![]() Or individual Indians as from time to time they may be willing, with the consent of the United States, to admit amongst them." "set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Shoshone Indians. The United States agreed that the territory described in the treaty now generally known as the Wind River Reservation would be 673), the Shoshone Tribe of Indians relinquished to the United States a reservation of 44,672,000 acres in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, and accepted in exchange a reservation of 3,054,182 acres in Wyoming, with other benefits not now important. To fix with certainty and justice the rights and duties of the government in its relations with an Indian tribe, the writs were allowed, and the case is here accordingly.īy Treaty of J(15 Stat. There were cross-petitions for certiorari. Neither party to the controversy was satisfied with the award of damages, the claimant finding it too low and the government too high. The court gave judgment for the claimant. 1349, part 2), which, so far as its provisions are now material, is quoted in the margin. Jurisdiction to hear the claim was conferred upon the Court of Claims by an Act of Ma(44 Stat. 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. JUSTICE CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court. 496.Ĭross-writs of certiorari to review a judgment awarding compensation for the taking of a one-half undivided interest in the reservation of the Shoshone Tribe of Indians. ![]() (5) The claimant's damages include such additional amount beyond the value of its property rights when taken by the Government as may be necessary to the award of just compensation, the increment to be measured either by interest on the value or by such other standard as may be suitable in the light of all the circumstances. (4) Damages should be measured as of that date. (3) By the action and inaction of the executive and legislative branches of the Government, the de facto appropriation, originally tortious, was ratified, and the ratification relates back to the date of the original unlawful entry, March 18, 1878. 13, 1891) when the Commissioner of Indian Affairs expressed in an official letter his opinion that the rights of the two tribes to the reservation were equal. (2) Neither are the damages to be measured as of a date (Aug. Consequently, the date of that Act is not the time as of which the property taken should be valued in assessing compensation. ![]() (1) That the jurisdictional Act is not an exercise of eminent domain, although it provides that a recovery under it shall be in full settlement and shall annul the claim of the Shoshones. The Shoshones, however, protested consistentlyĪgainst the invasion of their rights, and finally secured from Congress the jurisdictional Act of March 3, 1927, under which they presented to the court below their claim for compensation for the taking of an undivided one-half interest in their tribal lands. These intrusions were directed or sanctioned by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, with intent that the settlements should be permanent, and from then on, in the administrative way, he treated the two tribes as equal beneficiaries of the reservation - a view which at length found sanction in Acts of Congress dealing with cessions of land and with the privilege of allotment in severalty. On March 18, 1878, a band of Arapahoes, under military escort, settled upon the land others did so later. By treaty of July 3, 1868, a reservation was set apart for the Shoshone Indians exclusively. The guardianship of the United States over the property and affairs of tribal Indians does not enable the Government to require a tribe to which an exclusive right of occupancy has been pledged by treaty to share it with another tribe without just compensation. The right to interest, or a fair equivalent, attaches automatically to an award for damages for an expropriation of property, though not specified in the Act of Congress permitting the suit. A taking of land may be partial, not involving complete eviction. A taking of an interest in land, tortious in its origin, may be made lawful by relation. Supreme Court Shoshone Tribe of Indians v.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |