v.LONE WOLF HITCHCOCK. 553

Syllabus.

of the of theConstitution Unitedvoid provisionsjudgments,which would have been available if or otherwiseStates pleaded

in courts as a in thethe state defence proceedingspresentedin action to defeat the of a validthe original recovery judgment,

has not of and thewhen the been availedcannot, opportunityhas become a be resorted to asjudgment establishingfinality,

inthat fact the no force orjudgment efficacypossessed bindingwhatever.

Judgment affirmed.

WOLFLONE v. HITCHCOCK.

APPEAL PROM THE COURT OP OPAPPEALS THE DISTRICT OP

COLUMBIA.

Argued October 23,No. 1902. Decided275. January 5, 1903.

provisions Lodgein article 12 of the Medicine treatyThe of 1867 with theKiowa and Comanche Indians to the effect that treatyno for the cession

any part described,thereinof of the reservation maywhich be held incommon, any validity againstof force orshall be as the Indians unless

bysignedand at least three fourths .of all the adult maleexecuted Indianssame,occupying adjudgedthe materiallycannot be to qualifylimit and

authoritycontrolling Congress respectthe of in protec-to the care anddeprive Congress,tion of the Indians and to possiblein a emergency,

necessity might urgent partitionthewhen be for a disposaland of thepowerlands,tribal of all to act if the assent of three of allfourths the

Congressmale Indians could not be obtained. alwayshas exercisedplenary authority over the tribal relations of powerthe Indians and the

always politicalhas subjectbeen deemed a one not byto be controlledthe courts.

legislative power possessedofIn view the by Congress over treaties withIndians,the property,and Indian subsequenttribal even if a agreement

treaty purporting signed byor to be three fourths of all the male Indianssignedwas not and subsequentamendments treatyto such were not sub-

Indians,mitted to as allthe these solelymatters were within the domainlegislative authority,the the Congressaction of is uponOf conclusive the

courts.6,1900, dispositionact ofAs the June as to the of these lands was enacted at a

thetime when tribal relations between the confederated tribes of the Kio-was, existed,Apachesand stillComanches and that statute and the statutes

TERM,OCTOBER554 1902.

. ofStatement the Case.

thereto,supplementary dispositiondealt with propertythe of tribal andadequatepurported give surplusto an forconsideration the lands not

among or benefit,allotted the Indians reserved legisla-for their suchpresumeandconstitutional this Congresstion was court will that acted

andperfect good judgmentfaith exercisedin its best in the premises, andpower matter,possessed fullCongress in the judiciaryas the cannot

inquirequestion promptedor into the motives which the enactment oflegislation.such

a concludedIk 1867 with the Kiowa and Co-treaty .wasandmanche tribes of suchIndians, other tribes asfriendly might

them,united with a reservation for thesetting apart use ofbe.asuch Indians. the tribe ofBy separate treaty Apache Indians

thewas twoformer-nanjepl, and becameincorporated'with en-intitled to share the benefits of the reservation. 15 581,Stat.

589.The namedfirst is thecalledtreaty Medicineusually Lodge

sixth.articlethe thereof it wastreaty. By that headsprovidedof afamilies select tract of land thewithinmight reservation,

innot acres extent,320 should thereafterexceeding ceasewhichandcommon,to be held in should for the exclusivebe posses-

sion.of the Indian the soselection, as he or hismaking longcontinue to cultivate the land. The arti-family might twelfth

cle of the was as follows:treaty“ for ofArticle 12. No the cessiontreaty orany portion part

of hereinthe reservation which be indescribed, com-may heldshall be of ormon, force as the saidvalidityany against Indians,

unless executed and at least three offourths all thesigned byadult'male andIndians the nosame, cession theoccupying bytribe be or suchshall understood construed in manner as to de-

without his consent, individual member ofprive, the tribeanyof his tract ofto land selected him asrights any by providedin article III of' this(YI) treaty.”

