« AnteriorContinuar »
but that the proof did not show what part of the
value of the lands the Quinaielt Tribe was entitled
to recover. Subsequently by the Act of July 24,
1947 (61 Stat. 416), amending the Jurisdictional
Act of February 12, 1925 (43 Stat. 886), the Quinaielt
Tribe was declared the proper party plaintiff for
the purpose of prosecuting the suit to final con-
clusion. The only question now before the court
is the valuation of the lands in question at the time
of taking. The claim in suit grows out of the
erroneous survey of the northern boundary of the
Quinaielt Reservation in 1892, by which 15,928.27
acres were excluded from the Reservation. Qui-
naielt Tribe of Indians, 220.
II. Upon the evidence and the report of the commissioner
of the court, it is held that the lands in suit, con-
sisting of 15,928.87 acres, were taken on various
dates between 1892 and March 1, 1898, and that
the valuation of the lands at the time of taking
was $25,000. Id.
III. The lands in suit, at the time of taking, were inac-
cessible, having no wagon roads, no railroads, and
no water transportation. The sole value of the land
was the value of the timber but the area was so
rough and inaccessible that logging operations were
extremely difficult and not commercially
profitable, since there was no way to get the timber
to market. Id.
Indians Om 12.
IV. On the amount, $25,000, found to be the valuation of
withdrawn from public entry; prior thereto only
a few acres had been definitely appropriated by
VI. Under the terms of the Jurisdictional Act (43 Stat.
886), providing that the court shall consider and
determine any legal or equitable defenses, set-offs
or counterclaims, including gratuities, which the
United States may have against any of the plain-
tiff bands or tribes; it is held upon the report of the
General Accounting Office that the United States
is entitled to offset $87,995.62, representing amounts,
listed in the findings, spent by the United States
for the benefit of the plaintiff tribes and bands
under other than treaty obligations. Id.
United States Corn 105.
VII. The offsets exceeding the amount which the plaintiff
is entitled to recover, the petition is dismissed.
VIII. Where valuable timber on the reservation of plaintiff
tribe, blown down and damaged by cyclone July
1905, was not logged as it might have been, while
other standing timber was cut and sold under the
authority of the Act of June 12, 1890 (26 Stat. 146);
and where after the enactment of a bill specifically
providing for the cutting and sale of the blown down
timber (Act of June 28, 1906; 34 Stat. 547),
action was ken by the Interior Department to
salvage the timber, which was left to deteriorate;
and where, thereafter the timber was cut and sold
under contracts with private contractors, approved
by the Department; it is held that in its manage-
ment of plaintiff tribe's blown down timber the
Government was negligent, and that as a result
of that negligence the plaintiff tribe suffered sub-
stantial losses, and under the terms of the Special
Jurisdictional Act is entitled to recover the amount
of $896,208.76, which consists of $341,436.73 of
principal and $560,743.57 of interest, less offsets
of $5,971.52, together with interest at the rate of
4 percent per annum on $341,436.73 from January
10, 1951, until the net amount of this judgment
shall be placed in the Treasury of the United States
to the credit of the Menominee Indians. Judgment
entered accordingly. (See 101 O. Cls. 22.) Menom-
inee Tribe of Indians, 290.
Indians Com 17.
IX. Under the Jurisdictional Act, which is the law of this
case, once the issue of maladministration has been
decided for the plaintiff all that remained to be
decided, under Rule 39 (a), was the accounting,
the ascertainment of the net losses. The fact that
in some particulars the business was handled
particularly well or particularly badly would have
its effect in a final showing of a smaller or greater
aggregate loss than would have resulted if it had
been handled otherwise, but it would not affect the
question of whether or not there was liability.
The opinion of February 7, 1944 (101 C. Cls. 22),
is reaffirmed. Id.
Courts Com 465.
X. In undertaking the accounting to determine the
amount of the net losses resulting from the project,
it is held that the blown-down timbei as it lay after
the storm was capital, which according to customary
and accepted principles of accounting, having been
used up in the project, should be charged as a cost.
