III. Treaties

 

            “For the use of…” : The 1829 Treaty of Prairie du

              Chien.

 

At the core of the issue regarding the ownership of, and title to, the “reserved” lands at Shabbona’s Grove was the July 29, 1829 (ratified, January 2, 1830) Treaty of Prairie du Chien[1]. The land cessions by the United Bands of the Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi contained in this treaty were expansive,[2]

 

 Beginning at the Winnebago Village, on Rock river, forty miles from its mouth, and running thence down the Rock river. To a line which runs due west from the southern bend of Lake Michigan to the Mississippi river, and with that line to the Mississippi river opposite to Rock Island; thence, up that river to the United States reservation at the mouth of the Ouisconsin; thence, with the south and east lines of said reservation, to the Ouisconsin river; thence, southerly, passing the heads of small streams emptying into the Mississippi. To the Rock river aforesaid, at the Winnebago village, the place of beginning. And also one other tract of land, described as follows, to wit: Beginning on the Western Shore of Lake Michigan, at the northeast corner of the field of Antoine Ouitmette, who lives near Gross Pointe, about twelve miles north of Chicago; thence, running due west, to the rock river, aforesaid, thence, down the said river, to a line drawn due west from the most southern bend of Lake Michigan crosses said river; thence, east, along said line to the Fox river of Illinois; thence, along the northwestern boundary line of the cession of 1816, to lake Michigan; thence, northwardly, along the Western Shore of said Lake, to the place of beginning…

 

The first land description matched those tribal boundaries demarcated and agreed upon in the 1825 treaty by the region’s tribes as described earlier. The second description was for lands that had since the early 17th century been occupied by a succession of tribes such as the Illinois, Mascouten, Miami, Fox, Potawatomi, Sac, and Fox, oftentimes jointly. When in 1765 the Potawatomi first established themselves in Northern Illinois, they did so amongst existing villages belonging to the Miami, Ottawa, and Chippewa tribes.[3] By 1820 there were fourteen established politically autonomous Potawatomi villages in northern and central Illinois.[4] The lands of Shabbona’s Grove lay within the bounds of this second 1829 land cession, now jointly occupied with the Chippewa and Ottawa.

 

In a 1835 letter from M.T. Williams of the Surveyor General’s Northwest Office to the Commissioner of the General Land Office in Washington[5] it was reported that the Indian boundary line running along the north boundary of the 1829 Prairie du Chien Treaty had been surveyed. All lands south of this line were acknowledged as ceded territory and had yet to be surveyed.

 

During the course of the negotiations for the Prairie du Chien treaty, it was remarked by the Federal Commissioner in charge of the negotiations, General John M. Neil[6] that,

 

“I have no objection to grant to the half breeds small portions of Land provided that the position of them shall be left to the President of the United States….

 

Article IV. of the Prairie du Chien treaty did just that,

 

There shall be granted by the United States, to each of the following persons, (being descendants from Indians,) the following tracts of land….The tracts of land herein stipulated to be granted, shall never be leased or conveyed by the grantees, or their heirs, to any persons whatever, without the permission of the President of the United States.

 

Thus the term “half breeds” was equivalent to “being descendents from Indians.” Outright grants were made to individual “half-breeds” that contained alienation prohibitions which required the permission of the President to do so. These individual grants, contained not only heir-ship rights but also alienation and leasing prohibitions. The intent was clearly to keep these grantees and their successors from alienating the federal lands granted to them thus protecting them from land speculators. Thus, the grants did bestow a limited fee interest in the land to the grantee, it was not in fee-simple holding, but conditional in nature. These “half-breeds” were not Indians living in tribal relations. They were “descendants from Indians.”

 

   In contrast, Indians such as those of Shabenay’s band who were living in tribal relations were not considered to be United States citizens or residents. As such, could tribal entities or Indians living in tribal relations hold land in fee within a territory or state?

 

Article III. of the Prairie du Chien treaty did something different for such groups,

 

From the cessions aforesaid, there shall be reserved, for the use of the undernamed Chiefs and their bands, the following tracts of land, viz:…

 

                        …For Shab-eh-nay, two sections at his village near the Paw-paw Grove….

