An Eastern Pequot Commentary on the 1841 Petitions

Mottompanwunee, Greetings
 
My name is Katherine Sebastian Dring, J.D., Chairwoman of the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, daughter of Chief Hockeo, Roy Sebastian, lineal descendants of Tamer Brushell Sebastian.
 
We, the Members of the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation (the “Tribe”) descendants of the historic Pequot Tribe, in order to protect our sovereign rights, preserve our history and culture, develop, our common resources, promote self-sufficiency and provide for the general welfare of the Tribe for seven generations yet unborn, do hereby ordain and establish this Constitution. … Nothing in this article shall be construed to limit the ability of the Tribe to exercise any jurisdiction it possesses as a result of its inherent tribal sovereignty.1
 
Taubotnee, Thank you for the opportunity to provide a comment regarding three Eastern Pequot overseer documents.  Two are petitions from the Eastern Pequot Tribe seeking to remove an overseer based on poor performance of his responsibilities and to replace him with another overseer of their choice. The third is a petition from the Town of North Stonington in opposition to the Pequots' request.
 
Because this conflict between the town, the State of Connecticut, and the Eastern Pequot Tribe regarding tribal rights and our reservation spans centuries and later extends to the federal government, I will provide some evidence of this conflict for the period before and after the 1841 overseer reports. Some of these documents are overseer records not part of this CARES grant collection. They were submitted by the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation and its petition team to the United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Office of Federal Acknowledgement as part of the evidence to demonstrate their tribal political influence and authority since contact.2 I will highlight the names of signers and their known interactions with the tribe, town, federal agencies and court system.  Then I will analyze the issues presented in the 1841 petitions submitted by the Tribe and the Town. I will examine their choice of words and connotations.
 
I will also comment on systemic racism in America and how the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, as a First Nations People, have been affected by the interpretation of historical records in our on-going pursuit of health, education, housing and economic opportunities. I will note some comprehensive present-day tribal reservation programs and review the current Connecticut statute regarding Indians for the “care and management of the reservation”.3
 
Finally, I will conclude with some recommended legal remedies enumerated in a recent tribal petition to the DOI with requests for specific orders to the State, towns and federal government that may begin to remedy wrongs committed against the historic Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation.   In this manner, a more perfect union may be established with equitable and just relief for the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation, a First Nations People. I will also provide some Algonquian words by Chief Hockeo, Roy Sebastian, similarly invoking the Creator as our ancestors did in their petitions.
 
Since the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation is one of the First Nations People whose existence in America predates the arrival of Europeans, the current documented history offers little more than oblique references to its long and continued existence. Tribes have an oral tradition and a culture that is handed down by observations and physical participation; therefore, the documentary record is per se an incomplete history of the actual existence of tribal nations.
 
A federally recognized tribe is an American Indian or Alaskan Native tribal entity that is recognized as having a government-to-government relationship with the United States, with the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations attached to that designation, and is eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs.4
 
It is ironic that the United States federal acknowledgment process requires a tribe to show documented evidence of their very existence. Criterion 83.7(c) requires proof that “The petitioner has maintained political influence or authority over its members as an autonomous entity from historical times until the present.” This requirement is a major element in the oppression of colonial tribes. In our case, sustained contact with the colonial government occurred in 1683 in what would become North Stonington,  Connecticut when the Eastern Pequot Tribe settled on a reservation that was deeded to the tribe by the King of England.
 
Up until the 19th Century, there were no published Pequot writers or New England Native scholars except William Apess, a preacher and writer, who ministered to both the Eastern and Mashantucket Pequot communities. Therefore, existing historical records are necessarily biased, written by white authors who may have had prejudiced opinions against the Pequot Nation based on color, race, or lack of accurate knowledge. This racism was systemic and prevalent in the Colonies and what would become the United States.
 
Shamefully, racism persists today with devastating effects on the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation. Current barriers to equal opportunities for housing, access to health care, education and economic development are still burdensome and oppressive. Although there are laws intended to prevent this injustice, federal, state, local institutions and courts are often composed of people who allow their prejudices to reinforce negative opinions against Native Americans. Therefore, official judgments can become impaired and erroneous decisions are made.
 
