The Bureau of Indian Affairs approved this settlement on Aug. 25, 1961, but a motion for approval of the settlement was not submitted to the Commission until June 13, 1963. The Commission determined, after hearings had been held on the compromise settlement, that insufficient notice had been given to the tribes and requested the attorneys to hold further hearings with the Indian tribes. This was done and that accounts for the long period of time between Government approval of the settlement and Commission approval. 3. (d) In order to encourage and facilitate compromise settlements, the Commission has set up a definite and clear procedure, holds settlement conferences, and has given priority of consideration to them so that the time involved in making a final determination by the Commission is comparatively short. Thus far the Commission has held settlement conferences in the following cases and in each case where such conference has been held a compromise settlement has been reached. Question No. 4. Does the Commission use pre-trial procedures to eliminate issues from the cases, as contrasted with the clarification issues, and if so submit representative samples of pre-trial orders to such effect. Indicate whether the Commission has established an investigation division as provided in Section 13(b) of the 1946 Claims Commission Act and if so what function this division performs. 4. The Commission has attempted in part to utilize within the context of our rules, the pre-trial conference for the purpose of eliminating issues from the cases. The following is Rule 22(e) of the General Rules of Procedure of this Commission: (e) Pretrial procedure; formulating issues. In any proceeding the Commission may in its discretion direct the attorneys for the parties to appear before it or a Commissioner designated for that purpose for a conference to consider: (1) The simplification of the issues; (2) The necessity or desirability of amendments to the pleadings; (3) The possibility of obtaining admissions of fact and of documents which will avoid unnecessary proof; (4) The limitation of the number of expert witnesses; (5) Such other matters as may aid in the disposition of the action. If the proceeding has been assigned to a Commissioner or examiner he shall be present. The Commissioner shall make an order which recites the action taken at the conference, the amendments allowed to the pleadings, and the agreements made by the parties as to any of the matters considered, and which limits the issues for trial to those not disposed of by admissions or agreements of counsel; and such order when entered controls the subsequent course of the action, unless modified at the trial to prevent manifest injustice. Within the context of the above rule and its sub-divisions this Commission has in the past in many cases had occasion to encourage the use of stipulations in order to simplify the proceedings. See exhibits Nos. 1 and 2. Exhibits Nos. 3 and 4 are illustrations of the use of amendments to the petitions and of consolidations of cases wherein the facts or the claims appear to lend themselves to more expeditious settlement as a result of such amendments or consolidations. Exhibits Nos. 5 and 6 are amendments to the rules of pleading in an effort to insure the exclusion of cumulative or duplicate evidence as well as to speed the hearings by causing the documentary evidence of each party to be served upon the other, thus insuring familiarity of the parties therewith. In this sense it has obviated the necessity of pre-trial conferences for the purpose of eliminating unnecessary or cumulative evidence. There has never been a problem with the matter of the number of expert witnesses and this has always been left to the discretion of counsel. This Commission has always encouraged the use of pre-trial conferences for the purpose of eliminating any matters which would expedite the disposition of these cases. Wherever possible agreements during hearings have been encouraged from the bench. There are several situations which mitigate against the same effective use of pre-trial conferences for elimination of issues before trial as is made by a district court or state court. The nature of the cases themselves preclude the existence of any great area of possible agreement, unless it be a document such as a treaty whose existence and validity is beyond dispute. In a situation where the same facts have been found previously it is possible to get an agreement between counsel, but where matters have not been before this Commission, the difficulty of agreement is compounded by the lack of final authority on the part of defense counsel actually trying the case to enter into binding stipulations or agreements. Another fact which discourages the use of the pre-trial conference is the great distance of many of petitioners' counsel from the Washington area. If it were entirely a local bar practice, as is most regular court practice, the use of the pretrial conference perhaps could be more effective, as a result of better communication between counsel and the Commission. With regard to the establishment and function of the investigation division as provided in Section 13(b) of the Indian Claims Commission Act, the statement attached as exhibit No. 7 covers the matter thoroughly. [Exhibit No. 1 to question No. 4] BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION Docket No. 54 THE CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Petitioner ย. THE UNITED STATES, Defendant. Order Approving Stipulation Upon consideration of the stipulation of the parties, this day filed herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That such stipulation be and the same is hereby approved, and in accordance therewith IT IS HEREBY ORDERED That the initial hearing before this Commission shall be limited to the issues raised by the defendant in its answer, filed herein on the 23rd day of February, 1951, being the issues raised by the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th affirmative defenses set forth in said answer. Dated at Washington, D.C., this 13th day of March, 1953. [Exhibit No. 2 to question No. 4.] EDGAR E. WITT, Chief Commissioner. LOUIS J. O'MARR, Associate Commissioner. WM. M. HOLT, Associate Commissioner. BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION Docket No. 54 THE CROW TRIBE OF INDIANS, Petitioner, V. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Order overruling second, third, and fourth defenses of answer Upon the findings of fact this day filed herein, the evidence in support thereof (Exhibits Nos. 1 to 43, inclusive, on file herein as part of the record in this case), the Commission concludes as a matter of law that the affirmative defenses designat ed as the Second, Third, and Fourth in the answer do not under the facts and law constitute defenses to the claim set forth in the petition herein and should be denied. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, That said defenses of defendant be and the same are hereby denied and are stricken from the answer. Dated at Washington, D.C., this 11th day of June, 1954. [Exhibit No. 3 to question No. 4.] EDGAR E. WITT, Chief Commissioner. LOUIS J. O'MARR, Associate Commissioner. BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION Docket No. 29 HANNAHVILLE INDIAN COMMUNITY, Wilson, Mich., and FOREST COUNTY POTTAWATOMI COMMUNITY, Crandon, Wis., Petitioners, ”. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Order Directing Separation of Causes of Action The Commission finds that it will be impossible to properly adjudicate the several claims set forth in the petition in the above-entitled causes without a separation thereof as to subject matter and parties claimant. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, That within sixty days from the date of this order the causes of action set forth in the original petition and petition of intervention herein shall be separated and made the subject of separate petitions, as follows: Causes of Action numbered second, third, fourth and sixth shall be set forth in separate petitions, and the following numbered Causes of Action shall be grouped in single petitions with separate counts or causes of action for the separate claims included in each group, which groups are as follows: first, fifth, eighth and tenth; seventh, ninth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth. That the order dated January 25, 1949 requiring the petitioners to make their petition more definite and certain shall apply, insofar as applicable, to the separate petitions herein required to be filed. That each of such separate petitions shall be complete in itself as to subject matter, and pleading by reference to allegations in the original petition is not permitted; that the party or parties plaintiff shall be the real parties in interest or the claim shall be on behalf of the real party or parties in interest. That each of the separate petitions required above shall retain the Docket No. 29 but there shall be added to such docket number a parenthesis containing a capital letter (commencing with the letter A), so that each petition shall have a different letter. (c) The third claim (paragraphs 66 through 73) of the petition in said Docket No. 18-H is hereby stricken from such petition and the claimant therein shall prepare and file herein as Docket No. 18-I a separate petition for the claim so stricken; (d) The second cause of action (pages 10, 11 and 12) of the petition in said Docket No. 29-A is hereby stricken from such petition and the claimant therein shall prepare and file herein as Docket No. 29-J a separate petition for the claim so stricken; (e) The third claim (paragraph 18) of the petition in said Docket No. 40-B is hereby stricken from such petition and the claimant therein shall prepare and file herein as Docket No. 40-J a separate petition for the claim so stricken. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that each of the respective separate petitions shall be complete within itself and allegations by reference to the original petition is not permitted, and they shall be printed and served upon defendant, in accordance with the rules of the Commission, within thirty days from the date of this order and the defendant shall file its answers thereto within forty-five days from the date of service thereof. No claimant shall be in anywise prejudiced by the provisions of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that such separated petitions and the petition in said Docket No. 217 be, and the same are hereby consolidated for trial on the merits, in accordance with the rules of the Commission. AND IT IS FURther ordered that an original copy of this order shall be filed in each of the respective original dockets and in said Docket No. 217, and a copy thereof in each of the separated dockets. Dated at Washington, D.C. this 30th day of September, 1953. LOUIS J. O'MARR, Associate Commissioner. Associate Commissioner. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the evidence heretofore offered by either of the parties hereto, and admitted by the Commission, shall be considered by the Commission in so far as it may be material or relevant, in the determination of any of the causes of action included in the separate petitions hereafter to be filed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, That the defendant shall have sixty days from the day of service of such separate petitions upon it within which to answer or otherwise plead to them or either of them. Dated at Washington, D.C. this 13th day of July, 1949. [Exhibit No. 4 to question No. 4.] EDGAR E. WITT, Chief Commissioner. LOUIS J. O'MARR, Associate Commissioner. Wм. M. HOLT, Associate Commissioner. BEFORE THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION Docket No. 13-C JAMES STRONG, ET AL., as the representatives and on behalf of all members by blood of THE CHIPPEWA TRIBE OF INDIANS, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Docket No. 15-C THE POTTAWATOMIE TRIBE OF INDIANS, THE PRAIRIE BAND OF POTTAWATOMIE TRIBE OF INDIANS, AND WILLIAM EVANS, ET AL., as individuals, Plaintiff, Plaintiffs, V. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Docket No. 18-H RED LAKE BAND, ET AL., Plaintiffs, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Docket No. 29-A HANNAHVILLE INDIAN COMMUNITY, ET AL., Plaintiffs, ບ. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. Docket No. 40-B ROBERT DOMINIC, WAUNETTA DOMINIC, LEVI MCCLELLAN, AND GRACE MULHOLLAND, as the representatives and on behalf of all members by blood of THE OTTAWA TRIBE OF INDIANS, Plaintiffs, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant. |