1 7 Ind. C 1 . Corn. 427

BEFORL T i E INDIA?J CLAIMS COMNISS IOS

TEE P.IIAMI T R I B E OF OIUAHOPlil ) D x k e t Ko. 256 1 c o n s o l i d a t ~ d w i t h

THE FIIA?II IWDIAKS OF I K E I A N A ) Docket Nos. 124-D, E , and F

1 P e t i t i o n e r s , )

v . 1 1 1

THE UNITED STATES OF A P E R I C A ) )

Defendant. )

Decided: Nov 29 1966

Appsarances: Edwin A. Rothschi ld and Louis L. Rochmes, Attorneys f o r P e t i t i o n e r s i n Dccket 256. A lbe r t C . Harkcr, Robert C . 3e l1 , J r . , and Walter H. Yaloney, At torneys f o r P e t i t i o n e r s i n Docket Nos. 124-D, E, and F.

W . Braxton M i l l e r , w i t h whom was M r , A s s i s t a n t Attorney General Edwin L. Wris l , J r . , 2 ~ t t o r n e y s f o r Dsfendant.

OPINION OF THE C9MMISSION

-'.:<.<Chief O o m r i ~ s i o n e r Watkins de l ive red t h e opin ion of t h e C ~ n d s s i o n .

The Miami Indians of Indiana , p e t i t i o n e r i n Dockets 124-D, E , and F ,

and t h e Miami Tr ibe of Oklahoma, p e t i t i o n e r i n Docket 256, brought t ime ly

a c t i o n s under t h e Indian Claims Commission Act , a g a i n s t t h e de fendan t ,

t h e United S t a t e s , f o r compensation under t h e t r e a t i e s of 1834, 1838, and I i

1840 wherein t h e M i a m i Tr ibe ceded s e v e r a l t r a c t s of l and t o t h e United

S t a t e s . The Commission consol ida ted t h e two causes f o r t r i a l by o r d e r

da t ed December 19, 1958. The C o m i s s i c n decreed i n i t s I n t e r l o c u t o r y

Order of December 18, 1964, t h a t t he p e t i t i o n e r s j o i n t l y a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s I o f t h e Miami T r i b e a s the same e x i s t e d a s o.f t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e s o f t h e

t r e a t i e s i n i s s u e s , recover the sum of $773,131.25, l e s s o f f s e t s , i f any, 1 t

a l lowab le under the Indian Claims Commission Act. However, t h i s d e c i s i o n I I

17 Ind. C 1 . Comm. 427 !?: i 1 p

d i d n o t i nc lude any recovery under the 1840 t r e a t y . Respect ing t h e 1840

t r e a t y , t h e C o m ~ i s s i n n found t h a t the Miami Tr ibe rece ived c o n s i d e r a t i o n of

$478,027.83 i n cash znd 3 2 4 , 7 9 6 . 8 8 a c r e s of land i n Kansas. Inasmuch a s

t h e i s s u e a s t o whether t he c o n s i d ~ r a t i o n was unccnscionable could n o t be

determined u n t i l t he Kansas lands were va lued , the Commission o rde red t h a t

t h e c a s e proceed w i t h the p r s s e n t a t i o n of evidence i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e

f a i r market v a l u e of the 324,796.88 a c r e s of Kansas land r ece ived by

t h e Yiami T r i b e a s c o n s i d e r s t i o n m d e r t he 1840 t r e a t y and t h e p rope r

d a t e o f e v a l u a t i o n of s a i d lands .

Subseqcent ly , t h ~ two p e t l t i o 3 e - r ~ h e r e i n en t e red i n t o n e g o t i a t i o n s

w i t h t h e defendant , the United S t a t e s of America, t o compromise and

s e t t l e t h i s ca se . Both p e t i t i o n e r s agreed t o accep t $1,373,000.00 a s a

n e t f i n a l award f o r recovery under the t h r e e t r e a t i e s mentioned above.

= A l l p a r t i e s concurred i n t he v a l u a t i o n o f t h e Kansas l ands a t $162,398.44

which sum was one cf the f a c t o r s i n t he compromise n e g c t i a t i o n s r e s u l t i n g

i n t h e agrsement on a f i n a l n e t award of $1,373,000.00 i n f avo r of both

p e t i t i o n e r s h e r e i n a s r ep re s2n ta t ives of t he Miami Tr ibe a s t h e same

e x i s t e d a s o f t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e s of t h e 1834, 1838 and 1840 t r e a t i e s .

