UNITED STATES
v.
CARPENTER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The United States brought an action to prevent Carpenter from claiming land within the Red Pipestone Quarry reservation that had been set aside for Native Americans under an Indian treaty. The Supreme Court held that the government properly reserved the disputed tract from private entry and that a prior land entry by a third party was void because the treaty itself provided notice that the land was withdrawn from appropriation pending the government's determination of the reservation's final boundaries. The Court affirmed that treaty stipulations cannot be defeated by the actions of private parties or land office officers.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Field delivered the opinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language, and continued:
The action of the government in causing the tract described to be marked bn the official plats in the land offices as reserved from sale Avas clearly .within the line of its duty under the stipulations of the treaty. The bill alleges that the tract was a part of the Red Pipestone Quarry mentioned in the eighth article. After the treaty, until the survey Avas made, and the actual extent of the reservation Avas thus designated, no part of the land containing the quarry-could have been taken up either by settlement or by location under the Louisiana Agricultural College scrip. The Avhole of such land Avas by the treaty AvithdraAvn from private entry or appropriation until the gOATernment had determined Avhether any portion less than the whole should be reserved. Its power of selection, if the Avhole was not retained, could not be restricted by the action of private parties. , So, in any view Avhich can be taken, the entry of Cluensen Avas void. It matters not whether the land had been surveyed or not, the treaty Avas notice that a part of the quarry Avould be retained by the government, and that the Avhole might be, for the use of the Indians. This purpose and the stipulation of the United States could not be defeated by the action of any officers of the land department. The court-therefore erred in sustaining the demurrer. The decree must accordingly be reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer, the defendant to have leave to answer; and
It is so ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Spalding v. Chandler, 160 U.S. 394 (U.S. 1896)…t, or whether the selection was made by the government and acquiesced in by the Indians, is immaterial. The clear duty rested upon the government to see that a tract was reserved for the purposes designated in the treaty. United States v. Carpenter, 111 U. S. 347, 349. If a survey was necessary for that purpose, it was the duty of the government to cause such survey to be made (lb.), and fit appears from the evidence that in 1845, in a survey^ made by the authority of. the government, the exterior boundaries…
-
Russian-American Packing Co. v. United States, 199 U.S. 570 (U.S. 1905)
-
Wisconsin v. Hitchcock, 201 U.S. 202 (U.S. 1906)