128 C. Cls.

INDIAN CLAIMS-Continued

or lost, then would the execution of the Timber Sale
Agreement of August 20, 1951 (as admitted in
paragraph 10 of defendant's Answer), constitute a
compensable taking of such rights, or would it give
rise to a right to an accounting within the jurisdiction
of this Court, or both? In view of the court's
answers to the preceding questions it is concluded
that question 6 does not call for an answer. Id.
United States 113.

IX. Following the decision of the Court of April 6, 1954, it
was ordered that defendant's motion to dismiss
plaintiff's petition be granted and the petition was
dismissed.

United States

Id.

113.

X. On appeal the decision of the Indian Claims Commis-
sion is affirmed granting the Government's motion
for summary judgment and dismissing the amended
petition of the appellant alleging a claim under
clause (1) of Section 2 of the Indian Claims Com-
mission Act (60 Stat. 1049) for approximately
$23,000,000 as just compensation for the taking of
land given to the Indian Tribe by the Fort Laramie
Treaty of 1851 (11 Stat. 749), and holding that the
issues involved in the instant case are res adjudicata
under the decision of the Court of Claims involving
a claim for the same land in Assiniboine Indian
Tribe v. United States, 77 C. Cls. 347. Assiniboine
Indian Tribe, 617.

XI. Under & Special Jurisdictional Act (44 Stat. 1263) the
Assiniboine Indian Tribe presented to the Court of
Claims for adjudication a claim with regard to the
identical land for which just compensation is sought
in the instant suit (77 C. Cls. 347). It is held that
the appropriation of appellant's land by the United
States, whether the taking was lawful or unlawful,
gave rise to only one cause of action. Whether the
Indian Tribe had a cause of action for just compen-
sation or for breach of treaty was dependent upon
the nature of the taking. Id.

XII. It is held that in the former case the jurisdiction of the
Court of Claims was not limited to the award of
damages. The Special Jurisdictional Act conferred
on the Court of Claims jurisdiction to adjudicate all

306057-5455

128 C. Cls.

INDIAN CLAIMS-Continued

claims arising from the violation of the Tribe's prop-
erty rights by the United States. Id.

Courts 449 (4).

XIII. If Indian Tribes should be permitted to reopen and
relitigate, in whole or in part, claims which have
been heard, considered and determined on their
merits by the Court of Claims, the Congress should
so provide. It should not be done by judicial legis-
lation. Id.

XIV. The legislative history of the Indian Claims Commis-
sion Act, which has been reviewed exhaustively in
previous decisions of the United States Court of
Claims, confirms the conclusion that the defense of
res adjudicata was preserved to the United States by
the Act. Id.
Courts 449 (4).

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION, APPEALS FROM.

I. On appeal the decision of the Indian Claims Commis-
sion adverse to the Quapaw Tribe's claim contained
in Count I of its petition (immemorial occupancy
and possession) and the award made by the Com-
mission in Count II and the allowance of certain
offsets in connection with Count II is affirmed.
Certain findings and the opinion of the Commission
with reference to certain items of offsets are modified
and remanded. Quapaw Tribe, 45.

II. Claim I was asserted under Section 2 (3) of the Indian
Claims Commission Act on the ground that the con-
sideration provided for in the treaty of 1818 and
paid by the United States to the Quapaw Tribe for
the land taken thereunder was grossly inadequate
and unconscionable within the meaning of the Act.
On the record it is found that the findings of the
Commission are sustained by substantial evidence
and the findings and decisions are affirmed. Id.
United States 113.

III. It is held that Indian tribes, in the absence of a treaty
reservation, have only an occupancy and use title,
or right, the fee being in the United States, and when
an Indian tribe ceases for any reason, by reduction
of population or otherwise, to actually and exclusively
occupy and use an area of land clearly established

128 C. Cls.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION, APPEALS FROM-Continued

by clear and adequate proof, such land becomes the
exclusive property of the United States as public
lands, and the Indians lose their right to claim and
assert full beneficial interest and ownership to such
land; and the United States cannot be required to
pay therefor on the same basis as if it were a recog-
nized treaty reservation. Id.

IV. In its second cause of action appellant tribe sought to
recover on the ground that the amount paid to the
tribe for its 1818 treaty lands sold to the Government
by the treaty of 1824 was grossly inadequate within
the meaning of Clause (3) of Section 2 of the Indian
Claims Commission Act. It is held that the Com-
mission correctly decided upon the record, that the
sum paid was grossly inadequate and determined
that the tribe was entitled to an award of $987,092
less such offsets, if any, as might be allowable. Id.
United States 113.

