exclusifs » et qu’ « aucune autorité » ne puisse alors, « pénétrer sur ses terres, pour
quelque but que ce soit, sans son consentement »
255. Soutenue par l’attorney general des
États-Unis en 1821, reprise par l’une des monographies consacrées à la question à la fin
du XVIIIe siècle
256, cette opinion n’est que la formulation officielle et théorisée de la
254 « Speech to the Senate, Apr.30, 1830 », Reg. Deb. (Senate), 21st
Cong., 1st Sess., p.313 : « for a
distinction (…) in the mode of enjoying that which is my own (…). If I use it for hunting, may another take it because he needs it for agriculture ? ». Voir, dans le même sens, l’argument d’Adams, avocat de Peck dans l’affaire Fletcher v. Peck, (1810), 10 U.S. 87, 121 : « What is the Indian title? It is a mere occupancy for the purpose of hunting. It is not like our tenures; they have no idea of a title to the soil
itself. It is overrun by them, rather than inhabited. It is not a true and legal possession. Vattel, b. 1. § 81.
p. 37. and § 209. b. 2. § 97. Montesquieu, b. 18. c. 12. Smith's Wealth of Nations, b. 5. c. 1. It is a right not to be transferred but extinguished. It a right regulated by treaties, not by deeds of conveyance. It depends upon the law of Nations, not upon municipal right ». Il faut noter qu’une telle interprétation de l’origine du titre Indien était également celle des autochtones eux-mêmes. Voir WEEKS, (P.C.) The
United States and the Search for the Solution to the “Indian Problem”, Ph.D. Thesis, Case Western
University 1989, p.192 : cite le Chef des Nez-Percés : « The country was made without lines of demarcation, and it is no man’s business to divide it…Perhaps you think the Creator sent you here to dispose of us as you might be induced to think you had a right to dispose of me. Do not misunderstand me, but understand me fully with reference to my affection for the land. I never said the land was mine to do with it as I chose. The one who has the right to dispose of it is the one who had created it. I claim a right to live on my land, and accord you the privilege to live on yours ».
255 Opinion of Hon. William Wirt, Attorney General – « The Seneca Lands » (April 26, 1821 – 1 U.S. Op.
Att’y. Gen. 465) : « The answer to this question depends on the character of the title which the Indians retain in these lands. The practical admission of the European conquerors of this country renders it unnecessary for us to speculate on the extent of that right which they might have asserted from conquest, and from the migratory habits and hunter state of its aboriginal occupants. - (See the authorities cited in
Fletcher and Peck, 6 Cranch, 121.) The conquerors have never claimed more than the exclusive right of
purchase from the Indians, and the right of succession to a tribe which shall have removed voluntarily, or
become extinguished by death. So long as a tribe exists and remains in possession of its lands, its title
and possession are sovereign and exclusive; and there exists no authority to enter upon their lands, for any purpose whatever, without their consent. Of the admission of this principle, the treaty above referred to furnishes a proof » (c’est nous qui soulignons).
256 WHARTON, (S.), Plain facts : being an Examination into the Rights of the Indian Nations of
America, to their Respective Countries, and a Vindication of the Grant from the Six United Nations of Indians, to the Proprietors of Indiana against the Decision of the Legislature of Virginia, together with Authentic Documents proving that the Territory, Westward of the Allegany Mountain, never belonged to Virginia, etc., Philadelphia, R.Aitken 1781. Voir not. pp.16-17 : « These authorities (though abundance
of others might be cited) will sufficiently prove, that occupancy has been universally admitted, as sufficient to vest the property of a country, or district in a Nation, or tribe occupying the same, and consequently, that the aborigines of America have an absolute exclusive right to the countries they possesses ; they, by the immemorial, uninterrupted exercise of every act, which is necessary to constitute occupancy, either by the laws of nature, or of Nations, must have acquired a valid title to their territories, if even the possession had been at first unjustly gained. But surely this was not the case, for whether we
Thibaut FLEURY | Thèse de Doctorat | Juin 2011 Partie 1 – Construction des conditions d’acquisition du titre
pratique du gouvernement fédéral depuis l’Indépendance : les nombreux traités de
cession territoriale conclus entre ce dernier et les tribus indiennes
257apportent la preuve
pratique de la réalité juridique de ce titre
258.
§2 – Nature civilisée de la communauté étatique
La définition de l’organisation politique que nous venons d’exposer peut
être qualifiée d’ « objective » dans la mesure où elle s’appuie sur l’existence factuelle d’une
communauté d’individus, dotée d’une forme d’organisation – quelle qu’elle soit. Une telle
définition correspond tout à fait à celle qui prévaut plus largement dans la doctrine
internationaliste de la fin du XVIIIe siècle : comme l’a noté le Pr. Anaya à propos de la
définition vattelienne des sujets du droit des gens le juriste suisse « définit vaguement l’État »
si bien que « certains peuples aborigènes non-Européens » peuvent, selon cette acception, être
qualifiés comme tels, « et jouir des droits » attachés à ce statut
259. Les arrêts Cherokee Nation
et Worcester, de même que les traités conclus avec des tribus dont nous avons exposé ci-
consider them as having been, by divine providence, first transplanted to America, or as having been (according to their own belief), created there » (c’est nous qui soulignons).
257 Y compris avec celles d’entre elles dont il est établi qu’elles vivaient de chasse plutôt que
d’agriculture. Tel était notamment le cas des « Indiens de plaines », parmi lesquels les tribus Cheyenne, Comanche, Nez Perces ou Osage : voir CARLSON, (P.H.), Les Indiens des plaines. Histoire, culture et
société, Paris, Albin Michel 2004, p.308 et TAYLOR, (C.F.), The Plains Indians : a Cultural and Historical View of the North American Plains Tribes of the Pre-Reservation Period, New York, Crescent
Book 1994 : Carlson écrit ainsi que « ne se livrant pas à l’agriculture, ces peuples nomades chassaient à cheval le grand gibier et dépendaient du bison pour leur subsistance et l’essentiel de leur culture matérielle. Ils appartenaient à des sociétés guerrières, vivaient sous des tipis et pratiquaient la quête de vision » (p.14).
258 Voir notamment : « Treaty of Fort Laramie with Sioux, etc. Sept.17, 1851 », 11 Stat. 149, dont
l’article 5 définit les frontières des Nations indiennes : « The aforesaid Indian Nations do hereby recognize and acknowledge the following tracts of country, included within the metes and boundaries hereinafter designated, as their respective territories, viz (…) » ; « Treaty with the Comanche, etc., Aug.24, 1835 », 7 Stat. 474, dont l’article 5 prévoit un droit de passage pour les citoyens américains, sur les terres des Comanches : « There shall be a free and friendly intercourse between all the contracting parties hereto, and it is distinctly understood and agreed by the Comanche and Witchetaw Nations and their associated bands or tribes of Indians, that the citizens of the United States are freely permitted to pass and repass through their settlements or hunting ground without molestation or injury on their way to any of the provinces of the Republic of Mexico, or returning therefrom, and that each of the Nations or tribes named in this article, further agree to pay the full value for any injury their people may do to the goods or property of the citizens of the United States taken or destroyed, when peaceably passing through the country they inhabit, or hunt in, or elsewhere. And the United States hereby guaranty to any Indian or Indians of either of the said Comanche or Witchetaw Nations, and their associated bands or tribes of Indians, a full indemnification for any horses or other property which may be stolen from them: Provided, that the property so stolen cannot be recovered, and that sufficient proof is produced that it was actually stolen by a citizen of the United States, and within the limits thereof ».