1. A taking of an interest in land, tortious in its origin, may
be made lawful by relation. P. 299
2. A taking of land may be partial, not involving complete
eviction. P. 299 U. S.
3. The right to interest, or a fair equivalent, attaches
automatically to an award for damages for an expropriation of
property, though not specified in the Act of Congress permitting
the suit. Id.
4. The guardianship of the United States over the property and
affairs of tribal Indians does not enable the Government to require
a tribe to which an exclusive right of occupancy has been pledged
by treaty to share it with another tribe without just compensation.
P. 299 U. S.
5. By treaty of July 3, 1868, a reservation was set apart for
the Shoshone Indians exclusively. On March 18, 1878, a band of
Arapahoes, under military escort, settled upon the land; others did
so later. These intrusions were directed or sanctioned by the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, with intent that the settlements
should be permanent, and from then on, in the administrative way,
he treated the two tribes as equal beneficiaries of the reservation
-- a view which at length found sanction in Acts of Congress
dealing with cessions of land and with the privilege of allotment
in severalty. The Shoshones, however, protested consistently
Page 299 U. S. 477
against the invasion of their rights, and finally secured from
Congress the jurisdictional Act of March 3, 1927, under which they
presented to the court below their claim for compensation for the
taking of an undivided one-half interest in their tribal lands.
(1) That the jurisdictional Act is not an exercise of eminent
domain, although it provides that a recovery under it shall be in
full settlement and shall annul the claim of the Shoshones.
Consequently, the date of that Act is not the time as of which the
property taken should be valued in assessing compensation. P.
299 U. S.
(2) Neither are the damages to be measured as of a date (Aug.
13, 1891) when the Commissioner of Indian Affairs expressed in an
official letter his opinion that the rights of the two tribes to
the reservation were equal. P. 299 U. S.
(3) By the action and inaction of the executive and legislative
branches of the Government, the de facto
originally tortious, was ratified, and the ratification relates
back to the date of the original unlawful entry, March 18, 1878. P.
299 U. S.
(4) Damages should be measured as of that date. Id.
(5) The claimant's damages include such additional amount beyond
the value of its property rights when taken by the Government as
may be necessary to the award of just compensation, the increment
to be measured either by interest on the value or by such other
standard as may be suitable in the light of all the circumstances.
P. 299 U.S. 496
82 Ct.Cls. 23 reversed.
Cross-writs of certiorari to review a judgment awarding
compensation for the taking of a one-half undivided interest in the
reservation of the Shoshone Tribe of Indians.
Page 299 U. S. 484
MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Shoshone Tribe of Indians of the Wind River Reservation in
Wyoming has sued the United States in the Court of Claims for the
breach of treaty stipulations whereby the tribe has been
permanently excluded from the possession and enjoyment of an
undivided half interest in the tribal lands. Jurisdiction to hear
the claim was conferred upon the Court of Claims by an Act of March
3, 1927 (44 Stat. 1349, part 2), which, so far as its provisions
are now material, is quoted in the margin. [Footnote 1
Page 299 U. S. 485
The court gave judgment for the claimant. Neither party to the
controversy was satisfied with the award of damages, the claimant
finding it too low and the government too high. There were
cross-petitions for certiorari. To fix with certainty and justice
the rights and duties of the government in its relations with an
Indian tribe, the writs were allowed, and the case is here
By Treaty of July 3, 1868 (15 Stat. 673), the Shoshone Tribe of
Indians relinquished to the United States a reservation of
44,672,000 acres in Colorado, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming, and
accepted in exchange a reservation of 3,054,182 acres in Wyoming,
with other benefits not now important. The United States agreed
that the territory described in the treaty now generally known as
the Wind River Reservation would be
"set apart for the absolute and undisturbed use and occupation
of the Shoshone Indians . . . and for such other friendly
Page 299 U. S. 486
or individual Indians as from time to time they may be willing,
with the consent of the United States, to admit amongst them."
Reinforcing this covenant, there was a solemn pledge of faith by
the United States that no persons, except a few specially
enumerated, and governmental agents engaged in the discharge of
duties enjoined by law, should "ever be permitted to pass over,
settle upon, or reside" in the territory so reserved. The loyalty
of the Shoshone Tribe to the people of the United States has been
conspicuous and unfaltering. A fidelity at least as constant and
inflexible was owing in return.
