141. Ibid.
142. Ibid., 510.
143. Ibid.
144. Ibid., 515.
145. Ibid., 516.
146. The concept of dual federalism arose after the Civil War. According to this theory, which was prominent from the 1890s to the later 1930s, the states and the national government have separate spheres of authority, and each is considered supreme in its own sphere. The state’s sphere is protected by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which says, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the People.” For more analysis of dual federalism and its other variants, see Deil Wright, Understanding Intergovernmental Relations, 2d ed. (Monterey, Cal.: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1982), 185.
147. 163 U.S. 504, 509 (1896).
148. Ibid., 511.
149. Ibid., 512–513.
150. Ibid., 514.
151. 2 McCrary 58 (1880).
152. Ibid., 66.
153. Ibid., 67.
154. Ibid., 69.
155. Ibid.
156. 163 U.S. 504, 514.
157. Ibid., 516.
158. Ibid., 517.
159. Ibid.
160. Ibid., 518.
161. 5 Wall. 787 (1867).
162. 163 U.S. 504, 520.
163. Ibid.
164. For more in-depth analysis of this important decision, including other opinions which have criticized Ward‘s logic, see David E. Wilkins, “Indian Treaty Rights: Sacred Entitlements or ‘Temporary Privileges?’” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 20, no. 1 (1996): 87–129; and Brian Czech, “Ward v. Race Horse—Supreme Court as Obviator?,” Journal of the West 35, no. 3 (July 1996): 61–79.
165. See the 1995 10th Circuit Court of Appeals case, Crow Tribe of Indians and Thomas L. Ten Bear v. Repsis, 73 F.3d 982 (filed Dec. 26, 1995), which dramatically resuscitated each of the key holdings of the Ward ruling. Judge Barrett found Ward to be “compelling, well-reasoned, and persuasive” (p. 21). The Supreme Court, on May 28, 1996, chose not to review the case, thereby affirming the 10th Circuit’s opinion.
166. See especially Worcester (1832), The Kansas Indians (1867), and United States v. Berry (1880).
167. George Kennan, “Have Reservation Indians Any Vested Rights?” The Outlook 70 (Mar. 29, 1902): 765; and see Kennan’s “A New Statement from Mr. Kennan,” The Outlook 70 (Apr. 19, 1902): 956–958.
168. 19 App. 315.
169. Ibid., 332.
170. See especially Taylor v. Morton, 23 F. Cas. 784 (C.C.D. Mass., 1855); and The Chinese Exclusion Cases, 130 U.S. 581, 600 (1889). In federal Indian law, see The Cherokee Tobacco, 78 U.S. (11 Wall.) 616 (1871). But even in The Cherokee Tobacco, the Court did not “go to the title of property or of personal protection, or decide anything more than to subject all persons, citizens or otherwise, within our national boundaries to the uniform duties and penalties of the revenue laws” (U.S. House Committee on Indian Affairs, “Investigation of Indian Frauds,” Report No. 98, 42d Cong., 3d sess. [1873], 10). “The United States,” the report continued, “has not willfully, forcibly violated any treaty made with the Indians, and the doctrine has never had either its legislative, executive, or judicial sanction, that it could, touching their rights of person or of property” (Ibid.). The only exception to this rule, and the only time an Indian treaty has been formally abrogated, was the extinguishment of the Eastern Sioux treaty rights in 1862 as a consequence of a battle between the Sioux and some whites (see the abrogating legislation at 12 St. 512, 528).
171. Anonymous comment, “Federal Plenary Power in Indian Affairs After Weeks and Sioux Nation,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 131 (1982): 245.
172. Charles Kappler, comp., Indian Affairs: Laws and Treaties, vol. 2 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1903), 754–759.
173. Ibid., 755.
174. Ibid., 758.
175. 25 St. 980.
176. U.S. Senate. Committee on Indian Affairs. “Memorial of Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Tribes,” Miscellaneous Document No. 102, 53d Cong., 2d sess. (1894), 1.
177. Ibid.
178. 187 U.S. 553, 557 (1903). For a good analysis of this decision, see Blue Clark, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: Treaty Rights and Indian Law at the End of the Nineteenth Century (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994).
