The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-07-28
RIGHTS or THE STATE.

Important Decision Rseenuy Rendered
by tho secretary OF the Interior.
Some time ago she commissioner OF To-
dian afairs decided that settlers could not
build bridges on Indian land. sEoep, by
agreement with tho lndiane. The decision
was rendered 10 the case OF W. II. Norton
and Others living at Columbus. who desired
10 build bridge scross the Ys lowstone
upon land allotted TO Grow Indian. An
appeal was taken 10 the secretary Of the
int Tor aud that official has iendered a de-
cision reversing the com missioner of Indian
affairs and holding shat the stats OF Mon
taua has the right TO condemn. under proper
procedu Q, for public purposes. lands en-
bracod Ia the Indian allotments in this
state. The opinion concludes us follows;
"The error into which the honorable sec
rets'y seems 10 have fallen appears 10 be In
his failure TO properly discriminate between
the right of public domain and tho right Of
eminent domsin. by the act admitting
Montana into the union. the interest die
claimed by the state 10 the ''rignt and
title" to certain Ian ds within the boundaries
thereof This was q disclaimer OF the
right of public domain. and ths right OF
eminent domain being o distinct. sspA' ate
thereby.
Until The patents have been delivered to
the Indians for the lands embraced IN their
allotments, such lands are part of tbs pub
lie domain OF the Uuited States. but the
right of eminent domain, so far as u be :
com, necessary 10 use ID in the exer5is, OF
state severe Rnty, passsd 10 the state
when IL was aumltted Into the union. As
folly and completely, with reference "a
these lands, ss any others within It's boun-
dartes, the atnts having same right OF ennis
nent domain In lands belonging 10 ihs
public domain, as In land hall in fee Eirn-
lie by its own citizens. The right Of tax
ing property for public use 10 exercised by
state, subject 10 no power vested IN the
federal government. The proprietary
right OF the United States can in no respect
restrain or modify the exercise OF this SOW.
ereign power by u state.
"Waiyiug the question of the right OF
the general government TO i'm oose q condi-
tion ulon q state, that would operate as u
limitation upon It's sovereignty, | c0nclude
that no auch limitation was ever INTENDED.
IL is clear that by the aforesaid treaty
stipulation, congress simply intended "a
afford the Indians adequate protection
aganst the rapacious commercial instincts
of unprinciplel men, and the possible ex-
eroiss Of the power of the courts 10 fur
ther the designs Of such men. to secure
possession OF these lands withou. Just
compensation. and TO prevent the passing <
over, settling upon. and residing in the
territory, in thef furthefsnce OF y iyate
enterprise. This was done 10 the interest
of this Indian, and for the y emotion OF
bis welfare, and certainly not for the pur-
POSE Of preventing a etAto from opening M
hiQhvays in the interest both OF the Indian
aud her own eitlzsnship.
In conclusion. IL follows that the stat'
OF Montana hAs abe right TO condemn. uu-
der proper procedure. for public porpoise
lands emb scel In the Indian RlIotmeuts in
"a IA atata ~