The Guthrie daily leader. [volume] (Guthrie, Okla.) 1893-1996, 1908-05-29

~ --V9 NLEC4a -. q
and solid muscle. Elegantly sugar
coated.
Take No Substitute.
been paid and the purchaser had gone
into possession and certificate for
the purchase price had been is-'
sued by the proper officer Of
the Seminole Nation. that such pur-
chaser would not have had an equit-
able estate in fee in said lot This
construction is in accord with a uni
form rule laid down by the United
states Supreme court But If il were
"a question of FIRST impression. TO make
any other ruling would be contrary 20
sound reas n For il states that up
on the extinguishment Of the tribal
government these "cnnveyauces shall
issue to owners OF lots as herein uro-
vided for allottees and all lots re-
manning unsold al that time may be
sold iu such manner as may be pre-
scribed by the secretary af the in
terror"
40 admission IS therein contained
that the purchaser Of said lot was the
owheg thereof How did he get to
be the owner2 by purchasing and
pasihg for the same Suppose that
said treaty had also had a provision
In il that such purchaser of such lot
should not ALLEVIATE or cucumber the
same in any way until said convey
ance had been executed by the proper
tribal authorities. aud afterwards that
prohibition as 20 alienation or encum-
brance had been repealed. would any
one have Tie hardiho0d G. contend
that such LIT would not then become
alienable? similar question was
passed by the Supreme Court OF
the United states in the case of Bar
.aay v Dolph Otto. tT S 626. "A L. ed.
1868 Chief Justice Waite. delivering
the opinion for the court, said "The
only question within our Jurisdiction
presented bY this record is. whether
after q husband and wife had perfec-
ted their right TO a patent for lands
in Oregon, under the Donation Act of
September ~ 1850 Stat at Large.
i96, and after the amendment Of 1854,
10 Stat al Large. 306. they could, be
fore receiving the patent. sell and
convey the lands SO as to cut on the
rights of the children or heirs of the
husband or wife. In case OF his or her
death before the patent was actually
issued.
This depends upon the effect to be
given the original act, when constru
ed in connection with the amendment
The original act after providing for q
grant to the husband and wife of ST,
hundred and forty acres of land ono
half TO the husband and enc balf t,
the wife in her own right, declared
/ that In an cases where such married
persons have complied with the pro
visions of this Uhel act so as to en-
title them to the grant as above pro
vided, whether under the late Pro
visiCual Government Of Oregon, ol
since. and either shall have died he
fore patent issues, the survivor am,
children or heirs Of the deceased il
equal proportions, except where tn,
deceased shall otherwise dispose o
/ 10 by testament, daily and properly
eXecpsed according to the laws II ore
gon: and then that an future con
tracts By any person or persons en-
titled TO the benefits of this act for
the sale OF the land to which hs ol
they may be entitled under this ac
before he or they shall have received
their patent therefor. shall be void
The amendment of 1854 repealed thi.
prohibition OF sales
The point to be decided Is not
whether before the amendment sucl
a conveyance could have been made
or whether 1.-THE G. nveyance had no
been made, the children or heirs of q
/ deceased husband or wife would take
Ibl descent or purchase. or whether
The grant from the United States wa.
one which took effect from the tlme
az the passage Of the acs. or sub
lsequent entry and settlement. bus
whether after the amendment, the hus
band and wife held by such ite
that before patent but after their
right 20 one had become absolute
they could SCH and convey SO as Il
/ vest i'm the purchaser either lega
tor equitable estate iu fee simple.
legal 81 the title had already passe,
out Of the United States by virtue 6.
the act of congress, and a full com
lpliance with IFS provisions: equitable
lf the patent was needed TO perfecI
the grant. Tile question Is one o
legislative intent 90 be ascertainea
by examining the language which
congress has used, and applying It e
the subject matter of the legislation
The prohibition of sales. although
contained in section a. applied TO al
persons entitled To the benefit OF IN,
aet. and It's repeal was. under the cir
lcumstances equivalent T. an express.
grant of power 10 sell The prohibi
tlon was of the sale. before patent. o
me land 10 which the settler was en-
TITLED under the act The repeal
therefore operated under the circum
stances The same as a grant OF power
TO sell the land oven though a patent
haa not issued. This. in the absence
lof myihing to the contrary, implied
the power 20 convey an the govern
mcnt had parted with
when the right 10 patent once
becalne vested in a seitler under ths
law. 4 Was equivalent. SO far as ne
ieoyernmem was concerned. 10 a pat
cuf qCfuany iseuod We eo daoi.fea