In 1869, a band of the Northern Arapahoes, separating from the
main body of the nation, was wandering about the country, looking
for a home. The Arapahoes had been allies of the Sioux, who were
the foes of the Shoshones. Nonetheless, the wanderers expressed a
wish to have a refuge and a settlement on the Wind River
Reservation. They came upon the reservation in 1870, and were
informed by Washakie, Chief of the Shoshones, that they would be
permitted to stay there for a short time while the government was
seeking to place them elsewhere. After a few months, they moved
away. The government had no success, however, in providing them
with a satisfactory home, and they continued to cast longing eyes
toward the fair and fertile acres set apart for their ancestral
foes. At the instance of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, acting
in cooperation with the Secretary of the Interior, a new attempt
was made in October, 1877, to bring the tribes together and relieve
the growing tension developing between them. One Irwin, formerly
the Indian agent on the Wind River Reservation, discussed the
problem with Washakie. He said that the President had no intention
of placing the Arapahoes on the Shoshone Reservation, but that the
desire was merely to insure peace between the tribes and to find a
place for the Arapahoes nearby, on a separate tract of
Page 299 U. S. 487
land close to the eastern boundary. Washakie agreed that there
should be peace, but insisted that the traditional enemies of his
tribe be placed at a safe distance, predicting that close contact
would bring friction and fresh hostility.
Irwin telegraphed the Commissioner of Indian Affairs at
Washington on October 17, 1877: "I returned from Shoshone Agency
today. Held a council and made peace between Shoshones and
Arapahoes." A written report, dated February 21, 1878, gave the
details of the council. Even so, the telegram, it seems, had been
misunderstood by the Commissioner, for, in his annual report for
1877 (dated November 1, 1877), he said (page 19):
"In a formal council held last month by Agent Irwin with the
Shoshones, their consent to the arrangement desired by the
Arapahoes was obtained, and the removal of the latter is now in
Ignoring many warnings in February and later that consent had
been refused, the Commissioner adhered to his erroneous assumption.
The consequences of his error are visible in the events that
On March 18, 1878, a band of Northern Arapahoes was brought to
the Reservation of the Shoshones under military escort. The
reservation had been reduced to 2,343,000 acres by the cession of
700,642 acres in 1874 for a money consideration. The Shoshones
believed that, for hunting and for husbandry, it was not in excess
of present needs. The unheralded arrival of the Arapahoes was the
cause of much excitement. There was a council the next day at which
the leader of the Arapahoes explained to Washakie that they and
their horses were weary and without food, and in need of rest and
care. Thereupon, Washakie agreed that they might remain for a short
time to rest their horses and themselves. But the Indian
Commissioner, it seems, had not brought them to the reservation for
any temporary visit. On April 2, 1878, he telegraphed the agent at
the reservation to furnish the
Page 299 U. S. 488
Arapahoes with the necessary food and supplies, and directed him
to "report fully by mail what other measures are necessary to
locate the Band of Northern Arapahoe Indians under Black Coal,"
their leader. The agent responded that the Shoshones looked upon
the presence of the Arapahoes as "an encroachment on their rights."
At the request of both tribes, he urged the calling of a council to
be attended by the Department Commander, General Crook, in order
that the location of the Arapahoes might be permanently settled. No
reply to this request came from the Commissioner or from anyone
The famished Arapahoes and their horses had been fed and cared
for, but they did not move away. Instead of moving away, they came
in increasing numbers. As early as April 8, 1878, nearly the whole
tribe was on the scene. Washakie protested to the agent. The agent
at frequent intervals communicated the protests to the
Commissioner. There was nothing in return but silence. Months
lengthened into years, and the signs accumulated steadily that the
Arapahoes were there to stay. Schools were established for their
benefit to the end that their youth might be adequately trained.
Report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1879, p. 169. Ditches
were dug for the irrigation of their ranches. Report of
Commissioner of Indian Affairs, 1889, p. 308. In numberless other
ways, their equality of right and privilege became a postulate of
daily life. At length, in August, 1891, the flame of controversy
blazed forth anew. The "Woodruff Commission" had been sent to the
reservation to treat with the Indians for a cession of a portion of
their lands. The Shoshones took the ground that the Arapahoes
should not be suffered to take part in the council and vote upon
the projects. The Commission telegraphed the Commissioner of
Indians Affairs, asking for instructions. In reply, August 13,
1891, the Commissioner notified the Commission:
"This office holds . . . that the Arapahoes
Page 299 U. S. 489
have equal rights to the land on the said reservation which does
not depend upon the further consent of the Shoshones, and you
should conduct your negotiations with them upon that basis and with
Accordingly, both tribes participated in the council, though a
cession was not effected.
