Jennifer Wada at 09:06, 7 May 2006

2006-05-07T09:06:36Z

Reid Ginoza at 20:58, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T20:58:02Z

New page

42/ 1880 Session Laws, p. 56;
cited by Hanifin, p. 18, note 16.
43/ Thurston v. Bishop, 7 Haw.
421, 438 (1888).
44/ Indian law recognizes that
individual members of a tribe have the
right to use tribal property. See
e.g., United States v. Cook, 86 U.S.
(19 Wall.) 591, 593 (1873); and
Whitefoot v. United States, 155 Ct.Cl.
127, 133-135 (1961), cert, denied, 369
U.S. 818 (1962). Cf_. United States v.
Jim, 409 U.S. 80,82 (1972), rehearing
denied, 409 U.S. 1118 (1973).
45/ OHA's Comments, p. 28.
Georgia
16-18 (1832); and
46/ Cherokee Nation v
30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1,
Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. (8
Wheat.) 543, 572-574 (1823).
47/ Confederated Tribes of the
Warm Springs Reservation v. United
States, supra; Sac and Fox Tribe of
Indians of Oklahoma 161 Ct.Cl. 189,
201-202 (1963), cert, denied, 375 U.S.
921 (1963).
48/ It is argued that aboriginal
title existed as of 1893 and/or 1898;
see Betts, p. 14, MacKenzie, pp. 76
and 78.
49/ Confederated Tribes of the
Warm Springs Reservation v. United
S t a t e s , supra, 177 Ct.Cl. at 194. To
prove the existence of aboriginal
t i t l e it must be shown that such t i t le
was not lost or abandoned prior to the
alleged date of extinguishment.
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
Indian Reservation v. United S t a t e s,
14 Ind.Cl.Comm. 14,116 (1964).
50/ Quapaw Tribe v. United S t a t e s,
128 Ct.Cl. 45, 48-49 (1954).
51/ Quapaw Tribe v. United S t a t e s,
1 Ind.Cl.Comm. 469, 488 (1951), a f f 'd
in p a r t , rev'd in part on other
grounds, 128 Ct. CI. 45 (1954). OHA
s t a t e s that "Native Hawaiians advance
no argument as to 'constructive
possession' of Government and Crown
lands" (OHA's Comments, p. 23).
52/ Puyallup Tribe v. United
S t a t e s , 17 Ind.Cl.Comm. 1, 23-24
(1966). It appears that the
Government and Crown lands constituted
a defined area—one of the t e s t s for
aboriginal t i t l e.
53/ 31 Cong. R e c , p. 6261
(1898).
54/ Cf. Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma v.
United S t a t e s , 4 Ind.Cl.Comm. 218-219
(1956), appeal dismissed, 140 Ct.Cl.
63 (1957).
55/ See footnote 18, above; Jean
Hobbs, Hawaii: A Pageant of the Soil
(Stanford, Calif: Stanford University
Press, 1935), pp. 4-6 and 12-16.
56/ OHA comments that notwithstanding
the conversion of much land
to "individual fee-simple ownership,"
the Government and Crown lands were
"maintained as lands held by the
Hawaiian Kingdom for the chiefs and
people in common" (OHA's Comments, p.
24). In addition, OHA s t a t e s : "One
indication of the c o l l e c t i v e rights in
these lands was the s p e c i f ic
recognition of native rights of
gathering and access on Government and
Crown lands" (OHA's Comments, p. 24)
The f i r s t assertion refers to OHA's
contention that the argument concerning
extinguishment of aboriginal t i t le
is "irrelevant" because the Mahele
confirmed the t i t l e to the Crown and
Government lands in the Hawaiian
Government and thus, in effect,
confirmed the t i t l e in the native
Hawaiians. This assertion is
addressed in Part C of this chapter.
The second contention ignores that
portion of the Kuleana Act of 1850
that terminated the rights of native
355

