THE LAW OF THE CHEYENNE
Ron Hancock
Indian Law
Fall 1982
00090

The Cheyenne Indians are highly recognized for their sophisticated legal p r a c t i c e s , commonly referred to as law-ways, w h i c h were developed as a means for adding stability to what we normally think o f , otherwise, as being a primitive c u l t u r e .
The Cheyenne Indians had a representative form of government, composed of the Council of Forty-Pour and several Soldier
S o c i e t i e s , which was responsible for the formulation and enforcement of these l a w - w a y s . An u n w r i t t e n , yet consistently followed jurisdictional scheme developed for the settling of g r i e v a n c e s .
Of course, in most instances, the recognized tribal custom for handling a situation was employed without any resort to a true legal process.
Certain clear-cut practices emerged which were to serve as the pattern by w h i c h "legal" issues were to be r e s o l v e d .
Rather intricate practices were developed in particular areas of the civil l a w . Especially noteworthy are the manner in which marriage and divorce were h a n d l e d , the distribution of a deceased person's b e l o n g i n g s , and the concepts of property o w n e r s h i p .
In each of these civil law a r e a s , as w e l l as in the Cheyenne lifestyle in g e n e r a l , the reservation brought about a great deal of change. Many of the old tribal ways were extinguished, while many others were forced to go through evolutionary modif i c a t i o n s . As an end r e s u l t , the Indians who now reside upon the Northern Cheyenne Reservation are subject to an intermingling of f e d e r a l , state, and tribal l a w .
- 1 -
00091

-11-
THE CHEYENNE LAW-WAYS
Legend has it that the Cheyenne Indians received their laws from a great p r o p h e t , Sweet M e d i c i n e . ' Sweet M e d i c i n e , it is s a i d , visited the gods and received from them the Sacred
A r r o w s , which were to represent the highest tribal p o w e r s .
The Sacred Arrows were understood to stand for many of the laws which the gods had instructed Sweet Medicine to deliver to the p e o p l e . It was through the teachings of Sweet M e d i c i n e , often built around the Sacred A r r o w s , that the Cheyenne Indians
2 developed their legal system and their form of g o v e r n m e n t .
The governmental organization of the Cheyenne consisted of two orders: the Council of Forty-Four, composed of the tribal chiefs, and the military societies, composed of the w a r r i o r s .
The chiefs were selected to hold office for ten y e a r s , each having been chosen by his immediate predecessor; or if the predecessor died in office, by the popular sentiment of the old men and middle-aged w a r r i o r s . The Council was composed of four principal c h i e f s , and four chiefs from each of the ten
A bands of people. In this m a n n e r , each group was equally represented, and each chief was expected to keep abreast of his band's opinions. This was important because the general sions of the chiefs.' Following a major d e c i s i o n , it w a s , therefore, customary for the chiefs to speak with the general public to assure themselves that the people supported their d e c i s i o n .
00 J
08

-11-
The soldier societies, on the other h a n d , were open to all w a r r i o r s , and each society was expected to choose its own
£ l e a d e r s . These societies were highly influential due to their prestige and popularity gained through their successes in w a r .
In acting as the police force responsible for the enforcement of tribal customs and the Council's orders, these societies played an important role in establishing the viability of the
7
Cheyenne law-ways.
Relations between the tribal chiefs and the soldiers groups was common. Y e t , readily apparent jurisdictional distinctions were evidenced by the type of matters handled by each g r o u p . The Council assumed original jurisdiction over all matters of primary i m p o r t a n c e , that is, all matters of such a magnitude that the well being of the entire tribe was threatened; w h e r e a s , the soldier societies had jurisdiction over matters of secondary importance, that i s , all matters w h i c h did
Q not pose a threat to the t r i b e , i t s e l f .
A general pattern developed as to the manner in which personal disputes were settled. A minor dispute was generally settled privately, either by the parties or their r e l a t i v e s .
i u
If a party was highly concerned about a minor d i s p u t e , it was not uncommon for him to seek advice from a chief as to the proper procedure to be f o l l o w e d . Although the soldier societies would act to prevent or punish minor acts detrimental to the general w e l f a r e , they generally played no r o l e in purely
00 J
08