In 1978, Chief Hockeo (Roy Sebastian) and the Eastern Pequot Tribal Council submitted to the Department of the Interior a letter of intent and a petition to apply for federal acknowledgment under 25 C.F.R. 83.7. Roy is a lineal descendant of Tamer Brushell Sebastian and her son Francisco Sebastian who were both signers on overseer petitions.
 
Before gaming regulations were established, the tribe sought in 1978 to become federally acknowledged to qualify to receive funding for services to promote health, education, housing, and economic development. The tribe received a preliminary positive decision in 2000 and a final positive decision in 2002 when it was declared The Historic Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation. However, the State of Connecticut and twenty-nine surrounding towns filed an appeal.  In 2005, the Department of the Interior reversed its own positive federal acknowledgment decision, a devastating blow to the tribe after twenty-two years of working with the Department.
 
Although lacking sufficient argument, the State and towns announced publicly that they did not want another casino or a tribe that would take land into trust which could no longer be taxed. Because of political pressure, the DOI did not have the ‘interior fortitude’ to hold and affirm its previous positive decision.
 
In an article published in 2013,5 Gale Courey Toensing, a dedicated journalist for Indian Country Today, exposed the oppression against Native American tribes.  
 
 … The acknowledgments were overturned in 2005 after [the State of Connecticut] led a relentless and orchestrated campaign of opposition and political pressure involving local and state officials and an anti-Indian sovereignty group and its powerful White House-connected lobbyist Barber Griffith & Rogers.  An Indian Country Today Media Network editorial commented that a lack of interior fortitude describes the force of outside pressure and its impact across the country.
 
This raises another on-going issue in addition to systemic racism that affected the life and pursuit of equal opportunities for the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation and other tribal nations: land and economics. As in the 1800s and most likely for centuries in this country, control over land and money were primary considerations in decisions made concerning First Nations People. In their federal acknowledgment petition, the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation submitted evidence of their political leadership and influence through petitions to Connecticut Courts. The petitions submitted on behalf of the Pequot Tribe, which included signatures of other tribal members, requested removal of certain overseers and opposed the lease and attempted sale of their reservation.  
 
As mentioned earlier, in 2000 the tribe received a preliminary positive decision from the DOI. In 2001 the tribe’s federal acknowledgment petition team submitted “Being an Indian in Connecticut, The Eastern Pequot Tribe of Connecticut’s Comments on the Proposed Findings of the Bureau of Acknowledgment and Recognition of March 2000.” Notably, the petition team explained that the colonial government responded to tribal complaints about the overseers. Further, the Connecticut General Assembly reviewed Pequot petitions of May 23, 1749 and May 6, 1800 complaining about the abuse of their land rights.  It was clearly declared that use of state funds was to be designated for the benefit of the Eastern Pequot Tribe as well as for the care and management of their Lantern Hill Reservation.
 
In the 19th Century, the legal responsibility of an appointed overseer was to report to the Superior Courts of Connecticut, which in turn required an annual accounting of these funds. Upon a determination of neglect of duty, the court could remove an overseer from his position and reappoint another individual.6   During the period from 1824 to 1935, overseers were required to post bond to ensure their legal responsibility to manage tribal funds and reservation land in a fair and just manner.  
 
Glaza and Grant-Costa summarize tribal resistance to the role of the overseers during the period from 1870 to 1920 in “Being an Indian in Connecticut”.
 
... For nearly 40 years Calvin Williams protected the tribe’s political interests and acted as an Eastern Pequot presence in the larger community.  Williams was instrumental in the tribe’s efforts to preserve their land base and played a key role in the removal and selection of overseers…Calvin Williams and his wife owned and managed a small farm on the reservation consisting of 10 acres of tillage despite geological restrictions (rock and ledge)…the physical characteristics of the Lantern Hill or Eastern Pequot reservation changed little with the exception of the sale of 30 acres of land in 1879 … described by successive overseers as containing 500-600 acres of land.
 
This raises the question:  Why does the present-day reservation consist of only 225 acres?
 