179. Ibid.
180. U.S. Senate, Committee on Indian Affairs, Memorial from Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache Indian Tribes: Letter from the Secretary of Interior, Senate Document No. 76, 56th Cong., 1st sess. (1900), 1–2.
181. Ibid., 6–7.
182. Ibid.
183. Ibid., 4–5.
184. U.S. House, Committee on Indian Affairs. Agreement with Indians of Fort Hall Reservation, House Report No. 419, 56th Cong., 1st sess. (1900), 6.
185. U.S. Congressional Record (April 2, 1900), 3659.
186. 31 St. 672. Ann Laquer Estin in “Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock: The Long Shadow,” in Sandra L. Cadwalader and Vine Deloria Jr., eds., The Aggressions of Civilization: Federal Indian Policy Since the 1880s (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1994), describes the legislative strategies used to get the Jerome agreement enacted.
187. 187 U.S. 553, 562–563.
188. 19 App. 315, 332.
189. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief and Argument for Appellant,” 9.
190. Ibid., 16.
191. Ibid., 24.
192. Ibid., 26.
193. Ibid., 29.
194. Ibid., 31.
195. Ibid.
196. Ibid., 34–40.
197. Ibid., 41.
198. Ibid., 42.
199. Ibid., 79.
200. Ibid.
201. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief for Appellees,” 15–16.
202. Ibid., 19.
203. Ibid., 93.
204. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Reply Brief of Appellants in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss Appeal,” 40.
205. 187 U.S. 553, 564.
206. Ibid., 565.
207. Ibid.
208. Ibid.
209. Ibid.
210. 187 U.S. 553, 566.
211. Ibid., 568.
212. Anonymous comment, “Federal Plenary Power,” 265 n. 190.
213. U.S. Congressional Record (1903), 2028.
214. Ibid.
215. Russel L. Barsh and James Y. Henderson, The Road: Indian Tribes and Political Liberty (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 95.
CHAPTER 4
1. Felix S. Cohen, “Indian Claims,” in Lucy Cohen, ed., The Legal Conscience: Selected Papers of Felix S. Cohen (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1960), 265.
2. 48 St. 985 (1934).
3. Francis P. Prucha, The Indians in American Society: From the Revolutionary War to the Present (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 56.
4. See especially Kenneth R. Philp, ed., Indian Self-Rule: First-Hand Accounts of Indian-White Relations from Roosevelt to Reagan (Salt Lake City: Howe Brothers, 1986).
5. Vine Deloria Jr. and Clifford M. Lytle, The Nations Within: The Past and Future of American Indian Sovereignty (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), 188.
6. 24 St. 388 (1887).
7. Jill Martin, “‘Neither Fish, Flesh, Fowl, nor Good Red Herring’: The Citizenship Status of American Indians, 1830–1924,” Journal of the West 24 (July 1990): 79.
8. 112 U.S. 94, 99 (1884).
9. U.S. Congressional Record (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1897), 899.
10. 110 Fed. 942, 947–948 (1901).
11. Ibid., 948.
12. Ibid., 950.
13. Judith N. Shklar, American Citizenship: The Quest for Inclusion (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1991), 1.
14. 197 U.S. 488, 508 (1905).
15. Ibid., 509.
16. U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report (1906), 28.
17. 34 St. 182 (1906).
18. Ibid., 182–183.
19. See especially United States v. Celestine, 215 U.S. 278 (1909); Dick v. United States, 208 U.S. 340 (1908); United States v. Sutton, 215 U.S. 291 (1909); Tiger v. Western Investment Company, 221 U.S. 286 (1911); and Hallowell v. United States, 221 U.S. 317 (1911).
20. 241 U.S. 591, 595 (1916).
21. 25 St. 888 (1889).
22. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Transcript of the Case,” 4.
23. 241 U.S. 591, 595.
24. “Theodore Roosevelt’s Fifth Annual Message, December 5, 1905,” in Fred L. Israel, ed., The State of the Union Messages of the Presidents, 1790–1966. 3 v. (New York: Chelsea House, 1966), v. 2, 2185.
25. U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report (1905), 25.
26. 241 U.S. 591, 592 (1916).
27. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief of the United States,” 10.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., 21.
30. Ibid., 22.
31. Ibid., 47.
32. Felix S. Cohen, Handbook of Federal Indian Law, reprint ed. (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1972), 153.