The three tribes settled under the treaties the describeduponOn 6,land. October 4561892, male adult members of the

confederated tribes with three commissionerssigned, represent­the anStates,United theing reservation.agreement concerning

inIndian aThe certificate to theagent, appended agreement,that there were then 562 male adults inrepresented the three

Doc.tribes. Senate Ex. No. 52d27, secondCongress, session,

v. HITCHCOCK.LONE WOLE 555

of the Case.Statement

hundred and male adults thereforeFour17. fifty-sixpageofthree fourths the certified number ofmore thanconstituted

In formin the three tribes. thetotal male adults agreementthe terms of inwhich, substance,awas treaty, pro­proposed

the of the of theto United Statesvided for a surrender rightsfor allotments out of to thesuch-landsreservation,tribes in the

the fee title tó-be to theIndians in severalty, simple conveyedafter the ofallottees or their heirs expiration twenty-five years;

for the theor benefit of tribesand the setting apartpaymentdollars the consideration for theof two million as ofsurplus

whichland over and above the allotments be made tomightIt that named friends of•the Indians. was theprovided sundry

suchIndians the and anIndianpersons agent(among beingu to theeach be entitled all inbenefits,shouldarmy officer)

conferred this the ifland under same asonly, agreement,of said tribes.” acres of moun­350,000members Eliminating

tainous the of suitable forland, lands,quantity surplus farmingand was at 2,150,000estimated acres. Con­grazing purposes

tothe be made for these thelands,cerning payment surplusin their to the Presidentcommission, thereport announcingof the Ex.termination said Doc. No.negotiations, (Senate 17,

52dsecond session, Congress):“ itIn this conneetion is to add that the commissionproper

the Indians to the inwith theirincorporateagreed followingis now done:whichreport,

“ The Indians this reservation seem. to believeupon (butwhether-from an exercise of their own or from thejudgment

of theadvice others commission cannot that theirdetermine)land is worth two and one halfsurplus dollars,million and

• be induced to them that muchmay for it. Thére-Congress givein with theirfore, we that de-compliance request, report theyto be heard ansire and a tothrough attorney delegation

that theupon question, how-Washington agreement signed,to be effective no matterever, ratification, whatupon Congress

fordo their the extra halfwith millionappeal dollars.”mayIn the to the of the In-transmitting agreement Secretary

ofthe Commissioner Indian Affairsterior, said:“ while inThe ofexGess thatprice paid, considerably paid

TERM, 1902.OCTOBER556

Statement of the Case.

to and to bethe seems fair and reason-Cheyennes Arapahoes,Indians,able, and the landboth to the thegovernment being

indoubtless of better than that the andCheyennequalityreservation.”Arapahoe

Attention directed to in inwas the theprovision agreementoffavor- Indian and an and it wasthe agent officer,army sug-that to them to avail establish athereof wouldgested permit'

bad precedent.itSoon after the of the wassigning foregoing agreement

the Indians that theirclaimed assent had been obtainedby byof itsfraudulent terms themisrepresentations by interpreters,

thatit was asserted the not be held bind-shouldagreementand.the tribes because three the adult malefourths ofing uponhad not assented themembers as wasthereto,, byrequired

twelfth article of the Medicine treaty.Lodgein of the embodied in sec­•Obviously, consequence policy

of the Revised Statutes,tion 2079 from the formerdepartingwith affairscustom of andIndiandealing by treaty providing

action on suchfor various bills were intro­legislative subjects,ofin both Housesduced to effectCongress designed give legal

made into the the Indians 1892. These billsbyagreementto the andwere referred before such com­committees,proper

the Indians- their to themittees presented objections proprietyof effect to the R. Doc. Ho. 55th431,(H.giving agreement.

onIn 1898 the Committee Indiansecond session.)Congress,of House of unanimouslyAffairs the reportedRepresentatives

made with the In­for execution of thea-bill the agreementthat aof the committee recited favorableThedians. report

“after thereached the committeehad beenconclusion bythe Indian tribes and allfrom offullest hearings delegations

R. Doc. first 56th419, session,at interest.” Ho.(H.partiesp. 5.)Congress,

- to thebill thus did not conformThe reported exactly agree-■ theas the -It modifiedment agreementsigned by Indians-.

