SUMMARY OF WHEELER-HOWARD BILL AND INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT

By Vivian LaMoore, Inaajimowin Editor

EDITOR'S NOTE: These are the opinions and views of the Mille Lacs Band Delegate Committee only and do not represent the views of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe. The report may not be cited as a statement of the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe's position or viewpoint on any matter discussed within the report or summary.

The Non-Removable Mille Lacs Band Constitution Re-form Delegation Committee released a report on the organization known as the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and its Constitution. The committee is providing the Mille Lacs Band members a review of this report, which will be broken into sections over the next few months. The sections to be summarized this month are the Wheeler-Howard Bill and sections 5 and 7 of the Indian Reorganization Act. Because the Committee's research analysis is extensive, sections 16, 17, and 19 will be summarized in upcoming issues.

The Wheeler-Howard Bill, also known as the Indian Reorganization Act, was a seminal piece of legislation enacted in June 1934 with the aim of reshaping the relationship between the United States government and Native American tribes. The bill was a focal point of discussion at a conference attended by representatives from the Mille Lacs Anishinaabe community, namely Joe Eagle and Chief Wodena. It sought to address a range of critical issues pertaining to Indian affairs, delineating four primary areas of focus.

The bill's provisions encompassed establishing mechanisms to facilitate tribal self-governance, ensuring access to educational opportunities for proficient management of business matters, addressing the intricacies of Indian land ownership, and proposing the formation of a specialized Court of Indian Affairs.

In seeking to redress the U.S. policy of assimilation, the bill aimed to acknowledge and uphold the rights of Native Americans to self-determination, thereby granting tribes the authority to govern themselves and effectively manage their resources. Moreover, the bill allocated funds to support educational initiatives and facilitate the acquisition of tribal lands. However, significant concerns were raised regarding the thorough comprehension of the bill among conference attendees. Language barriers and uncertainties surrounding the accuracy of the translated content cast doubt on the extent to which participants fully grasped the intricacies of the bill. Notably, Joe Eagle expressed that their familiarity with the bill was limited and that their participation was specifically geared toward listening to deliberations and garnering the perspectives of fellow Native Americans regarding the bill.

During this convention, very little time or effort was given to cover the topic of exercising self-government. The description Indian Services provided on exercising self-government was not positive. It told the Indians that the city of Chicago had failed at it, while also telling them to give it a try.

The Committee was struck by how little self-governance was reviewed and discussed in the transcript since it would be one of the more critical pieces within the Bill.

Indian property is the one section the Indian Service spent most of the convention running through with the Attendees. Different scenarios were explained and how this Bill would change the current allotment system. There were many questions from the Attendees concerning this section.

In many cases, when the Attendees raised questions, the presenters would redirect their question to something else, such as “it’s time for dinner, we’ll come back to the topic at a later time.” When they reconvened, they would not go back to the past questions.

Title 2, the education section, was also not covered in any detail, nor was the Court of Indian Affairs section covered in any detail.

Because original intent of the Committee was to locate information that supported the creation of the MCT, they tried to find any reference to the Chippewa Indians of the Mississippi and Lake Superior Bands organizing as “one Indian tribe comprised of six-component reservations” as described at the April 23–24, 1934, meeting. But unfortunately, there was no discussion about the Chippewa of the Mississippi forming or organizing as one Indian tribe comprised of six-component reservations at this convention.

The Bill recognizes the Tribal Delegates’ attendance by tribe only, and the Wheeler-Howard Bill was passed 60 days after this convention. Any input gained from these attendees was likely ignored. Based upon the Committee’s research, they believe the Bill was already completed and moving through the Federal government approval process when this convention was held.

INDIAN REORGANIZATION ACT

The purpose of the IRA is to conserve and develop Indian lands and resources; to extend to Indians the right to form business and other organizations; to establish a credit system for Indians; to grant certain rights of home rule to Indians.

(A general definition for home rule – self-government with limited autonomy in internal affairs by a dependent political unit such as the U.S. government).

The Committee’s work focused on five significant provisions: Sections 5, 7, 16, 17, and 19. There are three basic but essential things to know about these five IRA sections:

1. Section 5 and 7 refer to land.

2. Section 16 and 17 refer to organizing for the common welfare and tribe’s forming corporations. (To be summarized in an upcoming issue.)

3. Section 19 defines who is an Indian. (To be summarized in an upcoming issue.)

Committee’s preliminary analysis of section 5

The Secretary took land into trust located in each of the three Mille Lacs districts, but he put the lands taken in the name of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and not the Mille Lacs Band.

Based on our research, the Secretary appears to have acted unlawfully by taking Mille Lacs Band lands into trust for the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe for the following reasons:

• The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe did not exist until July 24, 1936, more than two years after the enactment of the Indian Reorganization Act on June 18, 1934.

• Both the Original and Revised Constitutions of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe designate the MCT as an “organization,” not an Indian tribe.

• The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe did not and could not meet the IRA definition of a “tribe” see Section 19 of this Act.

Committee’s preliminary analysis of section 7

The Secretary used this power under Section 7 to “proclaim a new Indian reservation” for the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe or to take lands into trust for the purpose of “adding to existing reservations,” for example, the Mille Lacs Reservation. But, since the MCT is an organization and not an Indian tribe and did not have an existing reservation, the Secretary may have acted unlawfully.