Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/206/467.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 19:33:25+00:00

Document:
US v. PAINE LUMBER CO.
Solicitor General Hoyt and Mr. Henry C. Lewis for plaintiff in error.
Messrs. Charles Barber and J. C. Thompson for defendant in error.
Action by the United States against the Paine Lumber Company for the recovery of the value of a quantity of timber and logs, to wit: 7,500 feet of basswood, 6,500 feet of elm, 51,020 feet of pine logs, alleged to have been cut and removed from certain lands in the eastern district of Wisconsin.
The answer contained denials of the complaint, and set up that defendant company purchased the basswood and elm logs of one Thomas Gardner, and the pine logs of one Daniel [206 U.S. 467, 468] Davids, in the fore part of 1899, the logs being at the time in the county of Shawano in Wisconsin, and being in possession of Gardner and Davids respectively, who claimed and represented themselves to be the sole and absolute owners thereof, and that defendant, in the regular course of its business, sold and disposed of them.
Defendant also pleaded payment of the sum of $271.37 in full satisfaction and accord.
'That the defendant is and was, during all the times mentioned in the complaint, a duly incorporated Wisconsin corporation.
'That long prior to the commencement of this action and long prior to the acts alleged in the complaint the head men or council of the Stockbridge and Munsee Indians, claiming authority so to do under the treaties and arrangements with the United States, allotted to one Thomas Gardner the east half of the northwest quarter of section thirty-five (35), township twenty-eight (28), range fourteen (14) east, of the fourth principal meridian, of the state of Wisconsin, and to one Daniel Davids the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of section twenty-one (21), township twentyeight (28), range fourteen (14) east, of the fourth principal meridian, of the state of Wisconsin, said lands being a part of the tract of land given to the Stockbridge and Munsee Indians by the treaty of 1856, each of said Indians being a member of said tribe of Stockbridge and Munsee Indians and the head of a family, and the said allotments being made to them respectively as their separate and individual allotments, and being the same lands described in the complaint herein.
'That thereupon Thomas Gardner and Daniel Davids entered into immediate possession of their respective allotments and each of them has ever since claimed to hold the same as his allotment, and has constantly asserted his ownership and right to take the timber therefrom without restric- [206 U.S. 467, 469] tions under the said treaty and arrangements with the plaintiff.
'That no patent has ever been issued for either of said parcels of land and that the ownership of the same by said Indians has received no official sanction on the part of the plaintiff aside from the recognition of their respective rights to the occupancy of the parcels so claimed and held by them respectively as aforesaid.
'And that their respective rights to the occupancy of their respective parcels of land allotted to them as aforesaid has been recognized by the United States.
'That the timber and logs involved in this case, to wit, 7,500 feet of basswood, 6,500 of elm, and 51,020 feet of pine, were cut in the winter of 1898-1899, upon said respective parcels of land by the said Thomas Gardner and the said Daniel Davids, respectively, not for the purpose of clearing the land for cultivation, but for the purpose of providing means for the support of their families, and that such cutting by each of them was done in good faith, and each of them claiming and believing that he had the right to so cut for said purpose.
'That after said cutting, and in the summer of 1899, at Weeds Point, in the county of Shawano, Wisconsin, the said logs were bought by the defendant of said Thomas Gardner and Daniel Davids, the same then and there being at said Weeds Point and of of the said reservation, for a valuable and fair consideration.
'That the defendant bought the same in good faith, believing the said Thomas Gardner and the said Daniel Davids were the bona fide and absolute owners thereof, and that they respectively were lawfully entitled to sell the logs cut from their respective allotments.
'That at the time of the cutting of the timber in question the said Thomas Gardner was living upon his said allotment; that shortly thereafter his wife died, and that he has not since lived thereon except at intervals of two or three months at [206 U.S. 467, 470] a time, but for the most part has lived elsewhere with his brother.
'That at the time of the said cutting the said Daniel Davids had no house on his allotment and was only there at times temporarily.
It is contended that Davids is not within the act of 1893, and 'that his title is only such as can be read out of the treaty of 1856 and the act of 1871.' Granting this to be so, it hardly needs to be said that the allotments were intended to be of some use and benefit to the Indians. And it will be observed that on that use there is no restraint whatever. A restraint, however, is deduced from the provision against alienation, the supervision to which, it is asserted, the Indians are subject, and the character of their title. It is contended that the right of the Indians is that of occupation only, and that the measure of power over the timber on their allotments is expressed in United States v. Cook, 19 Wall. 592, 22 L. ed. 211. We do not regard that case as controlling. The ultimate conclusion of the court was determined by the limited right which the Indians had in the lands from which the timber there in controversy was cut.
Certain parties of the Oneida Indians ceded to the United States all the lands set apart to them, except a tract containing 100 acres for each individual, or in all about 65,000 acres, which they reserved to themselves, to be held as other Indian lands are held. Some of the lands were held in severalty by individuals of the tribe with the consent of the tribe, but the timber sued for was cut by a small number of the tribe from a part of the reservation not occupied in severalty. It was held, citing Johnson v. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 574, 5 L. ed. 688, that the right of the Indians in the land from which the logs were taken was that of occupancy only. Necessarily the [206 U.S. 467, 473] timber, when cut, 'became the property of the United States absolutely, discharged of any rights of the Indians therein.' It was hence concluded 'the cutting was waste, and, in accordance with well-settled principles, the owner of the fee may seize the timber cut, arrest it by replevin, or proceed in trover for its conversion.' If such were the title in the case at bar, such would be the conclusions. But such is not the title. We need not, however, exactly define it. It is certainly more than a right of mere occupation. The restraint upon alienation must not be exaggerated. It does not of itself debase the right below a fee simple. Libby v. Clark, 118 U.S. 250 , 30 L. ed. 133, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1045. The title is held by the United States, it is true, but it is held 'in trust for individuals and their heirs to whom the same were allotted.' The considerations, therefore, which determined the decision in United States v. Cook, do not exist. The land is not the land of the United States, and the timber when cut did not become of the property f the United States. And we cannot extend the restraint upon the alienation of the land to a restraint upon the sale of the timber consistently with a proper and beneficial use of the land by the Indians,-a use which can in no way affect any interest of the United States. It was recognized in United States v. Cook that 'in theory, at least,' that land might be 'better and more valuable with the timber off than with it on.' Indeed, it may be said that arable land is of no use until the timber is off, and it was of arable land that the treaty contemplated the allotments would be made. We encounter difficulties culties and baffling inquiries when we concede a cutting for clearing the land for cultivation, and deny it for other purposes. At what time shall we date the preparation for cultivation and make the right to sell the timber depend? Must the axe immediately precede the plow and do no more than keep out of its way? And if that close relation be not always maintained, may the purpose of an allottee be questioned and referred to some advantage other than the cultivation of the land, and his title or that of his vendee to the timber be denied? Nor does the argument [206 U.S. 467, 474] which makes the occupation of the land a test of the title to the timber seem to us more adequate to justify the qualification of the Indians' rights.
It is based upon the necessity of superintending the weakness of the Indians and protecting them from imposition. The argument proves too much. If the provision against alienation of the land be extended to timber cut for purposes other than the cultivation of the land it would extend to timber cut for the purpose of cultivation. What is there in the former purpose to protect from imposition that there is not in the other? Shall we say such evil was contemplated and considered as counterbalanced by benefit? And what was the benefit? The allotments, as we have said, were to be of arable lands useless, may be, certainly improved by being clear of their timber, and yet, it is insisted that this improvement may not be made, though it have the additional inducement of providing means for the support of the Indians and their families. We are unable to assent to this view.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.