Reuben Quick Bear v. Francis Leupp
| Decision Date | 18 May 1908 |
| Docket Number | No. 569,569 |
| Citation | 210 U.S. 50,52 L.Ed. 954,28 S.Ct. 690 |
| Parties | REUBEN QUICK BEAR, Ralph Eagle Feather, and Charles Tackett, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Members of the Sioux Tribe of Indians of the Rosebud Agency, South Dakota, Appts., v. FRANCIS E. LEUPP, Commissioner of Indian Affairs; James Rudolph Garfield, Secretary of the Interior; George Bruce Cortelyou, Secretary of the Treasury, et al |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The appellants filed their bill in equity in the supreme court of the district of Columbia, alleging that:
'1. The plaintiffs are citizens of the United States, and members of the Sioux tribe of Incians of the Rosebud agency, in the state of South Dakota, and bring this suit in their own right as well as for all other members of the Sioux tribe of Indians of the Rosebud agency.
'2. The defendants are citizens of the United States and residents of the District of Columbia, and are sued in this action as the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Treasurer of the United States, and the Comptroller of the Treasury, respectively.
'3. That by article 7 of the Sioux treaty of April 29, 1868 (15 Stat. at L. 635, 637), continued in force for twenty years after July 1, 1889, by § 17 of the act of March 2, 1889 (25 Stat. at L. 888, 894, 895, chap. 405), the United States agreed that for every thirty children of the said Sioux tribe who can be induced or compelled to attend school, a house shall be provided, and a teacher competent to teach the elementary branches of an English education shall be furnished, who will reside among said Indians, and faithfully discharge his or her duties as a teacher.
'4. That, for the purpose of carrying out the above provision of the said treaty during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1906, the following appropriation was made by the act of March 3, 1905, § 1 (33 Stat. at L. 1048, 1055, chap. 1479):
"For support and maintenance of day and industrial schools, including erection and repairs of school buildings in accordance with article seven of the treaty of April twenty-nine, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, which article is continued in force for twenty years by section seventeen of the act of March second, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.'
'The fund so appropriated is generally known as the Sioux treaty fund.
'5. That § 17 of the said act of March 2, 1889, further provides as follows:
"And in addition thereto there shall be set apart out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of three million of dollars, which said sum shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Sioux Nation of Indians as a permanent fund, the interest of which at five per centum per annum, shall be appropriated, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior, to the use of the Indians receiving rations and annuities upon the reservations created by this act, in proportion to the numbers that shall so receive rations and annuities at the time that this act takes effect, as follows: One half of said interest shall be so expended for the promotion of industrial and other suitable education among said Indians, and the other half thereof in such manner and for such purposes, including reasonable cash payments per capita as, in the judgment of said Secretary, shall, from time to time, most contribute to the advancement of said Indians in civilization and self-support.'
'This fund of $3,000,000 is generally known as the Sioux trust fund.
'6. That the interest on the said Sioux trust fund is paid annually by the United States in accordance with the provisions of the second clause of the act of April 1, 1880 (21 Stat. at L. 70, chap. 41), reading as follows:
"And the United States shall pay interest semiannually, from the date of deposit of any and all such sums in the United States Treasury, at the rate per annum stipulated by treaties or prescribed by law, and such payments shall be made in the usual manner, as each may become due, without further appropriation by Congress.'
'7. That the act of June 7, 1897, § 1 (30 Stat. at L. 62, 79, chap. 3), contains the following provision:
"And it is hereby declared to be the settled policy of the government to hereafter make no appropriation whatever for education in any sectarian school.'
'8. That, in violation of the said provision of the act of June 7, 1897, the said Francis E. Leupp, Commissioner of Indian Affairs, as aforesaid, has made or intends to make, for and on behalf of the United States, a contract with the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions of Washington, District of Columbia, a sectarian organization, for the care, education, and maintenance, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1906 of a number of Indian pupils of the said Sioux tribe, at a sectarian school on the said Rosebud reservation, known as the St. Francis Mission Boarding School, and in the said contract has agreed to pay, or intends to agree to pay, to the said Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions of Washington, District of Columbia, a certain rate per quarter as compensation for every pupil in attendance at the said school under the said contract, the said payment (which, as the plaintiffs are informed and believe, will amount to the sum of $27,000), to be made either from the said Sioux treaty fund, or from the interest of the said Sioux trust fund, or from both.
'9. That all payments made to the said Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions of Washington, District of Columbia, under the said contract, eigher out of the said Sioux treaty fund or out of the interest of the said Sioux trust fund, will be payments for education in a sectarian school, and will be unlawful diversions of funds appropriated by Congress, and in violation of the above-recited provision of the act of June 7, 1897, and such payments will seriously deplete the interest of said Sioux trust fund, to the great injury of the plaintiffs and all other members of the said Sioux tribe of Indians of the Rosebud agency, and will unlawfully diminish the amount of money which should be expended out of the said Sioux treaty fund and the interest of the said Sioux trust fund for lawful purposes, for the benefit of the said plaintiffs and all other members of the said Sioux tribe of Indians of the Rosebud agency, and will also unlawfully diminish the cash payments which the said plaintiffs and all other members of the said Sioux tribe of Indians of the Rosebud agency are entitled to receive per capita out of the interest of the said Sioux trust fund.
