Choctaw Nation v. United States

CASES ADJUDGED

IN THE THE SUPEEMECOUETOE UNITEDSTATES, AT 1886. TERM, OCTOBER NATION v. UNITED STATES. CHOCTAW v. CHOCTAW NATION. STATES UNITED "TIE APPEALS COURT OF CLAIMS. PROM Argued 19, 20, 21, October November 1886.Decided tribes, being and-the Indian between the United States those relations The control, superior an inferior who is under its care and towards them, promises touching aud its in the execution of its them acts .own interests, .interpreted policy furtherance of its own are to be and in the power justice demand cases where is exerted and reason protection. strong to whom owe care and over those applied. Kagama, cited and 118U. S. v. 3,1881, authorizing of Claims “to Act March Stat. Court try questions arising jurisdiction of difference out of take nation, the'reon,” judgment stipulations'with and to render the Choctaw 'differences, question power the entire granting it to review de novo, estopped by any providing that “it shall or hot action had pursuance made the Senate of the United States award 1855,” judicata, Treaty that award conclusive effect denied to as res aside, deny it, prima it effect as facie evidence of but did sot operated reopen validity adjudged by claims it. The act questions decided it so far and the cast award Claims, disproving trial in Court of the burden of in the of the award. justice and fairness Treaty 22, 1855,11 the submission in the Stat. By June the terms'of VOL. cxix—1 ' TERM, 1886. of Tacts.

Statement differences arbitrator acted as between Senate Choctaws, -clearly submitted States and the circumstances, body whether, and as a under all to determine matter of proceeds ought to justice dealing, receive the and fair the Choctaws by by Treaty sale the lauds them the the the- of ceded September 27, 333, 1830, as deducible from 7 whether the Stat. terms compensation just the a or as awarded them for its by Secretary delegation the The breaches. Senate of the Interior report upon due to ascertain and the detailed sums Choctaws by.the powers principles upon settled was within the award conferred by body the terms of submission. To to the United notice necessary proceed of the intention of the States was Senate to as arbi- proceedings trator under submission. And whole were ratified the. by by 2,1861, and confirmed the United States Acts of March 12 Stat. 238; 23, 1874, and Stat. 230. June 18 Tlie award of the the differences Senate between and Choctaws provisions the United Treaty States submitted'to it under the approximation justice June furnishes the nearest right lapse time, practicable of the case after the it is a' judicial reach; and, by any being tribunal not affected of the facts to. Claims, by by found the Court of is taken this Court 'the basis of its judgment case, subjects dispute arose'prior in in this the. 1855, passed upon and were in the award.- In addition to award, sums, the amount of that the Choctaw nation is entitled to further unpaid (1) annuities; locating (2) for land taken from in them Stat; boundary 1875, of Arkansas under Act March Tie is the case as stated the court: following by There case, this are-two one appeals Choctaw Nation, and the other a States, from judgment rendered of Claims favor of the Court former for the sum of $408,120.32. Jurisdiction cause was conferred that court of an -upon act of Congress ap- “ March proved 21 Stat. entitled An act for the Nation,” (cid:127)ascertainment of the amount due the Choctaw follows:

“That the Court of' Claims is authorized to take hereby of and ail jurisdiction of difference out try questions arising , with the treaty stipulations and to render thereon; is court to .judgment said power hereby granted- review the entire of differences de and it shall question novo, action had estopped be. or award made by any . CHOCTAW NATION v. UNITED'STATES.

Statement of facts. Senate United States .-of the pursuance hundred and and the eighteen fifty-five; General Attorney directed to behalf hereby, appear Government; if said court shall decide the United States, the against General within shall, from the rendition Attorney thirty days the cause Court of the judgment, appeal Supreme to.the States; be rendered any judgment may the said Choctaw Nation also to said may appeal Supreme Provided, Court: of said Choctaw Nation shall appeal be taken within after the rendition of said sixty days judg- and the said ment, courts shall such cause give precedence. “ Sec. 2. Said action shall be commenced stat- by petition facts on which said nation claims to ing recover, amount of claim; be -verified petition may either of the authorized of said nation as to the exis- delegates tence of such facts, no other need statements be contained in said or verification.” petition

In of this act, the Choctaw Nation filed pursuance its origi- nal on the 13th of which June,'1881, petition subsequently amended new filed 26,1884. The pleadings February ques- tions of difference between the United States and the peti-. it was tioner, resulted from the alleged, non-performance non-fulfilment the United States of the assumed obligations it under various treaties between the United States and the Choctaw of .those including dates, following wit: the 18th of the 20th day October, 1820, of day January, the 2Tth 1825, the 22d day 1830, September, June, day and the 28th 1855, 1866. day April, the terms of Octobér By Stat. 210, 7 it was other Na- provided, amongst things, Choctaw did tion cede to the United States all that of its lands part situated in the State of described the 1st article Mississippi of the in consideration the United States stip- whereof ulated -that in satisfaction for the said cession the United part States ceded west tract Choctaw Nation a of country Fiver, the Arkansas situated between Mississippi Fed Fivers, described; boundaries were therein of which also that the between boundaries established thereby TERM,

Statement of Ifacts. and the United Indians east of the States, Choctaw Mississippi remain without alteration until should Eiver, at period should become so civilized the nation enlightened citizens to be made States. It was agreed aoff limited should lay of land for Congress parcel of each or individual in the family benefit that all nation; limits had settlements those who within separate falling ceded the Choctaw nation of the land the United States, desired to remain there, and who should be secured in a tract mile land one include their square, parcel improve- and that those ;ments remove within one preferring year the date should be their full value, of any improvements. including the.value It is in the that, the treaties of alleged petition January 20, 234, 21, I Stat. 1825, 183Ó,7 Stat. September 333, and ' June Stat. fine between boundary lands of the United States and the Choctaws west of the Mis- but that the established, Eiver Avas sissippi States, to be the said surveyed causing line, did- fixing boundary in accordance the line pursue provisions but encroached took treaties, from the lands to the ChoctaAvNation of land quantity ceded amounting 136,204.02 Avhich the acres, of the United legislation States, in violation of these treaties, became a part domain of the United Avhichthe public Nation are entitled recover their value, estimated at $161,896.51.

The- further states concluded on petition 27th called Babbit- Treaty September, Dancing it was other the 3d Creek, article among things, by provided, Stat. that ChoctaAvNation should 7 the and thereof, did the, the States entire then cede to country they thereby Eiver, OAvnedand east of the and possessed Mississippi agreed ¿is Eiver to remove the as beyond Mississippi early practicable; in of this the ChoctaAvNation sur- that, pursuance to the United States all the rendered lands at that remaining time them in the State of OAvned Mississippi,amounting,- acres, in 10,423,139 and, is compliance Aidth the alleged, v. UNITED 5 CHOCTAW NATION STATES. Statement of Facts. and did remove, remove, on their commenced to part, a time within the time or within reasonable therein, stipulated and ac- lands to lands thereafter, from the said the purchased October them under terms quired 1820: \ 27,' 14th article the treaty September By that of a de- each Choctaw head family, being provided citizen should be to remain become a States, sirous do so intention to his agent permitted signifying and there- six months of the ratification of within treaty, section 640 should be entitled a reservation one survey; to .be sectional lines land, acres of bounded. by half that manner should be entitled to one in like quantity unmarried child him over ten with years age, each living be under ten section for child that a. each might quarter If the location of adjoin parent. years age, citizens of such to become lands, resided upon intending a after the ratification of five States, years in- Such reservation should in fee should issue. simple grant of the head of the clude family, improvement present article who claimed and the it, persons portion lose the Choctaw citizenship. were privilege-of in heads of Choctaw It petition .alleged in on their lands their intention remain families signified under this article of and become citizens Mississippi with all its complied although they substantially entitled to became and conditions, thereby requirements article, of land fee yet simple, specified grants (cid:127) their from the families ever received 148 such article, the lands them title to leaving guaranteed to a families entitled heads of grant of said article 14, lands in fee under-the simple, had not been satisfied. claims whose these that the lands to which It is petition alleged families which were acres, to 1,672,760 entitled amounted an acre, worth, $5.50 reasonably improvements, of the -wholewas $8,200,180. value that the United It is further alleged petition TERM, 1886. CD n Statement of Tacts. failed to each secure to head of 'having family -reservation 14 secured under article of 1830, sub- an act sequently, by 23, 1842, Congress approved of. August 5 Stat. to for the provide same attempted compensation issue certificates or winch author- delivery scrip, ized those entitled to such or their reservations, to assignees, enter lands at any subject sale public entry private -the States of Alabama, or Louisiana, Arkansas, in Mississippi, Which certificates or were said act to scrip they required by in full receive and satisfaction of all their claims or accept demands United States under said article 14. against in It is further that 292 of the 1442 alleged petition Choctaw heads of entitled in .families, fee grants simple article 14 of the under have never received any in such fee or allowance or any grants simple, compensation whatéver for the The claims of same. 1150 of said 1442 heads of families were allowed under act adjudicated or 23, 1842, certificates awarded to them August scrip act, under of said authorizing entry which .acres there 1,399,920 land, were and delivered paid to the entitled to receive the same 3833 certificates persons or of 100,080 acres of pieces scrip, entry land. authorizing The certificates for the residue of said 1,399,920 acres, wit, 699,840 were were acres, issued, withheld an act of March 3, 1845, Stat. which Congress approved should an interest of five provided they carry cent., per claimants or their to be esti- payable representatives, mated for each acre of land to $1.25 which sum, entitled. The or amount, thus aggregate principal funded, $872,000,was an afterwards, under act amounting 10 Stat. Congress July in approved paid which sum was claimants; $872,000 included money (cid:127) in tiie sum of $1,749,900 the claim- subsequently charged ants an account referred to hereáfter, for 1,399,920 being acres lieu of at scrip, reservations, acre; $1.25 per sum of which $1,749,900, aforesaid $872,000 in said account residue, $877,900, money, being charged for the certificates of 700,080 authorizing entry scrip n

