Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

der conflicting leases from an Indian chief.be with the consent of the government and Affirmed.

See same case below, 70 Fed. Rep. 453.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
Mr. James A. Kellogg argued the cause
and filed a brief for appellant:

The title of the Indians in the land they occupy is the right of possession in perpetuity, and the government the United States has the sole right to acquire from them this right.

Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, Pet. 1, 8 L. ed. 25; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L. ed. 483; Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 5 L. ed. 681; Mitchel v. United States, 9 Pet. 711, 9 L. ed. 283.

under its supervision.

Jackson ex dem. Smith v. Goodell, 20
Johns. 193.

Mr. C. K. Davis argued the cause and, with Messrs. Frank B. Kellogg and C. A. Severance, filed a brief for appellees:

There can be no doubt of the right of the treaty-making power to alienate portions of the national domain.

Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 598, 5 L. ed. 694; Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 247, 21 L. ed. 535.

The understanding of the words of the treaty by this unlettered people, rather than their critical meaning, should form the rule of construction.

The Indian right is that of occupancy; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 582, 8 L. ed. and a mere reservation of this right to a certain part within described boundaries leaves 508; Choctaw Nation v. United States, 119 the right reserved as it stood before the ces-U. S. 28, 30 L. ed. 315, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 75. sion.

Godfrey v. Beardsley, 2 McLean, 412, Fed. Cas. No. 5,497; Wheeler v. Me-shing-go-mesia, 30 Ind. 402.

The manner in which the dead and living chiefs and the general government have regarded this reservation is of the utmost importance in determining the proper construction of the treaty.

The term "reservation" was equivalent to an absolute grant.

Niles v. Anderson, 5 How. (Miss.) 365; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 116, 21 L. ed. 807.

The Secretary of the Interior has no authority to establish a rule of inheritance binding on the courts.

Richardville v. Thorp, 28 Fed. Rep. 52. Where the tribal organization was recColeman v. Grubb, 23 Pa. 393; St. Louis ognized by the political department of the Gaslight Co. v. St. Louis, 46 Mo. 121; Jack-United States government, the descent is son v. Perrine, 35 N. J. L. 137; Stone v. cast, not under the state law, but in accordClark, 1 Met. 378, 35 Am. Dec. 370; Nicker. ance with the law of the tribe. son v. Atchison, T. & 8. F. R. Co. 3 McCrary, 455, 17 Fed. Rep. 408; Foster v. Gold-Steele, 23 Kan. 673. schmidt, 22 Blatchf. 287, 21 Fed. Rep. 70.

Where a construction and interpretation of a treaty have been adopted by the executive department, that construction will be followed by the judicial department when it is not repugnant to the language or the purpose of the treaty.

Castro v. De Uriarte, 18 Fed. Rep. 93; Lattimer v. Poteet, 14 Pet. 15, 10 L. ed. 333; United States v. Holliday, 3 Wall. 407, 18

L. ed. 182.

Dole v. Irish, 2 Barb. 639; Brown v.

Land granted to an Indian by treaty in severalty is, under the provisions of the ordinance of 1787 for the government of the Northwest Territory, not subject to the operation of state laws.

Wau-pe-man-qua v. Aldrich, 28 Fed. Rep.

498.

Congress has no constitutional power to settle or interfere with the rights under treaties, except in cases purely political.

Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 247, 21 L. ed. 535.

The provision of article 9, that "there *Mr. Justice Gray delivered the opinion [2] should be set apart a reservation out of the of the court: lands ceded," conveys no more than the right This was a bill in equity, filed in the cirof occupancy and possession, with the ulti-cuit court of the United States for the dismate title retained in the general govern-trict of Minnesota by Patrick Meehan and

ment.

Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U. S. 517, 24 L. ed. 440; United States v. Cook, 19 Wall. 591, 22 L. ed. 210; Leavenworth, L. & G. R. Co. v. United States, 92 U. S. 733, 23 L. ed. 634. It is simply an authorization to hold in severalty.

Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 5 L.

ed. 681.

The general resolution of Congress authorizing the approval of the Jones lease supplies the basis of authority for the action of the department relative thereto, and, at least by implication, forbids any other lease.