During t h e s e t t l e m e c t nego t i a t i ons p e t i t i o n e r i n Dockets 124-D, E ,

and F a s s e r t e d t h a t the va lue of t he Kansas l and should no t be i n any way

cha rgeab le t o them i n a r r i v i n g a t ti-,e award which they would r e c e i v e .

The r e a s o n f o r t h i s being t h a t s i n c e t h i s C o m i s s i o n and the Cour t o f

Claims had r u l e d i n a previous case t h a t t h e Miami Ind lans o f Ind iana had

no i n t e r e s t i n t h e Kansas land i n 1854, any award r ece ived by them under

t h e 1840 t r e a t y should exclude the Indiana Miami from bsing charged w i t h

t h i s Kansas l a n d a s cons ide ra t i cn . Miami Tri.be of Oklahoma v . United

S t a t e s , 150 C t . C 1 . 725. P e t i t i o n e r i n Docket No. 256 claimed t h a t t h e

1 7 Ind. C 1 . Cornm. 427 42 9

f u l l va lue of the Kansas land be included i n a r r i v i n g a t a f i n a l n e t award

t o both p e t i t i o n e r s a s r ep re sen ta t ives of t he Miami T r i b e a s t h e same

ex i s t ed a t t he e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t he 1840 t r e a t y .

A hearing was held before the Commission J u l y 6 , 1966, wherein t h e above

se t t l emen t nego t i a t i ons were d iscussed . It was determined a t t h a t hea r ing t h a t ,

By agreement of the p a r t i e s , counsel f o r P e t i t i o n e r s i n Dockets 124-D, E, and F w i l l f i l e on o r before J u l y 15, 1966, t h e i r motion wi th r e spec t t o apportionment of any f i n a l award en tered i n the consol ida ted dockets a s between the p e t i t i o n e r s i n Dockets 124-D, E, and F and the P e t i t i o n e r i n Docket 256. (Tr . p. 3 )

Accordingly, on July 15, 1966, p e t i t i o n e r s i n Dockets 124-D, E, and F,

f i l e d a motion "That cons idera t ion f o r Kansas lands be charged s o l e l y

a g a i n s t t h e recovery of the Miami Tr ibe of Oklahoma." B r i e f s and Reply

B r i e f s were f i l e d t h e r e a f t e r by both p e t i t i o n e r s . The i n t e r e s t s of t h e

j :. defendant a r e no t he re in involved.

The subs tance of the arguments of p e t i t i o n e r i n Dockets 124-D, E ,

and F i n suppor t of t he above motion a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e i r b r i e f i s

t h a t t h e Miami Indians of Indiana had no i n t e r e s t i n t h e Kansas l a n d

which t h i s Commission has ru l ed w a s . p a r t o f t he c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e

1840 t r e a t y , and t h a t s ince the Miamis of Indiana r ece ived no b e n e f i t

from t h i s cons ide ra t ion , a den ia l of t h i s motion "**a w i l l c r e a t e a g r o s s

i n e q u i t y i n t h a t i t w i l l take some of t h e money t h a t belongs t o t h e Miami

Ind ians of Indiana and g ive i t wi thout cons ide ra t ion t o t h e Miami T r i b e

of Oklahoma." (Supplement t o Reply Br i e f , p. 2) P e t i t i o n e r i n Dockets

124-D, E , and F f u r t h e r reques ts i n i t s "Supplement t o Reply B r i e f " t h a t

t h e Commission f i n d t h a t the 1854 Treaty-amended the 1840 T r e a t y .

The argument of p e t i t i o n e r i n Docket 256 i n opposing t h e g r a n t i n g

of t h e motion i s t h a t ,

1 7 Ind . C 1 . Comnn. 427 4 30

l I*$& Unless t ! ~ e Conmission changes i t s v i e w s , t h e r e w i l l b e no s c p s r n t e ' r e c o v e r y ' by ' t h e >:lam1 T r i b e o i Oklallona. T h e Oklahom T r i b e , 1 i k e t h e I n d i a n s Piiami; mere1 y r e p r e s c n t t h e r s a l beneficiary o f the judgmt:nt: t h e Miami T r i b e a s i t e x i s t c . d i n I t i A O . P a r r i c i p a t - i c n i n t h a t judgment w i l l p r e - sumably L.ct de te rnLned by Congress a n d , i f pending l e g i s l a t i o n i s any c r i t s r i o n , i t w i l l be s h a r e d e q u a l l y by q u a l i f i e d descendan t s o f t h e o r i g i n 2 1 PLiaini Yr ibe w i t h o u t r e g a r d t o t h e i r presen: r e s i d e n c e o r o r g a n i z a t i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n , " ( E r i e f , P - 2 )

. . P e t i t i o n e r i n Docket 256 a l s o c h a l l e n g e s t h e c l a i m t h a t a d e n i a l o f t h e

- above mot ion w i l l be i n e q u i t a b l e t o t h e I n d i a n a Miamis. On page 9 o f

t h e b r i e f , p e t i t i c n e r i n Dacket 256 s a y s :

I 1 .I..C-L -

,. ,. .. many of t h e a n c e s t o r s o f t h e I n d i a ~ r & / Mizmi r e c e i v e d p r i v a t e and p 2 r s c n a l g r a n t s a f l a n d and money f o r e v e r y t r i b a l c e s s i o n f r o 3 1818 t o 1840 z;h?. If d i s t i n c t i o n s a r e t o be made between d e e c e n J a n t s of t h s 1840 Miami t r i b a l members, ic would be more a p p r o p r i a t e t o c h a r g e the 1ndiar.a Miami w i t h . t h e v a l u e o f t h e s e p r i v a t e g r a n t s . "

I n i t s b r i e f , P e t i t i o n e r i n Dacket No. 256 h a s i m p l i e d t h a t i t i s

t h e d u t y o f Congress r a t h e r t h a n t h e Commission t o d e t e r m i n e how t h e

award i n t h e p r e s e n t c a s e i s t o be s h a r e d by t h e two p e t i t i o n e r s h e r e i n .

We t h i n k t h i s v iew i s c o r r e c t .

I t h a s l o n g been r e c o g n i z e d i n I n d i a n Claims l i t i g a t i o n t h a t ,

The Government 's j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r I n d i a n T r i b a l a f f a i r s , i n c l u d i n g t h e i r l a n d e d and m m c t a r y estate, i s p l e n a r y a n d e x c l u s i v e . It i s f o r Congress and Congress a l o n e t o d e t e r m i n e how t h e i r l a g d s shall be h e l d o r d i v i d e d , and how t h e i r t r i b a l I n d i a n furids s h a l l be a p p o r t i o n e d a m ~ n g them. ( k C a l i b v . U n i t e d S t a t e s , 8 3 C . C l s . 79, 85)

The U n i t e d S t a t e s , -

169 C . C l s . 1009 (1965) , a c a s ? s i m i l a r t o t h e p r e s e n t o n e , a p e t i t i o n

was f i l e d cn b:hs!f of r h e Wca ><a:lon by t h e P e o r i a T r i b e o f I n d i a n s of

17 Ind, C1. C m . 427 431

Oklahoma. The Court of Claims denied the request of the appellant t h a t

the award be made "simply t o the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma,

without more", r a the r than t o the Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma

on behalf of the Wea Nation as held by the Commission. The Court went

on t o say:

How the award i s t o be paid and precise ly who can pa r t i c ipa te i n an award t o the Peoria Tribe on behalf of the Wea Nation are questions f o r Congressional and adminis- t r a t i v e determination. ** W e do not decide whether o r not the Treaty of May 30, 1854, supra, made the consolidated Peoria Tribe the f d 1 and only successor t o claims of the Wea Nation a r i s ing out of events p r io r t o t h a t t r e a t y ; nor do we decide, on the other hand, t h a t only descendants of Weas can benef i t from the award i n t h i s case. These and l ike i ssues we leave open f o r decision by the l e g i s l a t i v e and executive b r a x h e s . (Emphasis supplied)

