Congress and can have no greater effect; it was but an exertion
of the governmental administrative control over tribal property
of tribal Indians, and subject to change by Congress at any
time before it was carried into effect and while tribal relations
continued. Ib.
5. Allotments; Choctaw and Chickasaw; effect of acceptance of patent by
individuals.
The individual Choctaw and Chickasaw Indian had no title or en-
forcible right in tribal property, but Congress recognized his
equitable interest therein in the Curtis Act of June 28, 1898, 30
Stat. 505, and offered to give to him in consideration of his con-
senting to the distribution an allotment of non-taxable land; and
the acceptance of the patent by each member of the tribe was on
the consideration of relinquishment of his interest in the un-
allotted tribal property. Choate v. Trapp, 665.
6. Allotments; effect of agreement in patent to bind grantee.
A patent for an Indian allotment containing an agreement assenting
to the plan of distribution, like a deed poll, bound the grantee,
although not signed by him, and the benefits constituted the con-
sideration for the rights waived. Choate v. Trapp, 665; Gleason
v. Wood, 679; English v. Richardson, 680.
7. Allotments; effect of tax exemption in patent.
The tax exemption in the patents for Indian allotments under the
Curtis Act was not a mere safeguard against alienation, and did
not fall with the removal of restrictions from alienation by the
act of May 27, 1908, 35 Stat. 312. Ib.
8. Allotments; restrictions on alienation and exemption from taxation;
power of Congress as to.
The removal of restrictions on alienation of Indian allotments falls
within the power of Congress to regulate Indian affairs, but the
provision for non-taxation is a property right and not subject to
action by Congress. Ib.
9. Allotments; exemption from taxation provision; binding effect of.
The non-taxation provisions as to Indian allotted lands in the Curtis
Act gave a property right to the allottees, and was binding on the
State of Oklahoma. Ib.
10. Allotments; patents; title to exemption from taxation under.
Patents issued in pursuance of statute are to be construed in con-
nection with the statute, and those issued to allottee Indians
under the Curtis Act gave the allottees as good a title to the
exemption from taxation as to the land itself; and the tax exemp-
tion constituted property of which the patentees could not, under
the Fifth Amendment, be deprived without due process of law.
Ib.
11. Allotments; exemption from taxation; construction of.
An exemption from taxation, of land allotted to Indians in pursuance
of an agreement to distribute the tribal property, will not be con-
strued strictly, as a gratuitous exemption to a public service cor-
poration is ordinarily construed, but will be construed liberally
under the rule that all contracts with Indians are so construed. Ib.
12. Allotments; tax exemption provision in patent; scope of.
The tax exemption provisions of the patents to Indian allottees under
the Curtis Act attached to the land for the limited period of the
exemption. Ib.
13. Allotments; Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, dis-
tinguished.
Tiger v. Western Investment Co., 221 U. S. 286, distinguished as not
involving property rights but only the right of Congress to extend
the period of disability to alienate the allotments, and as not in-
timating that Congress could by its wardship lessen any rights of
property actually vested in the individual Indian by prior laws
or contracts.
14. Allotments; tax exemption in patents; power of Oklahoma to abrogate.
Oklahoma by its constitution has recognized the tax exemption in the
patents of allottee Indians, and, as a vested right, it cannot be
abrogated by statute. Ib.
15. Alienation of allotted lands; power of Congress to extend conditions.
Congress has power to extend the restrictions upon alienation of al-
lotted lands by allottee Indians, Tiger v. Western Investment Co.,
221 U. S. 286; and so held that the provision for extending the
period of alienation of lands allotted in severalty to full-blood
Cherokees in the act of May 27, 1908, 35 Stat. 312, c. 199, is a
valid exercise by Congress of its power over Indian affairs. Heck-
man v. United States, 413.
16. Alienation of allotted lands; restrictions on; guardianship of United
States.
The placing of restrictions upon the right of alienation was an essential
part of the plan of individual allotment of tribal lands among the
members of the Five Civilized Tribes; and such restrictions
evinced the continuance to this extent of the guardianship of the
United States over the Indians as wards of the Nation. Ib.
17. Alienation of allotted lands; restrictions on; maintenance as suable
interest of United States.
The maintenance of limitations prescribed by Congress as part of its
plan for distribution of Indian lands is distinctly an interest of
the United States, and one which it may sue in its own courts to
enforce. Ib.
18. Conveyances by allottees; suit by United States to set aside; equity
jurisdiction; parties; pleading.