The Commissioner continued to act on the assumption that the
occupancy of the Arapahoes, initiated, as we have seen, under
military escort, was permanent and rightful. What is more to the
point, Congress did the same. Thus, in 1897, the government, by its
agent, concluded an agreement with the Shoshones and Arapahoes
whereby the Indians ceded to the government part of the Shoshones
Reservation (55,040 acres) for $60,000, to be expended without
discrimination among the members of the tribes. In preliminary
conferences, the Shoshones protested that they alone should receive
the stipulated payments. Their protest was overruled, though they
succeeded in adding a proviso that nothing in the agreement was to
be construed to deprive them of their annuities or benefits under
any existing agreements or treaty stipulations. This agreement,
with its clear recognition of the occupancy of the Arapahoes and
their equal interest in the land, was ratified by act of Congress.
Act of June 7, 1897, c. 3, § 12, 30 Stat. 62, 93, 94. Again on
April 21, 1904, the government made an agreement with the two
tribes for the cession of a large tract (1,480,000 acres), leaving
only 808,500 acres in the diminished reservation. Again the
Shoshones protested that the Arapahoes were intruders, and refused
to sign without a proviso similar to the one in the agreement of
1897. [Footnote 2
Page 299 U. S. 490
Again the government dealt with the two tribes as lawful
occupants and equals. This agreement like the earlier one was
ratified by act of Congress. Act of March 3, 1905, c. 1452, 33
Stat. 1016. It provides, inter alia,
"any individual Indian, a member of the Shoshone or Arapahoe
tribes, who has, under existing laws or treaty stipulations,
selected a tract of land within the portion of said reservation
hereby ceded, shall be entitled to have the same allotted and
confirmed to him or her, and any Indian who has made or received an
allotment of land within the ceded territory shall have the right
to surrender such allotment and select other lands within the
diminished reserve in lieu thereof at any time before the lands
hereby ceded shall be opened for entry."
There is a finding that 245,058 acres were allotted to Shoshone
and Arapahoe Indians between 1907 and 1919 under the power thus
conferred. Many other provisions of the agreement and the statute
are almost equally explicit and significant in their recognition of
the status quo.
Nowhere is there a suggestion that the
occupancy of the newcomers is impermanent or provisional.
The Arapahoes held their ground, pushing the Shoshones farther
to the west and retaining for themselves the eastern section of the
reservation, found by the Court of Claims to be the most eligible
portion. At all times, the population of each of the two tribes has
been approximately equal. There continued to come forth from the
Shoshones intermittent protests, which at last reached the halls of
Congress and, in 1927, had a long delayed fruition. In that year,
the Committee on Indian Affairs of the House of Representatives
reported a bill to make atonement for the wrongs that for nearly
half a century had been left without redress. House Report No.
1628, 69th Congress, 2d Session, Congressional Record, vol. 68,
part 1, p. 625.
Page 299 U. S. 491
Extracts from that report are printed in the margin. [Footnote 3
] The bill so proposed was
passed, but was vetoed by the President, chiefly for the reason
that it made provision for the payment of interest at 5 percent per
annum on the value of any property appropriated in violation of the
treaty or wrongfully disposed of. Congressional Record, vol. 68,
part 3, p. 2414, 69th Congress, 2d Session. On February 4, 1927,
the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs reported a new bill, with
the statement that it had been redrafted to correct the objection
of the President and that it was identical with the earlier bill
except for the interest provision, though in truth other verbal
changes had been made in the process of revision. Senate Report No.
1389, Congressional Record, vol. 68, part 3, p. 2921. The bill so
revised became chapter 302 of the Laws of 1927, the jurisdictional
act under which the present suit has been maintained.
