Blackfeather v. United States

28 Ct. Cl. 447, 1893 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 25, 1800 WL 1979
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJune 12, 1893
DocketNo. 16857
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 28 Ct. Cl. 447 (Blackfeather v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Blackfeather v. United States, 28 Ct. Cl. 447, 1893 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 25, 1800 WL 1979 (cc 1893).

Opinion

Davis, J.,

delivered tbe opinion of tbe court:

Tbe fourth section of tbe act of Congress, approved tbe 1st day of October, 1890, provided as follows :

“Tbat tbe said Shawnee Indians are hereby authorized and empowered to bring and begin a suit in law or equity against tbe United States Government in tbe Court of Claims to re[452]*452cover and collect from, tbe United States Government any amount of money that, in law or equity, is due from the United States to said tribes, in reimbursement of their tribal fund for money wrongfully diverted therefrom. The right of appeal, jurisdiction of the court, process, procedure, and proceedings in the suit here provided for, shall be as provided for in sections 1, 2, and 3 ctf this act.”

Upon the 6th day of July, 1892, an act “supplemehtary and amendatory” to the above act was approved by the President, which provided that the Shawnees “ shall present to the said court all their claims against the United States and the Cherokee Nation, or against either or both of them, of every description whatsoever, arising out of treaty relations with the United States, rights growing out of such treaty, and from contract expressed or implied, under such treaties, made and entered into by and between the said Shawnees and Cherokees, and between them, or either of them, and the United States.”

Pursuant to these acts the petition in this case was filed, and in accordance with their liberal provisions the trial has been conducted. Various items of claims have been presented, which will now be considered in their order.

In the year 1825, one branch of the Shawnee tribe resided in the State of Ohio, at Wapaghkonnetta and on Hog Creek; another branch resided near Cape Girardeau, Missouri. With the latter branch of the tribe a treaty was made by the United States in 1825 (7 Stat. L., 284), by which the Indians ceded to the United States their lands in Missouri, and in consideration the United States agreed to give to the “Shawnee tribe of Indians within the State of Missouri, for themselves and for those of the same nation now residing in Ohio, who may hereafter emigrate to the west of the Mississippi, a tract of land equal to 50 miles square situated west of the Missouri and within the purchase lately made from the Osages.” Further, as the tribe had improvements upon the ceded land and would be obliged to incur expenses in removal, it was stipulated that “for the purpose of rendering a fair equivalent for the losses and incoveniences which said tribe will sustain by removal, and to enable them to obtain supplies in their new settlements,” the United States should pay $14,000, of which $5,000 was to be furnished in domestic animals, implements of husbandry, and xirovisions.

It was further agreed in the same treaty that, as these In[453]*453dians bad various claims against tbe citizens of tbe United States for spoliation, wbicb they could not support by evidence of whites, $11,000 should be paid to tbe Shawnee Nation, to be distributed as they might deem equitable; it was further agreed that the United States should “ support and keep a blacksmith for their use on the lands .hereby assigned for the term of five years, or as long as the President may deem it advisable,” and that the United States should furnish the Shawnees the necessary blacksmith’s tools and 300 pounds of iron annually.

It appears that the Shawnees received payments under this treaty and that the Shawnees’ balance (upon these accounts) amounts to $1,152.78; with this sum the tribe will be credited. As there is no provision in the treaty for payment of interest on the moneys thus pledged to be paid, plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits of the act of April 1,1880 (21 Stat. L., 70), and interest can not be allowed by us.

Defendants endeavor to set off against this item of claim certain very considerable disbursements made by them for blacksmith’s pay. It appears that a blacksmith was supported by the United States for many more than five years, but the cost is not a proper charge against the Shawnees (under the treaty of 1825 or that of 1831), for discretion in this matter was entirely in the President. The treaty provided that the United States should support and keep a blacksmith for the term of five years, or as long as the President may deem it advisable.” This charge was to be entirely borne by defendants; the President had full discretion as to the duration of the employment, and his action bound the United States. A similar provision is contained in the treaty of 1831. No ’charge can be made against the Shawnees on this account.

The treaty of August, 1831 (7 Stat. L., 354), removed the Ohio Shawnees west'of the Mississippi and merged the two bands. By the first article of this treaty the Ohio Shawnees ceded to the United States their lands at Wapaghkonnetta and on Hog Oreek; in consideration of this cession the United States (article 2) agreed, first, to cause the band of Shawnees to be removed, in a convenient and suitable manner, to the western side of the Mississippi Eiver; second, to grant them by patent in fee simple a tract of land to contain 100,000 acres, to be located, under the direction of the President of the United [454]*454States, within the tract granted in 1825 to tbe Missouri Shawnees. It was further agreed in the same article that if there should not be sufficient “good land unoccupied by the Shawnee Indians who have already settled on the tract granted as aforesaid, * * * then the tract of 100,000 acres * * * shall be located * * * on lands contiguous to the said Shawnees of Missouri or on any other unappropriated lands” within a designated district. The United States (article 3) was further to defray the expense of removing the band, and there is no claim of failure in this regard. By article 4 the United States pledged themselves to build a sawmill and gristmill for the Shawnees upon the new land, to cause a blacksmith shop (to contain all the necessary tools) to be built for the Shawnees at their intended residence, and to employ a blacksmith “as long as the President thereof may deem proper.” The cost of these improvements was to be paid “out of the first sales to be made of the lands” ceded by the Shawnees to the United States.

The next article (5) provides :

“Article 5. In lieu of the improvements which have been made on the lands herein ceded, it is agreed that the United States shall advance to the said Shawnees (for the purpose of enabling them to erect houses and open farms at their intended residence) the sum of $13,000, to be reimbursed from the sales of the lands herein ceded by them to the United States. A fair and equitable distribution of this sum shall be made by the chiefs of the said Shawnees, with the consent of the people in general council assembled, to such individuals of their tribe who have made improvements on the lands herein ceded and may be properly entitled to the same.”

As to this, it is contended for the plaintiff that the transaction agreed upon resulted in no advantage to the Shawnees, because if the $13,000 be understood to be an advance merely, to be afterward reimbursed from the sale of the Ohio land, the United States would receive the improvements and also ultimately the $13,000 at which they were valued. It is not alleged that the $13,000 has not been paid.

Article 7 of the same treaty provides as follows:

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Peoria Tribe of Indians v. United States
390 U.S. 468 (Supreme Court, 1968)
Alcea Band of Tillamooks v. United States
87 F. Supp. 938 (Court of Claims, 1950)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Ct. Cl. 447, 1893 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 25, 1800 WL 1979, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/blackfeather-v-united-states-cc-1893.