Case ID: us-ct-cl_34/html/0541-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

ANTHONY NAVARRE ET AL. v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [33 C. Cls. R., 235; 173 U. S. R., 77.]
    
      On the defendants' Appeal.
    
    Under the treaty with the Pottawatomie Indians, February 28, 1867 (15 Stat. L., 533), claims are transmitted by the Secretary of the Inte-terior to Congress. Congress refer the claims with all evidence, documents, etc., to this court for adjudication. Some are for depredations alleged to have been committed by white men and some by Indians of other tribes.
    The court below decides:
    1. Where, a treaty (15Stat. L., 533) provides: “ It is further agreed upon the presentation to the Department of the Interior of the claims of said tribe for depredations committed by others upon their stock, timber, or other property, accompanied by evidence thereof, examination and report shall be made to Congress of the amount found to be equitably due, in order that such action may be taken as shall be just in the premises," the term “others," as there used embraces all persons other than members of the tribe.
    2. In treaties the words should be construed in accordance with the general reasons and motives of the agreement; and as between the United States and Indians, treaties are to be liberally construed in favor of the Indians.
    3. Where claims of individual Pottawatomie Indians are referred to this court under a statute which provides that they be “adjudicated" by the court, it is a clear indication of assumed liability on the part of the United States, if the claims are found to be equitably due. Acts March 8, 1885, March 8, 18§1 (23 Stat. L., 372 ; 26 id., p. 1011).
    4. Where a treaty provides for the settlement of claims of a certain character, an act of a prior date regarding claims of a different character will not be read into the treaty.
    5. Where a treaty provides for the settlement of claims by Indians for loss of property, such responsibility must be shown as would render an individual or corporation liable for damages in a civil suit.
    
      6. Where a treaty is made with an Indian tribe to reimburse its members for depredations committed upon “stoeJc, Umber, or other property,” it does not extend to losses caused by swindling through false representations.
    7. Where the several claims of a large number of Indians are united in a single suit, the entry of judgment will be suspended until it appears which of the claimants are still living, who are the administrators of deceased claimants, etc.
   The decision of the court below is affirmed on the same grounds.

Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court February 20,1899.