United States v. Joseph 1876 Error Mr Justice Miller 2118
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 Sect. 2118 of the Revised Statutes, which was originally enacted |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 |
Court | United States 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 Sect. 2118 of the Revised Statutes, which was originally enacted June 30, 1834, declares that every person who makes a settlement on any lands belonging, secured, or granted by treaty with the United States to any Indian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, ...
To continue reading
Request your 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 ......
-
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 ......
-
Chapter 16 TRIBAL SOVEREIGNTY: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AND IMPLICATIONS FOR MINERAL AND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN "INDIAN COUNTRY"
...Cohen's Handbook of Federal Indian Law § 4.01 (Nell Jessup Newton ed., 2019).[13] United States v. Joseph, 94 U.S. 614, 617 (1876).[14] Michigan v. Bay Mills Indian Cmty., 572 U.S. 782, 788 (2014) (quoting United States v. Wheeler, 435 U.S. 313, 323 (1978)).[15] 435 U.S. 191 (1978).[16] Id.......