Interstate Indian Commission

Interstate Indian Commission
Name	Interstate Indian Commission
Formed	19th century
Jurisdiction	Interstate
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.
Chief1 name	N/A
Chief1 position	Chair
Website	N/A

Interstate Indian Commission The Interstate Indian Commission was an ad hoc quasi-judicial body convened in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to address disputes involving Native American tribes, state governments, territories of the United States, and federal agencies such as the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the War Department. It operated amid controversies arising from treaties like the Treaty of Fort Laramie (1868), legislation including the Indian Appropriations Act, and legal precedents set by the Supreme Court of the United States and cases such as Worcester v. Georgia.

History

The commission emerged after conflicts such as the Great Sioux War of 1876–77, the Nez Perce War, and the Battle of Little Bighorn highlighted tensions between tribal nations and expanding statehood claims by entities like Montana Territory and Dakota Territory. Its formation was influenced by advocacy from figures including Helen Hunt Jackson, proponents of Indian policy reform, and congressional actors in the United States Congress seeking mechanisms outside the Supreme Court of the United States and executive agencies to mediate interstate and intertribal claims. The commission heard matters tied to treaties like the Treaty of Medicine Lodge and the Fort Laramie Treaty (1851), and to policies such as Allotment (Dawes Act), which followed the Dawes Act and congressional acts affecting land tenure. Notable episodes intersected with events like the Ghost Dance movement and the aftermath of the Wounded Knee Massacre, prompting investigations and reports submitted to committees of the House Committee on Indian Affairs and the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs.

Structure and Membership

Membership typically included former judges from courts such as the United States Court of Claims and state supreme courts (e.g., Supreme Court of California), commissioners appointed by governors of states including Oregon, California, Idaho, and Wyoming, and representatives from tribal councils of nations like the Lakota, Cheyenne, and Nez Perce. Legal scholars from institutions such as Columbia Law School and Harvard Law School sometimes served as advisors, alongside military officers from the United States Army and administrators from the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Commission rosters featured named individuals who had served in capacities similar to commissioners on panels like the Indian Claims Commission and the Molesworth Commission, and included delegates associated with reform organizations such as the Board of Indian Commissioners and the Indian Rights Association.

Jurisdiction and Functions

The commission asserted competence over disputes involving treaty interpretations tied to documents like the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo when those agreements implicated indigenous claims, boundary disputes between states and territories (for example, disputes near the Columbia River and the Missouri River), and claims involving natural resources such as fisheries regulated under agreements similar to the Boldt Decision precedent. It functioned by convening hearings modeled on procedures used in the Court of Claims and issuing recommendations to bodies including the United States Congress, state legislatures, and federal departments like the Department of the Interior. The commission addressed reparations and compensation claims referencing statutes akin to the Indian Claims Commission Act and examined administrative actions from entities such as the General Land Office and the Office of Indian Affairs.

Major Cases and Disputes

High-profile matters included cross-border disputes implicating nations like the Shoshone and events around outposts such as Fort Bridger and Fort Laramie. The commission reviewed claims arising from incidents comparable to the Modoc War and adjudicated issues related to annuities and treaty obligations similar to controversies following the Treaty of Fort Atkinson. It deliberated over disputes involving state statutes in places like California and Oklahoma Territory that conflicted with treaty provisions involving tribes such as the Seminole, Cherokee Nation, and Creek Nation. The panel’s reports often intersected with litigation trends seen in cases like Johnson v. M'Intosh and policy shifts driven by decisions in the Eighth Circuit and the Tenth Circuit.

Relationship with State and Federal Authorities

The commission operated at the intersection of state authorities—governors of Wyoming, Montana, Washington (state), and municipal entities—and federal agencies including the Department of War, the Department of the Interior, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Its recommendations were frequently submitted to congressional bodies such as the House Committee on Territories and the Senate Committee on Appropriations and influenced legislation like the Indian Reorganization Act and amendments to the Indian Appropriations Act. Cooperation and conflict arose with federal judicial instruments including the Supreme Court of the United States and regional circuit courts, and with executive officeholders such as presidents during eras of Grover Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt, and William McKinley.

Criticism and Reform Efforts

Critics from organizations such as the Indian Rights Association, indigenous leaders from the Onondaga Nation, Pawnee Nation of Oklahoma, and reformers like Ely S. Parker argued the commission lacked enforceable authority and sometimes perpetuated outcomes aligned with interests of state officials or railroad companies like the Union Pacific Railroad and Northern Pacific Railway. Reform proposals mirrored those advanced for the Indian Claims Commission and included calls for statutory backing via Congress, protections under instruments like the Bill of Rights in litigation contexts, and oversight by bodies such as the Government Accountability Office or a specialized tribunal modeled on international bodies like the Permanent Court of Arbitration. Subsequent policy shifts and creation of adjudicatory forums in the 20th century drew on critiques from civil rights advocates and tribal representatives associated with movements exemplified by leaders like Charles Eastman and organizations such as the National Congress of American Indians.

Category:Native American law