People v. Blackchief

• Decision Date: 01 October 1934
• Docket Number: No. 1875.,1875.
• Citation: 8 F. Supp. 295
• Parties: PEOPLE ex rel. CHARLES et al. v. BLACKCHIEF et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of New York

8 F. Supp. 295

PEOPLE ex rel. CHARLES et al. v. BLACKCHIEF et al.

No. 1875.

District Court, W. D. New York.

October 1, 1934.

Nelson T. Barrett, of Buffalo, N. Y., for plaintiff Charles.

Robert M. Codd, Jr., of Buffalo, N. Y., for defendant Blackchief.

KNIGHT, District Judge.

An action was brought in the Supreme Court of the state of New York for the partition of certain lands on the Tonawanda Reservation of the Seneca Indians and located in the county of Genesee, state of New York. Thereafter it was claimed that the chiefs of the council of Tonawanda band of the Seneca Nation of Indians threatened to take action to determine the interests of any parties in the lands aforesaid. An application was made to the Supreme Court of the state of New York, in the Eighth judicial district, for a writ prohibiting the chiefs of the council of the Tonawanda band of the Seneca Nation of Indians from further proceeding in making the aforesaid determination and carrying into effect or issuing any decree or mandate concerning the real property for the partition of which the action aforesaid was brought in the Supreme Court of the state of New York. A writ of prohibition was granted by the Supreme Court. The motion is made for the removal of all proceedings in the state court to the federal court.

It is claimed that the devolution of the property and the rights of the respective parties are different under the application of the state laws and the tribal laws of the Indian Nation. Hence it is we see this controversy over the question of jurisdiction.

Like many other questions which are raised in courts relative to the property rights and the administration of the affairs of the Indians, the question involved here presents a situation which has long waited legislative notice.

The defendant Blackchief points attention to the fact that the reservation now is a part of the properties included under the terms of the Treaty of Kon-on-daigua, executed in 1794, between the United States and the Six Nation Confederacy (7 Stat. 44). Attention is also pointed to the fact that under the terms of this treaty the United States acknowledges the rights of the Indians to lands in question and the free use and enjoyment thereof.

The construction placed upon this treaty by the defendant seems to be that lands of the reservation were and are held as communal, with reversion into the tribal authorities when individual possession is terminated, and that under the provisions of the United States Code Annotated, title 28, Judicial Code and Judiciary, § 41, subd. 24, the courts of the United States have original jurisdiction to the exclusion of the state court. Section 41, subd. 24, reads: "The district courts shall have original jurisdiction as follows: * * * (24) Suits concerning allotments of land to Indians; decrees; appeal. Twenty-fourth. Of all actions, suits, or proceedings involving the right of any person, in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent, to any allotment of land under any law or treaty."

The petitioner points attention to no other statute giving the District Court jurisdiction. The District Court is one of limited jurisdiction. The limits of such jurisdiction are found in USCA title 28, § 41. That section does not confer jurisdiction upon this court to take cognizance of an action in partition in a case such as is presented here. We are not concerned with an action involving the right of any person "to any allotment of land under any law or treaty." The allotment therein referred to is such as may be made under provisions of chapter 9, title 25 USCA (section 331 et seq.). Such statute has no application here.

The question at issue has been passed upon by courts in numerous cases, and the decisions, as this court reads them, are uniformly against the position taken by ...