United States v. Joseph 1876 Error Mr Justice Miller 2118
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Citation | 94 U.S. 614,24 L.Ed. 295 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. JOSEPH. Octo er Term, 1876 ERROR to the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico. Mr. Solicitor Phillips for the United States. Mr. S. B. Elkins, contra . MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. Sect. 2118 of the Revised Statutes, which was originally enacted |
| Decision Date | 30 June 1834 |
Mr. Solicitor Phillips for the United States.
Mr. S. B. Elkins, contra.
MR. JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court. Sect. 2118 of the Revised Statutes, which was originally
Page 615
enacted June 30, 1834, declares that every person who makes a settlement on any lands belonging, secured, or granted by treaty with the United States to any Indian tribe, or surveys or attempts to survey said lands, or to designate any of the boundaries by marking trees or otherwise, is liable to a penalty of $1,000. By sect. 7 of the act of July 27, 1851, it was enacted 'that all laws now in force regulating trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes, or such provisions of the same as may be applicable, shall be, and the same are hereby, extended over the Indian tribes in the Territories of New Mexico and Utah.'
The case before us was an action brought by the United States in the proper court in the Territory of New Mexico, to recover the penalty denounced in the section above recited. The petition alleges that defendant 'did make a settlement in, and now occupies and is settled on, lands of the pueblo tribe of Indians of the pueblo of Taos, in the county of Taos, to wit, ten acres of land (describing its boundaries), by then and there building houses and making fields thereon. . . . Said lands then and there, and at the time of bringing this suit, belonging to said pueblo tribe of Indians of the pueblo of Taos aforesaid, and secured to said pueblo tribe of Indians of the pueblo of Taos aforesaid, by patent from the United States.'
A demurrer to this petition was sustained in the Supreme Court of the Territory, and we are called on to decide whether it was rightfully sustained.
Were the pueblo Indians, and the lands held by them, on which this settlement was made, within the meaning of the act of Congress of 1834, and its extension to the Territory of New Mexico, by the act of 1851? This question resolves itself into two other:——
1. Are the people who constitute the pueblo or village of Taos an Indian tribe within the meaning of the statute?
2. Do they hold the lands on which the settlement mentioned in the petition was made by a tenure which brings them within its terms?
The first question is not concluded even on demurrer, because the petition calls them 'the pueblo tribe of Indians of the pueblo of Taos;' for if these people, with others of the
Page 616
same character, are a well-known class, whose history, domestic habits, and relations to the government are matters of public notoriety, the court, being informed who they are by the description of them in the petition, as 'pueblo Indians of the pueblo of Taos,' is not bound by the use of the additional word 'tribe' to disregard that knowledge, and assume that they are tribal Indians within the meaning of the statute regulating the intercourse of the white man with this latter class of Indians.
The character and history of these people are not obscure, but occupy a well-known page in the story of Mexico, from the conquest of the country by Cortez to the cession of this part of it to the United States by the treaty of Guadaloupe Hidalgo. The subject is tempting and full of interest, but we have only space for a few well-considered sentences of the opinion of the chief justice of the court whose judgment we are reviewing.
'For centuries,' he says, 'the pueblo Indians have lived in villages, in fixed communities, each having its own municipal or local government. As far as their history can be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sangre de Cristo Development Corp., Inc. v. City of Santa Fe, No. 9441
...were applicable. See the following authorities as to the early law concerning Pueblo Indians and their lands: United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614, 24 L.Ed. 295 (1876); United States v. Lucero, 1 N.M. 422 (1869); United States v. Santistevan, 1 N.M. 583 (1874); United States v. Varela, 1 N.......
-
State v. Romero, No. 22,836.
...that neither the Pueblo Indians nor their property were under the guardianship of the federal government. E.g., United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614, 24 L.Ed. 295 (1876). As a result of these cases, it was understood that Pueblo Indians could convey good title to Pueblo lands notwithstandin......
-
Garcia v. Gutierrez, No. 31,263.
...rulings, and later U.S. Supreme Court rulings, which cleared the way for Pueblos to sell their lands. See, e.g., United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614, 618, 24 L.Ed. 295 (1876) ("[P]ueblo Indians, [unlike other tribes], hold their lands by a right superior to that of the United States. Their......
-
JOINT TRIBAL COUN. OF PASSAMAQUODDY TRIBE v. Morton, Civ. No. 1960.
...to Indian tribes which have been "federally recognized" by treaty, statute or a consistent course of conduct: United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614, 24 L.Ed. 295 (1876); United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 34 S.Ct. 1, 58 L.Ed. 107 (1913); United States v. Candelaria, supra. Close analysi......
-
Indigenous Subjects.
...in the context of Indigenous property rights). (469.) Ablavsky, supra note 57, at 1049-60. (470.) Compare United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614 (1876) (Pueblos are not Indians) with U.S. v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913) (Pueblos are Indians); United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432 (471.) S......
-
The Other American Law.
..."modern governments," and mixed racial status led protestors to question whether the tribes' members were "really Indian"). (112.) 94 U.S. 614, 616-17 (113.) United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28,47 (1913). (114.) LINDA TUHIWAI SMITH, DECOLONIZING METHODOLOGIES: RESEARCH AND INDIGENOUS PEO......
-
Originalism and Birthright Citizenship
...deal, with a few exceptions only, in their national or tribal character, and not as individuals.” (quoting United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614, 617 (1876))). And the “semi-independent” status of the tribes was used— consistent with the understanding of the Amendment’s drafters—to continue ......
-
Fracking in Pueblo and Dine Communities.
...of the Navajo Relocation, Cultural Survival, September 1988. (23.) Id. (24.) Klein, supra note 14, at 213. (25.) Id. (26.) U.S. v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614 (1876); but see U.S. v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913) (finding lands of Pueblo Indians in New Mexico are subject to legislation of Congress a......