Opinion ID: 427587
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: and III.

Text: 18 Appellants argue that the trial court erred in failing to find and hold that the approval by the United States of the Begay and Mrs. Cecil Navajo conveyances in the exchange relieved the subject Indian allotment lands of restrictions against alienation imposed by statute, or, alternatively that the New Mexico law of adverse possession establishes paramount title to the allotment in appellants. 19 The district court held that the Begay and Mrs. Cecil Navajo allotments were still held in trust by the United States, pursuant to the provisions of the General Allotment Act, 25 U.S.C. Sec. 331, et seq. (1976). We agree. 20 25 U.S.C. Sec. 348 specifically provides that upon allotments selected by the Indians (or the Secretary if an Indian so entitled fails to make a selection) effected under 25 U.S.C. Sec. 332, and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, patents shall issue therefor in the names of the allottees which shall declare [t]hat the United States does and will hold the land thus allotted, for the period of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom such allotment shall have been made ... the President of the United States may in any case in his discretion extend the period. [Emphasis supplied]. Thus, title to Indian lands is held in trust by the United States, United States v. Sutton, 215 U.S. 291, 30 S.Ct. 116, 54 L.Ed. 200 (1909), and restrictions on alienation remain until a patent is issued carrying full and unrestricted title. Monson v. Simonson, 231 U.S. 341, 34 S.Ct. 71, 58 L.Ed. 260 (1913). The purpose of 25 U.S.C. Sec. 348, supra, was to render it impossible for an Indian allottee to sell, convey or in anywise encumber trust lands during the continuance of the trusteeship. We observe that the trust period of 25 years was extended indefinitely by virtue of 25 U.S.C. Sec. 462 enacted in 1934. Under this statutory design, the United States is an indispensable party in any action determining a dispute arising over the possession of allotted land by virtue of its trust relationship and state courts do not have any jurisdiction over such disputes. McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U.S. 458, 27 S.Ct. 346, 51 L.Ed. 566 (1907). Questions of ownership of fee title to an Indian allotment involves the application of federal law. Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, supra. 21 The record is clear that the Begay and Mrs. Cecil Navajo deeds of conveyance in the subject exchanges were forgeries, and that neither consented to the exchanges. Accordingly, because of the absence of consent by the allottees in the cases at bar, title remained in the United States in trust for Begay and Mrs. Cecil Navajo. Acts of Congress authorizing alienation of restricted Indian land must be construed in favor of the congressional policy to promote the welfare of the Indians as wards of the United States. Drummond v. United States, 131 F.2d 568 (10th Cir.1942). 25 U.S.C. Sec. 350 provides: 22 The Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, in his discretion, and whenever for good and sufficient reason he shall consider it to be for the best interest of the Indians, in making allotments under the [statute aforesaid], to permit any Indian to whom a patent has been issued for land on the reservation to which such Indian belongs, under treaty or existing law, to surrender such patent with formal relinquishment by such Indian to the United States of all his or her right, title, and interest in the land conveyed thereby, properly indorsed thereon, and to cancel such surrendered patent: Provided, That the Indian so surrendering the same shall make a selection, in lieu thereof, of other land and receive patent therefor, under the provisions of the act of February eight, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven. 23 This statute and others heretofore referred to can only be construed as to allow the Secretary of the Interior to permit an Indian to surrender his or her patent for cancellation following his or her voluntary consent to selection of in lieu lands. We recognize that Sec. 350 may not have application to land exchanges, as here, between Indian allottees and non-Indians. It does, however, just as does 25 U.S.C. Sec. 464, which applies specifically to exchanges of trust lands, require voluntary exchanges. 25 U.S.C. Sec. 464, in relevant part, provides: 24 [T]he Secretary of the Interior may authorize voluntary exchanges of lands of equal value and the voluntary exchange of shares of equal value whenever such exchange, in his judgment, is expedient and beneficial for or compatible with the proper consolidation of Indian lands and for the benefit of cooperative organizations. 25 25 U.S.C. Sec. 404 also permits the Secretary of the Interior to approve the sale of allotted lands upon the petition of the allottee or the natural guardian in the case of infant allottees. 26 Inasmuch as neither Begay or Mrs. Cecil Navajo consented to the deeds of exchange, as required by law, the title to their allotment lands remained, as the trial court found, in the United States in trust for their use and benefit. 27 In United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19, 67 S.Ct. 1658, 91 L.Ed. 1889 (1947), the State of California claimed that the United States had forfeited ownership of a three-mile marginal belt along the coast by reason of the conduct of government agents which barred the United States from enforcing its rights by reason of the principles of laches, estoppel or adverse possession. The Supreme Court, in rejecting these contentions, held that, even assuming that Government agencies had been negligent in failing to assert [protect] the claims of the Government that [T]he Government, which holds its interest ... in trust for all the people, is not to be deprived of those interests by the ordinary court rules designed particularly for private disputes over individually owned pieces of property; and officers who have no authority at all to dispose of Government property cannot by their conduct cause the Government to lose its valuable rights by their acquiescence, laches, or failure to act. 332 U.S. at p. 40, 67 S.Ct. at 1669. See also United States v. City and County of San Francisco, 310 U.S. 16, 60 S.Ct. 749, 84 L.Ed. 1050 (1940); Jake v. Elkins, supra; McGannon v. Straightledge, 32 Kan. 524, 4 P. 1042 (1884); Annot., 55 ALR 2d 554; 3 Am.Jur.2d, Adverse Possession, Sec. 205. 28 In Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 30 U.S. (5 Pet.) 1, 17, 8 L.Ed. 25 (1831) and Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 675, 32 S.Ct. 565, 569, 56 L.Ed. 941 (1912), the Supreme Court recognized that the United States Government, out of solicitude for the welfare of its Indian wards, undertook by Treaties, statutes and executive orders to establish legal relations to protect the Indian wards described as a weak and defenseless people, who are wards of the nation, and dependent wholly upon its protection and good faith which relationship resembles that of a ward to his guardian. The trust obligations of that relationship were not abided by the United States when it approved the forged deeds of exchange in the cases of Begay and Mrs. Cecil Navajo. The forgeries rendered the deeds null and void. Without the consent of Begay and Mrs. Cecil Navajo to the conveyances, there was no termination of the trust relationship between the United States and these Indian wards. Furthermore, that relationship has never been abrogated by Congress. Nevertheless, appellant Albers contends that the district court imposed an unconstitutional burden of proof upon the defendants by applying the presumption of title inherent in 25 U.S.C. Sec. 194, supra. Specifically, Albers contends that this presumption violates the concept of equal protection of the law by arbitrarily favoring Indians over white persons. [Brief of Appellants, No. 83-1210, p. 35]. The Congress has plenary power over Indian lands and property in the exercise of its guardianship functions and this power has always been deemed a political power not subject to control by the judicial branch of government. Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 414 U.S. 661, 94 S.Ct. 772, 39 L.Ed.2d 73 (1974); Warren Trading Post Co. v. Arizona Tax Commission, 380 U.S. 685, 85 S.Ct. 1242, 14 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965); Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U.S. 553, 23 S.Ct. 216, 47 L.Ed. 299 (1903).