Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, s. 75--1171

Citation528 F.2d 370
Decision Date23 December 1975
Docket Number75--1172,Nos. 75--1171,s. 75--1171
PartiesJOINT TRIBAL COUNCIL OF the PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary, Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants-Appellees, State of Maine, Intervenor-Appellant. JOINT TRIBAL COUNCIL OF the PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Rogers C. B. MORTON, Secretary, Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants-Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)

Martin L. Wilk, Deputy Atty. Gen., with whom Joseph E. Brennan, Atty. Gen., was on brief, for State of Maine, Augusta, Me., appellant.

Edmund B. Clark, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Wallace H. Johnson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Walter Kiechel, Deputy Asst. Atty. Gen., and Edward J. Shawaker, Atty., Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Rogers C. B. Morton, appellants.

Thomas N. Tureen, Calais, Me., with whom David C. Crosby, Barry A. Margolin, Calais, Me., Stuart P. Ross, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, D.C., Robert S. Pelcyger, Boulder, Colo., and Robert E. Mittel, Portland, Me., were on brief for appellees.

Before COFFIN, Chief Judge, McENTEE and CAMPBELL, Circuit Judges.

LEVIN H. CAMPBELL, Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered in the District Court for the District of Maine. 388 F.Supp. 649, 667 (D.Me.1975).

Plaintiffs are, under Maine law, the political representatives of the Passamaquoddy Indian Tribe ('the Tribe'). 22 M.R.S.A. § 4831 (Supp.1975). They brought this action against the Secretary of the Interior and the Attorney General of the United States after the Secretary refused to initiate a lawsuit against the State of Maine on behalf of the Tribe. Earlier, in a letter to the Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Tribe had stated the following grievances against Maine and its predecessor, Massachusetts (hereinafter collectively 'Maine'): that Maine had divested the Tribe of most of its aboriginal territory in a treaty negotiated in 1794; that Maine had wrongfully diverted 6,000 of the 23,000 acres reserved to the Tribe in that treaty; and that Maine had mismanaged tribal trust funds, interfered with tribal self-government, denied tribal hunting, fishing and trapping rights, and taken away the right of members to vote, from 1924 to 1967. The Tribe had requested the Secretary to sue Maine on its behalf to redress these asserted wrongs before July 18, 1972, the date an action would allegedly be barred. 1 Although the Commissioner of the Bureau of Indian Affairs favored compliance with plaintiffs' request, defendants did not act.

On June 2, 1972, plaintiffs filed this action, seeking a declaratory judgment that the Tribe is entitled to federal protection under the Indian Nonintercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. § 177, 2 and a preliminary injunction ordering defendants to file a protective action on the Tribe's behalf against the State of Maine by July 18, 1972. Defendants persisted in their refusal to sue for the Tribe, relying upon the advice of the Acting Solicitor for the Department of the Interior, who stated,

'(N)o treaty exists between the United States and the Tribe and, except for isolated and inexplicable instances in the past, this Department, in its trust capacity, has had no dealings with the Tribe. On the contrary, it is the States of Maine and Massachusetts which have acted as trustees for the tribal property for almost 200 years. . . .

. . . (W)e are aware that the Tribe may thus be foreclosed from pursuing its claims against the State in the federal courts. However, as there is no trust relationship between the United States and this Tribe, . . . the Tribe's proper legal remedy should be sought elsewhere.'

After a hearing, the district court ordered defendants to file suit by July 1, 1972, and to include all matters of which the Tribe had complained. In compliance, they instituted United States v. Maine, Civil No. 1966 N.D. An appeal from that order was dismissed on motions of both plaintiffs and defendants. Civil No. 1966 N.D. has meanwhile been stayed pending final determination of the present action.

Plaintiffs then filed two amended and supplemental complaints herein, abandoning their request for an injunction and seeking only a declaratory judgment. The State of Maine was allowed to intervene. As finally framed and argued in the district court, the issues were, 3 (1) whether the Nonintercourse Act applies to the Passamaquoddy Tribe; (2) whether the Act establishes a trust relationship between the United States and the Tribe; and (3) whether the United States may deny plaintiffs' request for litigation on the sole ground that there is no trust relationship. The district court ruled in plaintiffs' favor on all points. Both the federal defendants and the State of Maine appeal. We affirm, subject to the qualifications hereinafter stated.

