OCR Text |
Show he action of the Dawes Commission "with respect to allotments in the Cherokee Nation." Your opinion is deaired whether said leases may how be approved if found to comply with the requirements of said regulations. In opinion of May 6, 1904, the Assistant Attorney-General said: The mattera of alienation of lands by Indian allottees and of leasing are treated of and provided for in the various agreements and acts as entirely separate and distinct matters. It is true a lease of land is in a certain sense an alienation. It transfers to and vests in the lessee certain rights of possession and use of the land, hut does not convey to him the title. The alienation from which it was intended by the Indian appropriation act to remove restrictions, was that character of proceedings which would involee the sale and transfer of the title. The provisions of the various agree-men? and laws alative to and governing the leasing of allotted lands were not intended to be and are not affected by this provision of the Indian appropriation act. A lease that was before not legal or binding without the approval of the Indian agent and the Secretary of the Interior is now equally inaffective without auch approval. In other words, this is not a confirmatory provision and does not purport to cure defects in existing instruments or in fact to in any manner affect leases. The rules and re-g ulations to he prescribed under this ~rovisionof the a.p.~ ro.~ r iat ion act we with redpert tr, tht. n.1110!.111 i l f the n~s t r i~t iolanpo~n alienation by dloltQQ!o4f mill trihw of Indian hloorl,rswpt nlin..rd, and except ha to homcstends, anJ it ie not contempla.ted by the act that such rules Ad regulations should have ky effect upon the manner of execution or approval of leases of allotted land. In the last question you ask substantially whether leases heretofore made under regulations of the Department, by members of the Cherokee Nation, may now he approved. The Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes permitted selections of allotments by members oi the Cherokee Nation prior to the t i e when such selec-tions were authorized to be made. The second provision of the appropriation act referred to and quoted above, declares that no proceedings with respect to such allotments shall be held invalid on the -m ound that thev were had before there was autllority to hegin the work ofalluturcut in mirill nation. This provision removed from euch allotmrute the onccl~mcnotf invali~lits. It declawa in effQ1.1I llat tires nliall he considered as having been properly made in point of time. If in other respects d i d they are to he treated as proper allotments, and leases of such allotments, if in conformity to the law and regulations, may now he approved exactly as if there had been authority for the making of such allotments at the time of their allowance. DELAWARES V. CHEROKEES. Since my last annual report the Supreme Court of the United Stgtes affirmed the decision of the Court of Claims in the case of the Delaware Indians versus The Cherokee Nation. The court found that the registered Delawares now living are each entitled to 160 acres of land, and that the descendants of registered Delawares are entitled to share equally with the Cherokees in the distribution of the remainder of the Cherokee lands. The act of April 21 last provides: The Secretary of the Treasury is authorized and directed to pay to the Delaware tribe of Indians residing in the Cherokee Nation, as said tribe shallin councildirect, the sum of one hundred and fifty thousand dollara in full of all claims~and demands of said trihe against the United States, and the same is hereby appropriated and made immediately available: Provided, That said sum shall he paid only after the |