United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians of Wind River Reservation In Wyoming 31 8212
| Decision Date | 01 April 1938 |
| Docket Number | No. 668,668 |
| Citation | 304 U.S. 111,58 S.Ct. 794,82 L.Ed. 1213 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. SHOSHONE TRIBE OF INDIANS OF WIND RIVER RESERVATION IN WYOMING. Argued March 31— |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. Homer S. Cummings, Atty. Gen., and Carl McFarland, Asst. Atty. Gen., for petitioner.
Messrs. George M. Tunison and Albert W. Jefferis, both of Omaha, Neb., for respondent.
The Shoshone Tribe brought this suit to recover the value of part of its reservation taken by the United States by putting upon it without the tribe's consent, a band of Arapahoe Indians. The Court of Claims found the taking to have been in August, 1891, ascertained value as of that date, on that basis fixed the amount of compensation, and gave judgment accordingly. We held, 299 U.S. 476, 57 S.Ct. 244, 81 L.Ed. 360, that the court erred as to the date of the taking, declared it to have been March 19, 1878, reversed the judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. Then the lower court proceeded to determine the value of the tribe's right at the time of the taking, and the amount to be added to produce the present worth of the money equivalent of the property, paid contemporaneously with the taking. It heard evidence, made additional findings, and gave plaintiff judgment for $4,408,444.23, with interest from its date until paid. This Court granted writ of certiorari. U.S. v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, 303 U.S. 629, 58 S.Ct. 609, 82 L.Ed. —-.
The sole question for decision is whether, as the United States contends, the Court of Claims erred in holding that the right of the tribe included the timber and mineral resources within the reservation.
The findings show: The United States, by the treaty of July 2, 1863, 18 Stat. 685, set apart for the Shoshone Tribe a reservation of 44,672,000 acres located in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming. By the treaty of July 3, 1868, 15 Stat. 673, the tribe ceded that reservation to the United States. And by it the United States agreed that the 'district of country' 3,054,182 acres definitely described 'shall be and the same is set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Shoshone Indians * * *, and the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons,' with exceptions not important here, 'shall ever be permitted to pass over, settle upon, or reside in' that territory. The Indians agreed that they would make the reservation their permanent home. The treaty provided that any individual member of the tribe having specified qualifications, might select a tract within the reservation which should then cease to be held in common, and be occupied and held in the exclusive possession of the person selecting it, and of his family, while he or they continued to cultivate it. It declared:
The treaty emphasized the importance of education; the United States agreed to provide a school house and teacher for every thirty children, and the tribe promised to send the children to school. The United States also agreed to provide instruction by a farmer for members cultivating the soil, clothing for members of the tribe, and a physician, carpenter, miller, engineer, and blacksmith. It stipulated that no treaty for the cession of any portion of the reservation held in common should be valid as against the Indians, unless signed by at least a majority of all interested male adults; and that no cession by the tribe should be construed to deprive any member of his right to any tract of land selected by him.
When the treaty of 1868 was made, the tribe consisted of full-blood blanket Indians, unable to read, write, or speak English. Upon consummation of the treaty, the tribe went, and has since remained, upon the reservation. It was known to contain valuable mineral deposits—gold, oil, coal, and gypsum. It included more than 400,000 acres of timber, extensive well-grassed bench lands and fertile river valleys conveniently irrigable. It was well protected by mountain ranges and a divide, and was the choicest and best-watered portion of Wyoming.
In 1904 the Shoshones and Arapahoes ceded to the United States 1,480,000 acres to be held by it in trust for the sale of such timber lands, timber, and other products, and for the making of leases for various purposes. The net proceeds were to be credited to the Indians. From 1907 to 1919 there were allotted to members of the tribes 245,058 acres.
The court's finding of the ultimate fact is: 'The fair and reasonable value of a one-half undivided interest of the Shoshone or Wind River Reservation of a total of 2,343,540 acres, which was taken by the United States on March 19, 1878, from the Shoshone Tribe of Indians for the Northern Arapahoe Tribe, was, on March 19, 1878, $1,581,889.50.' That is $1.35 per acre for 1,171,770 acres, one-half of the reservation in 1878, at the time of taking. The United States does not challenge the principle or basis upon which the court determined the amount to be added to constitute just compensation.