The United States has capacity to maintain a suit to set aside con-
veyances made by allottee Indians of allotted lands within the
statutory period of restriction; and this suit brought against
numerous defendants, all of whom were grantees of allottees of the
same tribe, is properly maintainable in equity; the return of the
consideration to the grantee is not essential; there is no defect of
parties because the allottee Indians making the conveyances are
not joined; there is no misjoinder of causes of action, and the bill
is not multifarious. Heckman v. United States, 413; Goat v.
United States, 458.
19. Conveyances of allotted lands; suits to set aside; grantors as necessary
parties.
The presence of the Indian grantors as parties to suits brought by the
United States to set aside conveyances of allotted lands made in
violation of statutory restrictions on alienation is not essential;
nor are the grantees placed in danger of double litigation by
reason of the absence of the grantors as parties. Heckman v.
United States, 413.
20. Conveyances of allotted lands; suit to set aside; right of United States
to maintain, in case of Choctaws.
The relations of the United States and the Choctaw Indians by treaties
and statutes in regard to the allotment of lands and the restric-
tion of alienation reviewed, and held that where a person, whose
name appeared upon the rolls of the Choctaw Indians, died after
the ratification of the agreement of distribution and before re-
ceiving the allotment, there was no provision for restriction but
the land passed at once to his heirs; in such cases the United
States cannot maintain an action to set aside conveyances made
by the heirs within the period of restriction applicable to home-
stead allotments made to members of the tribe during life. Mul-
len v. United States, 448.
21. Conveyances of allotted lands; suits to set aside; right of United States
to maintain in case of Seminole freedmen.
The relations of the United States to Seminole freedmen by treaties
and statutes reviewed, and held that the United States is entitled
to maintain an action to set aside all conveyances made by
Seminole freedmen of homestead lands, of surplus lands made by
minor allottees, and by adult allottees if made prior to April 21,
1904; but that such an action cannot be maintained as to con-
veyances made by adult allottees after April 21, 1904. Goat v.
United States, 458; Deming Investment Co. v. United States, 471.
22. Conveyances of allotted lands; cancellation; quære as to scope of decree.
Quære, but not presented on this record, whether cases may arise
where, without interfering with the policy of restricting aliena-
tion, the decree should provide in cancelling the transfers for a
return of the consideration and the bringing in as parties of any
person whose presence might be necessary. Heckman v. United
States, 413.
23. Conveyances of allotted lands; cancellation; return of consideration as
essential to.
The effect of an act of Congress passed in pursuance of a policy and a
matter of general knowledge cannot be destroyed so as to assist
those who attempted to profit by violating its provisions; and so
held that when a conveyance is made by an allottee Indian in
violation of statutory restrictions on alienation, the return of the
consideration is not an essential prerequisite to a decree of can-
cellation. Ib.
24. Conveyances of allotted lands; effect of violation of restrictions as to.
A transfer of allottee lands in violation of statutory restrictions is not
simply a violation of the proprietary rights of the Indian but of
the governmental rights of the United States. Ib.
25. Conveyances by; restrictions in case of Seminole freedmen.
The question in this case is: What are the restrictions in case of allot-
ments to Seminole freedmen. Goat v. United States, 458.
26. Enrollment; who entitled.
Children born to enrolled members of the Cherokee tribe after Septem-
ber 1, 1902, and living on March 4, 1906, are entitled to enroll-
ment as members of the tribe and to participation in the allot-
ment and distribution of its lands and funds made under the act
of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat. 725, c. 1375, and subsequent acts relating
to such allotment and distribution. Gritts v. Fisher, 640.
Section 2 of the act of April 26, 1906, as amended June 21, 1906, for
the enrollment of minor children living March 4, 1906, is not to
be construed as excluding those born after September 1, 1902. Ib.
28. Cherokees; relations of United States to; intent of Congress in legisla-
tion.
The relations of the United States to the Cherokee Indians as estab-
lished by treaties and statutes reviewed, and held that in execut-
ing the policy of extinguishing the tribal organizations and title,
and the allotment of the tribal lands in severalty, the intent of
Congress was to fulfill the national obligation, not only by an
equitable apportionment of the property but by safeguarding
through suitable restrictions the individual ownership of the
allottees. Heckman v. United States, 413.
See CONGRESS, POWERS OF, 3, 4, 5;
PLEADING, 1.
INDICTMENT AND INFORMATION.
See CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, 28.
INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT.
See FEDERAL QUESTION, 1-5;
PATENTS, 6-16;
STATUTES, A 1.
See LOCAL LAW (IDAHO, 4); (PORTO RICO, 1);
PATENTS, 13, 14;
RESTRAINT OF TRADE, 12.
INSOLVENCY LAWS.
See UNITED STATES, 1.
INSTRUCTIONS TO JURY.
1. Effect to cure error in respect of allegations in pleading.
Denial by the trial court of a motion to strike from the complaint
|