Johnson v. McIntosh
The History of the case
In early America, colonists' used the English real property law to protect their properties such as land. However, the law had complications that resulted to land disputes. To avoid conflict and war, a new law that supported the right to acquisition was developed. A discovery rule was established in European sovereigns (Kades, 70). The rule was designed to allow the sovereign (European nations) to purchase land. Thus, the rule could allow the Europeans to claim the new World and the Indian inhabitants. However, the discovery rule did not put emphases on European-Indian relations. Opponents argued that the law was misleading, and it was an exclusive principle since America was given the sole right to regulate the land. All Europeans were excluded from this rule (Kades, 70). The earliest settled created a second doctrine that restricted Indians from owning land. They only had a general residence but not occupants. Indians were only allowed to possess the lands they cultivated. Other common settlers supported the principled and even said that the land-rich Indians should share their wealth (Kades, 72). However, despite all these justifications, the royal commissioners argued that the lord created the earth and gave it to children of men, including Indians and thus they should own the land. Indians were allowed to possess the area but were denied the right to property or power to sell the land.
The Johnson v. M'Intosh case is a disagreement between the Indians, and British and American officials. Indians wanted to the right of occupancy, whereas the colonists wanted to control the land title. Note that by mid-1700s, the British government controlled the Indian affairs, and it instructed the New York government to restrict private individuals from purchasing lands (Kades, 77). In solving this case, Chief Justice Marshall asserted that it's very rare for laws to exclude Indians from enjoying property rights. However, restriction and control were influenced by political factors. Thus, the sovereign should allow the Indians to sell lands the same way colonial Massachusetts were doing (Kades, 78). Marshall supported the ‘Indian title of occupancy.' He argued that even though the discovery rule denied Indians the right to sell land, the grant allowed the Indians to sell the property. He explained that the title of occupancy was established before the common law. Therefore, the U.S courts did not have legal jurisdiction or the power to make decisions concerning the Indian title (Kades, 79). The Marshall decisions promoted a United Front Government that caused a significant change in that it gained the ability to control the country's fundamental interests. It also improved relations with global powers such as the United Kingdom.
From the case, it is clear that the M'Intosh caused deleterious effects since Indians experience economic hardships. However, they conquered and became winners, and they could sell the land. An important point to understand is that the M’Intosh rule is questionable. It seems like the colonists focused on the distribution of wealth and assemble huge capital (Kades, 111). The case also depicts the strategic opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in solving the case using a narrow statutory grounds. Rather than employing the universal American custom, he established a rule that allowed the Indians to gain freedom (Kades, 111). It is also important to note that Justice Marshall used legal logic and showed the integrity of legal reasoning.
Work cited
Kades, Eric. "History and interpretation of the great case of Johnson v. M'Intosh." Law and
History Review 19.1 (2001): 67-116.
