Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U.S. 476 (1937)

U.S. Supreme Court, (January 04, 1937)

Docket number: 216, 328

/us/299/476/case.html
Permanent Link: http://supreme.vlex.com/vid/shoshone-tribe-v-united-states-20018384
Id. vLex: VLEX-20018384

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


FeediconRSS What's this?

Cited by:

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. - the United States v. Pueblo of Taos., 515 F.2d 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1975)

U.S. Supreme Court - United States v. Dann, 470 U.S. 39 (1985)

U.S. Supreme Court - United States v. Mazurie, 419 U.S. 544 (1975)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fed. Cir. - the United States of America, Appellant, v. the Northern Paiute Nation Et Al., Appellees., 490 F.2d 954 (Fed. Cir. 1974)

U.S. Supreme Court - Nevada v. United States, 463 U.S. 110 (1983)

U.S. Supreme Court - United States v. Sioux Nation, 448 U.S. 371 (1980)

U.S. Supreme Court - Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (1983)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Cir. - Klamath Indian Tribe, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Et Al., Defendants-Appellants., 729 F.2d 609 (9th Cir. 1984)

U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Cir. - Citizen Band Potawatomi Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. L.W. Collier, in His Official Capacity as the Area Director of the Anadarko Area Office of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Department of the Interior, Defendant, and Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma, Defendant-Appellant., 142 F.3d 1325 (10th Cir. 1998)

Text:

U.S. Supreme Court SHOSHONE TRIBE OF INDIANS v. UNITED STATES, 299 U.S. 476 (1937)

[Page 299 U.S. 476, 484]

Mr. Justice CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court.

The Shoshone Tribe of Indians of the Wind River Reservation in Wyoming has sued the United States in the Court of Claims for the breach of treaty stipulations, whereby the tribe has been permanently excluded from the possession and enjoyment of an undivided half interest in the tribal lands. Jurisdiction to hear the claim was conferred upon the Court of Claims by an Act of March 3, 1927 (44 Stat. 1349, part 2), which, so far as its provisions are now material, is quoted in the margin. [Footnote 1]

[Page 299 U.S. 476, 491]

Extracts from that report are printed in the margin. [Footnote 3] The bill so proposed was passed, but was vetoed by the President, chiefly for the reason that it made provision for the payment of interest at 5 per cent. per annum on the value of any property appropriated in violation of the treaty or wrongfully disposed of. Congressional Record, vol. 68, part 3, p. 2414, 69th Congress, 2d Session. On February 4, 1927, the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs reported a new bill, with the statement that it had been redrafted to correct the objection of the President and that it was identical with the earlier bill except for the interest provision, though in truth other verbal changes had been made in the process of revision. Senate Report No. 1389, Congressional Record, vol. 68, part 3, p. 2921. The bill so revised became chapter 302 of the Laws of 1927 (44 Stat. 1349), the jurisdictional act under which the present suit has been maintained.

[Page 299 U.S. 476, 498]

United States v. Cook, supra, 19 Wall. 591, at page 593; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, supra; Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 671, 32 S.Ct. 565; Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United States, supra. Spoliation is not management.

The judgment should be reversed and the cause remanded to the Court of Claims for further proceedings in accord with this opinion.

REVERSED.

Mr. Justice STONE took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Footnotes

Footnote 1 Section 1 provides that jurisdiction is 'conferred upon the Court of Claims, with right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States by either party, notwithstanding the lapse of time or statutes of limitation, to hear, examine, adjudicate, and render judgment in any and all legal and equitable claims which the Shoshone Tribe of Indians of the Wind River Reservation in the State of Wyoming may have against the United States arising under or growing out of the treaty of July 3, 1868 ( Fifteenth Statutes, page 673), or arising under or growing out of any subsequent treaty or agreement between said Shoshone Tribe of Indians and the United States or any subsequent Act of Congress affecting said tribe, which claims have not heretofore been determined and adjudicated upon their merits by the Court of Claims or the Supreme Court of the United States.' 44 Stat. 1349.

Section 3 provides: 'In said suit the court shall also hear, examine, and adjudicate any claims which the United States may have against said tribe, but any payment, including gratuities which the United States may have made to said tribe, shall not operate as an estoppel, but may be pleaded as an offset in such suit: Provided, however, That the United States may interpose to such suit or action any and all pleas of defense, affirmative and negative, legal and equitable, which it may have thereto not herein specifically barred by the provisions of this Act. In reference to all claims which may be the subject matter of the suits herein authorized, the decree of the court shall be in full settlement of the damages, if any, committed by the Government of the United States and shall annul and cancel all claim, right, and title of the said Shoshone Indians in and to such money, lands, or other property.' 44 Stat. 1350.

Footnote 2 'Article X. It is further understood that nothing in this agreement shall be construed to deprive the said Indians of the Shoshone or Wind River Reservation, Wyoming, of any benefits to which they are entitled under existing treaties or agreements, not inconsistent with the provisions of this agreement.' 33 Stat. 1018.

Footnote 3 'Despite the fact that the United States expressly guaranteed to these Indians the uninterrupted use and occupancy of the reservation, and against the protests of the Shoshones of said Wind River Reservation in Wyoming, the northern band of the Arapahoes, under military escort, were moved upon said reservation in the winter of 1877-78.'In order to disarm the Shoshones they were assured by the military authorities that the Arapahoes would be removed from the reservation the following year. Since then the Shoshones have frequently protested against the alleged unlawful appropriation of their reservation but have received no relief from the Government. On the contrary, the Government has allowed the Arapahoes upon the reservation and treated the funds claimed by the Shoshones as though they were the joint property of both tribes.'The purpose of the bill is to permit the Shoshones to submit their claims for alleged appropriation of property to the Court of Claims, and your committee feels that in view of the strong showing made the bill should be enacted at an early date.'

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access