OCR Text |
Show tha question arise* e* %•& wlpttn*- ex sam t i e Ulateh Utee ef Utah would participata Is the ao » « ^ « ea* m of § 101,400 under tha present language of § » ML to tke efftH that the money shall he divided amsng the varlwss aaa4e l a tins maemjrtlmms epeel-fled by tha Act of 180Q, which Aet toi me* m t l e a them, literally interpreted, i t seems © bvleus that they wemla aet fprfleipete there-l a . lewever, we mast consider the tmH that the Matah Utee were ameag the plaintiffs* in the emit ha. « e4 em the ji^ reemeat of 1000 to which they were sot e party; and tfeat their right t e participate la tha fund thereunder baa heea epeoifieally re^ egaisei by Congress In the & et of 1920, cited above, giving them a proportionate share of same on a populatioa basis. Whether or act this legialativa * frecedent* mould he eui f l e i e a t l y strong te overcome the expreea language of the Agra* of 1880 made applleahle to tha division of t& a # 161,400 to ha appropriated under S. S@ l, aeema to he tha preolae question iM this caee. It ia, ef course, wall eettlad that the latest expreeeioa of. the iegielatlve will goverae. 0a this theory i t sight he maid that the segregation Act of 1089 modified that ef 1080 te the extant ef giving tha Ulataa Utee of UtaJt tha right to peHleipeae la the money* At tela peiat, however, the tartmmr emeetioa preaente Itself ee t e whether tha proviaioa in 0. SSI t e the effect that the $ 101,400 t e be appropriated thereunder email he divided ia the prepertlena specified by the Act of 1880, meaae tha uraportiona originally specified ( which do aot meatlea tha Ulataa Utee) or that division ee modified by tha Aet of 1900. which admits • ••• in i i i i i i j i.. im inn mmmm W M M I V « « > I < M i « Mr Whan thla b i l l ia aigaed It w i l l , ia turn, heeeme the latest exnieealoa of the legialative w i l l , and might feaathiy he regarded aa repefliag the act of Ifm oa tale point, thus msMag operative tha orillaal divisioa specified hy the Agreement of 1800, which doea aet mentis** the Ulataa Utea of Utah. This i s a close quaatioa, which may require aa opinion of the Attorney General to determine. iowaver, It le met tplieved of suffleisnt importance te Justify a veto ef tha h i l l ( £ 0il) « Apparently the heat procedure weald he aot te raise thatiaueatteu at thla time, but to racomaaad approval ef the h i l l la the regular way, whan submitted for aa opinion. Than, the Uiatah Utee of Utah aemjd be en « olfle& lly Incladed 1 » the Item making the aapropriatloa, |