United States v. New York (173 U.S. 464)

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


United States v. New York (173 U.S. 464)
by Henry Billings Brown
Syllabus
828044United States v. New York (173 U.S. 464) — SyllabusHenry Billings Brown
Court Documents

United States Supreme Court

173 U.S. 464

United States  v.  New York

This case arose from a motion by the Indians to dismiss the appeal of the United States for want of jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, to affirm the judgment of the court of claims upon the ground that the question involved is so frivolous as not to need further argument, and also from a counter motion by the United States for an order upon the court of claims to make a further finding of facts.

By an act of congress passed January 28, 1893 (27 Stat. 426), the court of claims was authorized to hear and determine, and to enter up judgment upon, the claims of the Indians 'who were parties to the treaty of Buffalo Creek, New York,' of January 15, 1838, to enforce an alleged liability of the United States for the value of certain lands in Kansas set apart for these Indians, and subsequently sold by the United States, as well as for certain amounts of money agreed to be paid upon their removal.

In its findings of fact the court of claims decided that the Indians described in the jurisdictional act above referred to as 'the New York Indians, being those Indians who were parties to the treaty of Buffalo Creek, New York, on the 15th of January, 1838, were the following: Senecas, Onondagas, Onondagas residing on the Seneca reservation, Onondagas at Onondaga, Cayugas, Cayugas residing on the Seneca reservation, Cayuga Indians residing in the state of New York, Tuscaroras, Tuscaroras residing in the state of New York, Oneidas residing in New York, at Green Bay (Wisconsin), and in the Seneca reservation, Oneidas, St. Regis, St. Regis in New York (the American party of the St. Regis resided in the state of New York), Stockbridges, Munsees, Brothertowns.'

Upon the whole case, however, the court of claims found, as a conclusion of law from the facts, that the Indians had abandoned their claim, and accordingly dismissed their petition. On appeal to this court, under the act of congress above mentioned, the judgment of the court of claims was reversed (170 U.S. 1, 18 Sup. Ct. 531), this court being of opinion:

(1) That the title acquired by the Indians under the treaty was a grant in praesenti of a legal title to a defined tract, described by metes and bounds, containing 1,824,000 acres, in the now state of Kansas.

(2) That there was no uncertainty as to the land granted, or as to the identity of the grantees.

(3) That the tribes for whom the Kansas lands were intended as a future home were the Senecas, Onondagas, Cayugas, Tuscaroras, Oneidas, St. Regis, Stockbridges, Munsees, and Brothertowns, residing in the state of New York, as found in the first finding of fact by the court of claims.

(4) That the grant to the Indians was of the entire tract, as specified in article 2 of the treaty, and not an allotment to them of 320 acres for each emigrant.

(5) That the government had received the full consideration stipulated by the treaty, so far as such consideration was a valuable one for the Kansas lands, and had neglected to render any account of the same.

(6) That the Indians had neither forfeited nor abandoned their interest in the Kansas lands, and that they were entitled to a judgment.

Thereupon the case was remanded to the court of claims, with instructions 'to enter a new judgment for the net amount actually received by the government for the Kansas lands, without interest, less any increase in value attributable to the fact that certain of these lands were donated for public purposes, as well as the net amount which the court below may find could have been obtained for the lands otherwise disposed of, if they had all been sold as public lands, less the amount of land upon the basis of which settlement was made with the Tonawandas, and less 10,240 acres allotted to the thirty-two New York Indians, as set forth in finding 12, together with such deductions as may seem to the court below to the just, and for such other proceedings as may be necessary and in conformity with this opinion.'

In obedience to this mandate the court of claims on November 14, 1898, made certain further findings of fact, set forth in the margin, [1] and as a conclusion of law decreed that the claimants recover from the United States the sum of $1,967,056, whereupon the United States took this appeal, and now move the court that the court of claims be ordered to further find and certify to this court:

'First. What constituted the Onondagas at Onondaga, Oneidas at Green Bay, Stockbridges, Munsees, and Brothertowns, parties to the treaty of Buffalo Creek, as proclaimed April 4, 1840?

'Second. Whether or not the Oneidas at Green Bay, Stockbridges, Munsees, and Brothertowns resided in the state of New York when the treaty of Buffalo Creek was proclaimed, or when they became parties thereto.'

Sol. Gen. Richards, Asst. Atty. Gen. Pradt, and C. C. Binney, for the United States.

Guion Miller and J. H. McGowan, for appellees.

Mr. Justice BROWN, after stating the facts in the foregoing language, delivered the opinion of the court.

Notes[edit]

  1. Findings.

Assuming that the claimants were entitled to 1,824,000 acres of land under the treaty of January 15, 1838, the court finds that of treaty of lands the defendants sold 84,453.29 acres, for which they received the sum of $1.25 per acre. They otherwise disposed of the balance of said lands in granting the same for public purposes, and for the lands disposed of for public purposes they could have obtained the sum of $1.25 per acre.

The land at $1.25 per acre amounts to the sum of $2,280,000. The court, in finding that the defendants could have sold the land at $1.25, does not take into consideration any in creased value given to such lands because of

any donation of land for public purposes; and the court finds that the price at which the defendants sold the land wasnot increased because of any donation of other lands for public purposes. The court finds that the cost and expense pense of surveying and platting said lands was the sum of $45,000. The court finds that the number of acres allowed the Tonawanda band of the claimants in the settlement of their claim was 208,000 acres, which, at the price of $1.25 per acre, less the proportionate cost and expense of surveying and platting, amounts to the sum of $254,800. The number of acres allotted to the 32 Indians, as set forth in finding 12, was 10,340 acres, which, at the rate of $1.25 per acre, less the proportionate cost and expense of surveying and platting, amounts to $12,544.

The court further finds tht, after deducting the costs nd expense of surveying and platting said lands, the amount paid by the defendants in the settlement with the Tonawanda band, and the value of the allotment to the 32 Indians, there remains of said $2,280,000 the sum of $1,967,056.

The court further finds: The New York Indians who were parties to the treaty of Buffalo Creek of 1838, as amended and proclaimed, were the following:

Senecas............ 2,309

Onondagas on Senecas' reservation. 194

Cayugas.............._130

2,633

Onodagas at Onondaga. 300

Tuscaroras........... 273

Saint Regis in New York. 350

Oneidas at Green Bay. 600

Oneidas in New York.. 620

Stockbridges......... 217

Munsees.............. 132

Brothertowns........._360

Total............5,485

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work of the United States federal government (see 17 U.S.C. 105).

Public domainPublic domainfalsefalse