Buchanan v. United States

28 Ct. Cl. 127, 1893 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105, 1800 WL 1900
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedJanuary 31, 1893
DocketIndian Depredations 69
StatusPublished

This text of 28 Ct. Cl. 127 (Buchanan 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
Buchanan v. United States, 28 Ct. Cl. 127, 1893 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105, 1800 WL 1900 (cc 1893).

Opinion

Richahdson, Ch. J.,

delivered the opinion of the court:

The following stipulation has been submitted by the parties and the court is asked to give judgment thereon for claimant, which defendants resist:

“[In the Court of Claims of the United States. Isaiah Buchanan v. The United States and the Apache tribe; band, or nation of Indians. Indian depredation, No. 69.]
“STIPULATION OP PACTS IN ALLOWED CLAIMS.
“It is hereby stipulated and agreed on the part of the claimant in the above-entitled cause, by W. W. Upton, attorney of record, and on the part of the G-overnment by L. W. Colby, [128]*128Assistant Attorney-General in charge of Indian depredation cases, that the following- facts are shown by the original 2>apers, evidence, records, and reports from governmental departments on file in the office of the clerk of said court.
“I. Isaiah Buchanan, the original claimant, was, at the time of the commission of the depreciations complained of, a citizen of the United States.
“II. That on-day of December,1869, at or near Arizona, near Prescott, certain Indians belonging to the said Apache tribe, band, or nation, took or destroyed property belonging to the said original claimant without just cause or provocation on the part of the owner or agent in charge, and that the same has not been returned or paid for, and was, at said time and place of the value of $2,000.
“III. That the said Apache tribe, band, or nation of Indians were, at the time of the commission oi said depredations, in amity and treaty relations with the United States.
“IV. That on the 27th day of March, 1874-, a claim for said property so taken or destroyed was examined, approved, and allowed by the Secretary of the Interior, or under his direction, in the sum of $2,000 in favor of said Isaiah Buchanan, and thereafter reported with such allowance to Congress by Executive Document No. 125 of the first session of the Forty-ninth Congress of the United States, as claim No. 1264.
“V. That said claim, on March 11,1886, was reported to Congress by the Secretary of the Interior as allowed, and no subsequent action in regard thereto was had by the Secretary of the Interior.
“VI. That neither the said claimant nor the United States elects to reopen said ease and try the same before the court; but the claimant is willing to accept said allowance in full satisfaction and settlement of said claim, and asks to have judgment rendered therefor by said court under the act of Congress approved March 3, 3891, entitled ‘An act to provide for the adjudication and payment of claims arising from Indian depredations.’
“W. W. Upton,
“Attorney for Claimant.
“L. W. Colby,
“Assistant Attorney-General.”

The only question of law is whether or not the claim examined, approved, and allowed by the Secretary of the Interior before the act of March 3, 1885, and reported to Congress March 11, 1886, as previously allowed, without approval subsequent to the former act, is one of those claims included in the following provisions of the act of March 3,1891, chapter 538, section 4 (1 Sup. to B. S., 2d ed., 915):

[129]*129"Provided, That al] unpaid claims which have heretofore been examined, approved, and allowed by the Secretary of the Interior, or under his direction, in pursuance of the act of Congress making appropriations for the current and contingent expenses of the Indian Department, and for fulfilling treaty stipulations with various Indian tribes, for the year ending June thirtieth, eighteen hundred and eighty-six, and for other purposes, approved March third, eighteen hundred and eighty-five, and subsequent Indian appropriation acts, shall have priority of consideration by such court.
“And judgments for the amounts therein found due shall be rendered, unless either the claimant or the United States shall elect to re-open the case and try the same before the court, in which event the testimony in the case given by the witnesses and the documentary evidence, including reports of Department agents therein, may be read as depositions and proofs:
“Provided, That the party electing to re-open the case shall assume the burden of proof.”

The act of 1885 provides as follows:

“Indian depredation claims: For the investigation of certain Indian depredation claims, ten thousand dollars;
“And in expending said sum the Secretary of the Interior shall cause a complete list of all claims heretofore filed in the Interior Department and which have been approved in whole or in part and now remain unpaid, and also all such claims as are pending but not yet examined, on behalf of citizens of the United States on account of depredations committed, chargeable against any tribe of Indians by reason of any treaty between such tribe and the United States, including the name and address of the claimants, the date of the alleged depredations, by wliafc tribe committed, the date of examination and approval, with a reference to the date and clause of the treaty creating the obligation for payment, to be made and presented to Congress at its next regular session.
“Ancl the Secretary is authorized and empowered, before making such report, to cause such additional investigation to be made and such further testimony to be taken as he may deem necessary to enable him to determine the kind and value of all property damaged or destroyed by reason of the depredations aforesaid, and by what tribe such depredations were committed; and his report shall include his determination upon each claim, together with the names and residences of witnesses and the testimony of each, and also what funds are now existing or to be derived by reason of treaty or other obligation out of which the same should be paid.” (1 Sup. to R. S., 2d ed., p. 913, note 3 to Sec. 1, and 23 Stat. L., 376.)

[130]*130Marcb 11,1886, the Secretary of the Interior made this report, as follows:

“ DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR,
“ Washington, March 11,1886.
“Sir: I have the honor to transmit herewith a report of the 10th instant from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, inclosing two lists of Indian depredation claims, Schedule A being a list of claims of citizens of the United States, and Schedule B being a list of claims in fayor of Indians. An index to each list is appended thereto.
“ ‘ The Commissioner submits this report as a compliance, as far as practicable, with the requirements of the first portion of the clause on the subject contained in the Indian appropriation act approved March 3,1885 (23 Stat., 376), which is as follows:

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
28 Ct. Cl. 127, 1893 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 105, 1800 WL 1900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/buchanan-v-united-states-cc-1893.