The Tee-Hit-Ton S Essay, Research Paper

The Tee-hit-ton s

Many different tribes of Native Americans have petitioned the government to receive compensation for the loss of their land. From the Cherokee of the Eastern United States, the Sioux of the Great Plains, to the Tee-hit-tons of Southeast Alaska. The Tee-hit-tons are not unlike other tribes who have petitioned the federal government for lost land, in so much as the way they were treated. Quotes from several Native Americans are included herein to put a human aspect on what the loss of the land means to the people involved. What follows is an account of this very small tribe of Indians and the lengths they must go to obtain what they already possessed. This was a suit by the Tee-hit-ton Indians, a clan of American Indians in Alaska. They are descendants of the earliest known native inhabitants of an area of land in southeastern Alaska. They claim that a compensable interest in land belonging to them was taken when the United States, on August 20, 1951, agreed to sell to a pulp and paper company all merchantable timber on a specified portion of land within the Tongass National Forest. This language is in the case of Tee-hit-ton Indians v United States (348 U.S. 272)(1955). The Tee-hit-tons were claiming 350,000 acres in the Tongass and 150 square miles of water that the Government owed them compensation on. The Tee-hit-tons would, of course, lose their case as they did in several other cases.

The Tee-hit-ton tribe asserted a full proprietary ownership of the land; or, in the alternative, at least a recognized right to unrestricted possession , occupation or use (348 U.S. 272, 277). The petitioners asserted, its tribal predecessors had continually claimed, occupied and used the land from time immemorial; that when Russia took Alaska, the Tlingits had a well-developed social order which included a concept of property ownership; that Russia; while it possessed Alaska, in no matter interfered with their claim to the land; that Congress had by subsequent acts confirmed and recognized petitioner s right to occupy the land permanently and therefore the sale of the timber off such land constitutes a taking pro tanto of its asserted rights in the area (348 U.S. 272,278).

This Indian tribe had it s own language, cultures and civilization, and their way of life was established long before Columbus ever set foot on this continent, or Russia came to Alaska. For eons of time this land has been their home, where they re fore fathers died and their children born. Tee-Hit tons lived off the land in harmony, but the government denies that petitioner has any compensable interest. The government asserts that the Tee-Hit Ton s property interest, if any is merely that of the right to the use of the land at the government s will; that Congress has never recognized any legal interest of petitioner in the land and therefore without such recognition no compensation is due the petitioner for any taking by the United States (348- U.S. 272, 278). The Tee-Hit Tons contended that Congress has sufficiently recognized its possessor rights in the land in question so as to make its interest compensable.

The petitioner pointed to the Organic Act for Alaska of May 17, 1884, to help make its case. The Organic Act states: possessory rights as used in this resolution shall mean all rights, if any should exist, which are based upon aboriginal occupancy or title. That the Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them. Even though the wording clearly states that rights of ownership are valid the government takes a conflicting view of what these words mean. The Government studied these statutes and came back with these bits of wisdom. We have carefully examined these statutes and the pertinent legislative history and find nothing to indicate any intention by Congress to grant to the Indians any permanent rights in the lands of Alaska occupied by them by permission of Congress. Rather, it clearly appears that what was intended was merely to retain the status quo until further Congressional or judicial action was taken. (348 U.S. 272, 279.) It appears to be a nice way of saying; we are taking your land and selling the timber out of the Tongass to a paper mill and you can damn well like it. When you cut through all the jargon and B.S. you see this simply means money and politics. The politicians in Washington D.C. were going to treat this small tribe of Indians in the same manner that all other tribes have been treated; wrongly. As the Court of Claims listened to the plaintiff s side of the suit there was little doubt their claims of ownership or possessor rights were falling on deaf ears. Extinguishing of Indian title based on aboriginal possession is of course a different matter. The power of Congress in that regard is supreme. The manner, method, and time of such extinguishments raise political, not just, issues (U.S. 339. 347).

Senator Plumb of Kansas offered this brilliant insight I do not know by what tenure the Indians are there nor what ordinarily characterized their claim of the title, but it will be observed that the language of the proviso I propose to amend them into very small quarters. I think about two feet by six feet to each Indian would be proper construction of the language. Actually in their use of occupation. Under the general rule of occupation applied to an Indian by a white man, that would be a tolerably limited occupation and might possibly land them in the sea (15 Cong. Rec. 627-628). Timothy Wonhola, from New Stuyahok, spoke about his feeling in our text and describes them as follows: We have our heritage. We ve got our pride. We ve got to protect that along with the land because once our subsistence way of life is gone, it is gone (49)

In July of 1955 a suit was brought by the Tee-hit-tons on ground that compensable interest in fisheries belonging to them was taken when the United States took steps to protect commercial fishing interests. The Court of Claims, Madden, J., held that Tee-hit-ton Indians have acquired no right to Alaska fisheries through grant of prescription . Suit dismissed. (No 610 53 U.S. v Tee-hit-ton). The number of Tee-hit-tons in 1955 was estimated at 48. (U.S.C.A. SS 221) et seq., 222. The Tee-hit-tons had become greatly reduced in numbers. Membership descends only through the female line. (348 U.S. 272, 286) When Senator Plumb spoke of 2 x 6 being the proper construction of the language he was the one person in the Senate being honest. If we are to believe that the political machine in Washington D.C. gave one damn about these few Tee- hit-tons Indians claims then Senator Plumb removes all that belief.

