East Oregonian : E.O. (Pendleton, OR) 1888-current, 1904-10-18

A decision affecting the heirship to
several thousand acres of lands on
the Umatilla reservation, some of it
very valuable land, has just been rem
dered by the state supreme court,
Judge Moore rendering the decision,
all the court concurring.
The decision referred to was in the
case of Agnes Kalyton, by Louise Ka-
lyton, her guardian ad Item, appel
liant represented by T. G. HALEY, VS..
Mary Kalyton ct al, respondent, rep
resented by II. j. eBan. The case
reached a decision last December by
the state supreme court on an appeal
from Umatilla county. Then a petit
ton for a rehearing was filed by the
appellant, which petition raised the
question of jurisdiction, which was
not raised in the original case. In the
opinion handed down yesterday the
supreme court denied the petition for
rehearing, and I'm full discussion
of the jurisdictional question reaf-
firms its former decision. After dis
cussion of the act of congress under
which the land upon which the Uma-
crafty, and declaring In substance
that the land is distributed to the al
lottees and their heirs in case of death
as donees of the government, the
court says:
The law of descent of the estate
being applicable on the death of an
Indian allottee, after the primary
patent or certificate is issued, has a
state court jurisdiction of the subject
matter, and is its decree, determining
the heirs in such cases valid?
$50 long as the United States holds
the lands I'm trust for Indian allottees,
the title thereto remains in the gener-
al government, and the question as to
whether or not a final patent there
for shall issue is to be determined by
the secretary of the interior, thereby
depriving state courts of all jurisdic-
tion of the subject matter. If this
were a suit to enforce the trust re-
served, the United States would be an
indispensable party, and as this can
not be done by state court, the de-
cree rendered herein would be void.
1.-THE determination by state court
of the heirs of a deceased Indian al
lottee is not, i'm our opinion an execu-
tion of the trust. The finding of such
fact is not an interference with the
primary disposal of the soil, but Is in
aid of the general government in pro-
tecting the rights of its trust.
"Thus 1t was held that where a per-
son had taken the initiatory steps to
secure the title to public land, and re-
ceived from the proper officers the
necessary evidence thereof, he was
entitled to the possession of the
premises selected, and for any inter-
ference Herewith by another without
legal title or equal equitable claim. a
state court, upon application of the
entrymen would put him I'm possession
of his rights.
'The rule is settled In this state
that a person entitled to the possess
sion. of land the title to which is in
the United States, will be protected in
his right by our courts, when his pos
session has been unlawfully disturbed
by another"
The principle at issue is the old
question of jurisdiction of the federal
and state courts, which has been often
raised, and in many different phases,
although the underlying contention
has ever been the same. Other
cases, notably that of Parr VS.. Dam
ain, are pending involving the same
issue. The doctrine of concurrent or
Joint Jurisdiction by the federal and
state courts is by this decision sus-
tanned, although the word concur
rent" is not used in the language of
the decision. The decision says sim
ply that the state also has Jurisdiction
while no one has ever questioned that
the general government had jurisdic-