 

 

First it is clear from the text that the land itself was land ceded to the Federal Government by the Treaty, (“From the cessions aforesaid…”) that is, the lands were part of those ceded via the Prairie du Chien treaty to the United States Government. In return, Shabenay’s band was being allowed the “use” of these ceded lands, “From the cessions aforesaid…” subject to the pleasure of the Federal Government.  Unlike the “half-breeds”, the land in question near Paw-paw Grove was not being granted to this band and its okama, Shabenay. Given that situation, no fee holding by anyone other than the Federal Government to whom the land was ceded by the 1829 Prairie du Chien treaty was possible.  Second, the land reserved was for the use of the corporate entity, “…chiefs and their bands,..”, or the okama and his band. Following Potawatomi cultural practice, land usage or usufructory rights were collective. No one individual had a greater right to usage than anyone else in the band. No title rights, heir-ship rights or alienation rights were provided within the Treaty’s text, only the land use.

 

The term “…use…” implies someone other than the user has a controlling interest of that which is being used. For example, George purchased a lawnmower from John. Later John’s other lawnmower breaks down. John then asks George if he can use his old lawn mower. Implied in that statement is the fact that George has, as a result of his purchase from John, a controlling (ownership) interest in the lawnmower, and as the person with such a controlling interest, George can either allow or prohibit John’s use of his mower. If he allows John its use, it is with the implied understanding that it will be returned when John is finished using it or if the situation warrants, demand its immediate return. Is this the situation with Shabenay and his bands use of the lands near Paw-paw? What does the historical record have to say?

 

As early as 1803 President Thomas Jefferson began to advocate  removal of Indian tribes west of the Mississippi River into the newly acquired lands of the Louisiana Purchase. At that time and through the early 1820’s the focus of Federal Indian policy was the forced acculturation and civilization of Indian tribes in-situ. In contrast, President James Monroe thought the prospect of a westward tribal removal as provided an answer to two pressing issues: (1) the land needs of an expanding population within the states and into newly acquired territories; (2) and the real threat of extinction of Indian tribes. Subsidiary to these two problems were those of displaced tribes pressing into newly settled states and territories which, in turn, didn’t want them within their borders, thus creating the real possibility of further conflict between these two differing cultural groups.

 

Compelled by the demands of the State of Georgia which was pressing the Federal Government to live up to its obligations derived from the Compact of 1802, wherein the State surrendered its claims to western lands in exchange for the extinguishment of Indian title to lands within her border, President Monroe proposed the removal of Indian tribes west of the Mississippi River. As Berkhofer[7] noted,

 

Fearing their “degradation and extermination” if they remained in the East, Monroe proposed that removal might be made honorable to the United States and attractive to the Indians if Congress guaranteed the emigrant Indians a permanent title to their Western lands, organized some kind of government among the removed tribes to protect their territory from intrusion, preserved peace among the tribes native to the West and the emigrant tribes, and continued funding of civilization agents among them to prevent further “degeneracy.”

 

Federal policy was to shift from forced assimilation to gradual acculturation and eventual assimilation via segregation. This policy, while put into practice by Monroe’s successors, did not assume statutory authority until the enactment of the May 28, 1830 “Act to Provide for an exchange of lands with the Indians residing in any of the states or territories and for their removal west of river Mississippi” or more simply, the “Indian Removal Act”, that was signed into law by President Andrew Jackson. With this formal authorization, Jackson,

 

… had authorization to exchange unorganized public domain in the trans-Mississippi West for Indian land in the East. Indian emigrants would receive perpetual title to their new land as well as compensation for improvements in the East and assistance in emigrating”[8]

 

It must be clearly understood that it was within this political environment promoting the removal of Indian tribes west of the Mississippi that the July 29, 1829 Treaty at Prairie du Chien was negotiated. The underlying goal of this treaty was the removal of the Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi from northern Illinois and their eventual removal westward out of the State. For the Potawatomi in northern Illinois, this goal was not achieved until the September 26, 1833  treaty (ratified February 21, 1835)with the “ United Nation of Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatamie Indians…” at Chicago.[9] At the treaty proceedings[10] the following was agreed upon,

 

…The Chiefs signified a wish to have the general features of this Treaty explained…[41] By this Treaty my Children, you cede to your great father all your lands between Lake Michigan and the Mississippi River. You have made no reservations, You agree to remove.