If these people are actually a tribe after the previous wording has to be a question addressed here. When a United States Senator takes that position against a tribe of

Sanders (5)

Indians or any other kind of human being then apparently they never had a right to begin with. No politician could be that blunt about any group of people, that would be political suicide. Hence, political suicide doesn t exist when you deal with big corporate money vs. 48 Tee-hit-ton Indians. Antoinette Helmer, from Craig Alaska, is quoted in our text and her words ring true for many tribes of Native Americans. These words are not just true for the Tlingit or the Tee- Hit- Ton, but all Indians who know what it is like to have the land that has sustained their way of life be taken from them by Congress. Profit to non-natives means money. Profit to Natives means a good life derived from the land and sea, that s what we are all about, that s what this land claims was all about. Living off the land and sea is not only traditional, but owing to the scarcity of cash income, it is required for our families to survive.

. The land we hold in trust is our wealth. It is the only wealth we could possibly pass on to our children. Good old Mother Earth with all her bounty and rich culture we have developed from her treasures is our wealth. Without our homelands, we become true paupers (52).

On a Writ of Certiorari before the United States Court of claims on April 6, 1954.The language used by the Court was certainly predictable and worded part of the opinion as such: Suit by Tee-hit-ton Indians, a clan of American Indians in Alaska, claim that a compensable interest in land belonging to them was taken when the United States agreed to sell to a pulp and paper company all merchantable timber on specified portion of land from which the clan had exploited claims, Madden, J, on proceeding to determine certain issues only, on held, inter alia, that the clan was an identifiable group of Indians so that the Court of claims has jurisdiction of the claim : These people have no claim to this land. 28 U.S.C.A., section 1505 states: An entity, such as individual, or a tribe or clan of Indians, which exploits land under claim of right, to exclusion of others, and which takes from the land what is of interest to it, though what interests it might not interest others of a different culture, is asserting ownership of the land . To the average individual reading the above wording it would seem clear that ownership is indeed in place for this specific tribe. The wording also in this same section further clarifies the issue at hand. The Tee-hit-ton Indians, residing in Alaska, are an identifiable group of American Indians (28.U.S.C.A.Sec1505). This appears to state that the tribe in question here does meet all the criteria for the title of a tribe . The government needs a piece of paper or an something tangible that can be looked at and studied for eons of time to decide how they can squirm out of previous promises made. In our text, Suzy Erlich, of Koyzebue, asserts how much the land means to her and her people: The land means everything to us, it brings us food, it provides for our clothing, it provides for our lodging, it brings us water; it means everything to us (53). Everything to the government seem to be money and the means and measures used to gain more of it. The Indians seem to understand the money issue involved, but it appears hard for these people to understand how the government can exchange a life sustaining land for mere currency. The act of May 17, 1884, 23 Stat. 24, established a District of Alaska. The act contained this provision: That the Indians or other persons in said district shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them The Native Americans had to believe, as anyone would, the direction of this wording. Time after time these people were assured that they were in a land that had been theirs and would remain so. Section 14 of the Act of March 3, 1891, entitled An Act to repeal timber culture laws, 26 Stat 1095, 1100, provided: That none of the provisions of the last two proceeding sections of this act shall be so construed as to warrant the sale of any land belonging to the United States to which the natives of Alaska have prior rights by virtue of actual occupation . The aforementioned wording and the wording that follows further assures these Native Americans that all aspects have been taken into consideration where their land is concerned and the civil government understands it belongs to them.

Section 27 of the Act of June 6, 1900, an Act making further provision for a civil government for Alaska, said: The Indians shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands now actually in their use or occupation .The reasons can be analyzed after reading what was written above in 1900,and below in 1955,the catalyst that changed the minds of this civil government , but I think we know the answer to that question. Prettyman, circuit Judge (sitting by designation), Jones, Judge, and Whitaker and Littleton, Judges concurs on this wonderful piece of knowledge in 1955. 132 Ct. C1. 624132 Ct. C1 624 states: The government urges that, even conceding that the Tee-hit-ton may have owned or had an interest in the land here in question, they have, as we have found, been physically incapable of controlling or exploiting the area which the clan controlled and exploited in earlier times. Since 1900, the clan has consisted of 65 or fewer persons.

