In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

340 statutory authority, including ANCSA village and regional corporations and various tribal organizations. These entities are made eligible for Federal contracting and services by statute and their non-inclusion on the list below does not affect the continued eligibility of the entities for contracts and services. . . . [See Document 238 for a listing of Alaska tribes as of March 3, 2000]. [Federal Register, 58:54365–66.] 220. Catawba Indian Tribe of South Carolina Land Claims Settlement Act October 27, 1993 The Catawba Indians, after long agitation of their claims, agreed to a Settlement Act with non-Indian parties, which was accepted by the federal government. The Indians, who had been considered a state tribe, were restored to status as a federally recognized tribe. An Act to provide for the settlement of land claims of the Catawba Tribe of Indians in the State of South Carolina and the restoration of the Federal trust relationship with the Tribe, and for other purposes. . . . . sec. 2. declaration of policy, congressional findings and purpose. (a) Findings.—The Congress declares and finds that: (1) It is the policy of the United States to promote tribal self-determination and economic self-sufficiency and to support the resolution of disputes over historical claims through settlements mutually agreed to by Indian and non-Indian parties . (2) There is pending before the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina a lawsuit disputing ownership of approximately 140,000 acres of land in the State of South Carolina and other rights of the Catawba Indian Tribe under Federal law. (3) The Catawba Indian Tribe initiated a related lawsuit against the United States in the United States Court of Federal Claims seeking monetary damages. (4) Some of the significant historical events which have led to the present situation include: (A) In treaties with the Crown in 1760 and 1763, the Tribe ceded vast portions of its aboriginal territory in the present States of North and South Carolina in return for guarantees of being quietly settled on a 144,000-acre reservation. (B) The Tribe’s district court suit contended that in 1840 the Tribe and the State entered into an agreement without Federal approval or participation whereby the Tribe ceded its treaty reservation to the State, thereby giving rise to the Tribe’s claim that it was dispossessed of its lands in violation of Federal law. (C) In 1943, the United States entered into an agreement with the Tribe and the State to provide services to the Tribe and its members. The State purchased 3,434 acres of land and conveyed it to the Secretary in trust for the Tribe and the Tribe organized under the Indian Reorganization Act. (D) In 1959, when Congress enacted the Catawba Tribe of South Carolina Division of Assets Act (25 U.S.C. 931–938), Federal agents assured the Tribe that if the Tribe would release the Government from its obligation under the 1943 agreement and agree to Federal legislation terminating the Federal trust relationship and liquidating the 1943 reservation, the status of the Tribe’s land claim would not be jeopardized by termination. (E) In 1980, the Tribe initiated Federal court litigation to regain possession of its treaty lands and in 1986, the United States Supreme Court ruled in South Carolina against Catawba Indian Tribe that the 1959 Act resulted in the application of State statutes of limitations to the Tribe’s land claim. Two 341 subsequent decisions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit have held that some portion of the Tribe’s claim is barred by State statutes of limitations and that some portion is not barred. (5) The pendency of these lawsuits has led to substantial economic and social hardship for a large number of landowners , citizens and communities in the State of South Carolina, including the Catawba Indian Tribe. Congress recognizes that if these claims are not resolved, further litigation against tens of thousands of landowners would be likely; that any final resolution of pending disputes through a process of litigation would take many years and entail great expenses to all parties; continue economically and socially damaging controversies; prolong uncertainty as to the ownership of property ; and seriously impair long-term economic planning and development for all parties. (6) The 102d Congress has enacted legislation suspending until October 1, 1993, the running of any unexpired statute of limitation applicable to the Tribe’s land claim in order to provide additional time to negotiate settlement...


Additional Information

MARC Record
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.