ittime for the and alsoallotments,the makingby changingof lands afterthat the the surplus remainingprovided proceeds

toto the Indians should be held await the judicialallotmentsthe Choctaw andof a asserted Chickasawdecision byclaim

v.WOLF HITCHCOCK.LONE 557

the Case.ofStatement

was basedto lands. This claimof Indians thetribes surplusthein which the two tribes cededmade 1866,a bytreatyupon

werecontended that the landsin it beingreservation question,thatof andin favor the tribes,with a trust cedingimpressed

it wasso much of asabandoned,wasthe reservationwheneverComanche,Indians of theto the confederatednot allottedand Ohick-to the Choctawstribes revertedandKiowa Apache

■asaws.ofthe Housebill referred to RepresentativesThe just passed

the billRec. "When16, 1898. (31st p. 4947.)on Cong.Maya1899,on 25, adoptedthat Januaryreached the Senate body,

for infor­Interiorof thethe Secretaryresolution calling uponto theattached agreementto whether themation as signatures

Inthe tribes.male ofthree fourths of the adultscomprisedSenate,thethe of the Interior informedSecretaryresponse

the thethat records of1899, depart­under date of 28,January“ thefor yearof thesefailed to show a census Indiansment

to theminthat “from a roll used a1892,” but making paymentitin and 1893, thatappeared there wereJanuary February,

ofmales over of whom 639age,725 wereeighteen years twenty-­and over.”one The further calledSecretary, attentionyears

offact that 1892 ato the the of selectionby agreement rightof theconferred memberwas each tribesupon over eighteen

of and observed:age,years“ 18 andIf over be toheld be theyears of thoselegal age

authorizedwere to thewho number ofagreement, thesign per-whosons was less thanactually signed 87 fourths of thethreemaleadult of the and heldtribes; 21 bemembership if years

to be the minimum then 23 less thanage, three fourths signed, Inthe either less thanevent, of theagreement. three fourthsmale adults to haveappear signed.”so.

With, this itinformation before the bill re-. was favorablythe Committee on Indianby of the butported Senate,Affairs

did not thatpass body.At the first session of the following (the Fifty-Congress

bills were' introduced in both ofthe Senate and Housesixth)like that which been no-hasRepresentatives substantially just

ticed. H. R.1352;(Senate, 905.)

TERM,-558 1902.OCTOBER

Statement of the Case.

In the meanwhile, about October, 1899, the had,Indians ata council at whichgeneral 571 male adults of the tribes pur­

to beported’ present, the execution ofprotested theagainstof the ofprovisions andagreement 1892, a memorialadopted

to that thatCongress, notpraying should effect tobody givethe agreement. This memorial was forwarded to the Secretaryof the Interior theby Commissioner of Indian Affairs with

outlengthy comments, the fact that the Indians claimedpointingthat their to thesignatures had beenagreement procured byfraud and that the number of Indians hadlegal not thesigned

and thatagreement, the bills and bills thenprevious pendingmodification ofcontemplated par­the inagreement important

ticulars without the consent of the Indians. This communica­tion from the Commissionerof Indian Affairs, with thetogethermemorial of the Indians, were transmitted the ofby Secretarythe Interior to Doc. Ho. H.Congress. (Senate 76; R. Doc.No. 333; first session, AttentionFifty-sixth. wasCongress.)called to the fact that the of Octoberalthough by agreement 6,

one .half of each1892, allotment was tabecontemplated agri­cultural thereland, was sufficient inland theonly agricultural'

acresentire reservation to Indian. Afterthirtyaverage perthe of fraud andout thesetting charges complaints respecting

to be made toamendments theproposed designed agreement,as above was made ofstated, thecomplaintparticular provi­sion in toof 1892 as allotments in.the agreement severalty

the Indians of lands for Afteramong agricultural purposes.the notthat lands were to suchtribalreciting adapted pur­

but were the memorialsuitable for asposes, grazing, proceeded'follows:

