Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock
Encyclopedia
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, was a United States Supreme Court case brought against the US government by the Kiowa
chief Lone Wolf
, who charged that Native American
tribes under the Medicine Lodge Treaty
had been defrauded of land by Congressional actions in violation of the treaty.
The Court declared that the "plenary power
" of the United States Congress
gave it authority to unilaterally abrogate treaty obligations between the United States and Native American
tribes. The decision marked a departure from the holdings of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
, , and Worcester v. Georgia
, , which had given greater respect to the autonomy of Native American tribes.
Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock was decided amid a background of separation, assimilation, and allotment. In an effort to confine Indian occupancy and use of land to specific territories, the earliest Indian treaties established the idea of reservations. However, the lure for gold, land, and other resources in Indian territory was a temptation too great for the settlers to resist. Consequently, many Indian tribes were removed westward to large blocks of land reserved for their use with the assurance that the new lands would remain Indian reservations forever. In fact, settlers soon encountered Indian Country as the nation expanded westward. Before long, homesteaders demanded more lands from the government, and the federal policy makers acquiesced by developing programs to diminish the Indians' reservation land base.
Specifically, in 1853 Commissioner of Indian Affairs George Manypenny instituted a general policy of attempting to negotiate allotment provisions in treaties, which converted communally held tribal lands into individually owned parcels. Any surplus lands remaining were then opened to settlement by non-Indians. Congress quickly adopted his policy and, by virtue of the General Allotment (Dawes) Act of 1887, Congress was able systematically to allot some 41 million acres (165,921.3 km²) of tribal lands. Former reservations soon became checkerboarded with non-Indian–owned land.
However, the Dawes Act did not apply to all Indian territory; rather, the allotment of certain areas, particularly those lands in the Oklahoma Territory, required a special act from Congress. In 1892, Congress sent three commissioners, known as the Jerome Commission, to negotiate with the Kiowas, a tribe whose reservation was located in the Oklahoma Territory, for the allotment and cession of their lands. According to the Treaty of Medicine Lodge, no further Kiowa land cessions would occur without the approval of a supermajority of the tribe. Specifically, Article XII of the treaty stated that any cession of tribal land required the signatures of "at least three-fourths of all the adult male Indians occupying the same."
Lone Wolf, the Kiowa chief, led his people in resistance to the allotment of their reservation. During negotiations, Lone Wolf reminded the commission that the Treaty of Medicine Lodge, which established their reservation, guaranteed their lands forever. In addition, Lone Wolf noted that the small farms that would result from allotment would not support tribal families. Realizing that the negotiations were going badly, the commission threatened the tribe, asserting that Congress has the power to take their land without payment or assent. Nevertheless, Lone Wolf and his tribe resisted any form of allotment.
Once negotiations faltered, the commissioners fraudulently induced some tribal members to sign various allotment documents under false pretenses. To obtain the supermajority required by the treaty for the cession of the Kiowa lands, the commissioners had members of other tribes sign the documents as well. By October 6, 1892, the government claimed that a majority of Kiowas had signed the agreement, which proposed to give every member of the tribe a 160 acre (0.6474976 km²) allotment and to pay $2 million for the surplus lands. The Commission then returned to Washington, asking Congress to proceed with the allotment of the Kiowa lands.
However, Lone Wolf and several other Kiowas claimed that any assent to the agreements had been obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations of the terms by interpreters. In addition, they alleged that the agreement was invalid since, according to the tribal rolls, less than three-fourths of the adult male Indians signed the agreement. In October 1899, the tribes held a council and drafted a petition to Congress signed by a supermajority of eligible Kiowa members. The petition was a clear and simple statement of the tribes' repudiation of the agreement.
Despite the Kiowas' opposition and any congressional concerns about the fraudulent process used by the commission, in February 1900 Congress proceeded with the allotment. Subsequently, Lone Wolf filed a complaint in the equity division of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia seeking to restrain the Department of Interior from carrying out the provisions of the Allotment Act, arguing that the Acts of Congress were unconstitutional, void, and a violation of solemn treaty provisions.
