e d t h e Edwards P l a t e a u a r e a of s o u t h c e n t r a l
Texas d u r i n g t h e Spanish p e r i o d , t h e y were a weak, impoverished, and
nomadic people by t h e t i m e Texas became a n independent r e p u b l i c .
Beginning
i n t h e 1820's and c o n t i n u i n g u n t i l t h e e a r l y 1840's they tended t o l i v e
c l o s e t o white s e t t l e m e n t s i n t h e a r e a a d j o i n i n g t h e Camino Real between
t h e Brazos and Colorado R i v e r s .
I n e a r l y 1845, t h e Republic of Texas
decided t h a t they should be removed from t h e s e t t l e m e n t s .
They were
assembled and moved west t o t h e a r e a of t h e San Marcos River i n t h e s p r i n g
of 1845.
When Texas was annexed t o t h e United S t a t e s a t t h e end of t h e
year 1845, whatever a b o r i g i n a l t i t l e r i g h t s t h e Tonkawa T r i b e may once
have possessed i n Texas had a l r e a d y been extinguished.
It i s our o p i n i o n , however, t h a t t h e s i t u a t i o n w i t h regard t o t h e
Alabama and Coushatta I n d i a n s was c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t .
By t h e e a r l y
1 9 t h c e n t u r y i n Louisiana and by 1845 i n Texas t h e Alabamas and Couehattas
had e s t a b l i s h e d e x t e n s i v e a r e a s of u s e and occupancy which t h e y continued
t o i n h a b i t f o r a long time t h e r e a f t e r .
p o r t i o n s of t h e s e a r e a s .
They a r e , i n f a c t , s t i l l p r e s e n t 1x1
These areas were g e n e r a l l y l o c a t e d i n Louisiana
between t h e 30th and 3 1 s t P a r a l l e l s of North L a t i t u d e and t h e Sabine and
35 Ind. C1. Comm. 321
351
Atchafalaya R i v e r s and, i n Texas, i n p o r t i o n s of t h e a r e a called the Big
T h i c k e t , p r i n c i p a l l y i n Polk, Tyler, San J a c i n t o , T r i n i t y , and Angelinti
Counties.
The r e l a t i v e i n a c c e s e i b i l i t y of t h e s e a r e a s discouraged u8e
and occupancy by o t h e r I n d i a n s m i g r a t i n g from t h e n o r t h and d e f e r r e d w h i t e
s e t t l e m e n t u n t i l many y e a r s a f t e r t h e United S t a t e s had a c q u i r e d t h e s e
lands.
The evidence h e r e i n d i c a t e s t h a t f o r a l o n g t i m e beginning b e f o r e
and ending a f t e r t h e United S t a t e s a c q u i r e d t h e s e areas t h e Alabamae and
Coushattas e f f e c t i v e l y e x e r c i e e d c o n t r o l over t h e s e a r e a s and over o t h e r
I n d i a n s who may have ventured t h e r e i n .
U n f o r t u n a t e l y , such proof does
n o t admit o f recovery h e r e i n because t h e holding of t h e Court of Claims
i n t h e Kiowa. Comanche c a s e , s u p r a , has n e c e s s i t a t e d d i s m i s s a l of t h e
p e t i t i o n in i n t e r v e n t i o n f i l e d by t h e Alabamas and Coushattas.
On t h e b a s i s of t h e accompanying f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , and for t h e r e a s o n s
we have s e t f o r t h i n t h i s o p i n i o n , w e are t a k i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s
today under t h i s docket.
The Commission w i l l e n t e r an o r d e r under Dockets
2 2 4 and 226 denying t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o c o n s o l i d a t e t h e s e d o c k e t s .
W
e w i l l e n t e r an o r d e r under Docket 226 v a c a t i n g the p r e v i o u s Corrnaission
o r d e r s of January 12, 1972, 27 Ind. C1. Corn. 8; February 2, 1972, 27
Ind. C1. Corn. 35; and March 1, 1972, 27 Ind. C1. Corn. 74; g r a n t i n g
i n t e r v e n t i o n under s a i d docket t o t h e Alabama-Coushatta Tribes of Texas
and t h e Coushatta I n d i a n s of L o u i s i a n a , t o t h e Wichita I n d i a n T r i b e o f
Oklahoma and A f f i l i a t e d Bands and Groups, and t o t h e Tonkawa Tribe of
35 Ind. C1. 'Corn. 3 2 1
352
Indians of Oklahoma, denying t h e i r motions t o intervene and dismissing
t h e i r complaints i n i n t e r v e n t i o n .
F i n a l l y , we w i l l e n t e r an order
dismissing Counts 11 and I V of t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' amended complaint of
January 6, 1970.
Those m a t t e r s s t i l l pending under t h i s docket w i l l now r e v e r t t o
t h e s t a t u s which e x i s t e d m e d i a t e l y p r i o r t o the f i l i n g of t h e p l a i n t i f f s '
amended complaint on January 6 , 1970.
The t r i a l of o f f s e t s had been held
on October 7 and 8, 1969, and an order had been entered on t h e l a t t e r d a t e
s e t t i n g the p o s t - t r i a l procedure.
order.
The defendant had complied with t h i s
The p l a i n t i f f had y e t t o f i l e proposed findings of f a c t and b r i e f
on o f f s e t s a s d i r e c t e d i n t h e order.
I n t h e order accompanying t h i s
opinion we w i l l grant t h e p l a i n t i f f s f o r t y days t o comply with t h e order
of October 8 , 1969.
The caae w i l l then stand submitted a8 t o o f f s e t s .
~ I c h a r dW. Yarboro
W e concur:
;
L
~ o h w a n c e Commissioner
,
~ Y a n t l e yBlue,
pbm i s s i o n e r