United States v. Carpenter
| Decision Date | 14 April 1884 |
| Citation | 111 U.S. 347,4 S.Ct. 435,28 L.Ed. 451 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. CARPENTER |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Assistant Attorney-General Maury for appellant.
John B. Sanborn, for appellee.
This is a suit in equity, to vacate a patent of the United States issued to one August Cluensen, on the fifteenth of May, 1874, embracing a tract of land in the county of Pipestone, in the state of Minnesota, described as the south-westerly quarter of section one, (1,) in township one hundred and six, (106,) range forty-six (46) west of the fifth (5th) principal meridian, according to the government surveys. The ground of the suit is that by treaty between the United States and the Yankton tribe of Sioux or Dacotah Indians, ratified on the twenty-sixth of February, 1859, the tract, which embraces what is known as the Red Pipestone quarry, in that county, was reserved from sale or appropriation under any scrip or warrant of the government. The eighth article of the treaty stipulated that the Yankton Indians should be 'secured in the free and unrestricted use' of the quarry, or 'so much thereof as they have been accustomed to frequent and use for the purpose of procuring stone for pipes;' and the United States agreed to cause to be surveyed and marked so much thereof as should be 'necessary and proper for that purpose, and retain the same and keep it open and free for the Indians to visit and procure stone for pipes, so long as they shall desire.' Rev. Ind. Treaties, 860. The bill alleges that the tract described is a part of the Red Pipestone quarry mentioned in this article. In the execution of their agreement, the United States caused so much of the quarry as appeared to be necessary and proper for the purposes of the reservation provided for to be surveyed and marked. A diagram and the field-notes of the survey were duly returned, filed, and recorded in the general land-office, and in the office of the surveyor general of Minnesota. In February, 1860, copies of them were transmitted by the commissioner of the general land-office to the surveyor general of the United States for that state, with instructions 'to lay the same down' on the map of the state in his office, and to respect them, when the public surveys reached the locality, by closing their lines upon the reservation. At this time the land included in the reservaion was not surveyed; but afterwards, for some unexplained reason, and in violation of the instructions, it was surveyed with other public lands in its vicinity. In July, 1872, after this survey, the commissioner directed the surveyor...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Martinez v. Lewis
...to be accorded treaties and executive orders due to the dependent status of the Indians. Similarly, in United States v. Carpenter, 111 U.S. 347, 4 S.Ct. 435, 28 L.Ed. 451 (1884), an 1859 treaty promised that the Indians could use a portion of a certain quarry to make pipes and promised that......
-
King v. McAndrews
... 111 F. 860 KING v. McANDREWS et al. No. 1,569. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. October 28, 1901 ... [111 F. 861] ... [Copyrighted ... 639; ... Riley v. Welles 154 U.S. 578, 14 Sup.Ct. 1166, 19 ... L.Ed. 648; U.S. v. Carpenter, 111 U.S. 347, 4 ... Sup.Ct. 435, 28 L.Ed. 451; U.S. v. Coos Bay Wagon Road ... Co. (C.C.) 89 ... ...
-
United States v. Bouchard
...used was specifically designated by boundaries in the treaty itself." 160 U.S. at 404, 16 S.Ct. at 364. In United States v. Carpenter, 111 U.S. 347, 4 S.Ct. 435, 28 L.Ed. 451 (1884), the government had agreed to reserve from sale, for the use of the Indians, a specific area, the Red Pipesto......
-
King v. McAndrews
... 104 F. 430 KING v. McANDREWS et al. United States Circuit Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division. November 3, 1900 ... [104 F. 431] ... 765; Riley v. Welles, 154 U.S. 578, 14 Sup.Ct ... 1166, 19 L.Ed. 648; U.S. v. Carpenter, 111 U.S. 347, ... 4 Sup.Ct. 435, 28 L.Ed. 451; Chotard v. Pope, 12 ... Wheat. 586, 6 L.Ed ... ...
-
Table of Cases
...L. Ed. 2d 153 (2013):6.3(2) Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U.S. 554, 103 S. Ct. 2558, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1 (1983): 6.3(2) United States v. Carpenter, 111 U.S. 347, 4 S. Ct. 435, 28 L. Ed. 451 (1884): 20.3(5), 20.6 United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co., 229 U.S. 53, 33 S. Ct. 667, 57 L. Ed. 1......
-
§ 20.3 - Disposition by Federal Government
...lands included under Indian treaties are closed to entry unless otherwise open for specific purposes. United States v. Carpenter, 111 U.S. 347, 348, 4 S. Ct. 435, 28 L. Ed. 451 (1884). However, lands included in an Indian treaty area may be reopened by act of Congress. See Act of July 1, 18......
-
§ 20.6 - Indian Lands
...by an act of Congress. Although reservations were defined, it was not until the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Carpenter, 111 U.S. 347, 4 S. Ct. 435, 28 L. Ed. 451 (1884), that, unless otherwise provided, an Indian treaty reserved lands within the reservations from entry under......