INDIAN AFFAIRS: LAWS AND TREATIES

Vol. III, Laws     (Compiled to December 1, 1913)

Compiled and edited by Charles J. Kappler. Washington : Government Printing Office, 1913.


Home | Disclaimer & Usage | Table of Contents | Index

PART VI.—Title “Indians” from Cyc (reprinted with new cases)

“Indians”
      Cross References
      I. Definition.
      II. Status and Disabilities
      III. Indian Lands.
      IV. Government of Indians and Indian Country.
      V. Indian Depredations.

Notes From New Cases

Page Images


{Page 728}

III. INDIAN LANDS.

A. Title and rights1. Nature of title(a) In general.—Indian tribes hold their right to the soil by virtue of aboriginal occupancy and possession.4 To sustain the title, their use and occupancy must have been actual, not merely desultory or constructive.5 Their title is a perpetual right of possession and occupancy, the fee remaining in the United States or in the State where the land is situated6 as [124] successor to the rights of the European discoverers.7 The United States, as original proprietor, has power to dispose of public lands even within an Indian reservation without the consent of the Indians.8


      4Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. (U. S.), 211; 21 L. Ed., 523; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. (U. S.), 515; 8 L. Ed., 483. And see R eg. v. St. Catharine’s Milling, etc., Co., 13 Ont. App., 148 [affirming 10 Ont., 196].
      Neither Spain nor Mexico recognized the primitive title of the Indians. Brooks v. Norris, 6 Rob. (La.), 175; maes v. Gillard, 7 Mart. N. S. (La.), 314; Martin v. Johnson, 5 Mart. (La.), 655; Reboul v. Nero, 5 Mart. (La.), 400; U. S. v. Wilson, 1 Black (U. S.), 267; 17 L. Ed., 142; Hayt v. U. S., 38 C. Cls., 455. Compare Byrne v. Alas, 74 Cal., 628; 16 Pac., 523.
      5Choctaw Nation v. U. S., 179 U. S., 494; 21 S. Ct., 149; 45 L. Ed., 291. 6Minter v. Shirley, 45 Miss., 376; In re Narrangansett Indians, 20 R. I., 715; 40 Atl., 347; Spaulding v. Chandler, 160 U. S., 394; 16 S. Ct., 360; 40 L. Ed., 469; Buttz v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 119 U. S., 55; 7 S. Ct., 100; 30 L. Ed., 330; U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S., 375; 6 S. Ct., 1109; 30 L. Ed., 228; U. S. v. Cook, 19 Wall. (U. S.), 591; 22 L. Ed., 210; Doe v. Wilson, 23 How. (U. S.), 457; 16 L. Ed., 584; U. S. v. Rogers, 4 How. (U. S.), 567; 11 L. Ed., 1105; Mitchel v. U. S., 9 Pet. (U. S.), 711; 9 L. Ed., 283; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. (U. S.), 515; 8 L. Ed., 483; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. (U. S.), 1; 8 L. Ed., 25; Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. (U. S.), 543; 5 L. Ed., 681; Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch (U. S.), 87; 3 L. Ed., 162; U. S. v. Four Bottles of Sour-Mash Whisky, 90 Fed., 720; U. S. v. Ragsdale, 27 Fed., Cas., No. 16113; Hempst., 479; U. S. v. Rogers, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16187; Hempst., 450; Goodfellow v. Mulkey, 10 Fed. Cas., No. 5537; 1 McCrary, 238.
      The colonies, on becoming States, succeeded to the rights of the crown to lands within their boundaries, with the exclusive right to extinguish the Indian title by purchase. Seneca Nation v. Christie, 126 N. Y., 122; 27 N. E., 275; Ogden v. Lee, 6 Hill (N. Y), 546; Strong v. Waterman, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 607.
      In New York the tenure of Seneca Indians residing on the Allegany and Cattaraugus Reservations is defined by the act of May 18, 1845, declaring that they hold and possess such reservations as a distinct community. Seneca Nation v. Tyler, 14 How. Pr., 109.
      In Canada the Indians have the right of possession; the fee is in the province in which the lands are situate; but the Dominion Government retains the exclusive power of legislation over the lands while occupied by Indians. St. Catharines Miling, etc., Co. v. Reg., 13 Can. Sup. Ct., 577 [affirmed in 14 App. Cas., 46; 58 L. J. P. C., 54; 60 L. T. Rep. N. S., 197]; Reg. v. Johnson, 33 Can. L. J., 204; Burke v. Cormier, 10 Can. L. T., 382; 30 N. Brunsw., 142; Ontario Min. Co. v. Seybold, 31 Ont., 386; Reg. v. Johnson, 1 Grant Ch. (U. C.), 409; Reg. v. Strong, 1 Grant Ch. (U. C.), 392; Brown v. West, 1 U. C. Q. B. O. S., 287.
      The Pueblo Indians of New Mexico have an indefeasible title to their lands, guaranteed by the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (9 U. S. Stat. L., 922). U. S. v. Lucero, 1 N. M., 422.
      The right of eminent domain over Indian lands is in the United States, even where the Indians hold a fee-simple title by grant or treaty. Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kans. R. Co., 33 Fed., 900.
      Provisional legislation respecting land within the Indian boundary, to take effect when the Indian title should be extinguished, was not prohibited by the constitution of Tennessee. George v. Gamble, 2 Overt. (Tenn.), 170.
      7Breaux v. Johns, 4 La. Ann., 141; 50 Am. Dec., 555; Granger v. Avery, 64 Me., 292; Penobscot Tribe v. Veazie, 58 Me., 402; Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. (U. S.), 211; 21 L. Ed., 523; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. (U. S.), 515; 8 L. Ed., 483; Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat. (U. S.), 543; 5 L. Ed., 681.
      8U. S. v. Alaska Packers’ Assoc., 79 Fed., 152.

(b) Reservations and grants to tribes.—Where tribal Indians have been assigned lands and reservations as places of domicile, they have no vested rights therein, but simply a right to occupy at the will of the Government.9 Where they hold by grant, their title does not depend upon aboriginal possession, but its nature and extent are measured by the terms of the grant.10


      9McMullen v. Hodge, 5 Tex., 34; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 19 App. Cas. (D. C.), 315 [affirmed in 187 U. S., 553; 23 S. Ct., 216; 47 L. Ed., 299].
      Winnebago-Reservation lands in Nebraska are held by the United States in trust for the tribe and its members, and they are entitled to the use, benefits, rents, and profits thereof. Lemmon v. U. S., 106 Fed., 650; 45 C. C. A., 518.
      10John v. Sabattis, 69 Me., 473; U. S. v. De la Paz Valdez de Conway, 175 U. S., 60; 20 S. Ct., 13; 44 L. Ed., 72. The title of the Cherokee Nation was obtained by grant from the United States, and is a base, qualified, or determinable fee, without the right of reversion, but only the possibility of reversion, in the United States, which in effect puts all the estate in the Indians. U. S. v. Old Settlers, 148 U. S., 427; 13 S. Ct., 650; 37 L. Ed., 509 [affirming 27 C. Cls., 1]; Pavne v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 46 Fed., 546; Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 33 Fed., 900; U. S. v. Rogers, 23 Fed., 658; U. S. v. Reese, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16137; 5 Dill., 405.
      The Delaware Indians and the Shawnee Indians acquired from the Cherokee Nation a right of occupancy for life, with the stipulation that their children thereafter born should be regarded as native Cherokees. They have equal rights with the native Cherokees in all the common property of the Cherokee Nation. U. S. v. Blackfeather, 155 U. S., 218; 15 S. Ct., 63; 39 L. Ed., 126; Cherokee Nation v. Journeycake, 155 U. S., 196; 15 S. Ct., 55; 39 L. Ed., 120; Delaware Indians v. Cherokee Nation, 38 C. Cls., 234 [modified in 193 U. S., 127; 24 S. Ct., 342; 48 L. Ed., 646].
      A grant to Mohawk Indians, by the Governor of the Province of Quebec, under his seal and arms, conveyed no legal estate; not being under the great seal, and there being no grantee capable of holding. Doe v. Ramsay, 9 U. C. Q. B., 105.

(c) Land grants conflicting with Indian title.—The United States, or a State holding the fee, may, before a cession by the Indians, convey an unencumbered title in fee simple or a title subject to their right of possession;11 but such inten-


      11Arkansas: Gaities v. Hale, 26 Ark., 168. Iowa: Snell v. Dubuque, etc., R. Co., 78 Iowa, 88; 42 N. W., 588; 80 Iowa, 767; 45 N. W., 763; Dubuque, etc., R. Co. v. Des Moines Valley R. Co., 54 Iowa, 89; 6 N. W., 157.
      Louisiana: Breaux v. Johns, 4 La. Ann., 141; 50 Am. Dec., 555.
      New York: Jackson v. Hudson, 3 Johns., 375: 3 Am. Dec., 500.

{Page 729}

      Virginia: Marshall v. Clark, 4 Call, 268.
      Wisconsin: Veeder v. Guppy, 3 Wis., 502.
      United States: Lattimer v. Poteet, 14 Pet., 4; 10 L. Ed., 328; Buttz v. Northern Pac. R. Co., 119 U. S., 55; 7 S. Ct., 100; 30 L. Ed., 330; Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U. S., 517; 24 L. Ed., 440; Marsh v. Brooks, 14 How., 513; 14 L. Ed., 522; Clark v. Smith, 13 Pet., 195; 10 L. Ed., 123; California, etc., Land Co. v. Worden, 85 Fed., 94. But compare Danforth v. Wear, 9 Wheat. (U. S.), 673; 6 L. Ed., 188.
      See 27 Cent. Dig. tit. “Indians,” sec. 25.
      But see Montgomery v. Doe, 13 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 161; Strother v. Cathey, 5 N. C., 162; 3 Am. Dec., 683; Gillespie v. Cunnin gham, 2 Humphr. (Tenn.), 19.
      Entries and surveys made on Indian landsprior to their cession are void, and no rights are acquired under such entry. Chinn v. Darnell. 5 Fed. Cas., No. 2684; 4 McLean. 440.

{Page 729}

[125] tion is not to be presumed; and Indian lands are not affected by an act giving the right of preëmption,1 or a grant in general terms.2.


      1Gaines v. Hale. 26 Ark., 168; Thredgill v. Pintard, 12 How. (U. S.), 24; 13 L. Ed., 877.
      2Atlantic, etc., R. Co. v. Mingus. 165 U. S., 413; 17 S. Ct., 348; 41 L. Ed., 770; U. S. v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 26 Fed. Cas., No. 15786; 1 McCrary, 624 [affirmed in 92 U. S., 760; 23 L. Ed., 645]; U. S. v. Leavenworth, etc., R. Co., 26 Fed. Cas., No. 15582; 1 Mc Crary, 610 [affirmed in 92 U. S., 733: 23 L. Ed., 634]; Langford’s Case, 12 C. Cls., 338.

