Source: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/253/442.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 13:18:53+00:00

Document:
NADEAU v. UNION PAC. R. CO.
[253 U.S. 442, 443] Mr. A. E. Crane, of Topeka, Kan., for plaintiffs in error.
Messrs. R. W. Blair, of Topeka, Kan., and N. H. Loomis, of Omaha, Neb ., for defendant in error.
The cause were tried by the court below upon pleadings and agreed statement of facts; and a memorandum states the reasons for judgment favorable to the railroad.
Some amendments added by the act of July 3, 1866 (14 Stat. 79) are not specially important here.
It is said that under treaties of 1846 and 1861 with the United States (9 Stat. 853; 12 Stat. 1191) the Pottawatomie Reservation was no part of the 'public lands'; moreover that Congress lacked power to grant rights therein to a railroad company.
In Kindred v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 225 U.S. 582, 596 , 32 S. Sup. Ct. 780, lands in the Delaware Diminished Indian Reservation-east of the Pottawatomies-were declared 'public lands' within the intendment of the right of way clause, act of 1862, although then actually occupied by individual members of the Tribe under assignments executed as provided by treaty. That case renders clear the definite purpose of Congress to treat Indian Reservations, subject to its control, as public lands within the right of way provision. This provision is not to be regarded as bestowing bounty on the railroad; it stands upon a somewhat different footing from private grants, and should receive liberal construction favorable to the purposes in view. United States v. Denver & Rio Grande Railway Co., 150 U.S. 1, 8 , 14 S., 14 Sup. Ct. 11.
Whether Congress had power to make grants in respect of the lands here involved must be determined upon a consideration of their history.
November 14, 1862, the railroad company accepted the act of 1862, and during 1865 and 1866 duly constructed its road through the Pottawatomie Reservation-so far as appears, without protest or objection.
By the treaty of 1846 (article 4) the United States agreed to grant to the Pottawatomie Indians possession and title to a district 30 miles square, on the Kansas river, and to guarantee full and complete possession thereof 'as their land and home forever.' 9 Stat. 854.
Article 5, treaty of 1861, offered certain privileges to the railroad company which were never accepted; the road was not constructed as provided by the treaty, but under the act of Congress.
Subsequent to July 1, 1862, a census was duly taken; commissioners, appointed January 16, 1863, made allotments, and in November, 1863, submitted their report. Te Secretary of the Interior, December 12, 1864, approved allotments for the lands now involved to tribal members having improvements thereon before the treaty of 1861, and who had continued to live there. Patents thereto issued at different dates, the earliest being June 14, 1867, without expressly reserving a right of way for the railroad. Plaintiffs in error claim through mesne conveyances from those who received such allotments and patents.
It seems plain that, at least, until actually allotted in [253 U.S. 442, 446] severalty (1864) the lands were but part of the domain held by the tribe under the ordinary Indian claim-the right of possession and occupancy-with fee in the United States. Beecher v. Wetherby, 95 U.S. 517 , 525. The power of Congress, as guardian for the Indians, to legislate in respect of such lands is settled. Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas Railway Co., 135 U.S. 641, 653 , 10 S. Sup. Ct. 965; United States v. Rowell et al., 243 U.S. 464, 468 , 37 S. Sup. Ct. 425; United States v. Chase, 245 U.S. 89 , 38 Sup. Ct. 24.
Any claim by plaintiffs in error based upon adverse occupancy or possession is precluded by Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Smith, 171 U.S. 260 , 18 Sup. Ct. 794; Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Townsend, 190 U.S. 267 , 23 Sup. Ct. 671; Northern Pacific Railroad Co. v. Ely, 197 U.S. 1 , 25 Sup. Ct. 302; Kindred v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., supra, 597 of 225 U. S., 32 Sup. Ct. 780.
We find no error in the judgment below, and it is affirmed.
Mr. Justice HOLMES, Mr. Justice PITNEY, and Mr. Justice BRANDEIS did not participate in consideration or decision of this case.

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