- 4 powerful individuals, such that the tribe might be adversely affected by a serious confrontation, the Council would discuss the m a t t e r , and p e r h a p s , summon the two men before the
1 ?
Council so that a peaceful settlement could be r e a c h e d .
In a situation such as the one discussed above, each party would be summoned to the Council and allowed to present his c a s e . Upon hearing the argument of both s i d e s , the Council would then make a final decision on the m e r i t s . The party against whom the decision w e n t was likely to be found liable for d a m a g e s . The measure of damages was then determined through a three step process: (1) the party found liable extended an offer which he felt would adequately compensate the injured party; (2) the injured party either accepted the offered amount, p a r t i e s , the Council would approve the amount of d a m a g e s .
O f t e n , the informal pressures asserted by the society as a whole played as great a role in the control of the people as any order from the c h i e f s . As y o u n g s t e r s , the Cheyenne were taught to adore praise and abhore ridicule as part of the customary learning p r o c e s s . T h u s , praise and ridicule were key elements utilized in the effort to achieve social conform-
4 6 ity. Perhaps the best illustration of the social pressures utilised by the C h e y e n n e , is the concept of "gift" which was prevalent among the p e o p l e . Essentially, this concept rests upon the notion that a gift was made to another party w i t h no
00094

-11binding obligations upon that p a r t y , such as in the realm of contract law which we are familiar with today; y e t something of e q u a l , or even h i g h e r , value was generally sent back to the
1 5 original giver, not as p a y m e n t , but rather as a g i f t . Another illustration of Cheyenne social pressure would be the ostracism of one who broke his promise after having sworn to it by smoking the devotional p i p e .
1
®
SPECIFIC AREAS Of CIVIL LAW
Domestic r e l a t i o n s , in particular marriage and d i v o r c e , were governed by definite rules requiring the fulfillment of set p r o c e d u r e s . Among the Cheyenne, marriage was a contractual agreement which was validated through an exchange of gifts between the prospective groom's family and his prospective bride's
1 7 f a m i l y . The would-be groom was expected to court his beloved for a period of one to five y e a r s , before sending a m e s s e n g e r bearing horses to the girl's h o m e . The m e s s e n g e r extended the proposal, while the horses were left in front of the lodge awaiting the decision of the girl's f a m i l y . O f t e n , the girl's oldest brother had the main voice in the family's d e c i s i o n , which was required to be made within twenty-four h o u r s . If the suitor was r e j e c t e d , the horses were sent back; but if his proposal was accepted, the horses remained with the girl's family.
Upon hearing of the acceptance, the groom summoned his f a m i l y , who were all expected to send gifts to the one in charge of making the d e c i s i o n , presumably the girl's b r o t h e r . Upon
00 J
08

-11receipt of these g i f t s , the brother called together the relatives who played a role in m a k i n g the d e c i s i o n , allowing them to choose whichever presents they d e s i r e d . Each of these, in turn, was expected to send back something of equal v a l u e , which was to serve as a wedding gift to the newly married c o u p l e .
L l e w e l l y n , a noted authority, states that this process was recognized as legally binding not only by the f a m i l y , but also
19 procedure was enacted in the same manner after the f a c t .
Because the Cheyenne were p o l y g a m o u s , the possibility existed that the man might go through this process several times during his life. U s u a l l y , he found himself dealing w i t h the same related to the f i r s t .
Divorce was common among the Cheyenne, and could be accomplished in a variety of f a s h i o n s . If the wife's relatives were greatly displeased with the h u s b a n d , they could directly declare that she was divorced and remove her from the husband's l o d g e . Should the husband desire for her to r e t u r n , he could send a horse to her oldest brother (assuming this is the normal situation in which the oldest brother had authority to make marital d e c i s i o n s ) , who would either send back the h o r s e , sigsignifying a renewal of the contractual r e l a t i o n s h i p . ^ ' a man could obtain a divorce by merely leaving his w i f e , who had no right to seek his r e t u r n . If this were the case, the wife's
00 J
08

