The Nishg’a Case, also known as the Calder case named after Nishg’a chief and politician Frank Calder, is a milestone in the fight for aboriginal title in Canada. The colonization of British Columbia forced many First Nations off of their ancestral lands removing the inhabitants’ original status in the 1800’s and early 1900’s as the “The new "assimilationist" paradigm was institutionalized following the transfer of control over Indians to the colonial governments in 1860, and received its organizational form in the reserve and band systems contained in the various Indian acts promulgated by the colonial governments and replicated by the federal government following confederation in 1867” (Crowe, 1979). The Nishg’a were specifically placed in a reserve while receiving money or goods to keep cooperative for many years in the Dominion of Canada. Frank Calder grew up in the midst of the early fight for Nishg’a lands observing his ancestors’ grievances. He was sent to a residential school and studied as the first status native at the University of British Columbia, but after his education and election to the Legislative assembly of British Columbia, Frank Calder’s life’s purpose began.

The Calder case requested the Supreme Court of British Columbia in 1969 to review the fact that the lands of the Nishg’a in the Nass River Valley had never been lawfully extinguished. This case was dismissed in trial immediately, Justice Gould claimed “In his view, whatever territorial rights the Nishg’a had could not have survived the establishment in the colony of British Columbia of general land legislation” (Sanders, 1973). Thomas Berger was employed into the front as The Supreme Court of Canada was next in line to view the Native Claim. In November of 1971, the case was finally heard by the Supreme Court. The Court was benched by seven judges and only six out of the seven confirmed aboriginal title existed. However, the Justices were split evenly if the rights had been extinguished through land laws in the annexation of British Columbia during Confederation. The final ruling of this case was achieved through a technicality from Justice Pigeon (the seventh judge) because the attorney general never gave clear permission for the Nishg’a to sue (Sanders, 1973). This technicality dismissed the case, which resulted in a negative acquisition in legality for the Nishg’a in January of 1973.

The loss for the plaintiffs in the Nishg’a case was not intended by Calder or any of the First Nations observing the fight. However, it served as a catalyst for aboriginal rights in Canadian Law, “following the 1973 Calder decision the constitution became the dominant issue for Canada's Indians, Metis, and Inuit. Through a persistent lobbying effort in the following decade, and thanks to the intervention of a federal election that brought a more sympathetic government to power in Ottawa, Canada's Aboriginal organizations managed to secure a place at the constitutional bargaining table” (Howlett, 1994). With native claims cases growing and gaining legitimacy the Nishg’a’s experience acted as another example of success. The fight was not over, as negotiations between the federal government and the Nishg’a tribal council began in 1976 and lasted until 1999 as the two-negotiated self-government and land claims. Both goals were ratified, and the Nishg’a became the first self-governing tribe in British Columbia. Sanders, Douglas. The Nishga Case. Vancouver: 1973. Caption: Frank Calder, Nishg'a Chief

Source: The Canadian Encyclopedia http://ojs.library.ubc.ca/index.php/bcstudies/article/viewFile/782/824 Howlett, Michael. “Policy paradigms and policy change: Lessons from the old and new Canadian policies towards aboriginal peoples”. Policy Studies Journal, (Winter 1994). https://search.proquest.com/docview/210555691?OpenUrlRefId=info:xri/sid:wcdiscovery&accountid=9784 Crowe, Keith. “A Summary of Northern Native Claims in Canada”: The Process and Progress of Negotiations. Études/Inuit/Studies3, no.1 (1979): 31-39. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42869300

On December 18, 1971 the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act granted legal land rights to over forty-five million acres of land in the Alaskan country to native tribes. This act also brought the establishment of the Alaska Native Fund that granted over $962.5 million in compensation for the previous acquisition of traditional land (Berardi, 2005). The territory included 375 million acres of aboriginal land and water claims (Berardi, 2005). The goal of this act was to settle all claims across the land while establishing a system different than the one of the reservations. The Federal government of the United States handed over their position as land holding trustees to natives, “twelve regional and approximately 200 village corporations as owners of the land and recipients of the money” (Berardi, 2005). The new land-owning corporations handed over any claim to other traditional lands at stake. Lands secured were set with no restrictions for the corporations to be used and developed as seen fit. Furthermore, all native inhabitants were encouraged to join multiple corporations (Berardi, 2005). By including this clause into the settlement act the federal government strategically empowered the masses by adding personal responsibility to the corporation and title. However, this system was not followed through with as the corporations only saw “half of the settlement money, sixteen million acres, and subsurface rights to village corporations land.” (Berardi, 2005). The legal amends of this deal were not consistently met and the inexperience of the corporations caused more financial troubles. Economic analyst Steve Colt depicted that “corporations lost more than seventy-five percent of their original cash endowment, with a one-time sale of old-growth timber and other natural assets and a one-time tax windfall allowing them to report positive accounting income.” (Berardi, 2005). The inability to properly commercialize the allocations of natural resources took a tole of the corporations and their members.

