Court Opinion

ID: 8594689
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 16:01:45.155989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:54:50.109370
License: Public Domain

Skelton, Judge,
concurring in part and dissenting in part:
*556■I agree with that part of the court’s opinion that affirms the decision of the ICC with reference to the Treaties of June 1, 1798, and June 4, 1802, because representatives of the government were present at the signing of those treaties and the government is deemed to have knowledge of them.
I reluctantly agree to the remand of the remainder of the case to the ICC to determine whether or not the government had any actual knowledge of the remaining 23 treaties at or about the time they were signed, as this was not developed at the trial. The burden was on the plaintiffs to offer proof of this kind and they failed to do so. It is doubtful if they should be given a second chance to introduce evidence of this kind which necessarily will be of ancient vintage if it exists at all. However, I do not agree with that part of footnote 16 that implies that the government “should have known” of the treaties by the possible existence of any of the slight circumstances mentioned in the footnote. I refer particularly to the fact that the government assisted in moving (“removing” as the footnote expresses it) some of the Indians from New York to Wisconsin. This could have been an act of kindness on the part of the government. The Indians could have had many perfectly valid reasons for wanting to go to Wisconsin that were hi no way connected with a sale of their land. I do not think that the ¡ICC should be led to believe that this court is of the opinion that the mere assistance of the government in helping the Indians move is sufficient to charge the government with knowledge of the treaties.
Furthermore, in my opinion, a finding that the government “should have known” of the treaties, is not enough to impose liability on the government in the absence of “actual knowledge” on its part. This would actually be a conclusion of law. Knowledge is based on findings of fact, which should be left to the ICC as the fact finding body. I do not think we should tell the Commission what facts to find.
Bennett, Judge, joins in the foregoing opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.