The Court of Claims most recent pronouncement on t h i s point was i n

The Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Re.servat ion of Oregon

v. The United States, Appeal No. 2-64, decided October 14, 1966 ( s l i p

opinion, p. 22), wherein "The Commission allowed the appellant t o recover

not as the successor i n i n t e r e s t t o , but on besalf o f , the t r i b a l e n t i t i e s

signatory t o the t r ea ty of 1855," The Court said:

JlrMt. TO whose benef i t any award might inure is. not decided by any phrasing of the cspacity t o sue, How the award is t o be paid and precisely who can p a r t i c i p a t e i n the award a r e questions, not f o r t h i s court or the Commission, but f o r C,ongressional and administrative determination. (Emphasis supplied)

The Court then lists the Peoria and McCalib cases as author i ty f o r t h i s - \

statement,

We believe tha t the granting of the motion before us would be

usurping the Congressional prerogative. For a l l we know, the re may be

17 Ind. C l . Comm. 427

o the r descendants of the o r i g i n a l Miami Tr ibe who a re not numbered

among e i t h e r t h e Miamis of Oklzhoma o r the Miamis of Indiana who could

b e n e f i t from the award i f Cocgress determined t o make a per c a p i t a d i s -

t r i b u t i o n of t!le award. Nor do we know whether o r not every member of

t h e Indianz o r Olrlahoma Miami groups a r e descendants of the Miami T r i b e

a s it e x i s t e d i n 1840.

The motion of P e t i t i c n e r s i n Docket Nos. 124-D, E , arid F seems t o p re - .. -

suppose t h a t t h e two p e t i t i o n e r s h e r e i n have sepa ra t e causes of a c t i o n

under t h e 1840 Treaty. Tnis i s no t t r u e . There was only one M i a m i T r i b e

wi th whom t h e United S t a t e s negot ia ted the 1840 Treaty. Hence, t h e c a s e

of a c t i o n a r i s i n g because of t h a t t r e a t y accrued t o t he b e c e f i t of t h e

M i a m i T r i b e as t h e same e x i s ~ e d a s of t h e e f f e c t i v e da t e of t h e 1840

Trea ty . However, t h i s o r i g i n a l Miami Tr ibe does not e x i s t today and t h e -. t $

Comnission having determined t h a t n e i t h e r of t he two p e t i t i o n e r s h e r e i n

i s t h e f u l l successor i n i n t e r e s t t o t h e o r i g i n a l Miami Tr ibe i n s o f a r a s

t h e 1840 T r e a t y is coccerned, t he two p e t i t i o n e r s he re in , both having

descendants of t h e o r i g i n a l Miami Tr ibe i n t h e i r r e spec t ive groups, appear

b e f o r e t h e Commission i n a r e p r e s e n t a t i v e capac i ty on behal f of t h e o r i g i n a l

Miami T r i b e which made t h e 1840 Trea ty with t h e United S t a t e s . For t h i s

r e a s o n t h e Commission, i n i t s In t e r locu to ry Order of December 18, 1964,

made t h e award under t h e 1834 and 1838 t r e a t i e s t o :

*k%he M i a f n i TriSes of Oklahoma, p e t i t i o n e r i n Docket NO. 256 and t h e Miani India,ns of Indiana , p e t i t i o n e r i n Dockets 124-D, 124-E end 124-9, j o i n t l y a s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s of the Miami T r i b e a s t h e s a m e ex i s t ed as of t he e f f e c t i v e da t e s of t h e above t r e a t i e s , >?Y:$:

I

1 7 Ind . C 1 . Cornm. 427 433

A recovery under the 1840 Treaty o r a n e t recovery under a l l - t h r e e

t r e a t i e s should be awarded i n the same manner w i th the r e a l b e n e f i c i a r y

being the o r i g i n a l PIiami Tr ibe . This does not allow a s e p a r a t e recovery

f o r e i t h e r of the two p e t i t i o n e r s h e r e i n which, i n e s sence , would be

the p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t of g ran t ing the p re sen t motion. Following the

r u l e i n Minnesota Chippewa Tr ibe , e t a l . , v . United S t a t e s , 161 C t . C l s .

258, 271, we be l i eve r e q u i r e s a s i n g l e award t o t h e p r e s e n t day e n t i t y

o r e n t i t i e s on behalf of t h e o r i g i n a l t r i b e .

