Case ID: us-ct-cl_42/html/0282-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Booti-i, J.,", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

JAMES H. HAMILTON, SURVIVING PARTNER, ETC., v. THE UNITED STATES AND THE CHICKASAW NATION.
    (Indian Depredations
    2142, 2143, 2144, 2145.
    Decided March 18, 1907.)
    
      On the Proofs.
    
    This is a suit brought under the Indian depredation act to recover the value of dwellings upon the Chickasaw Reservation' which were taken and sold by the Governor of the Chickasaw Nation pursuant to an act of the legislature, the proceeds being covered into their national treasury for national purposes.
    I. The Chickasaw Indians in 1867 were a “ domestic dependent nation,” permitted to maintain a government.
    II. The OMchasmo Treaty 10th July, 1866 (14 Stat. L., p. 772), provides that the general assembly shall have power to legislate; and that all laws enacted .by said council shall take effect at the times therein provided unless suspended by the Secretary of the Interior or the President.
    
      III. Where property was taken possession of and sold and the proceeds thereof covered into the Chickasaw treasury in pursuance of a statute which was not suspended, the taking of the property was by legislative authority.
    IY. The Indian depredations act Sd March, 1891 (26 Stat. L., p. 851), does not extend to a taking of property by the government of one of the civilized nations. The word “ depreciations ” excludes the idea of a peaceful taking of property in pursuance of law. The act was intended to afford relief for the forcible and larcenous taking or destruction of property by Indians.
    Y. Tliis court is without power to review the legislative acts of the Chickasaw Nation.
    YI. Where citizens of the United States accepted a license to trade with the Chickasaw Indians and acquired property within the limits of the Chickasaw Nation they subjected the same to the jurisdiction of Chickasaw law.
    
      The Reporters’ statement of the case:
    The following are the facts of the case as found by the court:
    I. The claimant, James H. Hamilton, and his partner, Samuel C. Humes, at the date of the taking hereinafter set forth, were citizens of the United States.
    II. At the date of the taking hereinafter set forth, Samuel C. Humes and James H. Hamilton were partners, and composed the firm of Humes & Hamilton, and as such occupied certain land and buildings, to wit:
    At Fort Washita, Ind. T., the storehouse, dwelling, additions, outbuildings, and land adjacent, known as the Gooding property, of the value of_$1, 000
    At the place aforesaid, the storehouse, additions, outbuildings and land adjacent, known as the Kinney and Goodridge property, of the value of- 000
    At the place aforesaid, the storehouse, additions, and land adjacent, known as the Wall property, of the value of_ 350
    At Tishomingo, Ind. T., the storehouse which had formerly been used by the Chickasaw Nation as a council house, additions, outbuildings, and land adjacent, of the value of_ 1,100
    Of the total value of_ 3, 050
    III.The land upon which the aforesaid buildings at Fort Washita stood had been set apart as a military reservation April 23, 1842. It was evacuated by United States troops about May 1, 1861, and was never, again occupied by United States troops. It was relinquished by the War Department to the Interior Department July 1, 1870.
    IY. The property aforesaid at Fort Washita had been bought by Samuel C. Hiunes from earlier traders, and the property aforesaid at Tishomingo had been sold to Humes by the Chickasaw Nation, except such additions as were built by Humes or Humes & Hamilton after purchasing. These properties were put in by Humes as a part of the firm capital of Humes & Hamilton.
    The firm of Humes & Hamilton prior to June 10, 1861, conducted a general merchandise business in the buildings aforesaid. They were annually licensed by the Interior Department to trade with the Chickasaw Nation of Indians. Their last annual license expired on the date last aforesaid.
    Claimant occupied the property aforesaid at Fort Washita in person until August, 1805, and by agents thereafter until the date of the taking; and the property at Tishomingo by an agent from 1861 until the date of the taking.
    From these facts the court finds the ultimate fact, so far as it is a question of fact, that the firm of Humes & Hamilton owned the property aforesaid at the date of the taking hereinafter set forth.
    Y. The following act was passed by the legislature of the Chickasaw Nation and approved by the governor thereof July 17, 1867:
    “ An aet authorizing the sale of the 'buildings formerly owned by Humes and Hamilton, at Hatsborough and Tisho-mingo.
    