33. Henry J. Abraham, Justices and Presidents: A Political History of Appointments to the Supreme Court (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 172–173.
34. Ibid., 173.
35. 188 U.S. 432, 437 (1903).
36. Ibid.
37. See especially United States v. Mille Lac Band of Chippewas, 229 U.S. 498 (1913); United States v. Sandoval, 231 U.S. 28 (1913); Perrin v. United States, 232 U.S. 478 (1914); Sizemore v. Brady, 235 U.S. 441 (1914); United States v. Nice, 241 U.S. 591 (1916); Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States, 248 U.S. 78 (1918); and La Motte v. United States, 254 U.S. 570 (1921).
38. United States v. Quiver, 241 U.S. 602, 605–606 (1916).
39. Ibid., 605.
40. See Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 100 (1884) and Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556, 572 (1883).
41. Francis P. Prucha, The Great Father: The United States Government and the American Indians, abr. ed. (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1986), 267.
42. Ibid.
43. 241 U.S. 591, 595.
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid., 596.
46. Janet A. McDonnell, The Dispossession of the American Indian, 1887–1934 (Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana University Press, 1991), 2–3.
47. Frederick E. Hoxie, A Final Promise: The Campaign to Assimilate the Indians, 1880–1920 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1989), 213.
48. 241 U.S. 591, 597.
49. Ibid., 598.
50. See especially The Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36 (1873); and Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908).
51. 241 U.S. 591, 599.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid., 600.
54. Ibid.
55. Ibid.
56. Jay M. Shafritz, The Dictionary of American Government and Politics (Chicago: Dorsey Press, 1988), 366.
57. 241 U.S. 591, 598.
58. Ibid., 601.
59. Ibid.
60. U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report (1917), 65.
61. 41 St. 350 (1921).
62. 43 St. 253 (1924).
63. 41 St. 350 (1921).
64. 43 St. 253 (1924).
65. Hoxie, A Final Promise, 224.
66. U.S. v. Nice, 241 U.S. 599 (1916).
67. Sharon O’Brien, American Indian Tribal Governments (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1989), 84.
68. U.S. Congressional Globe (Washington, 1863), 308.
69. Cohen, “Indian Claims,” 270.
70. Shattuck and Norgren, Partial Justice, 143.
71. Charles Wilkinson’s comments in Kenneth Philp, Indian Self-Rule, 151.
72. Nancy O. Lurie, “The Indian Claims Commission,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 436 (1978): 98.
73. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for Writ of Certiorari of the Northwestern Shoshone Tribe,” 4–5.
74. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief for the Petitioner,” 3.
75. Deloria, “The Western Shoshones,” 17.
76. U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report (1851), in Wilcomb Washburn, ed., The American Indian and the United States (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 1979), 58.
77. U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report (1861), in Wilcomb Washburn, ed., The American Indian, 78.
78. Deloria, “The Western Shoshones,” 17–18.
79. 12 St. 512, 529 (1862).
80. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” 7.
81. 324 U.S. 335, 341 (1945).
82. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for Writ of Certiorari,” 8–9.
83. 18 St. 685 (1863).
84. 18 St. 663 (1863).
85. 18 St. 689 (1865).
86. 13 St. 681 (1863).
87. 13 St. 663 (1863).
88. 324 U.S. 335, 343.
89. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief for Petitioners,” 14.
90. 13 St. 432 (1865) and 15 St. 17 (1867).
91. 15 St. 673 (1868).
92. 324 U.S. 335, 346.
93. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief for Petitioners,” 16–17.
94. Ibid., 17.
95. 45 St. 1407.
96. 95 Ct. Cl. 642 (1942).
97. Ibid., 690 (1942).
98. Deloria, “Western Shoshone,” 20.
99. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief for Petitioners,” 20.
100. Ibid., 21.
101. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief for the United States in Opposition,” 18.
102. 323 U.S. 214.
103. Ibid., 233.
104. Ibid., 242. For a contemporaneous discussion of this “New Deal” Court, see The New Republic 112 (June 18, 1945): 833.
105. 324 U.S. 335, 337.