-1 7 brother would publish a legal d i s c l a i m e r , which forever terminated
22 the ex-husband's interest in the w o m a n . If a man held bitterfeelings toward his w i f e , he might choose to have a public divorce in order to disgrace the w o m a n . Known as a drum d i v o r c e , this event would take place at a soldier society d a n c e . The husband would beat a drum with a s t i c k , then throw the stick legally bound to take the w i f e .
Another situation which arose frequently involved a man's wife deserting him in order to become another's wife. Such an act required that there be a legal adjustment between the m e n , w h i c h was accomplished through the aid of a chief or some other
O A influential m a n . The absconder would determine what a fair payment would be for the w i f e , then he would get a chief to act as his intermediary in extending the offer to the former h u s b a n d .
Due to the social status of the c h i e f , the absconder was reluctant to offer an insufficient g i f t , and the former husband was hesitant to reject an offer extended to him by a chief. In such a m a n n e r , what could have been a troublesome matter was settled in a peaceful f a s h i o n .
The Cheyenne observed ritualistic procedures in the disposition of property upon a person's d e a t h . The death of the head of the household marked the end of the lodge, as the widow and children went to live with her family and the lodge was
2s d e s t r o y e d . Upon the death of the married man his property was dealt with according to recognised tribal c u s t o m . The man's
00097

finest garments, w e a p o n s , favorite h o r s e , and many personal
2 6 belongings were buried with h i m . If the man were old or s i c k , he might have made anticipatory gifts in a testamentary
-11what each would r e c e i v e . This was d o n e , h o w e v e r , only by the old or sick, and never by a warrior before a b a t t l e . It was customary for the man's oldest son to be designated as the executor of the t e s t a m e n t . Under normal circumstances, all of the man's belongings not buried with him were under the control
PR of his w i f e . Social pressures were placed upon the widow to show her love for her deceased husband by distributing the remaining property among n o n - r e l a t i v e s . In order to accomplish this, the belongings were merely set outside and all tribal members were eligible to pick out any item w h i c h they desired to h a v e . Exempt from this disposition were any of the man's belongings which were kept outside the l o d g e , most notably his
29 h o r s e s .
The disposition of an unmarried man's property followed a different course. A single man was also buried in his finest clothing along w i t h his favorite horse, but the disposition well-known tribal customs. His trappings were given to any non-relative who wished them. The remainder of his possessions were given either to his best f r i e n d , or to the w a r r i o r society of which he was a m e m b e r . If he were killed in b a t t l e ,
08

-Siwarriors to bring back a scalp from the next battle as a symbol of r e v e n g e . On the other h a n d , if he died from natural c a u s e s , then the friend or soldier society would exhibit the goods and make public announcement of a gift of a horse to some third party in memory of the d e c e a s e d .
The disposition of a married woman's property followed a distinct course different from the two previously m e n t i o n e d . ^
The married woman was buried in her nicest g a r m e n t s , while the rest of her clothing was given a w a y , presumably to her best f r i e n d . The t e p e e , i t s e l f , and her household wares were given to her female r e l a t i v e s . The wife's mares were given to female relatives who cared for the b o d y , while the male horses became the property of the h u s b a n d . As a means of showing his g r i e f , the husband was expected to give away many of his own belongi n g s . The disposition of an unmarried female's property has not received much a t t e n t i o n , although it is known that she was buried in her finest clothing, with the rest of her clothing
32 being given to her best friend.
The Cheyenne had a nomadi c 1ifestyle, so the private ownership of land was not a part of their way of l i f e . H o w e v e r , as is clearly illustrated by the discussion above on the disposition of a deceased person's property, they did hold strong beliefs in private property ownership, and the rights that necessarily went along with that ownership. An individual was viewed as having strict law rights in a buffalo which he k i l l e d , w a r loot which he o b t a i n e d , and horses w h i c h he acquired; as
00099

