United States v. Brooks

51 U.S. 442, 13 L. Ed. 489, 10 How. 442, 1850 U.S. LEXIS 1475
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedJanuary 28, 1851
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 51 U.S. 442 (United States v. Brooks) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Brooks, 51 U.S. 442, 13 L. Ed. 489, 10 How. 442, 1850 U.S. LEXIS 1475 (1851).

Opinion

Mr. Justice WAYNE

delivered the opinion of the court.

This is another chapter in our dealings with Indians, and it illustrates our character and theirs in such transactions. The case will be better understood from its history, than by the discussion of points which it suggests. After the narrative*, our conclusion will be brief.

*446 The case is brought up, by writ of error, from the Circuit Court of the United States for the District of Louisiána.'

It was a petition filed by the United States in consequence of the passage of the following joint resolution of both houses of Congress, on the 30th of August, 1842: —

Resolved, &c,, That the District Attorney of the United States for the Western District of Louisiana be, and is hereby, directed to institute such legal proceedings in the proper court as may be necessary to vindicate the right of the United States to Rush Island, which is alleged to have been improperly, included in the limits of the lands ceded by the Caddo .Indians to the United States, by the treaty of the 1st July, 1835, and reserved by said treaty in favor of certain persons by the name of Grappe.” (5 Stat. at Large, 584).

The facts in the .case were these.

On the 28th of January, 1835, the President of the United States received the following letter from the Caddo Indians: —

“. To his Excellency the President of the United States.
“ The memorial of the undersigned, chiefs and head men of the Caddo nation of Indians, humbly represents : —
“ That they are now the same nation of people they were, and inhabit the same country and villages they did, when first invited to hold council with their new brothers, the Americans, thirty years (sixty Caddo years) ago ; and our traditions inform us that our villages have been established where they now stand ever since the first Caddo was created, before the Americans owned Louisiana. The French, and afterwards the Spaniards, always treated us as friends and brothers. No -white man ever settled on our lands, and we were assured they never should. We were told the same things by the Americans in our’ first council at Natchitoches, and that we could not sell our lands to any body but our great father the President. Our two last agents, Captain Grey and Colonel Brooks, have driven a great many bad white people off from our lands; but now our last-named agent tells us that he is no longer our agent, and that we no longer have a gunsmith or blacksmith, and says he does not know what will be done with us or for us.
“ This heavy news has put us- in great trouble. We have held a great council, and finally come to the sorrowful resolution of offering all our lands to you, Which lie within the boundary of the United States, for sale, at such price as we oan agree on in council one with the other. These lands are bounded on one side by the Red River, on another side by Bayou Pascagoula, Bayou and Lake. Wallace, and the Bayou Cypress; and on the other side by Texas.
*447 “ We have never consented to any reservation but one, to be taken out of these lands, and that was made a great many years- ago. The Caddo nation then gave to their greatest and best friend, called by them Touline, but known to all the white people by the name of Francois Grappe, and to his three sons then born, one league of land eaeh, which was to be laid off, commencing ait the lowest corner of our lands on the Red River, (as above described,) and running up the river four leagues, and one league from that line back, so as to make four leagues of land. We went with our friend and brother Touline (otherwise Grappe) before the Spanish authority, and saw it put down in writing, and gave our consent in writing, and the Spanish authority ratified our gift in writing. But, before the Americans came, our brother’s house .was burned, and the writings- we have mentioned were consumed in it. Touline (otherwise Grappe) was a half-blood Caddo ; his father was a Frenchman, and had done good things for his son when a boy. When he grew to be a man, he returned among us, and continued near to us till he died. He was always our greatest counsellor for good. He was our" French, Spanish, and American interpreter, for a great many years; our brother now is dead, but his sons live.
We, therefore, the chiefs and head men of the Caddo nation, pray that the United States will guarantee to the sons now living of our good brother, deceased, Touline (otherwise Grappe), the whole of our original gift, — four leagues to him and to them; and your memorialists further pray, that your Excellency will take speedy measures to treat with us,for the purchase of the residue of our lands, as above described, so that we may obtain some relief from our pressing necessities; and your memorialists, as in duty bound, will ever pray,” &c.

This letter was signed by twenty-four chiefs.

Upon the back of this memorial, the President made the following indorsement.

“ The President incloses to the Secretary of War the memorial of the Caddo chiefs, for his consideration, whether it will not be proper to appoint a commissioner, to obtain a complete cession of their lands to the United States. There will be about half a million of acres, it is supposed. Care must be taken in the instructions that no reservations shall be made in the treaty; and, if the request [for one of their friends] in the memorial be adopted a( all, it must be in a schedule, which may be confirmed or rejected by the Senate, without injury to the treaty.
January 28Ih, 1835.
*448 “ P. S. Will it not be well to ask an appropriation to coyer this expense ? A. J.”

On the 30th of May, 1835, Jehiel Brooks, the Indian agent, commenced a negotiation with the Caddo Indians for the •cession of their land, which continued until the 1st of July, when the following treaty was made, which was ratified by the Senate on the 26th of January, 1836, and proclaimed by the President on the 2d of February, 1836.

“ Andrew Jackson, President of the United States of America, to all and singular to whom these presents shall come, greeting:
“ Whereas a treaty was made at the agency-house in the Caddo nation and State of Louisiana, on the 1st day of July, 1835, between the United States, by their commissioner, Jehiel Brooks, and the chiefs, head men, and warriors of the Caddo nation of Indians; and whereas certain supplementary articles were added thereto, at the same time and place; which treaty, and articles supplementary thereto, are in the words following, to wit: —
" Articles of a Treaty made at the Agency-House.in the Caddo Nation and State of Louisiana, on the 1st day of July, in the year of our Lord 1835, between Jehiel Brooks, Commissioner on the part of the United States, and the Chiefs, Head Men, and Warriors of the Caddo Nation of Indians.
“ Article 1st.

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

Related

Chippewa Indians v. United States
80 Ct. Cl. 410 (Court of Claims, 1935)
United States v. Minnesota
270 U.S. 181 (Supreme Court, 1926)
Chase v. United States
222 F. 593 (Eighth Circuit, 1915)
Godfrey v. Iowa Land & Trust Co.
1908 OK 107 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma, 1908)
Conway v. United States
149 F. 261 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Nebraska, 1907)
Wallace v. Adams
143 F. 716 (Eighth Circuit, 1906)
Wolf v. Hitchcock
19 App. D.C. 315 (D.C. Circuit, 1902)
Jones v. Meehan
175 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1899)
Choctaw v. United States
34 Ct. Cl. 17 (Court of Claims, 1899)
New York Indians v. United States
170 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court, 1898)
Meehan v. Jones
70 F. 453 (U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Minnesota, 1895)
Leighton v. United States
29 Ct. Cl. 288 (Court of Claims, 1894)
United States v. Payne
8 F. 883 (W.D. Arkansas, 1881)
Lindon v. Beach
13 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 200 (New York Supreme Court, 1875)
Gaston v. Stott
5 Or. 48 (Oregon Supreme Court, 1873)
Bell v. Noah
24 How. Pr. 478 (New York Supreme Court, 1862)
Butterfield v. Macomber
22 How. Pr. 150 (New York Supreme Court, 1861)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
51 U.S. 442, 13 L. Ed. 489, 10 How. 442, 1850 U.S. LEXIS 1475, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-brooks-scotus-1851.