The Court refused to entertain any complaint concerning the statute or the federal policy of allotment in general. Instead, by recognizing the tribe's dependent relationship with the federal government, the Court upheld Congress's authority to allot the Kiowa reservation without any tribal assent:
The contention in effect ignores the status of contracting Indians and the relation of dependency they bore and continue to bear towards the government of the United States. To uphold the claim would be to adjudge that the indirect operation of the treaty was to materially limit and qualify the controlling authority of Congress in respect to the care and protection of the Indians, and to deprive Congress, in a possible emergency, when the necessity might be urgent for a partition and disposal of the tribal lands, of all power to act, if the assent of the Indians could not be obtained (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, 564).
According to the Court, Congress, through its plenary power, has the authority to abrogate treaties unilaterally if that action is in furtherance of its obligation to care for and protect the Indians. Thus, the Court held that whether a supermajority of the tribe had signed the allotment documents was inconsequential. Rather, because Congress thought it necessary to allot the Kiowa reservation for the care and protection of the tribal members, it was entitled to do so without their assent.
In effect, the Lone Wolf decision granted Congress not only the plenary authority to abrogate treaties with the Indians unilaterally, but also an absolute, unchecked power to regulate in all aspects of Indian affairs. By relying on the Indians' special fiduciary relationship with the federal government, the Court established the presumption that any congressional actions taken toward Indian affairs are made in good faith: "We must presume that Congress acted in perfect good faith in the dealings with the Indians of which complaint is made, and that the legislative branch of the government exercised its best judgment in the premises" (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, 568). Furthermore, by characterizing such plenary actions as political questions, the Court announced that congressional legislation in the field of Indian law is "not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government" and is therefore unreviewable (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, 565). Thus, because any regulation of Indian affairs is presumed to have been taken in good faith and because such regulation is a political question, Congress has unfettered authority to act as it sees fit.
In recent years, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock has been widely discredited, and the Supreme Court has attempted to mute its harsh ruling. Specifically, the Court now requires that any congressional intention to abrogate an Indian treaty or treaty right be clear and plain. In addition, the Court has declared that congressional activity in Indian affairs is no longer an unreviewable political question; rather, if such action cannot be characterized as that of a good faith trustee toward its beneficiary, the Court will subject the action as to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Nonetheless, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock remains a precedent in the field of American Indian law and provides authority for Congress, subject to few limitations, to deal with Indian tribes as it sees fit.
The decision was based, among other things, on a paternalistic view of the United States' relationship with the tribes:
Congress unilaterally modified many other treaties between Native American tribes and the United States in subsequent years, in part relying on the decision in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock. The decision has been upheld and cited by the Supreme Court since then, such as in United States v. Dion
of 1986.
Kiowa
The Kiowa are a nation of American Indians and indigenous people of the Great Plains. They migrated from the northern plains to the southern plains in the late 17th century. In 1867, the Kiowa moved to a reservation in southwestern Oklahoma...
chief Lone Wolf
Lone Wolf
Lone Wolf or lone wolf may refer to:*Lone Wolf , British singer-songwriter Paul Marshall*Lone wolf *Lone wolf *Lone Wolf , a Kiowa chief*Lone Wolf, Oklahoma, a town in Kiowa County, Oklahoma, United States...
, who charged that Native American
Indigenous peoples of the Americas
The indigenous peoples of the Americas are the pre-Columbian inhabitants of North and South America, their descendants and other ethnic groups who are identified with those peoples. Indigenous peoples are known in Canada as Aboriginal peoples, and in the United States as Native Americans...
tribes under the Medicine Lodge Treaty
Medicine Lodge Treaty
The Medicine Lodge Treaty is the overall name for three treaties signed between the United States government and southern Plains Indian tribes in October 1867, intended to bring peace to the area by relocating the Native Americans to reservations in Indian Territory and away from European-American...
had been defrauded of land by Congressional actions in violation of the treaty.
