Jennifer Wada at 10:29, 7 May 2006

2006-05-07T10:29:13Z

Reid Ginoza at 20:58, 10 March 2006

2006-03-10T20:58:49Z

New page

(1959); Washoe Indian Tribe v. United
S t a t e s , 21 Ind.Cl.Comm. 447, 448
(1969); Pueblo de Zia v. United
S t a t e s , 19, Ind.Cl.Comm. 56, 64-65,
74-75, 77 (1968); and Pueblo of Taos
v. United S t a t e s , 15 Ind.Cl.Comm. 666,
702 (1965).
66/ OHA's Comments, p. 23.
67/ Cf. Williams v. City of
Chicago, 242 U.S. 434, 437-438 (1917);
and Buttz v. Northern Pacific
Railroad, 119 U.S. 55, 69-70 (1886).
68/ Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma v.
United S t a t e s , 35 Ind.Cl.Comm. 321,
339 (1975); Pueblo de Cochiti v.
United S t a t e s , 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 422,
450-454 (1959); and Pueblo de I s l e ta
v. United S t a t e s , 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 619,
645-646 (1959), a f f ' d , 152 Ct.Cl. 866
(1961), c e r t , denied, 368 U.S. 822
(1961).
69/ OHA's Comments, p. 25; Senator
Inouye's Comments, pp. 35-36.
70/ Temoak Band of Western
Shoshone Indians v. United S t a t e s , 219
Ct.Cl. 346 (1979), c e r t , denied, 444
U.S. 973 (1979); United States v. Fort
S i l l Apache Tribe, 209 Ct.Cl. 433
(1976); United States v. Northern
Paiute Nation, 203 Ct.Cl. 468 (1974);
and United States v. Northern Paiute
Nation, 183 Ct.Cl. 321 (1968).
71/ See e . g . , United States v.
Northern Paiute Nation, 203 Ct.Cl.
468, 470 (1974). Furthermore, the
cases cited in the preceding footnote
involve s i t u a t i o n s where there was a
t r e a t y that prospectively authorized
the acts of the third p a r t i e s (219
Ct.Cl. at 356-357) or where there was
a "subsequent r a t i f i c a t i o n and
adoption" by Congress of the acts in
question (203 Ct.Cl. at 474; and 183
Ct.Cl. at 340). The actions of United
States Minister Stevens that c o n t r i buted
to the overthrow of the monarchy
were obviously not authorized by any
pre-1893 t r e a t y between the United
States and Hawaii, nor were they
subsequently adopted by Congress.
Indeed, the actions of Stevens on
January 17, 1893, do not appear to
have been sanctioned by the Congress
or the President. The United States
Government is not l i a b l e for the acts
of an agent that exceed the scope of
the agent's a u t h o r i t y . See Wisconsin
Central Railroad Company v. United
S t a t e s , 164 U.S. 190, 210 (1896);
Hawkins v. United S t a t e s , 96 U.S. 689,
691-692 (1877); Whiteside, et a l . v.
United S t a t e s , 93 U.S. 247, 256-257
(1876); and Filor v. United S t a t e s , 76
U.S. (9 Wall.) 45, 48-49 (1869). The
paper by Melody MacKenzie and Jon Van
Dyke, "Regarding the Legal Aspects,"
contends that the Government is
responsible for the acts of an agent.
However, the United States is l i a b le
only when it expressly waives
sovereign immunity, and it has done so
in specific circumstances and then
only for authorized a c t s.
Nor is the decision in Lipan Apache
Tribe, et a l . v. United S t a t e s , 36
Ind.Cl.Comm. 7 (1975) c o n t r o l l i n g.
In Lipan Apache, the United States was
held l i a b l e for the acts of the third
p a r t i e s which effected an extinguishment
of aboriginal t i t l e of c e r t a in
Texas Indians to lands in Texas. The
acts in question occurred after Texas
was admitted to the Union as a State
in 1845. By the terms of admission
Texas retained ownership of public
lands within Texas; however, the
Federal Government held j u r i s d i c t i on
over Indian affairs within Texas (36
Ind.Cl.Comm. at 18). On May 15, 1846,
the Federal Government entered into a
t r e a t y with the p l a i n t i f f Indian
t r i b e s whereby the t r i b e s acknowledged
themselves to be 'under the protection
of the United States and no other
power, state or sovereignty whatever'
(36 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 51). The
Commission found that subsequently
( i . e . , in the 1850's) the United
S t a t e s , through i t s military forces,
had aided Texas a u t h o r i t i e s in placing
the tribes on reservations, thereby
extinguishing the p l a i n t i f f tribes*
aboriginal t i t l e to their Texas
lands.
357

Template:Nhsc-v1-357 - Revision history

Jennifer Wada at 10:29, 7 May 2006

Reid Ginoza at 20:58, 10 March 2006