The Indians acquired the land and timber by ex-
change for a valuable consideration, and owned it.
The blown-down timber was their capital. Id.
Indians am 17.
XI. The fact that the timber was blown down detracted
heavily from its value but it was excellent timber.
The court concluded that the blown-down timber,
as it lay after the storm, had a capital or stumpage
value of $2.50 per thousand board feet. Id.
Damages m 112.
XII. After proper adjustments for overscaling and other
XIII. Upon the evidence and the accounting the court
concludes that the cost of the blow-down project
in capital used up ($97,149.30) and money expended
was a total of $693,603.87, less a return in products
sold or used amounting to $352,167.14, leaving &
net loss on the blown-down timber of $341,436.73.
XIV. The Jurisdictional Act provides for the award to the
plaintiff of interest at the rate of 4 percent "from
the respective dates of said losses." The court
concludes that the interest on the capital value of
the timber should run from July 1, 1907; on operating
losses other than the additional payments made to
logging contractors some 10 years later, from June
15, 1908; and on the additional payments from the
mean date of October 25, 1918. Id.
United States Om 110.
XV. In accordance with Section 2 of the Indian Claims
Commission Act (60 Stat. 1049) the court con-
cludes that "the date of the law, treaty or Executive
Order under which the claim arose" in the instant
case was the year 1905, the date of the blow-down,
which is the date of the origin of the obligation of
the Government, to be enforced by the court's
judgment and that offsets under the statute should
be allowed from that date. Id,
XVI. The Government has the burden of proving the pro-
priety of the offsets which it asserts. In the deter-
mination of offsets expenditures for agency and
other administrative purposes are disallowed;
expenditures for educational purposes, including
pay of and to farmers and expenses of agricultural
agents are disallowed; expenditures for pay and
expenses of field matrons for health and educational
purposes are disallowed; expenditures for agri-
cultural demonstrations are disallowed as educa-
tional Items listed in the findings amounting to
$5,971.52 are allowed. Id.
United States Com 105.
XVII. On appeal from the decision of the Indian Claims
Commission denying the plaintiffs' claim for &
balance of $600,000 asserted by clain to be
owing to the Loyal Band of Creek Indians by
reason of an award which the United States Senate,
acting as arbitrator, made to the Indians in the
amount of $1,200,000 of which amount there has
been paid $600,000, the decision of the Indian
Claims Commission is reversed and the case is
remanded to the Commission with directions to
award to the plaintiffs the amount claimed, $600,000,
without interest. Creek Indians, 373.
United States mm 105.
XVIII. Under the provisions of Section 26 of the Act of March
1, 1901 (31 Stat. 861), embodying an agreement
between the United States and the Creek Nation
that the United States Senate should act as arbi-
trator to determine the award to be made to the
members of the Creek Tribe, known as the “Loyal
Creeks” for the suffering and losses sustained by
them by reason of their adherence to the cause of
the United States in the war with the Confederate
States; it is held that the action of the Senate in
1903 in inserting in the then pending Indian appro-
priation bill an amendment, stating that "there is
hereby awarded as final determination thereof on
the so-called loyal Creek claims”, in accordance
with the provisions of Section 26 of the 1901 Act,
the sum of $1,200,000 constituted the final award
under the 1901 Act. Id.
XIX. The refusal of the House of Representatives to concur
in the Senate amendment, and the adoption by
both Houses of & Conference Committee Report
reducing the amount appropriated to $600,000 and
providing that this sum should be accepted by the
Indians in full payment and satisfaction of the
claim and that payment thereof should be in full
release of the Government did not destroy the right
of the Indians to the full sum, $1,200,000, awarded
by the Senate. Id.
United States Com 116.
XX. It is the generally accepted doctrine that once an
arbitrator has made his award the rights of the parties
to that award are vested and cannot be destroyed by
a later attempted modification. Id.
Arbitration and Award w 82 (1).