The Court declared that the "plenary power
Plenary power
A plenary power or plenary authority is the separate identification, definition, and complete vesting of a power or powers or authority in a governing body or individual, to choose to act on a particular subject matter or area...
" of the United States Congress
United States Congress
The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States, consisting of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The Congress meets in the United States Capitol in Washington, D.C....
gave it authority to unilaterally abrogate treaty obligations between the United States and Native American
Native Americans in the United States
Native Americans in the United States are the indigenous peoples in North America within the boundaries of the present-day continental United States, parts of Alaska, and the island state of Hawaii. They are composed of numerous, distinct tribes, states, and ethnic groups, many of which survive as...
tribes. The decision marked a departure from the holdings of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia
Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, , was a United States Supreme Court case. The Cherokee Nation sought a federal injunction against laws passed by the state of Georgia depriving them of rights within its boundaries, but the Supreme Court did not hear the case on its merits...
, , and Worcester v. Georgia
Worcester v. Georgia
Worcester v. Georgia, 31 U.S. 515 , was a case in which the United States Supreme Court vacated the conviction of Samuel Worcester and held that the Georgia criminal statute that prohibited non-Indians from being present on Indian lands without a license from the state was unconstitutional.The...
, , which had given greater respect to the autonomy of Native American tribes.
Facts
In 1903, the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, in which the Court allocated plenary authority over Indian affairs to Congress. This authority included the power not only to break Indian treaties at its discretion, but also to dispose of treaty-protected Indian land at will. Although widely discredited, the case has never been overruled and represents a landmark case in American Indian law.Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock was decided amid a background of separation, assimilation, and allotment. In an effort to confine Indian occupancy and use of land to specific territories, the earliest Indian treaties established the idea of reservations. However, the lure for gold, land, and other resources in Indian territory was a temptation too great for the settlers to resist. Consequently, many Indian tribes were removed westward to large blocks of land reserved for their use with the assurance that the new lands would remain Indian reservations forever. In fact, settlers soon encountered Indian Country as the nation expanded westward. Before long, homesteaders demanded more lands from the government, and the federal policy makers acquiesced by developing programs to diminish the Indians' reservation land base.
Specifically, in 1853 Commissioner of Indian Affairs George Manypenny instituted a general policy of attempting to negotiate allotment provisions in treaties, which converted communally held tribal lands into individually owned parcels. Any surplus lands remaining were then opened to settlement by non-Indians. Congress quickly adopted his policy and, by virtue of the General Allotment (Dawes) Act of 1887, Congress was able systematically to allot some 41 million acres (165,921.3 km²) of tribal lands. Former reservations soon became checkerboarded with non-Indian–owned land.
However, the Dawes Act did not apply to all Indian territory; rather, the allotment of certain areas, particularly those lands in the Oklahoma Territory, required a special act from Congress. In 1892, Congress sent three commissioners, known as the Jerome Commission, to negotiate with the Kiowas, a tribe whose reservation was located in the Oklahoma Territory, for the allotment and cession of their lands. According to the Treaty of Medicine Lodge, no further Kiowa land cessions would occur without the approval of a supermajority of the tribe. Specifically, Article XII of the treaty stated that any cession of tribal land required the signatures of "at least three-fourths of all the adult male Indians occupying the same."
Lone Wolf, the Kiowa chief, led his people in resistance to the allotment of their reservation. During negotiations, Lone Wolf reminded the commission that the Treaty of Medicine Lodge, which established their reservation, guaranteed their lands forever. In addition, Lone Wolf noted that the small farms that would result from allotment would not support tribal families. Realizing that the negotiations were going badly, the commission threatened the tribe, asserting that Congress has the power to take their land without payment or assent. Nevertheless, Lone Wolf and his tribe resisted any form of allotment.
Once negotiations faltered, the commissioners fraudulently induced some tribal members to sign various allotment documents under false pretenses. To obtain the supermajority required by the treaty for the cession of the Kiowa lands, the commissioners had members of other tribes sign the documents as well. By October 6, 1892, the government claimed that a majority of Kiowas had signed the agreement, which proposed to give every member of the tribe a 160 acre (0.6474976 km²) allotment and to pay $2 million for the surplus lands. The Commission then returned to Washington, asking Congress to proceed with the allotment of the Kiowa lands.