(d) Rights of individual Indians in tribal lands.—All Indian lands were originally communal property.3 Where land is conveyed to a tribe individual members of the tribe can acquire no vested interest in any specific tract,4 but they may have a right of perpetual occupancy in lands improved and occupied by them, under the laws of the tribe;5 and such interest may be transferred to another member of the tribe.6 A lease of pasture lands made by the Creek council to an Indian conveys a leasehold estate of all lands included within its exterior boundaries; and one taking up a farm therein is a trespasser.7


      3Journeycake v. Cherokee Nation, 28 C. Cls., 281.
      4Tuttle v. Moore, 3 Ind. T., 712: 64 S. W., 585. See also Rush v. Thompson, 2 Ind. T., 557; 53 S. W., 333, individual Indians who purchase town lots segregated from the public domain obtain only the right of occupancy.
      Lands apportioned to Indians of the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations are still public lands and not held by allottees in their individual capacity as tenants in common. Dukes v. Goodall (Ind. T., 1994), 82 S. W., 702.
      5Crowell v. Young (Ind. T., 1901), 64 S. W., 607 [modified in (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 829;] James v. ‘Smith, 3 Ind. T. 447; 58 S. W., 714; Payne v. Kansas, etc., R. Co., 46 Fed., 546. See also Blacksmith v. Fellows, 7 N. Y., 401 [affirmed in 19 How. (U. S.), 366; 15 L. Ed., 684].
      The right of possession is sufficient to support a lease of the portion held. Wilcoxen v. Hybarger, 1 Ind. T., 138, 38 S. W., 669.
      Rights of purchaser; A sale of such land by the Indian occupant to a citizen of the United States passes no title; but the purchaser thereby acquires rights sufficient to maintain ejectment against another Indian who has no claim to the land except that he is a member of the tribe. Williams v. Works (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 246; Kelly v. Johnson, 1 Ind. T., 184; 39 S. W., 352.
      Limitation upon amount of land held in possession: Under 32 U. S. Stat. L., 643, sec. 19, it is unlawful for a chickasaw Indian to hold possession of more than three hundred and twenty acres of land. See Gooding v. Watkins (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 913.
      The statute of frauds applies to a contract relating to the interest of an Indian possessing lands of the Indian nation. Rowe v. Henderson (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 250.
      6Reynolds v. Clowdus (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 277; Holford v. James (Ind. T., 1903). 76 S. W., 261.
      No right to sell to a citizen of United States: A Creek citizen entitled to the possession of Indian lands has no authority to sell to a citizen of the United States the possession or right. Denton v. Capital Town Site Co. (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 852.
      7Wassom v. Willison, 3 Ind. T., 365; 58 S. W., 574.

2. Rights incident to Indian title(a) Mines and Mining rights.—One who enters a mining claim within an Indian reservation acquires no rights thereby.8 But where such entry is authorized as to a particular reservation by act of Congress such claims as may be entered are thereby segregated from the reservation, and the Indian title is extinguished.9 Under the Choctaw constitution, any citizen of that nation who discovered a coal mine acquired an exclusive right to all coal within a radius of 1 mile;10 and the laws of the Chickasaw Nation provided for the formation of corporations to develop coal and other mines, with authority to contract with capitalists to develop and work the mines.11 Under these provisions leases were made; but Congress abrogated existing leases and prohibited all persons from receiving royalties from such mines, and provided [126] that all coal within the nation should remain the common property of the tribes.12 Such leases are now expressly prohibited by act of Congress.13 All leases of mineral lands must now be made under regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior, and the royalties paid into the United States Treasury for the benefit of the tribes.14 In Canada the Indians have no rights to the royal mines and minerals; and the Dominion Government can make no stipulation with the Indians which would affect the rights of the Province in which the lands are situated.15


      8Kendall v. San Juan Silver Min. Co., 144 U. S., 658; 12 S. Ct., 779; 36 L. Ed., 583. And see Mines and minerals.
      9U. S. v. Four Bottles Sour-Mash Whisky, 90 Fed., 720.
      10Ansley v. Ainsworth (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 884; McCurtain v. Grady, 1 Ind. T., 107; 38 S. W., 65.
      11Laws Chickasaw Nation, pp. 188, 190. And see McBridge v. Farrington, 131 Fed., 797.
      1230 U. S. Stat. L., 498. And see Ansley v. Ainsworth (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 884.
      1332 U. S. Stat. L., 655.
      14Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S., 294; 23 S. Ct., 115; 47 L. Ed., 183; Southwestern Coal Co. v. McBridge, 185 U. S., 499; 22 S. Ct., 763; 46 L. Ed., 1010; Atoka Coal. etc., Co. v. Adams, 104 Fed., 471; 43 C. C. A., 651 [affirming 3 Ind. T., 189; 53 S. W., 539].
      Accrued royalties due to lessors under valid leases were not affected by these statutes. Southwestern Coal Co. v. McBride, 185 U. S., 499; 22 S. Ct., 763; 46 L. Ed., 1010; Atoka Coal, etc., Co. v. Adams, 104 Fed., 471; 43 C. C. A., 651.
      Action by the Secretary upon applications for leases under these acts is a matter of administration. cognizable solely by the executive department. Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S., 294; 23 S. Ct., 115; 47 L. Ed., 183.
      15Ontario Min. Co. v. Seybold, 31 Ont., 386.

{Page 730}

(b) Ferry and water rights.—Where by treaty a reservation was made of certain rights of ferriage, to be sold and the proceeds paid over to the Indian tribe, the Indians retained equal rights with other persons to a landing at the mouth of a public highway.1 The Seneca Nation can convey the right to use the waters of streams on their lands without consulting the persons owning the right of presemption to the reservation.2


      1Walker v. Armstrong, 2 Kans., 198.
      2Wadsworth v. Buffalo Hydraulic Assoc., 15 Barb. (N. Y.), 83.

(c) Cutting timber and hay.—Timber standing on lands occupied by Indians can not be cut by them for the purpose of sale alone; but they may sell timber cut for the purpose of improving the land.3 The common-law doctrine that the cutting of standing trees is waste does not apply to Indians in the use of a large tract of land within a State, granted to them by the United States.4 Other persons may not cut timber on Indian lands,5 even when authorized by the Indians.6 Where a statute empowers the President to authorize the Indians to cut and sell the dead timber on a reservation, the amount which can be removed is limited by the President’s order.7 Where a contract has been made under such law, the [127] government is bound by the acts of its superintendent or agent where his duty required the exercise of judgment and discretion as to what constituted a “dead and down” timber,8 but not where he allows the delivery of an amount in excess of the contract.9 Payments made for timber received in excess of the amount stated in the contract do not give the purchaser title thereto.10 A member of the Creek Nation who is entitled to cut hay from the common lands may employ a noncitizen for that purpose in consideration of receiving an interest therein.11 Under a statute prohibiting the removal of hay from the Indian lands, the word “hay” includes hay from grass sown and cultivated, as well as from natural grass.12


      3Fellows v. Lee, 5 Den. (N. Y.), 628; Labadie v. U. S., 6 Okla., 400; 51 Pac., 666; U. S. v. Cook, 19 Wall. (U. S.), 591; 22 L. Ed., 210; U. S. v. Pine River Logging, etc., Co., 89 Fed., 907; 32 C. C. A., 406; Fegan v. McLean, 29 U. C. Q. B., 202.
      The presumption is against the authority of the Indians to cut and sell timber, since they have only a right of occupancy in their lands. Every purchaser from them is charged with notice of this presumption. U. S. v. Cook, 19 Wall. (U. S.), 591; 22 L. Ed., 210.
      The refusal of the Interior Department to sanction negotiations for the sale of timber by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is conclusive, in the absence of fraud. U. S. v. Boyd, 83 Fed., 547; 27 C. C. A., 592. Oneida Indians in Wisconsin have the right to cut and use timber, and to sell sufficient to support themselves and families. U. S. v. Foster, 25 Fed. Cas., No. 15141; 2 Biss., 377.
      4Wheeler v. Me-shing-go-me-sia, 30 Ind., 402.
      5Boies v. Blake, 13 Me., 381; Seneca Nation v. Hammond, 6 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.), 595; Labadie v. U. S., 6 Okla., 400; 51 Pac., 666.
      An action for seizing lumber cut on Indian lands, brought against a Commissioner of Indian Affairs, must be brought within six months from the seizure, not from the sale. Jones v. Bain, 12 U. C. Q. B., 550.
      6Seneca Nation v. Hammond, 3 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.), 347; Chandler v. Edson, 9 Johns. (N. Y.), 362.
      7Pine River Logging, etc., Co. v. U. S., 186 U. S., 279; 22 S. Ct., 920; 46 L. Ed., 1164; U. S. v. Pine River Logging, etc., Co., 89 Fed., 907; 32 C. C. A., 406.
      What is dead timber: “Dead timber, standing or fallen,” within the meaning of 25 U. S. Stat. L., 673, includes trees which are so vitally injured that a prudent landowner would cut them to preserve their value; it does not include uninjured trees merely because they stand among dead trees. U. S. v. Pine River Logging, etc., Co., 89 Fed., 907; 32 C. C. A., 406.
      White labor prohibited; A rule of the commissioner providing that “no white labor shall be employed” in cutting and removing timber will not prevent a white man from recovering an agreed compensation for hauling logs sold to his employer under a contract approved by the Secretary. Citizens’ State Bank v. Bonnes, 83 Minn., 1; 85 N. W., 718.
      8U. S. v. Bonness, 125 Fed., 485; 60 C. C. A., 321.
      9U. S. v. Pine River Logging, etc., Co., 89 Fed., 907; 32 C. C. A., 406.
      10Pine River Logging, etc., Co. v. U. S., 186 U. S., 279; 22 S. Ct., 920; 46 L. Ed., 1164 [affirming 105 Fed., 1004; 44 C. C. A., 685]; U. S. v. Pine River Logging, etc., Co., 89 Fed., 907; 32 C. C. A., 406.
      11Eddy v. Lafayette, 163 U. S., 456; 16 S. Ct., 1082; 41 L. Ed., 225 [affirming 49 Fed., 807; 1 C. C. A., 441].
      12Reg. v. Good. 9 Can. L. T., 396; 17 Ont., 725.

(d) Eminent domain and right of way.—The United States may exercise the right of eminent domain in respect to Indian lands,13 and so may a State having the ultimate property in land within an Indian reservation.14 There can be no prescriptive right of way over Indian reservations, since a prescription implies a grant and can not exist where there is no power to grant.15 An act of Congress conferring on the Secretary of the Interior full authority to grant a right of way to telephone lines in the Indian Territory, and providing that no lines shall be constructed across Indian lands until authority is obtained from such secretary, is not unconstitutional as impairing vested rights, as to a company previously granted by an Indian nation the exclusive privilege of erecting telephone lines therein, respecting territory not occupied by it and on which it has expended no money.16


      13Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kans. R. Co., 135 U. S., 641; 10 S. Ct., 965; 34 L. Ed., 295 [reversing on other grounds 33 Fed., 900], right of way for a railroad telegraph and telephone line. And see Eminent domain, 15 Cyc., 564.
      Compensation: An act of Congress authorizing the use of lands in the Indian Territory for toll bridges is not unconstitutional because no provision is made therein for compensation to the owners of the land used, as the ultimate title in all such lands is in the United States. Dukes v. McKenna (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 832.
      14France v. Erie R. Co., 2 Hun (N. Y.), 513; 5 Thomps. & C., 12; O’Meara v. Alleghany Highway Comrs., 3 Thomps. & C. (N. Y.), 235. And see Eminent domain, 15 Cyc., 565.
      15Woodworth v. Raymond, 51 Conn., 70.
      16Muskogee Nat. Tel. Co. v. Hall (Ind. T., 1901), 64 S. W., 600.
     

{Page 730}

3. Sale and lease of tribal lands(a) In general.—An Indian tribe or nation in the United States has no power of alienation of lands, except to the United States or the State in which the lands are situated, or with the consent of the United States or such State.1 Nor can the individual members of the tribe convey to a foreigner their interest in lands belonging to the tribe.2 A white man [128] can not acquire any title from Indians by purchase.3 Leases of tribal lands4 to others than members of the tribe made without the consent of the Secretary of the Interior are generally void.5 All leases of agricultural and grazing lands in the Indian Territory were abrogated by act of Congress,6 except where the lessee claimed under an improvement contract or lease, when he was allowed possession [129] long enough to compensate him for the improvements made.7 The same statute provided, however, that any Indian in possession of such amount of land as would be his reasonable share of the lands of his tribe may use it or rent it until allotment is made.8 In Canada the right of Indians to alienate their lands is also restricted.9


      1California: Sunol v. Hepburn, 1 Cal., 254.
      Indian Territory: Tuttle v. Moore, 3 Ind. T., 712; 64 S. W., 585.
      Louisiana: Martin v. Johnson, 5 Mart. 655.
      Massachusetts: Lynn v: Nahant, 113 Mass., 433.
      New York: Fellows v. Denniston, 23 N. Y., 420; Goodell v. Jackson, 20 Johns., 693; 11 Am. Dec., 351.
      United States: Buttz v. Northern Pac. R., Co., 119 U. S., 55; 7 S. Ct., 100; 30 L. Ed., 330; U. S. v. Kagama, 118 U. S., 375; 6 S. Ct., 1109; 30 L. Ed., 228; U. S. v. Cook, 19 Wall., 591; 22 L. Ed., 584; Mitchel v. U. S., 9 Pet., 711; 9 L. Ed., 283; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet., 515; 8 L. Ed., 483; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet., 1; 8 L. Ed., 25; Johnson v. McIntosh, 8 Wheat., 543; 5 L. Ed., 61.
      See 27 Cent. Dig. tit. “Indians,” sec. 28.
      For cession of lands by treaty see III, B.
      Consent of Congress: Chiefs can not sell tribal lands to individuals, even with the consent of the Secretary of the Interior; the consent of Congress is necessary. Hale v. Wilder, 8 Kans., 545.
      Contracts for land void: Contracts made with Indians for their lands are not merely voidable, but void. St. Regis Indians v. Drum, 19 Johns. (N. Y.), 127.
      2Hicks v. Coleman, 25 Cal., 122; 85 Am. Dec., 103; Denton v. Capital Town Site Co. (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 852; Goodell v. Jackson, 20 Johns. (N. Y.), 693; 11 Am. Dec., 351.
      A mortgage of Cherokee lands by a Cherokee to a citizen of the United States is not such a sale as is prohibited by the Cherokee constitution and laws. Crowell v. Young (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 829.
      3Turner v. Gilliland (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 253; Hockett v. Alston, 3 Ind. T., 432; 58 S. W., 675; Case v. Hall, 2 Ind. T. 8; 46 S. W., 180.
      4See Morris v. Hitchcock, 21 App. Cas. (D. C.), 565 [affirmed in 194 U. S., 384; 24 S. Ct., 712; 48 L. Ed., 1030] (holding that the power of leasing must be exercised in subordination to the laws of the United States looking to the protection of the Indians from intruders on their lands; and subject to the remaining governmental powers of the Indian nation, including the power of taxation); Wassom v. Willison, 3 Ind. T., 365; 58 S. W., 574.
      The Tuscarora Indians were authorized to lease their lands, since the grant to them was absolute and unconditional. Sacarusa v. King, 4 N. C., 336. The act of 1824, by which the long leases for years made by the Tuscarora Indians were for certain purposes made real estate, had no effect upon the reversions expectant on those terms. Burnett v. Thompson, 51 N. C., 210.
      Leases by Seneca Indians: The act of Congress (18 U. S. Stat. L., 330), validating leases made in violation of existing law by Seneca Indians, superseded the provisions of the treaty made with the Six Nations (7 U. S. Stat. L., 44, art. 2), and leases executed and renewed under its authority are valid. Shongo v. Miller, 169 N. Y., 586; 62 N. E., 1100.
      Leases by Chickasaw Indians for a longer term than one year are void, under the Chickasaw laws. Thomas v. Sass, 3 Ind. T., 545; 64 S. W., 531; Sass v. Thomas, 3 Ind. T., 536; 64 S. W., 528.
      A Chickasaw Indian in possession of his prospective allotment has a right to lay out a town and rent lots on such allotment, no political or legal subdivision being created. U. S. v. Lewis (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 299.
      A lease of Choctaw land by one white man to another is valid as between the parties, although the land may be held by the lessor in violation of the law of the Choctaw Nation. Walker trading Co. v. Grady Trading Co., 1 Ind. T., 191; 39 S. W., 354.
      Lands “bought and paid for,” which may be leased under authority of 26 U. S. Stat. L., 794, include all lands which have been purchased by the Indians either by the payment of money, or by exchange or by the surrender of possession of other property. Strawberry Valley Cattle Co. v. Chipman, 13 Utah, 454; 45 Pac., 348.
      Grantees of the lessors of Indian lands take the lands subjects to the lease. Joines v. Robinson (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 107.
      Surrender of possession by white lessee: The act of Congress (30 U. S. Stat. L., 495), known as the Curtis Act, giving the owner of improvements on a lot in the Indian Territory a preferred right to purchase, did not affect the obligation of a white lessee to surrender possession to the lessor at the termination of the lease. Fraer v. Washington, 125 Fed., 280; 60 C. C. A., 194.
      Lease from one not a citizen of nation: An improvement contract or lease from one whose claim to citizenship in the Indian nation had been decided adversely is void; the tenant is not entitled to the value of his improvements, and the lessor can not maintain an action for the recovery of possession. Casteel v. McNeeley (Ind. T., 1901), 64 S. W., 594.
      The authority of an Indian agent to remove intruders from the Indian country does not extend to the determination of a private controversy regarding the validity of a lease under which a noncitizen has gone into possession of Indian lands. Such contracts are for the consideration of the judicial, not the executive, department. Stephens v. Quigley, 126 Fed., 148; 61 C. C. A., 214.
      5Dakota: Uhlig v. Garrison. 2 Dak., 71; 2 N. W., 253.
      Idaho: Langford v. Monteith, 1 Ida., 612.
      Indian Territory: Turner v. Gilliland (1903), 76 S. W., 253.
      Kansas: Mayes v. Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association, 58 Kans., 712; 51 Pac., 215. See also Kansas, etc., Land, etc., Co., v. Thompson, 57 Kans., 792; 48 Pac., 34.
      Missouri: Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association v. Cass Land, etc., Co., 133 Mo., 394; 40 S. W., 107.
      New York: St. Regis Indians v. Drum, 19 Johns., 127.
      Oklahoma: Light v. Conover, 10 Okla., 732; 63 Pac., 966.
      Washington: Coey v. Low, 36 Wash., 10; 77 Pac., 1077.
      United States: U. S. v. Hunter, 21 Fed., 615.
      Cherokee lands: Ratification of contract by the Secretary of the Interior under U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 2103, is not required in the case of a lease of lands by the Cherokee Nation. Cherokee Strip Live Stock Association v. Cass Land, etc., Co., 138 Mo., 394; 40 S. W., 107.
      630 U. S. Stat. L., 504, And see Owens v. Eaton (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 746; Swinney v. Kelley (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 303.
      7Swinney v. Kelley (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 303; Barton v. Hulsey (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 868; Casteel v. McNeeley (Ind. T., 1901), 64 S. W., 594.
      8Hubbard v. Chism (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 686; U. S. v. Lewis (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 299.
      9See Boucher v. Montour, 20 Quebec Super. Ct., 291, holding that the nullity of sales or leases of property on an Indian reserve is only relative and can only be invoked by the Indians; those who have dealt with the Indians can not avail themselves of it.
      The buying or contracting to buy from Indians not merely any lands of which they are in actual possession, but any lands held by the Government for their use or benefit, is prohibited by 13 and 14 Vict., c. 74. Reg. v. Baby, 12 U. C. Q. B., 346.
      A mortgage, made by an Indian living on a reserve, of land in the reserve, of land in the reserve is void. Black v. Kennedy, Manitoba t. Wood, 144.
      A lease made by a chief as agent for a tribe, his authority and power to so act not appearing, conveyed nothing. Doe v. Ramsay. 9 U. C. Q. B., 105.
     

{Page 732}

(b) Judicial sales.—A sale of tribal lands under execution is void unless specially authorized by act of Congress.1 In the Indian Territory improvements on real estate may be sold, but only to citizens of the tribe in which the property is situated,2 and only on judgments rendered by the tribal courts.3


      1Hastings v. Whitmer, 2 Ind. T., 335; 51 S. W., 967; Pound v. Pullen, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.), 338.
      226 U. S. Stat. L., 95. And see Hampton v. Mays (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 1115; Mays v. Frieberg 3 Ind. T., 774;49 S. W., 52. The special execution authorized in mechanic’s lien cases by Ind. T. Annot. St. (1899) sec. 2884, is not affected by this statute. Springston v. Wheeler, 3 Ind. T., 388; 58 S. W., 658.
      3Hampton v. Mays (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 1115; Crowell v. Young (Ind. T. 1901), 64 S. W., 607.
      Indians by blood only are entitled to claim exemption from sale of improvements on judgments of other than Indian courts. Hampton v. Mays (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 1115.