“We submit that the for lands to be to us.provision allottedunder this are isinsufficient, because it evident we can-treaty

onnot, account of the climate of our whichsection, renders theof uncertain, become a successfulmaturity crops farming com:that or whoever else thesewe, lands, willmunity; occupies

have to the cattle for revenue anddepend upon industry sup-we therefore if we cannot be theport. pray, grantedAnd

of our reservation under the made withprivilege keeping treatyus in and theknown as Medicine au-1868, thattreaty,Lodge

v. HITCHCOCK. 559WOLFLONE

of the Case.Statement

thatof a new treatyconsiderationfor thebe grantedthorityto us suffi-be allottedland toofthe allowancemakewill

increasethecattle,it stockfor to enoughcient us graze uponandof ourselvesmarket forcan supportwefrom which

families.”House Com-theto before it,referred■Withthe justpapers

1900, reportedfavorablyinAffairs, February,mittee on Indianof-1892.to thebill to effect agreementa give

en­the Senate,actan was19, 1900, bypassedOn January“ made the Indianswithanto agreementtitled An act ratify

anin andIdaho, makingHall Indian reservationof the FortIninto effect.” February,sameto thecarryappropriation

before itAffairs, havingon IndianHouse Committeethe1900,thebyof the Indians transmitted ofthe memorial Secretary

for theand consideration Senate billInterior, alsothe havingthebill back tothat Houseto,alluded reported favorably,just

R. 56th419,with amendments. Doc. No. Con­(H.certainof such consisted in add­first One amendmentssession.)gress,

sectionto. bill in as a to execute6,the provisioning question,thethe made with andKiowa, Comancheagreement Apache

the billin 1892. thusIndians embodiedAlthough reportedof the last referred the title thethe execution ofto,agreement

and thebill was not referred tochanged, consequently onlythe made with the Indians of Fortexecution of theagreement

in inHall Idaho. Thereservation thus embodiedprovisions’toof the bill in conformed thosesection 6 substantiallyquestion

in the which had the House,contained bill previously passedthe enactment on thisthat wasexcept previous changedsubject

to theso as do with for to each Indianaway necessity makinginhalf his allotment land the halfone of and otheragricultural

ain land. In addition clause was in the billinsertedgrazingthe a offor of amountapart large grazingsettingproviding

into in Indians.be used common the Thebyland provisionwas as follows :question

“ That in addition to the allotment of to saidlands Indiansfor in the of theas this Interioragreement, Secretaryprovided

for in common for said Indianthe use tribes fourshall set asidethousand of belands,acres toand grazinghundred eighty

TERM, 1902.OCTOBER560

Statement of Case.the

of Interior,selected tbe the ineither one or moreSecretarybytracts interest of saidas will best subserve the Indians.”

The of the in offavor theprovision Indianagreement agentand officer alsowas eliminated.army

The moreover, thebill, consideration forexempted moneythe lands from all claims forsurplus Indian anddepredations,

inthat the event the claim of theexpressly provided Choctawsand Chickasaws was sustained, the re-ultimately considerationferred to should thebe to further action ofsubject Congress.In this inbill as ones wasprevious provision made for allotmentsto the Indians, the of the land foropening settlement,surplusetc. The bill abecame lav? concurrence of the inby Senatethe amendments the asHouse stated.adopted by just

Thereafter, acts on 31by approved January 4,1901, Stat. 727,318; March c.3, 832,c. Stat. and March1901, 1078, 3, 1901,

1093,Stat. c. 846, was to extend31 the timeauthority givenallotments andfor of the land formaking opening settle­surplus

not froma monthsment for Decem­period exceeding eightwere made for in;ber connection6,1900 appropriations surveys

and ofallotments apart lands; and au­setting grazingwith■to establish countiesconferred andwas county seats,thority

theand lands fortownsites, etc., settle­proclaim surplus openwhitebyment people.

a bill filed on theOn June side6,190.1, of thewas equityColumbia,of the District ofCourt wherein Lone WolfSupreme

wasof named asthe(one appellants herein) complainant, suingas forfor himself well as all other members of the confederated

andtribes of the ComancheKiowa, Apache Indians, residingofin the Oklahoma. The (theTerritory present Sec-appellees

ofInterior,of the the Commissioner Indianretary Affairs andofthe Commissioner the General Land were made re-Office),

theto bill. an amendment to theSubsequently, byspondentsof thebill, Kiowa,members Comanche and tribes wereApache

Lone Wolf aswithjoined parties complainant.The bill recited the and ofestablishing the reser-occupancy

in thevation Oklahoma confederated tribes ofby Kiowas, Com-and the ofanches the ofApaches, signing agreement 6,October