Glaza and Grant-Costa further report that in June 1873 “ the Connecticut General Assembly heard arguments concerning a resolution empowering (overseer Leonard C. Williams) to sell the Lantern Hill property, about 500 acres, mostly in a low state of cultivation… as the land is wanted for manufacturing purposes. The House Committee eagerly passed the bill.”7   The report also noted that on June 26, 1873, an Eastern Pequot petition to the New London Superior Court objected to the land sale and requested removal of Leonard Williams as overseer.
 
Tribal leader Calvin Williams, an influential organizer, signed the petition along
with Tamer Brushell, a primary Eastern Pequot leader and progenitor, and her children: Moses, Calvin, Francisco, Mary, Solomon, Albert, Sylvia, Tamer Emeline and Sarah, as well as other tribal members.
 
Please note that I am a lineal descendant of Tamer Brushell as three other NEH CARES Grant Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation Scholars: Mitchel Ray, Erica Blocker, and Eustace Lewis.  My ancestral line is through Tamar’s son Francisco. The signers of the 1873 petition also included the families of Hoxie/Jackson, Fagin/Watson, Fagin/Randal and Nedson/Williams.  NEH Scholar Natasha Gambrell is a lineal descendant of the Fagin/Randall ancestral line. We, as well as other tribal members, are dedicated to revealing the truth and working towards strategic actions to preserve and protect our reservation and ensure justice for the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation.  The addendum to the petition included the postscript “may the Lord have Mercy and help us and Save us for Jesus sake.”
 
Amazingly, “within days the Town of North Stonington offered their support, “fully and earnestly endors[ing]” the tribe’s effort to remove Leonard Williams. The Court did not allow the sale of the reservation and overseer Leonard Williams was eventually replaced although it took several more years.
 
Other tribal petitions are noted in the Eastern Pequot final acknowledgment decision of June 24, 2002 entitled “Summary Under the Criteria and Evidence for Final Determination in Regard to Federal Acknowledgment of the Eastern Pequot Indians of Connecticut as a portion of the Historical Eastern Pequot Tribe”:
  1. March 31, 1874, “Remonstrance to Superior Court, New London against sale of land” Signers included Calvin Williams, Amanda Nedson Williams, Abby Fagins Randall and her children, and the children of Laura Fagins Watson, Rachel Hoxie Jackson and her children, and Marlboro Gardner.
  2. December 3,1883 petition signed by Calvin Williams, plus Gardner, and the Jackson families.
 
These historical tribal protests to the Court concerning the Tribe’s reservation and the neglectful and inappropriate performance of the overseers demonstrate the on-going oppression of the Tribe. The 1841 tribal petitions designated for review in this comment are only one example of resistance to and disapproval of the overseers’ lack of care and management of the reservation.
 
I.  Petition of the Eastern Pequot Tribe to the New London County Court. 1841.01.27.00
 
The Petitioners assert their status as “… the undersigned Indians being remnant of the Pequot Tribe of Indians resident in North Stonington in said County sheweth that your petitioners have a reservation of about 400 acres of land…"
 
This introductory statement shows that these tribal petitioners consider themselves a remnant or a remaining part of the tribe.8  The same tribal petitioners’ names appear in other petitions demonstrating their leadership on behalf of the tribe to protect the land and protest the performance of overseers. More significantly, it appears that they assert their dual citizenship as Indians, a First Nations People, living on their reservation (established in 1683 by the colonial government) and as citizens living within the United States in the town of North Stonington, Connecticut.
 
As noted earlier in this comment, the size of the reservation was roughly 400 acres as referred to in the 1841 petition, significantly more than the present-day reservation of 225 acres. This fact raises the question of whether the overseers or their agents might have not only leased but even sold reservation land illegally?
 
The petitioners further state that they know “Ezra Hewitt, Esq. of Said North Stonington has been an overseer of Said Tribe for about 5 years…lives about three miles from us, is a single man often from house rarely Come to See any of us in Sickness or in health.  The petitioners raise the question of Ezra Hewitt’s character, his personal and professional status and his performance as overseer. In 1841, a justice of the peace for North Stonington, he presumably took an oath to perform his duties honestly, with integrity and in the best interest of his clients. Despite living close to the reservation, he rarely went to see tribal members whether sick or healthy, so it is easy to see how his ability to dutifully and judiciously respond to the tribe’s needs could be questioned.
 