It provides that your great Father set apart for your use and occupancy beyond the Mississippi river as much  and as good land as you have here…[ 42] You are required by this Treaty, my children to remove beyond the Northern boundary of Illinois within one year…[43] September 27th 1833… Gov Porter said-Yesterday- a Treaty was concluded by which the Prairie Indians ceded to their great father all the lands which they owned west of Lake Michigan… [11]

 

 

These vacated lands would then be surveyed, new townships established, and these newly surveyed lands would be available to new settlers via sale at public auction by the Federal Government’s General Land Office.

 

          The 1833 Treaty at Chicago: What Did, and Didn’t

                 Happen.

 

It is with this 1833 (ratified1835) Treaty at Chicago with “the United Nations of the Chippewa, Ottawa and Potawatamie Indians…” that an examination of the historical documentation pertaining to Shabenay and his band and the lands at Shabbona can begin in earnest. Article three of this treaty provides a foundation for such an assessment. It reads,

 

Article 3d. And in further consideration of the above cession, it is agreed, that there shall be paid by the United States the sums of money hereinafter mentioned: to wit:

One hundred thousand dollars to satisfy sundry individuals, in behalf of whom reservations were asked, which Commissioners refused to grant…

 

…Two hundred dollars to be paid to Joseph Lafromboise and two hundred dollars a year to be paid to Shabehnay, for life….(emphasis added)

 

Why did Shabenay receive this lifelong stipend from the Federal Government? The answer lies in Article 5 of the original draft of the treaty. It part it stated that Shabenay would receive a reservation grant to the Shabbona lands as “…a grant in fee simple to him, his heirs and assigns forever….” This article was stricken by the Senate[12] at the request of the Secretary of War Cass who was an Indian removal proponent[13]. In a January 17, 1843 letter[14] from Commissioner of Indian Affairs T.H. Crawford, to Thos. H. Blake, Commissioner, General Land Office, Commissioner Crawford noted,

 

…This opinion is sustained and fortified, I think, by the fact that the 5 art. of the treaty of 26 Sept. 1833-with the Chippewas, Ottowas, & Pottowatomis, providing that the aforesaid reservation to Shab eh nay “shall be a grant in fee simple to him, his heirs and assigns forever” was stricken out by the Senate….

 

 

Senator White’s Report gives us an indication as to why Article V was stricken. The Senate Committee recommended that Article 5 be stricken in part over the question “whether there is a power to make such provisions…” The question is thus raised, could Congress bestow fee-simple ownership upon lands occupied by a non-citizen band living in tribal relations holding only usufructory rights within a State (Illinois)? Additionally, it was reported by the General Land Office in Cincinnati on May 2, 1833[15] that all the initial land surveys encompassing the lands of the 1829 Prairie du Chien cession had been surveyed. This included the initial Township plats such as T38 N (Shabbona) within the ceded area. The sectional surveys came later. Once the survey process was completed it was the statutory responsibility of the Treasury Department’s General Land Office[16] under the President’s authority to sell such lands at public auction. Additionally, the bestowing of fee simple holding to Indians still living in tribal relations within a state ran counter to the provisions and intent of the Federal 1830 Indian Removal Act.

 

What the 1843 Crawford letter tells us is foundational. In 1833, the lands of Shabbona’s Grove were not fee held to any individual owner nor to a corporate entity nor was it a Federal Indian reservation. Particularly there was no title bestowed or recognized, nor was there a Federal Indian reservation established for Shabenay and his band at Shabbona as a result of the 1829 Prairie du Chien treaty. In 1833, during the treaty negotiations Shabenay tried to have these federally- owned lands given to him and his band as both, it didn’t happen.

