Johnson Blackfeather v. United States
Decision Date | 01 June 1903 |
Docket Number | No. 276,276 |
Citation | 190 U.S. 368,23 S.Ct. 772,47 L.Ed. 1099 |
Parties | JOHNSON BLACKFEATHER, the Principal Chief of the Shawnee Tribe of Indians, etc., Appt. , v. UNITED STATES |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
[373]
Messrs.
Assistant Attorney General Pradt and Mr. William H. Button for appellee.
Statement by Mr. Justice Peckham:
The petitioner filed his amended petition in the court of claims in August, 1892, in which he asked to recover from the United States over five hundred and thirty thouand dollars on the grounds therein set forth. There was a demurrer to the amended petition, by the United States, on the ground that it did not allege facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, and the plaintiff has appealed to this court.
In his petition the petitioner represents himself as a Shawnee Indian by blood and descent, a member and the principal chief of the Shawnee Tribe or Nation, and residing in the Indian territory. He states that he brings suit in the court of claims as such principal chief of such Shawnee Tribe or Nation under the provisions of two acts of Congress, the first of which is entitled 'An Act to Refer to the Court of Claims Certain Claims of the Shawnee and Delaware Indians and the Freedmen of the Cherokee Nation, and for Other Purposes,' approved October 1, 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 636, chap. 1249), and the second entitled 'An Act Supple- mentary and Amendatory to an Act Entitled 'An Act to Refer to the Court of Claims Certain Claims of the Shawnee and Delaware Indians and the Freedmen of the Cherokee Nation, and for Other Purposes,' Approved October 1, 1890, Approved July 6, 1892' (27 Stat. at L. 86, chap. 151). These acts are set out in the margin.
Act of 1890 (26 Stat. at L. 636, chap. 1249).
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That full jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the court of claims, subject to an appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States as in other cases, to hear and determine what are the just rights in law or in equity of the Shawnee and Delaware Indians, who are settled and incorporated into the Cherokee Nation, Indian territory, east of ninety-six degrees west longitude, under the provisions of article fifteen of the treaty of July nineteenth, eighteen hundred and sixty-six, made by and between the United States and the Cherokee Nation, and articles of agreement made by and between the Cherokee Nation and the Shawnee Indians, June seventh, eighteen hundred and sixty-nine, approved by the President June ninth, eighteen hundred and sixty-nine, and articles of agreement made with the Delaware Indians April eighth, eighteen hundred and sixty-seven; and also of the Cherokee freedmen, who are settled and located in the Cherokee Nation, under the provisions and stipulations of article nine of the aforesaid treaty of eighteen hundred and sixty-six, in respect to the subject-matter herein provided for.
Sec. 2. That the said Shawnees, Delawares. and freedmen shall have a right, either separately or jointly, to begin and prosecute a suit or suits against the Cherokee Nation and the United States government to recover from the Cherokee Nation all moneys due, either in law or equity, and unpaid to the said Shawnees, Delawares, or freedmen, which the Cherokee Nation have before paid out, or may hereafter pay, per capita, in the Cherokee Nation, and which was, or may be, refused or neglected to be paid to the said Shawnees, Delawares, or freedmen by the Cherokee Nation out of any moneys or funds which have or may be paid into the treasury of, or in any way have come, or may come, into the possession of, the Cherokee Nation, Indian territory, derived from the sale, leasing, or rent for grazing purposes on Cherokee lands west of ninety-six degrees west longitude, and which have been, or may be, appropriated and directed to be paid out per capita by the acts passed by the Cherokee Council, and for all moneys, lands, and rights which shall appear to be due to the said Shawnees, Delawares, or freedmen under the provisions of the aforesaid articles of treaty and articles of agreement.
Sec. 3. That the said suit or suits may be brought in the name of the principal chief or chiefs of the said Shawnee and Delaware Indians, and for the freedmen, and in their behalf and for their use in the name of some per- The petitioner asks to recover and collect from the United States the several amounts of money thereafter set out at length in payment for the destruction, loss, forcible taking, carrying, and driving away of live stock, farm products, household goods, money, and other personal property of divers descriptions and kinds belonging to, owned, and possessed by, and the property of, the said Shawnee Indians, by white and United States citizens and soldiers, in the state of Kansas and the Indian territory, at divers times and places in the year 1861, and all the time up to and including the year 1866. Reference is then made to a schedule which is made part of the petition, and in which appear the names of between three and four hundred Indians, and the schedule gives their individual claims, varying in amounts from as high as $7,000 down to $75, and aggregating $530,945.14.
It is contended that the claims arise out of treaty relations with the United States (mentioned in the foregoing acts of Con- gress), particularly articles 11 and 14 of the treaty of May 10, 1854 (10 Stat. at L. 1053, 1057), between the United States and the Indians, and also out of §§ 2154 and 2155 of the Revised Statutes of the United States. The articles of the treaty are as follows:
Section 2154 of the Revised Statutes, which is part of the act of June 30, 1834 (4 Stat. at L. 731, chap. 161), reads as follows:
Section 2155 of the Revised Statutes, which is also part of the act of June 30, 1834 (4 Stat. at L. 731, chap. 161), reads as follows:
It is also stated that, at the time the property was taken, the Indians were in amity with, and had always been loyal to, the United States. Judgment was asked in favor of the Indians mentioned for the respective sums set opposite their names, and that 10 per centum of the amount might be allowed the attorneys for their services.
Mr. Justice Peckham, after making the foregoing statement of facts, delivered the opinion of the court:
The duty of this court is simply to construe the acts of Congress of 1890 and 1892. The court of claims has no jurisdiction of the subject-matter of this petition, unless it is conferred by one or the other of the above acts. The moral obligations of the government toward the Indians, whatever they may be, are for Congress alone to recognize, and the courts can exercise only such jurisdiction over the subject as Congress may confer upon them.
Upon examination of the act of 1890,...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Kerby v. Mortgage Funding Corp., CIV.A. CCB-97-1509.
...357 U.S. 155, 178-79, 78 S.Ct. 1097, 1109-10, 2 L.Ed.2d 1228 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting)1; Blackfeather v. United States, 190 U.S. 368, 376, 23 S.Ct. 772, 775, 47 L.Ed. 1099 (1903); United States v. Cumming, 130 U.S. 452, 455, 9 S.Ct. 583, 584, 32 L.Ed. 1029 (1889); United States v......
-
Moll v. US Life Title Ins. Co. of New York
...357 U.S. 155, 178-79, 78 S.Ct. 1097, 1109-10, 2 L.Ed.2d 1228 (1958) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting); Blackfeather v. United States, 190 U.S. 368, 376, 23 S.Ct. 772, 775, 47 L.Ed. 1099 (1903); United States v. Cumming, 130 U.S. 452, 455, 9 S.Ct. 583, 584, 32 L.Ed. 1029 (1889). In Finn v. Unite......
-
THE SS SAMOVAR
...355; Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, 1927, 272 U.S. 675, 686, 47 S.Ct. 289, 71 L.Ed. 472; Blackfeather v. United States, 1903, 190 U.S. 368, 376, 23 S.Ct. 772, 47 L.Ed. 1099. So in the absence of specific authority granted by Congress, this court has no jurisdiction over libela......
-
United States v. Boe
...must be strictly construed. United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 61 S.Ct. 767, 85 L.Ed. 1058 (1941); Blackfeather v. United States, 190 U.S. 368, 23 S.Ct. 772, 47 L.Ed. 1099 (1903). In United States v. Sherwood, supra, 312 U.S. at 586, 61 S.Ct. at 769, the Supreme Court The United State......