The Eastern Pequot petitioners further maintain that
 
our land, if family-rented, would yield an annual income which would add much to our comfort, especially in cases of sickness, but that said overseer has much of the time rented said land to his brother and often for less than others were willing to give, and has to manage what he has received that (little) or nothing has been paid for our benefit.
 
The protest raises several issues concerning Ezra Hewitt’s performance in the lease of their tribal land:
 
  1. Did the overseer dishonestly lease the land to his brother for less than he should have received? 
  2. Was the overseer acting in the best interest of the tribe?
  3. Did the overseer report an annual income to benefit the tribe?
  4. Did the overseer spend income received from leasing land to assist tribal members in their care and comfort?
  5. Should the overseer have leased the land to tribal members?
  6. Should tribal members have been allowed to lease their own land?
If the Court had considered these issues based upon the facts of the petition, the amount of money yielded and the expenditures for the tribe, it would have concluded that the overseer failed and neglected to lease tribal land in the best interests of the Eastern Pequot Tribe. More importantly, the Tribe, instead of state-appointed overseers, could have leased the land to provide the most benefits for its members.
 
The petitioners further demand that overseer Ezra Hewitt be removed and “would name Charles Wheeler or Gurdon S. Crandall, Esqs., would be persons agreeable to us, and we believe would manage for our good.” This request demonstrates tribal consideration of the system in place at this time for court-appointed overseers of state-recognized Indian reservations in Connecticut. The petitioners have recommended to the Court two other overseers who, they believe, would better superintend their tribal land.
 
The Court followed its routine legal procedure and issued an order to the Sheriff of the County of New London to summon overseer Ezra Hewitt to appear before the Court in Norwich on the second Tuesday of February 1841 to answer to the Eastern Pequot Tribe’s petition to remove him as overseer.9
 
II.  Petition of the Selectmen of North Stonington to the New London County Court, 1841.02.01.00
 
Four days later, on February 1, 1841, after being informed of the Pequots effort to remove Hewitt, the Selectmen of North Stonington responded to the Pequots' demand by submitting a petition of their own to the New London County authorities. "As far as our knowledge extends," they told the Court,
 
we believe said overseer has managed the property of the Indians in an honest and very judicious manner and we believe his removal would be adverse to the interest of the Indians and an injury to the Town as since he has been their overseer he has so managed that the Town have had nothing to pay for them, while under former overseers they have had large sums to pay.
 
The North Stonington Selectmen argue against the removal of Ezra Hewitt as overseer based on their knowledge as far as it “extends” which is not far. There is no assertion they, too, visited the tribe or even spoke with tribal representatives concerning proper care for tribal members and management of the reservation. Instead, they assert that because they did not have to pay anything to assist the tribe under the Hewitt's management, they believe that he performed his duties as overseer in an honest and judicious manner.
 
The Selectmen gave no justification of why Ezra Hewitt leased the tribal land to his brother or of the amount of funds yielded from the lease or the expenditures made to assist the tribe. Still, the town requested consideration of the amount of funds that they provided to assist the tribe (nothing) under Ezra Hewitt, Esq. overseer. Furthermore, there is no record of an appearance or response by Ezra Hewitt to specifically answer the Eastern Pequot Tribe’s petition to remove him as overseer based upon unjust and improper performance. 
 
The North Stonington Selectmen asked the Court to disregard the Eastern Pequot Tribe’s petition because they had "reason to believe that it was got up without regard to the interest of the (Indians) or the Town,” despite the fact that the Pequot's petition was signed by ten tribal members from prominent Eastern Pequot leadership family lines.
 
The request of the North Stonington Selectmen was apparently granted.  The Court took no action to remove Hewitt.  He continued in his position, issuing more annual accounts until he resigned in 1844 and was replaced by his brother, Elias.10
 
Former Chairwoman Marcia Flowers, lineal descendant of Tamer Brushell and her son Francisco Sebastian, reports in “Being an Indian in Connecticut” that “Congress adopted House Concurrent Resolution No. 108 in 1953 which declared that federal benefits and services to various Indian Tribes should be ended “at the earliest possible time.”
 
