Opinion ID: 1565977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Indian Right of Occupancy is Compensable.

Text: It would be indulgence in pious and high-sounding but empty generalizations to say that the Indian right to occupancy is sacred, and at the same time to refuse to grant compensation to Indian possessors when their land is taken away from them under condemnation proceedings. The Supreme Court has countenanced no such inconsistency. In Minnesota v. Hitchcock, supra, 185 U.S. 373 at page 389, 22 S.Ct. 650, 656, 46 L.Ed. 954, the Court said: At the same time, the Indians' [sic] right of occupancy has always been held to be sacred; something not to be taken from him except by his consent, and then upon such consideration as should be agreed upon. In the Tillamook case, supra, the Court, quoting with approval the foregoing language from the Hitchcock case, held that it was applicable equally to original Indian title and the so-called recognized title: Admitting the undoubted power of Congress to extinguish original Indian title compels no conclusion that compensation need not be paid.    In our opinion, taking original Indian title without compensation and without consent does not satisfy the `high standards for fair dealing' required of the United States in controlling Indian Affairs. United States v. Santa Fe R. Co., 1941, 314 U.S. 339, 356, 62 S.Ct. 248, 86 L.Ed. 260. The Indians have more than merely a moral claim for compensation.