Counsel f o r P e t i t i o n e r i n Dockets 124-D, E , and F sugges t s t h a t t h e

1854 Trea ty was p a r t of the 1840 Trea ty , and thus has r eques t ed t h a t t h e

Commission f i n d t h a t t h e 1840 Trea ty was amended by t h e 1854 Trea ty . It

may be t r u e , a s has been suggested, t h a t t h e seeds of d i v i s i o n i n t h e

/

i Miami T r i b e were sown by t h e 1840 Trea ty and matured under t h e 1354 T r e a t y .

However, t h e f a c t remains t h a t under t h e 1840 Trea ty t h e United S t a t e s

n e g o t i a t e d w i t h only one e n t i t y , t h e Miami T r i b e , and t h a t t h e 1840 T r e a t y

i t s e l f was i n d i v i s i b l e . Tn r e j e c t i n g t h e argument t h a t t h e Kansas l a n d

was n o t p a r t of t h e cons idera t ion f o r t h e 1840 c e s s i o n , we s a i d :

*** The 1840 land ces s ion , the removal wes t , and t h e lands g ran ted t h e Miamis i n Kansas were a l l p a r t of t he same t r a n s - a c t i o n and cannot be separa ted a s p e t i t i o n e r s have t r i e d t o do. **'* (Miami Tr ibe of'0klahoma v-. United s t a t d s , 14 Ind . C 1 . Comrn. 375, 466)

The subsequent d i v i s i o n of t he Miami T r i b e does no t change t h e

p r e s e n t s u i t from a r ep re sen ta t ive one i n t o one where both groups can

sue i n t h e i r own beha l f , i n s o f a r r s the 1840 Trea ty i s concerned.

P e t i t i o n e r s i n Dockets 124-D, E , and F contend t h a t e q u i t y demands

a g r a n t i n g of t h i s motion. We do not agree.

1 7 Ind . C 1 . Com7-1. 427 4 34

Under the 1840 T r e a t y , the Pfiami Tr ibe ceded t h e i r remaining lands

i n I n d i a n s t o t he United S t a t e s and rece ived i n r e t u r n c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n

the form of mocey and a t r a c t of land i n Kansas, I n a d d i t i o n t o ceding

t he l ands , t he lliami Tr ibe agreed "*<a? t h a t t h e Miami T r i b e of Ind ians

s h a l l remove t o the country assigned them west of t he M i s s i s s i p p i , w i t h i n

f i v e y e a r s from t h i s da t e : *** . " (7 S t a t . 583) The background of t h e

1840 t r e a t y n e g o t i a t i o n s , a s we l l a s e a r l i e r t r e a t i e s , makes i t c l e a r

t h a t having t h e Miami t r i b e move west was a s impor tan t t o t h e United

S t a t e s a s t h e land ces s ion . For t h i s reason we s a i d , i n r e j e c t i n g t h e

arguments t h a t t h e 1840 t r e a t y was d i v i s i b l e and t h a t t h e Kansas land

was n o t p a r t o f t h e cons ide ra t ion f o r t h e 1840 Miami c e s s i o n b u t was

r a t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r the move wes t , t h a t :

.- "*** The 1840 land ces s ion , t he removal wes t , and the l ands g r a n t e d t h e Miamis i n Kansas were a l l p a r t o f t h e same t r a n s - a c t i o n and cannot be separa ted a s p e t i t i o n e r s have t r i e d t o do." (Miami T r i b e of Oklahoma v . United S t a t e s , 14 I n d . C1. Comrn. 375, 466)

However, t h e t r e a t y a l s o provided g r a n t s of land t o c e r t a i n i n d i v i d u a l s

and t h e i r f a m i l i e s w i t h the understanding t h a t they were no t r e q u i r e d under

t h e t r e a t y t o move west w i th t h e t r i b e . Pursuant t o t h e 1840 t r e a t y , t h e