The Native Claim Settlement Act’s catalyst was the discovery of the Prudhoe Bay oil fields. The passing of this eliminated native claims to the land desired by the government to turn Alaska into a highly profitable landscape with the ability to involve private businesses like Alaskan Artic to drill, refine and then transport the gas (U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Transportation, part 2). The delay caused by native land claims had the ability to prolong the economic transformation of Alaska from a provider of natural resources like timber and masonry to one of the most efficient internal oil providers (U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Transportation, part 2). The lands released from the settlement act include sections of the Artic Gas system route proposal “this right-of-way construction would involve construction of approximately 735 miles of pipeline in Alaska. The first 460 miles would extend south from Prudhoe Bay” (U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee, Transportation, part 3). In addition, the oil fields acquired by the federal government allowed for royalties and taxes to be collected (Berardi, 2005). The Native Claim Settlement Act abolished strategic land claims desired by the federal government in their pursuit of capitalizing on a financial opportunity by any means necessary. The Act did include other clauses to benefit native inhabitants.

The Alaskan Native Claim Settlement did come with many positive other caveats past securing land for ingenious groups. This has included considerable education, health care, social benefits, and employment through state programs (Berardi, 2005).

Caption: Map of Regional Corporations Source: US National Park Service

Berardi, Gigi. “The Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) – Whose Settlement Was It? An Overview of Salient Issues.” Journal of Land, Resources and Environmental Law 2, no.1 (2005); 131-137. http://Berardi, 2005.wwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=envs_facpubs U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce and Interior and Insular Affairs. To Expediate a Decision on the Transportation of Alaskan Natural Gas to Other States: Joint Hearings before the Committee. 94th Cong., 2nd sess., part 2., February 17, 1976. U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Commerce and Interior and Insular Affairs. To Expediate a Decision on the Transportation of Alaskan Natural Gas to Other States: Joint Hearings before the Committee. 94th Cong., 2nd sess., part 3., March 24 and March 25, 1976.

The United States Indian Claims Commission was established as part of Indian Claims Commissions Act ratified August 13, 1946. This act called for claims of misdoings by the United States government to be heard by the Court of Claims for financial redress. These claims were costly in both time and money from the fact that any tribe, band, or group of natives could file suit. Thus, “The Act…was to remain in effect for ten years; all claims had to be filed within five years from the date of approval” (Lurie, 1957). Prior to this act it was necessary for complaints to be granted special jurisdiction from Congress to file. This process called for litigation to be the only possible way to bring justice for land disputes (Akwesasne, 1989). This included “Tribes forced to prepare statements of their proposed claim” (Akwesasne, 1989).

The new paradigm faced so many claims overwhelming the expectations of the Court of Claims. Subsequently, many filings were not examined until 25 years later, “the result was that a majority of petitions was dismissed by the court” (Lurie, 1957) as “370 petitions involving approximately 850 claims were filed” (Wilkins, 2013). Yet, a shocking amount of only 38 native cases prevailed (Wilkins, 2013). These claims accumulated to “$49 million, but once offsets were factored in that amount was reduced to $29 million, a diminution of nearly 60 percent of the total award” (Wilkins, 2013). The minimal amount of rewards is due to the absence of property evaluations of the land loss at the time. Compensations from the United States of monetary value accumulated from many different causes from forced removals to trust fund mismanagement.

The largest point of controversy for the United States Indian Claims Commission revolved around land claims during the period of Manifest Destiny. Many natives had a predisposition of refusing financial liquidity for the absence of their lands. As seen in the California Indians, Natives sued the state on the basis that lands negotiated in 1851-1852 never were seen as “the U.S. Senate had refused to ratify on the grounds that contained lands deemed too valuable to California” (Wilkins, 2013). This claim resulted in a 16-year standstill prior to being awarded (Wilkins, 2013). Also, some neglected to file as it required abandoning all other injustices past filing. Many felt filings could not cover the deaths of ancestors from exposure in relocation. Moral claims could not be backed by evidence leading to disillusionment and frustration.

Native frustration grew as the process to file a claim proved extremely time consuming and financially burdening. “Tribal groups frequently had to go to Washington many times before they could even get their claims’ legislation introduced” (Wilkins, 2013). This trend can be accounted to natives holding minor political sway in the United States. Politicians did not always prioritize these claims. The lack of financials led to more grievances as the cost for legal representation and data collection were heightened (Wilkins, 2013). These barriers caused the absence of claims. Overall, the United States Indian Claims Commission brought financial compensation to few as others lost more of their land, “when unauthorized claims for compensation were filed for lands that they still owned that were never in fact taken” (Akwesasne, 1989). The United States Indian Claims Commission caused a second rise of allegations due to the execution of the committee (Akwesasne, 1989). The repercussions are still eminent in the contemporary era. Caption: Forced Indian Removal Sourece: Equal Justice Initiative

Wilkins, David E. Hollow Justice: A History of Indigenous Claims in the United States. The Henry Roe Cloud Series on American Indians and Modernity. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2013.http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5vkvsg.4 Lurie, Nancy O. "The Indian Claims Commission Act." The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science311 (1957): 56-70. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1032354 “Indigenous Land Rights Council Statement of Purpose.” Akwesasne Notes 21, no.3 (Summer 1989): 1-5. https://search.proquest.com/docview/220287797?accountid=9784