Case ID: us-ct-cl_42/html/0531-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Mr. Justice Peckham", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

WATSON STEWART v. THE UNITED STATES AND THE OSAGE NATION OF INDIANS.
    [39 C. Cls. R., 321; 206 U. S. R., 185.]
    
      On the claimant's Appeal.
    
    The Act 3d March, 1903 (32 Stat. L., pt. 1, p. 1010), confers jurisdiction on the court eases of registers and receivers in land offices who had the responsibility of the sales of the Osage lands under the treaty 29th September, 1865. It appears - that the claimant was appointed register in May, 1809, after the Secretary of the Interior had established rules and regulations for the sale of the Osage lands and had limited the compensation to the existing maximum of $2,500 per annum. I-Ie seeks to recover an unrestricted commission.
    The court below decides:
    1. The Treaty 29th September, 1S65 (Indian Treaties, 585), between the Osage Indians and the United States constitutes an agreement whereby the United States were bound to so sell the lands of the Osages that they should produce for the beneficiaries as large a net sum as was practicable.
    2. The treaty required the lauds to be sold under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior as public lands are sold under existing laws, and the Secretary had authority to prescribe rules and regulations regulating sales and the compensation of officers assigned to the duty of making sales.
    3. A regulation authorizing the registers and receivers to charge a commission on these lands as on all others, but limiting the compensation for all services to the legal maximum of $2,500 per annum, and charging the Indian fund with only so much of the commissions as would bring the compensation to the maximum, was authorized by law.
    4. A register appointed subsequent to the rules and regulations and assigned to the duty of disposing of Indian and other lands was' bound by the terms of the regulations, and can seek nothing beyond the prescribed legal maximum. The case distinguished from that of Brindle (100 U. S., G88).
    The decision of the court below dismissing'the petition is affirmed upon the same grounds.
    May 13, 1907.
   Mr. Justice Peckham

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court