| OCR Text |
Show - 1 1 - n$ O fillan v. McKeo, 159 U. S. 30.3; City Bank v. Hunter, 129 U. S. 578; Milnor v. Meek, 95 U. S. 252; Todd v. Daniel, 16 Pet. 521; Railroad Co. v. Johnson, 15 Wall. 8; Germain v. Mason, 12 Wall. 261» See also Hill v. Chicago and Fvanston Ry. Co., 140 U. S. 52; Basket v. Haskell, 107 U. S. 602; Louisville & N. A. C. v. Pope, 74 Fed. Rep. 5; ifarmore' Loan & Trust Co. v. McClure, 49 U. S. App. 146; Mercantile Trust Co. v. Adams Express Co., 16 U. S. App. 37. In the agreement with the Indians and the Act of Congress, ratifying that agreement, there wis no reservation of the waters of Milk River or its tributaries for use on the Fort Belknap Indian Reservation, nor can it be held that the Indians understood that there was any reservation of the waters of Milk River for use upon the Belknap reservation, or that thoy coded and relinquished to the Government anything less than the absolute title to the lands and all waters thereon to that portion of the former reservation to which they relinquished their claims. The rule that the treaty must be construed most favorably to the Indians does not apply to this case. Here the oonO troversy is between the United States, as guardian of the Indians, and the appellants who are citizens and grantees of the United States, and the controversy has reference to the titles granted by the United.States to them. In such case, the appollants are the publio in whose bohalf the grants must be construed most strongly. The property granted to them by thoir entry |