- 1 1 well as in personal a r t i c l e s , such as clothing and w e a p o n s . ^
Horses were a primary source of w e a l t h , and many raids occurred for the sole purpose of acquiring more horses; with the first to that h o r s e . That a wife also had ownership rights is evidenced by the fact that any horses given to her prior to marriage remained her p o s s e s s i o n s , free of her husband's
35 control. Any increase through the breeding of these horses also belonged to h e r , and she was free to sell or give away these horses as she w i s h e d . Coupled with these private property rights were the ever-present social pressures to generously make g i f t s . T h u s , the concept of private property ownership was important not only for accumulation of wealth purposes, but also for the ability to freely transfer belongings, as per their many gift-giving customs.
RESERVATION DEVELOPMENTS
The Cheyenne lifestyle underwent an abrupt change w h e n , for the first time in their l i v e s , they found themselves tied down to a specific area and under the control of someone e l s e , as they were placed upon the r e s e r v a t i o n s . The tribe had divided in
37
1825 into Northern and Southern divisions, so it seemed perfectly n a t u r a l to place reservations in both M o n t a n a and
O k l a h o m a . H o w e v e r , since both Northern and Southern Cheyennes had continued to maintain the same tribal c u s t o m s , and since the general effect on the Cheyenne law-ways was the same in
00 J
08

- 1 1 both r e g i o n s , there would appear to be no real reason for drawing distinctions between the two in examining the impact reservation life had upon the l a w - w a y s .
The development of an Indian police f o r c e , the establishment of a court system, and the firs t encounter with the white man's laws were all to have an irreversible effect upon the law of the Cheyenne. An Indian police force was established to maintain law and o r d e r , thereby assuming the powers previously delegated to the soldiers s o c i e t i e s . H o w e v e r , at least in the early years of reservation l i f e , the w a r r i o r societies were still extremely powerful, and would likely have won any d irect
39 confrontation with the Indian p o l i c e . Even s o , a key element in the tradi tional legal system had be en weakened and off icially stripped of its former powers.
A judicial system of courts and judges incorporating
Indians into the system was established as a means of further eroding the tribal customs, and thereby "civilizing" the
C h e y e n n e . ^ These courts were accountable to the a g e n t , rather than the Cheyenne, and were responsible for enforcing the laws of white society, rather than the traditional l a w s .
4 1
Of c o u r s e , such a drastic change met staunch r e s i s t a n c e , b u t , n e v e r t h e l e s s , this had the effect of officially abrogating the judicial powers of the chiefs. T h u s , the chiefs were without the legal power to prevent the outlawing of medicine men practices and the principal religious ceremonies.
00 J
08

- 1 7 -
Of interest will be an examination of the effect the reservation had upon the three specific areas of Cheyenne civil law concentrated upon e a r l i e r . The traditional practices concerning marriage and divorce were followed for quite some time, despite efforts of the agents to terminate certain practices, such as plural m a r r i a g e s . ^ Eventually though, territorial law was enacted outlawing the Indian p r a c t i c e s , and designat-
45 ing the formal requirements which were to be m e t . Although tribal marriage customs did persist for y e a r s , the arrest and imprisonment of violators no doubt caused the majority of the
A C*.
Cheyenne to follow the new l a w s .
The main effect of reservation life upon the disposition of a deceased person's property will be incorporated into the discussion on property ownership, which saw a new dimension added to i t , Por the first time ever, the Cheyennes settled upon a particular tract of l a n d . T h u s , receiving their first exposure to the concept of realty; as opposed to p e r s o n a l t y , which was the only form of property dealt with by the traditional l a w s . Even though title to the land was to remain in the United States, an entirely new realm of property rights was opened u p .
The rights of the Cheyenne in this realty expanded and became more defined as times went along. At f i r s t , the
Secretary of Interior assigned the land in severalty to the entire t r i b e . T h e next major legal r i g h t , besides mere occupation and u s a g e , was the emergence of a tribal right to
00102

