Chairman Jourdain respond to Spaulding Letter

[shakey legs 2]

If you want to read Chairman Floyd Jourdain's response to the Spaulding letter you can go to Red Lake net News.  The letter is addressed to Gene Merriam, DNR Commissioner.

[Spinach]

Here is the link to the letter. This is getting very interesting now.

Thanks for the heads up on this Shakey.

http://www.rlnn.com/ArtMay06/ChairmanJourdainRespondsNonMemberThreats.html

[SoHawk]

Sounds like the same old play book,  When in doubt, slap down the ole' race card.  Ever wonder why they do that?  And why it almost always works?  Read this article :

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008318

You notice that the tribe never actually refuted the issues brought up by Officer Spaulding?

[Rapalaguy]

I live in Bagley and asked the Bait shop owner in town if he know of this Spaulding guy and he said no? Anyways, Jourdain should worry about keeping Red Lake , or I should say getting Red Lake to be a decent place for those people to live. One guy sending a letter like this and he gets all upset, but there are 12 year old kids on Meth all over the place. Sad

[SoHawk]

it really shows where their priorities are.  :(

[labs4me]

Spaulding is the CO in Bagley and he was the CO in Waskish for many years... he and the band obviously do not see eye to eye.

Good Luck!

Ken

[Desperado]

... he and the band obviously do not see eye to eye.

Last week I told Jiggle he was the "Master of Understatement"

I believe that title has just been taken over by Labs, eh?

[jigglestick]

i read about this in the"outdoor news".
it was on the front page, as it should be.
they covered this from a couple of angles.
the Deputy Commisioner of the DNR safeguarded itself by pointing out other elements in the court cases that were cited.
it seemed to me as they are trying to take a both sides of the fence stance.
the attourney genral passed the buck on to the federal court system, which is just where Mr. Spaulding is saying this needs to go.
NOBODY in any political position is speculating where this may go, or what might happen if the federal court were to decide in his (spaulding's) favor.
my guts tell me even if he won his case, this chicken s*** bleeding heart state would give up rights to it just to make the tribe happy.
that's where we step in.

[SoHawk]

Now, I'm no lawyer (I don't even play one on T.V.) but after reading this descision and several others referred to in it I think that Officer Spaulding has a case.  You can read it here:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=270&invol=49

Maybe I see it because I am not a lawyer! 

[pray for the fish]

yep, I just read the caselaw,apparently Spaulding needs some help to push this forward. Contacting him and asking would probably be the thing to do. It is mass psyops, apparently, that the public underwent at about the same time the state turned the commercial fishery over to the tribe in the early 30's.

[JohnWester]

so I am printing this off and hitting lower redlake next weekend... anyone want to come?


seriously, if you read this, the last paragraph pretty much sums it up...

We come then to the question whether the lands under the lake were disposed of by the United States before Minnesota became a state. An affirmative disposal is [270 U.S. 49, 58]   not asserted, but only that the lake, and therefore the lands under it; was within the limits of the Red Lake Reservation when the state was admitted. The existence of the reservation is conceded, but that it operated as a disposal of lands underlying navigable waters within its limits is disputed. We are of opinion that the reservation was not intended to effect such a disposal and that there was none. If the reservation operated as a disposal of the lands under a part of the navigable waters within its limits it equally worked a disposal of the lands under all. Besides Mud Lake, the reservation limits included Red Lake, having an area of 400 square miles, the greater part of the Lake of the Woods, having approximately the same area, and several navigable streams. The reservation came into being through a succession of treaties with the Chippewas whereby they ceded to the United States their aboriginal right of occupancy to the surrounding lands. The last treaties preceding the admission of the state were concluded September 30, 1854, 10 Stat. 1109, and February 22, 1855, 10 Stat. 1165. There was no formal setting apart of what was not ceded, 1 nor any affirmative declaration of the rights of the Indians therein, nor any attempted exclusion of others from the use of navigable waters. The effect of what was done was to reserve in a general way for the continued occupation of the Indians what remained of their aboriginal territory, and thus it came to be known and recognized as a reservation. Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 389 , 22 S. Ct. 650. There was nothing in this which even approaches a grant of rights in lands underlying navigable waters; nor anything evincing a purpose to depart from the established policy, before stated, of treating such lands as held for the [270 U.S. 49, 59]   benefit of the future state. Without doubt the Indians were to have access to the navigable waters and to be entitled to use them in accustomed ways; but these were common rights vouchsafed to all, whether white or Indian, by the early legislation reviewed in Railroad Co. v. Schurmeier, 7 Wall, 272, 287-289, and Economy Light & Power Co. v. United States, supra, pp. 118-120 (41 S. Ct. 409), and emphasized in the Enabling Act under which Minnesota was admitted as a state (chapter 60, 11 Stat. 166), which declared that the rivers and waters bounding the state 'and the navigable waters leading into the same, shall be common highways, and forever free, as well to the inhabitants of said state as to all other citizens of the United States.' Section 2.

We conclude that the state on its admission into the Union became the owner of the bed of the lake. It is conceded that, if the bed thus passed to the state, the defendants have succeeded to the state's right therein, and the decisions and statutes of the state brought to our attention show that the concession is rightly made.

I read this to say, as long as I can access the lake from public (or non tribal land) Iit is a free water-way that anyone can get to.  I am assuming that you can get between upper and lower red on the west side.  this should get interesting.

[GRIZ]

 Just don't drop ur ancor down.? The water is public but the land is owned by them?? I dunno but that's the way it sounds..

I also heard that on the reservation they are planning on building a resort for fishing.? Anyone else hear that.

[SoHawk]

"We conclude that the state on its admission into the Union became the owner of the bed of the lake."

The bed is the bottom...

[GRIZ]

"It is conceded that, if the bed thus passed to the state, the defendents have succeded to the state's rights therein, and the decisions and statutes of the state brought to our attention show that the concession is rightly made."

That is the part that made me think the state gave up it's rights to the reservation. I am assuming that the defendants are the tribal members?

I could be totally off base on things as I don't understand half the stuff wrote up by attorneys. Gets to be confusing.

[SoHawk]

No, the defendants were white.  some kinda bank, I believe. ???

The ruling was for the old Mud Lake, north of URL, that they drained in the early 1900's. 

[pray for the fish]

In the early 1900's folks from Bemidji would take the train to lower Red for a day fishing trip. Around the start of world war 1, the state of mn ran the commercial fishery at Redby on lower red, until the early 30's, then turned it over to the tribe. If the state gave up the rights to the water that is when it would have happened. So where is that documentation, I ask? This is sort of like religion. You ask somebody why they are of a certain religion and most say beacause that is what they were taught as a child. That is like this situation. Ask why we can't fish over there and the only answer is because that is the way it has always been. Funny how people forget after only 2 generations. Show me the proof that we can't fish over 80% of Red, and I'll leave it be [and gladly be in on the next politically incorrect topic].