United States v. Cherokee Nation

1906-04-30
Share:

Headline: Court affirms that the United States must pay $1,111,284.70 plus interest to Eastern Cherokee individuals for unpaid purchase money from a land cession, directing the Interior Secretary to distribute funds per capita.

Holding:

Real World Impact:
  • Requires United States to pay $1,111,284.70 plus interest to Cherokee individuals.
  • Directs Interior Secretary to distribute funds per capita to Eastern Cherokees, excluding Old Settlers.
  • Affirms five percent interest from June 12, 1838, under the Senate resolution.
Topics: Native American claims, land cessions, government payments, tribal distributions

Summary

Background

This case involves the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern and Western (Old Settlers) Cherokee groups, and the United States. An accounting under an 1891 agreement and earlier treaties attempted to settle money owed for a land cession called the Outlet. Slade and Bender prepared an accounting that led to a finding of $1,111,284.70 owed. The Court of Claims awarded that sum with interest and ordered distribution to individual Cherokees through the Secretary of the Interior.

Reasoning

The Court examined whether the United States was properly held liable. It agreed the accounting was intended to reopen and liquidate the purchase money owed on the land sale, making time and prompt payment essential. The Secretary’s transmission and the Cherokee Nation’s acceptance fixed the process, and Congress had previously recognized a Senate resolution awarding five percent interest from June 12, 1838. The Court therefore affirmed liability, the interest award based on the Senate determination, and the judgment for the stated sum.

Real world impact

The decision requires the United States to pay the stated balance with interest and directs the Interior Secretary to distribute the money per capita to the Eastern Cherokees as individuals, whether east or west of the Mississippi, and excludes the Old Settlers who were previously paid. The Court approved counsel fees and costs as awarded by the lower court. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Claims’ decree with a narrow modification to clarify the group entitled to distribution.

Dissents or concurrances

Judges Weldon and Peelle wrote separately in support; Peelle noted an alternative ground based on treaty removal expenses. Justice Wright dissented.

Ask about this case

Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).

What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?

How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?

What are the practical implications of this ruling?

Related Cases