United States v. Arenas
Decision Date | 14 January 1947 |
Docket Number | No. 11195.,11195. |
Citation | 158 F.2d 730 |
Parties | UNITED STATES v. ARENAS. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
David L. Bazelon, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Roger P. Marquis and Dwight Doty, Attys., Dept. of Justice, both of Washington, D. C., and Eugene D. Williams, Sp. Asst. to Atty. Gen., of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.
John W. Preston, Oliver O. Clark, David D. Sallee, and Robert A. Smith, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before GARRECHT, MATHEWS, and HEALY, Circuit Judges.
As the appellant itself suggests, the Supreme Court, in an opinion rendered at an earlier stage of the present litigation, has "pointed the way * * * for a decision on the full record which is now before this Court."
Accordingly, we will set out herein, in italics, the "signposts" of law and of fact contained in the opinion to which the appellant refers — Arenas v. United States, 322 U.S. 419, 64 S.Ct. 1090, 88 L.Ed. 1363. We will supplement the Supreme Court's outline with material developed or suggested by the "full record" presented when the same case was again heard in the court below.1 D.C., 60 F.Supp. 411.
We shall find that, almost paragraph by paragraph, the Supreme Court's opinion charts the course that we must follow here.
322 U.S. at page 420, 64 S.Ct. at page 1090, 88 L.Ed. 1363.
In the instant case, the appellee is suing for allotment trust patents in his own name and as sole heir at law and next of kin of Guadaloupe Arenas, his wife, who died on March 26, 1937; his father, Francisco Arenas, who died on October 4, 1924; and his brother, Simon Arenas, who died on February 18, 1925. R. 10, 14, 19, 24-26, 49 322 U.S. at pages 420, 421, 64 S.Ct. at page 1090, 88 L.Ed. 1363.
In support of its statement that the Mission Indians "had deserved well and had fared badly," the Supreme Court cites Sen. Rep.No. 74, 50th Cong., 1st Sess. In that report, the Senate Committee began its recommendation of the passage of the Mission Indian Act in the following words:
In this same Senate document is embodied the report of the Mission Indian Commission appointment by the Government to make an investigation into the condition of these Indians. In the latter report, dated July 13, 1884, we find the following account of the red man's burden in Southern California:
* * * * * *
"* * * It is certain that in the case of these Mission Indians the rights involved are quite different from and superior to the mere `occupancy' rights of the wild and uncivilized Indian."
The record in the instant case further buttresses the Supreme Court's statement. In a letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior, dated December 13, 1944, and introduced by the appellant itself, the following language appears:
"To remedy the plight of the Indians by securing to them their remaining land rights and by providing permanent homes, Congress passed the Mission Indian Act of January 12, 1891, (26 Stat. 712) * * *." R. 304-305 From the foregoing excerpts, it will be seen that, at least up to the second quarter of the nineteenth century, the Mission Indians literally "dwelt safely, every man under his vine and under his fig tree." 1 Kings 4:25. But after 1822, and particularly after California was admitted into the Union in 1850, it could be well said of the grape and fig and date lands of the Mission Indians: "The vine is dried up, and the fig tree languisheth; the palm tree * * * even all the trees of the field, are withered: because joy is withered away from the sons of men." Joel 1:12.
The Supreme Court opinion continues its narrative of the legislative and administrative history pertinent to the instant case, taking up first the Mission Indian Act:
In a footnote, the court quotes Sections 4 and 5 of the Act, as follows:
"`Sec. 4. That whenever any of the Indians residing upon any reservation patented under the provisions of this act shall, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior, be so advanced in civilization as to be capable of owning and managing land in severalty, the Secretary of the Interior may cause allotments to be made to such Indians, out of the land of such reservation, in quantity as follows: To each head of a family not more than six hundred and forty acres nor less than one hundred and sixty acres of pasture or grazing land, and in addition thereto not exceeding twenty acres, as he shall deem for the best interest of the allottee, of arable land in some suitable locality; to each single person over twenty-one years of age not less than eighty nor more than six hundred and forty acres of pasture or grazing land and not exceeding ten acres of such arable land.
" ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co
...67 S.Ct. 650, 653, 91 L.Ed. 823; Arenas v. United States, 322 U.S. 419, 64 S.Ct. 1090, 88 L.Ed. 1363, opinions on remand, United States v. Arenas, 9 Cir., 158 F.2d 730; Arenas v. United States, D.C., 60 F.Supp. 24 For example in the Arenas case, 322 U.S. 419, 64 S.Ct. 1090, 88 L.Ed. 1363, t......
-
Arenas v. United States
...of heirship of the allottee arising within the trust period." (Emphasis added.) 13 25 U.S.C.A. § 345. 14 United States v. Arenas, 9 Cir., 1947, 158 F.2d 730, 751, 753. 15 331 U.S. 842, 67 S.Ct. 1531, 91 L.Ed. 1853. 16 25 U.S.C.A. § 372. 17 Title 25, Code of Federal Regulations, Sec. 81.1 et......
-
Coomes v. Adkinson
...The Secretary, in dealings with Indians, does not have despotic power but is subject to applicable restrictions. United States v. Arenas, 158 F.2d 730, 747-748 (9th Cir. 1947); United States v. Whitmire, 236 F. 474, 479 (8th Cir. 1916). Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, neither excep......
-
U.S. v. City of Tacoma, Wash.
...1928. See David H. Getches, et al., Federal Indian Law: Cases and Materials, 190-91, 215 (3d ed.1993); see also United States v. Arenas, 158 F.2d 730, 733 (9th Cir. 1946). Congress implemented this policy through several allotment acts. See Getches, supra, at 190-98. Some portions of the Sk......