Court case

Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock

Congress could open Kiowa and Comanche reservation land without the three-fourths consent the 1867 Medicine Lodge Treaty required.

Citation
187 U.S. 553 (1903)
Court
U.S. Supreme Court
Year
1903
Nations
Kiowa, Comanche, Apache (Plains Apache)
Treaty at issue
Medicine Lodge Treaty of 1867
Effect on land rights
eroded

What happened

By the Medicine Lodge treaty of 1867, the Kiowa and Comanche Indians, later joined by the Apaches, held a reservation in common in what became Oklahoma. Article 12 said that no treaty ceding any part of it would be valid against the Indians unless signed by at least three fourths of all the adult male Indians occupying it.

On October 6, 1892, 456 male adult members of the confederated tribes signed an agreement with three commissioners of the United States about the reservation. The Indian agent certified that there were 562 male adults in the three tribes. Congress later passed the act of June 6, 1900 to carry out the agreement, allot land to tribal members and open surplus lands to settlement.

On June 6, 1901, Lone Wolf, suing for himself and for all members of the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache tribes, filed a bill in equity in Washington. It charged that the agreement had not been signed by three fourths of the adult males, and that Congress had made changes without submitting them to the Indians.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' decision against Lone Wolf. It said "Congress has always exercised plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians" and that the power is political, "not subject to be controlled by the judicial department." The Court said a moral obligation rested on Congress to act in good faith, but it would presume Congress acted in perfect good faith, and the courts could not inquire into its motives.

Good to know. The 456-of-562 signature figures come from the statement of the case; the Court did not itself decide whether three-fourths had signed.

Summarized with AI assistance from 4 sources and checked against their words; not yet reviewed by historians or by the nations. Report an error

What the sources say, and how this was checked

Well supported by the sources below.

  1. Congress has always exercised plenary authority over the tribal relations of the IndiansLone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  2. at least three fourths of all the adult male Indians occupying the sameLone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  3. this court will presume that Congress acted in perfect good faithLone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)
  4. a bill was filed on the equity side of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, wherein Lone WolfLone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553 (1903) (U.S. Reports, Library of Congress)

Research notes. The phrase 'not subject to be controlled by the judicial department' is from the opinion body; the headnote prints a variant ('not subject to be controlled by the courts'). Menominee Tribe v. United States (1968) was in the old text but is not mentioned in this opinion; the link was removed. The 456-of-562 figures are from the statement of the case; the opinion text I read did not itself decide whether three fourths had signed. I read the syllabus, statement of the case and the core reasoning, not every page.

Treaty or agreementShapes from the 1899 federal record: approximate, not legal boundaries.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Native legal and land defense, nationally

Gifts go straight to each organization; this atlas takes nothing. Listing is not endorsement: how organizations are listed.

Connections

Links marked “suggested” were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Doctrine applied 4

Nations named 4

Decided a dispute over 3

Concerns the instrument 2

Policy era 1

Limited by 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/187/553/legal text copy
The record’s fields
Holding
Congress has plenary power over tribal relations; a treaty requirement of three-fourths adult-male consent did not bar Congress from opening the Kiowa-Comanche-Apache reservation to allotment and sale by statute. The Court called the matter political and non-justiciable.
Kind
Court case
Confidence
High

Correct this record