CHOCTAW NATION v.' UNITED STATES. of Facts. Statement delivered as land, acres of aforesaid to the said claimantsfor 700,080 acres claimants'were scrip charged acre, at the rate of reason acts of $1.25 per although, ’ States and its at agents delivering scrip it could where not be used, the whole amount realized places claimants was and no $118,400, more. So that amount Nation chargeable against Choctaw should have and_is sum of $980,400, been the all that should be deducted $9,200,180, from estimated value of the lands for claim to in this recover right proceeding. It further is article of said that, 16th alleged States United to their remove Choctaws to agreed to homes; new furnish them with corn, beef, pork ample for twelve months after to their there; take- all of reaching cattle anat value, same in appraised pay money; but it is between 1834 and 960 members of alleged Nation subsisted one emigrated year without assistance from United for each of which 960 the Choctaw $54.16|- Nation entitled recover from the United States, $51,- the total amount claimed making 998.40. (cid:127)

It is further that, under the of article 19 alleged of' said four sections of land were reserved to Col. Folsom, David two which should include his present two sections each were reserved to improvement; per- eight n sons therein to include named, and to be improvements, sectional lines, which bounded sold with the con- might sent of the and for President; others not otherwise provided there were reserved, one a. for, 1st, section to each head of not who had in actual cultivation family, exceeding forty, fifty more, acres or with a three thereon; 2d, dwelling-house quar- ter-sections, after the manner of a aforesaid, each head 460, who had cultivated family, between exceeding thirty one acres; 3d, half-section, those,, fifty aforesaid, not to exceed who had from cultivated twenty thirty 4th, to exceed as had. acres; such, not quarter-section cultivated twelve to that half acres; quan- twenty to such had limited. cultivated .from to twelve acres', two tity 8 TERM,

Statement of Facts. to tbe same eacb class to be so located number; as to include tbe tbe These improvement reser- containing dwelbng-bouse. vations be sold with consent tbe might President of tbe States; but should it, or omit to take any prefer such as be reservation entitled tbe to,' might-be would, bis removal and at arrival bis new upon, home, pay n (cid:127)him cents an acre of bis fifty therefor, claim provided proof be made before tbe 1st of January following.

It is further that said article intended to alleged provide acres for 1600 458,400 cultivators, out yet carrying land was to but 731, 123,- assigned amounting acres; that tbe actual number of cultivators of from two at tbe date of twelve tbe .to 1763, bastead of .acres 350; 1413, therefore, failed to at get any all, 'land owing of said to the'limitations aa-tiele 19; while tbe treaty intended to reservations for 1600 provide cultivators, such reservations were to tbe assigned only although, number of actual 2144; cultivators was that tbe 1413 cultivators thus excluded that contended entitled to they justly tbe samé measure of for their as was compensation improvements .allowed to wit, to 80 acres to equal grade, other.cultivators each, worth at 113,040acres, that time amounting $339,120; that of tbe 731 whom were lands as assigned aforesaid, had never received land or other benefit any intended to be secured said article 45 of 19; whom to the relinquished United States 6400 of land acres and never received compensa- therefor, to98, tion whom 15,520 remaining acres of land were never had land set assigned, any them; apart that the said 143 cultivators were entitled to 21,920 acres, the sum worth of $65,760.

It is further that article 20 of said of 1830 alleged each warrior who a provided-for emigrated, rifle, moulds, ammunition; 1458 warriors became entitled to the bene- ,fits of article but were never received num- they by large who ber that such articles time emigrated; were worth at that to .each and that warrior, claimed, $13.50 the whole amount the failure of the United States to out the pi’ovision carry article 20", said was $19,278. NATION v.. STATES. UNITED CHOCTAW' Statement of Facts. n that,the It is further act of- alleged Congress, making appro-

n priation for the and'for the'Indian expenses Department, n tribes, various fulfilling treaty stipulations the. Jndian March 5 Stat. June'30,1846, 3,1845, year ending approved as follows: 777, provided “ That which has been or which shall awarded, scrip awarded, Choctaw Indians under the third law of one thousand hundred and twenty August, eight two, thereof not deliverable East, forty portion by, ‘ of said third section these not more than óne- law, words, half of which shall be delivered to said Indian until after his removal Choctaw west of the shall territory Mississippi,’ not be issued or delivered the amounts West, land awarded for on which im- but which resided, for the United States now to shall them, possible give carry an interest of five the United States will cent., per pay reservees under of one thousand annually hundred and or to their heirs and eight thirty, respectively, ‘ the land to forever, legal representatives estimating which. be entitled at one dollar and five cents they may twenty per acre.”

That the Choctaw heads of families and their children became entitled to receive for 697,600 acres of land, scrip valued at that heads $812,000; families, heirs and became entitled to interest legal representatives, thereon from March 3, the United States refused 1845,’.but such interest unless the entitled to receive it was pay person at date of the of said act settled the Choctaw passage west of the and also refused Eiver, territory Mississippi pay interest, such' issued to March 3, 1845, scrip subsequent until the had removed to the Choctaw beneficiary territory; that those for whose benefit the was funded were persons scrip to interest on such funded from March 3,-1845, entitled scrip until 21, 1852, but the United States did not the July pay interest on such funded between those dates and that ; scrip amount the of such interest due from the United States was. $305,55.1, $171,400.34 of interest was on such only due thereon $134,150.66. leaving scrip, TERM, 1886.

Statement of Facts. 4th It is further that the Choctaw the- Nation, by alleged article the of October was secured the treaty to forever the lands retained east of right occupy enjoy River, which were of said Mississippi to be set to each or member article apart family become when that nation should so civilized Nation, Choctaw be made citizens of the United States; enlightened article of the that the United States the Ith treaty- agreed, by lands the benefit of not to said "for 1825, apportion the consent of that that the nation; Choctaw Nation but with article 4 of the df and of 1820, effect treaty legal article of the was to secure to the heads of treaty families and individual members of"the Choctaw Nation a n titlein fee all that nation lands simple belonging included in the cession but that made by States of 1830, United by. having, disregarded ' of said articles 4 and the obligations having paid said lands ceded Choctaw Nation, an the Choctaw Nation consideration, was inadequate to be the United States the whole amount of entitled paid by from the sale of said lands so ceded.' resulting the-proceeds It is further Choctaw alleged legisla a on November created 9, 1853; tive assembly, delegation all unsettled business that settle with United States; 22d of States entered into a June, 1855, Nation to settle and with matters adjudicate Or demands of that difference, claims, nation, individual that to the ratification thereof; members of said subsequent the.Senate of the United States, (cid:127)treaty,by (cid:127) examination, entered, upon adjudication ques nn tionssubmitted article 11 it.,by treaty, whereupon a statement of the claims and demands of the Nation .Choctaw evidence, supporting pre tp- to the’ sented Senate* enable such Maims a give just, t)f and liberal fair, consideration-; after consideration such 9th of resolu claims, March, Senate, On'the 1859,-passed tion to allow the such Choctaws proceeds 'Sale .of been; had 1,. United States on lands sold!'by January n ' ' i) . . . . ' CHOCTAW-NATION UNITED STATES: 11 .v. of ITacts. -Statement the cost of and and all deducting sale, therefrom survey and under the of payments proper expenditures treaty and reservations allowed secured, excluding estimating in lieu thereof at scrip acre, .$1.25 and that per issued cents -acre be allowed for the residue of said lands. per 1% It is further that, of said alleged pursuance resolution, of the Interior caused an account be stated be- Secretary tween the United States and the Choctaw showing that the United States were indebted said on account nation, net lands ceded of proceeds treaty Septem- in the sum of ber, 1830, $2,981,241.30.