Miami T r i b e moved t o K a n s a s i n 1846. By the t ime of t h e 1854 t r e a t y t h e r e

were two groups of MLaml Ind ians , the Miami T r i b e which had moved t o

Kansas and t h e M i a m i who remained i n Ind iana , o r who went t o Kansas and

l a t e r r e t u r n e d t o Indiana . P e t i t i o n e r s i n Dockets 124-D, E , and F a r e

descendac t s of t h i s l a t t e r group. The Kansas l and , which was p a r t of

t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n the Miami t r i b e received f d r t h e 1840 c e s s i o n , was

l a t e r ceded t o t h e United S t a t e s by both groups of Miamis under t he 1854

17 I n d . C 1 . 427 435

t r e a t y . Ln a p r e v i c s s c a s e be fore t h i s Commission, b o t h p e t i t i o n e r s

h e r e i n had c r i e d t o r e c o v e r a d d i t i o n a l cnmpensat inn from t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

under t h e 185' ' I r ea ry on t h e g r ~ > c n d t h a t t be c o n s i d e r a t i o n r e c e i v e d f o r

t h e Kansas l and was cnconsc ionab le . T h i s c l a i m was d e n i e d by t h e Commis-

s i o n bu t r e v e r s e d by t h e Court of Claims which awarded t h e Miami T r i b e

o f Oklahoma $195,723.70 a s a d d i t i o n a l compensation f o r t h e Kansas l a n d

on t h e ground t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n p a i d by t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s

was uncons6 ionab le . The Miami I n d i a n s o f I n d i a n a had a l s o a p p e a l e d t h e

Commission% d e c i s i o n denying them any i n t e r e s t i n t h i s Kansas l a n d .

On t h i s i s s u e , t h e C o u r t o f Claims s a i d :

"?he I n d i a n Claims Cormiss ion found t h a t t h e I n d i a n a Miami who had remained i n o r xho r e t u r ~ e d t o I n d i a n a w i t h o u t t r i b a l consen t had s e p a r a t e d themselves frcm t h e t r i b e , s e v e r e d t h e i r t r i b a l r e i a t i o n s b i p , and l o s t a l l r i g h t t o

( p a r t i c i p a t e i n t h e t r i b a l a s s e t s , Lands o r p r o p e r t y . T h i s con- c l u s i o n i s c o r r e c t ." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) .

The C o u r t went on t o say:

"The C o n u c i s s i o ~ f u r t h e r found t h a t t h e s e Miami u n i t e d w i t h t h e Miami who had c r i b a l p e r m i s s i o n t o remain i n I n d i a n a , and t h a t t h i s u n i t e d g r c u p , by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n and a p p r o v i n g t h e T r e a t y of 1854, t r i b a l a s s e t s i n which t h e y accep ted c e r r a i n money, 6 G n e f i t s and c o n s i d e r a t i c n and waived t h e i r c l a i m s t o o t h e r t r i b a l a s s e t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e Karsas l a z d s . The a p p e l l a n t I n d i a n a - Miami d i s p u t e t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , on t h e grounds t h a t t h e r e p r e - s e n t a t i v e s of t h e I n d i a n a Miami who p a r t i c i p a t e d i n making t h e t r e a t y were n o t a u t h o r i z e d t o cede t h e Kansas l a n d . * * * The e n t i r e t r e a t y , i n c l u d i n g t h e p r o v i s i o n t h a c t h e I n d i a n a Miami were t o have no s h a r e i n che payments f o r t h e Kansas l a n d , implying t h a t they had no i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , was b e f o r e t h e I n d i a n a Flismi c o u n c i l a t t h a t t i m e , and they made no ob- j e c t i o n t o t h e land c e s s i o n o r t o t h e i m p l i c a t i o n o f t h e i r l a c k of any i n t e r e s t i n t h o s e l a n d s . We conc lude t h e r e f o r e t h a t t h e Commission was c o r r e c t i n i t s c c n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e I n d i a n a Miam1 a r e n o t e n t i c l e d t o s'hare i n t h e r e c o v e r y f o r t h e Kansas l a n d s ." (Emphasis supp l ied . ) (Miami T r i b e o f Oklahoma v . Uni ted S t a t e s , 150 C . C l s . 725, 74L, 745)