-13lease the land to non-tribal members; with each tribal m e m b e r to
Aft receive a share of the income derived t h e r e f r o m . ' T h e r e a f t e r ,
Congress enacted the General. Allotment Act of 1 8 8 7 , ^ also known as the Dawes A c t , w h i c h called for the President to allot portions of reservation land to the individual tribal m e m b e r s .
According to the language of the A c t , the United States was to hold the land in trust for a period of twenty-five years (subject to extension), after which it was to be conveyed to the individual allottee in fee simple free from al1 encumberances.
Without going into any d e t a i l s , it should simply be noted at this point that while some Indians eventually received their land in fee s i m p l e , the Uni ted States still holds some lands in trust for the I n d i a n s . The Northern Cheyenne Allotment Act of 1926, 44 S t a t . 6 9 0 , statutorily established the Northern
Cheyenne Reservation pursuant to this l e g i s l a t i o n .
This new idea of real property ownership was responsible for bringing about changes in the law concerning disposition of a deceased person•s property. Most importantly, the
General Allotment Act provided that upon the issuance of a patent evidencing the allotment, the tract of land would be territory in whi ch the land was located. T h u s , the newly acquired real property rights were never to be governed by the
Cheyenne law of d i s t r i b u t i o n . Further, the Bureau of Indian
Affairs promulgated regulations for the disposition of
Cheyenne estates, including the requirement of a court-appointed administrator.
51

- 1 1 -
One final comment needs to be made concerning legal developments which formulated during these early years on the r e s e r v a t i o n . The Cheyenne found themselves not only being exposed to the white man's l a w s , but also having much more interaction with the white man involving legal m a t t e r s .
Unfortunately, any number of injustices were inflicted upon the
Indians in the white man's courtroom. Even though jurisdiction technically may have been in federal c o u r t , the Indian often found waiting for his case to be heard too s l o w , and was forced
52 to resort to a hostile territorial court. In these c o u r t s , white juries often ignored the law and the evidence in rendering a verdict economically detrimental to the Indian's
CURRENT STATUS
54
Upon passage of the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, also known as the Wheeler-Howard A c t , the Cheyenne exercised political body known as the Tribal C o u n c i l . The Tribal
Council is recognized as the true governing power today, with its members being elected to two year terms; while its president and officers serve for four years. M e a n w h i l e , the last remnants of power held by the chiefs and the military societies
57 gradually fade a w a y . Of course, all information pertaining to the current status of the law on the reservation will be focused upon the Northern Cheyenne Reservation in M o n t a n a ,
00 J
08

- 1 5 which is the only Cheyenne reservation still in e x i s t e n c e .
The Cheyenne Tribal Court closely resembles the organizational plan set forth by C o n g r e s s . The Tribal Council saw fit to adopt the federal regulations as guidelines for the format of the court and the code of ordinances, making modifications when necessary to accommodate local n e e d s . Judges are chosen by the Tribal Council from among the resident tribal m e m b e r s . For the most p a r t , the proceedings are conducted with out the presence of a licensed attorney, with the pleadings and
59 the court's own record being simple and b r i e f .
J
Resolving the question of which tribunal has proper jurisdiction over a matter is one of the fundamental issues which has come to the forefront in Indian law. Before advancing a brief outline of which forum has jurisdiction over the various combinations of parties and locations of claims, a few introductory comments should be m a d e . On several occasions, the M o n t a n a Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that Indians have the same rights as all other Montana citizens to invoke the jurisdiction of the state c o u r t s T h e state courts are required to apply the test set forth by the United States
Supreme Court in Williams v . L e e , 358 U . S . 217 (1959), that is, whether the federal treaties and statutes applicable have preempted state jurisdiction and whether the exercise of state jurisdiction would interfere with the self-government of the r e s e r v a t i o n , in determining w h e t h e r their court is the proper
00105

