Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/18-9526_9okb.pdf
Page Number: 71.0

26 

MCGIRT v. OKLAHOMA 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

8a.  He  reiterated  this  understanding  following  the  Five
Tribes Act of 1906, which stated that the tribal government
would  “continue[ ]  in  full  force  and  effect  for  all  purposes 
authorized by law.”  §28, 34 Stat. 148.  While the Court be-
lieves that meant Congress decided against disestablishing
the reservation, see ante, at 14–15, Chief Porter saw things 
differently.  From his vantage point as the contemporane-
ous leader of the government at issue, Congress had tempo-
rarily continued the tribal government but left it with only 
“limited  and  circumscribed”  authority:    The  council  could 
“pass[ ]  resolutions  respecting  our  wishes”  regarding  the 
property “now in the process of distribution,” but the council 
no longer had any authority to “mak[e] laws for our govern-
ment.”  App. to Brief for Respondent 14a (Message to Creek 
National  Council  (Oct.  18,  1906),  reprinted  in  The  New 
State Tribune (Oct. 18, 1906)).  Apart from distributing the
Nation’s property, Chief Porter maintained that “all powers
over the governing even of our landed property will cease” 
once  the  new  state  government  was  established.    App.  to
Brief  for  Respondent  15a;  see  also  S. Rep.  No.  5013,  59th 
Cong.,  2d  Sess.,  pt.  1,  p.  885  (1907)  (Choctaw  governor
mourning that his “only” remaining authority was “to sign 
deeds”).

The Creek remained of that view after Oklahoma was of-
ficially  made  a  State  through  the  Enabling  Act.  At  that 
point, the new principal Chief confirmed that it was “utterly
impossible” to resume “our old tribal government.”  App. to
Brief  for  Respondent  16a–17a  (Address  by  Moty  Tiger  to
Creek National Council (Oct. 8, 1908), reprinted in The In-
dian Journal (Oct. 9, 1908)).  And any “appeal to the gov-
ernment at Washington to alter its purpose to wipe out all 
tribal government among the five civilized tribes” would “be 
to no purpose.”  App. to Brief for Respondent 16a.  “[C]on-
tributions” for such efforts would be “just that much money
thrown  away,”  and  “all  attorneys  at  Washington  or  else-