Smith v. Stevens, 10 Wall. 321, 19 L. ed.

[blocks in formation]

James Meehan, citizens of Wisconsin,
against Ray W. Jones, a citizen of Minne-
sota, to quiet title in a strip of land
10 feet wide along the westerly shore
of the Red Lake river, in the coun-
Polk and state of
ty of
Minnesota,
extending from the northeasterly inter-
section of the plat of the village of Thief
River Falls with the shore at a point near
the junction of the two rivers, and being
part of lot 1 in section 34, township 154,
and range 43.

For convenience the parties will be designated, throughout this opinion, according to their position in the court below; the Meehans, now appellees, as the plaintiffs; and Jones, now appellant, as the defendant.

*Each party derived title under the "res- [3] ervation of six hundred and forty acres near the mouth of the Thief river for the chie 175 U. &

Moose Dung," in article 9 of the treaty made | patent shall issue, and no patent shall be isat the Old Crossing of Red Lake river in the sued until due proof of five years' actual resstate of Minnesota, on October 2, 1863, be- idence and cultivation, as required by the tween the United States, by their commis-act entitled 'An Act to Secure Homesteads sioners, Alexander Ramsey, a senator of the on the Public Domain.'" United States for the state of Minnesota, By article 9 of the treaty: "Upon the and Ashley C. Morrill, agent for the Chippe-urgent request of the Indians, parties to this wa Indians, of the one part, and the Red treaty, there shall be set apart from the Lake and Pembina bands of Chippewa In-tract hereby ceded a reservation of six hundians, by their chiefs, headmen, and war-dred and forty acres near the mouth of Thief riors, of the other part, and afterwards rat-river for the chief Moose Dung, and a like ified by the Senate, with amendments as-reservation of six hundred and forty acres sented to by the Indians. 13 Stat. at L. for the chief Red Bear on the north side of 667-671. The material provisions of that Pembina river." treaty were as follows:

By article 2 those bands of Chippewas ceded to the United States all their right, title, and interest in a large tract of country to the west of Thief river in the state of Minnesota, including all the American valley of the Red River of the North.

By article 3: "In consideration of the foregoing cession, the United States agree to pay to the said Red Lake and Pembina bands of Chippewa Indians the following sums, to wit: Twenty thousand dollars per annum for twenty years; the said sum to be distributed among the Chippewa Indians of the said bands in equal amounts per capita." By article 5: "To encourage and aid the chiefs of said bands in preserving order and inducing, by their example and advice, the members of their respective bands to adopt the habits and pursuits of civilized life, there shall be paid to each of the said chiefs annually, out of the annuities of the said bands, a sum not exceeding one hundred and fifty dollars, to be determined by their agents according to their respective merits. And for the better promotion of the above objects, a further sum of five hundred dollars shall be paid at the first payment to each of the said chiefs to enable him to build for himself a house."

Moose Dung or Monsimoh was one of the principal chiefs of the Red Lake band of Chippewa Indians, and his name was the first of the Indian signatures to the treaty, all of which were by marks only.

The plaintiffs, against the defendant's objection, introduced in evidence certified copies of extracts from the journal of the proceedings at the negotiation of the treaty, annexed to the report made by Mr. Ramsey to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs in October, 1863. That journal stated that "Moose Dung, who was really the most influential of all the chiefs, stood at the head of a party embracing the large majority of all the bands who were favorable to and even anxious for a treaty." It also showed [5] that part of the discussion was as follows: Moose Dung said: "I have taken the mouth of Thieving river as my inheritance. I do not ask the chiefs here where I shall go. I make my home there. I wanted it for a reservation for myself. . . . I used to think that this was the proper place for me to settle; that it would be an inheritance for my children-where all my children could have enough to live on in the future." Mr. Ramsey answered, "Tell him I don't care anything about the mouth of Thieving river. He can have it if he wants it." Moose Dung By article 8: "In further consideration of replied, "I accept of the proposition, because the foregoing cession, it is hereby agreed I see that I am going to be raised from that the United States shall grant to each want to richez,-to be raised to the level of male adult half-breed or mixed blood who is the white man. You and the gov [4] related by blood to the said Chippewas of ernment have used every exertion for a great the said Red Lake or Pembina bands, who many years to bring about a treaty. I do has adopted the habits and customs of civ- not want you to exert yourselves in vain. I ilized life, and who is a citizen of the United now give up the tract of country." The States, a homestead of one hundred and journal further stated that "at the end of a sixty acres of land, to be selected at his op-session of three and a half hours' duration tion, within the limits of the tract of country hereby ceded to the United States, on any land not previously occupied by actual settlers or covered by prior grants, the boundaries thereof to be adjusted in conformity with the lines of the official surveys when the same shall be made, and with the laws and regulations of the United States affecting the location and entry of the same."

