Difference between revisions of "Template:Nhsc-v1-357"

From GrassrootWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
(1959); Washoe Indian Tribe v. United
+
(1959); <u>Washoe Indian Tribe</u> v. <u>United
S t a t e s , 21 Ind.Cl.Comm. 447, 448
+
States</u>, 21 Ind.Cl.Comm. 447, 448
(1969); Pueblo de Zia v. United
+
(1969); <u>Pueblo de Zia</u> v. <u>United
S t a t e s , 19, Ind.Cl.Comm. 56, 64-65,
+
States</u>, 19, Ind.Cl.Comm. 56, 64-65,
74-75, 77 (1968); and Pueblo of Taos
+
74-75, 77 (1968); and <u>Pueblo of Taos</u>
v. United S t a t e s , 15 Ind.Cl.Comm. 666,
+
v. <u>United States</u>, 15 Ind.Cl.Comm. 666,
 
702 (1965).
 
702 (1965).
66/ OHA's Comments, p. 23.
+
 
67/ Cf. Williams v. City of
+
<u>66</u>/ OHA's Comments, p. 23.
Chicago, 242 U.S. 434, 437-438 (1917);
+
 
and Buttz v. Northern Pacific
+
<u>67</u>/ <u>Cf</u>. <u>Williams</u> v. <u>City of
Railroad, 119 U.S. 55, 69-70 (1886).
+
Chicago</u>, 242 U.S. 434, 437-438 (1917);
68/ Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma v.
+
and <u>Buttz</u> v. <u>Northern Pacific
United S t a t e s , 35 Ind.Cl.Comm. 321,
+
Railroad</u>, 119 U.S. 55, 69-70 (1886).
339 (1975); Pueblo de Cochiti v.
+
 
United S t a t e s , 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 422,
+
<u>68</u>/ <u>Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma</u> v.
450-454 (1959); and Pueblo de I s l e ta
+
<u>United States</u>, 35 Ind.Cl.Comm. 321,
v. United S t a t e s , 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 619,
+
339 (1975); <u>Pueblo de Cochiti</u> v.
645-646 (1959), a f f ' d , 152 Ct.Cl. 866
+
<u>United States</u>, 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 422,
(1961), c e r t , denied, 368 U.S. 822
+
450-454 (1959); and <u>Pueblo de Isleta</u>
 +
v. <u>United States</u>, 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 619,
 +
645-646 (1959), <u>aff'd</u>, 152 Ct.Cl. 866
 +
(1961), <u>cert. denied</u>, 368 U.S. 822
 
(1961).
 
(1961).
69/ OHA's Comments, p. 25; Senator
+
 
 +
<u>69</u>/ OHA's Comments, p. 25; Senator
 
Inouye's Comments, pp. 35-36.
 
Inouye's Comments, pp. 35-36.
70/ Temoak Band of Western
+
 
Shoshone Indians v. United S t a t e s , 219
+
<u>70</u>/ <u>Temoak Band of Western
Ct.Cl. 346 (1979), c e r t , denied, 444
+
Shoshone Indians</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 219
U.S. 973 (1979); United States v. Fort
+
Ct.Cl. 346 (1979), <u>cert. denied</u>, 444
S i l l Apache Tribe, 209 Ct.Cl. 433
+
U.S. 973 (1979); <u>United States</u> v. <u>Fort
(1976); United States v. Northern
+
Sill Apache Tribe</u>, 209 Ct.Cl. 433
Paiute Nation, 203 Ct.Cl. 468 (1974);
+
(1976); <u>United States</u> v. <u>Northern
and United States v. Northern Paiute
+
Paiute Nation</u>, 203 Ct.Cl. 468 (1974);
Nation, 183 Ct.Cl. 321 (1968).
+
and <u>United States</u> v. <u>Northern Paiute
71/ See e . g . , United States v.
+
Nation</u>, 183 Ct.Cl. 321 (1968).
Northern Paiute Nation, 203 Ct.Cl.
+
 
 +
<u>71</u>/ See e.g., <u>United States</u> v.
 +
<u>Northern Paiute Nation</u>, 203 Ct.Cl.
 
