Difference between revisions of "Template:Nhsc-v1-355"

From GrassrootWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
−
42/ 1880 Session Laws, p. 56;
+
<u>42</u>/ 1880 Session Laws, p. 56;
 
cited by Hanifin, p. 18, note 16.
 
cited by Hanifin, p. 18, note 16.
−
43/ Thurston v. Bishop, 7 Haw.
+
 
 +
<u>43</u>/ <u>Thurston</u> v. <u>Bishop</u>, 7 Haw.
 
421, 438 (1888).
 
421, 438 (1888).
−
44/ Indian law recognizes that
+
 
 +
<u>44</u>/ Indian law recognizes that
 
individual members of a tribe have the
 
individual members of a tribe have the
 
right to use tribal property. See
 
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
 
(19 Wall.) 591, 593 (1873); and
−
Whitefoot v. United States, 155 Ct.Cl.
+
<u>Whitefoot</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 155 Ct.Cl.
−
127, 133-135 (1961), cert, denied, 369
+
127, 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).
−
45/ OHA's Comments, p. 28.
+
 
−
Georgia
+
<u>45</u>/ OHA's Comments, p. 28.
−
16-18 (1832); and
+
 
−
46/ Cherokee Nation v
+
<u>46</u>/ <u>Cherokee Nation</u> v.
−
30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1,
+
<u?Georgia</u>
−
Johnson v. Mcintosh, 21 U.S. (8
+
30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 16-18 (1832); and
 +
<u>Johnson</u> v. <u>Mcintosh</u>, 21 U.S. (8
 
Wheat.) 543, 572-574 (1823).
 
Wheat.) 543, 572-574 (1823).
−
47/ 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
−
201-202 (1963), cert, denied, 375 U.S.
+
Indians of Oklahoma</u> 161 Ct.Cl. 189,
 +
201-202 (1963), <u>cert. denied</u>, 375 U.S.
 
921 (1963).
 
921 (1963).
−
48/ It is argued that aboriginal
+
 
 +
<u>48</u>/ It is argued that aboriginal
 
title existed as of 1893 and/or 1898;
 
title existed as of 1893 and/or 1898;
 
see Betts, p. 14, MacKenzie, pp. 76
 
see Betts, p. 14, MacKenzie, pp. 76
 
and 78.
 
and 78.
−
49/ 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
 +
States</u>, <u>supra</u>, 177 Ct.Cl. at 194. To
 
prove the existence of aboriginal
 
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
 
was not lost or abandoned prior to the
 
alleged date of extinguishment.
 
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>,
 
14 Ind.Cl.Comm. 14,116 (1964).
 
14 Ind.Cl.Comm. 14,116 (1964).
−
50/ Quapaw Tribe v. United S t a t e s,
+
 
 +
<u>50</u>/ <u>Quapaw Tribe</u> v. <u>United States</u>,
 
128 Ct.Cl. 45, 48-49 (1954).
 
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
+
<u>51</u>/ <u>Quapaw Tribe</u> v. <u>United States</u>,
−
in p a r t , rev'd in part on other
+
1 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
 +
states that "Native Hawaiians advance
 
no argument as to 'constructive
 
no argument as to 'constructive
 
possession' of Government and Crown
 
possession' of Government and Crown
 
lands" (OHA's Comments, p. 23).
 
lands" (OHA's Comments, p. 23).
−
52/ 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
 +
States</u>, 17 Ind.Cl.Comm. 1, 23-24
 
(1966). It appears that the
 
(1966). It appears that the
 
Government and Crown lands constituted
 
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.
−
53/ 31 Cong. R e c , p. 6261
+
 
 +
<u>53</u>/ 31 Cong. Rec, p. 6261
 
(1898).
 
(1898).
−
54/ 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
 +
(1956), <u>appeal dismissed</u>, 140 Ct.Cl.
 
63 (1957).
 
63 (1957).
−
55/ See footnote 18, above; Jean
+
 
−
Hobbs, Hawaii: A Pageant of the Soil
+
<u>55</u>/ See footnote 18, above; Jean
 +
Hobbs, <u>Hawaii: A Pageant of the Soil</u>
 
(Stanford, Calif: Stanford University
 
(Stanford, Calif: Stanford University
 
Press, 1935), pp. 4-6 and 12-16.
 
Press, 1935), pp. 4-6 and 12-16.
−
56/ OHA comments that notwithstanding
+
 
 +
<u>56</u>/ OHA comments that notwithstanding
 
the conversion of much land
 
the conversion of much land
 
to "individual fee-simple ownership,"
 
to "individual fee-simple ownership,"
Line 73: Line 86:
 
Hawaiian Kingdom for the chiefs and
 
Hawaiian Kingdom for the chiefs and
 
people in common" (OHA's Comments, p.
 
people in common" (OHA's Comments, p.
−
24). In addition, OHA s t a t e s : "One
+
24). 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
 
recognition of native rights of
 
gathering and access on Government and
 
gathering and access on Government and
 
Crown lands" (OHA's Comments, p. 24)
 
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
 
contention that the argument concerning
−
extinguishment of aboriginal t i t le
+
extinguishment of aboriginal title
 
is "irrelevant" because the Mahele
 
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 lands in the Hawaiian
 
Government and thus, in effect,
 
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
 
Hawaiians. This assertion is
 
addressed in Part C of this chapter.
 
addressed in Part C of this chapter.
 
The second contention ignores that
 
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
 
that terminated the rights of native
−
355
+
{{p|355}}

Latest revision as of 02:06, 7 May 2006

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.

46/ Cherokee Nation v. <u?Georgia</u> 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 16-18 (1832); and 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 States, supra, 177 Ct.Cl. at 194. To prove the existence of aboriginal 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 Indian Reservation v. United States, 14 Ind.Cl.Comm. 14,116 (1964).

50/ Quapaw Tribe v. United States, 128 Ct.Cl. 45, 48-49 (1954).

51/ Quapaw Tribe v. United States, 1 Ind.Cl.Comm. 469, 488 (1951), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 128 Ct. CI. 45 (1954). OHA states 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 States, 17 Ind.Cl.Comm. 1, 23-24 (1966). It appears that the Government and Crown lands constituted a defined area—one of the tests for aboriginal title.

53/ 31 Cong. Rec, p. 6261 (1898).

54/ Cf. Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States, 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 states: "One indication of the collective rights in these lands was the specific recognition of native rights of gathering and access on Government and Crown lands" (OHA's Comments, p. 24) The first assertion refers to OHA's contention that the argument concerning extinguishment of aboriginal title is "irrelevant" because the Mahele confirmed the title to the Crown and Government lands in the Hawaiian Government and thus, in effect, 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 that terminated the rights of native

-p355-
Retrieved from "https://grihwiki.kenconklin.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Template:Nhsc-v1-355&oldid=4111"