4. Trespass and settlement.4—Settlement upon lands belonging, secured, or granted by treaty to any Indian tribe is prohibited by statute.5 In the Indian Territory a person not a member of one of the Indian tribes or nations has no right to occupy land except by the consent of one who is a member.6 A tribe is authorized to bring suit to recover the possession of lands held by one wrongfully claiming to be a member of the tribe,7 and if the chief of the tribe fails to act, then any member of the tribe may bring suit.8 In a suit so brought it must appear by the complaint that the chief or governor has failed or refused to bring it.9 [130] The suit is based primarily on the right of the tribe, and it may be substituted as plaintiff.10 The tribal government can not forfeit improvements made on lands within the nation by a noncitizen.11


      4For removal of trespassers on reservation see infra, IV, B, 2.
      For prosecution for return after removal see infra, IV, C. 6.
      5U. S. Rev. Stat. (1878), sec. 2118. And see Uhlig v. Garrison, 2 Dak., 71; 2 N. W., 253; Francis v. Green, 7 Ida., 668; 65 Pac., 362; Robinson v. Caldwell, 67 Fed., 391; 14 C. C. A., 448 [affirming 59 Fed., 653].
      Cherokee neutral lands: Under the Cherokee treaty of July 19, 1866, an actual settler upon the “Neutral Lands” cloud sell his improvements and rights to another, and his grantee could make the required proof. Langdon v. Joy, 14 Fed. Cas., No. 8062; 4 Dill., 391; Stroud v. Missouri River, etc., R. C., 23 Fed. Cas., No. 13547; 4 Dill., 396.
      Injunction will lie to prevent intrusions on Indian lands in New York. Strong v. Waterman, 11 Paige (N. Y.), 607.
      Extension of the corporate limits of a city by the Territorial legislature over a portion of an Indian reservation is valid, where the act does not affect the title of the Indians or their rights of property. King v. McAndrews, 104 Fed., 430.
      Settlement before Indian title extinguished: Where proof of settlement and occupancy are accepted by Federal land officers the title thereby acquired is valid, although the settlement was made prior to the extinguishment of the Indian title. Mankato v. Meagher, 17 Minn., 265; Carson v. Smith, 5 Minn., 78; 77 Am. Dec., 539.
      6Holford v. James (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W., 261; Rogers v. Hill, 3 Ind. T., 562; 64 S. W., 536; Hockett v. Alston, 3 Ind. T., 432; 58 S. W., 675; Case v. Hall, 2 Ind. T., 8; 46 S. W., 180.
      730 U. S. Stat. L., 495.
      8Brought v. Cherokee Nation (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 937. Individual Indians can not sue as such to recover possession of lands held under a void improvement contract, such right of action being in the sovereign. Casteel v. McNeeley (Ind. T., 1901), 64 S. W., 594.
      9Brought v. Cherokee Nation (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 937; Daniels v. Miller (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 925; Hargrove v. Cherokee Nation, 3 Ind. T., 478; 58 S. W., 667.
      10Price v. Cherokee Nation (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 893; Brought v. Cherokee Nation, 129 Fed., 192; 63 C. C. A., 350; Hargrove v. Cherokee Nation, 129 Fed., 186; 63 C. C. A., 276.
      11Ansley v. McLoud (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 908. But compare Donohoo v. Howard (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 927.

5. Town sites.—An exception to the general laws relating to lands in the Indian Territory is established by statute12 in the case of town sites which may be held by white men under lease13 or sold to them, the proceeds being paid to the Indians.14 The creation of such cities and towns, and the extinghishment of the Indian title to the land, do not affect the governmental rights of the Indians.15


      1230 U. S. Stat. L., 500, 505, 508.
      13Elis v. Fitzpatrick, 118 Fed., 430; 55 C. C. A., 260 [affirming 3 Ind. T., 656; 64 S. W., 567]. See also Fraer v. Washington (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 835 (holding that a lessor to a noncitizen may recover possession in unlawful detainer on tendering the value of the improvements made by the tenant, at the expiration of the term); Tye v. Chickasha Town C., 2 Ind. T., 113; 48 S. W., 1021.
      14Tuttle v. Moore, 3 Ind. T., 712; 64 S. W., 585.
      15Zevely v. Weimer (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 941; Maxey v. Wright, 3 Ind. T., 243; 54 S. W., 807.
     

6. Taxation of tribal lands.—Lands secured to Indians by treaty can not be taxed for any purpose by the State in which they lie.16 And where the tribe agrees to sell its lands and give possession at a future date there can be no taxation of the lands prior to the delivery of possession.17


      16Allen County v. Simons, 129 Ind., 193; 28 N. E., 420; 13 L. R. A., 512: Me-shing-go-me-sia v. State. 36 Ind., 310; Fellows v. Denniston, 23 N. Y., 420; In re New York Indians, 5 Wall. (U. S.), 761, 18 L. Ed., 708; New Jersey v. Wilson, 7 Cranch (U. S.), 164; 3 L. Ed., 303; Wau-pa-man-qua v. Aldrich, 28 Fed., 489.
      Pueblo Indian lands in New Mexico are taxable, the Pueblos not being tribal Indians. Territory v. Delinquent Tax List (N. Mex., 1904), 76 Pac., 307.
      Land in possession of a railroad company under a statute authorizing the company to contract with the Indians for the right of way is taxable. People v. Beardsley, 52 Barb. (N. Y.), 105.
      17In re New York Indians, 5 Wall. (U. S.), 761; 18 L. Ed., 708. See also Missouri River, etc., R. Co. v. Morris, 13 Kans., 302.
      Full payment before taxation: Indian Lands sold under a deed conditioned to operate as a full conveyance only on receipt of the deferred payments were not subject to taxation prior to full payment. Page v. Pierce County, 25 Wash., 6; 64 Pac., 801.
     

B. Cession by treaties1. Cession by Indians to government(a) In general.— By treaties made with Indian tribes, the tribes have conveyed, and the State or General Government has acquired, the tribal lands or a portion of them.18


      18Webster v. Cooke, 23 Kans., 637; Wood v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 11 Kans., 323; Minter v. Shirley 45 Miss., 376; U. S. v. Choctaw, etc., R. Co., 3 Okla., 404; 41 Pac., 729; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S., 553; 23 S. Ct., 216; 47 C. C. A., 299; Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. (U. S.), 211; 21 L. Ed., 523.
      Cession of Indian lands in Canada see Ontario v. Canada, 25 Can. Supreme Ct., 434 [affirmed in [1897] A. C., 199; 66 L. J. P. C., 11; 75 L. T. Rep. N. S., 522]; Ontario Min. Co. v. Seybold, 31 Ont., 386.
      A reservation of land in a treaty of cession simply secures to those in whose favor the reservation is made a continuation of the right of occupancy, the ultimate title remaining in the United States. Wheeler v. Me-shing-go-me-sia, 30 Ind., 402.
     

{Page 733}

      A quitclaim by a tribal council acknowledged by the State and acquiesced in by the tribe is valid. In re Narragansett Indians 20 R. I., 715; 40 Atl., 347.
      A quitclaim by the Wichita and affiliated bands can not be made a condition of a decree for compensation due them on account of surplus lands. U. S. v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U. S., 494; 21 S. Ct., 149; 45 L. Ed., 291.

{Page 733}

(b) Conditions.—Such treaties may prescribe the terms and conditions upon which the lands are to be conveyed.1


      1Wood v. Missouri, etc., R. Co., 11 Kans., 323; Love v. Pamplin, 21 Fed., 755.
      Laws prohibiting sale of liquor may be continued in effect and extended over territory ceded by the provisions of a treaty; and such a stipulation operates proprio vigore. U. S. v. Lariviere, 93 U. S., 188; 23 L. Ed., 846.
      Reservation of right to fish and place to camp: A cession by Chippewa Indians reserving the right to fish and a place for encampment did not extinguish the Indian title to the tract reserved. Spalding v. Chandler, 160 U. S., 394; 16 S. Ct., 360; 40 L. Ed., 469.

[131] (c) Title and rights acquired.—The title acquired by the Government is absolute and extinguishes all rights and interests of the Indians in the lands, unless there is an express reservation in the treaty.2


      2Choctaw Nation v. U. S., 179 U. S., 494; 21 S. Ct., 149; 45 L. Ed., 291. See also Penobscot Tribe v. Veazie, 58 Me., 402; Strother v. Cathey, 5 N. C., 162; 3 Am. Dec., 683.

(d) Grants to individuals.—A good title to parts of the lands of an Indian tribe may be granted to individuals by a treaty between the United States and the tribe, without an act of Congress or a patent from the Executive.3


      3Jones v. Meehan; 175 U. S., 1; 20 S. Ct., 1; 44 L. Ed., 49; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall. (U. S.), 112; 21 L. Ed., 805; Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. (U. S.), 211; 21 L. Ed., 523; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black (U. S.), 352; 17 L. Ed., 91; U. S. v. Brooks, 10 How. (U. S.), 442; 13 L. Ed., 489; Mitchell v. U. S., 9 Pet. (U. S.), 711; 9 L. Ed., 283. See also McKeon v. Tillotson, 3 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.), 110.
      Enforcement of a treaty requiring removal of the Indians from lands ceded by them for the benefit of individuals is a matter for the action of the Government. There is no private remedy available to the grantees. Fellow v. Blacksmith, 19 How. (U. S.), 366; 15 L. Ed., 684.

2. Cession of lands to tribes by treaty.4—Under treaties made with the Government Indian tribes have at various times secured grants or reservations of lands.5 Where a treaty contains a grant or reservation to Indians it operates as a grant in præsenti, and the title vests by operation of the treaty;6 and a clause authorizing forfeiture on failure of condition can be taken advantage of only by legislative or judicial action.7 Both parties to the treaty are bound by its recognition of territorial rights,8 and by the boundaries described and the restrictions imposed by the terms of the treaty.9


      4For reservations as residence for tribes see III, A, 1, (b).
      For control of reservations see IV, B, 1.
      5White v. Wright, 83 Minn., 222; 86 N. W., 91; Seneca Nation v. Hugaboom, 132 N. Y., 492; 30 N. E., 983; New York Indians v. U. S., 170 U. S., 1; 18 S. Ct., 531; 42 L. Ed., 927; Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. (U. S.), 211; 21 L. Ed., 523; U. S. v. Brooks, 10 How. (U. S.), 442; 13 L. Ed., 489; Marsh v. Brooks, 8 How. (U. S.), 223; 12 L. Ed., 1056; Prentice v. Stearns, 20 Fed., 819; U.S. v. Reese, 27 Fed. Cas., No. 16137; 5 Dill., 405. See also Choctaw Nation v. U. S., 179 U. S., 494; 21 S. Ct., 149; 45 L. Ed., 291.
      Reservation distinguished from cession: The reservation of a tract out of lands ceded by Indians to the United states is not a cession and retrocession and does not let in intervening rights. California, etc., Land Co. v. Worden, 85 Fed., 94; 87 Fed., 532.
      6Webster v. Reid, Morr. (Iowa), 467; Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S., 1; 20 S. Ct., 1; 44 L. Ed., 49; U. S. v. New York Indians, 173 U. S., 464; 19 S. Ct., 487; 43 L. Ed., 769; New York Indians v. U. S., 170 U. S., 1; 18 S. Ct., 531; 42 L. Ed., 927.
      7New York Indians v. U. S., 170 U. S., 1; 18 S. Ct., 531; 42 L. Ed., 927.
      8Maiden v. Ingersoll, 6 Mich., 373.
      9Jordan v. Goldman, 1 Okla., 406; 34 Pac., 371. See also Seneca Nation v. Hugaboom, 132 N. Y., 492; 30 N. E., 983.
      Mistake in survey: Indians are entitled to compensation for land excluded from a tract ceded to them by a mistake in surveying and fixing the boundaries. Choctaw Nation v. U. S., 119 U. S., 1; 7 S. Ct., 75; 30 L. Ed., 306.
      A tribe is estopped to claim any lands ceded to them by a treaty which describes boundaries including lands not then within the limits of the United States, where by a subsequent treaty and grant, accepted by them without objection, they have received lands identical with those ceded by the earlier treaty, so far as such lands lay within the limits of the United States. U. S. v. Choctaw Nation, 179 U. S., 494; 21 S. Ct., 149; 45 L. Ed., 291.
      Lands equal in value, but less in acreage, set apart under a treaty with the Chippewa Indians sufficiently fulfilled the conditions of the treaty, and the Indians are not entitled to recover the difference in acreage, under 30 U. S. Stat. L., 88. Chippewa Indians v. U. S., 34 C. Cls., 426.

3. Sale under treaty provisions.—Under treaties made with Indians the Government has in some instances accepted cessions of land to be sold for the benefit of the tribes making such treaties,10 and in such case the United States acts simply [132] as the agent or trustee of the tribe of Indians by which such a cession of land was made.11


      10Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. (U. S.), 211; 21 L. Ed., 523. See also Choctaw Nation v. U. S., 119 U. S., 1;7 S. Ct., 75: 30 L. Ed., 306.
      Right of settlers on such lands: Under the treaty for the sale of the Cherokee neutral lands one who was an actual settler on said lands and had made improvements upon only one half of the quarter section was entitled to buy only that half upon which the improvements had been made. Armsworthy v. Missouri River, etc., R. Co., 1 Fed. Cas., No. 550; 5 Dill., 491.
     v Manner of making sale: The United States having undertaken by treaty to “expose to public sale to the highest bidder” the lands ceded to them by certain Indians and having disposed of a large part of the same at private sale are guilty of a violation of a trust, and the measure of damages for the violation is the difference between the amounts realized and the price fixed by statute for land open to entry and sale. U. S. v. Blackfeather, 155 U. S., 180; 15 S. Ct., 64; 39 L. Ed., 114 [reversing 28 C. Cls., 447]. Under the Chickasaw treaty of 1834 the President of the United States was vested with authority to sell certain lands for the benefit of the Chickasaw Indians in the manner which might be prescribed by him. Where the land was sold in a manner not authorized by the instructions of the president the sale was actually void and his approval of such unauthorized sale could not operate by way of estoppel on the rights of the beneficiaries. Harris v. McKissack, 34 Miss., 464.
      11McKeon v. Tillotson, 3 Abb. Dec. (N. Y.), 110; Chickasaw Nation v. U. S., 22 C. Cls., 222.

C. Lands held by individual Indians1. Allotments and grants(a) In general.—Allotments of tribal lands have been acquired by individual Indians under treaties12 or by acts of Congress.13 Individual Indians may also acquire rights in


      12Minter v. Shirley, 45 Miss., 376; Sutton v. Moore, 25 N. C., 66; Doe v. Welsh, 10 N. C., 155; Blair v. Pathkiller, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.), 407; Stone v. U. S., 2 Wall. (U. S.), 525; 17 L. Ed., 765.
      1324 U. S. Stat. L., 388; 26 U. S. Stat. L., 794. And see Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S., 553; 23 S. Ct., 216; 47 L. Ed., 299; Sloan v. U. S., 118 Fed., 283; Sloan v. U. S., 95 Fed., 193.
      Such acts are to be liberally construed to effect their purpose of encouraging the Indians to break up their tribal relations and adopt the habits of civilized life. Sloan v. U. S., 118 Fed., 283.
      Mineral lands are excepted from allotment to Indians under 27 U. S. Stat. L., 62, and prospectors and miners were not required to wait for the proclamation opening the tract before making explorations for minerals, although settlement upon agricultural lands was not permissible until the expiration of the time fixed by the statute. Collins v. Bubb, 73 Fed., 735.

{Page 734}

State or other lands, by special enactment;1 and, if they have abandoned their tribal relations, may avail themselves of the homestead laws.2 Lands belonging to Indians in common, where the tribal organization is extinct, may be partitioned and sold in accordance with the laws of the State where they are situated.3


      1Jimeson v. Pierce, 78 N. Y. App. Div., 9; 79 N. Y. Suppl., 3; Colvord v. Monroe, 63 N. C., 288. See also McAlpin v. Henshaw, 6 Kans., 176; Jones v. Sherman, 56 Miss., 559; Walker v. Henshaw, 16 Wall. (U. S.), 436; 21 L. Ed., 365.
      218 U. S. Stat. L., 420 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 1419]; 23 U. S. Stat. L., 96 [U. S. Comp. St. (1901) p. 1420]. And see Frazee v. Spokane County, 29 Wash., 278; 69 Pac., 779.
      3Telford v. Barney, 1 Greene (Iowa), 575; In re Coombs, 127 Mass., 278; Seneca Nation v. Lehley, 55 Hun (N. Y.), 83; 8 N. Y. Suppl., 245; Grinnell v. MacLean, 16 Hun (N. Y.), 133; Fowler v. Scott, 64 Wis., 509; 25 N. W., 716.
     

(b). Who entitled to allotments(I) In general.—All members of a tribe by blood, whether full blood, half breeds, or “mixed bloods,” are entitled to share in the allotment of the tribal lands.4


      4Campau v. Dewey, 9 Mich., 381; Seneca Nation v. Lehley, 55 Hun (N. Y.), 83; 8 N. Y. Suppl., 245; Smith v. He-yu-tse-mil-kin, 110 Fed., 60; 119 Fed., 114; 55 C. C. A., 216 [affirmed in 194 U. S., 401; 24 S. Ct., 676; 48 L. Ed., 1039]; Sloan v. U. S., 118 Fed., 283; Sloan v. U. S., 95 Fed., 193.
      Enrollment: Prior to 30 U. S. Stat. L., 503, and 31 U. S. Stat. L., 236, regarding the enrollment of Mississippi Choctaws, such an Indian who had not been on the rolls of the Choctaw Nation as a citizen thereof could not hold lands in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations. Ikard v. Minter (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 852.
      Designation by chiefs: When a treaty provides that the parties to receive patents to lands reserved by the treaty shall be designated by the chief, his selection is binding upon the United States. Lownsberry v. Rakestraw, 14 Kans., 151; Prentice v. Stearns, 20 Fed., 819.
      A child of Indian parents, who was not born on lands belonging to the tribe and never resided thereon, whose father is not shown to have been a member of the tribe, and whose mother resides with her husband and children elsewhere, is not entitled to share in the division of the Herring Pond tribal lands, under Mass. Stat. (1869), c. 463, sec. 3. Danzell v. Webquish, 108 Mass., 133.
      A release of Indian citizenship by an Indian to the State did not affect his title to lands subsequently acquired as an Indian, under a treaty between his tribe and the United States. Newman v. Doe, 4 How. (Miss.), 522.
      Subsequent acquirement of membership in tribe: A person of mixed blood who did not reside on the reservation at the time of the passage of the allotment act, but who came there prior to the time when the tribe gave the consent required to render the act effective, was not entitled to the benefit of the act unless his application for membership was approved by the tribe. Sloan v. U. S., 118 Fed., 283.

(II) Heads of Indian families.—Where a treaty provides for reservations [133] or allotments to the “heads of Indian families,”5 such designation includes a white man married to an Indian woman.6 Where allotments are limited to Indians, but the amount to be allotted depends upon whether the allottee is the head of a family, the amount is determined by his status at the time of the allotment and not at the date of the act.7


      5See Summers v. Spybuck, 1 Kans., 394; Newman v. Doe, 4 How. (Miss.), 522; Wilson v. Wall, 6 Wall. (U. S.), 83; 18 L. Ed., 727; Morrisett v. U. S., 132 Fed., 891.
      An Indian widow, with whom an orphaned grandchild lives, is the head of an Indian family. Rowland v. Ladiga, 21 Ala., 9 [reversed on other grounds in 2 How. (U. S.), 581; 11 L. Ed., 387].
      6Tuten v. Martin, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.), 452; Morgan v. Fowler, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.), 450; Riley v. Elliston, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.), 431. And see Turner v. Fish, 28 Miss., 306.
      Only the children of the Indian wife are entitled to the estate in remainder in lands in which a life estate is granted to the head of an Indian family with the reversion in fee simple to his children. His children by a former or subsequent marriage with a white woman take no interest. Tuten v. Byrd, 1 Swan (Tenn.), 108.
      7Sloan v. U. S., 118 Fed., 283.

(III) Remedy for denial of right.—Any person of Indian blood unlawfully excluded from an allotment of land may maintain an action therefor in the Circuit Court of the United States,8 and the judgment of such court has the same effect as the allowance of the allotment by the Secretary of the Interior.9 The United States is by statute10 a necessary party to the suit.11


      828 U. S. Stat. L., 305. And see Hy-yu-tse-mil-kin v. Smith, 119 Fed., 114; 55 C. C. A., 216 [affirmed in 194 U. S., 401; 24 S. Ct., 676; 48 L. Ed., 1039].
      Heir may maintain suit against widow claiming dower. Patawa v. U. S., 132 Fed., 893.
      9Smith v. He-yu-tse-mil-kin, 110 Fed., 60; Sloan v. U. S., 95 Fed., 193.
      1031 U. S. Stat. L., 760.
      11Parr v. U. S., 132 Fed., 1004; Hy-yu-tse-mil-kin v. Smith, 119 Fed., 114; 55 C. C. A., 216 [affirmed in 194 U. S., 401; 24 S. Ct., 676; 48 L. Ed., 1039].
     

(c) Location and patent.—Reservees under a treaty take by the treaty, not by patent from the Government.12 The title is complete when the location is made,13


      12Oliver v. Forbes, 17 Kans., 113; Lownsberry v. Rakestraw, 14 Kans., 151; Hit-tuk-ho-mi v. Watts., 7 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 363; 45 Am. Dec., 308; Meehan v. Jones, 70 Fed., 453. See also Hartman v. Warren, 76 Fed., 157; 22 C. C. A., 30. Contra, Neddy v. State, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.), 249.
      13Alabama: Johnson v. McGehee, 1 Ala., 186; Kennedy v. McCartney, 4 Port., 141.
      Indiana: Dequindre v. Williams, 31 Ind., 444; Harris v. Barnett, 4 Blackf., 369.
      Michigan: Francis v. Francis, 136 Mich., 288; 99 N. W., 14; Dewey v. Campau, 4 Mich., 565; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Dougl., 546; Stockton v. Williams, Walk., 120.
      Mississippi: Hardin v. Ho-yo-po-nubby, 27 Miss., 567; Wray v. Ho-ya-pa-nubby, 10 Sm. & M., 452; Coleman v. Tish-ho-mah 4 Sm. & M., 40; Doe v. Newman, 3 Sm. & M., 565; Niles v. Anderson, 5 How., 365; Newman v. Doe, 4 How., 522; Land v. Land Sm. & M. Ch., 158.
      Tennessee: Jones v. Evans, 5 Yerg., 323; McConnell v. Mousepaine, 2 Yerg., 438.
      Wisconsin: Ruggles v. Marsilliott, 19 Wis., 159.
      United States: Smith v. Bonifer, 132 Fed., 889; Best v. Polk, 18 Wall., 112; 21 L. Ed., 805; U. S. v. Brooks, 10 How., 442; 13 L. Ed., 489.
      See 27 Cent. Dig. tit. “Indians,” sec. 33.
      Failure of the Government agent to do duty: When an Indian complies with the requirements of the treaty by making his location, or applying for registration, the failure of the agent to do his duty will not deprive the Indian of his right to the land selected. Rowland v. Ladiga, 21 Ala., 9; Land v. Keirn, 52 Miss., 341; Wray v. Ho-ya-pa-nubby, 10 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 452; Coleman v. Tish-ho-mah, 4 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 40; Land v. Land, Sm. & M. Ch. (Miss.), 158.
      The selection must be definite: Prentice v. Duluth Storage, etc., Co., 58 Fed., 437; 7 C. C. A., 293.
      A mistake in reporting a selection made may be corrected even after the issue of patent; but if the allottee is aware of the mistake and acquiesces in the action taken, his act is virtually a selection of the tract reported. Lownsberry v. Rakestraw, 14 Kans., 151.
      Recitals in the patent are conclusive as to the identity of the land patented with that selected, at least as to third persons. Mann v. Wilson, 23 How. (U. S.), 457; 16 L. Ed., 584; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black (U. S.), 352; 17 L. Ed., 91.

