United States v. Parton

46 F. Supp. 843, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2404
CourtDistrict Court, W.D. North Carolina
DecidedSeptember 3, 1942
DocketNo. 366
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 46 F. Supp. 843 (United States v. Parton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. North Carolina primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Parton, 46 F. Supp. 843, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2404 (W.D.N.C. 1942).

Opinion

WEBB, District Judge.

This action was instituted by the United States to enjoin the defendants, Cherokee Indians, from trading on the lands occupied by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians in Swain County, without a license from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. The complaint alleges that the United States is the owner in fee of these Indian lands and that the defendants are Indians of less than full blood in possession of a tract of land within the boundary occupied by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; and that the defendants are’ engaged in trading on that tract of land in open violation of the laws of the United States. The Government contends that the defendants are not entitled to trade on the Indian lands because they are not licensed by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs. In their answer the defendants assert that they have regarded themselves as full blooded Cherokee Indians and that the laws of the United States governing Indian “reservations” do not apply to the Cherokee Indian Reservation in North Carolina, since “in contemplation of law the Cherokee Boundary is not a reservation”; and that the defendants are deprived of a license to trade because the Commissioner of Indian Affairs has arbitrarily refused and neglected to issue a Trader’s License.

[844]*844This matter came on to be heard on the Government’s motion for a preliminary injunction. After hearing both sides, the Court requested briefs, which have been filed and carefully studied and considered.

I have found as a fact that these defendants are both full blooded Indians. They now run a little business in a storeroom in which their father did a trader’s business for twenty-five or thirty years. This storeroom is now owned or claimed to be owned by the two defendants. They have leased this storeroom heretofore with the approval of the Superintendent of the Indian lands and with the approval of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, and from this rental they had derived considerable revenue, the last lease paying them $35.00 per month for the use of the said storeroom. This storeroom is located in the Cherokee village on a lot 100 feet x 200 feet. It is in this storeroom that the defendants are now carrying on a small trader’s business.

The history of these Indian lands in Swain and Cherokee Counties is an interesting one. I do not propose to go into a lengthy description of them, but I do think it proper to make a brief statement about them. I might preface this statement by saying that the United States Government does not own and never has owned a foot of these Indian lands. The title to all the acreage came direct from the State of North Carolina by grant or otherwise. The State of North Carolina owned this land before the Constitution was formed or even before the Declaration of Independence was made. These lands have often been called an Indian reservation, but they are not an Indian reservation because the Government has never owned any part of it to enable it to make a reservation. I think it is well understood that an Indian reservation is a part of the public domain set apart by proper authority for the use and occupation by a tribe or tribes of Indians. Forty-Three Cases Cognac Brandy, C.C., 14 F. 539.

When the Treaty of New Echota was signed by the Cherokee Indian Nation, which once occupied most of Western North Carolina, and the United States, the Cherokee Indians in this Treaty agreed to move their tribe and nation west of the Mississippi to occupy lands furnished them as a part of the public domain in the Indian country or territory. This movement of the Cherokee Nation took place in 1834 and 1835. Practically all the Cherokee Indians comprising the Nation did move West, according to the provision 'of the Treaty. However, there were some recalcitrant Indians who refused to go West, some four or five hundred or more. General Scott with part of the United States Army was sent into Western North Carolina to round up the remnants of this tribe of Indians and transport them to the Indian country in the West designated in the Treaty. But General Scott and his army could not catch all the rebellious or recalcitrant Indians, and finally the task was given up and the remaining Indians were left to wander about in the mountains of North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee, without homes or even places to lay their heads. After years of such wandering, a kind hearted man by the name of Colonel Thomas, who had been an Indian agent and had lived a good part of his life with Indians, conceived the idea of buying a large tract of land in Western North Carolina for the purpose of gathering up these wandering and homeless Indians and placing them on this land. This he did. The wandering Indians came in one by one, settled on this land so bought by Colonel Thomas, and from those wandering Indians have descended something like three thousand Indians who now occupy the tract of land consisting of something like sixty-seven thousand acres in the counties of Swain and Cherokee. However, before Colonel Thomas undertook his scheme of collecting the wandering Indians, the Legislature of North Carolina made a law providing that these wandering and recalcitrant Indians might remain in North Carolina so long as they made good citizens, etc.

The Supreme Court of the United States in the case of the Cherokee Trust Funds (Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. United States), 117 U.S. 288, 303, 6 S.Ct. 718, 724, 29 L.Ed. 880, after considering the fact that these recalcitrant Indians did not accompany their Nation or Tribe across the Mississippi, said, “They ceased to be part of the Cherokee nation, and henceforth they became citizens of and were subject to the laws of the state in which they resided.” And further, at page 309 of 117 U.S., at page 728 of 6 S.Ct., “They have never been recognized as a separate nation by the United States; no treaty has been made with them; they can pass no laws; they are citizens of that state, and bound by its laws. As well observed by the court of claims, in its exhaustive opinion, they have been in some matters fostered and encouraged by the United States, but never [845]*845recognized as a nation, in whole or in part.” It is further stated in this opinion that these recalcitrant Indians are not the successor of any organization organized by any treaty or law of the United States. From the foregoing statement, I clearly conclude that this Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is not a Tribe or a Nation.

Section 261, Title 25, U.S.C.A. upon which the complainant relies, reads in part: “The Commissioner of Indian Affairs shall have the sole power and authority to appoint traders to the Indian tribes.” In the gradual assumption of authority over this hand of Indians, the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, through his counsel in this Court, now contends that he has the power to appoint traders to this Indian band. Adhering to the plain letter of the law and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, I cannot approve such a position. In the light of the decisions, I would have to strain my construction of statutory law to hold that because the Congress has given the Commissioner of Indian Affairs the power to appoint traders to Indian Tribes, he also has the power to appoint traders to this little band of Indians, which is not a Nation or a Tribe, but a band of rebel Indians living on North Carolina land, which land was never owned, as said before, by the Federal Government.

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 F. Supp. 843, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2404, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-parton-ncwd-1942.