The substance of the government's point is that in fixing the value of the tribe's right, the lower court included as belonging to the tribe substantial elements of value, ascribable to mineral and timber resources, which in fact belonged to the United States.
It contends that the Shoshones' right to use and occupy the lands of the reservation did not include the ownership of the timber and minerals and that the opinion of the court below departs from the general principles of law regarding Indian land tenure and the uniform policy of the government in dealing with Indian tribes. It asks for reversal with 'directions to determine the value of the Indians' right of use and occupancy but to exclude therefrom 'the net value of the lands' and 'the net value of any timber or minerals."
The findings are unambiguous; there is no room for construction. The opinion of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Voigt
...492 (1943); Tulee v. Washington, 315 U.S. 681, 684-85, 62 S.Ct. 862, 864-65, 86 L.Ed. 1115 (1942); United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111, 116, 58 S.Ct. 794, 797, 82 L.Ed. 1213 (1938). A second--and related--rule of construction is that ambiguous words and phrases in Indian treaties ......
-
U.S. v. Adair
...Tribe's water rights is any less ancient than the "immemorial" use that has been made of them. See United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111, 117, 58 S.Ct. 794, 798, 82 L.Ed. 1213 (1938); F. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law 591 & n. 100 (1982).23 For a thoughtful argument that this......
-
Hynes v. Grimes Packing Co
...No claim accruing after the date of the approval of this Act shall be considered by the Commission.' 23 United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111, 116, 58 S.Ct. 794, 82 L.Ed. 1213; Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U.S. 476, 485, 486, 492, First, 57 S.Ct. 244, 246, 249, 81 L.Ed. 360;......
-
United States v. Mitchell
...(1973); Minnesota v. United States, 305 U.S. 382, 386, 59 S.Ct. 292, 294, 83 L.Ed. 235 (1939); United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111, 117-118, 58 S.Ct. 794, 798, 82 L.Ed. 1213 (1938); United States v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 432, 442, 46 S.Ct. 561, 563, 70 L.Ed. 1023 (1926); McKay v. K......
-
CHAPTER 7 INDIAN WATER RIGHTS: OLD PROMISES, NEW OPPORTUNITIES
...Wilson v. Black Bird Creek Marsh Co., 27 U.S. 245 (1829). [11] 198 U.S. 371 (1905). See also United States v. Shoshone Tribe of Indians, 304 U.S. 111 (1938). [12] Winters v. United States, 207 U.S. 564 (1908). [13] Id. For the historical background to and informed discussion of the Winters ......
-
Protecting habitat for off-reservation tribal hunting and fishing rights: tribal comanagement as a reserved right.
...681, 684-85 (1942) (recognizing responsibility to interpret treaty to protect Native American interests); United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111, 116 (1938) (stating treaty terms are to be interpreted "in the sense in which naturally the Indians would understand them"); Carpenter v. ......
-
COMPATIBILITY OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY WITH SELF-DETERMINATION OF INDIAN TRIBES: REFLECTIONS ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL TRUST RESPONSIBILITY IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
...(1942). [74] .Id. at 297 & n.12 (quoting Chief Judge (later Mr. Justice) Cardozo in Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N.Y. 458, 464 (1928)). [75] .304 U.S. 111, 117 (1938). [76] .412 U.S. 391, 398 (1973). [77] .463 U.S. 206, 226 (1983). [78] .Id. at 226 (citing Restatement (Second) of the Law of Trus......
-
Table of Cases
...Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 118 S.Ct. 2081, 141 L.Ed.2d 379 (1998): 2.4(3)(b) United States v. Shoshone Tribe, 304 U.S. 111, 58 S.Ct. 794, 82 L. Ed. 1213 (1938): 14.2(1)(a) United States v. White Mt. Apache Tribe, 537 U.S. 465, 123 S.Ct. 1126, 155 L.Ed.2d 40 (2003): 14.......