The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-04-15
FAMOUS CASE.



al terms are used ln a statute they afp
10 receive their technical meaning in-
less HE contrary Dlninly appears 10
have been The intention OF he leeis.
ature the principle. however. doh3
nor amply to The Interpretation OF the
'oreaat np. 3 aich is 10 be INST red.
ateo dhg lo ihe acccpiatiou Of i'0se
who atpaiVa a.. as the snprpr1u 'alln
of conduct both for officials and indi.
viduala and. In conformity with this
view it has been habiiual for tho
supreme judiciary OF the United States
to derive Hight and instruction from
the commentaries from the Trainers 1f
the Federal Constitution
Cooleys Constitutional Limitations
i0i SAYS:
for as the Constitution
does not derive iis force from the COS
yeuiion which framed but from The
people who ratified Il. The intent TO We
|aryed ~ Is thar Of the people and a.
is not 90 be supposed that they have
i1ohet 2 q AIRY dark OF abstruce mean.
ing OF a., wpds employed, but raiter
.fitii ih,'y lisve accepted .h.L'. VA iiie
sense most obvious to the common
understanding aud ratified the instru-
ment In the belief that that was the
sense designed to be conveyed"
IS Hobart Hill " the City of Chi
.eago. 60 IN. So.
To give TO Section the con
struction eontended for would seem
ito defeat the intent Of the agreement
which a. Aoubtedly was to give TO no
citizen of the Creek Nation the ad-
vantage Of another citizen in the equal
distribution of the common propertg,
and Lipne, we repeat that said section
should be construed as the people
adopting = 10 doubt understood It a.
that time. which was that the allot-
ment4 made TO Greek citizens prior
thereto "as to which there Is no con
test and which do not include public
property. and are not herein other
wise affected are confirmed =; that IS.
are TO stand as made and need not be
made over again. and as made arc
TO stand on equal footing with those
10 be made under that agreement and
that "the Commission shall continue
work OF allotment, rs heretofore. con
forming 10 The provisions herein"
Thus e viii be seen that at the
time of her death Castella Brown had
received her allotment and stood
seized I'm fee OF The equitable title
thereto. that nothing remained 10 he
done except the formal execution and
delivery Of the patent to vest in her
the legal title and that Section g,
supra added nothing thereto
The subsequent execution and de-
livery OF tie pateut TO the heirs m
Castclia Brown, dnccased, whici "as
jone Seatemhci - 1904 desc hhine
surplus and homestead. was n mere
ministerial act by which the title To-
the lands described therein Injured .o
and vested in her heirs or their
grantees.
Oliver v. Forbes. IL Kan 1i3
"Where an ancestor holds land by
lentry aud surrey and has done al acts
lnecessais TO entltlr him 10 patent
ihe acquires ad incohate and alienable
lliilc Witch upnn his death descend -
his heirs and whore a patent afier-
wards issues 10 his heirs they take the
completed title by descent and not
lby purchase" 20 Am & Eng Enc
pl Law, 43l, and cases cited
10 put this beyond question as 20
The luhllC lards Of he United States.
To Which the lands In controversy betr
NA hif'fr ana ~ \ 70 tlAN iANht-'A tNtti'N'f'
lof The United states provides,
I Section 2i4S Where patents for
lpubHc lands have been or may be IS
I lsWd. in pursuance OF amy law of tho
I United States 10 a person who had
ldicd OF who hereafter dies before the
date of such patent, the title TO the
/ land designated therein shall inure 20
/ and become vested In the heirs, de-
Nseas or aesiRnees of such deceased
lpatentee as II the patent had issued 10
The deceased person during life.'
So it weald seem that whether the
lpatent issued 10 Castella Brown after
her death or TO her heirs after her
ldeath, the result would have been the
same The absolute fee simple title
Ito the lands in question would in
either event have vested in her heirs
who would take by descent and not
lby purchase Wm. II Clark ys. Abb.e
s. Lord, 20 kan. $40.
This statute. Il was held
was intended 20 cover All cases where
any rights belonging 20 the United
States existed in lands which could be
lrelinquished by patent even though
ihe lands We're not strlchy public
lands and an interest therein was held
by The patentee himself"
20 Am. a Eng, Enc, of Law, 433, and
leases cited.
Bnt 70 put this matter beyond a per-
adventure, the Act OF Congress OF Ap-
lri 26, 1906 known as the second Cur
tis Rnl," provides;
Sec 3. That an patents or deeds
20 allottees in any of the Five Civilized
Tribes 10 be hereafter ISSUED shall is-
sue in The name OF the allottee. and
il any such allottee shall die before
such patent or deed becomes eneciiye
the title io the lands decrbed therein
shall inure 10 and vest in his heirs
and in ease any allottee shall die after
restrictions have been removed his
property shall descend 20 his heirs on
his lawful assigns. as II the patent OF
deed had issued 10 the atlotieo during
his life. and an patents heretofore is
sued where the allotieo died before
;he same became effective. shall he
given like effect, and an patents oI
deeds 90 allottees and other convey
auces affecting lands of any OF said
tribes shall be recorded in the ofic,
0i Commissioner TO the Five Civilize,
Tribes and when So recorded shai