Seasons of Change: Labor, Treaty Rights, and Ojibwe Nationhood

Conclusion

128 Conclusion In 1934, federal representatives convened the Hayward Indian Congress near the Lac Courte Oreilles reservation in Wisconsin at the request of Commissioner of Indian Affairs John Collier. The congress was ostensibly set up as a forum for tribal representatives from Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan to discuss concerns related to the provisions of the proposed Wheeler-Howard Bill, which was designed to create a solid economic foundation for American Indian communities and to support tribal self-governance, but the real purpose of the congress was to promote the legislation. One hundred and sixty-seven tribal representatives from twenty-five delegations and Indian Service agents gathered in the Hayward Indian School gymnasium to participate in the conference proceedings as 250 spectators looked on. The Ojibwe delegates from Wisconsin, including Jerome Arbuckle and Thomas St. Germaine, were among the most vocal representatives. They raised concerns about whether the legislation would protect tribal treaty rights in the face of increasing state encroachment on reservation lands. They were worried that the bill would abolish Ojibwe treaty rights, especially since the state government had recently argued before the Wisconsin Supreme Court that it should have jurisdiction over all navigable waterways , including those located within the boundaries of the reservation. If this were to come to pass, the state to could make it illegal for Ojibwes to trap, fish, and harvest resources such as wild rice on waterways on- and off-reservation. Thomas St. Germaine informed federal officials that water rights were critical to Ojibwe survival and suggested that if the federal government truly wanted to improve the welfare of Ojibwe people, it should pass a law giving the tribes exclusive jurisdiction over waterways on reservations . Jerome Arbuckle asserted, “If this bill takes away our hunting and fishing rights it takes everything away from us and will be of no benefit Conclusion / 129 to us.” When Arbuckle asked federal officials whether Ojibwes passing over these waters with game out season would be arrested and was answered in the affirmative, he said: “I would like to know what good our treaty is then.” Ojibwes from other Wisconsin reservations voiced similar concerns. Their reply was that these were “deep legal waters” that did not apply to the bill and would be more appropriately settled in state and federal courts. Thus, though it had the opportunity to address them, the federal government disregarded treaty rights as important aspect of tribal welfare and economic revitalization. What was it like for St. Germaine, Arbuckle, and other delegates to witness this chance for redress come to a rapid end? We do not know how the other delegates reacted to the meeting, but it is apparent that it haunted Jerome Arbuckle. In a discussion of the treaty rights litigation that was taking place around the same time of the meeting, Arbuckle stated: “Technical questions arose as a result of these cases, which to date have never been satisfactorily settled while publicity given to these cases in court and in the press seemed to furnish ‘ads’ for ever increasing white trespassers. The Indians raised their voices in complaint against these grievances, but to no avail.” For Ojibwes, the congress ultimately represented the federal government’s refusal to address or even acknowledge that treaty rights were central to their economies and their sovereignty. Writing about the congress, Ronald Satz concluded, “The BIA’s failure to address these issues had dramatic consequences for Wisconsin’s Indians as is exemplified in the long struggle of the state’s six Chippewa bands to practice their hunting and fishing regulations free from state regulation.” Ironically, precisely during the period when federal policy was shifting toward promoting tribal self-governance and economic development, the government disregarded the extent to which Ojibwe sovereignty and their livelihoods were intertwined. Although the Indian New Deal focused on programs designed to invigorate tribal economies and to generate work, the federal representatives at the congress did not acknowledge that Ojibwes had depended on their treaty rights to exercise political and economic self-determination since the mid-nineteenth century. By brushing treaty rights aside as a strictly legal matter to be in settled the courts, they disregarded the role that treaties had played in defining Ojibwe relationships with the federal government. In fact, the treaties played a critical role in shaping the political relations between Ojibwes and the United States, as well as the structure of the regional economy in which both Ojibwes and settlers worked. Ojibwe headmen and U.S. officials both had economic...