The Rebirth of a Nation? A Chapter in Penobscot History
NICHOLAS N. SMITH Brunswick, Maine
THE EARLIEST PERIOD The first treaty of peace between the Maine Indians and the English came to a successful close in 1676 (Williamson 1832.1:519), and it was quickly followed by a second with other Indians further upriver. On 28 April 1678, the Androscoggin, Kennebec, Saco and Penobscot went to Casco Bay and signed a peace treaty with commissioners from Massachusetts. By 1752 no fewer than 13 treaties were signed between Maine Indians negotiating with commissioners representing the Colony of Massachu setts, who in turn represented the English Crown. In 1754, George II of England, defining Indian tribes as "independent nations under the protec tion of the Crown," declared that henceforth only the Crown itself would make treaties with Indians. In 1701 Maine Indians signed the Great Peace of Montreal (Havard [1992]: 138); in short, the French, too, recognized the Maine tribes as sov ereign entities with treaty-making powers. In 1776 the colonies declared their independence, terminating the Crown's regulation of treaties with Maine Indians; beween 1754 and 1776 no treaties had been made between the Penobscot and England. On 19 July 1776 the Penobscot, Passamaquoddy, Maliseet and Micmac Indi ans acknowledged the independence of the American colonies, when a delegation from the tribes went to George Washington's headquarters to declare their allegiance to him and offered to fight for his cause. John Allan, given a Colonel's rank, was the agent for the Passamaquoddy, Maliseet and Micmac, but refused to work with the Penobscot, ... supposing at that time that it was so in the heart of the Country, that they were under the immediate jurisdiction of the Genl court of this State, and they having such intercourse with the Inhabitants, I pre sumed that things were carried on reciprocally, for the Interests of the State as well as Indians, ... (Kidder 1867:234).
Papers of the 36th Algonquian Conference, ed. H.C. Wolfart (Winnipeg: University of Manitoba, 2005), pp. 407-423. 408 NICHOLAS N. SMITH
Andrew Gilman, a trader, was then appointed to act as negotiator and interpreter for the Penobscot who gave their allegiance to Boston, though a treaty to secure their allegiance was not thought necessary. The Passa maquoddy were under the impression that General Washington's Letter to the Passamaquoddy Tribe of 24 December 1776 was a treaty based on bilateral terms although, in fact, it was only a copy of a letter sent to the various eastern tribes, asking them to support the Americans. The Cana dian Micmac and Maliseet tribes, however, signed the Treaty of Water- town, in 1776, the first treaty signed by the Continental Congress, pledging to support the rebellious colonies (Upton 1979:73-74). The Continental Congress usually considered all the Maritime tribes of eastern Maine as a unit, labelled "Eastern Indians." However, each tribe had previously been regarded as a sovereign unit - distinct from Massachusetts, and from one another - when there was serious business conducted, resulting in signed agreements. Just as the tribes had been addressed independently when their young men were asked to join the American forces, they also expected to be invited as independent entities to the peace talks that concluded the Revolution. When it became obvious that no such invitation was forthcoming, the Penobscot knew that they had no guarantee of rights to land they regarded as their own. They con cluded, therefore, that each tribe must make a treaty with Massachusetts to preserve their lands. Although the U.S. Constitution established (in Article I, section 8, paragraph 3) that treaty-making with Indians is a function of Congress, Massachusetts negotiated four treaties with Maine Indians between 1786 and 1818: The Treaty of 1786 between Massachusetts and the Penobscot, defin ing the limits of Penobscot lands. The Treaty of 1794 between Massachusetts and the Passamaquoddy, defining the limits of Passamaquoddy lands. The Treaty of 1796 between Massachusetts and the Penobscot, reduc ing the Penobscot territory. The Treaty of 1818 between Massachusetts and the Penobscot, giving Massachusetts rights to build roads in the Penobscot territory and Massachusetts citizens the right to use the waterways within the Penobscot territory. In this last instance, on 13 February 1818, the Governor of Massachusetts chose a committee of three to treat with Penobscot Chiefs Orono and John THE REBIRTH OF A NATION? 409
