Worcester v. State
| Decision Date | 31 January 1832 |
| Citation | 8 L.Ed. 483,31 U.S. 515,6 Pet. 515 |
| Parties | SAMUEL A. WORCESTER, PLAINTIFF IN ERROR v. THE STATE OF GEORGIA. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
THIS was a writ of error to the superior court for the county of Gwinnett, in the state of Georgia.
On the 22d December 1830, the legislature of the state of Georgia passed the following act:
'An act of prevent the exercise of assumed and arbitrary power, by all persons, under pretext of authority from the Cherokee Indians and their laws, and to prevent white persons from residing within that part of the chartered limits of Georgia, occupied by the Cherokee Indians, and to provide a guard for the protection of the gold mines, and to enforce the laws of the state within the aforesaid territory.
'Be it enacted by the senate and house of representatives of the state of Georgia in general assembly met, and it is hereby enacted by the authority of the same, that, after the 1st day of February 1831, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, under colour or pretence of authority from said Cherokee tribe, or as headmen, chiefs or warriors of said tribe, to cause or procure by any means the assembling of any council or other pretended legislative body of the said Indians or others living among them, for the purpose of legislating (or for any other purpose whatever).And persons offending against the provisions of this section shall guilty of a high misdemeanour, and subject to indictment therefor, and, on conviction, shall be punished by confinement at hard labour in the penitentiary for the space of four years.
'Sec. 2.And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that, after the time aforesaid, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, under pretext of authority from the Cherokee tribe, or as representatives, chiefs, headmen or warriors of said tribe, to meet or assemble as a council, assembly,convention, or in any other capacity, for the purpose of making laws, orders or regulations for said tribe.And all persons offending against the provisions of this section, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanour, and subject to an indictment, and on conviction thereof, shall undergo an imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard labour for the space of four years.
'Sec. 3.And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that, after the time aforesaid, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, under colour or by authority of the Cherokee tribe, or any of its laws or regulations, to hold any court or tribunal whatever, for the purpose of hearing and determining causes, either civil or criminal; or to give any judgment in such causes, or to issue, or cause to issue, any process against the person or property of any of said tribe.And all persons offending against the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a high misdemeanour, and subject to indictment, and, on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned in the penitentiary at hard labour for the space of four years.
'Sec. 4.And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that, after the time aforesaid, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons, as a ministerial officer, or in any other capacity, to execute any precept, command or process issued by any court or tribunal in the Cherokee tribe, on the persons or property of any of said tribe.And all persons offending against the provisions of this section, shall be guilty of a trespass, and subject to indictment, and, on conviction thereof, shall be punished by fine and imprisonment in the jail or in the penitentiary, not longer than four years, at the discretion of the court.
'Sec. 5.And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that, after the time aforesaid, it shall not be lawful for any person or persons to confiscate, or attempt to confiscate, or otherwise to cause a forfeiture of the property or estate of any Indian of said tribe, in consequence of his enrolling himself and family for emigration, or offering to enrol for emigration, or any other act of said Indian, in furtherance of his intention to emigrate.And persons offending against the provisions of this section shall be guilty of high misdemeanour, and, on conviction, shall undergo an imprisonment in the penitentiary at hard labour for the space of four years.
'Sec. 6.And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that none of the provisions of this act shall be so construed as to prevent said tribe, its headmen, chiefs or other representatives, from meeting any agent or commissioner, on the part of this state or the United States, for any purpose whatever.
'Sec. 7.And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all white persons residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation, on the 1st day of March next, or at any time thereafter, without a license or permit from his excellency the governor, or from such agent as his excellency the governor shall authorise to grant such permit or license, and who shall not have taken the oath hereinafter required, shall be guilty of a high misdemeanour, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by confinement to the penitentiary at hard labour for a term not less than four years: provided, that the provisions of this section shall not be so construed as to extend to any authorised agent or agents of the government of the United States or of this state, or to any person or persons who may rent any of those improvements which have been abandoned by Indians who have emigrated west of the Mississippi: provided, nothing contained in this section shall be so construed as to extend to white females, and all male children under twenty-one years of age.
'Sec. 8.And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that all white persons, citizens of the state of Georgia, who have procured a license in writing from his excellency the governor, or from such agent as his excellency the governor shall authorise to grant such permit or license, to reside within the limits of the Cherokee nation, and who have taken the following oath, viz.'I, A. B., do solemnly swear (or affirm, as the case may be) that I will support and defend the constitution and laws of the state of Georgia, and uprightly demean myself as a citizen thereof, so help me God,' shall be, and the same are hereby declared, exempt and free from the operation of the seventh section of this act.