-and the1892, which have beensubsequent proceedings detailed,

v. HITCHCOCK.WOLFLONE 561

theof Case.Statement

of the act of andin June the1900,the passageculminating 6,Into said act. substance itof supplementaryacts Congress

had notin the bill that the beenwas further agreementchargedthe Medicine that is,treaty, byas by Lodgerequiredsigned

and thattribe,adult members of theof the malethree fourthsbeen obtained fraudulentthereto had by misrep-the signatures

recited in' thesimilar to thoseconcealment,andresentationsto thecouncil. In additionat the 1899memorial griev-.signed

• wasthe madein the memorial,anee stated chargepreviouslythe saidwhenthat the falsely treatyinterpreters represented,

the that theIndians,was considered treaty providedbybeing“ time in the futureof their lands at somefor the sale surplus

” truth and in fact,inthe of acre; whereas,at per$2.50price“ foran is-allowedthe terms of said acreonly $1.00by treaty,

an amountwhich it was wassum,said lands,” charged,surplusreal said lands. It was averredfar the value ofbelow also

of been changed bythat the hadportions signed agreementforthe Indianswithout such tosubmitting changesCongress

- ittheconsideration. Based allegations,their upon foregoingmuch ofthat so of said act ofwas Junealleged Congress 6,

muchand so of said acts thereto and amend-19Q0, supplementarythereof as for the ofeffect saidatory provided taking agreement,'

of certain landsthe allotment mentioned therein to members- thetribes,of Indian andout,said .surveying, laying platting

and seats on lands,tównsites said and the ced-locating countythe States and the toto United settlement whiteing opening by

million ofof two acres said were inmen enacted viola-lands,tion the of the saidof Comanche andKiowa,property rights

Indians, ifand carried into effect would saidApache depriveof lands without dueIndians of and that saidlaw,processtheir

of said acts were to the ofConstitution the Unitedcontrarypartswere and conferred novoid,and orStates, right, power duty upon

to dothe or of the oracts en-respondents perform any thingsrequiredor acts of inthejoined by Congress question. Alleging

the intention of the to into effect the aforesaidrespondents carryclaimed unconstitutional and void andacts, asking discovery by

to to the theanswers interrogatories propounded respondents,aof and a final decreeorder,allowance temporary restraining

VOL. clxxxvii —36

TERM,OCTOBER 1902.562

Statement of the Case.

a was toinjunction restrain the com-awarding perpetual prayed,the of themission by unlawfulrespondents acts themalleged byto be done. General relief was alsothreatened prayed.

On 6, 1901, a rule to show causeJanuary awhy' temporaryshould not be was issued. Ininjunction granted toresponse

this rule an affidavit of the of the InteriorSecretary was filed,in which in itsubstance was averred that the complainant (Lone

and his andwife had selectedWolf) daughter allotments- under. ofthe act June and6, 1900, the same had been approved bythe of the Interior and that allSecretary other members ofthe hadtribes, twelve, alsoexcepting andaccepted retained

inallotments and thatseveralty, greaterthe. thereofpart hadbeen befbre the of thisapproved suit. Itbringing was also

that the 480,000averred acres-of land tograzing provided beinset the act of June 6, 1900, for the useapart, theby Indians

in had been so setcommon, to the institution ofapart'prior the“ with thesuit, of a-councilapproval of chiefscomposed and

ofheadmen said Indians.” an affidavitThereupon verified byin inWolf was whichfiled,Lone effect he denied that he had

an allotment of lands under the act of Juneaccepted 6, 1900,to andand the acts thereof.amendatorysupplementary There-

was-1901,bn June leave toafter, 17, amend the billgiven andthe same was as heretoforeamended, stated, by addi-addingtional and a substitutedparties complainant by providing first

of the in which was setbill, forth,paragraph otheramongthat the three at atribes, councilheld onthings, general June 7,-

to all andhad voted institute1901, legal nec-proceedingsotherto be to thetaken, into effectofessary prevent carrying the leg-

islation of.complainedThe ofCourt the District on JuneSupreme 21, denied1901,

the for k Theapplication temporary injunction. cause wassubmitted to the court onthereafter a demurrer to the bill asThe demurrer was and thesustained,amended. .complainants

tonot on June-'further, 26, aelecting plead 1901, decree wasentered in favor of the An wasrespondents. appeal thereupon

