
    App. No. 3-74.
    May 30, 1975
    James Strong, et al.
   The consolidated proceedings before the Indian Claims Commission involved determination of title claims by the various plaintiffs to the areas identified as 53 and 54 on Noyce’s map of Ohio. Eepresentatives of several Indian tribes relinquished their interests in these areas at the Treaty of Fort Industry, July 4, 1805,1 Stat. 87. On May 30, 1975 the court issued the following order:

Before Skelton, Judge, Presiding, Kunzig and BeNNEtt, Judges.

“This case comes before the court on appeal by various Indian Tribes from decisions and orders of the Indian Claims Commission in 30 Ind. Cl. Comm. 8 of April 4,1973 and 31 Ind. Cl. Comm. 359 of September 19,1973. After consideration of the record, the briefs, and oral argument of counsel, the court concludes that while it would have been helpful if the findings of fact could have been fuller and more extensive, the findings as made support the decision and order of the Commission and the same are supported by substantial evidence. We conclude further that there is no error of law in the decisions and orders of the Commission and that the same should be affirmed.

“Accordingly, the decisions and orders of the Commission are approved and affirmed, and the case is remanded to the Commission for further procedings in accordance with this order.”

Bennett, Judge,

dissenting.

“I agree with the majority when it says that ‘it would have been helpful if the findings of fact could have been fuller and more extensive.’ I dissent from the conclusion that notwithstanding the paucity of the findings they are nevertheless supported by substantial evidence. I do not know how you can tell. They are conclusory in nature and so abbreviated as to leave one wondering on what they are based or how arrived at. Surely, on a record so large, the triers of the facts could give an appellate court better guidance. There were many weeks of hearings, thousands of pages of transcript and hundreds of exhibits. A dozen parties, including defendant, are involved. On this the Commission gives us eight short findings and three conclusions of law on 12 pages. The claims are hotly contested in nine briefs filed with the court.

“25 U.S.C. § 70s charges this court on appellate review to determine (1) whether the findings of fact of the Commission are supported by substantial evidence and (2) whether the Commission’s conclusions of laiv are supported by its findings. I would hold that on their face these findings and conclusions do not permit such review as required by the statute and would remand to the Commission for an appropriate report which would make the appellate review something less than ‘a cop-out’ in the opinion of some of the parties who so described the Commission’s findings and conclusions. I know that my colleagues in good faith feel otherwise. I simply cannot share their confidence and optimism although I respect it and share their concern about further delay in the case.”

The joint motion for rehearing en banc filed by the Delaware, Ottawa and Seneca-Cayuga was denied October 10, 1975. Petition for certiorari denied March 29,1976.  