The Mason County journal. [volume] (Shelton, W.T.) 1886-1927, 1895-02-15
Highest of all in Leavenng Powe-Latest U.S. Govt Report
RHa!I! g! RfskiaHs fskassl
ABSOLUTELY PURE
Questions Relating to Indian Lands.

In looking after the disposal of the
Puyallup reservation the commission
ers have encountered several points
difficult of settlement. A statement
of these points was sent to the depart
ment of the interior some time ago
A decision has been received. Tie
points are as follows:
l. What rules are to be applied te
the descent of Indian lands where the
| original allottee or some of the al
lottees named in the patent have died
2. What title have the children O
an allottee born after the issuance O.
patents.
3. What is to be done in regard tC
the members of the family to whom
patent has been issued whose names
were accidentally omitted from the
patent when issued?
4. What disposition shall be made
of the lands of Indians whose names
appear in two different patents.
8. What Jurisdiction. if any, have
the courts of Washin gton over the
Puyallup Indian lands.
In answering the frs question the
department refers to the provision ol
the treaty that the president may
prescribe rules governing the descent
OF lands. This being the case. the
order is made that the laws Of Wash
ington governing the descent OF lands
shall apply to the Indian lands, ex-
cepting that no one who has not been
regularly adopted into the tribe shall
inherit. This means that the "squaw
man." unless adopted. viii not have a
right to his wife's land in case Of her
death.
Children born after the issuance of
the patent are not regarded as tenants
in com non. They merely take what
State law allows to ordinary heirs,
and cannot claim share in the patent
from the government.
There are a number of cases whe re
at the time patents were issued the
names of parties were omitted whose
names should have been included.
Where satisfied from evidence that
anyone has been omitted who is right
fully entitled to be named in the pa
tent, the commissioners are directed
to consider such a person entitled to a
share in the property.
Question four relates to cases whe re
one l,erson holds two patents, under
different names. The commissioners
are directed to notify such parties
that they are limited to one patent,
but have the right of choice from
among the ones now held.
Question five asks I'll ATE the state
courts jurisdiction over the reserva-
ton lands," The question is answer
ed inferentially and quotation given
from a court decision as follows
"In the recent case of Eells VS. Ross,
decided by the United States circuit
court of appeals, it was held that the
alloting and patent Of these lands, did
not have the effect of revoking the
Puyallup reservation, and that under
the provisions of the treaty the con-
troll of the President over said lands
for the purpose of securing perman-
ent homes to the Indians did not end
with the issuance of the patent; that
being true, it follows that the Presi-
dent would have the right to pre-
scribe the rules for the descent of
these lands. They are still wards of
the government, and the secretary of
the interiors; the officer charged with
the duties Of guardianship"
The conclusion of the matter is
that If the President has the control
over these lands the State court has
Jurisdiction over the persons of the
PvyalIups, but not over their lands.
These points have been discussed a
great deal among the Indians and the
whites who have direct dealings with
them. The decisions viii therefore lie
received with interest.-News.
:. .t.+ a., ,Iar ,,,a,. ,,,aat .l,a co,,o