Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/92091/woodward-vs-de-graffenried
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 09:06:47
Document Index: 246451315

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 11', '§ 26', 'Art. 6', 'Art. 3', '§ 11', '§ 16', '§ 15', '§ 11', '§ 28', '§ 7', '§ 7', '§ 28', '§ 28', '§ 6']

Woodward Vs De Graffenried - Citation 92091 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Woodward Vs. De Graffenried - Court Judgment
LegalCrystal Citation legalcrystal.com/92091
Case Number 238 U.S. 284
Respondent De Graffenried
woodward v. de graffenried - 238 u.s. 284 (1915) u.s. supreme court woodward v. de graffenried, 238 u.s. 284 (1915) woodward v. de graffenried no. 164 submitted february 25, 1915 decided june 14, 1915 238 u.s. 284 error to the supreme court of the state of oklahoma syllabus in an action to determine by what law the beneficiaries of a creek allotment are to be determined where the allotment was selected by a creek citizen and made by the dawes commission under § 11 of the curtis act of june 28, 1898, followed first by the death of the allottee after receiving the allotment and prior to the original creek agreement and then by action of the commission, after ratification of that agreement, awarding the land to the.....
Woodward v. De Graffenried - 238 U.S. 284 (1915)
U.S. Supreme Court Woodward v. De Graffenried, 238 U.S. 284 (1915)
The restriction upon alienation contained in the Original Creek Agreement did not apply to allotments made on behalf of deceased members of the tribe. Skelton v. Dill, 233 U. S. 206 .
It is not open to question that, at the death of Agnes Hawes (June 29, 1900) the Arkansas law of descent was in force in the Creek Nation. This Court, in a recent decision, pointed out the successive acts of legislation; culminating in §§ 26 and 28 of the Curtis Act itself, by which Congress had displaced the tribal laws of descent and distribution, and substituted the Arkansas law as expressed in Chapter 49 of Mansfield's Digest. Washington v. Miller, 235 U. S. 422 , 235 U. S. 424 . But, as shown in that case (p. 235 U. S. 425 ), the Original Creek Agreement contained provisions which reinstated the Creek laws of descent and distribution for certain purposes affecting the allotments in that Nation. Whether they apply to the present case is a subordinate question, to be discussed in its order.
The history of the removal of the Muskogee or Creek Nation from their original homes to lands purchased and set apart for them by the government of the United States in the territory west of the Mississippi River does not differ greatly from that of the others of the Five Civilized Tribes rehearsed in recent decisions of this Court. Mullen v. United States, 224 U. S. 448 ; Goat v. United States, 224 U. S. 458 , 224 U. S. 461 . Pursuant to treaty provisions (Treaty of 1826, Art. 6, 7 Stat. 286; Treaty of 1832, Arts. 12 and 14, 7 Stat. 366; Treaty of 1833, Art. 3, 7 Stat. 417), the Creeks held their lands under letters patent issued by the President of the United States, dated August 11, 1852, vesting title in them as a tribe, to continue so long as they should exist as a nation and continue to occupy the country thereby assigned to them. McKellop's Comp. 1893, p. 9. These treaties and the
beginning in discouragement, but finally crowned with success. So far as these reports antedate the legislation that is under inquiry, they may, of course, be resorted to as aids to interpretation, for the Commission was in a very real sense "the eyes and the ears" of Congress in matters pertaining to affairs in the Indian Territory, and legislation was framed with a special regard to its recommendations. ( See Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457 , 143 U. S. 465 ; Binns v. United States, 194 U. S. 486 , 194 U. S. 495 .) We append in the margin a reference list of these reports.{1}
Tribes or to overthrow the tribal governments without the consent of the Indians. Some of the doubts were afterwards resolved by the decisions rendered by this Court in Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445 , 174 U. S. 489 -491, and Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294 , 187 U. S. 307 . From what has been said and quoted, however, it very clearly appears that the purpose of Congress in the allotment provisions of § 11, and in those quoted from §§ 16, 17, and 23, which should be read in the same connection, was not to interfere at all with the tribal title to the allotted land unless with the consent of the tribe, manifested either by approval of the Agreement for that purpose submitted, or by tribal action under § 15 of the Act of 1893; that the Curtis Act had for its object the administration of the trusts imposed upon the several tribes by the early treaties, and which the tribes had failed to enforce -- namely, that the beneficial use of the tribal domain should be enjoyed equally by all the members of the tribe, and that monopolization of it in any form or by any means should be prevented. Section 15, providing for the sale of town lots, improved or unimproved, went somewhat further, and permitted the purchaser to deposit the purchase price in the United States Treasury by way of tender to the tribe. A clause was included -- permissive, but probably not obligatory upon the tribe -- that
