United States v. Joseph 1876 Error Mr Justice Miller 2118
Decision Date | 30 June 1834 |
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 Sect. 2118 of the Revised Statutes, which was originally enacted |
Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
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 JUSTICE MILLER delivered the opinion of the court.Sect. 2118 of the Revised Statutes, which was originally enacted June 30, 1834, declares that every person who makes a settlement on any lands belonging, secured, or granted by treaty with the United States to any Indian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
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 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, ...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Mashpee Tribe v. New Seabury Corp.
...succeed in disbanding the tribe," but presumably only to the extent the tribe chose to acquiesce in that policy); United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614, 617, 24 L.Ed. 295 (1876), Overruled as to result but not necessarily logic, United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 48, 34 S.Ct. 1, 158 L.E......
-
Tooisgah v. United States
...over crimes and offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property of another Indian in Indian Country. United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614, 617, 24 L.Ed. 295; Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 3 S.Ct. 396, 27 L.Ed. 1030; United States v. Kagama, 118 U.S. 375, 381, 6 S.Ct. 1109......
-
Indians v. United States
...35th Cong., 1st Sess. 2090 (1858). The position as Indians of the inhabitants of the Pueblos was considered in United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614, 24 L.Ed. 295, and United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28, 34 S.Ct. 1, 58 L.Ed. 107. For an interesting sidelight on the difficulties inherent ......
-
Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Pueblo of Santa Ana
...by decisions of the Supreme Court of the Territory of New Mexico,7 and by this Court's square holding in United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. (4 Otto) 614, 24 L.Ed. 295 (1877),8 that the Pueblo Indians were not an "Indian tribe" protected by the Nonintercourse Act.9 As a result, it was thought ......
-
"A TRAVESTY OF A MOCKERY OF A SHAM": THE FEDERAL TRUST DUTY AND INDIAN SELF-DETERMINATION
...(in Montoya, the Mescalero Apache Tribe) from the members of the Pueblo tribes, whose status was discussed in United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614 (1876), where the Pueblo Indians are described as follows. For centuries ... the Pueblo Indians have lived in villages, in fixed communities, ea......
-
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......
-
CHAPTER 2 THE NON-INTERCOURSE ACT AND STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON TRIBAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND CONTRACTING
...of December 22, 1858, 11 Stat. 169. [48] .See %sCohen%s I at 385 (quoting Act of February 16, 1854, New Mexico Territory Assembly). [49] .94 U.S. 614 (1876). [50] .Act of June 20, 1910, § 2, cl. 8, 33 Stat. 557. [51] .231 U.S. 28 (1913). See also United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432 (1......