1 7 Ind. C l . Comm. 427

According t o t h i s r u l i n g the Miamis who were r e q u i r e d t o remove

west under the 1840 t r e a t y , who e i t h e r did not move t o Kansas, o r who

moved the re and l a t e r r e t ~ r n e d t o I n d i a n a , "*':* 10s: a l l r i g h t t o pa r -

t i c i p a c e i n the t r i b a l a s s e t s , funds o r property" which inc luded the

Kansas land. I n t h i s way t h e i r c la ims f o r p a r t i c i p a t i o n were denied

because they hcd no t f u l f i i i e d the t r l b a l o b l i g a t i o n under t h e 184C

t r e a t y . Furthermore, those Miamis who had t r i b a l permiss ion t o remain

i n Indiana and were no t under t h e 1840 t r e a t y o b l i g a t i o n t o remove t o

Kansas, under t h e 1854 t r e a t y ,

";\%-* recognized and agreed t o a d i v i s i o n of t h e t r i b a l a s s e t s i n which chey accepted c e r t a i n money, b e n e f i t s and consLdera t ion and waived t h e i r c la ims t o o t h e r t r i b a l a s s e t s , i n c l u d i n g t h e Kansas l ands ." ( Ib id )

'Ihus, e i t h e r by agreement o r a f a i l u r e t o observe t h e i r 1840 t r e a t y

f o b l i g a t i o n , t h e Miami Ind ians of Indiana gave up t h e i r r i g h t t o t h e -- 3

Kansas l acd which formed p a r t of t h e cons ide ra t ion f o r t h e 1860 c e s s i o n .

On t h e o t h e r hand, t he Miamis who removed t o Kansas and s n f f e r e d many

d isadvantages and hardships i n so doing, reaped t h e b e n e f i t s o f t h e move

i n t h e form of the Kansas land.

With t h e above background i n mind, how would t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e

motion be fo re t h e Commission a f f e c t t h e e q u i t i e s a s between t h e two

p e t i t i o n e r s hereir ,? I n the e a r l i e r case before t h e Cornrnissi.cn i n v o l v i n g

t h e 1854 t r e a t y , t h e Miami Tr ibe of Oklahoma was given a d d i t i o n a l com-

pensa t ion of about $196,000 f o r the Kansas lands ceded i n 1854 t o t h e

United S t a t e s by the Miami Tr ibe . ( ~ i a a i T r ibe of Okla5oma, v . Uni ted

S t a t e s , sup ra , p . 745) The Indiana Miamis were n e t allowed t o p a r t i c i p a t e

1 7 Ind . C 1 . Comrn. 427

i n t h a t award because thejr had received o t h e r b e n e f i t s i n l i e u t h e r e o f ,

o r had f a i l e d t o f u l f i l l t h e i r t r e a t y o b l i g a t i o n t o move t o Kansas, The

f a i l u r e t o move i t s e l f , vas a d i r e c t b e n e f i t t o t h e s e I n d i a n s , because

they d id no t have t o s u f f e r the burdens of moving o r s t a y i n g on t h e Kansas

land . The e f f e c t of g ran t ing the morion before u s , we b e l i e v e , would

n u l l i f y , t o a g r e a t e s t e n t , the b e n e f i t s r i g h t f u l l y be longing t o t h e

Miamis who moved t o Kansas and remained t h e r e . I t would make t h e i r com-

p l i a n c e w i t h t h e 1840 t r e a t y o b l i g a t i o n t o move west and t h e unde r t ak ing

of t h e burdens t h e r e o f , of no a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t a s compared w i t h t h e

I n d i a n a Miamis. For example, l e t us assume t h a t t h e compromise award

under t h e 1840 t r e a t y amounts t o about $600,000 ($1,373,000 n e t award

i .; f o r t h e 1834, 1838, and 1840 t r e a t i e s l e s s t h e $773,000 awarded under t h e

1834 and 1838 t r e a t i e s ) . However, t h i s $600,000 n e t f i g u r e t a k e s i n t o

account t h e $162,000 agreed va lue of the Kansas land which was p a r t of

t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t he 1840 cess ion . The re fo re , t h e amount r e c e i v a b l e

under t h e 1840 t r e a t y before the $162,000 c o n s i d e r a t i o n was s u b t r a c t e d

t o a r r i v e a t a n e t f i g u r e of $600,000 should have been about $762,000.