By one of the amendments made by the Senate, with the assent of the Indians, there was inserted at the end of article 8 the following: "Provided, that no scrip shall be issued under the provisions of this article, and no assignments shall be made of any right, title, or interest at law or in equity until a

Moose Dung, who has stood for an hour weighing and deliberating on every separate provision of this treaty, asking for this explanation and that modification, appearing to labor under a serious sense of the great responsibility he was taking, at last touched the pen which was to affix his vicarious signmanual to the treaty," and the other chiefs followed his example.

The plaintiffs also, against the like objection, introduced testimony of the secretary of the commission, of the official interpreter and of other persons, Indians as well as white persons, who were present at the negotiation of the treaty, to the same effect.

Moose Dung selected as his reservation, under the ninth article of the treaty, six

hundred and forty acres, a part of which was lot in section 34, including the strip now in controversy; and he lived on that land at the mouth of Thief river, and made it his home, and had a log house, a garden, and a fish trap there. He died in 1872, before the lands were surveyed, and was succeeded as chief by his eldest son, who had been born at Red Lake in 1828, and who was known to the whites by the same name of Moose Dung or Monsimoh, and to the Indians as Mayskokonoyay, meaning "The one that [6] wears the *red robes;" and, ever since the making of the treaty, his father and himself, in succession, sustained tribal relations with the Red Lake band of Chippewa Indians, and that band continued to be recognized as an Indian tribe by the government of the United States.

On June 27, 1879, the United States Indian agent at White Earth, Minnesota, wrote to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs at Washington that Moose Dung the younger, the only surviving son of Moose Dung named in the treaty, requested that the land selected by his father might be set aside for his benefit. On July 25, 1879, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs answered that Moose Dung the younger should at once locate the desired lands in accordance with the description in the treaty; and that it must be shown to the satisfaction of the Office of Indian Affairs that his father left no other children. On September 10, 1879, the agent replied that "the heirs of Moose Dung" had selected the lands (describing them particularly) that had been selected by the elder Moose Dung before his death. On September 30, 1879, the Secretary of the Interior, on the recommendation of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, approved "the selection made by the heirs of Moose Dung," and directed the Commissioner of the General Land Office to "take the necessary steps for the protection of the said lands so reserved for the benefit of those entitled, as contemplated by the treaty stipulations;" and they were thereupon set apart accordingly, and were designated on all government maps as "Moose Dung's reservation."

From the time of this selection Moose Dung the younger lived upon, exercised dominion over, and claimed to own, the land so selected, and cultivated part of it, leased other parts of it for pasturage, and sold sand off it.

On November 7, 1891, Moose Dung the younger, describing himself as "Moose Dung, of Thief River Falls, Polk county, Minnesota," made a lease to the plaintiffs, for ten years, at an annual rent of twenty-five dollars, of this strip of land and all shore rights for storing logs, erecting piles and booms, and for all purposes connected with lumbering; and he affixed to it his mark and seal, and [7]acknowledged it before a notary public, *after its contents had been fully explained to him through an interpreter. On November 10, 1891, this lease was recorded in the registry of deeds for the county. The plaintiffs ac

cepted the lease, and paid the rent according to its terms; and in 1892 they erected a large saw mill on the bank of Thief river, a short distance below the strip leased, and entered upon this strip, drove piles and strung booms in the river opposite, and stored logs there, and thenceforth used the strip as one shore of the mill-pond appurtenant to their saw mill.

