OCR Text |
Show COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. . 47 Because of losses through opening of the Mille Lac Reservation in Minnesota to settlement under the general ldnd laws, the Court of Claims on May 29,1911, handed down judgment against the United States in favor of the Mille Lac and other Chippewa Indians for a little more than $764,000. Under the act of January 14, 1889 (25 Stat. L., 842), which extends to all Chippewa Indians in Minnesota the right to participate in the proceeds from the sale of Chippewa lands, this judgment is to be distributed among all Chippewa Indians in Minnesota. In 18422 the confederated tribe of Sac and Fox ceded their lands in Iowa to the United States and removed to Kansas, but a band, in number not more than one-ninth of the tribe, returned to Iowa, where they have since resided by permission of the State. The maid part of the tribe in turn ceded their lands in Kansas and were re-moved to land now in the State of Oklahoma. Upon a claim of the Iowa band against those Indians now in Oklahoma and against the United States for shares in certain appropriations of Congress and in the proceeds of lands, the Supreme Court decided adversely on April 24, igii. In Hallowell v. The United States, the Supreme Court of the United States, on May 15, 1911, held that the United States has the right to regulate or prohibit the introduction of intoxicating liquors upon an allotment in Nebraska during the trust period, even though the Indian owner became a citizen by the issuance of the trust patent and is subject to the laws of Nebraska. The court said the mere fact that citizenship had been conferred upon Indians did not necessarily end the right or duty of the United States to pass laws in their inter-est as a dependent people. In the case of Tiger v. Western Improvement Co., decided May 11, 1911, by the Supreme Court of the United States, it was held that, although a full-blood member of the lGve Civilized Tribes was a citizen of the United States, so long as the Government held his land in trust the Congress had plenary power to pass additional legislation regulating the alienation of his land, aa in the act of April 26,1906 (34 stgt. L., IN).' In Gritts et al. v. The Secretary of the Interior et al. the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia held the same act wnstitutional in that it provided for the enrollment of certain children of the Chero-kee Nation, and that they should receive allotments from the surplus lands of the nation or a sum from the tribal funds in lien of lands. This case affects about 6,000 children. The case has been appealed to the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia: ' The case of Bond u. the United States et al., decided in the Circuit - Court of the United States for the District of Oregon, September 12, |