Connecting Singles^® Forums100% Free Online Dating

Appeal No. 5-66, Ind. Cl. Comm. Docket No. 190, 12 Ind. Cl.
Comm. 570
UNITED STATES COURT OF CLAIMS
180 Ct. Cl. 181; 1967 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 80
May 12, 1967, Decided
DISPOSITION: [**1]
Affirmed.
SYLLABUS:
ON APPEAL FROM THE INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION
Indian claims; appeal from Indian Claims Commission. -- The Indian
petitioners appeal from a decision of the Indian Claims Commission (12 Ind.
Cl.
Comm. 570 (1963)) dismissing their suit under the Indian Claims Commission
Act,
25 U.S.C. § 70a, in which appellants had claimed that their Treaty of July 19,
1866, 14 Stat. 799, guaranteeing former Cherokee slaves the rights of native
Cherokees, was procured by duress exerted by agents of the United States,
that
the tribe acted under a unilateral mistake of fact as to the true meaning of
the
treaty, that their concessions to the freedmen were made without
consideration,
and that the United States dealt with them in a manner less than fair and
honorable. It is held that on the basis of the record on appeal the court
concludes that the Commission's decision is supported by substantial evidence
and that the Commission correctly applied the law to the facts of the case.
The
decision of the Commission is affirmed.
COUNSEL:
Paul M. Niebell, attorney of record, for appellants. Earl Boyd Pierce,
George E. Norvell, Robert D. Hudson, and Oscar C. Essman, of counsel. [**2]
Frederick C. Ward, Jr., with whom was Assistant Attorney General Edwin L.
Weisl, Jr., for appellee. Wilma C. Martin, of counsel.
JUDGES:
Cowen, Chief Judge, Laramore, Durfee, Davis, Collins, Skelton, and Nichols,
Judges.

OPINIONBY:
PER CURIAM
OPINION:
[*182] This is an appeal from a decision of the Indian Claims Commission
(12 Ind. Cl. Comm. 570 (1963)) dismissing appellant's suit under Section 2
(3)
and (5) of the Indian Claims Commission Act, 25 U.S.C. § 70a, for revision of
that part of the Treaty of July 19, 1866, 14 Stat. 799, which provided that
former Cherokee slaves (the so-called Cherokee freedmen) should have all the
rights of native Cherokees. The claim was that (a) the Cherokee Nation agreed
to this portion of the treaty as a result of duress exerted by the agents of
the
Federal Government; (b) the Nation acted under a unilateral mistake of fact
as
to the meaning and reach of the treaty; (c) no proper consideration was
provided
by the United States for the tribal property which flowed to the freedmen as
a
result of the treaty; and (d) the dealings of the United States with the
Cherokee Nation with respect to this matter were not fair and honorable.
Recovery [**3] was sought of the value of that portion of the tribal funds
and
lands which had been distributed to the freedmen (as members of the Cherokee
Nation).
A trial was had. In a detailed and exhaustive opinion the Commission
concluded that the appellant had failed to prove a case upon which relief
could be granted.

More specifically, [*183] the Commission determined that "the
plaintiff [appellant] has failed to prove the 1866 treaty or its antecedent
1865
and 1866 negotiations were attended by duress, fraud, intimidation,
falsehood,
or mistake. The plaintiff has failed to prove that consideration was relevant
to the pertinent portions of that treaty. The plaintiff has failed to prove
that
the 1866 treaty or its antecedent 1865 and 1866 negotiations were tainted by
unfair or dishonorable dealings on the part of the defendant. The plaintiff
has
failed to prove that in the allotment of tribal funds and lands there was any
taking by the defendant which would raise the issue of unconscionable
consideration." [12 Ind. Cl. Comm. at 643.]
Some two years ago when the Seminole Nation appealed a companion ruling by
the Commission involving a comparable treaty with that Nation (12 Ind. [**4]
Cl. Comm. 798 (1963)), we found that the Commission's decision was "supported
by
substantial evidence and that the Commission correctly applied the law to the
facts." Seminole Nation v. United States, 171 Ct. Cl. 477 (1965). We are of
the
same view here. The Commission's findings of fact in this case are sustained
by
substantial evidence in the record as a whole, and its material legal rulings
were correct. There is no need to go over again the ground which the
Commission
has so thoroughly covered in its findings and opinion. We affirm its decision
substantially for the reasons it gave.
Affirmed.<BR><BR><BR>**************************************<BR> See what's
free at http://www.aol.com.</HTML>

What is the purpose of your pasting page upon page of disjointed Info without any comments by you???

Funny, but I just asked something similar on one of his other threads.