It is also that, alleged June 22, 1855, in consideration of Stat. the claims heretofore stated, and n the cession and lease 15,009,000 acres of land, valued at the United.States $2,225,000, that all the agreed rights of the Choctaw Nation, claims and the individuals thereof, and all matters should receive liberal fair, dispute, just, and settlement; consideration virtue thereof the Choc- Nation became entitled to a taw settlement of and payment claims; individual pending rights national, from all free waivers which have estoppels might equity them; virtue of article been.interposed against .11 and of the June, 1855, consideration the United States therefor, Nation became enti- virtue article-18 of the tled, by whenever doubts should well-founded have said construed arise, most toward the Choctaws. favorably

In said the Choctaw Nation that the award petition prays the Senate of States he made and that the final, stated account restated, Interior Secretary may in order that the balance due determined and fol- may errors corrected; the lands sold lowing proceeds up the residue then at January unsold, remaining cents acre, amounted to instead of per $8,413,418.61, 12J the actual cost $8,018,614.80; that and sale was survey $256,387.74,instead of that the sum of $1,042,813.96; $120,- 826.76 reservations included deducted, was not orphans in or fund connected aggregate against (cid:127) TERM, 1886.

Statement Facts. there should not have been account; charged fund to deducted from said made meet payments aggregate to of the commissioners contingent appointed adjust expenses 14th 1830, under the article of the claims September, nor the out of the to $51,320.10, growing amounting expenses reservations, of Choctaw titles location sale perfecting n tothe same, amounting to the correction of $21,408.36; to show a balance errors would payable foregoing award $4,295,- Nation, Senate, Choctaw for which sum the Choctaw $2,981,247.30, instead of 533.24, after on $250,000 Nation deducting prays judgment, March award under the act of 2,1861, account said n further sum $230,000 in bonds said act; appropriated this be allowed on latter sum at six also that interest prays annum March until 2, 1861, centum from paid. per per under the act of that, It is further approved Congress alleged became entitled receive Choctaw Nation 2, 1801,.the March in bonds interest at the "UnitedStates $250,000 from bearing centum, on as a account said annum, six payment per per States; of the United that the issue and of the Senate award demanded of said bonds was Choctaw Nation delivery but said bonds were not never have been in April, has it received and delivered nor from it, issued bonds; lieu of said said any money payment claims from States on account of Nation the'United Choctaw at six the said sum of with interest $250,000, award said per demand from the date when for said bonds annum centum per that the claims of Nation made Choctaw until paid; thereof adjudication against for which the Senate, $S,432,349.78, amount would recover would be entitled to Nation judgment, Choctaw and that at from centum, 27,1830; interest five September per Nation from remains due and Choctaw there payable Senate, after on account of the award the United States the sum of said sum of $500,000, therefrom the deducting at interest Nation claims on,which Choctaw $3,795,533.24, annum. centum five per per also between 1861,,-and

It'is July July-1, alleged v. CHOCTAW NATION UNITED STATES'. Statement of Facts. there became due from United States to the Choc- taw various Nation, made stipulations prior 1861, the $406,284.93, sum which amount it July admitted the United States retain may legally $346,835.61, a balance due of $59,449.32. leaving further It is of difference alleged questions existing between the Choctaw Nation the United States result the non-fulfilment of and relate treaty stipulations, to claims which can now exclusively satisfied only such sums as the United States under its' payment ought treaties are as follows: pay-to n Claims basis of the Senate 1st,' and of the award, of the account stated correctness of the In- Secretary (cid:127) terior with interest May $2,958,593.19, amounting the balance due on the award of the Senate at five per and on the bonds authorized at six cent., by Congress per until Amount due cent., 2d, after award, paid; errors in the account stated correcting by Secretary to which add interest on Interior, $4,212,879.13, balance .the 1859'.; due under the award of the Senate from March at 9, and on bonds authorized from cent., five per Congress at until March six Amoimt claimed 2,1861, cent., 3d, per paid; in case the award of the article Senate, under treaty should set aside, $8,659,695.67, of June be on the 14th article claims of from $7,808,668.80, interest until Claims of the 24,1836, 4th, Choctaw Nation August paid; the United stated States, against upon principle retain States the lands United acquired Sep- 1830, tember trust for the benefit of the Choctaw 27, are bound Nation, and, trustee, to account the value said after therefrom the amounts lands, deducting Nation lands. the Choctaw on account that if The further none of the above meth- prays, petition ods of its claims the United States are such as stating against and if can the court sanctioned, approved may right- the Senate award and examine the matter de navo, fully ignore then the Nation be considered as been Choctaw may having of- the treaties of October, 1820, violation required, TERM, OCTOBER- 14' .1886.

Statement' of Facts. to cede the United 1825, States the lands described January, iii the and that the' court de- 1830, will September, clare that United from and after States, the. held such 1830, lands as trustee for the benefit

September, , of the Choctaw were bound to account for the from the proceeds thereof; sale that the .court resulting will ascertain the amount realized States from the sale of such lands, cause an account to be stated in thereto, and the same the respect value of all charge against of said account lands payments that States; a upon such rendered for the accounting judgment may balance found with interest due, thereon; the Choc- taw Nation have the amount of the annuities judgment due to it from- July July amounting n and also for the sum of $59)449.32, $167,896.57, being value of the lands taken from the Nation' Choctaw the western of the State locating boundary of Arkansas. in addition to a filed a denial, general United. the 14th article of the

special plea, alleging 1830 each head of a desired who to remain in family a and-become citizen of the was to be State Mississippi permit- ted to do so his intention to the upon signifying agent United States within six months ratification of the he should be to a entitled reservation of treaty, whereupon land his should he live and, including improvement, land for five fee thereafter, should years grant simple to him. issue That within the six months TOOheads of Choc- taw families intention to remain and become signified citizens of the States their names were That registered. the ceded directed to sold, lands were 12, 1833, on-August and an was to locate the reservations of those agent appointed - who, to remain. That were not many intending registered but it reservations, for were- yet, ap- applied recognized, in time and that had due intention pearing they signified been refused to evi- was directed agent registry, receive -of dence and of lands the sale- make locations provisional which That was await the action of suspended Congréss.

CHOCTAW NATION v. UNITED STATES. Statement oí Facts. commissioners were the claims to reserva- appointed adjust and filed a tions, on Juñe 1845. That 143 heads report of families obtained in reservations the ceded territory, 1155 other Choctaw heads-of Avere families found to to the benefits of article 14 entitled of had which lands to United States would disposed they that it been so was entitled, have said In- impossible give to which were dians entitled. quantity severally commissioners estimated the of land Said thereupon quantity each of said Indians which would be entitled and allowed the same for to be taken of him .out lands quantity, any public of in the States Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, at sale. That 1155 subject entry private pieces scrip,. one half the each allowance of were issued land, representing entitled thereto, to those were in accepted part payment lands aforesaid; 1155 half remaining pieces were reserved interest thereon valued at scrip acre to those entitled until the thereto, per principal $1.25 was final execution of a release'of all $812,000 paid upon n such under' claims' of the fourteenth article of the parties That claims of 1155 Choctaw heads of treaty. thereby satisfied and families further fully any -discharged, or on behalf them was barred. The claim forever plea. so much amended as sets forth a petition prays of action in behalf of said 1155 cause Choctaw heads of fami- for the value lands them lies to be due be dismissed. alleged this To Choctaw Nation filed a special plea replication 22, 1884, which substance denied the on April validity release on mentioned alleged plea, ground exacted the same circumstances that wrongfully made United States to insist it as -a inequitable upon the claims of the Choctaw bar to Nation covered it. The case been heard before the Court Claims, having found evidence, are court, set out facts, detail. It much state only necessary here following: "War then Indian affairs, Department, having charge instructed Indian "Ward,-the Colonel May agent on the effect the into subject Mississippi, carrying TERM, 188'6. 16 Facts. Statement between depart 27,1830. correspondence September On June Mr. ment is set out fully. agents "War tó Gr.W. Martin make Department was appointed to the land of the locations of selections Choctaws granted under and 19th articles 15'tb, the 14th, treaty, was also instructed to call on "Wardand an Major Armstrong, agent of the United appointed regis- In of the different classes so entitled. of his try pursuance claims and Mr. Martin located received instructions, evidence and transmitted claimants, reports "War, Secretary with'a list 580 claims for reservations under the 14th arti- affidavits as to cle, claimants, forty showing imper- that in "Ward’s fections who to be register, persons sought and not to do refused, so. permitted registered It found as a fact the Court of was Claims that "Ward unfit duties that 'was for the his situation; conduct was marked acts calculated to deter the Indians from making n application; abusive and he was to them, insulting pre- them from under the 14th venting thereby making application article of the order to necessitate their west of treaty, in going that the lie insisted Indians had sold their Mississippi, had to induce as that he been instructed land; many possi- had ble to and that more been than had west; registered go the 24th of been After August, anticipated. agents that those names States insisted whose were not and that if did not soldiers west, should they go go registered out; be sent to drive them would take their would they other threats them; children were made many them. about of the Choctaw 1S3S,

On the 31st July, Indians remained still Mississippi; notwithstanding efforts of the to remove removing agent government their intention to do them, remained, so, asserting 14th article the benefit of the of 1830. claiming It of those east of the intention remaining Mississippi take the the 14th article of the benefit of treaty.