{Page 735}

and relates back to the date of the treaty.1 A patent thereafter issued confers no new rights,2 and is void if issued to another than the Indian making the location.3


      1McAffee v. Lynch, 26 Miss., 257.
      2Oliver v. Forbes, 17 Kans., 113; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Dougl. (Mich.), 546.
      A patent is evidence that the patentee was one of those entitled and that the land has been duly surveyed and located. Harris v. McKissack, 34 Miss., 464.
      3Land v. Keirn, 52 Miss., 341; Wray v. Doe, 10 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 452; Hit-tuk-ho-mi v. Watts, 7 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 363; 45 Am. Dec., 308; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Dougl. (Mich.), 546; Fowler v. Scott, 64 Wis., 509; 25 N. W., 716.

[134]. (d) Possession and residence.—Actual possession and residence upon the lands reserved is necessary in order to acquire title.4 The residence of an agent thereon is not sufficient, where the treaty requires residence.5


      4Newman v. Doe, 4 How. (Miss.), 522; Neddy v. State, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.), 249; McConnel v. McGee, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.), 63; Tuten v. Martin, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.), 452; West v. Donoho, 3 Yerg. (Tenn.), 445. Compare Belk v. Love, 18 N. C., 65.
      5Doe v. Newman, 3 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 565.

(e) Abandonment of forfeiture.—Where a treaty or statute requires residence on the lands located, voluntary removal therefrom without the intention of returning works a forfeiture,6 and title reverts to the United States without entry or other act on the part of its agents.7 But a temporary absence does not cause forfeiture,8 nor does a removal by force.9


      6Doe v. Newman, 3 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 565; Welch v. Trotter, 53 N. C., 197; Grubbs v. McClatchy, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.), 432.
      Lands allotted to Shawnees by treaty, and afterward abandoned for other lands, did not become a part of the “surplus lands” which were set apart for the absentee Indians by the President. Hale v. Wilder, 8 Kans., 545.
      7Corprew v. Arthur, 15 Ala., 525; Wells v. Thompson, 13 Ala., 793; 48 Am. Dec., 76; Crommelin v. Minter, 9 Ala., 594; Kennedy v. McCartney, 4 Port. (Ala.), 141.
      8Rowland v. Ladiga, 21 Ala., 9 [reversed in 2 How. (U. S.), 581; 11 L. Ed., 387]; Doe v. Newman, 3 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 565; Morgan v. Fowler, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.), 450; Grubbs v. McClatchy, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.), 432.
      9Land v. Keirn, 52 Miss., 341; Coleman v. Doe, 4 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 40; Evans v. Jones, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.), 461; McIntosh v. Cleveland, 7 Yerg. (Tenn.), 46; Jones v. Evans, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.), 323; McConnell v. Mousepaine, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.), 438.

(f) Title and rights acquired.—The title and rights of an Indian to whom land has been allotted under a treaty depend upon the terms of the treaty and of the patent executed in accordance therewith.10 A title in fee simple absolute may be vested in him,11 or a title in fee subject only to conditions subsequent.12 He may take a vested estate which can not be taken away or affected by any subsequent action of the executive department of the Government, so long as he complies with the conditions,13 or he may take only a title of occupancy, the fee remaining in the United States.14 Where an allotment is made under the statute15 which provides that the United States shall hold the land in trust for 25 years, or longer at the option of the President, and then convey the land in fee, the land remains the property of the United States during the trust period;16 and the Indian’s rights as a citizen, acquired by reason of the allotment, are not impaired by the restriction of his power to alienate the land or its proceeds.17 Under a statute allotting lands to Indians in quantities varying according to the size of the family, and providing that the allotment could be declared abandoned if they failed to occupy it, and forbidding alienation, the children of the wife by a former husband inherited no interest in the lands on her death before that of her husband, since the only right of the husband or wife was the enjoyment of the family right of possession held by the husband for the family.18 The grant [135] to the Sac and Fox half-breeds in Iowa, by act of Congress, was a grant of an absolute estate to them as individuals, to be held as tenants in common.19


      10Rose v. Griffin, 33 Ala., 717; Jones v. Inge, 5 Port. (Ala.), 327; Eu-che-lah v. Welsh, 10 N. C., 155; Cornet v. Winton, 2 Yerg. (Tenn.), 143; Pka-o-wah-ash-kum v. Sorin, 8 Fed., 740; 10 Biss., 293.
      The Cherokee treaties of 1817 and 1819 vested an absolute title for life in the Indian reservee; if he had no children, a grant of the fee by the State to him was not void, but vested the entire interest in the grantee. Peck v. Carmichael, 9 Yerg. (Tenn.), 325; Neddy v. State, 8 Yerg. (Tenn.), 249; Jones v. Evans, 5 Yerg. (Tenn.), 323.
      Right to proceeds from land: Where individual Indians have rightfully cut logs on land allotted to them and a Government agent seizes and sells them the Indians have a valid claim on the proceeds. Thayer v. U. S., 20 C. Cls., 137.
      11Summers v. Spybuck, 1 Kans., 394; Stockton v. Williams, 1 Dougl. (Mich.), 546; Hicks v. Butrick, 12 Fed. Cas., No. 6458; 3 Dill., 413.
      12Ross v. Eells, 56 Fed., 855.
      13Bird v. Terry, 129 Fed., 472 [affirmed in 129 Fed., 592].
      14Grinter v. Kansas Pac. R. Co., 23 Kans., 642; Goodfellow v. Muckey, 10 Fed. Cas., No. 5537; 1 McCrary, 238.
      1524 U. S. Stat. L., 388.
      16U. S. v. Gardner, 133 Fed., 285, 66 C. C. A., 663.
      17Hitchcock v. U. S., 22 App. Cas. (D. C.), 275.
      18Bird v. Winyer, 24 Wash., 269; 64 Pac., 178.
      19Haight v. Keokuk, 4 Iowa, 199; Wright v. Marsh, 2 Greene (Iowa), 94; Webster v. Reid, Morr. (Iowa), 467.

2. Sale(a) Right to convey(I) In general.—The right of an individual Indian to convey his land depends generally upon statutory and treaty provisions,20 and


      20See the following cases:
      Kansas: McGannon v. Straightlege, 37 Kans., 87; 14 Pac., 452; Lemert v. Barnes, 18 Kans., 9.
      Massachusetts: Pells v. Webquish, 129 Mass., 469.
      New York: Murray v. Wooden, 17 Wend., 531; Lee v. Glover, 8 Cow., 189.
      Wisconsin: Farrington v. Wilson, 29 Wis., 383.
      United States: Taylor v. Brown, 147 U. S., 640; 13 S. Ct., 549; 37 L. Ed., 313. See 27 Cent. Dig. tit. “Indians,” sec. 37.
      Mexican Indians: Under the constitution and laws of Mexico an Indian was as competent to have, hold, and convey real estate as any other citizen. U. S. v. Ritchie, 17 How. (U. S.), 525; 15 L. Ed., 236.
      In Canada the statute (13 and 14 Vict., c. 74) which prohibits the sale of land by Indians applies only to lands reserved for their occupation, title to which is still in the Crown, and not to lands to which any individual Indian has acquired a title. Totten

{Page 736}

Watson, 15 U. C. Q. B., 392. The locatee of Indian lands can assign his interest therein, or in the timber thereon; and actual notice of such an assignment, even if there has been a failure to register as provided by the Indian Act, is sufficient to prevent a subsequent assignee from obtaining priority. Bridge v. Johnston, 8 Ont. L. Rep., 196.
      A conveyance of allotted land, made by the allottee before his application was acted upon by the President and patent issued, is void, and conveyed no title, either directly or by estoppel, to the grantee. Baldwin v. Letson, 6 Kans. App., 11; 49 Pac., 619.
      Assignment presumed: An assignment of a house and lot by an Indian, as permitted by Me. Rev. St., c. 9, sec. 22, will be presumed from actual and undisturbed possession by the assignee for more than 40 years. John v. Sabattis, 69 Me., 473.

{Page 736}

where it has been granted to him by treaty or patent, without restriction as to alienation, he may sell it as any other person.1 But where a treaty, grant, or statute restricts alienation,2 a deed made in violation of the restriction is void,3 [136] even though the patent was on its face an absolute conveyance, and did not show that the patentee was an Indian;4 and notwithstanding the fact that such Indians have become citizens of the United States.5


