Central Utah Project Litigation Documents

Page 86

I n ('row Tribe v. Eni.tod States, 151 Ct . Cl. 281 (I960), cert . den 366 U.S. 924 (1961), the Court of Claims concluded that the. Crow and other tribes hold their lands under the Treaty of Fort Laramie of Sept.,J- r 17,. ICE,! (11 Si at. ?-'^), by iveegaiaed litte. In the ;-• case an; :! n Ass> n '1 -o.i ? e TiaiJar '• "'«*lbe v. E.'.'trd State--, 7/ Ct, Cl. 3.. (1933) cert, denied, 292 U.S. 606 (1933), the court held that the Treaty of Fort Laramie was a-treaty of recognitiona The treauy fixed b-.is:daries within which the tribes agreed to reside. In Article III of the Fort Laramie Treaty, the United States bound itself to protect the Indian signatories against the commission of depredations by the people of the United States, and in Article IV the Indian tribes agreed to make restitution for any wrongs by their people against people of the United States lav/fully residing in or passing through the tribes' respective territories. The court concluded that the language of the treaty, and its purpose and intent as a whole, assured to each of the participating tribes title to the lands set aside. No such recognition of permanent legal rights is contained in the Treaty of Ruby Valley. We note one other matter, namely, the petitioners' characterization of an award to the plaintiff in this case as the equivalent of a purchase by the United States of part of the-Western Shoshones' aboriginal lauds. Equating the present proceeding to a sale of aboriginal title is incorrect. The Commission determined in the title proceeding that the Western Shoshones "nave no ares, at tribal interest in their former aboriginal lands (FindJar.; ?f>. (!iwv . ;! above). The claim in Do*. ]-;•.• t 326-K arose from rhe ck u-atat' s