I

The issues in this proceeding can best be understood in light of facts about the Tribe appearing in the parties' stipulation and exhibits and in the district court's comprehensive and scholarly opinion. 4

The Tribe now resides on two reservations in Washington County in Maine. Its members and their ancestors, as was agreed below, have constituted an Indian tribe in both the racial and cultural sense since at least 1776. Plaintiffs allege that until 1794 the Tribe occupied as its aboriginal territory all of what is now Washington County and certain other land in Maine. In 1777, the Tribe pledged its support to the American Colonies during the Revolutionary War in exchange for promises by John Allan, Indian agent of the Continental Congress, that the Tribe would be given ammunition for hunting, protection for their game and hunting grounds, regulation of trade to prevent imposition, the exclusive right to hunt beaver, the free exercise of religion, and a clergyman. In addition, an agent would be appointed for their protection and support in time of need. Allan, as Superintendent of the Eastern Indian Agency, reported to the federal government on several occasions in 1783 and 1784 that the Passamaquoddy Tribe had greatly assisted the revolutionary cause and urged Congress to fulfill these promises made on the Government's behalf. Allan also transmitted the views of the Tribe in this regard. However, the Continental Congress failed to act on Allan's recommendations. His appointment was revoked in March 1784, under a resolution revoking the appointments of all Indian Superintendents. In 1790, the First Congress adopted the Indian Nonintercourse Act. 5

In 1792, the Passamaquoddy Tribe petitioned Massachusetts for land upon which to settle, and Massachusetts appointed a committee to investigate, one member of which was the same John Allan. Allan reported that during the Revolutionary War the Passamaquoddy Tribe had given up its claims to lands known to be its haunts on the condition that the United States would confirm its 'ancient spots of ground' and a suitable tract for the use of both the Tribe and all other Indians who might resort there. Soon after, in 1794, Massachusetts entered into an agreement, also referred to as a treaty, with the Passamaquoddy Tribe by which the Tribe relinquished all its rights, title, interest, claims or demands of any lands within Massachusetts in exchange for a 23,000 acre tract comprising Township No. 2 in the first range, other smaller tracts, including ten acres at Pleasant-point, and the privilege of fishing on both branches of the Schoodic River. All pine trees fit for masts were reserved to the state government for a reasonable compensation. An additional ninety acres at Pleasant-point were later appropriated to the use of the Tribe by Massachusetts in 1801.

Since 1789, Massachusetts and later Maine have assumed considerable responsibility for the Tribe's protection and welfare. Maine was a District of Massachusetts until 1819, when it separated from Massachusetts under the Articles of Separation, Act of June 19, 1819, Mass. Laws, ch. 61, p. 248, which were incorporated into the Maine Constitution as Article X, Section 5. The Articles provided that Maine 'shall . . . assume and perform all the duties and obligations of this Commonwealth (Massachusetts), towards the Indians within said District of Maine, whether the same arise from treaties, or otherwise . . ..' Maine was thereafter recognized by Congress and admitted to the Union. Act of March 3, 1820, ch. 19, 3 Stat. 544. The Maine Constitution, with the above quoted provision relating to the Indians, was read in the Senate, referred to committee, and finally declared by Congress to be established in the course of the admission proceedings.

Since its admission as a state, Maine has enacted approximately 350 laws which relate specifically to the Passamaquoddy Tribe. This legislation includes 72 laws providing appropriations for or regulating Passamaquoddy agriculture; 33 laws making provision for the appropriation of necessities, such as blankets, food, fuel, and wood, for the Tribe; 85 laws relating to educational services and facilities for the Tribe; 13 laws making provision for the delivery of health care services and facilities to the Tribe; 22 laws making allowance for Passamaquoddy housing; 54 laws making special provision for Indian indigent relief; 54 laws relating to the improvement and protection of roads and water on the Passamaquoddy reservation; and 15 laws providing for the legal representation of the Tribe and its members.

