Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~yJ <br /> <br />"***the Indian ocoupies a most favored status on acoount <br />of his primitivity, his being first on this continent, and his <br />present helplessness. Beoause of this oondition, tI:eaties and <br />agree~~nts to whioh the Indian is a party, and statutes affeot- <br />ing his status and his rights and privileges, are to be given <br />a liberal interpretation. <br /> <br />'" ***in the government's dealings with the Indians **. <br />The oonstruotion, instead of being striot, is liberal; doubtful <br />expressions, instead of being resolved in favor of the United <br />States, are to be resolved in favor of a weak and defenseless <br />people, who are wards of the nation and dependent wholly upon <br />its proteotion and good faith. This rule of oonstruotion has <br />been reoogp.ized without exoeption for more than a hundred years ***. ,It <br /> <br />A relaxation of this rule may be indicated by a reoent (March 12, 1945) <br />deoision of the United States Supreme Court in the ease of Northwestern <br />Bands of Shoshone Indians v. U.S., 32L~ u. s. 335, 65 S. Ct. 690, wherein <br />it was stated, ' <br /> <br />2115 <br /> <br />"Petitioners suggest that in the oonstruotion of Indian <br />treaties we, as a se1f-respeoting nation, hesitate to oonstrue <br />language, which is selected by us as guardian of the Indians, <br />to our ward's prejudice. 'All doubts,' say petitioners, 'must <br />be resolved in their (the Indians) favor.' Mr. Justioe MoLean, <br />oonourrin~ in Woroester v. Georgia, 6 Pet., 515. at page 582, <br />8 L. Ed. 483, said, 'The language used in treaties with the <br />Indians should never be oonstrued to their prejudioe.' But <br />the oontext shows that the Justioe meant no more than that the <br />language should be oonstrued in aocordance with the tenor of <br />the treaty. That, we think, is the rule whioh this Court has <br />applied oonsistent1y to Indian treat~es. We attempt to deter- <br />mine what the parties meant by the treaty. We stop short of <br />varying its te~ms ~~meet alleged injustioes. Suoh generosity, <br />if any may be oa1led for in the relations between 'the United <br />states and tliGTii:C.l1ans, is 1'01", Congress." (Emphasis supplied) <br /> <br />The rule so stated would seem to modify or relax the earlier <br />expression in Winters v. U.S.. 201 u. s. 564, 28 S. Ct. 207, 211, where <br />it was said: <br /> <br />"By a rule of' interpretation of agreements and treaties <br />with the Indians, ambiguities occurring will be resolved from <br />the standpoint of the Indians." <br /> <br />However, it is doubtful that the United States Supreme Court will <br />ever flatly overrule the holding of the Winters oase that, upon the <br />oreation of a reservation by agreement with the Indians on arid lands <br />praotically valueless without irrigation, there is an implied reservation <br />of water for irrigation. The question is the amount or extent of such <br />reservation of water. <br /> <br />-5- <br />