OCR Text |
Show EXECUTIVE ORDER WITHDRAWING 225 LANDS FOR INDIAN PURPOSES . ( Complainant's Complainants ) Exhibit 71 , containing a copy of an order withdrawing for Indian purposes certain land bounded . on the ( west Nvest ) by the middle of the channel of the Colorado River and on the north by the middle of the channel of the San Juan River and a later Executive Order made in 1892 , restoring all land theretofore withdrawn , except that portion lying east of the 110th meridian , was received in evidence subject to ( defendant's defendants ) objection that the exhibit was ( irrele irrele- irrele ) vant . We are not quite sure from a reading of ( Complainant's Complainants ) brief just what its contentions are with reference to this order . In view of the evidence in this case the significance , if any , that such an order might have as bearing on the question of navigability does not greatly concern us . The probabilities are that when in 1884 , the President signed the order of withdrawal he had . not the slightest knowledge concerning the navigable capacity of either of these rivers and the question of their navigability probably never entered his mind . Complainant does not purport to be suing in behalf of any Indians . In its statement in support of its motion for leave to file its Bill of Complaint herein , it says : ( "The The ) United States is a riparian owner , and its claim to the river beds is based on that . " At page 2 of ( Complainant's Complainants ) brief this same statement is again made . The order does not purport to be a grant , nor does it purport to withdraw any land for the Navajos or any other Indians . It ( io i6 ) silent as to the nature of the ( "Indian Indian ) ( purposes" purposes ) contemplated . At page 190 of its brief , Complainant states that ( "scores scores ) of placer miners have operated in the beds of these rivers , claiming rights under location notices posted and filed under the laws of the United States . " It also appears ( from frorn ) the evidence that oil permits were granted by the Department of the Interior along the San Juan River . This affirmative action on the part of the Department of the Interior does not indicate any purpose to hold any portion of the bed of the San Juan River ( "for for ) Indian purposes . " ( Skively'v Skivelyv ) . ( Bowlby Bow1by ) , 152 U . S . 1 , overruled the doctrine announced in ( Hcurdin Hardin ) V . Jordan 140 U . S . 371 , and other |