Neptune for land. On 20 February 1819 they "... did negotiate a treaty with the Penobscot Tribe of Indians" (Resolves of Massachusetts 1750- 1819:711). With the District of Maine about to become a state in 1820, in 1819 Massachusetts passed An act relating to the separation of the District of Maine from Massachusetts proper, and forming the same into a separate and independent state, stipulating that: The new State shall as soon as the necessary arrangements can be made for that purpose, assume and perform all the duties and obliga tions of the Commonwealth, towards the Indians within said District of Maine, whether the same arise from treaties, or otherwise ... In 1820 a treaty between Maine and the Penobscot adopted the 1818 treaty between the Penobscot and Massachusetts by substituting "Maine" for "Massachusetts." All the Massachusetts obligations and responsibili ties to the Penobscot were transferred to the new State of Maine by the signing of a new treaty between the Penobscot and Maine. The Maine Legislature, however, had little interest in Maine's Indians. Their laws were usually made without consultation, and were often contrary to Wabanaki tradition. An Indian representative was permitted to attend meet ings of the Legislature, to make recommendations and advise regarding Indian laws, but he had no vote. These advisers were at firstself-appointe d and usually promoted their own, rather than tribal, interests. Later, the Penob scot and Passamaquoddy were limited to one Indian Representative from each tribe, who could serve no more than two consecutive terms at a time. The American style of voting was substituted for the long-standing tradition of electing chiefs for life, with the chiefs of neighboring members of the Wabanaki confederacy participating in the election. The power to make treaties is an important ingredient of sovereignty. It has often been claimed that the Indians did not know or understand the treaties they signed. The treaty-making process that began in 1711 and ended with the 1727 treaty - a sixteen-year process - is an example of the Maine Indians' determination to protect their rights to land, traditions and culture. The strong oral history passed down from generation to generation has ensured that their knowledge of the primary conditions expressed in the treaties has been retained. It appears that either the White signers did not understand the implications of the agreements they signed, or that they intended only to acknowledge the sections advantageous to themselves. 410 NICHOLAS N. SMITH
The case State v. Newell (24 Atl. 943, 19 April 1892) held that Maine's resident Indians were not "Indian tribes" within the treaty-mak ing powers of the Federal government, nor were they in political life or territory successors of any of the various eastern tribes of Indians with whom treaties had been made: hence they could not claim any privileges or exemptions under such treaties. This case stands to this day as the basis for many decisions concerning Maine Indian rights.
WORLD WAR II AND ITS AFTERMATH In 1940 there were many restless young men on the reserves, and as the US built up its armed forces, some of the young hunters jumped at the chance of employment. They returned several years later expecting job opportunities equal with those of other Maine veterans, but they found none. In Old Town, for example, a young non-veteran was selected to fill an opening as garbage collector on the Penobscot Reserve over a Penob scot candidate who had a fineoversea s service record. The result was that veterans, with knowledge about the world beyond their island, began leaving the island; they were successful in finding work elsewhere and soon there were small Penobscot communities in Hartford, Bridgeport, and other cities in Connecticut. By 1950 the island elders realized that their sovereign rights had been undermined. In particular, they felt degraded by State welfare offi cials who made no attempt to understand those whose destinies they con trolled, and by the State's definition of Indians as wards of the state. In 1945, the Legislature had even transferred the power of selecting the fer ryman for the service between the Indian Island Reserve and Old Town from the Penobscot Chief to the Director of the Health and Welfare Department (Ghere 1984:243). Education was the firstare a of open conflict. Penobscot Chief Albert Nicola faced excommunication by his parish priest when he transferred his son from the church-run reservation school to the Old Town Public School to provide him with a better education. The children in his extended family soon followed suit. These forerunners of the education revolution saw the need to re-frain keen hunting and trapping talents to contemporary challenges. In 1952 the feisty Nicola charged that the State's attitude towards THE REBIRTH OF A NATION? 411
Maine Indians was that of a dictator (Mincher, Bangor Evening Commer cial, 26 June 1952, p.l). Nicola continued to push for more Indian control (Ghere 1984:250). Finally the conservative Maine Legislature moved to streamline State control by cutting out the Indian Agents and giving almost total power to the Welfare Department. This did not have the desired result. A frustrated Chairman David Fuller of the Legislative Indian Committee went to Washington seeking advice; on his return he discussed their recommendations with me.1 When Fuller resigned from the Committee a few weeks later, I con cluded that the conservative Legislature was not ready to make the recom mended changes, and it was increasingly obvious that the Indians were becoming more knowledgeable with respect to their treaties and treaty rights than the State Legislature was. Several weeks later the Governor offered me the position of Indian Agent to the three Maine Indian Reserves, which I declined in view of the impossibility of serving two opposing groups. The situation continued to worsen. Elders brought up in proud tra ditions found it difficult to instill that pride in the younger generation who were all too often reminded that they were wards of the State, a category that included convicts and the insane. Young people were not treated equally in school or in the job market. An elementary school boy invited to play with a White classmate living in Milford told the family, "People live here," then pointed to Indian Island and continued, "Indians live there." The Tribal Council was confident that conditions could be improved. In 1952 treaties were read and discussed at a series of tribal meetings, cre ating much interest among the Penobscot. The discussions brought people together, and they began to think more positively. The educational level was generally low: why bother to attend school when the only jobs avail able were those that no one else wanted and that required little or no edu cation. The thought of an Indian becoming a lawyer must have seemed an unrealistic dream for most; yet some elders foresaw the law courts as the
1. At the time, I had been working with the Maine Indians in examining old treaties, had written a column on Indian history in the Bar Harbour Times, and was employed by the Abbe Museum there, which was dedicated to the interpretation of Wabanaki Indian life. This is where Fuller questioned me about the contemporary situation, commenting as he left that my views made much more sense than those given to him by the Bureau of Indian Affairs, from which he had just returned. I knew first-hand about many of the problems on the reserves. The documents which illustrate this paper were given to me at the time by James A. Murphy. 412 NICHOLAS N. SMITH
Penobscots' future battleground, and today, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy and Penobscot each have one of their own as a tribal lawyer. In 1956 Gov. Muskie proposed that the Passamaquoddy Reserves be abolished (Bangor Daily News, 12 January 1956, p. 8). The Penobscot felt that, without the reserves, the Indians would quickly lose their identity, but the tribal government had little effective power as a functional work ing body. The reserve was a hotbed of political criticism, but little of what was said was of practical value. There was very little that a Penobscot running for the office of Governor2 could promise and actually deliver. In 1957 Francis Ranco, a younger man of hope and vision, became (tribal) Governor. John Mitchell, a former Marine who shared his approach was named Lieutenant Governor. Mitchell called in James A. Murphy, for merly a fellow marine and now a lawyer at Beverly, Massachusetts. Murphy studied treaty rights and concluded that the Penobscot had a just cause. The standards of international law are those of nation-states and rarely take account of indigenous minorities. They assume that tribal peo ple have no set boundaries to their land, no formal governing body, no treaty-making powers, no characteristic culture, no history. As a result they have been denied the right to the territory they inhabited, the rights of sovereignty, and acceptance in the community of nations. Murphy began by restoring the tribal governing body. The following offices of the Penobscot Indian Nation were formally established and filled: Chief and Judge (Francis Ranco); Penobscot Representative to the Maine Legislature (John S. Nelson); Penobscot Tribal Council Chairlady (Pauline Shay); and Tribal Clerk (Frederick B. Nicola). The Chief appointed seven active Councillors, six honorary Councillors, and four Tribal Captains. The importance of the family totems was re-asserted by putting the totem symbol beside the name of each member of the Council, to show that they were descended from a proud and honorable heritage with a long presence in the area (fig. 1). A list of 18 totems, representing all the Penobscot families, was drawn up by Francis Senabah who also created designs for a Penobscot emblem to be used on official tribal sta tionery and documents (figs. 2, 3), as well as a tribal flag that was to be displayed at important tribal functions.
2. When Maine became a state the legislators substituted the term Governor for Chief. In 1957 Murphy restored the tribal government using the latter term; now the terms are often used interchangeably. THE REBIRTH OF A NATION? 413
PATRICK fllYicouSWk.y^r x fmlw \yj SwcUl^^w.
()LBenf J NlcoLft , rtucuwom Plncucu *K) Leslie RHNCO. 3., *X>OR94ttvJf ujevowp..,^ ^OLITflV^aNCO- "j^. Sir- 3/2L- -«?s •?r-* ^(?iBftio CVfKmg (h c»p< Eflffft/ES'TdoeLhv^: '"i-A/lC•JoLrti SflpteL Figure 1. Formal list of Penobscot tribal officials, 1957, including family totems. On 25 March 1957, the Penobscot Nation presented a seven-point declaration to the State Committee on Welfare and the House of Repre sentatives, a document written by Murphy (who also pioneered the use of the term nation) and signed by Penobscot Chief Francis Ranco and the other three officers. It was sent to the Senate and the President of the United States, the Governors of Maine and Massachusetts and the Secre tary General of the United Nations. A diplomatic copy follows: 414 NICHOLAS N. SMITH Figure 2. Penobscot government emblem, 1957. CWUWP T*Tft» 1WW INfPlflM AfTCAN. SfluflREL - - GOLEV *U/ai£fl (VVMPH- - - "LUflJVfl Go^E-e^O 'DettNin 'Befli? - >- flwG-SuQ r«flNcis. (We-sufl vliTcHeaC) Loaefen ; JWweu Sft«- Figure 3. Penobscot family totems, 1957. THE REBIRTH OF A NATION? 415 (1) It is the position of the Penobscot Tribe that they are a free nation and a free people subject to certain treaty obligations with the United States, the successor nation to the obligations of Massachusetts, and Maine. Maine has not honored its obligations with the Penobscot. (2) The State of Maine cannot define who is an Indian any more than it can define who is a German, or a Canadian.lt is the position of the Penobscot Tribe that they are a free nation and a free people subject to certain treaty obligations with the United States, the successor nation to the obligations of Massachusetts, and Maine ... Maine has not honored its obligations with the Penobscot... (3) The Penobscot are not wards or citizens of the state of Maine - they are Penobscot - a free people, an independent nation with treaty making power. The State of Maine may not legislate unilaterally as to the Penobscot Nation's rights, lands, or existence. The Penobscot are not a health and welfare problem of the State of Maine... (4) The State of Maine cannot define who is an Indian any more than it can define who is a German, or a Canadian... (5) The Penobscot Nation is older in the Community of Nations than the nation of Ghana in Africa which the Vice-President of the United States recently [1957] visited... (6) The Penobscot appeal to the President and the Congress, and to the people of the United States in whose behalf Penobscot men have voluntarily fought in every war waged by the United States, to aid the Penobscot in their fight for freedom and justice... (7) The Penobscot hope that the Governor of the State of Maine will take a personal interest in the problems raised by the Maine Legislature's Legislative Documents No. 788 allegedly making Indian Nations an unorganized territory, No. 1133 allegedly authorizing members of the Penobscot Tribe to mortgage the territory of the Penobscot Nation, No. 1255 apparently abolishing the Tribal Council of the Penobscot and transferring Tribal Council duties to the State of Maine, and the several other pending legislative documents adversely affecting the national integrity of the Penobscot. (8) Pending final action by the ninety-eighth Legislature of the State of Maine, the Penobscot intend to keep the President of the United States, the Governor of Massachusetts, and the Secretary General of the United Nations fully advised of the developments adversely affecting the Penobscot Nation. The Penobscot intend to take all peaceful measures necessary to preserve their nation as a free nation, their people as a free people. 416 NICHOLAS N. SMITH The result of this declaration was that the Health and Welfare Com missioner drafted a new set of laws abolishing many of the older laws. This action drove a wedge between Penobscot favoring new ideas and those distrustful of them. Those against the proposals felt that it was the beginning of the breakup and disintegration of the Penobscot and Passa maquoddy Tribes in violation of treaty rights ([anon.], Bangor Daily News, 27 March 1957). Murphy prepared to present his case at higher levels. He found that in 1831 the Cherokee Nation in Georgia had a similar experience to that of the Penobscot in 1957. In the case of the Cherokee Nation vs. the State of Georgia (5 Peters 2 at 4 et seq, 1831), Chief Justice Marshall had deliv ered the opinion of the Court concluding: If it be true that the Cherokee nation have rights, this is not the tribunal in which these rights are to be asserted. If it be true that wrongs have been inflicted, and that still greater are to be apprehended, this is not the tribunal which can redress the past or prevent the future. However, Mr. Justice Thompson and Mr. Justice Story had dissented on the basis, (1) That the Cherokees compose a foreign state within the sense and meaning of the constitution and constitute a competent party to maintain a suit against the state of Georgia. (2) ... presents