OCR Text |
Show 108 REPORT OF THE COMMlSSfONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. I in this case, Inspector Wright expressed a doubt as to the expedienc of continuing in force the provisions of the regulation requiring him t make investigation in cases of controversy, because if the courts hav jurisdiction to interfere, either directly or indirectly, in the manne adopted in this case, with the discretion of the officers of the Depa ment in awarding the right to lease, time would be lost by the inspecto which might be devoted to investigation into the rights of the partie The agreement provides, among other things, that- 1 The United Stattes courts now exiating and those that may the Indim Territory shall have exolusive jurisdiction of all out of the title, ownership, occupation, or use of real atate, territory occupied by the Choctaw and Chickaaew tribes. Beyond question, the jurisdiction of the court to determine the right of parties under existing facts at a given time in reference to th company's title, ownership, occupation, or use of real estate, coal, an asphalt is clearly granted by this agreement. However, in its report o July 22, above referred to, the office took the position that the Inter Department is granted by another part of the agreement an enti different and distinct jurisdiction in so far as the matter of leasing concerned, and that the jurisdiction as granted by the agreement to courts does not interfere with the jurisdiction of the Department investigate and determine for itself the right of parties to make leas under the regulations as prescribed by the Secretary. In discossin this matter the office stated that-- The jurisdiction of this Department is as ole= and distinct md ss are11 defined the jurisdiction of the court. The oourt has no power to oontrol or interfere wi the exercise of the suthoritv of this Denartment so lon-e as the Dsoartment kee within the jnri~diction granted in the agreement. While it is probably true decision by the oourt ss to the respeotive right. of partiss over the question session, oocupetion, eto.. would be accepted by th& Department and aoted oonclosive of the rights of the parties, still the Department would not be hound i mtsking these oontraots to grant a contraat to a psrty courts to be entitled to the oosaession of s certain tract tigatiou mwle 1)y thid l)epnrtment, u sitoation is developed which, in tlrn npinio of the Ddparttuunt, alrvwa that ;rv~'stlbcr party than the one found by the coon oogh to be given the possession. Then, too, the decision of the oourt under its jurisdic-tion as to the right of parties litigant would not affect the right of persons not par-ties to such litigation, and while the court mag find in one case that A's right in certain lsnd is superior to B'a, still the oourt would not in that case find that A's right ia superior to C's llnless C is a party to the litigation, so that it seems to the offioe that it ia necesaarj. that these investigations shsll continue to be made by the inapestor in accordance with the regulations, as heretafore. In making his report on this matter Inspector Wright had stated that he had writtell Hon. Hosea Townsend, United States judge of the southern district of the Indian Territory, concerning the injunction granted by him, and that his reply would be forwarded. July 22,1899, Inspector Wright transmitted to this office a communication from Judge Townsend, dated July 19,1899, in which he gave the status of the wntroversy over this injunction, which had been axed by him for |