Goat v. United States, 224 U. S. 458 , 224 U. S. 469 , is not in conflict with the view above expressed. That case dealt with the right of Seminole freedmen to convey the lands allotted to them in severalty pursuant to the agreement confirmed by the Act of July 1, 1898 (c. 542, 30 Stat. 567), and turned upon the question whether the restriction upon alienation imposed by that agreement had been violated. It was argued that the interest of the allottee was not of such a character as to be susceptible of transfer;
These selections were treated as "preliminary," and the allotments as "temporary." The difficulties to be overcome before complete and final allotment were great and unprecedented. (7th Report, p. 12.) For instance, the Creek citizenship rolls had not been completed at the time of the making of the Agnes Hawes allotment, nor were they, indeed, until some time in the year 1902. It is also to be noted that § 11 of the Curtis Act does not authorize allotments of 160 acres or any other specified area, but contemplates a valuation of the allottable lands so as to give to each citizen his fair and equal share in value. Evidently, the Secretary of the Interior and the Dawes Commission realized that to postpone the beginning of allotments until the roll of citizenship of any tribe should be "fully completed as provided by law," there being disputes without number respecting questions of citizenship, and a mass of litigation arising out of them, as witness Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445 , 174 U. S. 467 , which involved 166 appeals from the United States courts in the Indian Territory to this Court, taken under the Act of July 1, 1898, c. 545, 30 Stat. 571, 591, would have postponed indefinitely the inauguration of the allotment policy in the Indian Territory. The same result would have followed if allotment had been required to await a valuation, lot by lot, of all the allottable lands. But the immediate inauguration of the policy of allotment was urgently called for not only to break up the system of land monopolies, productive of so much injustice to the individual Indians, but also to educate the Indians in the benefits to be derived from separate occupancy and enjoyment of the land, and thereby to gain popular support for the agreements that
But it is argued by plaintiffs in error that there is no provision of the Agreement that can be construed to apply the Creek law of descent to Curtis Act allotments; that § 28 provides for an allotment to the heirs according to Creek law in two cases only: (a) where a citizen living on April 1, 1899, died prior to the ratification of the agreement " before receiving his allotment of lands and distributive share," etc., and (b) where the citizen living April 1, 1899, died after the ratification of the agreement "before receiving his allotment," etc. It is insisted that Agnes Hawes did not fall within either of these classes, since she died before the ratification of the agreement, but after receiving her allotment. It is also insisted that § 7 put in force the Creek law of descent only with respect to the homestead 40 acres, and since the Curtis Act had no provision for homesteads, the allotment, when made, was not impressed with homestead characteristics, and no part of the land allotted to heirs was impressed with such characteristics by the Agreement. The result of this argument, if sound, would be that all Curtis Act allotments (over 10,000 in number, and covering more than 1,600,000 acres; 8th report, p. 32), and all allotments made after the ratification of the Original Agreement except homestead allotments under § 7 and a limited class of allotments under § 28, would descend according to the Arkansas laws of descent, while the exceptional allotments, comparatively of little importance, would descend according to the Creek laws.
Even if this construction accorded with the strict letter of the Agreement, it savors too much of refinement to be accepted as an exposition of the true intent and meaning of an engagement made between the government of the United States and an Indian tribe. Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1 , 175 U. S. 10 ; Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665 , 224 U. S. 675 . The adoption of the Creek laws of descent was a concession to the Indians, who were, of course, more familiar with their
all the funds of the tribe." Thus, we have the precise situation contemplated by § 28, which in that case confers the lands and money to which she would have been entitled, if living, upon her heirs according to Creek law. This accords with the view adopted by the Oklahoma Supreme Court in Barnett v. Way, 29 Okl. 780, 785. And see Washington v. Miller, 235 U. S. 422 , 235 U. S. 425 .
adoption of the Act of May 27, 1902, c. 888, effective July 1, 1902 (32 Stat. 258; Joint Res. No. 24, 32 Stat. 742), or the Supplemental Creek Agreement (Act of June 30, 1902, c. 1323, § 6, 32 Stat. 501; effective August 8, 1902, 32 Stat. 2021), which substituted the Arkansas laws. See Ballinger v. United States, 216 U. S. 240 , 216 U. S. 249 . Sizemore v. Brady, 235 U. S. 441 , 235 U. S. 448 , is distinguishable, because there the allotment in question was not selected or made until after the Supplemental Agreement went into effect.
