The Cherokee Tobacco

Supreme Court of the United States
78 U.S. 616, 20 L. Ed. 227, 11 Wall. 616 (1871)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An Act of Congress may supersede a prior treaty with an Indian tribe, provided the statute is clear and explicit in its intent to apply to the subject matter governed by the treaty, as both statutes and treaties are of equal legal force under the Constitution.

Facts:

Elias C. Boudinot and Stand Wattie, Cherokee Indians residing in the Cherokee Nation, formed a partnership to manufacture tobacco.
The partners manufactured tobacco within the territory of the Cherokee Nation.
The 1866 Treaty between the U.S. and the Cherokee Nation guaranteed Cherokees the right to sell products without federal tax, except on quantities sold outside Indian territory.
Congress subsequently passed the Internal Revenue Act of 1868, requiring tax stamps on tobacco produced 'anywhere within the exterior boundaries of the United States.'
Boudinot and Wattie possessed the manufactured tobacco and raw materials within the Cherokee Nation without purchasing the required federal revenue stamps.
The partners did not pay the federal tax on the tobacco found within the Indian territory.
United States federal agents seized the tobacco and related property for violation of revenue laws.

Procedural Posture:

The United States filed a libel of information against the tobacco and property in the District Court for the Western District of Arkansas.
Claimants (Boudinot and Wattie) filed an answer asserting ownership and claiming exemption under the 1866 Cherokee Treaty.
During the trial, the Claimants requested specific jury instructions that the 1868 Act did not apply to Indian territory.
The District Court refused the requested instructions.
The jury returned a verdict in favor of the United States.
The District Court entered judgment of forfeiture against the Claimants.
The Claimants (Appellants) sued out a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does the Internal Revenue Act of 1868, which imposes taxes on tobacco produced anywhere within the exterior boundaries of the United States, apply to the Cherokee Nation territory effectively overriding the tax exemptions granted in the 1866 Treaty between the United States and the Cherokee Nation?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice Swayne

Yes, the Internal Revenue Act applies to the Cherokee Nation and supersedes the prior treaty because the statute's language is clear and explicit. The Court reasoned that the Act specifically extends to articles produced 'anywhere within the exterior boundaries of the United States,' and it is settled law that Indian territory is part of the United States. Since the Constitution places treaties and acts of Congress on the same footing as the 'supreme law of the land,' a later statute can repeal or modify a prior treaty, just as it can a prior statute. While the conflict between the 1866 Treaty and the 1868 Act is repugnant, the clear legislative intent of the later Act must prevail to prevent the Indian territory from becoming a haven for fraud and illicit gain. If this result is wrong, the remedy lies with Congress, not the judiciary.

Dissenting - Justice Bradley

No, the Act should not be construed to override the treaty because general statutes do not implicitly repeal specific reserved rights in prior treaties. Justice Bradley argued that the Indian territory is an exempt jurisdiction with autonomy guaranteed by solemn treaties involving the nation's good faith. He applied the legal principle that a general law repealing 'all inconsistent laws' does not repeal specific charters or special exemptions unless explicitly named. Since the Act did not expressly name the Indian territory, and because the Act's language could apply to other areas like Alaska, the Court should presume Congress did not intend to violate the treaty.

Analysis:

This decision is a seminal case in Federal Indian Law, establishing the 'Last-in-Time' rule regarding conflicts between treaties and federal statutes. It confirmed that Congress possesses plenary power to abrogate Indian treaties unilaterally through legislation. By treating Indian treaties as legally equivalent to federal statutes rather than superior constitutional mandates, the Court opened the door for subsequent legislation to erode tribal sovereignty and treaty rights without tribal consent. The decision emphasizes judicial restraint, directing complaints about broken treaty promises to the political branches rather than the courts.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: The Cherokee Tobacco (1871)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"