OCR Text |
Show -I but denied that they were "Indian lands", contending that they were "public lands" of the United;States, upon which it was-lawful for the company to pasture its 3tock. The. court said in part: -p "Whether or not the Government.became trustee for the Indians or acquired an unrestricted title by the cession of their land3, depends in each case upon the terms of the agreement or treaty by which the cession was made." After reviewing the terms of the agreement as embodied in the Act of April 27, 1904 (33 Stat. L. 352), the court continued: "It is obvious that- the relation thus established by the Act between the Government and the tribe of Indians was essentially that of trustee and beneficiary and that the agreement contained many features appropriate. to a trust agreement to sell lands and devote the proceeds to the interests of the cestui que trust. Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373, 394, 393. And that thia was precisely tha light in which the Congress regarded the whole transaction, ia clear from the terms of the concluding section, the eighth:" The court then proceeds to quote Section 8 of the Act. of April 27, 1904 (33 Stat. L. 352), relative to the Act ':• not binding the United,States to purchase the lands or to find purchasers therefor, it being the intention that the United States shall act as trustee for the Indians in the disposition of the lands, etc. It will be observed that the court does base its opinion on section 8, but merely quotes that section.to reinforce the opinion .which appor- .•. already ently it had/reached on the basis of the preeedina- -12--' •7 . |