It was also found the court whole number of 14th heads of' families land under the article was receiving n NATION v. UNITED STATES. CHOCTAW Statement of Facts. tbe number established their under the act 143; wbo of rights the num- was 1150 and ; August Congress approved ber disallowed the commissioner was 292. The commis- families, the claims of sioner -191 heads of under that rejected had no act because oil their reservations on they improvement of and did reside 1830, the 21th same September, five said after date. These fami- years continuously or lies complied, attempted comply, requirements the 14th article within the time but were it, required by of their under it of the United rights deprived agénts States. entitled to They reservations amounting 225,160 acres. found

It was also the court that, under provisions act 23, 1842, Congress approved August failed to said Choctaw heads of fami- having grant under, the lands which lies them children claimed they sc said the said that it lands, disposed having was Choctaw heads "of families the impossible give lands whereon resided on the date of the 1830, between issue did, June, 1843, November, to the said 1155 families, deliver Choctaw heads of and to children, their certificates or for in said act,. scrip provided acres of 1,404,640 land, which certificates or the said scrip heads of families and their children were required to receive lieu of the res- accept land ervations of which, under the said 14th article of the- claimed. The United States refused to deliver to- treaty, they the said Choctaw heads of children families and their half one which have been delivered to- scrip might them under the of the said act of east of provisions Congress, until Elver, heads families Mississippi said Choctaw arrived, and their children had either started or for, actually the Choctaw in, west Eiveil territory Mississippi Under, the act of 697,600 Congress March'3,1845, approved acres the said certificates or be deliv- so directed to scrip, ered the 1155 Choctaw children,, heads and their .of families were funded at the value of acre, with interest pay- §1.25 per able thereon centum forever at the rate five annually per

(cid:127) VOL. CXIX —2 TERM, 1886.

Statement of Facts. number of acres in which annum; specified certificates, per was that of said act, funded under said certificates which part east to the said Choctaw not deliverable heads of families and not until their their arrival in children, the Choctaw west of Biver. This which territory Mississippi scrip, the benefit of said Choctaw was funded for heads of families act of their of March children, Congress at the was funded United States rati' an $1.25 to the sum of $872,000, f am was acre, amounting the said families and their children, heads of legal ' of an act of Congress representatives, approved July found the Court of

It was further Claims that the said families and their children, claimants under Choctaw heads 14th of were the article September, want, to condition of which rendered reduced a helpless for them to contend practically impossible the said them Choctaw heads of requirement and the families receive to be should scrip accept provided reservations, issued to in lieu of the the act of 1842, them, the to the and the said and redeem same money paid scrip were taken and because they accepted powerless enforce demands or conditions any against, impose any upon, the United States. on Novem- proper-authorities, and delivered to the

ber executed United States the G,1852, therein the for instrument, purposes specified: following “ (An entitled Act to act of an Whereas, supply Congress for service of fiscal in the a})propriations deficiencies all in 1852,’ of June, 30th payments day year ending claimants under the awarded Choctaw terest on the amount for lands Babbit Creek 14th article of the treaty Dancing it is them, but which resided, impossible give on which they be of the Interior directed and that cease, shall- Secretary awards in said amount claimants principal pay an amount this and that necessary case each respectively, the sum of $872,000; exceeding appropriated, purpose of said and awards shall satisfaction and that final payment v. UNITED STATUS. NATION Iff CHOCTAW Statement Facts. as a ratified and final all be first such, release of of. claims approved the 14th said article treaty,.by parties proper such form as Choctaws, national authority of shall' the Interior: be it Now known- Secretary prescribed said council Choctaw Nation do hereby general the final satisfaction of said payment ratify approve as,a to the of the act awards, agreeably aforesaid, of such final release of claims under the 14th article parties of said treaty.” the 9th

On November, 1853, council day legislative the'ChoctaAv Nation of a dele- provided appointment n 'which should said nation in the settlement of gation represent unsettled claims and all the demands of said nation or individual members thereof United. States. The against preamble' resolution recites that joint appointing delegation n “ Choctaws were, ever have dissatisfied been, with the in which the manner Babbit Creek was Dancing circumstances which were made, created owing many them into to force it, small and owing exceeding amount for their inadequate given payment ” “ and that ; number claims country large under the 14th and States, 19th and other articles of arising are still and-the remaining unpaid;” “ were clothed with full to settle and delegates power dispose all otherwise, claim and of¿ interest by treaty every the Choctaw of the United against people government to a final close unsettled-' adjust bring between said business” and the people government States. United

This with the United delegation opened negotiations States, of Indian for a Affairs, Commissioner new through treaty, means of a communication in dated on the 5th writing, which contained a 1S54, statement or April, general survey the condition relations then between the Choc- existing taw Nation and the United set and out seriatim com- States, for causes of dis- plaints against government, especially satisfaction 27, 1830, arising September that one of the that claiming treaty- scarcely stipulations TERM, Í886.

Statement.'Of Facts. been, had carried out so as do- government, justice to. to the intent according of the treaty. They alleged especially the,laws that for the examination of their passed claims and tire 14th article treaty, thereof, a course of prescribed of so and adjudication technical a character as rigid necessarily to exclude that many claims; were just many compelled remove because of the failure of the them government give under the said article, and that rights the law unjustly cut off such from the benefits of persons it; that the scrip n issued under the law was in such a manner as to make it Indian; of but little value to the and that those who received received but a mere contended anything pittance. They claims existed and many under the 19th xxnadjusted unpaid to make article, for final proposed arrangement adjust- ment of all national matters, and individual, in a new treaty, the nation all individual proposed claims pay under the 14th and 19th articles, release the government of the United States on that account, responsibility because such claims were not susceptible proof against coxdd be the authorities of the adjusted by the nation could effect nation, such a settlement provided with the United States as the Choctaw desired. people They claimed that under the September Choctaw Nation was entitled to the funds from arising sale of lands after ceded, sale, deducting expenses the debt mentioned in said that the treaty; government trustee for the Choctaw Nation sale the lands ceded so after the pay- ment of the incident to the execution of the trust, the expenses Indians entitled remainder; they proposed to the nation of such remainder should payment oper- ate law as a satisfaction the individual claims under a new treaty. the basis of this communication the Commissioner of

Upon Indian Affairs instructed the States for agent the Choctaws to make the requisite inquiry investigation to ascertain the character extent of their claims, n what -was arrangement necessary accomplish object STATES. NATION UNITED

CHOCTAW v. of Facts. Statement The the the Choctaws sub- of United. States for view. agent of in answer to Affairs, Commissioner Indian mitted a estimate or a reference, this pa,per comparative containing then statement of claims asserted by approximate had furnished which-statement been Choctaw-commissioners, to said The the Choctaw delegation agent. aggregate which it claims so stated was $6,599,230, of amount these the net to settle on the of alloAving Avas principle proposed States of the lands ceded to sales proceeds Nation under the Choctaw September claimed to be due to Avhole the balance shoAving the United States,- $2,380,701. agent ChoctaAvs Commissioner, Indian Affairs, to the his communication “ this said: I "lined state- to said have exa statement, referring I am information and from most reliable ment carefully, I am in the and here, obtained of, country possessed of the it, to think that extent inclined part embracing it could under correct nearly treaty, obligations at this date.” made re- thus

The amoiint treaty, obligations at Avas said statement These $6,599,230. to, placed ferred execu- and the betAveenthe Choctaw delegation .negotiations AAdth conducted authorities of United States Arere tive : objects reference accomplishment folloAAÚng in neAV United States should 1st. That provide, and settlement of all the claims an examination Avhethernational ChoctaAvs, individual, letter the ChoctaAV delegation a§ specified 1854. of Indian dated Affairs, the Commissioner April ChoctaAvsshould 2d. adjust disputes That all that the United States 'should lease to ChicltasaAvs; and 100th their common betxveen the 98th territory portion west for the settlement of permanent longitude, degrees such of Indians as the other bands Wichita and for- shoidd therein; desire locate absolutely might all their the United States claim and ever quit relinquish all lands Avest and interest in and to title, any right, the 100th of ixrnst degree longitude. TERM,

Statement Facts. resulted the of 1855, These treaty negotiations Senate was ratified of United States on 21st of and the President on March February, proclaimed by the same Stat. 611. The to that year. preamble 4th “ recites that Choctaws contend a and treaty just fair construction September entitled to the net are, lands ceded proceeds right, the. them to the United States under said and have treaty, pro- that the of their to the same, posed question right together whole, with their unsettled subject-matter claims, national whether individual, against under the various of said shall provisions treaty; be arising referred to the Senate of the United States for final adjudica- tion adjustment.” and. ' the terms of that a their division of By common lands was made between' the and Choctaws the Chickasaws, and the Choctaws to the United States all relinquished their lands west of the 100th of' west and degree longitude, Choctaws and the Chickasaws leased to the together States all that their common west of portion territory 98th for the of.'west degree longitude, settlement permanent and of-the "Wichita such other tribes or bands of Indians as of the United States desire to- government locate might therein The 11th and 12th articles are as fol- ' lows : 11. The of the United government States, not

“Abticlk to assent to the claim set under the being prepared up hundred twenty-seventh, September eighteen thirty, and so contended for the Choctaws as earnestly a rule of settlement, the sacrifices, faithful justly ser- appreciating vices, conduct of the' Choctaw general good people, desirous that their and claims huing rights against States shall receive a and liberal fair, just, consideration, is. therefore be stipulated submitted following questions to the Senate of the adjudication United States: “ First. Whether the Choctaws are entitled or shall be to, allowed, of the sale of the them proceeds lands ceded'by to the United States September twenty-

' v. STATES. NATION .UNITED CHOCTAW of Facts.