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-/ 1880 Session Laws, p. 56;
+<u>42</u>/ 1880 Session Laws, p. 56;
 cited by Hanifin, p. 18, note 16.
 / Thurston v. Bishop, 7 Haw.
 , 438 (1888).
 / Indian law recognizes that
 individual members of a tribe have the
 right to use tribal property. See
-e.g., United States v. Cook, 86 U.S.
+e.g., <u>United States</u> v. <u>Cook</u>, 86 U.S.
 (19 Wall.) 591, 593 (1873); and
-Whitefoot v. United States, 155 Ct.Cl.
+<u>Whitefoot</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 155 Ct.Cl.
-, 133-135 (1961), cert, denied, 369
+, 133-135 (1961), <u>cert</u>. <u>denied</u>, 369
-U.S. 818 (1962). Cf_. United States v.
+U.S. 818 (1962). <u>Cf</u>. <u>United States</u> v.
-Jim, 409 U.S. 80,82 (1972), rehearing
+<u>Jim</u>, 409 U.S. 80,82 (1972), <u>rehearing
-denied, 409 U.S. 1118 (1973).
+denied</u>, 409 U.S. 1118 (1973).
 / OHA's Comments, p. 28.
-Georgia
+<u>45</u>/ OHA's Comments, p. 28.
--18 (1832); and
-/ Cherokee Nation v
+<u>46</u>/ <u>Cherokee Nation</u> v.
-U.S. (5 Pet.) 1,
+<u?Georgia</u>
-Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. (8
+U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 16-18 (1832); and
 Wheat.) 543, 572-574 (1823).
 / Confederated Tribes of the
-Warm Springs Reservation v. United
+<u>47</u>/ <u>Confederated Tribes of the
-States, supra; Sac and Fox Tribe of
+Warm Springs Reservation</u> v. <u>United
-Indians of Oklahoma 161 Ct.Cl. 189,
+States</u>, <u>supra</u>; <u>Sac and Fox Tribe of
--202 (1963), cert, denied, 375 U.S.
+Indians of Oklahoma</u> 161 Ct.Cl. 189,
 (1963).
 / It is argued that aboriginal
 title existed as of 1893 and/or 1898;
 see Betts, p. 14, MacKenzie, pp. 76
 and 78.
 / Confederated Tribes of the
-Warm Springs Reservation v. United
+<u>49</u>/ <u>Confederated Tribes of the
-S t a t e s , supra, 177 Ct.Cl. at 194. To
+Warm Springs Reservation</u> v. <u>United
 prove the existence of aboriginal
-t i t l e it must be shown that such t i t le
+title it must be shown that such title
 was not lost or abandoned prior to the
 alleged date of extinguishment.
-Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
+<u>Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla
-Indian Reservation v. United S t a t e s,
+Indian Reservation</u> v. <u>United States</u>,
 Ind.Cl.Comm. 14,116 (1964).
-/ Quapaw Tribe v. United S t a t e s,
 Ct.Cl. 45, 48-49 (1954).
-/ Quapaw Tribe v. United S t a t e s,
-Ind.Cl.Comm. 469, 488 (1951), a f f 'd
+<u>51</u>/ <u>Quapaw Tribe</u> v. <u>United States</u>,
-in p a r t , rev'd in part on other
+Ind.Cl.Comm. 469, 488 (1951), <u>aff'd
-grounds, 128 Ct. CI. 45 (1954). OHA
+in part, rev'd in part on other
-s t a t e s that "Native Hawaiians advance
+grounds</u>, 128 Ct. CI. 45 (1954). OHA
 no argument as to 'constructive
 possession' of Government and Crown
 lands" (OHA's Comments, p. 23).
 / Puyallup Tribe v. United
-S t a t e s , 17 Ind.Cl.Comm. 1, 23-24
+<u>52</u>/ <u>Puyallup Tribe</u> v. <u>United
 (1966). It appears that the
 Government and Crown lands constituted
-a defined area—one of the t e s t s for
+a defined area—one of the tests for
-aboriginal t i t l e.
+aboriginal title.
-/ 31 Cong. R e c , p. 6261
 (1898).
 / Cf. Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma v.
-United S t a t e s , 4 Ind.Cl.Comm. 218-219
+<u>54</u>/ <u>Cf</u>. <u>Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma</u> v.
-(1956), appeal dismissed, 140 Ct.Cl.
+<u>United States</u>, 4 Ind.Cl.Comm. 218-219
 (1957).
 / See footnote 18, above; Jean
-Hobbs, Hawaii: A Pageant of the Soil
+<u>55</u>/ See footnote 18, above; Jean
 (Stanford, Calif: Stanford University
 Press, 1935), pp. 4-6 and 12-16.
 / OHA comments that notwithstanding
 the conversion of much land
 to "individual fee-simple ownership,"
@@ Line 73: / Line 86: @@
 Hawaiian Kingdom for the chiefs and
 people in common" (OHA's Comments, p.
-). In addition, OHA s t a t e s : "One
+). In addition, OHA states: "One
-indication of the c o l l e c t i v e rights in
+indication of the collective rights in
-these lands was the s p e c i f ic
+these lands was the specific
 recognition of native rights of
 gathering and access on Government and
 Crown lands" (OHA's Comments, p. 24)
-The f i r s t assertion refers to OHA's
+The first assertion refers to OHA's
 contention that the argument concerning
-extinguishment of aboriginal t i t le
+extinguishment of aboriginal title
 is "irrelevant" because the Mahele
-confirmed the t i t l e to the Crown and
+confirmed the title to the Crown and
 Government lands in the Hawaiian
 Government and thus, in effect,
-confirmed the t i t l e in the native
+confirmed the title in the native
 Hawaiians. This assertion is
 addressed in Part C of this chapter.
 The second contention ignores that
-portion of the Kuleana Act of 1850
+portion of the <u>Kuleana</u> Act of 1850
 that terminated the rights of native
+{{p|355}}

Template:Nhsc-v1-355 - Revision history

Jennifer Wada at 09:06, 7 May 2006

Reid Ginoza at 20:58, 10 March 2006