-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/26761/archive/files/fba46cccf7c18e9ad716222b8a8bc56e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Lfuz4VDvuja3mTHKJe0IxD7j3TAKZySJK9uQBc-vSqHvVZFKgtZGNyQIGGX7obkzTpqS7oXsbvmelj%7EkmpcNfQ7nft8CAb8-Aek6g1sxRG-UFI%7EP%7E3f6mdcnBvWg675Bn6fdz1-OS5mtG3r1TClcmAFUWXnupb5ffaoeH3FHlxis8nGlq3E6Sre3jNhp3iJZwYqrkOQo6AF95ZRJSNKoK-FYSxVqAn8VaZAZrGP410AFqT0klYjrdf0fdIYnV-xKAPTdPcJStj-LlA2WhjiGPraGkb8jQ5v%7EHi676GShW%7ETG8uwG5ivTcC7k-Uro6euxHYy0HQe80wEQHAS2OXkifg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
76a19bfeba7ee32cbb4686fdf1cc0eb1
PDF Text
Text
RIC.RA.Rn
s
C O HB.s
ATTORNEY GENERAL
C'O SEP
um
DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
AUGUSTA. \1 \IN~: 04J33
September 2, 1980
Peter Taylor
Tim Woodcock
Select Committee on Indian Affairs
6313 Dirksen Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C.
Re:
S.
2829.
Dear Peter and Tim:
Jon Hull and I reviewed the redraft that you provided to
us and which was proposed for the mark-up last Tuesday. In
rereading that draft we noted several technical problems
that we wanted to bring to your attention.
1. Although you deleted the definition of "Indian Country"
in§ 3(2), the term is still used in the body of the Act itself.
However, it is now undefined. We would suggest that either
"Indian Territory" in§ 3(2) be redefined to simply incorporate
the definitions of "Passamaquoddy Indian Territory" and "Penobscot
Indian Territory" or that "Indian Territory" when used elsewhere
in the Act be corrected to read "Passamaquoddy Indian Territory"
and/or "Penobscot Indian Territory." See for example§ 5(d) (3)
line 7 and 5 (h) ( 2) line 8.
2.
The redraft of§ S(d) (3) contains a new proviso regarding
the reversionary interest of the Passamaquoddy Tribe and Penobscot
Nation in Houlton Band trust lands. Under the new language the
Houlton Bands' lands revert to the other Tribes if the Houlton
Band "should terminate their (sic) interest in the property."
Query, what does terminate mean? Sale? Trade? Eminent domain?
As we recall, this proviso originally spoke in terms of the
Houlton Band losing Tribal status.
This new language seems
ambiguous, and we suggest using the language from the original
bill.
�Page 2
3.
Se'?tio;; 5 (h) ( 1) line 6 uses the phrase, "laws f h
state of Maine . . For consistenc we
o
t e
"Maine Implementing Act."
Y
think this should be
4.
Ba nd trus Section in
t land 5(h) (2) ° f . th e red:aft includes the Houlton
f un dame ntal poli
ab'?on!~sing fashion. Without restating our
th e a p roa c h of cy O Jee 10 ~ to. th e Bands' inclusion at all,
to t hepl
.
~e subs7ction is confusing.
First, contrary
A t d
anguage i n the first sentence, the Maine Implementing
c
oes not h a ve separate provisions for condemnation of
!~ulton Ba nd l a nd a s it does for the Penobscot and Passamaquoddies.
thou gh, unde r § 6 204 of that Act, the Houlton Band land can be
condemn ed under no r mal st a t e law i t is no t subject to the same
proc edura l ~rotection as are Pen~bscot and Passamaquoddy lands.
Th us , th e f i rst sentence is confusing.
.
T~ e s econd an d following sentences in§ S(h) (2) are equally
inappl icab l e to the Houlton Band .
Thos e sentences were presumabl y i n tended b y Interior to me sh t hi s Act with the Maine
Impleme n t ing Act.
(This section was not in the original bill
but was added in Interior' s r edraft wi th o ut prior revie w by us.)
However , the con cept Inte ri o r used was only app licable in the
Implementin g Act t o t h e Passamaquoddy Tribe and P enob scot Nation.
As a result§ S (h) (2) i s something of a drafting hodg e-podge.
I
think i t demonstrates the difficulty of inserti n g t he Hou lton
Band into a concep t t h at was designed for an arrangeme nt applicable
only to the other Tr ibes. Frankly, we think the easies t d ra fti ng
solution is to delete the Maliseets entirely from§ S (h) (2) and to
provide in a separate provision that trust land of the Houlton
Band may be condemned " under the laws of the State of Mai n e "
without more.
5.
I had understood tha~ the proviso
in§ 6 ( a) was thought
to be unnecessary and confusing since i t simply restates limitations imposed either in the other provisions of this Act or the
Maine Implementing Act.
6. The last proviso in
6 (h)
11
refers to lands "owned by
the respective Tribe or Band.
We think the quoted phrase is
erroneous since special federal tax status is only extended to
§
Tribal trust lands.
If
we note any more technical problems, we will let you know.
Regards.
~y,
JOHN M. R. PATERSON
Deputy Attorney General
JMRP/ec
cc: Thomas Tureen
Donald Perkins
Reid Chambers
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
National Archives and Records Administration
Description
An account of the resource
The following government documents have been provided by the National Archives, Washington, DC.
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
NARA012
Title
A name given to the resource
Letter to Peter Taylor (Special Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs) and Timothy Woodcock (Senate Minority Counsel, Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs) from John Paterson (Maine Deputy Attorney General), suggesting edits to the mark-up draft of the Maine Indian Claims Settlement Bill S. 2829. (09/02/1980)
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
9/2/1980
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
NARA
Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, Bill Files- Second Session, S. 2623- S.3222, Box. 12, Folder “S.2829”; 96th Congress; Records of the U.S. Senate, RG 46; National Archives, Washington, DC.
Language
A language of the resource
English
Description
An account of the resource
Suggests one edit to the language of Section 6(h) (what ultimately became 25 U.S.C. 1725(h)).
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Documents
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
PDF
Subject
The topic of the resource
Indians of North America--Maine--Land tenure
Indians of North America--Maine--Claims
Indians of North America--Legal Status, Laws, etc.
Indians of North America--Government Relations
Indians of North America--Politics and Government
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
Public Domain
1725(h)
Application of State Law
John Paterson
Jon Hull
Jurisdiction
Peter Taylor
Timothy Woodcock