Barmecide Revisited: The Gratuitous Offset in Indian Claims Cases

Abstract

It is the practice in Indian claims cases to allow the United States government to set off against a judgment all expenditures made gratuitously by them to the benefit of the Indian tribe bringing suit. An examination of pertinent cases and laws demonstrates clearly that the Indian Claims Commission and the United States Court of Claims have no consistent way of determining what is or is not an allowable offset expenditure. Case outcomes indicate that the gratuitous offset adds inequality to a system devised in the first place to correct earlier inequities, and cases demonstrate that outrageous results are commonplace. According to an Arabian Nights tale, a wealthy Persian prince named Barmecide invited a hungry beggar to a presumably sumptuous feast at which he made a pretense of serving and eating imaginary viands. His actions led to his immortalization in the term Barmecidal feast, meaning any illusion of plenty. The American Indian has experienced somewhat the same frustration as Barmecide's beggar. He has been lured into the courtroom with promises of equity and rectification of past injustice and found himself instead face-to-face with his own illusion. This time the host was the federal government and the device for turning promise into illusion the gratuitous offset. Briefly defined, gratuitous offsets are expenditures incurred by the federal government on behalf of various Indian tribes. Specifically, they are the cost, to the government, of items or services provided (that is for no consideration) by them to the Indian tribes; and they may be set-off against or deducted from legal judgments in favor of Indian tribes bringing suit against the United States. Just how free these items and/or services really ETHNOHISTORY 25/2 (Spring 1978) 179 This content downloaded from 207.46.13.128 on Wed, 07 Sep 2016 05:04:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms