Nhsc-v1-357

From GrassrootWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Previous Page Next Page

nhsc-v1-357

Text Only

(1959); Washoe Indian Tribe v. United States, 21 Ind.Cl.Comm. 447, 448 (1969); Pueblo de Zia v. United States, 19, Ind.Cl.Comm. 56, 64-65, 74-75, 77 (1968); and Pueblo of Taos v. United States, 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 States, 35 Ind.Cl.Comm. 321, 339 (1975); Pueblo de Cochiti v. United States, 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 422, 450-454 (1959); and Pueblo de Isleta v. United States, 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 619, 645-646 (1959), aff'd, 152 Ct.Cl. 866 (1961), cert. 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 States, 219 Ct.Cl. 346 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 973 (1979); United States v. Fort Sill 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 situations where there was a treaty that prospectively authorized the acts of the third parties (219 Ct.Cl. at 356-357) or where there was a "subsequent ratification 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 contributed to the overthrow of the monarchy were obviously not authorized by any pre-1893 treaty 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 liable for the acts of an agent that exceed the scope of the agent's authority. See Wisconsin Central Railroad Company v. United States, 164 U.S. 190, 210 (1896); Hawkins v. United States, 96 U.S. 689, 691-692 (1877); Whiteside, et al. v. United States, 93 U.S. 247, 256-257 (1876); and Filor v. United States, 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 liable only when it expressly waives sovereign immunity, and it has done so in specific circumstances and then only for authorized acts.

Nor is the decision in Lipan Apache Tribe, et al. v. United States, 36 Ind.Cl.Comm. 7 (1975) controlling. In Lipan Apache, the United States was held liable for the acts of the third parties which effected an extinguishment of aboriginal title of certain 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 jurisdiction over Indian affairs within Texas (36 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 18). On May 15, 1846, the Federal Government entered into a treaty with the plaintiff Indian tribes whereby the tribes 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 States, through its military forces, had aided Texas authorities in placing the tribes on reservations, thereby extinguishing the plaintiff tribes' aboriginal title to their Texas lands.

-p357-

Previous Page Next Page