Montana oil and mining journal. [volume] (Great Falls, Mont.) 1931-1953, 1940-06-29

Inc IuSb treaty WIN the ATapdlOe
and Cheyennes was in 1925" sal
Goodwin. 1T was simply a treaty o
amity and friendship and involved n
property rights of any kind. 1t pro
Vided for proper intercourse between
the whites and the Indians Of thos
tribes
"The first treaty dealing with prop
erty rights was that Of 1851, known a.
the Fort Laramie treaty. That treaty
undertook to separate and gave SONS
sort OF general boundaries to the lands
claimed by the various Indian tribes
Just for illustration of the com
mittee I have drawn here on map
the various areas claimed by these
people. This land here is a very
large area running all the way down
IN New Mexico near the line up into
Wyoming the southern Arapahoe
and Cheyenne habitat and recognized
by the treaty of 1851.
Treaties Are Numerous
Then north Of that was some land
where northern Arapahoes and Chey-
ennes habitated running to North Da-
kota. In other words, the COM
/ bined northern Arapahoes and Chey-
ennes have q territory running from
] North Dakota to New Mexico"
The intricacies involved in efforts
to interpret the several treaties were
also mentioned by Goodwin.
THE treaties" he said, ARE 50 many
In number that 1t would be impossible
without taking a tremendous amount
of time to enumerate them. There are
seven different treaties In 1851,
in 1861, IN 1866, / in 1857 and 3
in lS68-and each one Of these treaties
dealt with the situation which had
gone before. Each one Of these treaties
provided for some sort of payment for
0aHad trF
these Indians to the government;
some of these payments have been
made and some Of them have not.
What has been paid, the Indians do
not know: I do not know; the only
way we can determine that question Is
by proper examination Of the records
OF the government of the United
States and presenting it to the court
of claims to determine just what part
of those compensationS have been
paid. 1t involves an immense territory
for which these Indians have not been
paid and the question has been asked |
as to how much Is involved. Well, no
body knows It might be 81 100000 or
it might be $2,0O0,O00, insofar as the !
land values are concerned. There may
be offsets against that"
Touching upon this phase Of land !
values, the United States attorney gen. |
erals office. In communication to
Daniel w. Bell, acting director, bu- |
reau of the budget, under date of
April IL, 1899, said that the bill.
(Arapahoe and Cheyenne Indians
Jurisdiction act), referring specifically
to S. 864, in its present form does not
seem properly to safeguard the inter
ests of the government. Some amend
ments are suggested. Interest, however,
attaches to one paragraph.
THE amount in the adjudication of
claims involving lands or any interest
therein, would not, be limited to the
value thereof on the dates the claims
accrued. In the recent cases of United
States VS.. Greek nation (295 o. S., 103),
md ShoShone VS.. United States (299 !
]. S., 476), the tribes were awarded,
N claims involving lands taken from
hem, not only the value of the lands,
'ut interest thereon at the rate Of 6
'ercent per annum from the dates of (.
aking to the dates of payment. which !
mounted to more than 200 percent )
interest in the one instance and 300
ercent in the other. In determining : :
aking, the court, in the second deci-
ion in the ShoShone case 1904 u. S.,
ID, included the value of timber and :
he value of the lands at the time OF :
mineral resources (See also United
tates VS.. klamath Indians, 304 o. S.,
lS). r
"These decisions increase the amount 1
the claims in land taking cases now
ending in the courts to more than =
3 900, 600 II the jurisdiction proposed a
Y the bill should be granted, the In
ianS would no doubt assert a claim
" taking of more than 100000 n
cres of land. some of which Is in 2
uded in the famous Black Hills area. Z
they should claim a valuation Of 81 Y
or acre, the claim in principal amount u
ould be $18,000,0O0. IF they asserted G
4 interest claim, as was done in the =
hoshone case, the claim in interest G.
one would be more than $4,000 600
Thether the plaintiffs are to be per- y
lifted to recover interest to this ex-
mt is a question Of policy to be de- =
rmined by congress. IF 1t Is felt that D
lie amount recoverable should be 4,
nited to the value Of the lands on y
lie dates the claims accrued, 1t Is sug- y,
.Sted that to section / Of the bin ~
ERE be added the following proviso: u
provided, That in any claim for 81
le appropriation, appropriation, tax =
g, acquisition, or deprivation of land,
any interest therein, the juriSdtc-
on hereinbefore conferred by this Is
It upon the court of claims to hear
Id determine any such claim Is limit
to the determination Of the value u
said land or interest therein, at
e time of appropriation, expropri- y
ion, taking, acquisition, or depriva-
IN, and that no claim shall be as 81
rted or judgment rendered by the ri
urt of claims which includes any in ~
ement, interest, or any equivalent 81
ereof, from the date of taking to q
e date of Judgment, as an element Of q
st compensation or otherwise; and 81
is proviso Is not severable from the a
provision of this act con-
ring Jurisdiction on the court Of 81
aims" III
Question of Offsets #
H. r. 2775 was under discussion when 81
representative O'COnnor OF Montana #
-. ~ ffn.a LIE