I n o r d e r t o g ive e f f e c t t o p e t i t i o n e r ' s motion, and assuming t h a t t h e

award under t h e 1840 t r e a t y would be d iv ided e q u a l l y between the two

p e t i t i o n e r s h e r e i n , i t would mean t h a t t h e $762,000 would be d iv ided i n

h a l f , g i v i n g approximately $381,000 t o each group. Then, t h e $162,000

would be s u b t r a c t e d from the share of the Miami T r i b e of Oklahoma leav-

i n g them w i t h approximately $219,000. The p r a c t i c a l e f f e c t of g r a n t i n g

t;kiz mot ion , a s we have i l l u s t r a t e d above would be t o al low t h e I n d i a n a

17 I n d . C 1 . Corn. 427 4 38

Miami t o recover $162,000 more t h a n t h e Oklahoma Miami u n d e r t h e 1840

T r e a t y . T h i s would n u l l i f y t o a g r e a t e s t e n t t h e b e n e f i t s which i n a l l

j u s t i c e and e q u i t y should a c c r u e t o t h e Oklahoma Miamis whose a n c e s t o r s

went t o Kansas and endured many h a r d s h i p s i n s o do ing t o comply w i t h t h e

r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e 1840 T r e a t y . On t h e o t h e r hand, t h e I n d i a n a Miami,

whose a n c e s t o r s e i t h e r d i d n o t f u l f i l l t h i s o b l i g a t i o n o f t.he 1840 T r e a t y

o r who r e c e i v e d o t h e r b e n e f i t s i n l i e u o f t h e Kansas l a n d s , would s t a n d

p r a c t i c a l l y i n t h e same p o s i t i o n a s i f t h e y had complied w i t h t h e i r t r e a t y

o b l i g a t i o n s o r had rece ived no a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t s .

For a l l o f t h e above r e a s o n s , t h e Motion of P e t i t i o n e r i n Dockets

124-D, E , and F i s hereby den ied .

A r t h u r V . Watkina Chie f Commissioner

- I concur :

Wm. M. H o l t A s s o c i a t e Commissioner

A s s o c i a t e Commissioner S c o t t d i d n o t p a r t i c i p a t e .

BEFORE THE I N D I A N CLAIMS COMMISSION

THE M I A K C TRIBE OF OKLAHOFLA ) Docket No. 256 1 conso l ida t ed with

THE MIMI I ~ T I A R S 0 r INDIANA ) Docket Nos. 1 2 4 - D , E , and F 1

P e t i t i o n e r s , ) )

V. ) )

THE mTITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) )

Defendant. )

ORDER DENYING MOTION OF PETITIONER I N DOCKET NOS. 124-D, E, AND F, THAT CONSIDERATION FOR THE KANSAS LANDS BE CHARGED SOLELY AGAINST THE RECOVERY OF THE M I A M I TRIBE

OF OKLAHOMA, PETTTIONER I N DOCKET NO. 256

P e t i t i o n e r i n Docket Nos. 124-D, E , and F , The Miami I n d i a n s of I n d i a n a , f i l e d a motion be fo re t h e Commission on t h e 15 th day of J u l y , 1966, r e q u e s t i n g "That cons ide ra t ion f o r Kansas lands be charged s o l e l y a g a i n s t t h e recovery of t h e Miami Tr ibe of Oklahoma." The p a r t i e s hav ing f i l e d t h e i r b r i e f s and o r a l l y argued t h e m a t t e r be fo re t h e Commission, t h e szme was t a k e n under advisement, and t h e Commission be ing f u l l y adv i sed i n t h e p remises , f i n d s f o r t h e reasons s t a t e d i n t h e opin ion t h i s day f i l e d h e r e i n , t h a t s a i d motion should be denied.

IT I S THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED t h a t s a i d motion of t h e p e t i t i o n e r i n Docket Nos, 124-D, E, and F , The Miami Ind ians of Ind iana , be , and t h e same i s hereby denied.

Dated a t Washington, D. C. , t h i s 29th day of November, 1966.

Arthur V. Watkins Chief Commissioner

Wm. M. Hol t Assoc ia t e Commissioner

A s s o c i a t e C o m i s s i o n e r S c o t t d id not p a r t i c i p a t e ,