Opinion ID: 111362
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Abatement

Text: Petitioners argue that any cause of action for violation of the Nonintercourse Act of 1793 abated when the statute expired. They note that Congress specifically provided that the 1793 Act would be in force for the term of two years, and from thence to the end of the then next session of Congress, and no longer. 1 Stat. 332, § 15. They contend that the 1796 version of the Nonintercourse Act repealed the 1793 version and enacted an entirely new statute, and that under the common-law abatement doctrine in effect at the time, any cause of action for violation of the statute finally abated on the expiration of the statute. [17] We disagree. The pertinent provision of the 1793 Act, § 8, like its predecessor, § 4 of the 1790 Act, 1 Stat. 138, merely codified the principle that a sovereign act was required to extinguish aboriginal title and thus that a conveyance without the sovereign's consent was void ab initio. See supra, at 233-234, and n. 3. All of the subsequent versions of the Nonintercourse Act, including that now in force, 25 U. S. C. § 177, contain substantially the same restraint on the alienation of Indian lands. In these circumstances, the precedents of this Court compel the conclusion that the Oneidas' cause of action has not abated. [18]