Rogue River Tribe of Indians v. United States

89 F. Supp. 798, 116 Ct. Cl. 454, 1950 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 96
CourtUnited States Court of Claims
DecidedApril 3, 1950
DocketNo. 45231
StatusPublished
Cited by12 cases

This text of 89 F. Supp. 798 (Rogue River Tribe of Indians 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
Rogue River Tribe of Indians v. United States, 89 F. Supp. 798, 116 Ct. Cl. 454, 1950 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 96 (cc 1950).

Opinion

[474]*474OPINION

Jones, Chief Judge,

delivered the opinion of the court:

This suit was originally brought by plaintiffs under the Act of August 26,1935 (49 Stat. 801), which gave this court jurisdiction to “hear, examine, adjudicate, and render final judgment (a) in any and all legal and equitable claims, arising under or growing out of any treaty, agreement, Act of Congress, or Executive order, or for the failure of the United States to pay any money or other property due, which those Indian tribes or bands, or portions thereof, and their descendants, described in the ratified treaties of September 10, 1853 (10 Stat. 1018), September 19,1853 (10 Stat. 1027), November 18,1854 (10 Stat. 1122), November 25 [sic], 1854 (10 Stat. 1125), January 22, 1855 (10 Stat. 1143), and December 21, 1855 (12 Stat, 981), may have against the United States.” In a decision dated February 4, 1946 (105 C. Cls. 495), we [475]*475held that the Confederated Bands of Umpquas and Calapooia Indians of the Umpqua Valley were entitled to recover the value of the land reserved by them under the Treaty of November 29, 1854, and actually occupied by them at the time of their removal from the reservation, and that these Indians and certain others were entitled to recover the respective amounts set forth in that decision, to the extent that they exceed any allowable offsets to which defendant might show itself entitled under Rule 39 (a).

A further hearing has been held and the case is now before us to determine the extent of the lands actually occupied by the Confederated Bands of Umpquas and Calapooia Indians of the Umpqua Valley and the amount of compensation to which they are entitled, measured by the value of the lands taken on December 21, 1855, plus an additional amount measured by a reasonable rate of interest to make just compensation. From this and from the respective awards made in the earlier decision, must be offset amounts expended by the Government as gratuities on behalf of the various claimants, and the amount of each tribe’s proportionate share of the $6,000 awarded to the Indians on the Siletz Reservation.

Plaintiffs Umpquas and Calapooia Indians of the Umpqua Valley contend that the entire reservation described in their treaty of November 29,1854, was actually occupied by them until December 21, 1855, no other Indians sharing in that occupancy; that the value of the land in the reservation as of December 21,1855, was between four and five dollars per acre; that five percent is a reasonable rate of interest to be added as part of just compensation, and that any setoffs should be against the final award.

The defendant contends that the record contains no proof of the exact location or size of the reservation; that plaintiffs have failed to show actual occupancy of any part of the area claimed; that the value of the land claimed was less than ten cents per acre on the date of taking; that setoffs for gratuitous expenditures on the part of the Government should be proportioned annually according to the amount spent in each year since 1855 before calculating the additional amount, measured by interest, for that year, in order to make just [476]*476compensation; and that a fair rate of interest to make just compensation is four percent.

As to the question of the size and location of the reservation, we are of the opinion that the description (finding 1) contained in the first article of the Treaty of November 29, 1854 (10 Stat. 1125), the map prepared from that description by the Department of the Interior, and the Department’s estimate of the approximate area involved, indicate that the reservation contained approximately 67,820 acres of land in the Umpqua Valley in Douglas County, Oregon, and we have so found (finding No. 3).

On the question of occupancy, we have found (finding No. 2) that the Umpquas and Calapooias were, within the meaning of their treaty, in actual occupancy of all the land reserved to them in the first article of their treaty. At the time the treaty was signed, they were in actual occupancy and possession of all the land described in the treaty, including the tract reserved. In allowing plaintiffs to reserve so large a tract, the Government undoubtedly contemplated the possibility of designating other tribes of Indians to reside on the reservation, and it reserved its right to do so. There is no proof that the Government ever exercised this right. Late in 1855 when the Rogue River War broke out, a few members of the Molel Tribe and of the Cow Creek and Looking Glass Bands were moved on to the reservation as a measure of protection against the hostility of the white settlers and just prior to the removal of those Indians to the Grand Ronde Reservation, but they were not designated by treaty or other official act to reside on the reservation retained by the Umpquas and Calapooias. It is true that the Umpquas and Calapooias did not, on November 29, 1854, immediately assemble on the tract reserved in their cession treaty of that date. At that time the confederated bands consisting of some 337 Indians were scattered from Scottsburg to the Cascade Mountains. Between November 29, 1854, and November 15, 1855, the majority of these Indians moved on to the reservation and remained there until the removal. A small number of these Indians farmed tracts of land on the reservation and erected some improvements [477]*477on their small farms. The others were scattered over the reservation in small groups of one or more families who lived in native lodges arid subsisted off fruit, fish and wild game. A few worked for the white settlers living near the reservation. Except for those engaged in farming, their occupancy was the sort of general possession common to the habits and mode of life of Indians who live principally by hunting and fishing. We find nothing in the record or in the treaty to indicate that the term “actual occupancy” meant anything other than the usual mode of occupancy of Indians at that time. The fact that no portion of the reservation was surveyed into lots or allotted to any individual members or families pursuant to the fifth article of the treaty is not surprising in view of the fact that no other Indians were designated to reside on the reservation. If other Indians had been so designated, it would have been necessary to designate particular tracts on the reservation for the occupancy of the Umpquas and Calapooias. By the act of March 3, 1855 (10 Stat. 674) Congress appropriated $23,980 for fulfilling the articles of the treaty with these Indians by way of erection of improvements on the reservation. The commencement of the Rogue River War convinced General Palmer that these Indians would have to be moved and few, if any, of the improvements were made. Almost immediately after the signing of the Treaty of December 21, 1855 (12 Stat. 981) ratified in 1859, by which the Molel Band was confederated with the Umpquas and the Calapooias, all the Indians assembled on the reservation, and the Umpquas and Calapooias were moved to the Grand Ronde reservation. Thus, even if the Moléis can be said to have been designated to share the reservation, they never actually occupied any portion of the land.

There remains the problem of determining the value on December 21,1855, of the 67,820 acres of land in the reservation belonging to the Umpquas and the Calapooias (hereinafter referred to as plaintiffs). The testimony introduced by the parties and the exhibits offered in evidence, in general followed the same lines as in the case of Alcea Band of TillamooKs et al. v. United States, 115 C. Cls.

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

Related

Coast Indian Community v. United States
550 F.2d 639 (Court of Claims, 1977)
Tlingit & Haida Indians v. United States
389 F.2d 778 (Court of Claims, 1968)
Miami Tribe of Oklahoma v. United States
175 F. Supp. 926 (Court of Claims, 1959)
United States v. Kiowa, Comanche & Apache Tribes of Indians
163 F. Supp. 603 (Court of Claims, 1958)
Uintah & White River Bands of Ute Indians v. United States
152 F. Supp. 953 (Court of Claims, 1957)
Otoe and Missouria Tribe of Indians v. United States
131 F. Supp. 265 (Court of Claims, 1955)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
89 F. Supp. 798, 116 Ct. Cl. 454, 1950 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 96, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rogue-river-tribe-of-indians-v-united-states-cc-1950.