Statement therefrom hundred seventh, thirty, deducting eighteen and sale,.and expendi- just proper cost survey of said and, treaty; tures payments be acre shall Choctaws if what allowed so. price per a final settlement in'order unsold, lands remaining them effected. Or, may promptly “ allowed Second., Whether the Choctaws shall gross .be and full then national claims, in further satisfaction of all sum , how if States; so,- the' United individual, and, against much. “ award to the Choc In case shall Abtiole Senate' the net as aforesaid, lands ceded

taws proceeds all their them in full shall received satisfaction same individ national or whether States,, claims against' the shall under former and. Choctaws treaty; ual, arising any all individual become liable and bound to such pay thereupon the as 'the authorities be claims may adjudged proper, (cid:127) — be and the and settlement tribe equitable just payment of the made and under the direction with the advice to be the fund the so much of States and tribe; United agent authori as Choctawsj Senate to awarded by proper for, to be shall and determine thereof ascertain necessary ties on their liabilities of the tribe, shall, just payment But- be over to them the United States. requisition, in further full satis the Senate allow a and sum, should gross individual, of all their national or claims, whether faction be same shall accepted against and for, and liable shall become Choctaws, they thereupon it as aforesaid; all the individual claims bound'1 being pay, and decision of understood adjudication expressly shall final.” Senate of the eleventh article of In treaty, ques- pursuance

' submitted to the Senate of the United States tions 9th of a resolution -Senate on answered by passed follows: March, “ That the be allowed the Resolved, Choctaws proceeds States such have the sale of lands as been sold the costs therefrom last, the 1st day. January deducting TERM, 1886. OCTOBER. Statement óf Facts. oí their sale, and survey proper expenditures pay- ments under said the reservations allowed treaty, excluding in lieu of secured, issued reserva- estimating scrip tions at the rate of acre; and, further, $1.25 per allowed and a half cents acre also twelve for the residue per of said lands.” In reference to this award of the the Court Senate, £i in the The consideration

Claims, facts, finding says: was Senate so submitted to given subject-matter it the said eleventh article the said and to the evidence which was so and taken and considered to, presented the Senate, full, was fair, by, impartial, adjudica as made under the said influenced tion, article, or affected and was in no or the'result of, by, way degree any and there is no fraud, evidence corruption, partiality, tending that was the result or show mistake on the surprise thereof.” Senate, member any part On 9th the Senate of the United March, 1859, also a resolution for adopted purpose the. ascertaining due the amount Choctaw Nation award, follows: That the “Resolved, the Interior cause an ac- Secretary count be stated with the Choctaws what amoünt is showing due them to the above of settle- according principles prescribed ment, same to And the report Congress.” Secretary Interior, the mandate of said resolu- compliance on the 8th of did, tion, 1860, transmit to May, Congress statement of with the Choctaw Nation. This account account as the shows,’ sales of'the Choctaw lands proceeds toup with the 1, 1859, residue of said lands unsold January together at at twelve and date, one-half cents acre, an amount per in all of ’$8,018,61-1.80,from which was to be deducted the amount of to $5,091,3.61.50, a charges, equal whole leaving balance due to the Choctaws of $2,981,211.30.

On the 9th 1861, Choctaw day January, Nation, by memorial addressed to demanded Congress, from the payment United States of the amount to be it due to under claimed said award. of the act of By March the Indian act, 238, Stat. there was appropriation

CHOCTAW NATION v. STATES. UNITED

Opinion of tlie Court. tbe tbe Choctaw Nation sum of on account tbeir §250,000 claim. The bonds for'the additional sum of §250,000, that act directed to be issued delivered Cboctaw Nation on account of said were never issued claim, it, or demand same was made delivered although them on the 4th of Secretary upon Treasury 1861. April, cf of Claims found a fact, Court findings

Upon due the balance Choctaw Nation United States of made §408,120.32, of various claims under the up arising for the value land in taken fixing between the State of and the Arkansas boundary act of made, deducting payment In this $250,000. conclusion the Court Claims reaching the award of the Senate, rejected m no effect law', excluded the consideration all

having claims covered release executed the Choctaw Nation on November

Mr. John J. 'Mr. Weed, Jeremiah M. and Mr. Saznml Wilson, for the Choctaw Nation. Shellaba/rger Mr. Assistant General Mr. Assistant Attorney Maury General Howard for the States. Attorney MR. JustiCE Matthews, after the case as re- above stating delivered the of the Court. opinion ported, n of this suit is a settlement of general purpose judicial all controversies between the Choctaw Nation and existing States. The claims of Choctaw Nation specific It is are stated alternative. claimed, petition instance, the award of the Senate, first. due as a amount found balance the account between tbe upon stated of that should award, either principles parties, be enforced as ‘of the court in the finality by judgment if not enforceable as an case, award, present technically it still an furnishes a rule for settlement of the equitable .differencesbetween the the second But, parties. place, if in either claimed that the'award cannot be considered these then the in- whole fights, controversy questions TERM, 1886.

CO Opinion of the Court. tbe volved of the it, under treaties beginning, any are .between and decision parties, open investigation merits. And under this head original upon Natiop claim for various on compensation breaches, the part of the 27, 1830,and, treaty September such a failure on its with its general, part comply pro- visions, as in substance the Choctaw Nation of all deprived the benefits intended to be conferred it, which it is claimed are entitled to an as com- equitable equivalent . n pensation.

In to so much of the case as rests respect petitioner’s upon failures to "with the of article 14 of specific comply as to those Choctaw heads of families who claimed within its terms and did not reservations receive them, the of the United States relies the release exe- government upon cuted the Choctaw Nation in pursuance require- ments of the act of under which a 21, 1852, July payment was made satisfaction of the amounts $872,000 awarded the Choctaw claimants under that article of the of 1830. treaty it Claims, Court declined to appears, give any effect whatever to the made the Senate award legal constrained to that conclusion feeling the terms of the act March jurisdiction conferring it in this suit, other the effect hand, gave claimed the United States for the release under the act of 1852. Its in favor of the Choctaw Nation was judgment made follows: up

For claims under the 14th article of the hot covered the release of 1852 . . $417,656.00 For claims under the 19th article of the ' . 42,920.00 (cid:127) For land taken in boundary fixing . State Arkansas and the Choctaw 68,102.00 Nation For subsistence under transportation 51,993.00 annuities.' 59,449.32 For unpaid &c. n . . 18,000.00 For . ammunition, guns, Total. n .$658,120.32 - . STATES. NATION-' v. UNITED

CHOCTAW Opinion of the Court. tiras found it credited the balance due awith

And. payment of March under the act $250,000. made (cid:127) between the the- In controversy reviewing presented. parties is and it and record, this to consider important necessary The to- of some first relates the preliminary questions. dispose and nature the of the relation character they parties, The to each other. United States is a sustain nation, sovereign in court not suable its and consent, any own except.by. and terms conditions as such may consent, accompany is not law. and Its is subject any municipal government its limited own Constitution, the only nation subject but the to no law law. of On nations.' the other hand, the Nation falls within the in the térms of description our not of an Constitution, state or independent sovereign an Indian nation, but of As it in tribe. such, stands pecu- relation the liar United It was States. capable terms of the Constitution into relations with entering of' the United States, government although, case, nature of the subject power authority of the United States when should as it choose, laws Congress did determine in act of March in 3, 1811, embodied 2019 § [Revised Statutes, exert legislative power. As was said this court the case of recently' “ Traha.n States v. S. Kagama, U. 383: These tribes a/re the wards the nation; are communities they on the United dependent States; their dependent largely food; for their daily owe dependent no political rights. They to the States and receive from them no allegiance protection. of the local Because of the States where ill-feeling, people are found are often their-deadliest enemies. From their weakness and due very so helplessness, cdurse largely of the Federal with them, Government and the dealing treaties it has been there arises promised, duty itwith This has been protection, rec- power. always ognized this Executive, court, Congress, whenever the has arisen.” question

It had been said the case of Worcester v. accordingly 6 Pet. 582: Georgia, “The used in treaties with language TERM, 1886.