In contrast, the federal government's dealings with the Tribe have been few. It has never, since 1789, entered into a treaty with the Tribe, nor has Congress ever enacted any legislation mentioning the Tribe. In 1824, the Department of War contributed funds to the Tribe, one-third toward the construction of a school, pursuant to an act for the civilization of Indian tribes. Act of March 3, 1819, 3 Stat. 516. It also gave money annually from 1824 to 1828 under the same...

To continue reading

Request your trial
97 cases
  • Rice v. Cayetano
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 6 May 1997
    ...520 F.2d 676 (9th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1086, 96 S.Ct. 877, 47 L.Ed.2d 97 (1976) and Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir.1975), that the number of petitions for federal acknowledgment rose dramatically, leading to the Department of In......
  • Rice v. Cayetano
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • 6 September 1996
    ...native peoples is commonplace and not necessarily inconsistent with federal protection. See, e.g., Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370, 374 (1st Cir.1975). HSEC Defendants, Davianna McGregor, and Kawehi Kanui-Gill also cite the 1993 Apology Bill as suppor......
  • Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • 13 February 1979
    ...that the courts will accord substantial weight to federal recognition of a tribe. See, e.g., Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370, 377 (1st Cir. 1975). One consequence is that very little case law has developed on the meaning of " tribe". The court below, ......
  • Narragansett Tribe, Etc. v. So. RI Land Devel. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Rhode Island
    • 23 June 1976
    ...facie case. This task has been greatly simplified by the First Circuit's analysis of the Act in Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1975), aff'g, 388 F.Supp. 649 (D.Me. 1975) (hereinafter Passamaquoddy) , which was decided after the parties sub......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
12 books & journal articles
  • Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and fishing rights: tribal comanagement as a reserved right.
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Vol. 30 No. 2, March 2000
    • 22 March 2000
    ...(63) United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 225 (1983). (64) See, e.g., Joint Tribal Council of Passmaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370, 380 (1st Cir. 1975) (ordering United States to file a claim on behalf of tribe to recover tribal lands improperly ceded to the State of Maine in 1794......
  • CHAPTER 10 ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL PROCEDURES FOR RIGHTS-OF-WAY, MINERAL LEASES, AND MINERAL AGREEMENTS ON INDIAN LANDS
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources and Environmental Administrative Law and Procedure II (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ....See 25 C.F.R. § 2.6(c). [182] .SeeJoint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 388 F. Supp. 649, 662 (D. Me. 1975), aff'd, 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir. 1975); Roger St. Pierre, et al. v. Comm'r of Indian Affairs, 9 IBIA 203, 223-24 (1982). [183] .SeeEric v. Sec'y of the United Stat......
  • CHAPTER 6 PROCESS AND PRACTICE TIPS FOR APPEALS TO THE INTERIOR BOARD OF INDIAN APPEALS1
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Challenging and Defending Federal Natural Resource Agency Decisions (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...1105 (D.C. Cir. 2001); Joint Tribal Council of the Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 388 F. Supp. 649, 662 (D. Me. 1976), aff'd sub nom., 528 F.2d 370 (1st Cir, 1975); Roger St. Pierre, et al v. Comer of Indian Affairs, 9 IBIA 208, 223-24 (1982). [192] See Eric v. Sec'y of the United States De......
  • THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY AND TRIBAL-PRIVATE NATURAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT
    • United States
    • FNREL - Special Institute Natural Resources Development in Indian Country (FNREL)
    • Invalid date
    ...(Second) of Trusts § 7 (1959) ("A guardianship is not a trust."). [175] .See Joint Tribal Council of Passamaquoddy Tribe v. Morton, 528 F.2d 370, 379 (1st Cir. 1975). [176] .See Mitchell II, 463 U.S. at 226. [177] .See Part II.A.1, supra. [178] .Id. [179] .A trust relationship also has been......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT