Violation

Box Elder (Fort Bridger) 1863: no recognized title, no compensation (Northwestern Shoshone)

Not yet reviewed by this nation. What follows comes from public records and research. It does not speak for the nation.

Box Elder's 1863 treaty promised peace and an annuity; in 1945 the Court held it recognized no Shoshone title, so the claim failed.

Treaty
Treaty of Box Elder (Treaty with the Northwestern Bands of Shoshone)
Nations
Northwestern Bands of Shoshone
When
1863-1945
Land affected
Claim to about 15 million acres.
Acreage
about 15 million acres claimed

What happened

The Treaty of Box Elder was signed on July 30, 1863, a few months after the Bear River Massacre of January 29, 1863, when the U.S. Army under Colonel Patrick Connor attacked a Shoshone camp. The Supreme Court describes it as a treaty of friendship and peace. Article 3 raised the Shoshone annuity by five thousand dollars. Article 4 said only "The country claimed by Pokatello for himself and his people," bounded by Raft River and the Portneuf Mountains. ICT News says the signers gave up about two-thirds of their traditional hunting grounds and that the money "was not enough to feed his people."

Before the Senate ratified it, an added article said nothing in the treaty "shall be construed or taken to admit any other or greater title or interest" than the bands held when the United States acquired the territory from Mexico. In 1929 Congress passed a law letting the Northwestern Bands sue in the Court of Claims over claims "arising under or growing out of the treaty." They sought about fifteen million dollars for some fifteen million acres they said they held by aboriginal title.

In Northwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States (1945), Justice Reed's opinion held that the treaty did not recognize Indian title, so the claim did not arise under the treaty. Four Justices disagreed. Justice Douglas wrote that a government that bargains for a right of way across land a people call their own recognizes their claim to it.

Justice Jackson, in a concurrence joined by Justice Black, wrote that the finding "does not restrict Congress" from making appropriations. The Bands recovered nothing in this case.

Good to know. The Court held the treaty never recognized Shoshone title, which is different from breaking a promise about recognized land. The "two-thirds of hunting grounds" figure is a journalist's summary.

Summarized with AI assistance from 3 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

Supported by the sources below; some details rest on one source.

  1. Nothing herein contained shall be construed or taken to admit any other or greater title or interest in the lands embracedNorthwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States, 324 U.S. 335 (1945), Cornell LII
  2. The finding that the treaty creates no legal obligations does not restrict Congress from such appropriations as its judgment dictatesNorthwestern Bands of Shoshone Indians v. United States (Jackson, J., concurring)
  3. The money was not enough to feed his peopleNative History: Shoshone massacred, then signed treaty that helped Mormons (ICT News)

Research notes. The ICT News quotation is a journalist's summary; the two-thirds figure is hers. The Court's vote is 5-4 on the lineup in the opinion (Reed for the Court; Roberts would reverse; Douglas, Frankfurter and Murphy dissented). The treaty text itself was not opened; Articles 3 and 4 and the Senate addition are as quoted in the opinion. Later claims by Shoshone bands were not verified. This is a failure to recognize title, not a finding of breach of a recognized-title promise.

Who is doing the work

This history belongs to living nations. Start with them:

Land return and Native-led work nearby

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

These links were matched automatically by name or date and have not yet been reviewed by a person.

Taken to court in 2

Located in 2

Nations named 1

Policy era 1

Concerns the instrument 1

Sources

  1. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/324/335/legal text copy
  2. supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/348/272/legal text copy
The record’s fields
What happened
Box Elder (Fort Bridger) 1863: no recognized title, no compensation (Northwestern Shoshone) -- The July 30, 1863 treaty promised peace, travel routes and increased annuities, and Article IV described the 'country claimed' by Chief Pokatello. The Senate later added an amendment saying the treaty admitted no greater title than existed under Mexican law. When the Bands sought about $15 million for roughly 15 million acres under a 1929 jurisdictional act, the Supreme Court (Mar. 12, 1945) held the treaty did not recognize or acknowledge Indian title, so the claim did not arise under the treaty; they recovered nothing. Roberts, Douglas, Frankfurter and Murphy dissented.
Legal aftermath
No recovery under this case; later ICC claims for Shoshone bands exist but were not verified. Sets the pre-Tee-Hit-Ton pattern: no recognition by Congress, no compensation.
Kind
Violation
Confidence
High
Nation review
Not yet reviewed by this nation
Notes
  • Some details not yet checked against a source

Correct this record