Upon these facts, the Court of Claims decided that the occupancy
of the Arapahoes became definitive and permanent
Page 299 U. S. 492
on August 13, 1891, when the Commissioner of Indian Affairs made
public statement of his opinion that they were entitled to enjoy
the reservation equally with the Shoshones. The value at that time
of an undivided half interest in the land was found to be
$2,050,597.50. The value of the use and occupation between March
18, 1878, and August 13, 1891, was fixed at $332,475. The sum of
these values, along with a few minor items, was.$2,483,467.99, from
which there was a deduction of $1,689,646.50, for offsets owing to
the government and not in controversy here. The balance,
$793,821.49, is the amount of the judgment now before us for
review. As already stated, neither the claimant nor the government
is content with the decision. Both agree that there was error in
fixing the value of the land as of August 13, 1891. The claimant
insists that it should be reckoned as of March 3, 1927, the date of
the jurisdictional act, and that compensation should be added for
the value of the intermediate use and occupation. The government
insists that the value should be reckoned as of March 18, 1878,
when the unlawful occupancy began. The claimant makes the
additional point that, irrespective of the date at which the value
is computed, interest must be awarded up to the date of the
judgment on the recovery allowed.
the Court of Claims did not err in refusing to
fix the damages on the basis of the value of the land on March 3,
The claimant takes the ground that the jurisdictional act is an
exercise of the power of eminent domain. The argument is that, by
force of its provisions, a trespass which had been unlawful, though
continuous, since March 18, 1878, was turned, as of March, 1927,
into a definitive and lawful taking. But this is to mistake utterly
the design and meaning of the statute. The jurisdictional act is
not a taking of anything. It
"makes no admission of liability, or of any ground of liability,
Page 299 U. S. 493
part of the government, but merely provides a forum for the
adjudication of the claim according to applicable legal
United States v. Mille Lac Band of Chippewa Indians,
229 U. S. 498
229 U. S. 500
No cause of action can be vindicated thereunder unless such a cause
of action as, apart from the impediment of governmental immunity
from suit, was already in existence. Under the jurisdictional act,
the court is to inquire whether the violation of the treaty of 1868
or of some later treaty or agreement or some later act of Congress
has given rise to legal or equitable grounds of liability. True,
the decree, when it is made,
"shall be in full settlement of all damages, if any, committed
by the Government of the United States, and shall annul and cancel
all claim, right, and title of the said Shoshone Indians in and to
such money, lands, or other property."
But the claimant is not subject to a duty, either under that act
or any other, to sue the government at all. In the event of a
failure to sue or to prosecute the suit to a decree, rights and
liabilities will remain as they were before any act was passed. The
sovereign power is not exercised to extinguish titles or other
interests against the will of tribal occupants by force of eminent
If this conclusion might otherwise be doubtful (which we do not
suggest), the doubt would be dispelled by a consideration of the
history of the statute. The reports of the Committees of Congress
preceding the two bills -- the one vetoed by the President and the
one enacted into law -- make it plain that the purpose was to give
reparation to the claimant for an "alleged unlawful appropriation"
effected in the past, not to make a new and lawful appropriation by
an exercise of sovereign power. So the message of the President
vetoing the first bill which permitted an award of interest adds
this comment to a sketch of the grievance of the tribe:
"It seems to me unreasonable to expect that the Government
Page 299 U. S. 494
charged with interest from the dates of origin of such ancient
Congress had no thought in its revision of the rejected bill to
prescribe present expropriation in lieu of present reparation. As
pointed out already, the bill redrafted was understood to be
identical with the first one except that the interest provision had
been dropped to meet the President's objection.
the Court of Claims erred in holding that
damages should be measured as of August 13, 1891, the date of the
letter from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Woodruff
Commission, and in failing to measure them as of 1878, the date of
the unlawful entry.
