| OCR Text |
Show versies necessarily involving a determination of the title and inci-dentally of the right of possession of Indian allotments during the trust period were not primarily cognizable by any court, either State or ~ederaft;h at the act of 1894, which delegated to the courts of the United States the power to determine such quebtions, can not be construed as having conferred upon the State courts the authority to pass upon Federal questions over which, prior to the act of 1894, no court had any authority; that the purpose of the act of 1894 to continue exclusive Federal control over the subject was manifested by its command that a judgment or decree rendered in any such con-troversy should be certified by the court to the Secretary of the Interior; that by this provision, as pointed out in the Smith case, the United States consented to submit its interest in the trust estate and the future control of its conduct concerning it to the decrees of the courts of the United States, a power which such courts done oould exercise; that subsequent legislation confirmed this policy, as, by the amendments to the act of 1894, approved February 6, 1901 (31 Stat. L., 760), it is expressly required that in suits authorized to be brought in the circuit courts of the United States respecting allotments of Indian lands "the parties thereto shall be the claim-ant as plaintiff and the United States as party defendant; " and that nothing could more clearly demonstrate the conception of Congress that the United States continued as trustee to have an active interest in the proper disposition of allotted Indian lands and the necessity of its being made a party to controversies concerning allotments. Therefore the Supreme Court held that the State court was with-out jurisdiction to entertain the controversy, and the suggestion that the controversy involved the mere possession and not the title to the allotted land was without merit, since, urider the legislation of the Congress, the right of possession was dependent upon the existence of an equitable title in the claimant to the ownership of the allotted lands. TIMBER AND M I N E W ON RESERVATIONS. Much of the timber on Indian reservations, especially in the South-west, is overripe, and in dying effects a loss to the Indians of mil-lions of dollars every year. It has been demonstrated that a system-atic cleaning up, including the cutting of matured and diseased trees, improves the forest at large, eliminates to a great extent the danger , of forest fires, and allows the grass and young trees to grow. The matured merchantable timber within the reservations of both classes-treaty and Executive order--ought to be cut and sold for the benefit of the Indians, and the proceeds used, under the direction of the Sec- , retary of the Interior, for their benefit in purchasing stock or farming implements. If this were done the Indians would realize that their |