It is undisputed that, according to Creek law, the husband was entitled to take a half interest in his wife's property if she died without will, at least in case there were no children. And it is now settled that an intermarried noncitizen husband could inherit under the tribal laws the same as if he were a citizen. Reynolds v. Fewell, 236 U. S. 58 , 236 U. S. 63 ; Shellenbarger v. Fewell, 236 U. S. 68 .
The restrictions upon alienation contained in the Original Agreement did not apply to allotments made on behalf of deceased members of the tribe. Skelton v. Dill, 235 U. S. 206 , 235 U. S. 210 . Indeed, all restrictions upon alienation as to allottees not of Indian blood (except minors and except as to homesteads) were removed by the Act of April 21, 1904 (c. 1402, 33 Stat. 189, 204).
" It appears that the title to lands in the Indian Territory has been conveyed by patent to the tribes, and cannot be taker from them without their consent. There are about 20,000,000 acres of land thus owned. It is rich in mineral deposits, and contains a large area of splendid farming and grazing land. . . ."
" For the last few years, the Dawes Commission has been endeavoring to secure agreements with the various tribes, but so far there has been little accomplished. Agreements were made with the commissioners of the several tribes -- all, in fact except the Cherokees -- but the Creek agreement was rejected by the tribe when the vote was taken upon it. . . . In view of the fact that it is now impossible to secure agreements with the tribes, and the fact that the title is in the tribe, your committee has provided for the allotment of the exclusive use and occupancy of the surface of the lands of each of the nations; but all valuable oil, coal, asphalt, mineral deposits, and town sites are reserved from allotments. "
" Your committee found that while, under treaty provisions, the lands of each tribe were to be held for the use and benefit of each of its members, yet the truth is that the lands are in the possession of a very few, and while some of the more powerful members have in their possession and under their control thousands of acres, the poorer class of Indians are unable to secure enough lands for houses and farms, and your committee has provided in this bill for a division of the use of the surface of the lands, so that each and every member of the tribes will be placed in possession of his share of the common lands. We believe this to have been the intent of all parties when the treaty was made. "
"SEC. 11. That when the roll of citizenship of any one of said nations or tribes is fully completed as provided by law, and the survey of the lands of said nation or tribe is also completed, the commission heretofore appointed under acts of Congress, and known as the 'Dawes Commission,' shall proceed to allot the exclusive use and occupancy of the surface of all the lands of said nation or tribe susceptible of allotment among the citizens thereof, as shown by said roll, giving to each, so far as possible, his fair and equal share thereof, considering the nature and fertility of the soil, location and value of same; but all oil, coal, asphalt, and mineral deposits in the lands of any tribe are reserved to such tribe, and no allotment of such lands shall carry the title to such oil, coal, asphalt, or mineral deposits. . . . When such allotment of the lands of any tribe has been by them completed, said Commission shall make full report thereof to the Secretary of the Interior for his approval; . . . provided further, that, whenever it shall appear that any member of a tribe is in possession of lands, his allotment may be made out of the lands in his possession, including his home, if the holder so desires. . . . Provided further, that the lands allotted shall be nontransferable until after full title is acquired, and shall be liable for no obligations contracted prior thereto by the allottee, and shall be nontaxable while so held. "
"SEC. 12. That when report of allotments of lands of any tribe shall be made to the Secretary of the Interior, as hereinbefore provided, he shall make a record thereof, and when he shall confirm such allotments, the allottees shall remain in peaceable and undisturbed possession thereof, subject to the provisions of this Act. "
"SEC. 23. That all leases of agricultural or grazing land belonging to any tribe made after the first day of January, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, by the tribe or any member thereof shall be absolutely void, and all such grazing leases made prior to said date shall terminate on the first day of April, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and all such agricultural leases shall terminate on January first, nineteen hundred, but this shall not prevent individuals from leasing their allotments when made to them as provided in this Act, nor from occupying or renting their proportionate shares of the tribal lands until the allotments herein provided for are made. "
" It is the intention of this law [the Curtis law] to require every member of any tribe holding in his possession lands in excess of his 'just and reasonable share of the lands of his nation or tribe, and that to which his wife and minor children are entitled,' to relinquish possession thereof in order that other members of the tribe may enter thereon and make homes preparatory to the allotment so contemplated. . . ."