The treaty of 1868 charged the government with a duty to see to
it that strangers should never be permitted without the consent of
the Shoshones to settle upon or reside in the Wind River
Reservation. That duty was not fulfilled. Instead, the Arapahoes
were brought upon the reservation with a show of military power,
and kept there in defiance of the duty to expel them. The decision
below is based upon the theory that the letter of August 13, 1891,
is the earliest overt act evincing a definitive purpose to make the
occupancy permanent. But the Commissioner of Indian Affairs was not
empowered to fix the future policy of the government, still less to
exercise in its behalf the power of eminent domain. He made no such
attempt. All that his letter of August, 1891, expresses is an
opinion as to the meaning and operation of notorious and
accomplished facts. By deed as well as by word, he had done his
part for more than thirteen years in shaping those facts to conform
to his opinion. He had made report to the Secretary of the Interior
in November, 1877, that the transfer of the Arapahoes to the Wind
River Reservation was a movement then in progress. He had notified
the local agent in April, 1878, to indicate any other measures
necessary to settle the intruders. He had turned a deaf ear to many
a remonstrance by the tribe
Page 299 U. S. 495
whose possession had been violated. Insofar as his own opinion
and intention were facts of any moment, he had manifested them too
often and too plainly, by conduct and by speech alike, to leave his
attitude in doubt. Little wonder that counsel for the claimant are
at one with counsel for the government in rejecting August, 1891,
as the date when occupancy became more than a temporary
If the date adopted by the Court of Claims is not accepted as
the true one, the question is before us what other shall be
substituted? Looking at events in retrospect through the long vista
of the years, we can see that, from the outset, the occupancy of
the reservation was intended to be permanent; that, however
tortious in its origin, it has been permanent in fact, and that the
government of the United States, through the action and inaction of
its executive and legislative departments for half a century of
time, has ratified the wrong, adopting the de facto
appropriation by relation as of the date of its beginning. To see
the facts in true perspective, we must view them in their totality,
and not in isolation. There are the reports at the beginning as to
the purpose of the settlement; the words and the silence of
administrative officers when entreated to banish the intruders; the
creation of schools for the education of their youth as for that of
the youth already there (Report of Commissioner of Indian Affairs,
1879, p. 169); and, most important of all, the statutes already
summarized, recognizing the Arapahoes equally with the Shoshones as
occupants of the land, accepting their deeds of cession, assigning
to the tribes equally the privilege of new allotments, and devoting
to the two equally the award of future benefits. What meaning can
be ascribed to all these cumulative tokens of intention unless it
be that the intruders have been confirmed in their occupancy as of
the date of the intrusion? Cf. 295 U. S.
Page 299 U. S. 496
Nation, 295 U. S. 103
295 U. S. 110
The Shoshones might protest, as they did, that, in setting their
hands to the agreement, they did not assent to the violation of
treaty stipulations. They might reserve as much as they pleased
claims, present and past, for the recovery of damages. Whatever
their provisos, the outstanding fact remained that, for good or for
ill, the Arapahoes were to dwell upon the soil along with them.
"The adoption by the United States of the wrongful act of any
officer is, of course, an adoption of the act when and as
committed, and causes such act of the officer to be, in virtue of
the statute, a rightful appropriation by the government, for which
compensation is provided."
Crozier v. Krupp, 224 U. S. 290
224 U. S.
Confusion is likely to result from speaking of the wrong to the
Shoshones as a destruction of their title. Title in the strict
sense was always in the United States, though the Shoshones had the
treaty right of occupancy with all its beneficial incidents.
United States v. Creek Nation, supra,
p. 295 U. S. 109
What those incidents are, it is needless to consider now. Cf.
86 U. S. Cook,
19 Wall. 591; Pine River Logging Co. v. United States,
186 U. S. 279
United States v. Paine Lumber Co., 206 U.
. The right of occupancy is the primary one to
which the incidents attach and division of the right with strangers
is an appropriation of the land pro tanto,
if not in form.
the claimant's damages include such additional
amount beyond the value of its property rights when taken by the
government as may be necessary to award of just compensation, the
increment to be measured either by interest on the value or by such
other standard as may be suitable in the light of all the
The fact is unimportant that the taking was tortious in its
origin, if it was made lawful by relation. Crozier
Page 299 U. S. 497
v. Krupp, supra.
The fact also is unimportant that it
was a partial taking only, and that eviction was not complete.
Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13
290 U. S. 16
United States v. Cress, 243 U. S. 316
243 U. S.
-330; Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U. S.
, 285 U. S. 104
Finally the fact is unimportant, there having been an appropriation
of property within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment, that the
jurisdictional act is silent as to an award of interest or any
substitute therefor. United States v. Creek Nation, supra,
p. 295 U. S.
-111; cf. Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United
States, 272 U. S. 351
272 U. S. 359
Given such a taking, the right to interest or a fair equivalent,
attaches itself automatically to the right to an award of damages.