468, 470 (1974). Furthermore, the
 
468, 470 (1974). Furthermore, the
 
cases cited in the preceding footnote
 
cases cited in the preceding footnote
involve s i t u a t i o n s where there was a
+
involve situations where there was a
t r e a t y that prospectively authorized
+
treaty that prospectively authorized
the acts of the third p a r t i e s (219
+
the acts of the third parties (219
 
Ct.Cl. at 356-357) or where there was
 
Ct.Cl. at 356-357) or where there was
a "subsequent r a t i f i c a t i o n and
+
a "subsequent ratification and
 
adoption" by Congress of the acts in
 
adoption" by Congress of the acts in
 
question (203 Ct.Cl. at 474; and 183
 
question (203 Ct.Cl. at 474; and 183
 
Ct.Cl. at 340). The actions of United
 
Ct.Cl. at 340). The actions of United
States Minister Stevens that c o n t r i buted
+
States Minister Stevens that contributed
 
to the overthrow of the monarchy
 
to the overthrow of the monarchy
 
were obviously not authorized by any
 
were obviously not authorized by any
pre-1893 t r e a t y between the United
+
pre-1893 treaty between the United
 
States and Hawaii, nor were they
 
States and Hawaii, nor were they
 
subsequently adopted by Congress.
 
subsequently adopted by Congress.
Line 53: Line 59:
 
have been sanctioned by the Congress
 
have been sanctioned by the Congress
 
or the President. The United States
 
or the President. The United States
Government is not l i a b l e for the acts
+
Government is not liable for the acts
 
of an agent that exceed the scope of
 
of an agent that exceed the scope of
the agent's a u t h o r i t y . See Wisconsin
+
the agent's authority. See <u>Wisconsin
Central Railroad Company v. United
+
Central Railroad Company</u> v. <u>United
S t a t e s , 164 U.S. 190, 210 (1896);
+
States</u>, 164 U.S. 190, 210 (1896);
Hawkins v. United S t a t e s , 96 U.S. 689,
+
<u>Hawkins</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 96 U.S. 689,
691-692 (1877); Whiteside, et a l . v.
+
691-692 (1877); <u>Whiteside, et al.</u> v.
United S t a t e s , 93 U.S. 247, 256-257
+
<u>United States</u>, 93 U.S. 247, 256-257
(1876); and Filor v. United S t a t e s , 76
+
(1876); and <u>Filor</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 76
 
U.S. (9 Wall.) 45, 48-49 (1869). The
 
U.S. (9 Wall.) 45, 48-49 (1869). The
 
paper by Melody MacKenzie and Jon Van
 
paper by Melody MacKenzie and Jon Van
Line 67: Line 73:
 
contends that the Government is
 
contends that the Government is
 
responsible for the acts of an agent.
 
responsible for the acts of an agent.
However, the United States is l i a b le
+
However, the United States is liable
 
only when it expressly waives
 
only when it expressly waives
 
sovereign immunity, and it has done so
 
sovereign immunity, and it has done so
 
in specific circumstances and then
 
in specific circumstances and then
only for authorized a c t s.
+
only for authorized acts.
Nor is the decision in Lipan Apache
+
 
Tribe, et a l . v. United S t a t e s , 36
+
Nor is the decision in <u>Lipan Apache
Ind.Cl.Comm. 7 (1975) c o n t r o l l i n g.
+
Tribe, et al.</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 36
In Lipan Apache, the United States was
+
Ind.Cl.Comm. 7 (1975) controlling.
held l i a b l e for the acts of the third
+
In <u>Lipan Apache</u>, the United States was
p a r t i e s which effected an extinguishment
+
held liable for the acts of the third
of aboriginal t i t l e of c e r t a in
+
parties which effected an extinguishment
 +
of aboriginal title of certain
 
Texas Indians to lands in Texas. The
 
Texas Indians to lands in Texas. The
 
acts in question occurred after Texas
 
acts in question occurred after Texas
Line 85: Line 92:
 
Texas retained ownership of public
 
Texas retained ownership of public
 
lands within Texas; however, the
 
lands within Texas; however, the
Federal Government held j u r i s d i c t i on
+
Federal Government held jurisdiction
 
over Indian affairs within Texas (36
 
over Indian affairs within Texas (36
 
Ind.Cl.Comm. at 18). On May 15, 1846,
 
Ind.Cl.Comm. at 18). On May 15, 1846,
 
the Federal Government entered into a
 
the Federal Government entered into a
t r e a t y with the p l a i n t i f f Indian
+
treaty with the plaintiff Indian
t r i b e s whereby the t r i b e s acknowledged
+
tribes whereby the tribes acknowledged
 
themselves to be 'under the protection
 
themselves to be 'under the protection
 
of the United States and no other
 
of the United States and no other
Line 96: Line 103:
 
(36 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 51). The
 
(36 Ind.Cl.Comm. at 51). The
 
Commission found that subsequently
 
Commission found that subsequently
( i . e . , in the 1850's) the United
+
(i.e., in the 1850's) the United
S t a t e s , through i t s military forces,
+
States, through its military forces,
had aided Texas a u t h o r i t i e s in placing
+
had aided Texas authorities in placing
 
the tribes on reservations, thereby
 
the tribes on reservations, thereby
extinguishing the p l a i n t i f f tribes*
+
extinguishing the plaintiff tribes'
aboriginal t i t l e to their Texas
+
aboriginal title to their Texas
 
lands.
 
lands.
357
+
{{p|357}}

Latest revision as of 03:29, 7 May 2006

(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-