 

That Commissioner Crawford was referring to the lands at Shabbona’s Grove is clearly evident in the following paragraphs that preceded the above quote,

 

Sir,

  I have duly considered the tenor of your letter of 16 inst, in connection with the accompanying papers, relative to the survey of the reservation provided for Shab-eh-ney- by the 3. article of the treaty of 29 July 1829, with the Chippewas, Ottawas and Potawatomies.

 

  The 1st article of aforesaid treaty defines the boundaries of the land ceded by it- the 3d. article stipulates that that “from the cessions aforesaid there shall be reserved for the use of the undernamed chiefs and their bands, the following tracts of land. “ For Shabehney two sections at his village near Paw-paw grove.”

 

  The language of the article making the reservation for Shabehney is similar to that used in the 2d. article  of the treaties of 20, 26,-&27 October 1832 – with the Potawatomies- which has been construed under an opinion of the Attorney General of 20, Sept. 1833- (see opinion, Atty. Genl. Page 1402) as conferring on the reserves a usufruction right only to the land reserved for them…

 

 

Article three indicates that Shabenay did not have lands reserved to

him and his band as a reservation in fee-holding. If he did in fact have fee-holding prior to the treaty negotiations, why would he have sought such a reservation in fee simple holding now? He wanted sole ownership and the protection of having a formal reservation with fee-simple ownership of the lands. At that point in time the surveying and laying out of town plats was already completed on those lands acquired by the 1829 treaty at Prairie du Chien[17] and public auction of the lands and State ownership was forthcoming. If Shabenay and his band had an established Federal reservation that was under federal trust protection he would not have had to seek both a reservation and fee-simple ownership in 1833. In order to have something taken into trust, the entity offering up the object to be taken must have ownership of that object that he is transferring to another to hold in trust for the object’s owner. It is clear, neither Shabenay nor his band had any ownership rights to the lands at Shabbona.  One last point, having land in fee-simple would have conflicted with the required removal of his band west of the Mississippi River as required by the 1833 Chicago treaty.

 

In the 1829 Prairie du Chien  treaty there was no grant to Shabenay and his band, unlike those conditionally ‘granted’ to the “half-breeds” or “descendants from Indians” in the same document. There was no mention of any sort of land trust relationship concerning the lands at Shabbona’s Grove with the Federal government in the treaty. In fact the boundaries of the “use” lands at Shabbona’s Grove were not surveyed until December of 1842.[18] How can a reservation or trust lands exist without defined boundaries to identify such a reservation, and a subsequent federal declaration that it is such? Together this data adds further support that the intent of Shabenay and his band’s occupancy and use of the lands at Shabbona’s Grove was to be temporary in nature (tenants at will). The goal of the Federal authorities and the formally established policy of the Federal Government was removal of the Indians west of the Mississippi River, not the permanent establishment of an Indian reservation within a State.

 

The 1829 Prairie du Chien Treaty mentions that the land that Shabenay and his band were to use was “From the cessions aforesaid.” There was no mention of ownership interest or rights. If there were, Shabenay would not have attempted to obtain such a fee-holding in the 1833 Chicago treaty. It is clear, in the opinion of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs Crawford that Shabenay’s “use” of the lands at Shabbona’s Grove was by “usufruction[19] right only.”

 

In addition to Commissioner of Indian Affairs Crawford’s 1843 letter to the Commissioner of the General Land Office affirming the usufructory nature of the lands at Shabbona’s Grove, were there other correspondence and documents that add further support to Commissioner Crawford’s conclusion?

 

Two years later, on November 18, 1845, a second letter was sent out by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs regarding a letter that was sent to the President by a Coalman Olmstead regarding Shabenay and Shabbona’s Grove[20]

 

  Sir,

  Your communication to the President of the United States of 15 ultimo has been referred to this office-With reference to your statement in relation to your purchase of a portion of the land set apart for the use of Shab-eh-nay and his band- by the 3d. art of the treaty of 1829 with the Chippewas, Ottowas & Potowatomies… I have to state that as the treaty gives to Shab-eh-nay or his band no authority to sell the land usefrunct as aforesaid- The President cannot give his sanction to any sale that may have been made of it-Shab eh nay & his band under the treaty has only the occupant right- the xxx title is in the United States which can be extinguished by authority of law (emphasis added)