So in other words: A letter from the Government to the Tee-hit-ton Indians should read as follows. We understand that you once owned a 352,800-acre spread inside the Tongass National Forest. We also understand that the land is an expansive parcel that you can t take care of. We are going to help you out from under this tremendous burden of ownership and take it from you. We will sell the timber off your land and make a 100 percent profit and the Tee-hit-ton people wont get as much as a thank-you. We have stated previously that this is your land in many instances, but these writings and assertions were in jest.

Please understand that the land is worth millions of dollars in 1955 and in 1891 we failed to see the worth of it when we promised we wouldn t bother you and your people. The Government also understands that you have respected this land and never took from it more than mother earth was willing to give you. We will respect it also with large amounts of equipment to cause erosion and permanent damage. We will take old-growth timber and mail you a welfare check every month if you qualify. We understand your numbers are small and getting smaller, so good luck on keeping your bloodline alive

In the future. We have done this to all Indian tribes when the notion strikes Congress so please don t feel singled-out. Here are a few examples for your reading enjoyment if you care to read them:

The Seminole Nation, got a taste of our power in: 299U.S. 417, 57 S. Ct 283, 81 L. Ed 316

We took 1 million acres from the Uintah and White River bands of Ute Indians in:

152 F. Supp. 953, 139 Ct. C 1.

We showed the Creek Nation, who they were up against in:

295 U.S. 103. 109-110

The Shoshone Nation, saw what it was like to loose their land in:

299 U.S 476, 497

The Chippewa Indians, saw some of their most precious land seized in:

301 U.S. 358 325-38

The Sioux Tribe, was humiliated and humbled after we captured their land in:

316 U.S. 317.326

All of these cases listed above are similar to the Tee-hit-tons in the manner in which the government stole their land. Whether it be Shoshone, Chippewa, or the Sioux the government is an equal opportunity thief. They do not discriminate when it deals with stealing Indian land. The Federal government will express itself in wording as follows: There seems to be now difficulty in identifying the Tee-hit-ton as a group of persons. The Government, in urging that we answer this question in the negative, does not deny the identifiably of the Tee-hit-ton as persons, but denies that they, as a group or clan, owned anything. It says that even if they exploited certain lands for the purpose of taking fish or game or berries or roots from them, which was not ownership (Response to the first question of the plaintiffs petition).

It does not seem to be that difficult to interpret this as meaning this is a band of Indians with rights and true ownership of the land they possess, but the government has a way of not meaning what they say, or saying what they mean. Here is another quote from section 1505 of the U.S.C.: An entity, such as individual, or a tribe or clan of Indians, which exploits land under claim of right, to exclusion of others, and which takes from the land what is of interest to it, though what interests it might not interest others of a different culture, is asserting ownership of the land.

It seems that the government is stating that this land is there for the Indians. That they do constitute a tribe and that their interest on this land is wholly and exclusive. Only the government can take such direct quotes and turn them around to assist the government when land is to be taken for profit. When the government seeks to take a tribes land they word it as follows:

The government urges that, even conceding that the Tee-hit-ton may have owned or had an interest in the land here in question, they have lost that interest because, for some 50 years, their numbers have been so small that they have, as we have found, been physically incapable of controlling or exploiting the area which the clan controlled and exploited in earlier times. Since 1900, the clan has consisted of 65 or fewer persons. The area claimed comprises some 352,800 acres of land. (Response to question five by the government to the plaintiff s petition)

So with one quick stroke of the pen the government steals this land that belongs to the Tee-hit-ton Indians from time immemorial. Polly Koutchacks` words ring with a feeling of desperation and despair. She speaks of how her life and ways have changed with the influx of the white man. She wonders how she can bring back what has been taken, but the sad truth is, the land was sold to the highest bidder. I always feel deep within myself the urge to live a traditional way of life the way of my ancestors. I feel I could speak my Native tongue, but I was raised speaking the adopted tongue of my

People, English. I feel I could dance to the songs of my people, but they were abolished when the White man came to our land. I feel I could heal a sick one the way it was done by my ancestors, but the White man not only came with their medicine they came with diseases.

What I m trying to say and emphasize is I am one in modern day attempting to live a double life and, from that, my life is filled with confusion. I have a wanting deep within myself to live the life of my ancestors, but the modernized world I was raised in is restricting me from doing so. First the White man came and abolished our song and dance, then they took control over our land and its resources, and then they shoved us into a life totally unknown to us, expecting us to conform to it irregardless of our knowledge. Although I feel bitterness and animosity, I would like to attempt to bring back what was taken from us as a people. (13-14) This land in question was taken from the Tee-Hit-Ton Indians. There was no treaty that existed between the government and this tribe, but there was trust. There was trust on the part of the Native Americans that the Great White Father would not take from them what they had been assured through the years was theirs. The Tee-Hit-Ton believed that the word of the leaders of this United States of America was a strong enough bond to establish their ownership and guarantee they would have a indefinite home on this land they loved. The government proved them wrong.