The Vinita daily chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1902-1913, 1912-02-07
That Negro Case.
Supreme Court Of the United States.
No. 735.-October Term. 1911.
ryA f,t...a,.s N-a4t<., 80 A. rr,ftoJ

mire, Trustet for the Freedmen Of
the Cherokee Nation Appeal from
the Court of Claims. (January 20,
1922.
Mr. Justice McKenna delivered the
opinion Of the Court
This appeal is prosecuted 20 revie'y
supplemental decree OF the Cont
OF Claims enjoining and directing the
Secretary Of the Interior to enroll up.
on the final roll of the citizens OF the
Cherokee Nation for allotment Of
lands the names Of certain persons and
their descendants claiming rights as
Cherokee freedmen, whose names
were found upon the roll called the
Keln-Clifton roll, which the decree
adjudged was directed to be made by
former decree Of the court. The
names of those persons, who are ap-
pelees in this case, after investigation
by the Secretary of the Interior. We're
found by him not entitled to be en-
rolled, and not entitled to participate
In the distribution of tribal property.
The decision in United States ex
rel. Lille Lowe ct al. VS.. Fisher has
simplified the decision in this case. In
deed, the ultimate question in both is
the same, the power of congress over
the allotment of Indian lands and the
manner of ascertaining what persons
shall be entitled to them. There were,
however, contentious made in that
case which are not made here. There
are propositions of law conceded in
this case which were contested in that
Therefore a brief summary of the ele-
ments necessary to a decision is ap-
propriate.
Preceding the merits, however, mo-
tion to dismiss the appeal must be dis
posed Of. The motion is made on the
following crumbs: "a The decree VI
February g., 1896, was a final decree
from which no appeal was prosecuted
to this court; (2) that the decree of
February 30, 1911, hereafter referred
to, was merely in the nature of an ex-
ecution of that of February 3, 1896,
and defined no new rights, but enforc-
ed merely rights established and con-
sented to; and (3l because, although
the decree of February 20, 1911, was
regularly entered on that day, the APP
peal now pending was not allowed or
prosecuted until the 18th of June,
1911, more than ninety days after the
entry of the decree.
The first and second grounds are un-
tenable The decree under review has
broader application than that of Feb
ruary 3, 1896. 1t determined rights to
allotmuts) which had not then been
provided for, and, assuming that 1t de-
clared the principle by which such
rights could be determined, there was,
as we shall presently see, intervening
Legislation by congress. This legisla-
tion gave rise to serious controversy
1t confirmed, It was contended by pc
titioners (appelles herel. and is yet
contended by them, as we shall pres
emily see, the decree of the court both
as to the principle of the decree and
also as to, the means of Identification
of the individuals who would be en-
titled to rights under the principle. BY
the defendants (appellants here) it
was contended that the legislation SUI
perseded the decree and made new
provision for the Identification of per-
sons. The court decided in favor of
the petitioners, and we think the de-
eision is more than the execution of
the decree of February 3. 1896, 1t is
a dcision uponathe effect of subsequent
legislation by congress enacted in the
exercise of its power over Indian af-
fairs, a power which is not questioned.
The third ground urged for the dis
missal of the appeal is also without
merit. The contention is that the de-
cree of the court became final the in
stant it was entered9Febrpary 20, 1911,
and that an appeak@as not taken from
it until June II, 1911, which was not
within the time allowed by section
1856 of the revised statutes There
We're, howey]y. intervening proceed
ings The lerord shows that "on
March 30, 1911 the defendants (appel-
lantsl filed an application for appeal
On May Is, 1911, the defendants filed
motion to withdraw the application
for appeal filed March 80, 1911, which
was allowed by the court May 10,
1911" On May Is, 1911. the defend
ants filed motion for new trial, which
motion was overmled June 5, 1911,
with privilege to the defendants to
renew their application for appeal
heretofore fled The record further
shows that the defendants, from the
decree rendered on the Goth day of