Opinion of the Court. never construed their should If prejudice. the Indians made use of a which are more extended susceptible words than their as connected with the tenor plain import, meaning- be considered used should the treaty, they only (cid:127)of . . . How the words of sense. (cid:127)latter rather than their this unlettered critical understood by people, should form the construction.” rule of meaning, (cid:127) to this contro- relation between parties recognized an is that between a inferior, therefore, superior versy, care and control of the latter is whereby j>laced on while authorizes former, which, adoption such own policy public part the other such an dictate, hand, interests recognizes, may as and acts and reason justice of their promises interpretation exerted the over in where is by demand all cases strong power care and are those to whom owe The parties they protection. is made to be an not on inequality good equal footing, to the of which substance looks only by superior justice rules framed under a without to technical system right, regard of formulating obliga- municipal jurisprudence, rights of the sameTaws. tions private equally subject persons, rules case are those which The to be applied present be- case of controversies treaties, which, even public govern read as tween nations are to be independent, equally rig- documents, as between a persons idly private governed of technical but in the of that reason law, system light larger which constitutes the of the law of-nations. And is spirit made between the States and the Choctaw treaties United a Nation, such of fact and relation, assumptions holding of 'which the acts and conduct of the right they presuppose, n under which constitute the them, material settling parties the controversies which have The rule of arisen them. nature out of the stated, interpretation already arising relation of the sanctioned parties, adopted terms of the In 11th article treaties themselves. express 1855, government itself as and claims desirous (cid:127)expresses being rights “ of the Choctaw receive the United States shall people against and liberal consideration.” fair, just, (cid:127) NATION v. CHOCTAW UNITED STATES. toso Opinion of the Court. act of March of tbe language ponferring juris- also case, in the

diction construction. It con- requires .present Court Claims to fers upon jurisdiction try questions out of with the Choctaw' arising stipulations difference to render thereon. How far Nation, the settle- judgment differences is to be these affected ment of the various acts to in the referred of fact Congress pleadings findings the Court made Claims, passed pro- in execution of fessedly obligations part must States, determined. These acts of Congress, in one have the force of because has full aspect, law, Congress over the in so far as legislation but, power subject; they have insufficient or incorrect proceeded may upon interpreta- tions of of the Choctaw or in so far treaty rights Nation, have those they may attempted modify disregard form the on the very subjects rights, complaint part Nation, whose is, allegation these statutes, in other .as have very particulars, broken their "Where, treaty obligations. professed pursu- treaties, ance of- these statutes have-conferred valuable benefits the Choctaw which the latter have accepted, — of the nature of agreements they partake acceptance with the benefit, condition, an assent on coupled implying unless that condition, recipient part implica- tion is rebutted other and sufficient circumstances. Under the terms of the act March exercising juris- diction the Court conferred, of Claims is thereby empowered entire to review the of differences de Avhich novo, question may the whole matter imply interpreted opened that with, the the view of what the beginning, original determining Choctaw Nation and how far were, treaty rights have been United States its various trans- by performed actions with the acts done under the them, including authority of the to. The of this clause becomes statutes referred meaning most with connection how however, important, question, the court to deal the award made is authorized Senate of the United States in of the of 1855. pursuance treaty

It is on the that contended, the Choctaw part TERM,

Opinion of the Court. that final and and in conclusive, that con- support aw%rd tention reference is made to the of the express provisions of 1855. It is"recited in the preamble that the Choctaws have that their claims proposed against United States, under the various of the arising shall be referred September Senate for final adjudication adjustment; the terms 12th article of the it is declared bj “ to be understood that the and decision expressly adjudication Senate shall be and the final;” right insist'upon conclusive nature of this it is is a award, said, treaty right favor of Choctaw Nation.

On the other it is declared act of hand, March 3, in the 1881, that, exercise of its this jurisdiction try case, the .Court of Claims “shall action by any estopped had or award made the Senate of the United States in ” of 1855 and it is pursuance ; insisted, behalf that this is inconsistent with language the idea that" the court should to that award any give legal effect whatever. And this construction is to be ren- supposed dered clause, necessary by previous grants to. power the court to review the entire of differences de novo question ; for it is said that court cannot review the of dif-. question ferences that- novo, de is, from the and as if beginning, tiiey (cid:127)were new had if ft arisen, effect to a freshly gives any determination of it is claimed Senate, which. operates of, res further into the merits judicata, foreclosing inquiry to be reviewed. 'very questions (cid:127) If the words to review the conferring power question differences novo are de have is diffi- .permitted force, cult to understand how the release made the Choctaw Nation of the act of pursuance Congress July should stand in the reconsideration, of a of the claims way covered it. That act it is declares that true, Congress, the final payment satisfaction of the sum thereby appro- should, when ratified and priated paid, approved national a final proper Choctaws, authority operate release of claims of those are to whom such payments ¡> ffl Oo d i—i d Ü H H d § a H co co ©

(cid:127)O CO +-1 'd Opinion of Court. 14th under the article of

made, the-treaty September 27, a But whether that was and fair extin- payment just claims, of those- the terms of that' according guishment. one of the in And it is was very questions dispute. is as.it contended on behalf of’ contend, not unreasonable that effect that release should in it view circumstances under considered which in reference which the Court of has Claims executed, “ the 14fch in the 16th that the claimants under found, finding, the said of families and their article, children, Choctaw heads reduced to a condition of want, were rendered helpless contend, for them to it practically impossible heads that the said Choctaw requirement to be should and receive the families accept provided scrip in lieu of 1842; them act issued to reservations and the to redeem the same and the money scrip to en- because were taken accepted powerless demands or conditions impose any upon, force any against, the United States.” n act of March 3, this However be, may language made in reference to the Senate award not as it, does not and does require, abrogate conferred of the exercise a condition jurisdiction it no it, the court should act, entirely disregard giving not It shall court effect whatever. merely says or made Senate in action had award estopped any literal of that meaning treaty. plain pursuance con- award, this satisfied fully by holding language be taken to be final face, as shall sucli, not, sidered upon in the There is and conclusive. nothing language prevent es- to that award effect as the court prima giving facie the claim far so favor validity adjudged tablishing Choctaw Nation, representatives leaving this only question right government litigation as- such award, such, any upon grounds validity lawat or either ordinarily, or should invalidate awards might merits, finding but also to attack equity, all the unfair in view unsupported unjust by proof, TERM, 1886. Opinion tlie Court. of to be and on tliat not enforced. circumstances, account In much, to it so that effect Avould cast view, given only of and fairness the burden the upon disproving justice , United States in this In that with that view, suit. light, it has been attacked in counsel for the the argument by case. 'States, the the contained proof In the first did not it is that the award place, objected agree with the that head is that submission, the argued first to the submitted for Senate was question adjudication whether the to the Choctaws entitled of the proceeds of the lands to the United ceded them the sale by by of and that there nowas treaty 27, 1830, September authority to allow to them such unless the Senate should first proceeds, find that were entitled to them. And it is said that the- (cid:127)Senate did that, not find as matter of the law, only Choc- so taws were entitled under the terms the treaty Sep- tember but to the the according report Committee on Indian which was Affairs, adopted the by Senate in the the resolutions contain passage itself, award their title to those considered as matter proceeds, was denied. law, not, We do think however, that words of the submitted to the Senate question of 1855 to be are confined to a consideration of the question of a strict title of the sale of the proceeds lands, but that whether the mean, they plainly Choctaws, under as a circumstances, matter of and fair justice dealing, ought to receive such whether as deducible proceeds, the terms of the or fair to be merely compensation awarded to them for its breaches the United States. The language inis the alternative it is whether the question '; Choc- are taws entitled shall be and it was sufficient, allowed; in our the terms judgment, satisfy submission, for Senate as it declare, that Choctaws should did, allowed the proceeds sale sold lands States which had been ceded Choctaws 1830; we are, the award therefore, opinion cannot be avoided on this ground.

Second. It is next insisted that the award invalid because united, nation states. v.

Opiniono£ the Court. it is inasmuch as while it uncertain, determines that shall be allowed the Choctaws sale of the lands proceeds and at 12-|- ceded the rate cents an . it does not residue, acre for ascertain what those proceeds the residue and the value of amount to But aggregate. itself means of award this- uncer- provided reducing a reference to the of the Interior, who was' tainty by Secretary directed to cause the account to be stated with the Choctaws,- what amount was due them showing according principle of settlement embraced in the award. It is not disputed of the Interior was enabled Secretary records of his officeto state such an and that in account, fact he has stated it. Tins reference to the of the Interior for Secretary the mere of an account' cannot be as a purpose considered of the Senate to of delegation authority by adjudicate any which had been it submitted to of questions agreement of the in account was execu- parties. stating merely tion of the it on which should judgment; principle proceed > was fully, clearly, Whatever finally, adjudged. exception be taken to the account when would not be might rendered, different from such as in the usual course of equity' practice taken to of a master to whom -wasreferred might report an the statement of of which account, had been principles settled a decree of the court and estab- previously fixing of the lishing rights parties.

