Template:Nhsc-v1-357

(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