The Glacier reporter. [volume] (Browning, Mont.) 1953-current, 1953-11-27
CLAIM FOR SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS ARGUED
BEFORE UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS Il
SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS INVOLVED THAT
WOULD ACCRUE TO MEMBERS OF TRIBE

NollillllSSlOIl.
The case was argued to the
four judges now on the Court
Zones, Chief Judge, Littleton,
Whitaker and Madden - Judge
Howell having resigned as of o.
tober ~ All four judges active
ly participated in questioning the
attorneys for both sides through
out the argument.
At the outset of the argument,
it was apparent that the judges
are of the rather fixed view that
if, actually, the 1885 judgment
might have included damages for
delay in making compensation,
then it cannot be allowed now.
Their main questions were direct
ed at the problem whether the
Indian Claims Commission Act
accords an opportunity to be
heard on a matter which actual
ly was not submitted to them be.
fore.
One provision of the Indian
Claims Commission Act which
was referred to repeatedly by the
members of the court provides
that all defenses are preserved
to the government save the de-
Tense of the statute of limita-
tons and unwarranted delay in
bringing suit. On its face, that
would seem to preserve the right
to the technical defense that the
matter had been once adjudicat-
ed in connection with the 1885
judgment. On behalf of the Gros
Ventre and Blackfeet, your attor-
ney argued that the plain under
standing of Congress was that
this claim of the Blackfeet and
eros Ventre (and that of the AS
siniboine) was understood by the
Committees of Congress to be
preserved to the Indians, and in
fact the problem had been called
to the specific attention of the
conferees on the Indian Claims
Commission Act and had been cit
ed by them as a situation in
which the defense of res judicata
(the technical name of this de-
Tense that the matter has already
been adjudicated) could not be
used by the government.
Apparently, the very crux of
the case in the minds of the
judges centered around a ques-
ton asked by Chief Judge Jones,
who wanted to know if there was
enough doubt or ambiguity on
the face of the language preserv-
ing all defenses to the United
States that the Court could look
at the legislative history to show
what Congress actually under
stood. This was answered on your
behalf by calling attention to the
overall purpose of the Indian
Claims Commission to settle and
decide these matters once and for
all in an open-handed, fair basis,
as a result of which Congress ev-
en- authorized recovery in stu
ations where fair and honorable
dealings by the United States
would demand compensation to
the Indians, even though no ex-
listing principle of the law or
equity could otherwise be point
ed to justify the recovery. And
if that be so, the overall pur-
pose of the act is plain, and this
is matter of ordinary fairness
which should be decided in con-
formity with the purpose of the
act as a whole.
Judges Madden and Jones
seemed, from the argument, to
be particularly impressed with
this view, and questioned govern
ment counsel at length on it.
Judges Littleton and Whitaker. if
at all, seemed rather taken with
the other view - that since you
had been in court once, all mat
tiers relating to the cause of ac-
ton you sued on must be CON
sidered to have been forecloscd
by that judgment.
Since the time of the argument,
we have talked with number of
persons who heard the argument.
None of them purpOrtS to have
any fixed notion as to how the
court will decide the case. One
person in whose judgment we
have unusual confidence, rather
guessed that the court would be
divided two-two and, when a new
judge is appointed, would ask for
a reargument of the case. All of
this is in the realm of utter spec
ulation.
The court asked, at the argu-
ment, for a further memorandum
on the Legislative history of the
Indian Claims Commission. This
is now under preparation by at
torneys and will be submitted at
the end of this week or early next