The land selected by Moose Dung was near the village of Thief River Falls, which, when this lease was made, contained some fifty inhabitants and had no railroad and no important industry, and land there was of little value. But in 1892, after the erection of the plaintiffs' saw mill, the Great Northern Railway Company built a railroad to the village, a large settlement sprang up there, and the land increased in value.

On July 20, 1894, Moose Dung the younger, describing himself as "Monsimoh (commonly called Moose Dung), heir and successor of his father Monsimoh (also commonly called Moose Dung)," made a lease of the whole of lot 1 in section 34, and of all appurtenances and riparian rights thereto belonging, for twenty years, to the defendant, at an annual rent of two hundred dollars; and on July 23, 1894, this lease was recorded in the registry of deeds. The defendant at the time of obtaining this lease knew of the prior lease and possession of the plaintiffs. On August 4, 1894, Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the Secretary of the Interior "to approve, if in his discretion hẹ deems the same proper and advisable, and upon such terms as he may impose," this lease to the defendant. 28 Stat. at L. 1018. On December 27, 1894, the Secretary of the Interior approved this lease, upon condition (to which both the lessor and the lessee assented) that the annual rent should be four hundred dollars, and "be paid to the agent in charge of the Chippewa Indians in Minnesota, and by him paid to the parties found to be entitled thereto by this Department," and should be readjusted every five years, and "the said premises, nor any part thereof, shall not be sublet without the written [8] consent of the lessor, his heirs or assigns, and the approval of the Secretary of the Interior."

The circuit court held that the reservation in the treaty to the elder Moose Dung was in the nature of a grant of title to him, burdened with no restriction or condition save that of selection and identification; that upon the selection and location the title in the selected lands vested in Moose Dung the younger as his eldest son and successor; that the latter's lease of November 9, 1891, to the plaintiffs was a valid and subsisting lease of the strip in controversy, and needed no approval by the Secretary of the Interior; that the lease made on July 20, 1894, to the defendant, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, was subordinate to the lease to the plaintiffs, and, as against them, conveyed no right to the occupancy or use of the strip; and that the plaintiffs were entitled to have

the rights and privileges under the earlier clared that no sale of lands made by any Inlease vested and quieted in them as against dians, or any nation or tribe of Indians, the claims of the defendant. 70 Fed. Rep. within the United States, shall be valid to 453. The defendant appealed to this court. any person or persons, or to any state, The fundamental question in the case is, whether having the right of pre-emption to What was the nature of the title which the such lands or not, unless the same shall be elder chief Moose Dung took under the made and duly executed at some public treaty treaty of October 2, 1863, between the United held under the authority of the United States and the Red Lake and Pembina bands States." 1 Stat. at L. 138. In the act of of Chippewa Indians? Was it a mere right March 1, 1793, chap. 19, § 8, the correspondof occupancy, with no power to convey the ing provision was that "no purchase or land except to the United States, or by their grant of lands, or of any title or claim thereconsent? Or was it substantially a title in to, from any Indians, or nation or tribe of fee simple with full power of alienation? Indians, within the bounds of the United Undoubtedly, the right of the Indian na- States, shall be of any validity, in law or tions or tribes to their lands within the equity, unless the same be made by a treaty United States was a right of possession or or convention entered into pursuant to the occupancy only; the ultimate title in fee in Constitution." 1 Stat. at L. 330. In the those lands was in the United States; and acts of May 19, 1796, chap. 30, *§ 12, and [10] the Indian title could not be conveyed by the March 3, 1799, chap. 46, § 12, this provision Indians to anyone but the United States, was re-enacted, substituting for the words without the consent of the United States. "purchase or grant" the words "purchase, Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 5 L. ed. grant, lease, or other conveyance," and for 681; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, the words "any Indians," in the plural, the 17, 8 L. ed. 25, 31; Worcester v. Georgia, words "any Indian," in the singular, so as to read: "No purchase, grant, lease, or Pet. 515, 544, 8 L. ed. 483, 495; Doe, Mann, v. Wilson, 23 How. 457, 463, 16 L. ed. 584; other conveyance of lands, or of any title or United States v. Cook, 19 Wall. 591, 22 L. claim thereto, from any Indian, or nation or ed. 210; United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. United States, shall be of any validity, in tribe of Indians, within the bounds of the 375, 381, 30 L. ed. 228, 230, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. law or equity, unless the same be made by 1109; Buttz v. Northern P. R. Co. 119 U. S. treaty, or convention entered into pursuant 55, 67, 30 L. ed. 330, 335, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 100. to the Constitution." 1 Stat. at L. 472, In the leading case of Johnson v. McIntosh 746. And this language of the temporary (1823) it was therefore held that grants of acts of 1796 and 1799 was repeated in the [lands northwest of the river Ohio, made in first permanent enactment upon the subject, 1773 and 1775 by the chiefs of certain Indian being the act of March 30, 1802, chap. 13, tribes constituting the Illinois and the § 12. 2 Stat. at L. 143. Pinkeshaw nations, to private individuals, conveyed no title which could be recognized in the courts of the United States; and Chief Justice Marshall, in delivering judgment, said: "The usual mode adopted by the Indians for granting lands to individuals has been to reserve them in a treaty, or to grant them under the sanction of the commission ers with whom the treaty was negotiated." 8 Wheat. 598, 5 L. ed. 694

