It is urged that the time for the issuance of patents was fixed as the fourth of March, 1906, and that in law they will be deemed to have been delivered on that date or within a reasonable time thereafter; that although provision was made for the continuance of the tribal government, there was likewise authority for the delivery of the deeds prior to its termination. The contention that the restriction was thus removed cannot be sustained. The agreement of 1897 did not fix a definite time for the termination of the tribal government, and while the act of 1903 set a limit to its existence, Congress was competent to extend it. This was done, and the mere authorization of the execution of patents before the tribal government ceased to exist, cannot be regarded as a repeal of the explicit provision that contracts for the sale or incumbrance of the allotted lands prior to the date of patent should be void. The one did not override the other; they could stand together. But, in 1904-after the allotments to the Seminoles had been made the restrictions upon the alienation by adult allottees of the five civilized tribes, who were not of Indian blood, of lands other than homesteads were removed. The provision was as follows (act of April 21, 1904, c. 1402, 33 Stat. 189, 204): "And all the restrictions upon the alienation of lands of all allottees of either of the Five Civilized Tribes of Indians who are not of Indian blood, except minors, are, except as to homesteads, hereby removed, and all restrictions upon the alienation of all other allottees of said tribes, except minors, and except as to homesteads, may, with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, be removed under such rules and regulations as the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe, upon application to the United States Indian agent at the Union Agency in charge of the Five Civilized Tribes, if said agent is satisfied upon a full investigation of each individual case that such Opinion of the Court. 224 U.S. removal of restrictions is for the best interest of said allottee. The finding of the United States Indian agent and the approval of the Secretary of the Interior shall be in writing and shall be recorded in the same manner as patents for lands are recorded." This statute undoubtedly applied to allottees of the Seminole Nation, as one of the Five Civilized Tribes, and the enrolled freedmen of that tribe, according to the classification of the commission in making the rolls, fell within the description of allottees "not of Indian blood." The freedmen were persons of African descent-embracing former slaves and their descendants-who had been admitted to the rights of native citizens under the treaty of 1866. (Report of Dawes Commission, 1898, pp. 11, 13.) While the law did not prescribe that a separate roll of freedmen should be made in the case of the Seminoles, the commission in fact made one. As to this they said in their report for 1898 (p. 13), referring to the Seminoles: "Indeed, it is essentially a nation of full-bloods, save as to its colored citizens, who, under treaty provision, are on an equal footing with the citizens by blood. About one-third of the citizens of the Seminole Nation are freedmen, and while the law does not specifically require a separate roll of each of these classes, the commission's data will enable it to so separate them." Accordingly the freedmen in the rolls of the Seminoles, upon which the allotments were based, appear as a class distinct from the citizens by blood. (Final Rolls of Citizens and Freedmen of the Five Civilized Tribes, pp. 615, 627.) And the commissioner to the Five Civilized Tribes in his report for 1908 (p. 7), in stating the total number of the enrolled Seminoles, with the degree of blood of each, gives the number of the citizens of full-blood and of mixed-blood, three-fourths or more, one-half to three-fourths, and less than one-half blood, and then the number of the enrolled freedmen as a separate group. The bill does not allege that the allottees in question had any Indian blood, but describes them simply as "freedmen members of said tribe," and in the specifications of the conveyances which appear in the record the grantors are named as Seminole freedmen whose names are on the freedmen roll. The import of the allegation, then, is that these grantors were not of Indian blood, and, so far as they were adults, they came within the provision of the act of 1904, removing restrictions upon the alienation of surplus lands. These adult grantors stood in precisely the same position-after the act of 1904-as though they had received their allotments without any restriction upon their right to alienate the interest thus acquired. It is insisted, however, that this interest was not of such a character as to be susceptible of transfer. This is not a tenable proposition. Stress is laid upon the provision in the agreement of 1897 that each allottee should have "the sole right of occupancy of the land so allotted to him." But it is not to be supposed that by this form of words Congress intended in the case of the Seminoles to provide that, by virtue of the allotment, the member of the tribe should receive an interest of a different nature from that received by allottees of other tribes. The lands were allotted to the members of the tribe in severalty, so that each should have his distinct portion. The allotments constituted their respective shares of the tribal property, set apart to them as such, and while the execution of the deeds was deferred, each had meanwhile a complete equitable interest in the land allotted to him. The nature of the allottee's interest is sufficiently shown by other provisions of the agreement of 1897, as ratified by Congress, and by statutes in pari materia. In the agreement it was provided that any allottee might lease his allotment on certain conditions. With respect to the townsite of Wewoka, which was to be controlled and disposed of according to the provisions of the act of the General Council of the Opinion of the Court. 224 U.S. Seminole Nation of April 23, 1897, it was provided that on extinguishment of the tribal government deeds should issue "to owners of lots" as in the case of allottees. The interest of the allottee was a descendible interest. By the supplemental agreement of 1900, in the case of the death of a member of the tribe after December 31, 1899, the lands "to which he would be entitled if living" were to descend to his heirs. Section 5 of the act of April 26, 1906, relating to "patents or deeds to allottees in any of the Five Civilized Tribes" to be thereafter issued-thus including those to be issued to the Seminole allotteesprovided that if any such allottee should die before the deed became effective the title to the lands described therein should "inure to and vest in his heirs," and further, that "in case any allottee shall die after restrictions have been removed, his property shall descend to his heirs or his lawful assigns, as if the patent or deed had issued to the allottee during his life" (34 Stat. 137, 138, c. 1876); and § 19 of that act (p. 144) contained a proviso declaring that conveyances theretofore made "by members of any of the Five Civilized Tribes subsequent to the selection of allotment and subsequent to removal of restriction, where patents thereafter issue, shall not be deemed or held invalid solely because said conveyances were made prior to issuance and recording or delivery of patent or deed." The inalienability of the allotted lands was not due to the quality of the interest of the allottee, but to the express restriction imposed. Their equitable interest was one which in the absence of restriction they could convey. Doe v. Wilson, 23 How. 457; Crews v. Burcham, 1 Black, 352; Barney v. Dolph, 97 U. S. 652, 656; Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1, 15-18; Godfrey v. Iowa Land & Trust Co., 21 Oklahoma, 293; 95 Pac. Rep. 792; Mullen v. United States, April 15, 1912, ante, p. 448. And, hence, on the removal of the restrictions upon alicnation, the adult allottees not of Indian blood were entitled to convey their surplus lands. So far as the bill assails such conveyances it is without equity. As all the conveyances made to the appellants are not particularly described in the printed record before this court, it is impossible to specify those which were lawful and those which were obnoxious to the statute. We are of opinion (1) that the bill should be sustained so far as it relates to conveyances of homestead lands; (2) that it should also be sustained to the extent that it is directed against conveyances of surplus lands made by freedmen allottees who were minors and thus excepted from the provision of the act of April 21, 1904, and those made by adult allottees prior to that date; and (3) that so far as the bill relates to conveyances of surplus lands made by adult freedmen allottees subsequent to April 21, 1904, it should be dismissed. The judgment of the Circuit Court of Appeals will therefore be affirmed, with the modification that the cause shall proceed in conformity with this opinion. It is so ordered. DEMING INVESTMENT COMPANY v. UNITED STATES. APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT. No. 434. Argued October 12, 13, 1911.-Decided April 29, 1912. Goat v. United States, ante, p. 458, followed in regard to validity of conveyances of lands allotted to Seminole Indians, and the right of the United States to maintain actions to set such conveyances aside. 179 Fed. Rep. 13, modified and affirmed as to this point. THE facts, which involve the validity of certain deeds and mortgages of allotted lands made by Seminole In |