The weekly chieftain. [volume] (Vinita, Craig County, Okla.) 1905-1913, 1912-02-09

prosecuted until the lltn 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
allotments which had not then been
provided for and. assuming that it 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 here), 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 su-
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
dcision upon the effect of subsequent
Legislation by congress enacted in the
exercise of its power over Indian af-
fairs, 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 entered, February 20, 1911,
and that an appeal was not taken from
| it until June II, 1911, which was not
within the time allowed by section
l10S6 of the revised statutes. There
were, however, intervening proceed
lings The record shows that "on
March 80, 1911, the defendants (appel-
Ilants) filed an application for appeal.
lon May Is, 1911, the defendants filed
a motion to withdraw the application
flor appeal filed March 80, 1911, which
Twas allowed by the court May 10
I1911.." On May Is, 1911, the defend
Iants filed a motion for new trial, which
lmotion was overruled June 5, 1911
with privilege to the defendants tc
lrenew their application for appeal
heretofore filed" The record further
lshows that the defendants, from the
decree rendered on the Goth day Of
February, 1911, in favor of claimants
make application for, and give notice
lof. an appeal to the supreme court Of
1.-THE United States" The application
was allowed as prayed.
This court has decided that If {
motion for new trial or petition for re
Ehearing is made in season and enter
Itained by the court, the time for tax
ling an appeal or writ of error doe
not begin to run until the motion O
petition is disposed Of Kingman VS.
Western Manufacturing Co.. ITO o. S
I675. 1t is, however, urged that tht
lcourt lost jurisdiction of the case BY
application for appeal filed March 80
I1911. United States VS.. Adams, 6 Wal
I101, is cited to support this contention
In that case the paper filed was as
Follows 1.-The United States, by u
lP. Norton, it's solicitor, makes appli
Ication to the honorable court of claim!
flor an appeal of the case of Theodore
adams VS.. The United States to tht
lSupreme Court of the United States.
This application was filed within the
NINETY days allowed by the statute
THE order allowing 1t, however, was
mot made until after the expiration o
1.-THE ninety days. 1t was contendeC
THAT both application and allowance
J Ishould have been made within tha
thine. but this court held otherwise
: Isaying that the filing of this papel
was taking the appeal, and that tht
tutidy III iit ouOoCduSlN plONNNNA4As5 "
render it etfectual does not touch 1T
validity
1t was net. however. decided tha
the Court of Claims lost control of th'
case. It was only decided that th'
lparty had secured a right under tht
statute The rules of the Court 0
Claims, made under regulations pre-
scribed by this court, provided fo
further action to perfect the right ac
: Iquired by the party which was mad'
necessary by certain statutes undel
which only questions Of law could bC
brought here for review. And the ac
tion was more than formal 1t con
Isisted in the finding of the ultimate
facts in the nature Of special yerdic
iand the questions of law therefrom t
Ibe certified to this court.
The practice in the Court OF Claims
is adverse to appellees contention. The