Accordingly, by several early treaties be tween the United States of the one part, and the Chippewas and other Indian nations of the other part, the said Indian nations acknowledged themselves to be under the protection of the United States, and of no other Sovereign whatever; the United States relinquished and quitclaimed to the said nations respectively all the lands lying within certain limits, to live and hunt upon, and other wise occupy as they saw fit; but the said nations, or either of them, were not to be at iiberty to dispose of those lands, except to the United States. Treaties of January 21, 1785. art. 2; January 9, 1789, art. 3; August 3, 1795, arts. 4, 5; 7 Stat. at L. 16, 29,

52.

It is well settled that a good title to parts of the lands of an Indian tribe may be granted to individuals by a treaty between the United States and the tribe, without any act of Congress, or any patent from the executive authority of the United States. Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. above cited; Mitchel v. United States, 9 Pet. 711, 748, 9 L. ed. 283, 296; Doe, Godfrey, v. Beardsley, 2 McLean, 417, 418; United States v. Brooks, 10 How. 442, 460, 13 L. ed. 489, 496; Doe, Mann, v. Wilson, 23 How. 457, 463, 16 L. ed. 584; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 356, 17 L. ed. 91; Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 211, 247, 21 L. ed. 523, 535; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. 112, 116, 21 L. ed. 805, 807; New York Indians v. United States, 170 U. S. 1, 42 L. ed. 927, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 531. The question in every case is whether the terms of the treaty are such as to manifest the intention of the parties to make a present grant to the persons named.

The Indian tribes within the limits of the United States are not foreign nations; though distinct political communities, they are in a dependent condition; and Chief Jus tice Marshall's description, that "they are in Soon after the adoption of the Constitu- a state of pupilage," and "their relation to tion, the same doctrine was repeatedly recog- the United States resembles that of a ward nized and enforced by Congress in temporary to his guardian," has become more and more acts regulating trade and intercourse with appropriate as they have grown less powerthe Indian tribes. By the act of July 22, ful and more dependent. Cherokee Nation 1790, chap. 33, § 4, it was "enacted and de-v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 17, 8 L. ed. 25, 31; Elk

ing, should form the rule of construction."
Pet. 582, 8 L. ed. 508.

Vey them to individuals, and no valid cession can be made of their interest but to the United States." 2 Ops. Atty. Gen. 587.

But within a year after that opinion was given, and perhaps in consequence thereof, Congress in framing a new act regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, omitted the prohibition, contained in for mer statutes, of purchases or leases from "any Indian," and put the provision invalidating In