- 1 1 no affirmative efforts along with the state to set up concur-
62 rent criminal and civil jurisdiction. One final c o m m e n t , if the requirements for involving federal jurisdiction through either federal question or diversity of citizenship are m e t , t h e n , as u s u a l , the federal courts are a proper place for the matter to be h e a r d .
Generally, an Indian suing an Indian over a claim which arose on the reservation must bring the suit in tribal court; whereas if the claim arose off the reservation, the tribal and state courts have concurrent jurisdiction. A non-Indian suing an Indian over a claim arising on the reservation must file suit in the tribal court; but if the claim arises off the r e s e r v a t i o n , the state court is proper and the tribal court may b e . An Indian suing a non-Indian over a claim which arises on the reservation may bring suit in either the tribal or state court; h o w e v e r , if the claim arose outside the boundaries of the r e s e r v a t i o n , the state has exclusive jurisd i c t i o n . And f i n a l l y , a non-Indian suing a non-Indian for a claim arising either on or off the reservation must file the suit in state court.
The three areas of civil law featured throughout this paper serve as important examples of the law upon the Northern
Cheyenne R e s e r v a t i o n . Since 1937, the tribal court has not
64 exercised jurisdiction over marriage and d i v o r c e . R a t h e r , the tribal court has provided that both marriages and divorces must be consummated in accordance w i t h the laws of
00 J
08

- 1 7 -
Montana; therefore, the state government has regulated these
65 domestic relations since 1937.
The disposition of a deceased person's property draws together all three jurisdictions. Congress has provided that the descent and distribution of the allotments, whether still f \ f t held in trust or n o t , are governed by the laws of M o n t a n a .
The allottee may d i s p o s e of the allotment by will during the trust period, provided that the will meets the approval of the
Secretary of the Interior, who may disapprove the will only f~ Q if it is technically deficient or irrational. Should the
Indian die without a will while the property is still held in trust, then the Secretary of the Interior must ascertain the legal
Court has stated that the Indian tribes retain their inherent power to prescribe rules of inheritance for the tribal
70 m e m b e r s . It also seems apparent that the Supreme Court's holding in W i l l i a m s v . Lee, s u p r a , would preclude any state interference in the probate of non-trust property located on the reservation.
Concerning property r i g h t s , the laws of M o n t a n a do not erty is controlled exclusively by federal l a w . The Northern
Cheyenne Tribe v . Hollowbreast, 425 U . S . 649 (1976), clearly stands for the fact that Congress has not relinquished its control over the trust lands. H o w e v e r , it is important to note that once the land is conveyed in fee s i m p l e , it is subject to the laws of M o n t a n a .
7 2 00107

- 1 1 -
CONPLUS ION
The Cheyenne were able to govern their own affairs for a great number of years through a legal system built largely around public opinions and social p r e s s u r e . They had a representative form of government which remained especially alert to the wishes of its constituency. Although the law-ways were n o t codified, the stability and certainty achieved through the use of written laws is, n o n e t h e l e s s , apparent from an examination of the Cheyenne way of l i f e . To this stability and certainty was also added the flexibility necessary for handling each situation as it a r o s e .
This system of law-ways, h o w e v e r , was destined n o t to s u r v i v e . The white man took it upon himself to "civilize" the
I n d i a n , which necessarily required that the Indian be subjected to his modern l a w s . T h u s , the law-ways, along with many other distinctly Cheyenne traits, have either disappeared or are gradually fading from m e m o r y . The erosion and destruction of the law-ways perhaps serves as a vivid illustration of the
73 somber words spoken by the legendary Sweet M e d i c i n e , who profoundly stated to his fellow tribesmen, "In the e n d , your history will be forgotten."
00 J
08

- 1 1 -
E N D NOTES
1. John Stands in Timber & M a r g o t L i b e r t y , Cheyenne M e m o r i e s .
2? (1967). "
2 . I d . at 36.
3 . George B . G r i n n e l l , The Cheyenne Indians: Their History and Ways of L i f e . 340^343 (1924).
4 . I d . at 337.
5 . I d . at 336.
6 . Fairbanks, The Cheyenne and Their Law: A Positivist
Inquiry, 32 A r k . L . R e v . 403,428 (1978)1 ~
7. K . N . Llewellyn & E . Adamson H o e b e l , The Cheyenne W a y , 96
(1941).
8 . I d . at 9 1 .
9 . Fairbanks, supra note 6 , at 428.
10. G . Grinnell, supra note 3, at 357.
11. I d . at 358.
12. I d . at 349.
13. Fairbanks, supra note 6 , at 4 2 9 .
14. G . Grinnell, supra note 3 , at 103-104.
15. K . Llewellyn & E . H o e b e l , supra note 7 , at 2 4 8 .
16. Thomas B . M a r q u i s , The Cheyenne of M o n t a n a 147 (1978).
17. G . Grinnell, supra note 3 , at 137-140.
18. K« Llewellyn & E . H o e b e l , supra note 7, at 170.
19. G . Grinnell, supra note 3 , at 142.
2 0 . I d . at 153.
2 1 . K . Llewellyn & E . H o e b e l , supra note 7 , at 181.
2 2 . Id. at 182.
2 3 . I d . at 185.
00 J
08

