Court Opinion

ID: 9847219
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 03:56:04.345341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:03.766073
License: Public Domain

ELLETT, Justice:
The defendant appeals from a decision of the District Court of Uintah County declining to set aside a default judgment entered on behalf of the plaintiff on September 9, 1975. The plaintiff, a non-Indian,' obtained a judgment by default for the sum of $28,800 general and special damages, together with costs of court. On or about October 22, 1975, defendant, an enrolled member of the Ute Indian tribe, appeared specially and moved the court to set aside the default judgment and dismiss the action on the basis that the court lacked jurisdiction over the defendant and the subject matter. The court denied the motion and the defendant is here seeking a reversal.
The automobile accident out of which this action arose occurred on November 12, 1974, on a county road in Uintah County approximately two miles south of Fort Duchesne, Utah. The defendant claims that the reservation on which he lives encompasses all the land within the “drainage of the Duchesne River from the snow-capped mountains on the north to the snowcapped mountains on the south.” This area of land includes numerous cities and towns and thousands of acres of land owned and occupied by non-Indians.
*935The sole question presented on this appeal is whether or not the district courts of the State of Utah have jurisdiction over enrolled members of the Ute Indian tribe within the area drained by the Duchesne River and its tributaries.
The government of the United States formerly warred with the various Indian tribes and as a means of preventing further bloodshed, entered into treaties of peace with the ancestors of this defendant whereby certain lands were set apart for their use. With the advance of civilization and the increase in population, it was considered advisable for certain areas of the land to be sold.. The Indians were granted specific lands chosen by themselves and the remaining land was sold to the government with a proviso that the money received from the sale thereof would be held in trust for the benefit of the Indians.
In 190S President Theodore Roosevelt, by proclamation dated July 14, placed the land of the Indian reservation not theretofore allotted to Indians back on the public domain.1 Congress appropriated funds to pay for the land thus transferred, and the Indians accepted the money.2
Some 25 years ago, the Ute Indians got a judgment against the United States government for the money which it had received from the sale of the reservation land lying in the State of Colorado.3 That judgment totaled $31,938,473.43. The basis of their suit against the government was that they had an interest in the land in the nature of a lien to secure the payment to the Ute tribes of the money received by the government for the land which had been taken back into the public domain and sold to the public. By this judgment, and the satisfaction thereof, the Indians lost all rights which they or their ancestors ever had in or to the land not theretofore allocated to them. No longer can an Indian migrant carry about him a protecting mantle which makes him immune to the law of the land so long as he does not stray beyond the snowcapped mountains to the north and south of the Duchesne drainage basin.
A treaty can only exist between independent, sovereign powers.4 Several generations ago the United States government entered into a so-called treaty of peace with the nation of Ute Indians. The United States Supreme Court in DeCoteau v. District County Court5 said that since that time, the government “had altered its general policy toward the Indian tribes.” Further, the court stated: “After 1871, the tribes were no longer regarded as sovereign nations, and the Government, began to regulate their affairs through statute or through contractual agreements ratified by statute.”6
The Ute nation, of the long-ago treaty, no longer exists, and the descendants of the inhabitants of that nation are now citizens of the United States. When a nation ceases to exist, its treaties are no longer of any force or effect,7 and the descendants of those who constituted the erstwhile nation cannot thereafter claim any benefits under the treaty. For a long time, Indians have claimed that they were not treated as citizens of this country. Now that they are citizens of the United States, some of them are unwilling to accept the responsibilities and duties which go with the privilege of citizenship.
In the case of DeCoteau v. District Court, supra, the question was presented as to whether or not the state court had jurisdiction of Indians within the confines of *936an original grant to the Indian tribe. There, as in the instant matter, the government had reduced the original reservation by the land not allocated to the Indians and had paid the tribe therefor. The South Dakota Supreme Court held that the land, within the boundaries of the original treaty, which had been purchased by the government and subsequently sold to white men, as was done in this case, was no longer “Indian Country” and that the state courts had jurisdiction over Indians therein. This ruling was affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in March, 1975.8
To declare the law to be as claimed by the appellant would be to abandon all forms of due process and permit an enrolled Indian to commit crimes or torts at will and be immune from any accountability to the law of- the land. Any statute or court decision which would prevent an enrolled Indian from being tried under the law of the land for a tort or crime committed by that Indian would be in contravention of the due process clause of the Constitution.
To permit an Indian who commits a murder in any of the various towns in the drainage area of the Duchesne River to show disdain for the prosecuting officials and claim the sanctuary of the tribal method of procedure is unthinkable.
The judgment of the trial court was correct and it is affirmed. Costs are awarded to the respondent.
CROCKETT, J., concurs.
HENRIOD, C. J., concurs in the result.

. 34 Statutes at Large, 3119 (1905).

. 32 Statutes at Large, 264.

. Confederated Bands of Ute Indians v. United States, 120 Ct.Cl. 609 (1951). See also 100 Ct.Cl. 413 (1943) ; 112 Ct.Cl. 123 (1948).

. 87 C.J.S. Treaties § 1.

. 420 U.S. 425, 95 S.Ot. 1082, 43 L.Ed.2d 300 ; 211 N.W.2d 843 (S.D.1973).

. Id.

. 74 Am.Jur.2d § 12 (Treaties).

. 420 U.S. 425, 95 S.Ct. 1082.