591 Opinion of the Court EDMOND L. VILES v. THE UNITED STATES [No. 45416. Decided January 5, 1942. Plaintiff's motion for On Defendant's Plea to the Jurisdiction Relief to persons erroneously convicted in Federal courts.-The Act of May 24, 1938, an act to grant relief to persons erroneously convicted in the Federal courts, applies only to acquittals or pardons after the passage of the act. Same.-In the instant case, it is held that the pardon does not contain the recitals called for by the Act of May 24, 1938. Mr. Edmond L. Viles pro se. Mr. Robert E. Mitchell, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Francis M. Shea, for the defendant. The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion of the court. WHITAKER, Judge, delivered the opinion of the court: This case is before us on what the defendant calls its plea to the jurisdiction. The paper filed is not a plea, but is in all essential respects a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, and it will be so treated. It is grounded, first, on the fact that the petition, with the annexed exhibits, shows on its face that the pardon was granted prior to the passage of the Act of May 24, 1938 (52 Stat. 438), and that this Act applies only to acquittals or pardons after the passage of the Act. The case is brought under the terms of this Act of May 24, 1938 for the relief therein granted, and that Act plainly has application only to such pardons as are granted after its passage. The first section of the Act reads: That any person who, having been convicted of any crime or offense against the United States and having been sentenced to imprisonment and having served all or any part of his sentence, shall hereafter, on appeal or on a new trial or rehearing, be found not guilty of the crime of which he was convicted or shall hereafter receive a pardon on the ground of innocence, may, subject to the limitations and conditions here Syllabus 95 C. Cls. inafter stated, and in accordance with the provisions of the Judicial Code, maintain suit against the United States in the Court of Claims for damages sustained by him as a result of such conviction and imprisonment. [Italics ours.] The plaintiff, therefore, is plainly not entitled to the relief granted by the statute, inasmuch as the pardon shows on its face that it was granted on March 2, 1933, and the Act was passed on May 24, 1938. Second, defendant also defends on the ground that the pardon does not contain the recitals called for by this Act of May 24, 1938. This defense is also good. See Martin Prisament v. United States, 92 C. Cls. 434. Defendant's motion to dismiss is sustained, and plaintiff's petition is dismissed. It is so ordered. MADDEN, Judge; JONES, Judge; LITTLETON, Judge; and WHALEY, Chief Justice, concur. THE SIOUX TRIBE OF INDIANS, CONSISTING OF THE SIOUX TRIBE OF THE ROSEBUD INDIAN RESERVATION IN THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; THE SIOUX TRIBE OF THE STANDING ROCK INDIAN RESERVATION IN THE STATES OF NORTH DAKOTA AND SOUTH DAKOTA; THE SIOUX TRIBE OF THE PINE RIDGE INDIAN RESERVATION IN THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; THE SIOUX TRIBE OF THE CHEYENNE RIVER INDIAN RESERVATION IN THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; THE SIOUX TRIBE OF THE CROW CREEK INDIAN RESERVATION IN THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; THE SIOUX TRIBE OF THE LOWER BRULE RESERVATION IN THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA; THE SIOUX TRIBE OF THE SANTEE INDIAN RESERVATION IN THE STATE OF NEBRASKA; 592 Reporter's Statement of the Case AND THE SIOUX TRIBE OF THE FORT PECK INDIAN RESERVATION IN THE STATE OF MONTANA v. THE UNITED STATES Sale of Santee Lands, Minnesota, 1861 [No. C-531 (15). Decided March 2, 1942] Indian claims; claims canceled and forfeited under the Act of February 16, 1863.-It is held that under the provisions of the Act of February 16, 1863, all the claims of the plaintiff bands of Indians against the defendant are canceled and forfeited, and plaintiffs are not entitled to recover in the instant case. The Reporter's statement of the case: Mr. Ralph H. Case for the plaintiffs. Messrs. James S. Y. Ivins and Richard B. Barker were on the brief. Mr. Raymond T. Nagle, with whom was Mr. Assistant Attorney General Norman M. Littell, for the defendant. Mr. George T. Stormont was on the brief. The court made special findings of fact as follows: 1. By an Act of Congress approved June 3, 1920 (41 Stat. 738), it was provided: That all claims of whatsoever nature which the Sioux Tribe of Indians may have against the United States, which have not heretofore been determined by the Court of Claims, may be submitted to the Court of Claims with the right of appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States by either party, for determination of the amount, if any, due said tribe from the United States under any treaties, agreements, or laws of Congress, or for the misappropriation of any of the funds or lands of said tribe or band or bands thereof, or for the failure of the United States to pay said tribe any money or other property due; and jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon the Court of