|
The Supreme Court of the United States, under Chief Justice Roger B. Taney (1836–1864), issued several important decisions on the status of aboriginal title in the United States, building on the opinions of aboriginal title in the Marshall Court. The Taney Court heard ''Fellows v. Blacksmith'' (1857) and ''New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble'' (1858), the first two aboriginal title cases involving indigenous plaintiffs to reach the Supreme Court since ''Cherokee Nation v. Georgia'' (1830), and the first two cases won by indigenous parties in the Supreme Court. In ''Marsh v. Brooks'' (1850), in dicta, the Court declared: "That an action of ejectment could be maintained on an Indian right to occupancy and use, is not open to question." The remaining cases involved no indigenous parties. In ''United States v. Brooks'' (1850), the Court refused to inquire into allegations of fraud on the part of Commissioner Jehiel Brooks in negotiating a treaty with the Caddo. Following the Marshall Court's precedent, the Taney Court continued to uphold the validity of state land grants issued before the extinguishment of aboriginal title. Depending on the applicable law, the Taney Court held that aboriginal title could sometimes be asserted as a defense in trespass, ejectment, and writ of right actions, even by those with no claim to title themselves. ==''United States v. Brooks'' (1850)== In 1835, a treaty negotiated by Commissioner Jehiel Brooks provided for the Caddos to cede certain lands to Franois Grappe and his three sons, Jacques, Dominique, and Balthazar Grappe.〔''United States v. Brooks'', 51 U.S. (10 How.) 442, 450–51 (1850).〕 The Grappes sold the land to Col. Brooks.〔51 U.S. at 460.〕 On February 24, 1846, the United States attorney for the District of Louisiana filed suit against Col. Brooks, alleging that he had fraudulently included the lands within those ceded by the Caddos to the United States.〔51 U.S. at 454, 459–60.〕 At trial, the judge refused to allow the federal government to read various documents into evidence; the jury returned a verdict for Brooks.〔51 U.S. at 456–58.〕 The Court affirmed, holding that "Brooks being the alienee of the Grappes for the entire reservation, he may hold it against any claim of the United States, as his alienors would have done."〔 The court refused to consider "conjectural intimations, which were made in the argument of it, concerning the influences which were used to secure the reservation, or the designs of the commissioner in having it done."〔 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Aboriginal title in the Taney Court」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|