 

Three years later, in a May 27, 1848 letter[21] from W. Midell of the Office of Indian Affairs (War Department) to Representative John Wentworth, Commissioner Midell stated,

 

Sir,

  I had the honor to receive your note of 6. instant, in which you ask my attention to the propriety of confirming the three deeds which accompanied it, each executed by Shab-eh-nay, on 1. of December 1845 in this city-one to Ansel A. Gates for 320 acres, one to Orrin Gates for 320 acres, and one to Ansel A. Gates for 640 acres, and conveying the land reserved for the use of said Shab-eh-nay and his band by the 3rd. article of the treaty concluded with the Chippewa, Ottawa and Potowatomie Indians on 29, July 1829.

 

   The treaty gave no authority to Shab-eh-nay to sell the land. It was reserved for the use of himself and his band only, and it is the opinion of this office. That when the parties, for whose use it was reserved, left it, that it was competent for the United States to sell it as other lands ceded by that treaty which had not been expressly granted to individuals named therein. This view is confirmed by the fact that 5. article of a treaty concluded with the same Indians on 26 September 1833, which stipulated that the reservation made by the treaty of 1829, should be a grant in fee simple to Shab-eh-nay, his heirs and assigns forever, was stricken out by the Senate.

 

   It seems to me therefore, that as the lands referred to are no longer occupied by the persons for whose use they were reserved, that it is competent for the Comr. Of the General Land Office to dispose the same as other public lands of the United States….(emphasis added)

 

In a July 14, 1849 letter[22] from J. Butterfield, Commissioner of the General Land Office to Orlando Brown, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the position and conclusion made by former Indian Commissioner was still being maintained and supported by the Interior Department.

 

Sir,

   I have received your letter of the 10th. Instant, enclosing me a copy of one you had received from Mr. W. Gates of Paw Paw Grove Illinois, relative to the Reservation for the use “of Shab-eh-nay,” and his band of “two sections at his village, near the Paw Paw Grove,” under the treaty concluded on the 29th July 1829 with the Chippewas and Ottawas;- which reserve is fully laid down on our Township plat, & there designated as

 

                                                Section 23

                                                The W ½ of Section 25 &

                                                E ½ of Section 26

                                                T38. N.R. 3 East 3d P.M. Illinois

 

   In connexion with this matter, you refer to the decision of the Indian Office of the 27th May 1848, stated in the transcript of a letter of that date to Mr. Wentworth, as communicated to my predecessor, in which decision it is held that “ as the lands referred to are no longer occupied by the persons for whose use they were reserved, that it is competent for the Commr. Of the General Land Office to dispose of the same as other public lands of the United States.” I find consequently that under date 12 August 1848 these lands had been ordered into market…(emphasis added)

 

 

In a July 18, 1849 letter[23], Commissioner Brown made it explicitly clear that Shabenay and his band had only “usufruct right” to the two sections of land at his village.

 

… and as the original treaty only gave to Shab-en-ney and his band, the use of the land-vesting in them no title by the treaty of 26. Sept. 1833 (such provision therein having been stricken out by the Senate,) and as those of the party now claiming by purchase for the reserve, to procure the passage of a law securing such title, have alike failed; it appears to me that this office should not now go behind its decision of 27th May 1848, referred to in your letter, and reopen the case….(emphasis added)

 

Four years (June 25, 1853) after Commissioner Brown’s letter, a letter from the same office[24] from the Acting Commissioner maintained the same conclusions and position as did the July 18, 1849 letter

   The two sections of land, to which you refer, were reserved “for the use of Shabonay and his band,” under the treaty of the 29th of July 1829; and, as the persons for whose use alone they were thus reserved, ceased to occupy them, they were held to have reverted to the United States, and to be subject to the disposal of by the Genl. Land Office as other public lands of the United States. As the title was a mere usufructuary one, was also held that it was not competent for the reservee or his legal representation to sell or dispose of the land to third parties. (emphasis added)

 

 

When Shabenay’s purported plight concerning his land at Shabbona became a cause celebre’ in Illinois, two state attorneys wrote to the Secretary of the Interior in June of 1853 asking to obtain information in his regard. Chas. A. Mix, the Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, was directed by the Secretary to respond to their query[25].

