The Washington times. (Washington [D.C.]) 1901-1902, 1901-08-28
THE INDIAN LAND CASES.
Justice Barnard Denies the Plea
of the Petitioners.
The Matters Mt Issue Within the
JurisdictiOn of the Secretary of
the InteriOr-White MeS Adopted
by Indians Not DenatIOnalized.

Justice Ra.nard yesterday denied the
petition of Willis C. West and ten other
white persons. residents of Oklahoma
Territory. asking that writ of man
damus should be issued against the Sec
rotary of the Interior to compel him to
approve of the selection of certain quar-
ter sections of land made by the claim
ants. Argument was heard on the ques-
ton on Thursday last, and when the de-
cision was announced counsel for the pc
TONERS gave notice that an appeal Will
be taken from the Judgment of the court
The two important questions at issue
in connection with theSsettlement of the
claims of the petitioners were: First
Whether the matter was not one within
the discretion of the Secretary of the In
terror and whether white man became
denationalzed whenever he was adopted
into an Indian tribe. The court held that
in the present instance the question was
one wholly within the discretion of the
Secretary of the Interior, and again that
white man does not become denationel-
lied by adoption by an Indian tribe.
The question OF tn. title to the lands in
dispute came up for consideration on
August ; last, when Percy Zadoka, Nan
ME Zadoka Emmett Cox Willis C. West,
w
Lyon K Bingham, Thad Smith, Robert
Curtis, robert l. Williams. Ethel VIII
liams, Charles Williams and his wife.
Lillian Williams. and Jack McLain, filed
petition asking the court to issue writ
of mandamus against the Secretary of
the Interior to compel him to approve
the selections of land they had made.
The male petitioners are white men who
intermarried with Indian women. and
these Joined in the petition to the court.
When the matter was presented to the
court the petitioners also asked that tins
Secretary of the Interior be enjoined from
throwing open for settlement the lands in
dispute.
The court declined to issue an injunc-
ton, but issued order requiring the
Secretary to show cause why he should
not be compelled to approve of the
Icctions of lands made by the petitioners.
In his answer to the rule. made by Dis
trict Attorney Gould, the Secretary of the
Interior contended that his action In the
matter was purely discretionary. The
court in passing upon the matter sus-
tanned this view of the case.
When the matter came up for hearing
last week the claim of Willis C. West
was made a test case, and it was this
that the ruling was made yesterday by the
court, Diminishing the rule issued against
the Secretary of the Interior. The petit
TONERS We're represented by Messrs.
Clayton E. Emig, William H. Robson,
w. C. Shelley, and w. s. Field
In disposing of the matter Justice Bar
nard said. in part: III the court should
say TO the Secretary by its writ. You
must approve this allotment such ap-
proval. II made, would not be the ap-
prevail Of the Secretary, but OF this court
only. The respondent in that case would
have no supervision over the matter, as
he is required to have by the law, and
his judgment would be wholly set aside.
IF Congress, however, had passed the
act of March 2, 1895, and had imposed the
duty of the approval OF the allotment on
this court, instead OF on the Secretary,
and the facts shown by the petition were
presented to me for my official action OF
approval, | should hesitate to entertain
the petition. for the reason that the Pc
titioner is not an Indian, and 1t is doubt
full at least whether Congress Intended to
benefit any other persons by the lesisla-
ton.
THE act is one pertaining to Indians.
and an Indian has weli-defined meaning
in our language and law; and where
questions arise between the Government
and white citizen the fact OF his adop-
ton into a tribe with tribal rights does
not take away his citizenship and make
him an Indian and a ward OF the nation.
The Government deals with him as a
citizen, and as to the Government be has
all the rights and duties Of a citizen.
The tribe of Indians adopting or admit
ting such citizen to ownership in COM
mon with them OF tribal possessions
would no doubt be estopped by their
acts: the status OF such white men in
their courts and as relating to one OF
their own number might be that of an |
Indian because OF his agreement to be |
one of them, but such contract would not |
be binding on the United States. The |
words native and adopted In the |
statute, taken as a whole. may be con- |
strued / think. to refer only to Indians.
The petitioners. 1t is said. have all been |
residents OF Oklahoma Territory for long
periods Of years All OF them. 1t Is also