    “ Sec. 1st. Be it enacted by the legislature of the Chickasaw Nation, that from and after the passage of this act the governor is authorized to sell, or cause to be sold, to the highest bidder for cash all the buildings formerly owned by Humes and Hamilton, situated in Tishomingo and Hats-borough, Tishomingo and Panola counties, Chickasaw Nation, by first giving notice of fifteen days of the sale in the aforesaid counties.
    “ And the proceeds of the sale of said buildings shall be put in the national treasury for national purposes.
    “ Approved July 17, 1867.
    “ C. HARRIS, Governor
    
    
      In accordance with the above act the property described in Finding II was taken and sold by the public authorities of the Chickasaw Nation.
    VI. The Chickasaw Nation was at the date of the taking hereinbefore set forth in amity with the- United States.
    
      Mr. Archibald King, for the claimant. Messrs. Geo. A. <& Won. B. King and Mr. W. II. Robeson were on the brief.
    
      Mr. Lincoln B. Smith (with whom was Mr. Assistaoit Attorney-General Thompson), for the defendants.
   Booti-i, J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The first question presented by the record before us is one of jurisdiction. The findings disclose that this is a suit to recover the value of certain property of the claimant alleged to have been illegally taken by the Chickasaw Indians in the year 1867. Hamilton & Humes, partners, were, in the years 1858, 1859, I860, and 1861 licensed Indian traders, engaged in trading with the Chickasaw Indians, and for the purpose of conducting their business owned and occupied three storehouses, one located at Fort Washita and the other two at Tishomingo, within the Chickasaw Reservation. In 1867 all of this property was sold by the governor of the Chickasaw Nation, in pursuance of an act of the legislature of the Chickasaw Nation authorizing him so to do, and the proceeds of said sale covered into their national treasury for national purposes.

The status of the Chickasaw Indians in 1867 was that of a “ domestic dependent nation. A"limited sovereignty under the dominion of the United States.” (Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Peters, 174.) Under various treaty stipulations between the Chickasaws and the United States they were permitted to maintain á domestic government for the regulation of their own internal affairs.

By article 4 of the treaty between the United States and • the Choctaw and Chickasaw Indians, proclaimed July 10, 1866 (14 Stat. L., 772), it is provided:

“ 4. The general assembly shall have power to legislate upon all subjects and matters pertaining to fhe intercourse and relations of the Indian tribes and nations resident in the said Territory, the arrest and extradition of criminals escaping from one tribe to another, the administration of justice between members of the several tribes of the said Territory, and persons other than Indians and members of said tribes or nations, the construction of works of internal improvement, and the common defense and safety of the nations of the said Territory. All laws enacted by said council shall take effect at the times therein provided, unless suspended by the Secretary of the Interior or the President of the United States.”

Under the authority there conferred the assembly of the Chickasaw Nation on July 17, 1867, passed the act.set out in Finding Y, under which the property of the claimant was taken possession of and sold and the proceeds thereof covered into the treasury of said nation for national purposes. That act was never suspended by the Secretary of the Interior or the President of the United States, and the taking, therefore, was in effect by legislative sanction.

The act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. L., 851), being an act to provide for the adjudication and payment of claims arising from Indian depredations, confers jurisdiction upon this court “ to inquire into and finally adjudicate *' * * First. All claims for property of citizens of the United States taken or destroyed by Indians belonging to any band, tribe, or nation in • amity with the United States, without just cause or provocation on the'part of the owner or agent in charge, and not returned or paid for.”

The act of March 3, 1891, is not broad enough to embrace a taking of the property of a citizen by the Indians under the circumstances in this case.. The class of cases coming within its terms and meaning are those where citizens are divested of their property by way of depreciations. The word “ depredations,” as found in the title to act, inherently excludes the idea of a peaceful taking of property in pursuance of law and after due notice of an intention so to do. The act of March 3, 1891, is the culmination of various antecedent statutes upon the subject of Indian depredations, in each of which it distinctly appears that relief was only to be afforded citizens for the forcible and larcenous taking or destruction of their private property, either clandestinely or in their view by threats of, and not infrequently, personal violence. (Davidson v. United States, 34 C. Cls. R., 170; Jaeger v. United States, 33 C. Cls. R., 214; Ayres v. United States, 35 C. Cls. R., 26.) The passage of the legislative act- by which claimant was divested of his property was sufficient notice' to him (his agents being in possession of the same) that the Chickasaw Nation claimed legal authority to dispose of the same. To permit claimant under act of March 3, 1891, to recover for its value would be to hold that this court has power and authority to review legislative acts that are within the authority of the Chickasaw Nation.

The claimant by applying for and accepting a license to trade with the Chickasaw Indians, and subsequently acquiring property within the limits of their reservation, subjected the same to the jurisdiction of their laws. Bedress for any infringement of their property rights, by national authority, in pursuance of legislative enactment can not be granted in this kind of a proceeding, and the petition is dismissed.