OCR Text |
Show 38 COMMISSIONER OB INDUX AFFAIRS. c-t April 11, 1981).- his was a suit in equity brought in the original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the State of Oklahoma against the State of Texas to establish the true boundary line he-tween those States where it follows the course of the Red River from the one hundredth degree of west longitude to the easterly boundary of Oklahoma.' The court found that the matter was res judicata, as the result of a former decree of the Su reme Court in the case of the United States .v. The State of Texas r162 U. S., I), wherein it was decided that the treaty of 1819 between the United States and S ain fixed the boundary along the southern bank of the Red River. $his case has a bearing on the claims of Indians of the Kiowa and Comanche Tribes,,now pending in the Supreme Court of the United States, as to riparian rights extending to the center of the stream or to the southern bank of the said river. C. R. Privett et d. v the United States et d. (decided by the Udt+?d Stutrs Supreme C w t A p d 18, !Q%l).-This suit was brought by the United States in virtue of its mterest in maintaining the restric-tions and safeY 'l arding the Indians in the possession and enjoyment of the lands a1 otted out of the tribal domam. Held that no stipula-tion, contract, or judgment rendered in suits to which the Govern-ment is a stranger can affect its interests. Held also that the reliance on a decision in a prior suit wherein the Government did not appear is ill-founded, and that the deeds running to Privett were void be-cause one of the heirs, a minor, was born after March 4, 1906, and the Secretary of the Interior had not approved the deeds. Mike Blamet v. Oscar Cardin, as guard& of Jesse DqZight, minor, et d. decided by the United State8 Supreme Court May 16, lQ%l).-Mike (B lanset, a white man, brought suit to have himself de, clared to be owner of an undivided one-third interest in all Ian& and other roperty of which his wife (a deceased Quapaw allottee) died seizefor possessed. also to declare void the will of his wife and its approval by the decretary of the Interior. The case was ap-pealed to the Snpreme Court of the United States and presented as its ultimate question the accordanoe or discordance of the laws of Congress and the laws of the State of Oklahoma. It was held that it was the intention of Congress that this class of Indians should have the right to dispose of the property by will under act of February 14, 1913 (37 Stats., 378), free from restnctions on the part of the State as to the portions to be conveyed or as to the objects of the testa-tor's bounty, provided such will was in accordance with the regula-tions and met with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Anchor Oil Company v. W. 8. Gray, 8'. D. McDmneZZ, C b . Egm et d. (deecided by the United States Suprems Court June I, IQ%1.)- This was a suit in equity, involving the, ownership of a lease-hold estate for oil and gas minmg purposes in a Creek allotment, Oklahoma. Held that the authority of the Secretary of the Interior to a rove and thereby confirm oil and gas mining leases made by full-lfood Creek allottees upon their allotment derived from section 2 of the act of May 27,1908, did not cease at the time of the death of the allottee by reason of the provisions of section 9 of the same act. (35 Stats., 315.) Held further that the validity of the lease being conditioned u on the approval of the Secretary of the Interior, such approval mig f t be given at any t h e either before or after the death of the allottee so far as the rights of the heirs and those claiming |