The legislature of Georgia, on the 19th December 1829, passed the following act:
'An act to add the territory lying within the chartered limits of Georgia, and now in the occupancy of the Cherokee Indians, to the counties of Carroll, De Kalb, Gwinnett, Hall, and Habersham, and to extend the laws of this state over the same, and to annul all laws and ordinances made by the Cherokee nation of Indians, and to provide for the compensation of officers serving legal process in said territory, and to regulate the testimony of Indians, and to repeal the ninth section of the act of 1828 upon this subject.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
UTE Indian Tribe of the Uintah v. Lawrence
...of federal law that states lack jurisdiction over Indians for conduct occurring within Indian country.7 See Worcester v. Georgia , 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 561–63, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832) (concluding that the 1791 treaty of Holston between the United States and the Cherokee nation precluded the sta......
-
People ex rel. Owen v. Miami Nation Enters.
...in three opinions known today as the Marshall Trilogy after their author, Chief Justice John Marshall. (See Worcester v. Georgia (1832) 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 8 L.Ed. 483 ; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia (1831) 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 8 L.Ed. 25 (Cherokee Nation ); Johnson v. M'Intosh (1823) 21 U.S.......
-
Stand Up for Cal.! v. State
...the sovereignty of states in their dealings with Indian tribes was addressed by Chief Justice Marshall in Worcester v. Georgia (1832) 31 U.S. (6 Pet.) 515, 8 L.Ed. 483 (Worcester ). The court struck down Georgia laws that asserted jurisdiction over Cherokee lands within Georgia's borders. (......
-
in re Cantos Y.
...the United States and this nation is, by our constitution and law, vested in the government of the United States." (Worcester v. The State of Georgia (1832) 31 U.S. 515, 561.) While jurisdiction over matters of family relations is traditionally reserved to the states, California has no inde......
-
Understanding Tribal Sovereignty: An Essential Primer for Productive Native American Relations
...the Indian tribes of the continental United States.2. Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 55 (1978) (quoting Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 559, 8 L.Ed. 483 (1832)).3. See id. (tribes remain “separate sov-ereigns pre-existing the Constitution”); see also Oklahoma v. Castro-Huert......
-
Update On Tribal Loans To State Residents
...U.S. CONST. art. I, § 8, cl. 3. See, e.g., Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832); Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. 1 (1831); Johnson v. McIntosh, 21 U.S. 543 See 42 C.J.S. Indians § 19 (2007) (citing Walton v. Tesuque Pueblo, 443 F.3d 1274 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, 549 U.S. 103 (2006......
-
Conflict comes to roost! The Bureau of Reclamation and the federal Indian trust responsibility.
...340-41 (Roscoe R. Hill ed., 1936) (reenacted by Act of Aug. 7, 1789, ch. 8, 1 Stat. 50)). (27) 30 U.S. 1 (1831). (28) Id. at 17. (29) 31 U.S. 515 (1832). (30) Id. at 555-56. (31) See, e.g., The General Allotment Act of 1887, sec. 119 as added June 21, 1906, c. 3504, 34 Stat. 327 (Feb. 8, 18......
-
Surviving Castro-huerta: the Historical Perseverance of the Basic Policy of Worcester v. Georgia Protecting Tribal Autonomy, Notwithstanding One Supreme Court Opinion's Errant Narrative to the Contrary
...not applicable to Indian affairs within the territory of an Indian tribe, absent the consent of Congress.").6. E.g., Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 (1832); see also Talton v. Mayes, 163 U.S. 376 , 379-80 (1896) ("By treaties and statutes of the United States the right of the Cherokee Na......
-
Legal arguments that had better be avoided.
...is no reserved state power or jurisdiction over Indians, and there never has been, as anyone who troubles to read Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, will soon learn. Indeed, only this year both the court below as well as the Supreme Court of the neighboring State of New Mexico held that stat......
-
More questions than answers: Plains Commerce Bank v. Long Family Land and Cattle Company, Inc. and the U.S. Supreme Court's failure to define the extent of tribal civil authority over nonmembers on non-Indian land.
...that of a ward to his guardian. Id. (111.) Id. at 17,31. (112.) Frickey, Marshalling Past and Present, supra note 95, at 393. (113.) 31 U.S. 515 (1832). The Court stated, "[a]t no time has the sovereignty of the country been recognized as existing in the Indians, but they have been always a......