 

Gentlemen,

   The Secretary of the Interior, to whom you addressed a communication dated 26th, ult. Asking whether the  “land reserved to the Pottawatamie Chief Shab-eh-nay” under the treaty of 29th, July 1829, has been sold, has referred the same to this Office for answer.

 

   The treaty under which this reservation was made, gave to Shab-eh-nay, and his band only usufruct right thereto. It did not vest in him, or, with him or his band, a title in fee, and it was decided by this office as long since, as May 1848, that in as much as said land had been abandoned by the Indians for whom it had been reserved, that it was “competent for the Commissioner of the General Land Office to dispose of the same as other public lands of the United States.” It will be seen therefore, that in the opinion of this Office Shab-eh-nay, has no claim upon the United States on account of the reservation referred to….(emphasis added)

 

Nine years later, the issue was still active. Mix, in response to a query from the Secretary of the Interior wrote back[26],

 

In the case of two sections to Sha-eh-nay, at his village near Paw Paw Grove, under treaty of Chippewa and others at Prairie du Chien, it appears from the files in this office that he left the reservation and went West of the Mississippi to live, and by decision of the Department it was held that Shab-eh-nay had only a usufruct right to the land and having left it to live elsewhere the land reverted to the United States to be treated as other public lands- (emphasis added)

 

 

Both the War Department and later, the Department of the Interior consistently opined that neither Shabenay nor his band had any vested title to the lands at Shabbona’s Grove and that their presence upon those lands was usufructory in nature. As the chain of historical evidence maintains, the village okama and his band held only usufructory privileges to the 1,280 acres of land at Shabbona’s Grove. Indeed the Presidents tacit concurrence can be seen in the November 18, 1845 letter cited above.

 

In addition to the consistency of opinion maintained over the span of twenty years, not once did Congress, the Justice Department, nor the President contest or disagree with the Department of the Interior’s opinions and conclusions in regard to Shabenay, his band, and the nature of land-holding at Shabbona’s Grove.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


[1] EXH. 21. Kappler, Charles J., 1904, Indian Affairs. Laws and Treaties, Volume II, Treaties:297,

    Washington, Government Printing Office.

[2] EXH. 2. Tucker, Sarah J. 1942, Indian Villages of the Illinois Country, Volume II, Scientific Papers,

    Illinois  State Museum, Springfield Plate XCIII. Map of Lands Ceded by the Potawatamies 1832.

[3] Alvord C.W., Carter C.E., 1916, The New Regime 1765-1767, Collections of the Illinois State

     Historical Library, Volume XI:49, George Croghan’s Journal, September 14, 1765.

[4] Swanton,  John R., 1952, The Indian Tribes of North America:247-250, Smithsonian

     Institution, Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 145, Washington, Government Printing Office.

[5] NARA Washington D.C., M477, Roll 5, Letters sent by the Surveyor General of the Territory Northwest

    of the river Ohio 1797-1854, Volume D, April 20, 1831-Jan.7, 1835.

[6] EXH. 22. Documents Relating to the Negotiation of the Treaty of July 29, 1829, with the United

    Chippewa, Ottawa, and Potawatomi Indians, NARA Washington D.C.,  T494, Roll 2, 0149-0187,

    Treaties Ratified and Unradified. Prairie du Chien July 27, 1829 Letter of the General John M. Neil

    Commissioner

 

[7] EXH. 23. Berkhofer, Robert A., 1979, The White Man’s Indian:158, New York, Vantage Books.

[8] EXH. 24. Satz, Ronald N., 1974, American Indian Policy in the Jacksonian Era: 51, University of

    Oklahoma Press, Norman.

[9] EXH. 25. Kappler, Charles J., 1904, Indian Affairs. Laws and Treaties, Volume II, Treaties:402,

     Washington, Government Printing Office.