106. Ibid., 338.
107. U.S. v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905), which dealt with fishing rights, held that tribes retained all rights, including the taking of fish, not specifically ceded away in a treaty with the federal government. As Justice McKenna put it: “. . . the treaty was not a grant of rights to the Indians, but a grant of rights from them—a reservation of those not granted” (p. 381). Over the years, the reserved rights doctrine has also been applied to water, land, other natural resources, jurisdictional matters, etc.
108. 299 U.S. 476, 496 (1937).
109. 15 St. 673.
110. United States ex. rel. Hualpai Indians v. Santa Fe Pacific Railroad, 314 U.S. 339 (1941).
111. 299 U.S. 476, 496 as quoted in 324 U.S. 335, 338.
112. 324 U.S. 335, 338–339.
113. Cohen, “Indian Claims,” 267.
114. Ibid., 270.
115. Ibid.
116. 324 U.S. 335, 339.
117. Ibid.
118. Ibid., 339–340.
119. Ibid., 340.
120. See Charles Chibitty et al., Indian Treaties (Washington: Institute for the Development of Indian Law, 1977).
121. 324 U.S. 335, 341.
122. Ibid.
123. Ibid., 348.
124. Milner S. Ball, “Constitution, Court, Indian Tribes,” American Bar Foundation Research Journal 1 (1987): 21.
125. 324 U.S. 335, 346.
126. Ibid., 346–347.
127. Ibid., 348.
128. Cohen, “Indian Claims,” 267.
129. 324 U.S. 335, 349.
130. See United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905).
131. 324 U.S. 335, 350.
132. 299 U.S. 476, 485.
133. 304 U.S. 111, 113.
134. 95 Ct. Cl. 331, 335.
135. 145 F.2d 329.
136. 324 U.S. 335, 350.
137. Ibid.
138. Ibid.
139. Ibid., 351.
140. See especially Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515 (1832); The Kansas Indian
s, 5 Wall. 737 (1866); Wau-Pe-Man-Qua v. Aldrich, 28 Fed. 489 (1886); Jones v. Meehan, 175 U.S. 1 (1899); United States v. Winans, 198 U.S. 371 (1905); and Seufert Brothers Company v. United States, 249 U.S. 194 (1919).
141. See, e.g., Ward v. Race Horse, 163 U.S. 504 (1986); and The Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616 (1871).
142. 324 U.S. 335, 353.
143. Reference for the 1929 act is 45 St. 1407. See Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 95 Ct. Cl. 642 (1942).
144. Ibid., 354.
145. Ibid.
146. Ibid., 354–355.
147. Cohen, “Indian Claims,” 265.
148. Ibid.
149. 324 U.S. 335, 355.
150. Ibid.
151. Ibid.
152. Ibid., 356.
153. Ibid.
154. Ibid.
155. 6 Pet. 515, 561.
156. 324 U.S. 335, 357.
157. Ibid.
158. Ibid., 358.
159. Ibid., 359.
160. Ibid., 360.
161. Ibid.
162. Ibid., 361.
163. Ibid., 362.
164. Ibid.
165. Ibid., 363.
166. Ibid., 364–365.
167. Ibid., 365.
168. Ibid., 367.
169. Ibid., 369.
170. Ibid.
171. Lawrence Baum, The Supreme Court, 4th ed. (Washington: Congressional Quarterly Press, 1992), 129.
172. United States, Congressional Record (March 14, 1945), A1185.
173. Ibid.
174. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for Rehearing,” 1.
175. Ibid., 3.
176. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Memorandum as Amicus Curiae,” 2, 3.
177. Ibid., 3.
178. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Brief as Amicus Curiae by the National Congress of American Indians in Support of the Petition for Rehearing,” 6.
179. U.S. Supreme Court, Records & Briefs, “Petition for Rehearing: Brief of Other Counsel,” 21.
180. U.S. Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Annual Report (1950), 343.
181. Ibid., 342.
182. 67 St. B132 (1953).
183. Ibid.
184. 67 St. 588 (1953).
185. John Collier, “The Unfinished Indian Wars,” The Nation 184 (May 1957): 458.
186. U.S., Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Dwight D. Eisenhower (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1953), 166.
187. John R. Wunder, Retained by the People: A History of American Indians and the Bill of Rights (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994), 111.
188. Nancy O. Lurie, “The Indian Claims Commission Act,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 311 (1957): 56.
American Indian Sovereignty and the U.S. Supreme Court Page 46
