Opinion ID: 1565977
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The Tlingits' Right of Occupancy is Heritable and Otherwise Transmissible.

Text: It will be remembered that the appellants' affirmative defense and claim alleges that they and their predecessors    in lineal consanguinity    during all the times herein mentioned, have been, and now are    in the exclusive possession of    the land. etc. For the purposes of the appellee's demurrer, this allegation is to be taken as true. This court has repeatedly held that the right of occupancy and possession enjoyed by the Tlingit Indians who were on the lands in question when the act of 1884 was passed, was capable of being transmitted to their successors in interest. In Arness v. Petersburg Packing Co., 9 Cir., 260 F. 710, 712, the following language was used: By the Act of May 17, 1884, c. 53, § 8, 23 Stat. 26, Congress enacted that persons in Alaska `shall not be disturbed in the possession of any lands actually in their use or occupation or now claimed by them.' That statute conferred upon persons in possession more than a mere pedis possessio. It conferred the right to convey the possessory right to another. [Cases cited] Again, in Worthen Lumber Mills v. Alaska Juneau Gold Mining Co., 9 Cir., 229 F. 966, 969, this Court said: We do not think that it was the purpose of this act [of 1884] merely to protect the possession of the Indians of lands which they then occupied in Alaska, and to deny them the power to convey to others their right of occupation. It was an act, not only for the benefit of the Indians, but also for the white settlers. It was enacted with a view to conditions which then existed in Alaska. Since the time of its acquisition, settlers and miners had been entering the territory. They had located mining claims and town sites, and had transferred lands in tracts and in lots and blocks. They had erected buildings for mercantile purposes and dwelling purposes. The mining claims and lands so occupied by Indians and settlers were held under a claim of possession only, and such possessory rights had been freely conveyed and transferred. Those possessory rights as they then existed were recognized and protected by the act. The act made no distinction between the rights of the white settlers and the rights of the Indians, and it is not to be presumed that Congress intended thereby to deprive either of the power to exercise rights which they had theretofore possessed. One of the reasons why this court affirmed the decree of the trial judge in Whelpley v. Grosvold, 9 Cir., 249 F. 812, 815, was because it did not appear that the appellant or any of his predecessors in interest was in possession of the island or claimed it in the year 1884. [Emphasis supplied.] See also two cases, already referred to, decided by the District Court of Alaska  Haltern v. Emmons, 46 F. 452 at page 456, and Carroll v. Price, 81 F. 137 at page 140.