'10. That the plaintiffs have never requested nor authorized the payment of any part of the said Sioux treaty fund, or of the interest of the said Sioux trust fund, to the said Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions of Washington, District of Columbia, or any other person or organization whatever, for the education of Indian pupils of the said Sioux tribe in the said St. Francis Mission Boarding School, or any other sectarian school whatever, but have, on the contrary, protested against any use of either of the said funds, or the interest of the same, for the purpose of such education.
'11. That the plaintiffs have no remedy at law.
'Wherefore the plaintiffs ask relief, as follows:
2. And for a permanent injunction against the drawing, countersigning, and paying 'any warrants in favor of the said Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions of Washington, District of Columbia, or any other sectarian organization whatever, for the support, education, and maintenance of any Indian pupils of the said Sioux tribe at the said St. Francis Mission Boarding School, or any other sectarian school on the said Rosebud reservation or elsewhere, payable out of any money appropriated, either by permanent appropriation or otherwise, for the uses of the said Sioux tribe.'
3. And for general relief.
The defendants answered, 1. Admitting 'that the plaintiffs are citizens of the United States, and members of the Sioux tribe of Indians, but aver that the said Indians are only nominal plaintiffs, the real plaintiff being the Indian Rights Association, who have had this suit brought for the purpose of testing the validity of the contract hereinafter referred to.'
2. Admitting 'that they are residents of the District of Columbia, and are sued in this action as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Treasurer of the United States, and the Comptroller of the Treasury, respectively. These defendants, as officers of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lamont v. Woods
...& Pac. Ry. v. McGlinn, 114 U.S. 542, 546, 5 S.Ct. 1005, 1006, 29 L.Ed. 270 (1885) (dicta); see also Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 81-82, 28 S.Ct. 690, 699-700, 52 L.Ed. 954 (1908) (assuming that both religion clauses affect United States relations with the Indian tribes). Congress termi......
-
Morrison v. Work
...in which a suit to enjoin an officer of the United States was entertained but relief was denied, there are 2 (Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U. S. 50, 28 S. Ct. 690, 52 L. Ed. 954, and Lane v. Morrison, 246 U. S. 214, 38 S. Ct. 252, 62 L. Ed. 674) in which the plaintiff appears to have had only t......
-
Dayton Christian Schools, Inc. v. Ohio Civil Rights Com'n
...for obligations the state can neither supply nor hinder." Id. at 166, 64 S.Ct. at 442. See also Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 81-82, 28 S.Ct. 690, 699-700, 52 L.Ed. 954 (1908) ("we cannot concede the proposition that Indians cannot be allowed to use their own money to educate their chil......
-
Horace Mann League of U.S. of America, Inc. v. Board of Public Works
...comparatively little difficulty with such cases as Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291, 20 S.Ct. 121, 44 L.Ed. 168, Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 28 S.Ct. 690, 52 L.Ed. 954, and Cochran v. Louisiana State Board, etc., 281 U.S. 370, 50 S.Ct. 335, 74 L.Ed. 913, all cited by the appellees. ......
-
Ira C. Lupu & Robert W. Tuttle, Federalism and Faith
...THE BILL OF RIGHTS: CREATION AND RECONSTRUCTION 221 (1998). 109 See supra note 68 and accompanying text. 110 See Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50 (1908); Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291 (1899). 111 See, e.g., Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). 112 See, e.g., Sch. Dist. of Abington T......
-
Tribal incorporation of First Amendment norms: a case study of the Indian tribes of South Dakota.
...in Sioux Falls, S.D. (Jan. 14, 2008). (189.) Interview with Mario Gonzalez, Attorney, Oglala Sioux Tribe, in S.D. (Dec. 17, 2007). (190.) 210 U.S. 50 (191.) Abourezk, supra note 188. (192.) Gonzalez, supra note 189. (193.) Abourezk, supra note 188. (194.) Interview with B. J. Jones, Directo......
-
The Establishment Clause: The Lemon and Marsh Conflict, Where Lund and Bormuth Leave Us, and the Constitutionality of Exclusive, Legislator-Led Prayer.
...only two Supreme Court cases applied the Establishment Clause, and neither applied it directly to the states. See Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 81-82 (1908) (discussing federal funding of sectarian school on Indian reservation); Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291, 295, 297 (1899) (consi......
-
John Witte, Jr. & Nina-louisa Arold, Lift High the Cross?: Contrasting the New European and American Cases on Religious Symbols on Government Property
...NICHOLS, supra note 33, at 227–36.U.S. CONST. amend. I.WITTE & NICHOLS, supra note 33, at 89.See id. at 109–10.Reuben Quick Bear v. Leupp, 210 U.S. 50, 82 (1908); Bradfield v. Roberts, 175 U.S. 291, 300 (1899).Everson v. Bd. of Educ., 330 U.S. 1 (1947).Id. at 13–15.Id. at 16 (quoting Reynol......