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

toAHAtns NAA n hA'AAN WIN fAh AANAtAh
tribe. and as part of the consideration
tor the cession by the tribe of q tract
li country to the United States,
make a reservation 10 a chief or other
member OF the tribe of specified
lumher of sections OF land. whether
already identined. or 60 be surveyed |
and located in the future. the treaty !
tsolf converts the reserved sections
nto Individual property: the. reserva- !
tion. unless accompanied by words |
limiting its effect. is equivalent TO q !
present grant Of complete title in
fee simple and that title is allenable
by the grantee at his pleasure, unless
the United States. by q provision of
the treaty. or an act OF congress, have !
expressly or impliedly prohibited or
restricted its alienation n...........
"The title to the strip of land in
controversy. having been granted by
the United states to the elder Chief
Moose Dung by the treaty itself, and
,aaving descended upon his death, by
the laws. customs, and usages of the
ribe to his eldest son and successor
chief. Moose Dung the younger.
passed by the lease executed by the
latter IN 1891 to the plaintiffs Cor the
term of that lease. and their rights
under that lease could not be divested
)y any subsequent action of the les
sor, or by congress. or of the execu
tive departments The constructions
Of treaties Is the peculiar province of
The Judiciary; and,e Xcept IN cases
purely political congress has no con-
titutional power to settle the rights
under a treaty or to affect titles all
ready granted Dy the treaty
itself f......,.,....." J..
In the case Of Wallace v Adams, 1l3
Fed 72O, the United states circuit
cougt OF appeals for tue eighth cir
cait. in constructing the Choctaw-Chic-
kashw Agreements, containing p-ovi-
sions for ne allotment 10 land in said
nations therein, said. "The commits
sion under the direction Of the sec
rotary. as a special tribunal vested
with the power to hear and deter
mine the claims of all parties to al
lotment in these lands and to execute
its Judgment by the issuance of the
all1tment certificates which consti-
tute conveyance of the right Of the
lands to The parties whom they decide
arc entitled 10 the property .........
lThe allotment certificate, when issu-
"a. like patent to land, is dual in
its edcct 1t is an adjudication of tbs
spocial tribunal empowered TO decide
Tie question that party 10 whom Il
lssucs is cntitled 70 the land and II Us
conyeyanep ofthe right 10 this title
TO the allottec"
This case was affirmed by ;he Su-
preine court of tie United states See
Waliscc v, Adams, 20i U. S., 4i9, 81
J.. ed SAL
In tie case of Quincy v. Denny, IS
Wis. S05. was a case involving the
right fthe allottee 60 sell his allot
mont before patent was issued.
That was an action in ejectment,
and It appears that the land was never
fled or er taken until iSi1, fifteen
/ Years before the date OF the patent,
/ Tie court held that the law or treaty
gave the alottee an equivalent title
in this patent Il said; "Nuw we are
OF the opinion that This act failed 10
give 10 the allotteo an equitable estate
or title in the land allotted TO him,
which could be sold and transferred
/ by decd as that where The patent
subsequently issued We think this
I s.de Of The brief OF the counsel for
tie appellant right Srother " Lucas
/ " Pct. 4l0. Stoddard V. Chambers, 2
| How 2St Grignon v, Astor H. 3l9;
lies Bois v Bramhell, Ill., 459i March
v. Brooks. id. 223; Landes 3, Brant
il0 i'll. SIS: the United states " Brooks
Is id. 442: French " Spencer. n id
22S Berlhold v Mcdonald, p i'd 33i'
Doe v. Wilson, % ID. ass; Crews y
( Burcham Black 352. Challeio1N
Ducharme, Wis 454.'
The Supreme court of the United
States has uniformly held that the
patent issued to the purchaser by the
government is not q new acquisition
oil title II is only a confirmation o.
+ the right which the patentee had be
fore the patent was ISSUED. Cornellu'
Iy Iissell l2S u. s. 456i68 Stod
dard ~ Chambers How (u. 81
2S4 Blssell ". Penrose, s How GU 81
317. Shepley v. Cowan, 915U s. $50
3 940: Dibble v. Bellingham Bay Lane
CO.. 1863 IT, s. 655S; Denenback y
Howke. 1i5 Il. S. 592 % +. ed. 423
sneiss v. Neuberg. 5 Am. st. Rep. 2ll
Faulk " Cooke 20 Am. 81. Rep, $50
Morrison r. Faulkner n S. w. 9S4
RcztHv c. NJ and L. GO. so S. w
a6s Frost " Missionary Society 2
II. W. 203; Jackson " Ramsey lN
p lYl Cowen. 76; Washburn Real PROP
, eriy. Vol 8. Sec 203a, 9Th ed.
+ IN May. 1868. congress passed "a
act providing that IN all cases wher
+ patents for public lands have been o
= may hereafter be issued iu pursuanc
to any law of the United states, il
p person who had died on shall hereaite
e die. before the date of such patent
tic title to the land designated there
7 in, shah nuge 10 aid become yeste
/ In tho hcirs of The deyisoes or assign
I of such 6eceasad as II the patent ha
q been issued 20 the deceased patente
a during life 6 O. S. Stat al Large
a 50
Il In the case OF oliver " Forbes
" Kansas 12I. It was held. that this az
"a applied to the case Of am Indian WI
had received his land under treat
Fl with the United States After citin
a number of cases referring 70 paten