请问谁能来帮个忙

billyxiangLi

  In its 1903 decision in the case

       of Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, the United

       States Supreme Court rejected the

Line       efforts of three Native American tribes

  (5)       to prevent the opening of tribal lands

to non-Indian settlement without tribal

consent.  In his study of the Lone

Wolf case, Blue Clark properly

emphasizes the Court’s assertion

(10)      of a virtually unlimited unilateral power

of Congress (the House of Represen-

tatives and the Senate) over Native

American affairs.  But he fails to note

the decision’s more far-reaching

(15)      impact:  shortly after Lone Wolf, the

federal government totally abandoned

negotiation and execution of formal

written agreements with Indian tribes

as a prerequisite for the implemen-

(20)      tation of federal Indian policy.  Many

commentators believe that this change

had already occurred in 1871 when—

following a dispute between the

       House and the Senate over which

(25)      chamber should enjoy primacy in

Indian affairs—Congress abolished

the making of treaties with Native

American tribes.  But in reality the

federal government continued to nego-

(30)      tiate formal tribal agreements past

the turn of the century, treating these

documents not as treaties with sover-

       eign nations requiring ratification by the

Senate but simply as legislation to be

(35)      passed by both houses of Congress.

       The Lone Wolf decision ended this

era of formal negotiation and finally

did away with what had increasingly

become the empty formality of obtain-

ing tribal consent.

关于这篇阅读哪位好心人能给一个中文的大意呢，将不甚感激。

steveyangxt

说高院的一个判决使土著人的权益再次受到严重侵害。原来政府制定印第安政策时的新觉条件是征得印第安人的同意。 由于这个判决的影响，现在有关土著人的土地问题都不在根土著人进行正式协商了。