United States Ex Rel. West v. Hitchcock
Citations
- 205 U.S. 80
- 27 S. Ct. 423
- 51 L. Ed. 718
- 1907 U.S. LEXIS 1453
Syllabus
<p>While the promise of the United States to allot 160 acres to each member of the Wichita band of Indians under the act of March 2, 1895, 28 Stat. 876, 895, may confer a right on every actual member of the band, the primary decision as to who the members are must come from the Secretary of the Interior; and, in the absence of any indication in the act to allow an appeal to the courts for applicants who are dissatisfied, mandamus will not issue to require the' Secretary to approve the selection of one claiming to be an . adopted member of the tribe but whose application the Secretary has denied.</p> <p>In view of long established practice of the Department of the Interior, and the undoubted power of Congress over the Indians, this court will hesitate to construe the language of §§ 441, 463, Rev. Stat., as not giving the Department of the Interior control over the adoption of whites into the Indian tribes.</p> <p>Where the Secretary-of the Interior has authority to pass on the right of one claiming to be a member of a band of Indians to select land under an agreement ratified by an act of Congress, his jurisdiction does not'depend upon his decision being right.</p> <p>26 App. D. C. 290, affirmed.</p>
About this case
United States ex rel. West v. Hitchcock
United States ex rel . West v. Hitchcock, 205 U.S. 80 (1907), regards a case where the Secretary of the Interior has authority to pass on the right of one claiming to be a member of a band of Indians to select land under an agreement ratified by an act of Congress, his jurisdiction does not depend upon his decision's being right.[1]
The United States promised to allot 160 acres (0.65 km2) to each member of the Wichita band of Indians under the Act of March 2, 1895, 28 Stat. 876, 895. This promise may confer a right on every single member of the band, but the primary decision as to who the members are must come from the Secretary of the Interior, and, in the absence of any indication in the act to allow an appeal to the courts for applicants who are dissatisfied, mandamus will not issue to require the Secretary to approve the selection of one claiming to be an adopted member of the tribe but whose application the Secretary has denied.
In view of long established practice of the Department of the Interior, and the undoubted power of Congress over the Indians, this Court will hesitate to construe the language of §§ 441, 463, Rev.Stat., as not giving the Department of the Interior control over the adoption of whites into the Indian tribes.
26 App.D.C. 290 affirmed.
See also
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_ex_rel._West_v._Hitchcock&action=edit§ion=1 "Edit section: See also")
References
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_ex_rel._West_v._Hitchcock&action=edit§ion=2 "Edit section: References")
External links
(https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_ex_rel._West_v._Hitchcock&action=edit§ion=3 "Edit section: External links")
- Text of United States ex rel. West v. Hitchcock, 205 U.S. 80 (1907) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Internet Archive (docket files) Justia Library of Congress
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_ex_rel._West_v._Hitchcock&oldid=1351337641 "
Editorial context from Wikipedia (CC-BY-SA 4.0).
Judges: Holmes
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.