Chief Commissioner Witt dissents from the majority opinion, arguing that the petitioner has established a cause of action under clause (3) of the Indian Claims Commission Act. He also believes that if the claim is not established under clause (3), it can still be considered under clause (5) based on fair and honorable dealings. He argues that the history and intent of the legislation should be considered in interpreting the jurisdictional provisions of the act. Witt references previous cases to support his interpretation that claims can be judged based on fair and honorable dealings, even if they do not align with existing rules of law or equity.