Claims, with the right of either party to appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States, to hear and determine all legal and equitable claims, if any, of said tribe against the United States, and to enter judgment thereon. SEC. 2. That if any claim or claims be submitted to said courts they shall settle the rights therein, both legal Reporter's Statement of the Case 95 C. Cls. and equitable, of each and all the parties thereto, notwithstanding lapse of time or statutes of limitation, and any payment which may have been made upon any claim so submitted shall not be pleaded as an estoppel, but may be pleaded as an offset in such suits or actions, and the United States shall be allowed credit for all sums heretofore paid or expended for the benefit of said tribe or any band thereof. The claim or claims of the tribe or band or bands thereof may be presented separately or jointly by petition, subject, however, to amendment, suit to be filed within five years after the passage of this Act; and such action shall make the petitioner or petitioners party plaintiff or plaintiffs and the United States party defendant, and any band or bands of said tribe or any other tribe or band of Indians the court may deem necessary to a final determination of such suit or suits may be joined therein as the court may order. Such petition, which shall be verified by the attorney or attorneys employed by said Sioux Tribe or any bands thereof, shall set forth all the facts on which the claims for recovery are based, and said petition shall be signed by the attorney or attorneys employed and no other verification shall be necessary. Official letters, papers, documents, and public records, or certified copies thereof, may be used in evidence, and the departments of the Government shall give access to the attorney or attorneys of said tribe or bands thereof to such treaties, papers, correspondence, or records as may be needed by the attorney or attorneys for the said tribe or bands of Indians. SEC. 3. That upon the final determination of such suit, cause, or action, the Court of Claims shall decree such fees as it shall find reasonable to be paid the attorney or attorneys employed therein by said tribe or bands of Indians under contracts negotiated and approved as provided by existing law, and in no case shall the fee decreed by said Court of Claims be in excess of the amounts stipulated in the contracts approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior, and no attorney shall have a right to represent the said tribes or any band thereof in any suit, cause, or action under the provisions of this Act until his contract shall have been approved as herein provided. The fees decreed by the court to the attorney or attorneys of record shall be paid out of any sum or sums recovered in such suits or actions, and no part of such fees shall be taken from any money in the Treasury of the United States belonging to such tribe or bands of 592 Reporter's Statement of the Case Indians in whose behalf the suit is brought unless specifically authorized in the contract approved by the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and the Secretary of the Interior as herein provided: Provided, That in no case shall the fees decreed by said court amount to more than 10 per centum of the amount of the judgment recovered in such cause. 2. The plaintiffs are the Santee Tribe or Band of Sioux Indians of the Santee Indian Reservation in the State of Nebraska. 3. On June 19, 1858, a treaty was concluded between the United States and the Mendawakanton and Wahpakoota bands of the Dakota or Sioux Indians, now known as the Santee Sioux Indians. This treaty was ratified on March 9, 1859, and proclaimed on March 31, 1859 (12 Stat. 1031). The pertinent articles of this treaty are as follows: ARTICLE III. It is also agreed that if the Senate shall authorize the land designated in article two of this agreement to be sold for the benefit of the said Mendawakanton and Wahpakoota bands, or shall prescribe an amount to be paid said bands for their interest in said tract, provision shall be made by which the chiefs and headmen of said bands may, in their discretion, in open council authorize to be paid out of the proceeds of said tract, such sum or sums as may be found necessary and proper, not exceeding seventy thousand dollars, to satisfy their just debts and obligations, and to provide goods to be taken by said chiefs and headmen to the said bands upon their return: Provided, however, That their said determinations shall be approved by the superintendent of Indian affairs for the northern superintendency for the time being, and the said payments be authorized by the Secretary of the Interior. ARTICLE VIII. Such of the stipulations of former treaties as provided for the payment of particular sums of money to the said Mendawakanton and Wahpakoota bands, or for the application or expenditure of specific amounts for particular objects or purposes, shall be, and hereby are, so amended and changed as to invest the Secretary of the Interior with discretionary power in regard to the manner and objects of the annual expenditure of all such sums or amounts which have |