2 4 . I d . at 192-193.
2 5 . Donald J . B e r t h r o n g , The Southern Cheyennes.
2 6 . K . Llewellyn & E . H o e b e l , supra note 7 , at 2 1 3 .
2 7 . I d . at 214.
28. I d . at 2 1 7 .
29. T . M a r q u i s , supra note 16, at 221.
3 0 . K . Llewellyn & E . H o e b e l , supra note 7 , at 218-219.
3 1 . I d . at 220.
3 2 . I d .
3 3 . I d . at 232.
34. I d . at 2 2 3 .
35. G . Grinnell, supra note 3 , at 155.
3 6 . K . Llewellyn & E . H o e b e l , supra note 7 , at 235.
37. J . Stands in Timber & M . L i b e r t y , supra note 1, at 5 9 .
38. J . M a r q u i s , supra note 1 6 , at 11.
3 9 . Donald J . B e r t h r o n g , The Cheyenne and Arapaho Ordeal 105
(1976).
40. J . M a r q u i s , supra note 16, at 11.
4 1 . I d .
4 2 . D . Berthrong, supra note 3 9 , at 146.
4 3 . J . M a r q u i s , supra note 16, at 11.
4 4 . D . B e r t h r o n g , supra note 3 9 , at 2 2 1 ,
4 5 . See I d . at 223; M a r q u i s , supra note 16, at 174.
4 6 . D . Berthrong, supra note 39, at 224.
4 7 . D . B e r t h r o n g , supra note 2 5 , at 150.
4 8 . D . Berthrong, supra note 3 9 , at 93-95.
00 J
08
- 1 1 -

- 1 1 -
49. General Allotment A c t , 24 Stat. 388 (1887).
50. I d .
51. D . Berthrong, supra note 39, at 274.
52. I d . at 305.
53. I d . at 339.
54. 25 U . S . G . 461-479 (1976).
55. J . Stands in Timber & M . Liberty, supra note 1, at 56.
56. Id.
57. Id.
58. Parker, State and Tribal Courts in Montana: The Jurisdictional Relationship, 53 M o n t . L . R e v ^ 2 7 7 , 285 (1 97277
5 9 . I d .
6 0 . Bad Horse v . Bad Horse 517 P.2d 893 (Mont. 1974); State ex r e l . Iron Bear v . District Court, 512 P.2d 1292 (Mont.
1973): Bormet v . Seekins, 243 P7 2d 317 (Mont. 1952).
6 1 . 512 P.2d at 1299.
62. Blackwolf v . District Court, 493 P.2d 1293,1295 (Mont. 1972).
63. 41 Am.Jur.2d Indians Section 63 (1968).
6 4 . 517 P.2d at 8 9 6 .
65. Id.
66. 25 U . S . C . Section 348 (1976).
6 7 . 25 U . S . C . Section 373 (1976).
6 8 . Akers v . M o r t o n , 499 P.2d 44,47 (9th Cir. 1974), cert. d e n .
423 U . S . S31 (1975).
6 9 . 41 Am.Jur.2d Indians Section 39 (1968).
7 0 . Montana v . United States, 450 U . S . 544 (1981).
7 1 . 499 P.2d at 4 6 .
72. Dillon v . Antler Land C o . of W y o l a , 507 F.2d 940 (9th Cir.
1974), cert. den. 421 U . S . 992 (1975).
00 J
08

7 3 . J . Stands in Timber & M . L i b e r t y , supra note 1, at 5 7 .
- 1 1 -
00 J
08