Court ruling doesn’t target Red Lake

Bemidji Pioneer Letter

In response to Andrew J. Brown’s Oct. 13 published letter: I wonder what schooling Mr. Brown has attended to be taught when Europeans arrived on this continent; it was sparsely populated? By even the most conservative estimates there were well over 14 million people in the area of what is now the United States of American when Columbus arrived in 1492. That was more populous than the combination of all European states at that time.

“Sparsely populated” can be a completely relative term. As far as the rest of the nation is con-cerned, Minnesota is a “sparsely populated” state. Want to take it a step further? Montana, Wyoming, Nebraska and Alaska are all sparsely populated when compared to Minnesota.

On another topic: Sovereignty. The definition of sovereignty is as follows: a. supreme power especially over a body politic; b. free-dom from external control — autonomy. Since the Supreme Court ruling entitled all the navigable waters within a state to that state, let’s take a look at a map and find where beings the sovereign boundary of the Red Lake Nation and the state of Minnesota. All those waters in the state of Minnesota will be entitled to Minnesota. Any waters across the border shall be entitled to the sovereign nation of Red Lake.

If you need legal status, then here it is: The Nelson Act of 1889. It entitles jurisdiction over the Red Lake Reservation to the tribe. It also holds that Red Lake is not subject to state or local law. Federal legislation that specific-ally targets the Red Lake Nation is the only outside jurisdiction that will be accepted.

The Supreme Court ruling of 1926 does not specifically target the boundary of the Red Lake Nation that was established in 1889 and therefore does not apply to all waters of either Upper or Lower Red Lake, only those within the boundary of the state of Minnesota.

Anthony S. Williams

Bemidji