| 翻訳と辞書 |
| Fellows v. Blacksmith ： ウィキペディア英語版 |
Fellows v. Blacksmith
''Fellows v. Blacksmith'', 60 U.S. (19 How.) 366 (1857), is a United States Supreme Court decision involving Native American law. John Blacksmith, a Tonawanda Seneca, sued agents of the Ogden Land Company for common law claims of trespass,〔John Edward Barry, Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida: ''Tribal Rights of Action and the Indian Trade and Intercourse Act'', 84 1852, 1873 (1984); Shelby D. Green, ''Specific Relief for Ancient Depravations of Property'', 36 245, 280 n.193 (2003); Allan Kanner, Ryan Casey & Barrett Ristroph, ''New Opportunities for Native American Tribes to Pursue Environmental and Natural Resource Claims'', 14 155, 175 n.133 (2003).〕 assault, and battery after he was forcibly evicted from his sawmill by the Company's agents. The Court affirmed a judgement in Blacksmith's favor, notwithstanding the fact that the Seneca had executed an Indian removal treaty and the Company held the exclusive right to purchase to the land by virtue of an interstate compact ratified by Congress.〔〔G. William Rice, ''Teaching Decolonization: Reacquisition of Indian Lands Within and Without the Box—An Essay'', 82 811, 833 (2006).〕
Citing the trust relationship between the federal government and the tribes, the Court held that removal treaties could only be enforced against the tribes by the federal government, not private parties (whether through self-help or through the courts).〔Bethany R. Berger, ''"Power over This Unfortunate Race": Race, Politics, and Indian Law in'' United States v. Rogers, 45 1957, 2006 (2004); Reid Peyton Chambers, ''Judicial Enforcement of the Federal Trust Responsibility to Indians'', 27 1213, 1213 n.1 (1975); Matthew L.M. Fletcher, ''The Supreme Court and Federal Indian Policy'', 85 121, 141 n.111 (2006); Ford, 1995, at 147 n.42; Robert B. Porter, ''The Jurisdictional Relationship Between the Iroquois and New York State: An Analysis of 25 U.S.C. ss 232, 233'', 27 497, 503 n.32, 514 n.100 (1990).〕 In other words, the federal government retained the discretion not to enforce such treaties.〔Jay Donald Jerde, ''Learning to Sell Grandmother: Why'' City of Sherrill, New York v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York ''Should be Upheld to Preserve Tax-Free Status of Tribal Real Estate Acquisitions'', 28 341, 366 (2005).〕 At the same time, the Court held that enrolled treaties are conclusively valid, and refused to consider the plaintiffs claim that the Treaty of Buffalo Creek (1838) was fraudulent.
''Fellows'' was one of several encounters of the Taney Court with the aboriginal title.〔Robert N. Clinton, ''Isolated in Their Own Country: A Defense of Federal Protection of Indian Autonomy and Self-Government'', 33 979, 1042 n.321; Michael L. Ferch, ''Indian Land Rights: An International Approach to Just Compensation'', 2 301, 310 n.55 (1992).〕 It was the first litigation of aboriginal title in the United States in the Court by an indigenous plaintiff since ''Cherokee Nation v. Georgia'' (1831).〔Richard B. Collins & Karla D. Miller, ''A People Without Law'', 5 83, 87 & n.24 (2006).〕 According to a contemporary ''New York Times'' article: "The questions involved are of great magnitude, and affect more or less the title to a large portion of the State of New York."〔 In ''Fellows'', the court found "its first opportunity to consider the power of the federal government over Indian lands in New York."〔Francis J. O'Toole & Thomas N. Tureen, ''State Power and the Passamaquoddy Tribe: A Gross National Hypocrisy'', 23 1, 27 (1971).〕 Following the precedents of the Marshall Court, ''Fellows'' was "decided at a time when the government was still dealing with Indian tribes as if they were semi-sovereign nations."〔
The plaintiffs' lawyer John H. Martindale (future New York Attorney General) also represented the interests of the Tonawanda Band of Seneca Indians in three companion cases in the New York state courts. The third such case, ''New York ex rel. Cutler v. Dibble'' (1858), also reached the Supreme Court, which held that state nonintercourse acts (U.S. state laws prohibiting non-Indians from acquiring Indian lands) are not preempted by the Commerce Clause, the federal Nonintercourse Act, or federal treaties. Ely S. Parker, one of the administrators of the Blacksmith estate, went on to draft the surrender at Appomattox and to become the first indigenous Commissioner of Indian Affairs.
==Background==
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「Fellows v. Blacksmith」の詳細全文を読む
スポンサード リンク
| 翻訳と辞書 : 翻訳のためのインターネットリソース |
Copyright(C) kotoba.ne.jp 1997-2016. All Rights Reserved.
|
|