a case for judicial consideration, arising under the laws of the United States, and treaties made under their authority with the Cherokee nation, and which laws and treaties have been, and are threatened to be still further violated by the laws of the state of Georgia referred to in this opinion. Murphy presented a plan for the Penobscot based on this case: "The Penobscot Nation must take its case to the United Nations and the Penob scot People must go to the Congress, people, and press of the U.S." His future correspondence on the issues would be addressed to Dag Hammar- skjold, Secretary General of the United Nations, and copies would be sent to the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court of the United States. On 21 April 1957, a document affirming James A. Murphy as their spokesman (fig. 4) was signed "For the Penobscot People and Nation" by the Governor and Chief, the Tribal Council Chairlady, the Representative to Maine, and the Tribal Clerk of the Penobscot Indian Nation. THE REBIRTH OF A NATION? 417 Tha Fanobaoot nation and p«ofla hava cooplata confldmct In tha Integrity and ability of thalr ganaral ooanaal, Attorney Jaataa A. Murphy of lavarly. Kaasaohuaatta. Whan ha vrltaa or apaaka (or tha Faoobaaot* ha uaaa not only hla brain unaalflahly, hit tongua fluantly aa4 hla hand faarlaaaly, ha vrltaa and apaaka froa hla haart, Tha fanobaaot ara aaoura la tha kaovladga that thalra la tha right and that juatlea will trlunph. Tha Fanobaoot nation and paopla hava but raafflraad among tha povara of tha aarth tha aaparata and aqual • tat loo to vhloh tha l^vi of Katura and RatvaVa Oad antltla thaaw ' April 11, 1937 • Dur handa and aaalt tn tha Fanobaoot Facpla and Nation (fi(f*41} Franc' 'i) i fjlGco „in»' far-vt&ff Oorarnor and Chlaf /Tribal Counoll Charlady Fanobaoot Indian lUtion , P»nob«oot Indian Nation •1/ucCu.yc /g CJ-&cc^ . I 1VWC fJ * *'N *v+ Fradarlok B. John J). H«lioo Tribal Clark /INAA)\ »«pr«*«ntatlva to Fanobaoot Indian Nation Panobaeot Ip (\ Copy to I oaldant, Atnitad Itatea of Aaarloa I •tiaca, Uoitad gtataa of Aaarloa I Oovaroor, Stat* of Halna I Oovamor, Coaanonwalth of Haaaaohuaatta I gacratary Canaral, Unltad Katlona Kditor, Tha Maw Tork Tlaaa Kditor, Tha »oaton Dally Oloba Figure 4. Penobscot government declaration. 8 NICHOLAS N. SMITH United Nations Nations Units New York Cable Address • Unations Newyork • Adrease Telegraphlque so 215/1 3 MQy 1957 Dear Mr. Murphy, I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 26 March 1957 forwarding a copy of a "Petition of the Penobscot Tribe of Indians", and to Inform you that it will be dealt with in accordance with resolution 75 (V) of the Economic and Social Council, as amended, the relevant provisions of which are enclosed. In accordance with paragraph (b) of thig resolution, a brief summary of your communication will be furnished to the Commission on Human Rights in a confidential list; and in accordance with paragraph (e) a copy of your communica tion will be transmitted to the Government of the United States of America, I wish to point out, however, that the confidential list is compiled principally for the Commission's information, and the Commission "recognizes that it has no power to take any action in regard to any complaints concerning human rights." Whether or not the government concerned will take any action upon receiving a copy of the communication depends on its own decision. In order to enable the Secretary-General to apply these procedures, would you please let me know whether there is any objection to the disclosure of your name and the names Included in the petition, and, at the same time, provide an additional copy of your letter and its enclosures. Yours truly, Pedro L, Yap Division of Human Rights Mrs. James A. Murphy Law Office Twelve Broadway Beverly, Massachusetts gure 5. United Nations reply to counsel for the Penobscot government. THE REBIRTH OF A NATION? 419 May 25, 1957 Reaocmendations to tho Penobowsr Faopio a«u WatfU-m m to the Congress, people and preeB of the United States. Indiv idual Penobscots may take their respective problems to the President, the Congress and the United States Supreme Court. jl- Recommended Action Accordingly I respectfully suggest to the Penobscot People, their chief and sub-chief, the Penobscot Tribal Council that the following action be authorized and taken today: First. - - Tha Secretary General of the United Nations and the United Nations be advised that the Penobscot nation believe the United Nations is the tribunal in vhich its rights should be asserted. Second. - - That the Congress of the United States and the President be advised that the Penobscot Nation and People believe that the United States government is the proper party to redress the past for the wrongs that have been Inflicted on the Penobscot Nation and People, that the United States government should furnish assurance that the still greater wrongs that are to be apprehended iron the State of Maine