[10] EXH. 26. Journal of the Proceedings of a Treaty between the United States and the United Tribes of

    Pottawatamies, Chippeway & Ottawas. Chicago, Cook County Illinois. September 26, 1833.Treaties

    Ratified and Unratified NARA  Washington D.C., T494, Roll 3:40-43.

[11] EXH. 2.Tucker, Sarah J. 1942, Indian Villages of the Illinois Country, Volume II, Scientific Papers,

    Illinois  State Museum, Springfield Plate LII. Map of Lands Ceded by the Potawatamies north of 1829

    cession to the Michigan territory..

 

[12] EXH. 27. Senate Executive Journal, , April 7, 1834 Report of Mr. White:382-384.

[13] EXH. 28. Clifton, James, A., 1998 ed., The Prairie People: Continuity and Change in Potawatomi Indian

    Culture, 1665-1965 :244, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City.

[14] EXH.29.Illinois State Archives, RG. 952.363 Dixon Land Office, Indian Files. Also in Dowd, James,

    1979, Built Like A Bear:139-140, Ye Galleon Press, Washington.

[15] EXH.30.Letter to Elijah Hayward Esq. General Land Office Washington from M.J. William, General

    Land Office, Cincinnati. NARA Washington, M477, Roll5, Letters Sent by the Surveyor General of the

    Territory Northwest of the River Ohio: 1797-1854, Vol. D, April 20, 1831-January 7, 1835.

[16] This office was later transferred to the Interior Department  and is now the present-day Bureau of Land

     Management. It is located in Springfield, Virginia.

[17] EXH. 30.Letter to Elijah Hayward Esq. General Land Office Washington from M.J. William, General

    Land Office Cincinnati, May 2, 1833, NARA Washington D.C., M477, Roll5, Letters Sent by the   

    Surveyor General of the Territory Northwest of the River Ohio 1797-1854, Vol. D, April 20, 1831-

    January 7, 1835.

[18] EXH.31.Temple. Wayne C. undated. Shabbona: Friend of the Whites. Illinois Historical Society

     Publications, Springfield.

[19] “Usufruct”: circa 1630-,”The right of temporary possession, use, or enjoyment of the advantages of

     property belonging to another, so far as may be had without causing damage or prejudice” Onions, C.T.,

    1950, The Shorter Oxford Dictionary on Historical Principles, Third Edition, Volume II:2326, Clarendon

     Press, Oxford University.

[20] EXH.32.Letter, Commissioner of Indian Affairs to Coalman Olmstead, Shabbona’s Grove, DeKalb

    County, Illinois. Dowd, James, 1979, Built Like A Bear:143, Ye Galleon Press, Washington.

[21] EXH.33.Letter, War Department, Office of Indian Affairs, to Hon. John Wentworth, House of

    Representatives-US. Dowd, James, 1979, Built Like A Bear:146-147, Ye Galleon  

    Press, Washington.

[22] EXH. 34.Letter, J. Butterfield, Commissioner, General Land Office to Orlando Brown Esq.,

     Commissioner of  Indian Affairs. , Dowd, James, 1979, Built Like A Bear:149-150, Ye Galleon Press,

     Washington 

[23]  EXH.17.Letter, Orlando Brown Esq., Commissioner of Indian Affairs to J. Butterfield, Commissioner,

     General Land Office. Dowd, James, 1979, Built Like A Bear:151, Ye Galleon Press, Washington.

[24]  EXH. 6.Letter, Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs to John H. Kinze, Chicago, Illinois. Dowd,

     James, 1979, Built Like A Bear:152-153, Ye Galleon Press, Washington

[25]  EXH.35.Letter, October 5, 1854,Chas A. Mix, Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to Messrs

     Paddock & Ward Attorneys. Dowd, James, 1979, Built Like A Bear:154, Ye Galleon Press, Washington

[26]  EXH. 36.Letter, September 24, 1863, Charles E. Mix, Acting Commissioner of Indian Affairs to J.P.

     Usher, Secretary, Department of the Interior. Dowd, James, 1979, Built Like A Bear:163, Ye Galleon

     Press,  Washington.