holding that agreement between Secretary of the Interior on behalf of the Indians and white settlers, “as other agreements relating to Indian rights, is to be construed most strongly in favor of the Indians”
How later courts described this case
- holding that agreement between Secretary of the Interior on behalf of the Indians and white settlers, “as other agreements relating to Indian rights, is to be construed most strongly in favor of the Indians”
- explaining that “[e]stoppel does not run against 15 the United States when it acts as trustee for an Indian tribe
- “Rights reserved by treaties such as this are not subject to appropriation under state law, nor has the state power to dispose of them.”
- Indian Intercourse Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 177, prohibiting alienation of Indian lands other than by treaty or convention, provides "special reason why the Indians' property may not be lost through adverse possession"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CHAMBERS, Circuit Judge
(concurring) .
I concur. I do think that there may be unintended overtones in what Judge POPE says about the Interior Department, Assistant Secretary of the Interior Pierce and Chief Engineer Code which are a little harsh as to their conduct in 1908. I assume that the two men have departed from this vale and 48 years later they cannot defend themselves. Even though they may have known of the Winters decision, those who have a duty to act today may make mistakes which, in the course of future events, may indicate bad judgment.
If the 1908 agreement today works a great injustice, I think that it is for the Congress to correct the unfairness if such there be by developing other ii'-rigable land for the Indians involved. Therefore, I think it is right that we should uphold the agreement of 1908.