Difference between revisions of "Template:Nhsc-v1-357"
Reid Ginoza (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
− | (1959); Washoe Indian Tribe v. United | + | (1959); <u>Washoe Indian Tribe</u> v. <u>United |
− | + | States</u>, 21 Ind.Cl.Comm. 447, 448 | |
− | (1969); Pueblo de Zia v. United | + | (1969); <u>Pueblo de Zia</u> v. <u>United |
− | + | 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 | + | 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 | + | Railroad</u>, 119 U.S. 55, 69-70 (1886). |
− | 339 (1975); Pueblo de Cochiti v. | + | |
− | United | + | <u>68</u>/ <u>Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma</u> v. |
− | 450-454 (1959); and Pueblo de | + | <u>United States</u>, 35 Ind.Cl.Comm. 321, |
− | v. United | + | 339 (1975); <u>Pueblo de Cochiti</u> v. |
− | 645-646 (1959), | + | <u>United States</u>, 7 Ind.Cl.Comm. 422, |
− | (1961), | + | 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 | + | <u>70</u>/ <u>Temoak Band of Western |
− | Ct.Cl. 346 (1979), | + | 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 |
− | + | 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 | + | involve situations where there was a |
− | + | treaty that prospectively authorized | |
− | the acts of the third | + | 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 | + | 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 | + | 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 | + | 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 | + | 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 | + | the agent's authority. See <u>Wisconsin |
− | Central Railroad Company v. United | + | Central Railroad Company</u> v. <u>United |
− | + | States</u>, 164 U.S. 190, 210 (1896); | |
− | Hawkins v. United | + | <u>Hawkins</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 96 U.S. 689, |
− | 691-692 (1877); Whiteside, et | + | 691-692 (1877); <u>Whiteside, et al.</u> v. |
− | United | + | <u>United States</u>, 93 U.S. 247, 256-257 |
− | (1876); and Filor v. United | + | (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 | + | 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 | + | only for authorized acts. |
− | Nor is the decision in Lipan Apache | + | |
− | Tribe, et | + | Nor is the decision in <u>Lipan Apache |
− | Ind.Cl.Comm. 7 (1975) | + | Tribe, et al.</u> v. <u>United States</u>, 36 |
− | In Lipan Apache, the United States was | + | Ind.Cl.Comm. 7 (1975) controlling. |
− | held | + | In <u>Lipan Apache</u>, the United States was |
− | + | held liable for the acts of the third | |
− | of aboriginal | + | 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 | + | 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 | ||
− | + | treaty with the plaintiff Indian | |
− | + | 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 |
− | + | States, through its military forces, | |
− | had aided Texas | + | had aided Texas authorities in placing |
the tribes on reservations, thereby | the tribes on reservations, thereby | ||
− | extinguishing the | + | extinguishing the plaintiff tribes' |
− | aboriginal | + | 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.
|