Opinion ID: 1565977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Indian Right of Occupancy is Sacred.

Text: While consistently careful to point out that the right of the red man to the lands of his ancestors was only that of occupancy, the Supreme Court has with corresponding uniformity insisted that this right, so far as it goes, is sacred. We find this transcendental adjective first used in the concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Baldwin in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, supra, 5 Pet. 1, at page 48, 30 U.S. 1 at page 48, 8 L.Ed. 5: Indians have rights of occupancy to their lands, as sacred as the fee-simple, absolute title of the whites.    In United States v. Cook, supra, 19 Wall. 591, at page 593, 86 U.S. 591 at page 593, 22 L.Ed. 210, Mr. Chief Justice Waite went even a step farther. He held that the right of the Indians to their occupancy is not only as sacred as the right of private white landowners to their fee, but that it is as sacred as that of the United States to the fee, i. e., as sacred as the fee title of the sovereign itself. See also Mitchel v. United States, 9 Pet. 711, 746, 34 U.S. 711, 746, 9 L.Ed. 283; Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U.S. 373, 389, 22 S.Ct. 650, 46 L.Ed. 954; Shoshone Tribe v. United States, 299 U.S. 476, 497, 57 S.Ct. 244, 81 L.Ed. 360; United States v. Alcea Band of Tillamooks, supra. In Johnson v. McIntosh, supra, 8 Wheat 543, 574, 585, 588, 592, 603, 21 U.S. 543 at pages 574, 585, 588, 592, 603, 5 L.Ed. 681, Mr. Chief Justice Marshall stressed the point that, wherever the fee simple title might reside, it could be held in Indian land subject only to the Indian right [or title] of occupancy. Like a leitmotif, this quoted phrase runs through the Chief Justice's opinion and through subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court. European grants could convey a title to the grantees, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy. Either the United States, or the several states, had a clear title to all the lands within the boundary lines described in the treaty [ending the Revolutionary War], subject only to the Indian right of occupancy. The title of the crown was absolute, subject only to the Indian right of occupancy. The absolute ultimate title has been considered as acquired by discovery, subject only to the Indian title of occupancy. The claim of government extends to the complete ultimate title, charged with this right of possession. See also United States v. Cook, supra, 19 Wall. 591, 592, 593, 86 U.S. 591 at pages 592, 593, 22 L.Ed. 210; Buttz v. Northern Pacific R., supra, 119 U.S. 55 at page 67, 7 S.Ct. 100, 30 L.Ed. 330; Minnesota v. Hitchcock, supra, 185 U.S. 373 at page 389, 22 S.Ct. 650, 46 L.Ed. 954.