OCR Text |
Show 118 REPORT OF THE UO~ISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. of casealike the present, has no power to set itself up as the instmentality for enforcing the pmvi-slam of a treaty with a foreign nation which the Qovemment of the United States, as e sovereign power, choosen to disregard. (The Chemkee Tobsew, 11 Well., 616: Taylor u. Mortan, 2 Curtis, 454, Head Money Cases, 112 U. S., M0,596: Whitney u. Robertson, 124 U. S., 190,195.) In reference to the uecond proposition, after noticing several provisions of the statute, it was declared (p. 248): 11 id not p,sihle. thereB,re. fmm $he lnnmsa~ of thisslarurr. B infer that rbere was in rhc minds of ili framela dny d>,lill~liOll8 1 10 Ilce jllti?aiCfl~!tl hZy were ~ ~ f e r l i l IlIgII( III fhld I j O B d bPf\L..<.n r l s~ma d~f l r ferdo m r h ~ S n ~ e i durh W xi rao COI~RIOI~D1I%.h irhwew D I ~ ~ CimC d~e r tile la\!rol thoae Governroenrr, and show whlch wrw incil.iellr, inlperfeer, or invhoal~. . . i t w& ~tlllsilg imwnxnc lo ibr abler! whi~h ihs lllliutl dtalr~ Inad in ihc m e o f 11 that elalms noder prricvr gmnra iron, t1.e learcno Qovernmcnr fhuuld be ealablihbed ar that iml.rrfecr rlalmr abollld be edablished or rejected. The suoerior force which is attached, in the armment of mnnsel, to a perfeot grant fmm the aexieanbovernment had its just influence in the board of mmmisaioners & in the to which their decisions could be carried by appeal. If the title was perfect, it would there be decided by a court of oompetent jurisdiction, holding that the claim thus presented was vslid. if it was not,then i t wss the ri-g ht 8nd the dutv of that court to determine whether i t was such a claim as the United States was bound to respeot, even though it was not perfeet astoall the forms and proceedings under whmh i t was dsrivvd. 3, (11111 che *up: rlor value 018 pecfeettd Uexlean elaim lled rlw *me inuu-ewe in R roun of ]rv.rice whtch in nuw set )up fur it in an wtino whew the rrllr isr'nrcsrd. Kurcnn 11 l e u d lbal ,!,ere 1, sx~.v rhl-ocut.llvl to rob..o r raive :TI rca.ll lrrn-c tha ownerola valid claim in that vast wilderness of lends unclaimed, and unjustly c18imed. to present his demand8 to a tribunal poass.in~n li $hee ldmenb of judaiai function;, with n pllarar~lyo f jlldirlal pmrredinpa. ~o that hid till^ could be elahiiahed if it we^ found to bc valid ur rejected if ic wer inralld. We an, unable to see sos iniusrrec. aor waur of rozlarilutiunal wwur. or ans viulnrlon of the treaty in the means by w6ch ihe udited.States undertook to sepkce the lands in whioh it held the pmpflctnr) inlcresl fmzo tho% which btlollged, elrbcr cyuilably or b).a errlrr le~wl lirle. W ptivars pea~n?. Fwry prn~lt tjrrling lnnd or other pmpcrry 19 "1 all timtr liable tn Lc rallrd into B "nun of ~USIICI.l o v0r~te.t i.is title 10 11. Thle ~ R bY~ d o~teb y a t lolh~rin dividual or by the Cor-ernment under whioh he livea It ia s. necessery pak of e. free government, in whioh all sre equally subject to the lens, that whoever merts tights or exercises powers over property may be called before the pmper tribunals to sustain them. The views thus expressed have been several times reaffirmed by thia wurt, the latest ease being Florida v. Furman (180 U. S.,402), in which, after quoting the pas-sege Isat above quoted, we mid, in referenoe to statutes of the United States respect-ing claims in Florida (p. 438): We are of upiniur, {Inat tlaesc~clan pplred snd were iuwnsled to apply ronll elnlms.whrther perfeet or i m ~ f i 1~11 t~llatt p ~nieular~ e~eulbl lnthge ('sliiurnl& act: ~ l t 1~11t~C . UIIIW were bounn to areepl their bruri*ionl, and that there was oo >uallr uf curtatitutIane.1 lnwer in p r~s c n b iwrv rnnable lrou-tanone operating to bar claims if the oourae pointed out were not pnnmed. See also Thompson v. Los Angeles Farming, eto. Do., (180 U. 8., 72,77), in which it was mid in reference ti the statute before us: mery question whioh muld arise on the title olsimed m l d come to and receive judgment from thi. court. The scheme of adiudleetion was made oomplete and all the T)urPDBes of 8n set to give , repose to titleswere acoompli~hed. ~ n i td wa s certainiy the purpose of the Let of 1861 to give repose ul ntlea It was enacted noi only to fulrillour treat). obligaliul~to~ lndlvid!lela,hur to sertlc nlln demr what purliolr uf the wquired t?rnlvr7 \rss publia dnruaiu. 11 not unly pcrmined hut rcquircd ell r l a i l~sto he owwntcd lu ihs boani and barred ail fmm fuluru w? l i d n wltah werd uol pr0 senteawithin twh years after thedluteoi the set. (see. 13.) he juciadiction of the -was neoes-satily commensurate with the purposes of its ereation,and it was a jurisdicdon to decide rightly or wrongly. If wrongly a corrective was afforded,as we have ssid,by an appeal by the claimant or by the United State8 to the dimict court. These rulingago far toward sustsining the decision of the supreme court of Oali-fornia in the present caaes. As between the United States and Warner, the patent is as wncluaive of the title of the latter as any other patent from the United States is of the title of the grantee named therein. As between the United States and the Indians, their failure to present their elaims to the land commisaion within the time named msde the land within the language of the statute "part of the public domain of the United States." "Public domain" is equivalent to "public lands," |