U.S. Supreme Court CHIPPEWA INDIANS OF MINNESOTA v. UNITED STATES, 307 U.S. 1 (1939)

[Page 307 U.S. 1, 3]

The circumstances leading to the adoption of the Act and its relevant sections appear in earlier decisions of this Court and need not here be repeated. [Footnote 6]

[Page 307 U.S. 1, 4]

and Chippewa Indians v. United States, 301 U.S. 358, 360, 57 S.Ct. 826, 827. It is unnecessary now to restate what was there said on the subject.

It is true that, prior to the adoption of the Act of 1889, the tribe had been broken up into numerous bands, some of which held Indian title to tracts in the State of Minnesota. The Act refers to these collectively as 'The Chippewas in the State of Minnesota.' Whether or not the tribal relation had been dissolved prior to its adoption, the Act contemplates future dealings with the Indians upon a tribal basis. It exhibits a purpose gradually to emancipate the Indians and to bring about a status comparable to that of citizens of the United States. But it is plain that, in the interim, Congress did not intend to surrender its guardianship over the Indians or treat them otherwise than as tribal Indians.

This is evidenced by a series of acts, the first of which was adopted nineteen months after the Act of 1889, which are inconsistent with the view that the Congress considered the Indians as emancipated or intended to enter into a binding contract with them as individuals. [Footnote 7] Many of these statutes refer to the Chippewas of Minnesota as a tribe. [Footnote 8] Moreover, an examination of the Act

[Page 307 U.S. 1, 5]

of 1889 discloses that it is not cast in the form of an agreement; and, we may not assume that Congress abandoned its guardianship of the tribe or the bands and entered into a formal trust agreement with the Indians, in the absence of a clear expression of that intent.

It is not contended that the expenditures made from the fund, or reimbursed from it, were not for the benefit of the Indians or were not such as properly might be made for their education and civilization, the purposes stated in the Act of 1889

We hold that the Act did not tie the hands of Congress so that it could not depart from the plan envisaged therein, in the use of the tribal property for the benefit of its Indian wards.

The judgment of the Court of Claims is affirmed.

Affirmed. Footnotes

Footnote 1 87 Ct.Cl. 1.

Footnote 2 Act of May 14, 1926, c. 300, 44 Stat. 555, as amended by Acts of April 11, 1928, c. 357, 45 Stat. 423, and June 18, 1934, c. 568, 48 Stat. 979.

Footnote 3 Act of June 18, 1934, c. 568, 48 Stat. 979.

Footnote 4 c. 714, 49 Stat. 1826.

Footnote 5 25 Stat. 642.

Footnote 6 Wilbur v. United States, 281 U.S. 206, 209, 210 S., 50 S.Ct. 320, 321; Chippewa Indians v. United States, 301 U.S. 358, 362, 57 S. Ct. 826, 828.

Footnote 7 Aug. 19, 1890, c. 807, 26 Stat. 336, 357. Between 1890 and 1926 Congress appropriated, either from the fund created under the Act of 1889 or from public funds reimbursable therefrom, a total of $5,105,059 for the civilization and support of the Chippewas. (Findings 9, 10, 15.) During the period 1889 to 1934 Congress authorized the expenditure of public funds totaling $5,065,878 for the use and benefit of the Chippewas without any provision for reimbursement. (Finding 20.)

Footnote 8 Aug. 1, 1914, c. 222, 38 Stat. 582, 592; May 18, 1916, c. 125, 39 Stat. 134, 135; March 2, 1917, c. 146, 39 Stat. 969, 979; May 25, 1918, c. 86, 40 Stat. 561, 572; June 30, 1919, c. 4, 41 Stat. 3, 14; February 14, 1920, c. 75, 41 Stat. 408, 419; November 19, 1921, c. 133, 42 Stat. 221; January 30, 1925, c. 114, 43 Stat. 798; February 19, 1926, c. 22, 44 Stat. 7; March 4, 1929, c. 705, 45 Stat. 1562, 1584.