Over one hundred tribes’ assistance was terminated by Congress.  They were ordered to distribute their lands and property to their members and dissolve their governments.  Connecticut itself attempted to detribalize the Eastern Pequot and other Connecticut tribes in 1953 by trying to passing Connecticut Senate Bill 502, “An act concerning Indians requiring them to return lands to Connecticut tribal members and make them subject to all laws of the State.”
 
Mary W. Morgan of Noank, Connecticut, speaking on behalf of both Eastern and Western Pequots, presented a petition signed by thirty-one Indians living on the reservation.  About half of the signers were Eastern Pequots including  Albert Carpenter, Moses Sebastian, Benjamin Sebastian, John Sebastian, Anna Carpenter, Hattie Sebastian, Race Powell, Rachel Crumb, Lillie Sebastian, Catherine Harris, Marien Robinson, and Gertie Crizzer. The bill was rejected March 26, 1953.
 
Den Ouden in “Being an Indian in Connecticut” reports that
 
… Eastern Pequots’ political activities have been focused on the protection of their reservation and on the preservation of their collective land rights for centuries …As Eastern Pequot oral histories demonstrate, the significance of the reservation to community solidarity, political activity, and cultural identity is repeatedly affirmed by Eastern Pequot Tribal members…
 
Approximately, sixty years after the Senate hearings, in 2013, an even greater oppressive disenfranchisement was initiated by Connecticut's Attorney General and twenty-nine towns, including North Stonington. In echoes of the 1841 North Stonington Selectmen's actions, they filed their petition in an attempt to persuade the United States Department of the Interior to disregard the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation’s preliminary and final positive federal acknowledgment decisions.
 
As mentioned earlier, part of the State of Connecticut’s argument was to discourage tribal land being put into trust, thus preventing the state from taxing it. Further, the state hypocritically announced they did not want more Indian casinos, even though they were already reaping tremendous monetary benefits from the gaming facilities, Foxwoods and Mohegan Sun, owned by the Mashantucket Pequot and the Mohegan Pequot Tribal Nations, respectively, the only two federally acknowledged tribes in Connecticut,  Showing a complete “lack of interior fortitude”, the U.S. Department of the Interior reversed and overturned prior acknowledgment of the Historic Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation.
 
Presently, Connecticut has a rather comprehensive Indian statute.11  It is important to review the language and terms of this statute very closely, specifically Sec. 47-59.12
 
(a) declaring that all resident Indians of qualified Connecticut tribes are considered full Connecticut citizens with all rights and privileges, while further recognizing that “said Indians have certain special rights to tribal lands as may have been set forth by treaty or other arrangement.
(b) recognizing the "indigenous tribes," the Schaghticoke, the Paucatuck Pequot,13 the Mashantucket Pequot, the Mohegan, and the Golden Hill Paugussett are self-governing entities possessing powers and duties over tribal members and reservations. Such powers and duties include the power to: (1) Determine tribal membership and residency on reservation land; (2) determine the tribal form of government; (3) regulate trade and commerce on the reservation; (4) make contracts; and (5) determine tribal leadership in accordance with tribal practice and usage.
 
In addition, section 47-60 Reservation addresses land held in trust by the state. 
 
(a) Any reservation land held in trust by the state on October 1989, shall continue to be held in trust in perpetuity to prevent alienation and to insure its availability for future generations of Indians.
(b) A tribe shall exercise on reservation land all rights incident to ownership except the power of alienation.
 
Further, there is an entire section 47-65 describing the duties of the Governor as administrative agent and the responsibility of the Commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP), the modern equivalent of the 19th Century overseer.
 
The Commissioner with the advice of the Indian Affairs Council has the responsibility for the care and management of reservation lands including all buildings not privately owned.”  It also refers to requests of residents needing assistance “to repair the exterior of the buildings and its heating, water, electric, sewage disposal and plumbing systems to ensure habitable conditions.
 
This statute provides a detailed regulatory obligation on the state to provide assistance to the tribe in the maintenance and care of the reservation and its buildings. However, the state has only responded to individual tribal members’ requests to assist with well repairs and fallen trees damaging individual homes.
 
As its ancestors did in the 19th Century, the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation has made repeated requests to Connecticut authorities, currently the Governor and the Commissioner of the Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) for funds and services to support a more comprehensive effort to maintain the reservation but a response has not been forthcoming.  A collective effort from the Governor, DEEP and the tribe to leverage resources would help maintain the reservation and provide a measure of health and safety for the tribal community.  Especially during this COVID Pandemic, clean water and septic are critical for the larger community where fifty or more tribal members meet monthly. They work, gather and distribute food, tend to the community garden, maintain burial and archaeological sites, maintain the ceremonial circle and arbor and improve roads. Instead, Connecticut DEEP has forwarded grant announcements to the tribe to apply for these services.
 
Connecticut has demonstrated a complete disregard to “care and maintain” the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation reservation.  Further, Connecticut’s political interference to overturn our federal acknowledgment decision is outrageous and contrary to their statutory obligation to assist the tribe.   As a federally recognized tribe the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation would have benefits to develop a healthy and safe infrastructure which also affects neighboring communities. Program benefits for federally recognized tribes include health and environmental resources with clean water and septic system, improved roads, and educational and housing opportunities.
 
However, as I reported in “Being an Indian in Connecticut”, the US Department of Health and Humans Services’ Administration for Native Americans allowed both state and federally recognized tribes to apply for funds to support social, economic and environmental programs. I submitted several environmental proposals on behalf of the tribe which were approved, with large amounts of funding to hire engineers and scientists to work with tribal elders and leaders to document our natural and historical resources on our reservation. 14
 
For many years Dr. Kevin McBride, former Director of Research at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum shared with the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation some historical programs about Pequot archaeological sites.  He also introduced Dr. Stephen Silliman to the tribe for strategic discussions to develop a collaborative archaeological program with the Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation and the University of Massachusetts, Boston. I worked with the Tribal Council and the tribe to establish a long-term collaborative archaeological and historical program on our reservation (2003-2020). The tribe now has a substantial collection of historic artifacts demonstrating Eastern Pequot tribal life for thousands of years.  The Tribe’s collection is maintained and preserved at the Mashantucket Pequot Museum. 15
 
In May 2016, James B. Jones, Esq., tribal Elder and lineal descendant of Tamer Brushell Sebastian, filed a “Petition for Agency Review of Federal Acknowledgment.  He requested on behalf of the Historical Eastern Pequot Tribe, collectively and individually, that “the Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of the Interior pursuant to 25 CFR section 83.12 to declare and reaffirm said Tribe’s status as a Previously Federally Acknowledged Tribe.
 
Attorney Jones further requested that DOI grant the tribe relief including
 
  1. financial damages for losses incurred since the Previous Federal Acknowledgment on July 1, 2002
  2. return of historical lands and retroactive benefits and revenues pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act from the Mohegan Pequot Fund
  3. tribal member allotments for mineral rights royalties from illegal mining of reservation lands
  4. compliance with the Environmental Protection Act and Clean Water Act
  5. compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
  6. an investigation of breaches of fiduciary duties of public officials involved in the federal acknowledgment process.
 
The DOI Office of Hearing and Appeals denied the tribe’s petition.  However, in its Recommended Decision to the Assistant Secretary for Indian Affairs pursuant to C.F.R. section 41051 (d), the Judge stated:
 
The State of Connecticut and allied municipalities have engaged in a decades-long campaign to prevent the United States government from acknowledging the Eastern Pequot as a federally recognized Indian tribe.  The State and its allies, the Town of Ledyard, North Stonington, and Preston (the Towns) have apparently, for now succeeded in its mission.  This is despite the fact that the colony of Connecticut established a reservation for the Eastern Pequots in 1683 which they have occupied to the present day, and the State explicitly recognizes the “Paucatuck Eastern Pequot” by law as an indigenous Connecticut Indian tribe with powers of self-government and a defined relationship with the state.
 
The Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation will Stand for Justice, Protect our Sovereignty, Conserve and Develop our Tribal Resources and Promote the Self-Sufficiency of Our People and our Descendants.16
 
Chief Hockeo prays in his petition:
 
Taubotanee Manitto, Thank you Creator
Aquene, Peace
Womantam, Love
Sampueusseonk, Justice
Sunnamatta, Is it not so?
Wetomp, Dear Friend
Cowammaunsh, We love thee
 
Related Documents