Jacobs v. United States, supra; Phelps v. United States,
274 U. S. 341
Brooks-Scanolon Co. v. United States, 265 U.
, 265 U. S. 123
Seaboard Air Line Co. v. United States, 261 U.
, 261 U. S. 306
These cases distinguish United States v. North American
Co., 253 U. S. 330
cited by the Government which "rested upon its special facts."
Jacobs v. United States, supra.
Nor does the nature of the
right divested avail to modify the rule. Power to control and
manage the property and affairs of Indians in good faith for their
betterment and welfare may be exerted in many ways and at times
even in derogation of the provisions of a treaty. Lone Wolf v.
Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553
187 U. S.
-566. The power does not extend so far as to enable
"to give the tribal lands to others, or to appropriate them to
its own purposes, without rendering, or assuming an obligation to
render, just compensation; . . . for that would not be an exercise
of guardianship, but an act of confiscation."
United States v. Creek Nation, supra,
p. 295 U. S. 110
citing Lane v. Pueblo of Santa Rosa, 249 U.
, 249 U. S. 13
Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U.
, 187 U. S.
-308. The right of the Indians to the occupancy of
the lands pledged to them may be one of occupancy only, but it is
"as sacred as that of the United States to the fee."
Page 299 U. S. 498
United States v. Cook, supra,
p. 86 U. S. 593
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, supra; Choate v. Trapp,
224 U. S. 665
224 U. S. 671
Yankton Sioux Tribe v. United States, supra.
The judgment should be reversed, and the cause remanded to the
Court of Claims for further proceedings in accord with this
MR. JUSTICE STONE took no part in the consideration or decision
of this case.
* Together with No. 328, United States v. Shoshone Tribe of
Certiorari to the Court of Claims.
Section 1 provides that jurisdiction is
"conferred upon the Court of Claims, with right of appeal to the
Supreme Court of the United States by either party, notwithstanding
the lapse of time or statutes of limitation, to hear, examine,
adjudicate, and render judgment in any and all legal and equitable
claims which the Shoshone Tribe of Indians of the Wind River
Reservation in the State of Wyoming may have against the United
States arising under or growing out of the treaty of July 3, 1868
(Fifteenth Statutes, page 673), or arising under or growing out of
any subsequent treaty or agreement between said Shoshone Tribe of
Indians and the United States or any subsequent Act of Congress
affecting said tribe, which claims have not heretofore been
determined and adjudicated upon their merits by the Court of Claims
or the Supreme Court of the United States."
Section 3 provides:
"In said suit, the court shall also hear, examine, and
adjudicate any claims which the United States may have against said
tribe, but any payment, including gratuities which the United
States may have made to said tribe, shall not operate as an
estoppel, but may be pleaded as an offset in such suit:
That the United States may interpose to
such suit or action any and all pleas of defense, affirmative and
negative, legal and equitable, which it may have thereto not herein
specifically barred by the provisions of this Act. In reference to
all claims which may be the subject matter of the suits herein
authorized, the decree of the court shall be in full settlement of
the damages, if any, committed by the Government of the United
States and shall annul and cancel all claim, right, and title of
the said Shoshone Indians in and to such money, lands, or other
44 Stat. 1350.
"Article X. It is further understood that nothing in this
agreement shall be construed to deprive the said Indians of the
Shoshone or Wind River Reservation, Wyoming, of any benefits to
which they are entitled under existing treaties or agreements not
inconsistent with the provisions of this agreement."
"Despite the fact that the United States expressly guaranteed to
these Indians the uninterrupted use and occupancy of the
reservation, and against the protests of the Shoshones of said Wind
River Reservation in Wyoming, the northern band of the Arapahoes,
under military escort, were moved upon said reservation in the
winter of 1877-78."
"In order to disarm the Shoshones, they were assured by the
military authorities that the Arapahoes would be removed from the
reservation the following year. Since then, the Shoshones have
frequently protested against the alleged unlawful appropriation of
their reservation, but have received no relief from the Government.
On the contrary, the Government has allowed the Arapahoes upon the
reservation and treated the funds claimed by the Shoshones as
though they were the joint property of both tribes."
"The purpose of the bill is to permit the Shoshones to submit
their claims for alleged appropriation of property to the Court of
Claims, and your committee feels that, in view of the strong
showing made, the bill should be enacted at an early date."