are to be prevented by the United States Government. Third. — That the People, the Congress, the President, the Supreme Court of the United States, the free press of the & world be advised that the Penobscot People are secure in the knowledge that theirs is the right and that justice will triumph, that the Penobscot Nation and People have but re affirmed among the powers of the earth the separate and equal 3totion to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them. Finally. - - That the nations, peoples and press of the world be advised that tha Penobscot People have never been slaves, that the Penobscots need no emancipation proclamation or legislation establishing their rights as a free people, that the Penobscots have never surrendered their freedom and do not now or in the future as long as the waters of the Penobscot River flows, as long as the birch of the Penobscot forests shall grow, as long as the sun rises In the east and sets in the west, ever surrender their freedom. Respectfully submitted, James A. Murphy ;£ Counsel: Maxwell J. Perrotta Figure 6. Recommendations to the Penobscot government. 420 NICHOLAS N. SMITH PENOBSCOT NATIOti INDIAN ISLAND May 25, 1957 Mr. Dag Hammarskjold Secretary General of the United Nations United Nations, New York Sir: The Secretary General of the United Nations and the United Nations are hereby advised that the Penobscot nation believes the United Nations is the tribunal in which its rights as a nation should be asserted. The Penobscot nation and people hereby affirm among the powers of the earth the separate and equal station to which the laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them. The Penobscot nation hereby affirms its sovereignty or independence, its equality as a nation among the nations of the world, and the Penobscot nation's claim to courteous and respectful treatment at the hands of all other govern ments , Witness our hands and seals For the Penobscot People and Nation Gov. Francis Ranco—Chief of Penobscots Lt. Gov. John Mitchell--Sub-Chief of Penobscots Pauline Shay—Chairlady Mrs. Sylvester Francis Walter Ranco Lucy N. Poolaw Frederick B. Nicola—Tribal Clerk Rep. John S, Nelson Copy to Congress of the United States President, United States of America Supreme Court of the United States FR/fnjm Figure 7. Penobscot government declaration of sovereignty. THE REBIRTH OF A NATION? 42I On 3 May 1957, Pedro L. Yap, Division of Human Rights, UN, replied to the initial petition (fig. 5): I am directed to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of 26 March, 1957, forwarding a copy of a "Petition of the Penobscot Tribe of Indi ans", and to inform you that it will be dealt with in accordance with resolution 75(V) of the Economic and Social Council, as amended, the relevant provisions of which are enclosed. ... the Commission recognizes that it has no power to take any action in regard to any complaints concerning human rights. Whether or not the government concerned will take any action upon receiving a copy of the communication depends on its own decision. (Murphy's law firm file SO 215/1). Next, the Council of the Penobscot Indian Nation, acting on Mur phy's advice (fig. 6) declared their sovereignty in a letter addressed to Dag Hammarskjold, dated 25 May 1957 (fig. 7): The Penobscot nation hereby affirms its sovereignty or independence, its equality as a nation among the nations of the world, and the Penob scot nation's claim to courteous and respectful treatment at the hands of all other governments. Copies were again sent to the Congress, the President and the Supreme Court of the United States. Was Murphy merely humoring the Penobscot, knowing that their petition had no chance of success? If he thought it would pressure the State Legislature to rethink their plans, there was no apparent rush to reform their Indian situation. It was not until 8 February 1961 that a House bill, An act relating to appointment of Director of Indian Affairs (Legislative Document 1421) was referred to the Committee on State Government. In March, 1961, the Penobscot sent a petition signed by most of the Tribe to the State Legislators declaring that an "independent Department of Indian Affairs" would be more suitable to address their needs. "We believe that no one of us should ever have to suffer the abuse from the Department of Health and Welfare, nor from any of its employ ees, as has occurred in the past." Legislators were reminded that no action had been taken on the recommendations of the 1952 Indian Affairs Report to the Legislative Research Committee from the Department of Health and Welfare, such as the creation of a position of Director of Indian Affairs. There was no improvement of the deplorable conditions on the reservations. The Indians were still classified as Health and Welfare pau- 422 NICHOLAS N. SMITH pers regardless of their economic condition. They reiterated that, if ... a State Director of Indian Affairs, sympathetic to the needs of