However, Lone Wolf and several other Kiowas claimed that any assent to the agreements had been obtained by fraudulent misrepresentations of the terms by interpreters. In addition, they alleged that the agreement was invalid since, according to the tribal rolls, less than three-fourths of the adult male Indians signed the agreement. In October 1899, the tribes held a council and drafted a petition to Congress signed by a supermajority of eligible Kiowa members. The petition was a clear and simple statement of the tribes' repudiation of the agreement.
Despite the Kiowas' opposition and any congressional concerns about the fraudulent process used by the commission, in February 1900 Congress proceeded with the allotment. Subsequently, Lone Wolf filed a complaint in the equity division of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia seeking to restrain the Department of Interior from carrying out the provisions of the Allotment Act, arguing that the Acts of Congress were unconstitutional, void, and a violation of solemn treaty provisions.
The Court refused to entertain any complaint concerning the statute or the federal policy of allotment in general. Instead, by recognizing the tribe's dependent relationship with the federal government, the Court upheld Congress's authority to allot the Kiowa reservation without any tribal assent:
The contention in effect ignores the status of contracting Indians and the relation of dependency they bore and continue to bear towards the government of the United States. To uphold the claim would be to adjudge that the indirect operation of the treaty was to materially limit and qualify the controlling authority of Congress in respect to the care and protection of the Indians, and to deprive Congress, in a possible emergency, when the necessity might be urgent for a partition and disposal of the tribal lands, of all power to act, if the assent of the Indians could not be obtained (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, 564).
According to the Court, Congress, through its plenary power, has the authority to abrogate treaties unilaterally if that action is in furtherance of its obligation to care for and protect the Indians. Thus, the Court held that whether a supermajority of the tribe had signed the allotment documents was inconsequential. Rather, because Congress thought it necessary to allot the Kiowa reservation for the care and protection of the tribal members, it was entitled to do so without their assent.
In effect, the Lone Wolf decision granted Congress not only the plenary authority to abrogate treaties with the Indians unilaterally, but also an absolute, unchecked power to regulate in all aspects of Indian affairs. By relying on the Indians' special fiduciary relationship with the federal government, the Court established the presumption that any congressional actions taken toward Indian affairs are made in good faith: "We must presume that Congress acted in perfect good faith in the dealings with the Indians of which complaint is made, and that the legislative branch of the government exercised its best judgment in the premises" (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, 568). Furthermore, by characterizing such plenary actions as political questions, the Court announced that congressional legislation in the field of Indian law is "not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the government" and is therefore unreviewable (Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 1903, 565). Thus, because any regulation of Indian affairs is presumed to have been taken in good faith and because such regulation is a political question, Congress has unfettered authority to act as it sees fit.
In recent years, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock has been widely discredited, and the Supreme Court has attempted to mute its harsh ruling. Specifically, the Court now requires that any congressional intention to abrogate an Indian treaty or treaty right be clear and plain. In addition, the Court has declared that congressional activity in Indian affairs is no longer an unreviewable political question; rather, if such action cannot be characterized as that of a good faith trustee toward its beneficiary, the Court will subject the action as to the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Nonetheless, Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock remains a precedent in the field of American Indian law and provides authority for Congress, subject to few limitations, to deal with Indian tribes as it sees fit.
Holding
The Court held that Congress had the authority to void treaty obligations with Native American tribes because it had an inherent "plenary power":The decision was based, among other things, on a paternalistic view of the United States' relationship with the tribes:
Congress unilaterally modified many other treaties between Native American tribes and the United States in subsequent years, in part relying on the decision in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock. The decision has been upheld and cited by the Supreme Court since then, such as in United States v. Dion
United States v. Dion
United States v. Dion, 476 U.S. 734 , was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States which held that, pursuant to the Eagle Protection Act, American Indians were prohibited from hunting eagles...
of 1986.
External links
- Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903), FindLaw, Text of the opinion