■taken to Whileof ofCourt thethe District.Appeals this ap-was the President issued apeal pending, proclamation, dated4, Stat.1901, inJuly (32 Proclamations, whichÁppx. 11,) it was

ú. HITCHCOCK. 563LONE WOLF

Opinion of the Courts

the KiowaComanche,lands ceded bythat theordered surplusshould be toof Indians openedtribesand otherand Apache

other6,1901. Among things,onsettlement Augustentry andall conditions re-that thein theit was recited proclamation

of thethe landstobe prior openinglaw toby performedquiredalso thereinIt washad beenand performed.to settlement entry

theof the act of Congress ratifying'inthat,recited pursuancehad beenin severalty regularlyof landallotmentsagreement,Kiowa andComanche, Apacheof themembermade to each

orsocietiesthe landsIndians; by religioustribes of occupiededucational workor amongforother religiousorganizations

toand confirmed suchallottedthe had beenIndians regularlyand the ofSecretaryrespectively;societies and organizations,the hadlands cededout of the by agreement,the Interior,

in common forfor the use'and set asideselectedregularlyfourIndians,tribes ofandComanche, Kiowa Apachesaid

ofacres lands.hundred and thousandeighty grazingon a motion whichof (withoutThe passingCourt Appeals

the affirmed decree of themade to thehad been dismiss appeal)19a motion forandcourt overruledbelow, reargument. App.

theand of affirm-allowed,315. AnD. C. wasappeal decreeforis hereance now review.

Mr.Mr. William M. L. forHampton Carson.andSpringer. .appellants.

GeneralMr. Assistant Van Deranter forAttorney appellee.

theMe. afterWhite, makingJustice statement,foregoingthe of the court.delivered opinion

thesixth article of first of thethe two treatiesBy referredstatement,in onto the proclaimed 25,preceding August 1868,

it15 Stat. was that heads of581, familiesprovided of the"the select,tribes affected within themightby treaty reservation,of not 320a tract of land acres in extent, whichexceeding

to be in-should thereafter cease held andcommon, should beexclusive, of the Indianpossessionfor thethe selection,-making

TERM, 1902.OCTOBER564

Opinion of the Court.

continuehe or his to cultivate theso as land.family mightlongas follows:article readsThe twelfth

“ No for thé cession ofArticle 12. oranytreaty portion partinherein which bethe reservation held com-described, mayof.

or force as theshall be of saidmon, againstany validityand at least three fourthsIndians, unless byexecuted signed

the and nosame,of all the adult male Indians cessionoccupyinginor construed suchthe tribe shall be understood manner asby

to individual memberwithout his ofconsent, theanydeprive,his to tract of land himtribe of selected asrights any by pro-

vided in IIIarticle of this treaty.”(VI)to onThe base their reliefappellants right the proposition

that the effect of the article theby quoted confederatedjusttribes of and wereKiowas, Comanches vested withApaches an

in in common within theinterest the lands held reservation,interest inwhich could not be divested by Congress any other

twelfthmode than that in the said andarticle, thatspecified asa of the interest of theresult the Indians in.said stipulation the

of thecommon lands fell within the Fifth Amend-protectionment the theConstitution of United and suchStates,to inter-

underat least—came the control of theindirectly judicialest—branch of are unable to ourthe We yieldgovernment. assentto view.this

in ofThe contention effect the status' theignores contractingand relationIndians the of bore anddependency they continue

to bear towards the of the United States.government up-.Tohold claim would be thatthe to thé indirectadjudge operationof to andwas limittreaty thematerially qualifythe controlling

of in care andto theauthority Congress respect ofprotectionthe to inIndians, and adeprive Congress, possible emergency,when the be for anecessity andmight urgent partition disposalof the oflands,tribal all to if theact, assent ofpower the

could not beIndians obtained.it is true that in decisionsof this theNow, court, Indian right

of of tribal whether declared in.lands, aoccupancy ortreatycreated,otherwise has been stated to be sacred, asor, some­

times as ofsacred the fee theexpressed, United inStates theassame lands­ 8McIntosh,Johnson v. Wheat.. (1823) 543, 574;

v. HITCHCOCK. 565LONE WOLF

Opinion of the Court.