the Indians, and having an understanding of Indian customs and problems, were to be appointed by the Governor, the Indians would find the encouraging atmosphere necessary to make their dream come true ... Finally in 1965 the Legislators approved the creation of a Department of Indian Affairs (as a division of the Department of Health and Welfare), with a Director appointed by the Governor in consultation with the Penobscot Council. Edward C. Hinckley, a recent Harvard anthropology graduate with a bit of experience in the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs, was hired (Lan- gley, Portland Press Herald, 14 October 1965, p. 2). He rolled up his sleeves to fight for Maine's Indians against a State Legislature that pre ferred to wear blinders when viewing Indian affairs. He won few battles with the conservative Legislature, but bolstered Indian morale. The Indi ans honored Hinckley when he resigned, an act that should have been a wake-up call to the Legislators. The petition to the UN proved ineffective because no one was ready to tackle the many thorny issues of international law. It was not until 1971 that the UN began take complaints regarding sovereignty and treaty rights of North American Indians seriously. The most obvious result was Jose R. Martinez Cobo's Etude du probleme de la discrimination a Vencontre des populations autochtones: Conclusions, propositions et recommendations (in several versions; cf. Martinez Cobo 1987; a finalrepor t was submitted in 1996) and followed by other studies. During the 25 years of study, 13 other North American Indian tribes had made submissions (Schulte-Tenckhoff 1994:17, 20), long after the Penob scot petition was buried and forgotten in bureaucratic files.Th e UN rec ommendations have had no discernable effect on any Indian rights cases in the US or Canada at this time. Tribal and indigenous people from all over the world have submitted similar sovereignty problems to the UN. Although the various UN bodies have studied the problem for 50 years and published several reports of their findings, the UN can only make recommendations; like Chief Justice Marshall in 1831, it has no authority to enforce changes. At the present time no independent nation has shown any willingness to change. In the meantime, the many individual cases from around the world suggest that THE REBIRTH OF A NATION? 423 the sovereignty of tribal and indigenous people is an important issue that must be resolved in the twenty-first century. REFERENCES Alexandrowicz, Charles H. 1973. The European-African confrontation: A study in treaty- making. Leiden: Sijthoff. Anon. 1956. Muskie would close Indian Reserves. Bangor Daily News, 12 January 1956. Anon. 1957. Recognition as free nation asked by Penobscot Indians. Bangor Daily News 27 March 1957. Ghere, David L. 1984. Assimilation, termination, or tribal rejuvenation: Maine Indian affairs in the 1950s. Maine Historical Society Quarterly 24.2:239-264. Havard, Gilles. [1992]. La Grande Paix de Montreal de 1701: Les votes de la diplomatic franco-amerineienne. Montreal: Recherches amerindiennes au Quebec. Kidder, Frederic. 1867. Military operations in eastern Maine and Nova Scotia during the revolution, chiefly compiled from journals and letters of Col. John Allan, with notes and a memoir of Col. Allan. Albany: J. Munsell. Langley, William A. 1965. New Commissioner of Indian Affairs seeks Maine support, understanding. Portland Press Herald, 14 Oct 1965. Lindley, Sir M.F. 1926. The acquisition and government of backward territory in interna tional law. London: Longmans, Green. Martinez Cobo, Jose R. (Special Rapporteur of the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Dis crimination and Protection of Minorities). 1987. Study of the problem of discrimina tion against indigenous populations, V: Conclusions, proposals and recom mendation [sic]. New York: United Nations, [doc. no. E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4] Massachusetts. Resolves of Massachusetts 1750-1819. Boston. Mincher, Bill. 1952. Treaties read Nicola says Indians "Being dictated to." Bangor Evening Commercial, 26 June 1952. Schulte-Tenckhoff, Isabelle. 1994. L'etudes des Nations Unies sur les traites entre peuples autochtones et etats. Recherches Amerindiennes au Quebec 24.4:17-27. Upton, L.F.S. 1979. Micmacs and the colonists: Indian-White relations in the Maritimes, 1713-1867. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press. Whittemore, Edwin Carey, ed. 1902. The centennial history of Waterville, Kennebec County, Maine, 1802-1902: including the oration, the historical address, and the poem presented at the celebration of the centennial anniversary of the incorporation of the town, June 23d, 1902 [...]. Waterville: Executive committee of the Centennial Celebration. Williamson, William D. 1832. 77ae history of the State of Maine: From its first discovery, A.D. 1602, to the separation, A.D. 1820, inclusive. Hallowell, Maine: Glazier, Mas ters & Co.