      1Alabama: Jones v. Walker, 47 Ala., 175.
      Minnesota: Dole v. Wilson, 20 Minn., 356.
      Mississippi: Anderson v. Lewis, Freem., 178.
      New York: Jackson v. Sharp, 14 Johns., 472. North Carolina: Belk v. Love, 18 N. C., 65.
      Wisconsin: Quinney v. Denney, 18 Wis., 485.
      United States: Elwood v. Flannigan, 104 U. S., 562; 26 L. Ed., 842; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352; 17 L. Ed., 91; Mann v. Wilson, 23 How., 457, 16 L. Ed., 584.
      See 27 Cent. Dig. tit. “Indians,” sec. 37.
      Removal of general restrictions: The omission, in 4 U. S. Stat. L., 729, sec. 12, of the words “any Indian” from the prohibition of purchases and leases “from any Indian nation or tribe of Indians,” while the former statutes had prohibited purchases or leases from “any Indian,” shows the intention of Congress to remove the general restriction upon the alienation by individual Indians of land reserved to them by treaty. Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S., 1; 20 S. Ct., 1; 44 L. Ed. 49.
      A half-breed of the Sac and Fox tribes could convey by deed his interest in the lands in Iowa reserved by treaty. Webster v. Reid, 11 How. (U. S.), 437; 13 L. Ed., 761.
      2See the following cases:
      Alabama: Pettit v. Pettit, 32 Ala., 288; James v. Scott, 9 Ala., 579; Rosser v. Bradford, 9 Port., 354; Kennedy v. McCartney, 4 Port., 141.
      Kansas: Clark v. Lord, 20 Kans., 390; Baldwin v. Squires, 20 Kans., 280; Campbell v. Paramore, 17 Kans., 639; Clark v. Libbey, 14 Kans., 435; Pennock v. Monroe, 5 Kans., 578.
      Minnesota: Dole v. Wilson, 20 Minn., 356. New York: Seneca Nation v. Lehly, 55 Hun, 83; 8 N. Y. Suppl., 245.
      Wisconsin: Quinney v. Denney; 18 Wis., 485. United States: Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352; 17 L. Ed., 91. See 27 Cent. Dig. tit. “Indians,” sec. 37.
      Unauthorized restriction in patent: A restriction on alienation in a patent, which is not required by the law under which the title was acquired, is void; and the patentee takes a title in fee simple, without any restriction as to alienation. U. S. v. Saunders, 96 Fed., 268.
      Computation of time: Where alienation is restricted for a period of years from the date of the patent the day of issue of the patent should be included in computing the time. Taylor v. Brown, 5 Dak., 335; 40 N. W., 525 [affirmed in 147 U. S., 640; 13 S. Ct., 549; 37 L. Ed., 313].
      Restriction after patent: The United States may, with the consent of the tribe, add a new restriction to the power of an individual Indian to alienate his allotted land. Wiggan v. Conolly, 163 U. S., 56; 16 S. Ct., 914; 41 L. Ed., 69.
      3Clark v. Akers, 16 Kans., 166; Libby v. Clark, 118 U. S., 250; 6 S. Ct., 1045; 30 L. Ed., 133.
      4Taylor v. Brown, 5 Dak., 335; 40 N. W., 525 [affirmed in 147 U. S., 640; 13 S. Ct., 549; 37 L. Ed., 313]; Laughton v. Nadeau, 75 Fed., 789.
      5U. S. v. Flournoy Live-Stock, etc., Co., 71 Fed., 576; Pilgrim v. Beck, 69 Fed., 895; U. S. v. Flournov Live-Stock, etc., Co., 69 Fed., 886; Beck v. Flournoy Live-Stock, etc., Co., 65 Fed., 30; 12 C. C. A., 497; Smythe v. Henry, 41 Fed., 705.
      Right of way across allotted lands: Where Indians have become citizens under a treaty, and their lands have been allotted in severalty, with a prohibition of alienation except by lease for not longer than two years, and the territory in which such lands lie has since been admitted into the Union as a State, the United States has no power to prevent the building of a railway across such allotted lands with the consent and approval of the Indian grantees. Ross v. Eells, 56 Fed., 855.

(II) Effect of deed when alienation restricted.—A deed by an Indian in contravention of a treaty or grant withholding or restricting the power of alienation is not color of title,6 and a vendee can not acquire any right under such deed by adverse possession or estoppel.7


      6Sunol v. Hepburn, 1 Cal., 254; Taylor v. Brown, 5 Dak., 335; 40 N. W., 525; Smythe v. Henry, 41 Fed., 705. Contra, Murphy v. Nelson (S. D., 1905), 102 N. W., 691.
      An innocent and bona fide purchaser for a valuable consideration from one who held by deed from a Pottawatomie Indian had color of title within the intent of Kans. Laws (1874), c. 79, sec. 3, and acquired absolute title after undisturbed possession under such purchase for three years. Forbes v. Higginbotham, 44 Kans., 94; 24 Pac., 348.
      7O’Brien v. Bugbee, 46 Kans., 1; 26 Pac., 428; Sheldon v. Donohoe, 40 Kans., 346; 19 Pac., 901; Jackson v. Porter, 13 Fed. Cas., No. 7143; 1 Paine, 457.
      Adverse possession of land situated in Mississippi, for the statutory time, bars the interest of a Chickasaw Indian therein. New Orleans, etc., R. Co. v. Move, 39 Miss., 374.

(b) Mode and validity of conveyance.—Where a treaty or statute prescribes a particular mode of conveyance, one independent of that mode is forbidden by implication and is void;8 the removal of disabilities after the sale does not render it


      8Alabama: Haden v. Ware, 15 Ala., 149; Fipps v. McGehee, 5 Port., 413; Clarlitko v. Elliott, 5 Port., 403; Herring v. McElderry, 5 Port., 161.
      Massachusetts: Brown v. Wenham, 10 Metc., 495.
      Michigan: Raymond v. Shawboose, 34 Mich., 142.
      Mississippi: Doe v. Partier, 12 Sm. & M., 425. See also Pointer v. Trotter, 10 Sm. & M., 537. But see Niles v. Anderson, 5 How., 365, holding that such a deed passes an equitable title.
      New York: Jackson v. Wood, 7 Johns., 290.
      United States: Pickering v. Lomax, 145 U. S., 310; 12 S. Ct., 860; 36 L. Ed., 716 [affirming 120 Ill., 289; 11 N. E., 175]; Briggs v. Sample, 43 Fed., 102; 10 L. R. A., 132.
      See 27 Cent. Dig. tit. “Indians,” sec. 38.
      The United States can not proceed in equity to annul such a void deed, in the absence of a law forfeiting the grant in case of alienation. U. S. v. Saunders, 96 Fed., 268.
      State laws: The laws of a State regarding the mode of alienation of lands have no application to lands granted by treaty to Indians with a prohibition of the right to convey except with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Mungosah v. Steinbrook, 16 Fed. Cas., No. 9924; 3 Dill., 418.
      The recording of a deed which is void for want of compliance with the requirements restricting alienation is notice to a second grantee; and if the president has subsequently approved the first deed, a grantee under a second deed takes no title, although it also is approved. Lomax v. Pickering, 173 U. S., 26; 19 S. Ct., 416; 43 L. Ed., 601 [affirming 165 Ill., 431; 46 N. E., 238].

{Page 737}

      Dedication: An Indian under disability to convey his lands without the consent of the Secretary of the Interior can not make a valid dedication of a portion of such lands for a public highway, nor can any dedication be presumed against him. State v. O’Laughlin, 19 Kans., 504.
      Sale to another Indian: The approval of an Indian agent is not necessary where the sale is by one Indian to another Indian of the same tribe, under Me. Rev. St., c. 9, sec. 22. John v. Sabattis, 69 Me., 473.
      In Massachusetts the prohibition by statute of conveyances applies only to land in which the aboriginal title by occupancy has never been extinguished. Clark v. Williams, 19 Pick., 499.

{Page 737}

valid.1 Deeds by Indians, although approved as required by statute or treaty, are open to the same objections as to infancy or coverture as deeds executed by others;2 [137] and they must conform in other respects to the requirements necessary to a valid deed.3


      1Lewis v. Love, 1 Ala., 335; Stevens v. Smith, 2 Kans., 243.
      2Wiggin v. King, 35 Kans., 410; 11 Pac., 140; Gillett v. Stanley, 1 Hill (N. Y.), 121; Terry v. Sicade, 37 Wash., 249; 79 Pac., 789; Wiggan v. Conolly, 163 U. S., 56; 16 S. Ct. 914; 41 L. Ed., 69; Laughton v. Nadeau, 75 Fed., 789. See also Frederick v. Gray, 12 Kans., 518.
      3Dillingham v. Brown, 38 Ala., 311; Tarver v. Smith, 38 Ala., 135; Long v. McDougald, 23 Ala., 413; Prentice v. Stearns, 20 Fed., 819.

(c) Approval of officer.—Where the approval of the Secretary of the Interior or other officer is required to a conveyance,4 it is a condition subsequent, and if given at any time after the date of the conveyance it is retroactive in effect and validates the original contract and intermediate conveyances.5 When it is once given the power of the officer is exhausted; the permission or approval can not be revoked;6 the Indian title is extinguished, and the land may thenceforth be conveyed as other lands.7


      4See Doe v. Long, 29 Ala., 376; Harris v. Doe, 3 Ind., 494; Niles v. Anderson, 5 How. (Miss.), 365; Anderson v. Lewis, Freem. (Miss.), 178; Jackson v. Hill, 5 Wend. (N. Y.), 532; Jackson v. Brown, 15 Johns. (N. Y.), 264.
      Fraud in securing approval: A conveyance will be held void in a court of chancery, where the approval of the proper officer was obtained by fraud. Anderson v. Lewis, Freem. (Miss.), 178; Richardville v. Thorp, 28 Fed., 52.
      Approval can not be attacked collaterally: Jones v. Inge, 5 Port. (Ala.), 327.
      5Alabama: Nolen v. Gwyn, 16 Ala., 725. Indiana: Steeple v. Downing, 60 Ind., 478; Ashley v. Eberts, 22 Ind., 55.
      Kansas: Campbell v. Kansas Town Co., 69 Kans., 314; 76 Pac., 839.
      Mississippi: Anderson v. Lewis, Freem., 178.
      United States: Lykins v. McGrath, 184 U. S., 169; 22 S. Ct., 450; 46 L. Ed., 485; Lomax v. Pickering, 173 U. S., 26; 19 S. Ct., 416; 43 L. Ed., 601 [affirming 165 Ill., 431; 46 N. E., 238]; Pickering v. Lomax, 145 U. S., 310; 12 S. Ct., 860; 36 L. Ed., 716 [reversing 120 Ill., 289; 11 N. E., 175].
      See 27 Cent. Dig. tit. “Indians,” sec. 39.
      6Godfrey v. Beardsley, 10 Fed. Cas., No. 5497, 2 McLean, 412.
      Approval given to a void and inoperative deed does not preclude the officer from afterward giving his approval to a valid deed from the same grantor for the same land. Jackson v. Brown, 15 Johns. (N. Y.), 264.
      7Ingraham v. Ward, 56 Kans., 550; 44 Pac., 14; Blauw v. Love, 9 Kans. App., 55; 57 Pac., 258; Dagenett v. Jenks, 7 Kans. App., 499; 54 Pac., 135.

3. Leases.—The validity of leases executed by Indians depends generally upon statutory or treaty provisions,8 and where alienation is prohibited, leases made by the Indians are void;9 a State legislature has no power to authorize such leases.10 When leases are made in accordance with law, and with the approval of the proper officer, the lessee acquires a vested right, and he lease can not be canceled or annulled by Congress or the Executive.11


      8See Lewis v. Love, 1 Ala., 335; Moore v. Girten (Ind. T., 1904), 82 S. W., 848; Joines v. Robinson (Ind. T., 1903), 76 S. W. 107; Pickering v. Lomax, 145 U. S., 310; 12 S. Ct., 860; 36 L. Ed., 716 [affirming 120 Ill., 289; 11 N. E., 175]; Indian Land, etc., Co. Schoenfelt (Ind. T., 1904), 79 S. W., 134.
      Validity of leases by Seneca Indians in New York see 18 U. S. Stat. L., 330; Buffalo, etc., R. Co. v. Lavery, 75 Hun (N. Y.), 396; 27 N. Y. Suppl., 443; Sheehan v. Mayer, 41 Hun (N. Y.), 609; Baker v. Johns, 38 Hun (N. Y.), 625; Ryan v. Knorr, 19 Hun (N. Y.), 540; Wait v. Jameson, 15 Abb. N. Cas. (N. Y.), 382.
      9Alabama: Kennedy v. McCartney, 4 Port., 141.
      Kansas: Burkhalter v. Nuzum, 9 Kans. App., 885; 61 Pac., 310.
      Ohio: Chaffee v. Garrett, 6 Ohio, 421.
      South Dakota: Reservation State Bank v. Holst, 17 S. Dak., 240; 95 N. W., 931; 70 L. R. A., 799.
      United States: Pilgrim v. Beck, 69 Fed., 895; U. S. v. Flournoy Live-Stock, etc., Co., 69 Fed., 886; Beck v. Flournoy Live-Stock, etc., Co., 65 Fed., 30; 12 C. C. A., 497.
      See 27 Cent. Dig. tit. “Indians,” sec. 45.
      Right to crops when lease void: Crops grown on allotted lands, although the lease of such lands was void, can not be recovered from the lessee having them in possession. Burkhalter v. Nuzum, 9 Kans. App., 885; 61 Pac., 310. A lessee, who was not in possession of crops grown by his sublessee at the time when they were taken by the allottee’s heirs on the ground that the original lease was void, can not maintain an action for their recovery. Coey v. Low, 36 Wash., 10; 77 Pac., 1077.
      10Buffalo, etc., R. Co. v. Lavery, 75 Hun (N. Y.), 396; 27 N. Y. Suppl., 443.
      11Mosgrove v. Harper, 33 Oreg., 252; 54 Pac., 187; Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S., 1; 20 S. Ct., 1; 44 L. Ed., 49.