5 Pet. 48­ Worcester1,v. v.;Nation Georgia, (1831)CherokeeCook,States v.581;6 Pet. United515, (1873)Georgia, (1832)

R. R. v. United&c. Co.Leavenworth591, 592;19 Wall.Beecher v.733, 755; Wetherby,92 U. S. (1877)States, (1875)

there in­in none of these cases was525. ButS. 517,95 U.Indians and. thebetween governmentvolved a controversy

ofadminister thetothe of propertyCongresspowerrespectingin referredconsidered the to,casesThethe Indians. questions

had relation to the natureor indirectlydirectlywhich eitherthe characterthe concernedIndians,ofthe rightsof property

or InStates individuals.asof such respectedand extent rights-out thatit was Congressof cited casesone the clearly pointed

over the of the Indians,a propertypowerparamountpossessedover their interests,ofof its exercisereason guardianshipby

be eventhough opposedand that such might implied,authorityinThus,with the Indians.letter of a treatyto the strict

claimS. the that95 U. 517,v. Wetherby, discussingBeecherto thea reservation of land usebeen bythere had prior treaty

of the court saidIndians,a tribe (p.of certain 525):“ the held was that ofwhich IndiansBut the oc-right only

in States,fee was the United toThe thatsubjectcupancy.be themcould transferred wheneverbyand chose.theyright,

theit is would take nakedtrue, fee, andThe onlygrantee,ofdisturb the the thatIndians;could not occupancy occupancy

with or thebe interfered determined Unitedcould byonlyto be in thisIt is that matter the UnitedStates. presumed

be such considerations ofwould governed byStates asjusticea Christian in their treatment of anwould control people igno-

itrace. Be that as orand themay,rant dependent proprietyaction towards the Indians with toof their theirrespect-justice

of arid is not a-matterlands is a policy,governmentalquestiona between thirddiscussion into controversyopen parties,

title fromof whom derives the Indians.”neitherthe tribalover relations of the IndiansauthorityPlenary

from the andbeen exercised thebyhas" Congress beginning,,abeen deemed not tobeone,has always political subjectpower

of thethe Un-judicial department government.controlled bywas ofthe withthe 1871 thepursued dealingtil policyyear

TERM,OCTOBER 1902.566

Opinion theof Court.

Indian means of oftribes atreaties, and, course, moral obli­byrested intb act faith ingation upon Congress good performing

the into onentered its behalf. asEut, with trea­stipulationsties made with Chinese Exclusion 130foreign nations, Case, U.S. 581, 600, the laws in conflictpower passlegislative mightwith .withtreaties themade Indians. Thomas v. 169 U.Gay,S. v. Race264, Ward 163 S.270; Horse, U. 504, 511; Spaldingv. S.160Chandler, 394, Missouri,U. Kansas405; & Texas

152Co.v. U. S. TheRy. CherokeeRoberts, 114, 117; Tobacco,11 Wall. 616.

The exists to the ofpower an Indianprovisionsabrogatesuch willtreaty, bethough presumably exercisedpower only

when circumstances arise which notwill theonly justify gov-ernment in the of thedisregarding butstipulations treaty, may

in the interest of thedemand, and the Indianscountry them-that it doselves, should so. When, therefore, treaties were

entered into thebetween United and aStates tribe of Indiansit was never doubted that the to inpower abrogate existed

and in a suchthat beCongress, contingency power mightavailed, of from considerations of governmental policy, par-

if with faithconsistent towards the In-ticularly goodperfectv.dians. In States 118United U.Kagama, S.(1885) 375,

Indians,of the the court saidspeaking (p. 382):“ After an of a ofhundred theyearsexperience treaty-mak-

of has determined asysteming government, Congress uponofnew them acts isgovern by Thisdeparture Congress.—to

in in3,1871,seen the act of 'March embodied of the2079§‘Kevised No Indian nation or tribe,Statutes: within the ter-

of the States shall be orUnitedritory acknowledged recognizedas an ornation, tribe, with whom theindependent power, Uni-

•ted noStates contract but ofmay by treaty obligation anyand ratifiedmade withtreaty such Indian na-lawfully any

tion or tribe to March third, hundred andprior eighteen sev-” .shall orbe invalidatedenty-one, hereby impaired.’