Third. It is also said that the award is invalid for lack of notice to the United States the intended action of proper the arbitrator before to the When proceeding adjudication. -it is that the considered Senate of the United States was the arbitrator, as a branch of the does, constituting, legislative as as of the well treaty making power government it can contended hardly States had no notice in taken the Senate proceedings of laws or treaties made the United States. pursuance "Whatever force in otherwise be to reside might supposed these further objections award are validity answered reference to the terms'of the Indian appropria- tion act March enacts Stat. CXIX 3

VOL. — ' " TERM,

Opinion of the Court. follows: “For to the Choctaw nation or payment tribe eleventh, on account of their Indians, claim under the twelfth articles of the nation said- or tribe made treaty of June, the sum twenty-second of five hundred thousand two dollars; hundred and thousand dollars of fifty which sum shall .be in and for the residue the paid money; shall Secretary cause be issued to Treasury the proper authorities of the nation or on their tribe, bonds' requisition, of the United States, authorized at law the session present that in Provided, the future Congress: adjustment claim of the Choctaws, under the aforesaid, the said sum shall be the said Indians.” charged against

This and the which was made under appropriation, payment it, would seem to have the effect of the award of cónfirniing an for it makes Senate, appropriation part payment it, and future of the claim' of the provides adjustment (cid:127) Choctaws under It is true, it. as is insisted argument, no is mention made this act of the express award, and claim of the Nation Choctaw described one under arising the 11th and 12th articles of the no possible claim could under those arise articles of that in behalf of the, one insist the arbitra- except tion enforce the award of their made, pursuance and. terms. The whole of those articles object scope is to for the submission arbitration provide and the execution of award Senate, made it. The future of the claims of the men- Choctaws adjustment tioned in the refers to the division of the proviso evidently fund, ascertained of the of the Interior, report Secretary which, a was to be to the over nation for the portion satisfaction of individual remainder claimants, retained as a States trust to the 13th fund, according article >ofthe of 1855. tyeaty

'It does too much effect to the act not, therefore, give March it 2, to treat as an act of 1861, Congress confirming much view is of the Senate award. This validity very the terms of the act June strengthened by to which it that at that recent date intended appears Congress STATES, CHOCTAW NATION v. UNITED Opinion of the Court. of the tbe award Senate as valid and

treat binding, of the the Interior as the balance due to Secretary report final. The of that fol- Stat. is as act, to be provision “ That the is directed : Secretary lows hereby Treasury into the amounts of liabilities due from the to Choctaw inquire Indians to tribe of as referred to in articles individuals, twelve thirteen June twenty-second, eighteen hundred and between' the United States and the fifty-five, Chickasaw tribes of and to Indians, report the next to session of with a same view of ascertain- Congress, if the, what amounts, should be deducted from sum any, ing from the United due States to said Choctaw for the tribe, pur- the said tribe to its liabilities, enabling pose pay thereby to enable to a fund to be held for educa- Congress provide and other for said for in tribe, tional purposes provided thirteen of the aforesaid.” article further which can be claimed then, to only question, this suit the terms of be left adjudication open 3, 1881, is, act of March the award is supposition claim of the correctness of the thereby evidence facie frima it its merits whether was fair, reduced judgment, just, upon - as a settlement between the parties equitable, the circumstances matters controversy, regard having As is the of the United declared, the case. already right its at the validity by justice; question questioning the burden of them to time, establish, same upon proof to constrain considerations affirmative proof, ought as a matter of it. court, this disregard justice, altogether of differ- to review the whole then, Proceeding, questions are for this we led between de now ence purpose, parties the conclusion that the of settlement principle adjudged of the 11th article of the its award, Senate pursuance the nearest 1855, furnishes treaty.of approximation this it is time, after of'the case right lapse justice Our for a tribunal to reach. judicial judgment practicable this considerations-: effect is based the following in-

The situation and circumstances which parties 1830, was found at the time the September TERM, Opinion of the Court. these: into, entered By previous treaty the United declared, States therein and the policy agree- “ ment between the parties, promote, civilization of Indians, the Choctaw the establishment of schools amongst and to them as a nation them, for perpetuate exchanging a of their land here,” is, small “a part Mississippi, where all who Biver, live beyond Mississippi country will not work be collected settled may hunting “ that it Avas It was also recited desirable to .the together.” a small of the land State of to obtain Mississippi part belong- mutual nation for the accomodation of the to said ing parties.” ClioctaAvs, Accordingly, ceded a of their lands in only portion Mississippi. “ 2d article it was declared By n consideration cession on the of. foregoing part and in Nation, the ChoctaAV satisfaction for the part same, the commissioners in behalf of' said States, States,” ceded to a tract of said nation Avestof the thereby country the boundaries of AAdiich River, were described. Mississippi It also Avas declared article 4 of that “the Turbans established boundaries between the Choctaw hereby and the United States on this side of the River' Mississippi shall remain Avithoutalteration until the at which said period nation shall become so civilized as to be made enlightened citizens of the United States, shall off a lim- lay Congress ited of land for the benefit of each or individual parcel family in the nation.” was further

By January stipulated 4th article October 18, 1820, should so,;modified as that should not exercise the Congress power n for, the lands the benefit of. each apportioning family individual of the and of ChoctaAV them under bringing States, the laws with the consent of the In ChoctaAVNation. the meantime, however, pres- sure of demand the settlement of the lands unoccupied of the State of from other Mississippiby emigrants United States to the Indian tribes still policy respect Avithinits borders underwent and it be- dwelling change, v. STATES. NATION UNITED CHOCTAW Opinion of the Court. so as a to effect far new desirable treaty practicable came as a of the Choctaw Nation, of the whole body the removal been, had to lands which limits the State from the tribe, out Elver. To west of the' carry to them ceded Mississippi of 1830 was negotiated. that treaty policy that the Choctaw Nation of article of the 3d By States the entire to the United country they ceded Indians and Biver, east of and owned Mississippi. agreed possessed as Eivér as to Mississippi early practicable, remove beyond not one- as as of their so that many exceeding possible people, the falls of whole should number, half of the during depart and the residue follow and during- succeeding in to induce the consent of Choc But, 1833. order fall of of that Nation, such, taw provisions treaty, States entered into specified obligations already in articles articles, and contained subsequent particularly were so made, reservations land which 19, by large article 14 head of Choctaw who that under family every a of the United States to remain become citizen desired n wasentitled to to do becaine entitled a res so, thereupon himself, acres of for and an of a section of 640' land ervation for unmarried child with half-section each additional living him ten and an additional over years age, quarter-section his own loca-1' under ten child years each age, adjoin tion; the further that if resided upon provision, the3r to become citizens for five lands, years intending a should the ratification of the fee after simple treaty, grant reluctant it Choctaws, to them. very issue appears, ones, to their new a from their old homes to emigrate manifested an in much number than was larger very expected of, the avail of those themselves tention remain. entitled them to fact, as a historical It is notorious abundantly appears that had case, the record this great pressure their removal, bear the Indians effect brought executed, so the whole treaty evidently purposely had for which to the Indians the much secure rights as to effectuate the of the United policy stipulated, TERM, OCTOBER. 1886. Opinion of the Court. to their The most removal.- noticeable regard thing, upon a careful consideration of the terms of this treaty, is, no is for a consideration cession money lands, promised beneficial of which assumed to reside in the ownership to amount to over ten millions computed of acres. not an of lands east It was of the Mis- exchange- of that river. The River lands west lattér tract had- sissippi secured to them its cession under been already If is article true the 18th 1830 it is “for the several amounts provided se- payment the lands ceded are cured this to remain hereby to that until the debt shall fund be pledged purpose, provided it is for and in And, further, the con- arranged. agreed shall struction of tins wherever well-founded doubt treaty, it shall be arise, construed most towards the favorably Choc- secured taws.” only over money payments and above the in necessary expenditures removing Indians, for their subsistence for twelve months providing after their and new for their cattle and homes, reaching their paying are, an first, §20,000 for improvements, annuity twenty after their removal to the years, west; and, commencing sec- the amount to be ond, in the education of expended forty Choctaw and for the youths twenty years, of three support teachers of schools for with the twenty cost years, together some erecting public buildings, blacksmiths, furnishing in addition weapons, agricultural to the implements, sev- eral annuities and sums secured under former treaties Choctaw Nation and It is nowhere in the people. expressed that these are be to made as the payments price lands ceded; are all such they only expenditures could, of the United government well 'to incur afford the mere reference purpose re- executing policy of the moval Indians to their new homes. As a consideration the value of the lands ceded must for. treaty, they as a regarded meagre pittance.

