Mission Indians and Indians of California Land Claims

Abstract

SEVERAL ARTICLES AND MONOGRAPHS (Heizer and Kroeber 1976, Heizer 1978, Stewart 1978, Sutton 1985) have described aspects of Indian Claims Cases, primarily discussing Dockets 31 and 37, the of California Case. Although some described the Pitt River Case (Docket 347), none discussed the Mission Indians Claims Case, Docket 80. All Claims Cases had complex histories leading to the joint offer for an out of court settlement from the United States government. Complexities were due to the diverse nature and history of various regions of and to influences exerted by non-Indian advisors and attorneys. In fact, non-Indians determined the nature and wording of claims filed. The out-of-court settlement was accepted after meetings held separately by members of each case, the Mission Indian Case, Indians of Case, and Pitt River Case. The Pitt River vote was unsuccessfully contested. After settlement, non-Indians were among those prominent in expressing dismay at the 47 cents per acre, apparently without reading the Indian Claims Commission Act (H.R. 4497) of August 13, 1946 (60 Stat 1049:25 U.S.C. Sec. 70ff.) and without data on 1851 land values. This paper' presents a background sketch of the major claims, the nature of influences determining the wording of petitions and difficulties resulting therefrom, particularly, the Mission Indian Claims Case, Docket 80. In this case difficulties arose because anthropologists and non-anthropologists misconstrued contact period socio-politicalterrito…