25 U.S. Code § 1300j - Findings

prev | next
The Congress finds the following:
(1) The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians is the descendant of, and political successor to, the signatories of the Treaty of Greenville 1795 (7 Stat. 49); the Treaty of Grouseland 1805 (7 Stat. 91); the Treaty of Spring Wells 1815 (7 Stat. 131); the Treaty of the Rapids of the Miami of Lake Erie 1817 (7 Stat. 160); the Treaty of St. Mary’s 1818 (7 Stat. 185); the Treaty of Chicago 1821 (7 Stat. 218); the Treaty of the Mississinewa on the Wabash 1826 (7 Stat. 295); the Treaty of St. Joseph 1827 (7 Stat. 305); the Treaty of St. Joseph 1828 (7 Stat. 317); the Treaty of Tippecanoe River 1832 (7 Stat. 399); and the Treaty of Chicago 1833 (7 Stat. 431).
(2) In the Treaty of Chicago 1833, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians was the only band that negotiated a right to remain in Michigan. The other Potawatomi bands relinquished all lands in Michigan and were required to move to Kansas or Iowa.
(3) Two of the Potawatomi bands later returned to the Great Lakes area, the Forest County Potawatomi of Wisconsin and the Hannahville Indian Community of Michigan.
(4) The Hannahville Indian Community of Michigan, the Forest County Potawatomi Community of Wisconsin, the Prairie Band of Potawatomi Indians of Kansas, and the Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, whose members are also descendants of the signatories to one or more of the aforementioned treaties, have been recognized by the Federal Government as Indian tribes eligible to receive services from the Secretary of the Interior.
(5) Beginning in 1935, the Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians petitioned for reorganization and assistance pursuant to the Act of June 18, 1934 (25 U.S.C. 461 et seq., commonly referred to as the “Indian Reorganization Act”). Because of the financial condition of the Federal Government during the Great Depression it relied upon the State of Michigan to provide services to the Pokagon Band. Other Potawatomi bands, including the Forest County Potawatomi and the Hannahville Indian Community were provided services pursuant to the Indian Reorganization Act.
(6) Agents of the Federal Government in 1939 made an administrative decision not to provide services or extend the benefits of the Indian Reorganization Act [25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.] to any Indian tribes in Michigan’s lower peninsula.
(7) Tribes elsewhere, including the Hannahville Indian Community in Michigan’s upper peninsula, received services from the Federal Government and were extended the benefits of the Indian Reorganization Act [25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.].
(8) The Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians consists of at least 1,500 members who continue to reside close to their ancestral homeland in the St. Joseph River Valley in southwestern Michigan and northern Indiana.
(9) In spite of the denial of the right to organize under the Indian Reorganization Act [25 U.S.C. 461 et seq.], the Pokagon Band has continued to carry out its governmental functions through a Business Committee and Tribal Council from treaty times until today.
(10) The United States Government, the government of the State of Michigan, and local governments have had continuous dealings with the recognized political leaders of the Band from 1795 until the present.

Source

(Pub. L. 103–323, § 1,Sept. 21, 1994, 108 Stat. 2152.)
References in Text

The Indian Reorganization Act, referred to in pars. (5) to (7) and (9), is act June 18, 1934, ch. 576, 48 Stat. 984, as amended, which is classified generally to subchapter V (§ 461 et seq.) of this chapter. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 461 of this title and Tables.

The table below lists the classification updates, since Jan. 3, 2012, for this section. Updates to a broader range of sections may be found at the update page for containing chapter, title, etc.

The most recent Classification Table update that we have noticed was Tuesday, August 13, 2013

An empty table indicates that we see no relevant changes listed in the classification tables. If you suspect that our system may be missing something, please double-check with the Office of the Law Revision Counsel.

25 USCDescription of ChangeSession YearPublic LawStatutes at Large

 

LII has no control over and does not endorse any external Internet site that contains links to or references LII.