In ofthe an act ofvalidity which con-upholding Congressferred the courts of the'Unitedjurisdiction upon States forcertain oncrimes committed an Indian reservation within a

the court saidState, (p. 383):

v. HITCHCOCK.WOLE 58?LONE

Opinion theof Court.

“ of Con-that is within theto us this competencyIt seemsof the nation.are the wards TheytribesThese Indiangress.

the States.on United Dependentare communities dependentfor theirtheir food. political,for daily Dependentlargely

and receiveStates,to thenoowe allegianceTheyrights.ill theof theBecause local feeling,nofrom them protection.

often theirfound areStates where areof the theypeopleandweaknessFrom their helpless-deadliest enemies. very

Federalof thedue to ofso the course dealingness, largelybeenin it hasthem and whichwith the treatiesgovernment

it theand withthe ofthere arisespromised, duty protection,ExecutivetheThis has been byalways recognizedpower.

hasthethis wheneverand and court, questionbyby Congress,arisen.

“ these remnantsoverof theThe general governmentpowerin numbers,weak andof a race once now diminishedpowerful,

of thoseas to theto their well safetyis asnecessary protection,It must exist in thatwhom dwell. government,among they

the theatrebecauseelse,because it never has existed anywhereof limits of the Unitedits within theexercise is geographical

it aloneand becauseit never beenStates, denied,because hascan the tribes.”enforce its laws on all

from theThat Indians who had not been fully emancipatedcontrol and of the United States are atsubject,protection

so to be controlledconcerned,least far the tribal lands wereasindirect is also declaredof Choctawby Congress,legislation

and v.27,Nation v. United 119 U. S. Cher­States, 1, StephensNation,okee U. S. 483.445,174

In view of the overlegislative- power possessed by Congresstreaties with the Indians and Indian tribal weproperty, maynot consider the contentions our noticepressedspecially uponthat the Indians of the ofthe October 6,signing by agreement

was obtained fraudulent and con-1892, by misrepresentationsofthat the three fourths adult male Indianscealment, requisite

had not' as the twelfth article of thesigned, required by treatyand the hadof that as been amended1867, treaty signed bywithout such toamendments the actionCongress submitting

TERM,OCTOBER 1902..568

Opinion of the Court.

of the since all these inIndians, matters, wereevent,any solelyofthe domain the andwithin its action islegislative authority

theconclusive courts.uponThe of 6, 1900,June which is of in the bill,complainedact

was enacted at a when the tribaltime relations between thetribes, of andconfederated Comanches stillKiowas, Apaches

and that statute and theexisted, statutes theretosupplementarydealt the ofwith tribal and todisposition property purported

an consideration for the notgive lands allottedadequate surplusIndeed,the Indians or reserved for their benefit. theamong

which this case is concludedcontroversy the deci­presents byinsion CherokeeNation v. S. decided atHitchcock, 294,187 U.

this itterm, where was held that full administrative powerwas over Indian tribal Inpossessed by Congress property.

the ofaction of but aneffect, now wasCongress complainedof suchexercise a mere in form ofthe invest­power, change

ment Indianof tribal ofthe those asproperty, who,propertywe have were inheld, substantial the wards of theeffect gov­ernment. "We must acted inthatpresume Congress perfect

faith in the with ofgood the Indians whichdealings complaintis and thatmade, the branch of thelegislative governmentexercised its in Inbest the asevent,judgment premises. any

full in thematter;the can­Congress possessed' judiciarypowernot or into the motives thewhichquestion inquire prompted

ofenactment this If whichoccasioned,waslegislation. injurywe do not wish beto understood use madeas theimplying, by

of its relief must be anby Congress power, sought by appealto that for notredress and to the courts. Thebody legislationin was the the billconstitutional, and demurrer toquestionwas therefore sustained.rightly

The motion to dismiss does not overjurisdictionchallengethe matter. Without thesubject toexpressly referring prop-ositions of fact which it it to thatupon sufficeproceeds, saywe think it not beneed further adverted forto, since, thereasons and the nature of thepreviously given wecontroversy,think the decree below should be

Affirmed.

MR. J ctstioe Harlan inconcurs the result.