It is, perhaps, impossible of this interpret language considered as a instrument, contract between parties standing n NATION v. STATES. CHOCTAW UNITED

Opinion of tile Court. an at arm’s as a con- equal dealing length, footing upon title Nation legal veyance to hold as trustee for the benefit of pecuniary it is the Choctaw people, yet only quite apparent for the transfer of that can be consid- consideration the lands them, which ered they inuring general advantage faithful, to have derived from the execution may supposed of the United States.; when, treaty'on part it is considered that the was not exe- connection, to its cuted on the the United States just part according intent with a view to to the Choctaw spirit, securing had a very people advantages they right expect accrue to them would it would seem as it, though a case where had lost their lands receiv- vwithout In there is a case, such equivalent. ing promised plain to enforce equity compensation, by party requiring . to account for all default benefits ifchas the'pecuniary actually from the derived lands themselves.. This is the solid ground on which of the award of the Senate of the justice United States under the of 1855 us seems to fairly f stand. n The committee of the Senate which resolutions reported the as the award under the body adopted reached conclusion the same Their premises. discusses at the various on which the report length grounds Choctaw Nation char- rightfully complained injurious' acter of the with States them under dealings United. the and concludes as follows: thus

“It to ascertain to how much the being impossible would be Choctaws on a fair and liberal entitled, settlement, the and it the them, for loss sustained to damage seems committee the mode of is to adjustment practical only them net of their on the lands, the give proceeds ground that it -is letter of the entitles them to but it, the course which can now.be them. done only justice “ And on the to the tribe the net while, one to award hand, of their be no than to lands, would more proceeds just surely them, because to actual value by no is paid practically regard TERM,

Opinion of the Court. the sales lands;. public undeniably market value lands which the the real of these Indians might if in their realized, have far .protected possession, greater than the for which on they sold; the. actually other price neither lost, States would have hand, nor paid, whatever’, would have refunded expended anything only to the Choctaws hand remaining surplus pro- own ceeds of their after lands, themselves having repaid every benefit of the dollar Choctaws; expended had this after the use of with- surplus having many years to interest, out when, estimates according of. General Land to Office, would amount little really more than what recovered half of be in a court if might equity, individuals, the case were one between as Mil appear by statement hereto appended. comparative “The committee resolu- accordingly report following and recommend that tions, made adopted the Senate award and sub- judgment questions 1855.” mitted of the Interior found to due to the Choc- Secretary

taw his statement of account in' conformity the resolutions decision of the Senate This the sum balance was $2,981,247.30. reached by them with the sales the lands crediting proceeds them under ceded 1830, made September for the unsold residue of January up adding lands estimated at cents acre, value per amounting 12-J $8;078,614.80 this, deductions aggregate. Against First, as follows: the cost of the charged, survey acre; and sale of the lands at ten cents an and, second, treaty; whole payments expenditures in the balance $5,097,367.50, above' amounting resulting stated. Some of the items charged payments expen- ditures in this account are to on objected part Choctaw Nation in suit, this and we are asked restate the If, account. at into such an however, we felt enter liberty examination this we see evidence account, nothing record to show the items presented by objected ' ' CHOCTAW NATION v. UNITED STATES. 41' Opinion-: Waite, Dissenting C. J. The result, is to properly chargeable. therefore,- the balance found

establish Interior Secretary as the true amount due, ascertained to the according principle (cid:127) the Senate in its have award, which we. adjudged declared to be the rule of settlement- equitable between this is-to be From deducted the $25.0,000 parties. payment made under act of March 1861.

This of difference in this questions involved disposes suit under treaties to that of for arising prior except annuities, ascertained Court of Claims unpaid to the amount sum which is to be included in $59,449.32, the judgment.

There is, however, another under the controversy arising of 1855. The first article of that fixed defi- ceded to the boundary nitely territory of 1820. It Nation is found as a fact Claims, that, the location of the Court fine which was of the United and fixed surveyed authority as the between the State of Arkansas permanent boundary Indian the act of March 3, country by Congress Stat. made a mistake, government whereby in the embraced territory appropriated by acres of lands, Indian part 136,204^ public the value of as ascertained lands, which, the Court of This is a Claims, $68,102. valid for which just claim, is entitled to recover. petitioner final result is that the The Choctaw Nation is entitled to a the United States for the sums: against judgment following First, $2,981,247.30^ $250,000 deduction of subject the act of 1861; second, annuities,' $59,449.32; unpaid taken in lands third, between fixing boundary of Arkansas and the State Choctaw Nation, $68,102. reversed, Court Claims is, judgment therefore, a/nd the ca/userema/nded to that with instructions court, enter with this judgment conformity ojpi/nion.

Me. Chief Justice Waite dissenting; find I unable to to this myself regret agree judgment. If the had United States authorized suit to be brought against

á2 TERM,

Dissenting Opinion : n Waite, C. J. I should the Senate award, them on. have hesitated about in ’of the favor Choctaw judgment Nation, giving upon found the court for the below, facts now full amount due to the statement of the Secretary Interior. according has in been not, award That my opinion, abrogated by so of this suit. It far as remains, bringing anything appears as as valid as it was when record, in this binding today States have made. The United the amount neglected pay awarded, have so never, but Choctaw far as this people them from their released shows, record On obligation pay. to have been it seems insisted always contrary, upon. suit is not but award, This upon brought upon it is to be in treaties, determined, my opinion, according now as to the fixed rights parties existing legal done, that was without treaties, regard anything 1855. of The -of Senate language juris “ is this: of dictional statute Court Claims is hereby to take of 'and all authorized of dif jurisdiction tiy questions out of with the ference treaty stipulations arising ' and render thereon; is power judgment hereby said court review the entire of differ question granted and it shah not be novo, de ences. action or estopped by any of made Senate United States award pursuance np of 1855.” seems to This, me, means the treaty than difference are to’ be more tried de questions far as the award is Á concerned. is novo, to be judgment This rendered. implies proceeding judicial and that to be in character, -judgment is accordance with-the 'principles governing rights-of parties ad:. ministration. The Senate, justice court. however, -the made and' were, arbitrators, they to determine invested whether-the Choctaws were power ” “ entitled if lands, .and, of their not, proceeds legally whether under ah. the circumstances case, ought, ” “be allowed such The Seriate could consider proceeds. arid act the moral of. the United States, obligations we nor the neither Court of Claims can do than more enforce liabilities. legal v. CHOCTAW NATION' UNITED STATES’. Opinion: Waite, Dissenting C. J. are tbe

What, then, tbe legal obligations tbe treaties at tbis time, under tbe Senate award leaving out of view? Tbe statute entirely jurisdictional neither nor tbe release waives which was executed abrogates under 1852. Tbe act same is true of the tbe July put of 1852. were to be made cash By payments under tbe fourteenth to claimants article of tbe for tbe amount of the bad been awarded scrip tbe act of under but not delivered, August provided “ tbe final satisfaction said awards shall payment first ratified and as a final release' of claims approved sueh tbe fourteenth article.” parties That release on tbe 6th was executed of November, Tbe of treaty . 1855 recites that “the a that, Choctaws contend and just of the

fair construction of September they are entitled to the net of of the-lands ceded right proceeds to them tbe United under said and States have treaty, pro- that tbe of their tó tbe same, question posed right together the with whole their tmsettled claims, whether subject-matter or individual, national the United States, under against arising of said shall be the various referred to the and Senate of the for final States adjudication adjust- United In to recital, ment.” view this we are construe Article XI the is in these words: .treaty, “ United. The Government of the being prepared to to the assent claim set the up September hundred and and so twenty-seventh, eighteen thirty, earnestly rule of but settlement, contended the- Choctaws as a the faithful sacrifices, services, justly appreciating general conduct tbe desirous that good people, being their' and claims States shall receive rights against fair, and liberal it is therefore consideration, just, stipulated be submitted for adjudication following questions the Senate of the United States: “ or shall to, First. Whether Choctaws are entitled be allowed, the sale of the lands ceded proceeds .them States, &c.,” n “ a be allowed Second. Whether Choctaws shall gross TERM, 188.6. Waite, Opinion:

Dissenting C. J. full of their national claims, satisfaction further sum if States; and, how so, individual, against n much.” n Thusthe referred Senate to matter was deter- whole were in law Whether the Choctaws entitled to the mine, 1, What, if lands, and, not, then, 2, of the sale'of. proceeds be a fair and liberal settlement circumstances, 'under the would this branch difference, all matters right the Choctaws the or.a submission “allow” proceeds, ” “ in some other to be The Senate way. sum ascertained gross a matter not entitled decided that "were proceeds (cid:127) it -would circumstances, be fair under all right, Had the same been on that basis. power to settle just I not hesitate affirm should Claims, to the Court of granted if full on that amount of award a placed judgment seen, the has statute con- been But, jurisdictional ground. a this suit to determina- fines of the courts jurisdiction Under tion rights parties. legal but we do what was fair can Senate could only just, to law. according adjudge

TAs with the Senate committee court agrees deciding were not entitled to the the Choctaws legally proceeds much then, is, that I concur. The how land. In only inquiry, of 1830 jnjust for the violation there can stands, If the release then -United-States. only Choctaws, claims of the national for wisettlecl recovery been individual. In the release has not invalidated my opinion, as an instrument law the case. findings binding taken The United States may advantage necessities have a hard of the Indians- exacted bargain, bargain it out. both carried The Sen- was made and parties promptly take this ate, under hardship powers, bargain might but, into account and behind the release, my judgment, go is 'we All that to ascertain what cannot. remains, then, account, national due from the States on .of legally included that settlement,, individual claims not this I done am "With what was Court satisfied entirely think be affirmed. Claims. I should the. judgment

Case Details

Case Name: Choctaw Nation v. United States

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Nov 15, 1886

Citation: 119 U.S. 1

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS