Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/304/111/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 14:45:19+00:00

Document:
1. The opinion of the Court of Claims may not be referred to for the purpose of altering or modifying the scope of unambiguous findings. P. 304 U. S. 115.
2. The right of the Shoshone Tribe in the lands set apart for it under the treaty of July 3, 1868, with the United States included the mineral and timber resources of the reservation, and the value of these was properly included in fixing the amount of compensation due for so much of the lands as was taken by the United States. P. 304 U. S. 118.
3. The phrase "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" in the treaty is to be read, with other parts of the treaty, in the light of the purpose of the arrangement made, the relation between the parties, and the settled policy of the Government to deal fairly with the Indian tribes. P. 304 U. S. 116.
4. Treaties made by the United States with Indian tribes are not to be construed narrowly, but rather in the sense in which naturally the Indians would understand them. P. 304 U. S. 116.
Certiorari, 303 U.S. 629, to review a judgment against the United States in a suit brought by the Indian Tribe under the special jurisdictional Act of March 3, 1927. For an earlier phase of the case, see 299 U. S. 299 U.S. 476.
The Shoshone Tribe brought this suit to recover the value of part of its reservation taken by the United States by putting upon it, without the tribe's consent, a band of Arapahoe Indians. The Court of Claims found the taking to have been in August, 1891, ascertained value as of that date, on that basis fixed the amount of compensation, and gave judgment accordingly. We held, 299 U. S. 299 U.S. 476, that the court erred as to the date of the taking, declared it to have been March 19, 1878, reversed the judgment, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Then the lower court proceeded to determine the value of the tribe's right at the time of the taking, and the amount to be added to produce the present worth of the money equivalent of the property, paid contemporaneously with the taking. It heard evidence, made additional findings, and gave plaintiff judgment for $4,408,444.23, with interest from its date until paid. This Court granted writ of certiorari.
The sole question for decision is whether, as the United States contends, the Court of Claims erred in holding that the right of the tribe included the timber and mineral resources within the reservation.
"shall be and the same is set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation of the Shoshone Indians . . . , and the United States now solemnly agrees that no persons,"
"Congress shall provide for protecting the rights of the Indian settlers . . . , and may fix the character of the title held by each. The United States may pass such laws on the subject of alienation and descent of property as between Indians, and on all subjects connected with the government of the Indians on said reservations, and the internal police thereof, as may be thought proper."
cultivating the soil, clothing for members of the tribe, and a physician, carpenter, miller, engineer, and blacksmith. It stipulated that no treaty for the cession of any portion of the reservation held in common should be valid as against the Indians unless signed by at least a majority of all interested male adults, and that no cession by the tribe should be construed to deprive any member of his right to any tract of land selected by him.
When the treaty of 1868 was made, the tribe consisted of full-blood blanket Indians unable to read, write, or speak English. Upon consummation of the treaty, the tribe went, and has since remained, upon the reservation. It was known to contain valuable mineral deposits -- gold, oil, coal, and gypsum. It included more than 400,000 acres of timber, extensive well grassed bench lands, and fertile river valleys conveniently irrigable. It was well protected by mountain ranges and a divide, and was the choicest and best-watered portion of Wyoming.
In 1904, the Shoshones and Arapahoes ceded to the United States 1,480,000 acres to be held by it in trust for the sale of such timber lands, timber, and other products, and for the making of leases for various purposes. The net proceeds were to be credited to the Indians. From 1907 to 1919, there were allotted to members of the tribes 245,058 acres.
"The fair and reasonable value of a one-half undivided interest of the Shoshone or Wind River Reservation of a total of 2,343,540 acres, which was taken by the United States on March 19, 1878, from the Shoshone Tribe of Indians for the Northern Arapahoe Tribe, was, on March 19, 1878, $1,581,889.50."
basis upon which the court determined the amount to be added to constitute just compensation.
The substance of the government's point is that, in fixing the value of the tribe's right, the lower court included as belonging to the tribe substantial elements of value, ascribable to mineral and timber resources, which in fact belonged to the United States.
"directions to determine the value of the Indians' right of use and occupancy, but to exclude therefrom 'the net value of the lands' and 'the net value of any timber or minerals.'"
The findings are unambiguous; there is no room for construction. The opinion of the Court of Claims may not be referred to for the purpose of eking out, controlling, or modifying the scope of the findings. Stone v. United States, 164 U. S. 380, 164 U. S. 383; Luckenbach S.S. Co. v. United States, 272 U. S. 533, 272 U. S. 539-540. Cf. American Propeller & Mfg. Co. v. United States, 300 U. S. 475, 300 U. S. 479-480.
for that would be not the exercise of guardianship or management, but confiscation.
It was not then necessary to consider, but we are now called upon to decide, whether, by the treaty, the tribe acquired beneficial ownership of the minerals and timber on the reservation. The phrase "absolute and undisturbed use and occupation" is to be read, with other parts of the document, having regard to the purpose of the arrangement made, the relation between the parties, and the settled policy of the United States fairly to deal with Indian tribes. In treaties made with them, the United States seeks no advantage for itself; friendly and dependent Indians are likely to accept without discriminating scrutiny the terms proposed. They are not to be interpreted narrowly, as sometimes may be writings expressed in words of art employed by conveyancers, but are to be construed in the sense in which naturally the Indians would understand them. Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 31 U. S. 582; Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1, 175 U. S. 11; Starr v. Long Jim, 227 U. S. 613, 227 U. S. 622-623.
Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 211, 84 U. S. 244; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 195 U. S. 540, 195 U. S. 557.
The treaty, though made with knowledge that there were mineral deposits and standing timber in the reservation, contains nothing to suggest that the United States intended to retain for itself any beneficial interest in them. The words of the grant, coupled with the government's agreement to exclude strangers, negative the idea that the United States retained beneficial ownership. The grant of right to members of the tribe severally to select and hold tracts on which to establish homes for themselves and families, and the restraint upon cession of land held in common or individually, suggest beneficial ownership in the tribe. As transactions between a guardian and his wards are to be construed favorably to the latter, doubts, if there were any, as to ownership of lands, minerals, or timber would be resolved in favor of the tribe. The cession in 1904 by the tribe to the United States in trust reflects a construction by the parties that supports the tribe's claim, for if it did not own, creation of a trust to sell or lease for its benefit would have been unnecessary and inconsistent with the rights of the parties.
treaty, plainly evidence purpose on the part of the United States to help to create an independent permanent farming community upon the reservation. Ownership of the land would further that purpose. In the absence of definite expression of intention so to do, the United States will not be held to have kept it from them. The authority of the United States to prescribe title by which individual Indians may hold tracts selected by them within the reservation, to pass laws regulating alienation and descent and for the government of the tribe and its people upon the reservation detracts nothing from the tribe's ownership, but was reserved for the more convenient discharge of the duties of the United States as guardian and sovereign.
United States v. Cook, supra, gives no support to the contention that, in ascertaining just compensation for the Indian right taken, the value of mineral and timber resources in the reservation should be excluded. That case did not involve adjudication of the scope of Indian title to land, minerals, or standing timber, but only the right of the United States to replevin logs cut and sold by a few unauthorized members of the tribe. We held that, as against the purchaser from the wrongdoers, the United States was entitled to possession. It was not there decided that the tribe's right of occupancy in perpetuity did not include ownership of the land or mineral deposits or standing timber upon the reservation, or that the tribe's right was the mere equivalent of, or like, the title of a life tenant.
The lower court did not err in holding that the right of the Shoshone Tribe included the timber and minerals within the reservation.
MR. JUSTICE STONE and MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.