Court Opinion

ID: 9611144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 03:52:45.121341+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:56:09.118701
License: Public Domain

JONES, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I think there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Indian Claims Commission that the lands involved in this case had a fair market value on October 6, 1818, of 75 cents per acre. This value is amply supported by the record made before the Commission. The summation made by the Commission in its concluding findings with respect to value, while not in great detail is fully sufficient to support that determination.
The witness Paul Starrett is the one witness who had made a thorough study of this entire subject of values as shown by the records in this particular area and other areas in which he had served. He has spent many years in appraisal and sale of lands, and since 1934 has had his business headquarters in Indianapolis, Indiana. Before that he had done a great deal of work in connection with appraisals for large business projects and had made appraisals of properties for many corporations in the Middle West. He has had his business headquarters in Indianapolis continuously since the beginning of 1935. He has done appraisal work for the American Can Company, Chrysler Corporation, Shell Oil, and other large concerns. He is a member of the American Institute of Real Estate Appraisers, and at the time his testimony was taken he was president of the Indiana chapter of that organization. He was a witness for the cross-appellant, who is also appellee. He made a search of the records and made an appraisal of the fair market value of the subject project as of October 1818.
Mr. Starrett made a thorough examination of the records which is the only way values as they existed 140 years ago may be determined. He examined The Handbook of Indiana Geology published by the Department of Conservation. One of the authors of that publication had published a book on the economic geography of Indiana. This book was published by Appleton Company in 1823, and was prepared by Steven A. Visher, who was a professor of geography for Indiana University.
The records which he examined showed that Congress was disturbed by the fact that large tracts in the undeveloped sections of the country had been sold for a few cents per acre. Some speculative concerns had purchased and resold western lands for huge profits. -
A large part of the Northwest Territory was beginning to be developed. Indiana was admitted to the Union as a State in 1816; Illinois in 1818; Ohio in 1803, and Michigan in 1837. In the controversy as to the best method of disposing of these vast properties and manifestly for the purpose of avoiding speculation, Congress fixed a minimum price of $2 per acre, which was later reduced to $1.25. In many parts of the northwest area the price for sales in small tracts was approximately double the price that could be obtained when larger tracts were sold. Sales in small tracts would have to be surveyed, records kept, and many details given attention.
Mr. Starrett, after a thorough analysis of the records, found that a considerable portion of the tract in question had to be drained, and while at the present time it is one of the most productive parts of the country, at that time much of it was not then suitable for immediate settlement. There was little means of transportation, few supply stations and much of the area was inaccessible. In fact, he quotes from the 14th Census of the United States made in 1820 and cites from that census report analytical tables *958which designate “Approximate Location and Area of Operating Drainage Enterprises, State of Indiana.” The report had much other data as to conditions in the different parts of the Nation.
As early as 1790, Alexander Hamilton had told of the conflict of pressure interests between the desire to secure public revenue and the problem of providing homes for settlers in the then undeveloped areas of the new country. As early as 1795 the problem of the speculator was sought to be eliminated when the price of public lands in various undeveloped areas was raised to $2 per acre. These conflicts of pressure interests as between the maximum revenue and interest of the settlers were as of 1818 still undetermined. While a number of tracts were sold at $2 or more, the sales were less in 1818 than they had been in 1817, and during the next few years considerable difficulty was had in collections and there were numerous forfeitures. Many of the sales at the higher prices were of selected tracts.
After considering the numerous records, the maps, the books, the histories and the census reports, Mr. Starrett found that the value of the 7,000,000 acres taken as a whole was as of October 6, 1818, 20 cents per acre.
Since we are permitted to reverse a finding of the Commission on the question of value only if it is not supported by substantial evidence, it seems to me that in the light of the testimony of the only witness who was an experienced appraiser and who had thoroughly examined the record, we have no escape from the conclusion that the Commission’s finding of value was supported by substantial evidence.
Apparently the majority opinion does not question the fact that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding of value. Rather it takes the position that the Commission did not make a proper finding on this issue. Again I disagree. Findings 44 and 46 constitute a clear finding on this subject. Evidentiary findings support these ultimate findings. The Commission had the evidence of the various witnesses before it and decided in finding 46 the value per acre as of the date of transfer and cession.
The experienced witness offered by appellant fixed the value as of that date as $1.87 per acre. In comparing the conflicting evidence of value offered by the parties, the Indian Claims Commission concluded that the land involved in the case had a fair market value on October 6, 1818, of $0.75 per acre. There was certainly substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding of value.
Since the case is to be returned to the Commission, as the majority opinion directs, I think the entire case should be gone into again, including the question of title 9 as well as of value. The entire case should be reopened so that the nature of the appellant’s beneficial interest in, as well as the extent of the use of all the land in question could be explored by the Commission in any reexamination of the value of the land.
There were only 1,000 of the Miami Tribe of Indians in scattered groups in this area in 1818. There are 4,291,500 acres of land involved. There is no showing as to how often the Indians used the vast stretches of this great area. They only occupied a very small portion of it.
The later cases both of the Supreme Court and this court are to the effect that only where there is a grant by treaty or act of Congress a definite or definable tract or tracts for exclusive use may there be what is termed “Recognized Indian title” without proof of use and occupancy. I have been unable to find within the four corners of the Treaty *959of 1818 anything that approaches such a description, either by express language or by reference to any other treaty or act that would meet that test. Such vague terms as lands “watered by the Wabash” or “by the White River” are wholly insufficient.
The maze of earlier treaties that refer also to other tribes furnish little information as to definite boundaries of tracts granted to the Miami Tribe of Indians or as to areas given them for exclusive use; and no information whatever as to the extent of actual use or occupancy by such tribes.
In the absence of such definite boundaries and exclusive use, proof must be made of use and occupancy.
This court should not find “Recognized Indian title” where the tract is not a defined or definable area that is set apart by a treaty or act of Congress for the exclusive use or occupancy of the claimant tribe or tribes. There is no sufficient proof of “Recognized Indian title” and there is no evidence in the record of actual and exclusive use and occupancy by claimants of the area and little, if any, proof as to the amount and frequency of the use of great portions of the area in question.
The Indian Claims Commission heard extensive evidence, examined numerous documents, and examined many exhibits, some of which were conflicting. I think it would be tragic to affirm the major and most disputed issue in the case, that is the question of recognized title to this vast area, when there is little evidence of the use of the area or any substantial part thereof and at the same time reverse the action on the question of value upon which latter question there was certainly substantial evidence.
As the case is to be returned to the Indian Claims Commission I trust that the Commission will go fully into both of these issues so that a complete record may be made before final action is taken on these important questions.
I have not the slightest doubt that the Indians are entitled to recover on the basis of the actual value of their right to occupy and use of part of the 4,291,500' acres in question, which they actually used and occupied. The extent of that use should have a bearing on the value of the beneficial interest of the Indians, in the area in question.
WHITAKER, Judge, joins in the foregoing dissenting opinion.

. This is especially true in the light of the Indian Claims Commission’s subsequent decision in a later case of the Miami Tribe of Indians v. United States (No. 253), 5 Ind.Cls.Comm. 180 (1957), in which a construction of the same treaties was involved.