4. Descent and distribution.—Lands reserved to individual Indians by treaty descend according to the laws of the State.12 But where the tribal organization [138] is still recognized by the Government, inheritance is, as has been already stated, controlled by the laws, usages, and customs of the tribe.13 Land held in trust for an Indian, to whom a patent has not been issued, does not descend to his heirs, but remains a part of the tribal property;14 except where the law provides that on the


      12Ingraham v. Ward, 56 Kans., 550; 44 Pac., 14; McCullagh v. Allen, 10 Kans., 150; Brown v. Belmarde, 3 Kans., 41; Edde v. Pash-pah-o, 4 Kans. App., 115; 48 Pac., 884; McCauley v. Tyndall (Nebr., 1903), 94 N. W., 813; Porter v. Parker (Nebr., 1903), 94 N. W., 123; Kalyton v. Kalyton, 45 Oreg., 116; 78 Pac., 332; (1903) 74 Pac., 491; Non-she-po v. Wa-win-ta, 37 Oreg., 213; 62 Pac., 15; 82 Am. St. Rep., 749; McBean v. McBean, 37 Oreg., 195; 61 Pac., 418; Lowry v. Weaver, 15 Fed. Cas., No. 8584; 4 McLean, 82.
      Dower: In New York the widow of an Indian is entitled to dower in the lands of her deceased husband, held by him in severalty. Jimeson v. Pierce, 78 N. Y. App. Div., 9; 70 N. Y. Suppl., 3.
      Descent in the Indian Territory of lands allotted in severalty is governed by the laws of Kansas, and the word “children,” in such laws relating to heirs of the half blood, should be construed as meaning “kindred,” so that a half brother inherits, to the exclusion of uncles and cousins. Finley v. Abner, 129 Fed., 734; 64 C. C. A., 262 [affirming (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 911].
      The decision of the Secretary of the Interior as to the heiin a deedrship of the Indian grantors is not conclusive on the Federal courts. Richardville v. Thorp, 28 Fed., 52.
      13 See supra, II, C, 3, (b).
      14Sloan v. U. S., 118 Fed., 283. See also U. S. v. Zane (Ind. T., 1902), 69 S. W., 842.

{Page 738}

death of the original allottee a patent shall be issued in his name, in which case the title passes at once to his heirs.1


      1Briggs v. McClain, 43 Kans., 653; 23 Pac., 1045.

5. Exemption from taxation and judicial sale—Lands held in severalty by individual Indians under restrictions regarding alienation are not taxable by the State.2 But lands held in fee simple, without restriction as to alienation, are not exempt from State taxation;3 nor are any Indian lands after the title has passed from the Indian to a citizen.4 Lands exempt from “levy, sale, or forfeiture” by the terms of the treaty or statute under which they are granted can not be sold for unpaid taxes,5 nor to enforce payment for improvements placed upon the land by another.6 Such exemption is a personal privilege, and does not pass with the land to a grantee of the Indian.7 Mere restrictions upon alienation, however, do not exempt land from sale under execution.8 By act of Congress [139] improvements upon the public domain owned by Indians by blood can not be reached or put into the hands of a receiver to pay judgments against them.9


      2Kansas: Parker v. Winsor, 5 Kans., 362. But compare Miami County v. Wan-zop-pe-che, 3 Kans., 364; Blue Jacket v. Johnson County, 3 Kans., 299.
      Michigan: Auditor-Gen. v. Williams, 94 Mich., 180; 53 N. W., 1097.
      Washington: Frazee v. Spokane County, 29 Wash., 278; 69 Pae., 779.
      Wisconsin: Farrington v. Wilson, 29 Wis., 383.
      United States: U. S. v. Rickert, 188 U. S., 432; 23 S. Ct., 478; 47 L. Ed., 532; Fellows v. Denniston, 5 Wall., 761; 18 L. Ed., 708; Kansas Indians v. U. S., 5 Wall., 737; 18 L. Ed., 667.
      See 27 Cent. Dig. tit. “Indians,” sec. 54.
      A conditional sale, by which no patent is to be issued until the conditions are fulfilled, and with forfeiture for nonfulfilment does not render the lands taxable by the State. Douglas County v. Union Pac. R. Co., 5 Kans., 615.
      Permanent improvements on lands held in trust for Indian allottees can not be taxed by the State as personal property; and the United States may maintain a suit in equity to restrain the collection of such a tax. U.S. v. Rickert, 188 U. S., 432; 23 S. Ct., 478; 47 L. Ed., 532.
      3State v. Miami County, 63 Ind., 497; Hilgers v. Quinney, 51 Wis., 62; 8 N. W., 17; Pennock v. Franklin County, 103 U. S., 44; 26 L. Ed., 367. See also Frederickson v. Fowler, 5 Blackf. (Ind.), 409.
      An Indian who has become a citizen of the United States is not exempt from taxation on lands under the aut of July 13, 1787, art. 3, providing that the lands and property of Indians “shall never be taken from them without their consent.” Miami County v. Godfrey, 27 Ind. App., 610; 60 N. E., 177.
      4Miami County v. Brackenridge, 12 Kans., 114; McMahon v. Welsh, 11 Kans., 280; Peck v. Miami County, 19 Fed. Cas., No. 10891; 4 Dill., 370.
      In Canada Indian land surrendered to the Crown and sold to an individual is taxable; the statutory exemption applies only to Indian lands reserved for their use. Church v. Fenton, 28 U. C. C. P., 384.
      5Fellows v. Denniston, 5 Wall. (U. S.), 761; 18 L. Ed., 708; Kansas Indians v. U. S., 5 Wall. (U. S.), 737; 18 L. Ed., 667.
      A void sale by a sheriff, of lands not subject to such sale for a period of years, can not be made valid by a subsequent treaty, nor by the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Frederick v. Gray, 12 Kans., 518.
      6Maynes v. Veale, 20 Kans., 374.
      7Jones v. Walker, 47 Ala., 175; Rosser v. Bradford, 9 Port. (Ala.), 354.
      Possession under Indian title: Sale may be made under execution, of the interest of one in possession of land located by a Creek Indian under treaty, before issue of patent or approval of sale by the reservee. Rains v. Ware, 10 Ala., 623.
      8Taylor v. Vandegrift, 126 Ind., 325; 25 N. E., 548; Saffarans v. Terry, 12 Sm. & M. (Miss.), 690; Love v. Pamplin, 21 Fed., 755. See also Lowry v. Weaver, 15 Fed. Cas., No. 8584; 4 McLean, 82.
      9Daugherty v. Bogy, 3 Ind. T., 197; 53 S. W., 542. And see In re Grayson, 3 Ind. T., 497; 61 S. W., 984.

6. Indian scrip.—Where scrip is issued to Indians in exchange for lands ceded by them, the provisions of the statute or treaty under which it is issued must be followed in the location of land with such scrip.10 Where, however, location is restricted by the statute to “unoccupied lands”11 a valid location may be made upon occupied land with the consent of the occupant.12 After a location is made in conformity to law, the holder acquires a vested right, and a patent subsequently issued to another is void.13 Even though scrip issued in lieu of lands is not assignable,14 the land entered on such scrip is alienable as soon as located;15 and the holder of the scrip may give a valid power of attorney for the location of the land,16 for the erection of improvements upon it,17 and for its conveyance.18 Actual possession or occupancy by the holder of the scrip is not necessary.19


      10Parker v. Duff, 47 Cal., 554; Fee v. Brown, 17 Colo., 510; 30 Pac., 340.
      The decision of the land officers upon the location of such scrip is final. Monette v. Cratt, 7 Minn., 234.
      Land withdrawn from sale for the purpose of an Indian reservation is not subject to location with Indian scrip. Sharon v. Wooldrick, 18 Minn., 354.
      11U. S. v. Chapman, 25 Fed. Cas., No. 14785; 5 Sawy., 528.
      12Thompson v. Myrick, 20 Minn., 205.
      13Midway County v. Eaton, 79 Minn., 442; 82 N. W., 861, 1118.
      14Felix v. Patrick, 145 U. S., 317; 12 S. Ct., 862; 36 L. Ed., 719 [affirming 36 Fed., 457].
      15Coursolle v. Weyerhauser, 69 Minn., 328; 72 N. W., 697; Sharpe v. Rogers, 12 Minn., 174.
      16Buffalo Land, etc., Co. v. Strong, 91 Minn., 84; 97 N. W., 575; U. S. v. Chapman, 25 Fed. Cas., No. 14785; 5 Sawy., 528. But see Dole v. Wilson, 20 Minn., 356; Fee v. Brown, 162 U. S., 602; 16 S. Ct., 875; 40 L. Ed., 1083 [affirming 17 Colo., 510;30 Pac., 340].
      17Midway County v. Eaton, 183 U. S., 602, 619; 22 S. Ct., 261; 46 L. Ed., 347 [affirming 79 Minn., 442; 82 N. W., 861, 1118].
      18Buffalo Land, etc., Co. v. Strong, 91 Minn., 84; 97 N. W., 575; Dole v. Wilson, 20 Minn., 356; Thompson v. Mvrick, 20 Minn., 205; Gilbert v. Thompson, 14 Minn., 544; Midway County v. Eaton, 183 U. S., 602, 619; 22 S. Ct., 261; 46 L. Ed., 347 [affirming 79 Minn., 442; 82 N. W., 861, 1118].
      19Sharpe v. Rogers, 12 Minn., 174; Midway County v. Eaton, 183 U. S., 602, 619; 22 S. Ct., 261; 46 L. Ed., 347 [affirming 79 Minn., 442; 82 N. W., 861, 1118].

IV. Government of Indians and Indian Country.


Search | OSU Library Digitization Center

Produced by the Oklahoma State University Library
Generous support provided by The Coca-Cola Foundation, Atlanta, GA
URL: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/kappler/
      Comments to: lib-dig@okstate.edu