V. In a cross-appeal by the Government from the Com-
mission's determination on Count II, the Govern-
ment assigned as errors (1) the Commission's failure
to hold that the Quapaw Indians had waived their
right to claim fraud in the execution of the 1824
treaty, by entering into the treaty of May 13, 1833,
under which the tribe accepted substantial benefits
conferred by that new or "supplementary" treaty
and (2) in the alternative in not taking into con-
sideration the sums paid under the 1833 treaty in
determining whether or not the terms of the 1824
treaty were unconscionable. In view of all the cir-
cumstances surrounding the negotiation of the 1833
and 1824 treaties, and the actual terms of the two
treaties, it is held that the two treaties were separate
and distinct, and the Commission's finding and
conclusion are fully supported by substantial
evidence. Id.

VI. The determination of the Commission in disallowing
certain offsets is affirmed. As to the items allowed
as offsets, certain items are affirmed, certain items
are modified and others are reversed. Id.

United States 113.

VII. On an appeal from a decision of the Indian Claims
Commission dismissing appellant's petition seeking

128 C. Cls.

INDIAN CLAIMS COMMISSION, APPEALS FROM-Continued

judgment against the United States for the amount
disbursed from the appellant's funds, from July 1,
1898, to June 30, 1929, for expenses incurred by the
United States on behalf of the Choctaw Nation
incident to carrying out the provisions of the Atoka
Agreement and the Supplemental Agreement, the
decision of the Commission is affirmed. Choctaw
Nation, 195.

VIII. The Indian Claims Commission held that the claim
asserted before the Commission in the instant case
had previously been considered and adjudicated on
its merits by the Court of Claims in Choctaw Nation
v. United States, 91 C. Cls. 320 (certiorari denied
312 U. S. 695) and that the decision was res adjudicata.
This decision of the Indian Claims Commission is
affirmed where it is shown that all of the items con-
stituting the instant claim were included in the suit
by the Choctaw Nation under the jurisdictional act
of June 7, 1924, 43 Stat. 537, as amended by 44 Stat.
568 and 45 Stat. 1229, and it was there held by the
Court of Claims that the Choctaw Nation was not
entitled to recover,
Id.

United States 113.

IX. In accordance with the provisions of Section 2 of the
Indian Claims Commission Act (25 U. S. C. 70), the
Indian Claims Commisssion alo considered appel-
lant's claim upon the merits and concluded in its
findings and opinions that the claim was not sus-
tained by the evidence presented. The decision of
the Commission is affirmed, upon a study of the
record on appeal and the briefs and argument of
counsel. Id.

United States 113.

INDIAN TITLES.

See Indian Claims Commission, Appeals From, I, II, III, IV, V,
VI.

INFORMATION WITHHELD.

See Contracts X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII.

INTEREST.

See Taxes XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII.

JURISDICTION.

I. Under the provisions of Section 403 (e) of the Rene-
gotiation Act of April 28, 1942 (56 Stat. 245, 246)

128 C. Cls.

JURISDICTION-Continued

as amended, the exclusive remedy provided by
statute for an aggrieved contractor to obtain a review
of renegotiation determination of a war contract by a
Government department is by the filing of a petition
for redetermination with the Tax Court of the
United States. In the instant case the allegations
of the petition show that the plaintiff failed to
petition the Tax Court pursuant to the applicable
statute. The United States Court of Claims is
without jurisdiction to hear and determine plaintiff's
claim and the petition is dismissed, on defendant's
motion. Dresser Operations, 294.

War and National Defense

59.

II. The contention of plaintiff is not sustained that the
issue involved in the instant case is not one of rede-
termination but is whether or not the order by the
War Contracts Price Adjustment Board was timely
made. The plaintiff seeks to have the United States
Court of Claims adjudicate issues which could have
been, and should have been, presented to the Tax
Court, on which exclusive jurisdiction is conferred
by the statute. Id.

III. The failure of plaintiff to seek relief administratively
renders the determination of excess profits final and
establishes lack of jurisdiction in the United States
Court of Claims.

Id.

IV. Where plaintiff brings suit in the United States Court
of Claims for wharfage against vessels owned by the
United States which had been bareboat chartered to
the East Coast Shipping Company, and placed by
that company at a wharf owned by plaintiff at
Jacksonville, Florida, it is held that the Court of
Claims has no jurisdiction, and the plaintiff's
petition is dismissed on defendant's motion. Atlantic
Coast Line Railroad, 747.

V. In October 1949, the Government, through the Navy
Department, entered into a charter party with the
East Coast Shipping Company under which the
Shipping Company agreed to perform barge service
between Jacksonville and the Banana River Naval
Air Station on the east coast of Florida. As so used
the vessels were in the Merchant Marine Service.