Indian Land Claims in the Town of Gay Head, MA: Hearing Before the Select Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, Ninety-ninth Congress, Second Session, on S. 1452 ... April 9, 1986, Washington, DC.
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1986 - 238 pages
What people are saying - Write a review
We haven't found any reviews in the usual places.
Other editions - View all
acknowledgment acres action Affairs agreement American appeal attorney beaches believe bill called Chairman committee common lands Commonwealth concerning considered corporation Council of Gay court dissidents effort fact federal Federal Government filed fishing funds Gay Head Indians Gay Head Tribe Gay Head Wampanoag give going HAHN hearing held homes Indian land claims individual interest involved Island issue James land claims legislation LIBRARY OF CONGRESS litigation live Massachusetts means meetings membership negotiated never non-Indian Parcel parties petition plaintiffs position present proposed question reasons recognition recognized record represent reservation residents S.Ct Secretary Senate settle settlement lands statement status Strock suit talk Taxpayers Association TAYLOR testimony Thank thing Town of Gay transfer tribal members understand United views Vineyard vote Wampanoag Tribal Council Widdiss
Page 129 - That no purchase, grant, lease, or other conveyance of lands, or of any title or claim thereto, from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians, shall be of any validity in law or equity, unless the same be made by treaty or convention entered into pursuant to the constitution.
Page 227 - That no sale of lands made by any Indians, or any nation or tribe of Indians within the United States, shall be valid to any person or persons, or to any state, whether having the right of pre-emption to such lands or not, unless the same shall be made and duly executed at some public treaty, held under the authority of the United States.
Page 171 - No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.
Page 140 - A court of the United States may not grant an injunction to stay proceedings in a State court except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.
Page 130 - That regulation is designed for the entire result, applying to those parts which remain as they were, as well as to those which are altered. It produces a uniform whole, which is as much disturbed and deranged by changing what the regulating power designs to leave untouched, as that on which it has...
Page 140 - While this language is admittedly broad, we conclude that it implies something similar to the concept of injunctions to "protect or effectuate" judgments. Both exceptions to the general prohibition of § 2283 imply that some federal injunctive relief may be necessary to prevent a state court from so interfering with a federal court's consideration or disposition of a case as to seriously impair the federal court's flexibility and authority to decide that case.
Page 65 - If the Great Spirit had desired me to be a white man he would have made me so in the first place. He put in your heart certain wishes and plans, in my heart he put other and different desires. Each man is good in His sight. It is not necessary for eagles to be crows.
Page 119 - National Policy, States' Rights, and Indian Sovereignty: The Case of the New York Iroquois," in Extending the Rafters: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Iroquoian Studies, ed.
Page 190 - The overriding duty of our Federal Government to deal fairly with Indians wherever located has been recognized by this Court on many occasions.