v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 99, 28 L. ed. 643, | 645, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 382, 384, 30 L. ed. The defendant's counsel at the argument 228, 230, 231, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1109; Ste- relied on an opinion given by Chief Justice phens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 484, Taney, when Attorney General, under the 43 L. ed. 1041, 1055, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722. following circumstances: By the treaty In construing any treaty between the made at Camp Tippecanoe in the state of [11] United States and an *Indian tribe, it must Illinois on October 20, 1832, between the always (as was pointed out by the counsel United States and the Pottawatomie tribe for the appellees) be borne in mind that the of Indians of the Prairie and Kankaukes negotiations for the treaty are conducted, on (while the act of March 30, 1802, chap. 13, the part of the United States, an enlightened was in force), that tribe ceded a large tract and powerful nation, by representatives of land in Illinois to the United States, and skilled in diplomacy, masters of a written it was provided that "from the cession aforelanguage, understanding the modes and forms said the following tracts shall be reserved, to of creating the various technical estates wit," a certain number of sections to each known to their law, and assisted by an in- of particular Indians named. 7 Stat. at L. terpreter employed by themselves; that the 378. On September 20, 1833, Attorney Gentreaty is drawn up by them and in their own eral Taney gave an opinion to the Secretary language; that the Indians, on the other of War that these reservations are excepted hand, are a weak and dependent people, who out of the grant made by the treaty, and did have no written language and are wholly un- not therefore pass by it; consequently, the familiar with all the forms of legal expres- title remains as it was before the treaty; sion, and whose only knowledge of the terms that is to say, the lands reserved are still in which the treaty is framed is that im- held under the original Indian title;" and parted to them by the interpreter employed therefore "the Indian occupants cannot conby the United States; and that the treaty must therefore be construed, not according to the technical meaning of its words to learned lawyers, but in the sense in which they would naturally be understood by the Indians. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L. ed. 483; The Kansas Indians, 5 Wall. 737, 760, sub nom. Blue Jacket v. Johnson County Comrs. 18 L. ed. 667, Wan-Zop-E-Ah v. Miami County Comrs. 18 L. ed. 674, Choctaw Nation v. United States, 119 U. S. 1, 27, 28, 30 L. ed. 306, 314, 315, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 75. Indian conveyances in this altered form: "No the leading case of Worcester v. Georgia purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of (1832) Chief Justice Marshall, speaking of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from article 4 of the treaty of Hopewell of Novem any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall ber 28, 1785, between the United States and be of any validity, in law or equity, unless the Cherokee Indians, which defined "the the same be made by treaty or convention boundary allotted to the Cherokees for their Act of June 30, 1834, chap. 161, § 12 (4 entered into pursuant to the Constitution." hunting grounds, between the said Indians Stat. at L. 730). The declaration, retained and the citizens of the United States" (7 in this act, of the invalidity of purchases and Stat. at L. 19), said: "There is the more realeases "from any nation or tribe of *Indians," [13] son for supposing that the Cherokee chiefs might include a purchase or lease from any were not very critical judges of the lan- Indian acting by authority derived from his guage, from the fact that everyone makes tribe only. Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. his mark; no chief was capable of signing 543, 593, 5 L. ed. 681, 693; Smith v. Stevens, his name. It is probable the treaty was in- 10 Wall. 321, 323, 19 L. ed. 933; Goodell v. terpreted to them." "Is it reasonable to sup-Jackson, Smith, 20 Johns. 693, 723, 11 Am. pose that the Indians, who could not write, Dec. 351. But the inference appears to us and most probably could not read, who cer- to be irresistible that Congress did not intainly were not critical judges of our lan- tend that there should thenceforth be any guage, should distinguish the word 'allotted' general restriction upon the alienation by from the words 'marked out?" " 6 Pet. 551, individual Indians of sections of land re552, 8 L. ed. 497, 498. And Mr. Justice Mc- served to them respectively by a treaty with Lean, concurring, said: "The language the United States. And this view is conused in treaties with the Indians should firmed by the re-enactment of the provision, never be construed to their prejudice." "To in the very words of the act of 1834, in contend that the word 'allotted,' in reference § 2116 of the Revised Statutes, and by the to the lands guaranteed to the Indians in course of decision in this court in a series of certain treaties, indicates a favor conferred opinions which may conveniently be consid[12] rather than a right acknowledged, would, it ered in their chronological order. would seem to me, do injustice to the understanding of the parties. How the words of the treaty were understood by this unlettered people, rather than their critical mean

The supplementary articles of September 28, 1830, to the treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek of September 27, 1830, between the United States and the Choctaw Nation of In

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »