OCR Text |
Show and these words have acquired a settled meaning in the legislation of this country. "The words 'public lands' are habitually used in our legislation to describe such as are subject to sale or other disposal uuder general laws." (Newhall z!. Sanger, 92 U. S., 761,763.) "The grant is of alternate sections of public land, and by pnhlic land, as it has been long settled, is meant such land as is open to sale or other dispo-sition under genera: litws." (Bsrdon v. Northern Pacific RBilroad Co., 145 U. S., 535. 538. See also IIIann v. Tacoma Land Go. 153 U. S., 273, 284.) So far, there-fore, as these Indians are concerned, the land is rightfully to he regarded as part of the uuhlic domain and subject to sale and diposal by the Government, and the Gov-ernient has conveyed to Warner. It is truethat the patent, following the fifteenth seetion of the act, in terms provides that the patent shall not "affect the interests of third persons," hut who may take advantage of this stipulation? This question was presented and determined in Beard v. Federy (3 Wall, 478), and the court, referring to the effect of a patent, said [pp. 492,493): When infoymed, by thb detinn of irr rrlbullxb and olticzrs, thal n claim MIPM~is v~llltl~ r%d entit!~1t1o remg~~itiotnl,l ~Goven~~naernbt. 8ud i s i l~rit* parent LO the ~ l a m n $ '.P hi, lnatmmunt Ir. t h ~ r ~ f.n~IPl~L~O~.F ~~e vid~nce01 the srrion uf the (iuvernloerlr lrllon the r i l l l . oi the elairnallt. BY ii ~ ~~ the Government declares that the claim suerted amlrslid under the lsws of Afexico: thst it w s 1 entitled to recognition and protection by the stipulations of the treaty, andmight have been located ~ ~ than the United States and thc el&imants, but oily thosewho hold wperlor titles,aueh will enable them to resist succeesfully any sotion of the Uovernment in disposing of the property. If these Indians had my claims founded on the action of the Mexican Government they abandoned them by not presenting them to the commission for consideration, and they could not, therefore, in the language just quoted, "resist successfully any action of the Government in disposing of the property." If it be said that the Indians do not claim the fee. but onlv the ri-g ht of owu~atio.n a, nd.. therefore.. thev. do not come within the provision of section 8 as persons "claiming lands in California by I virtue of any. rig- ht or title derived from the Spanish or Mexican Government."-it may be replied that a claim of a right to permanent occupancy of land is one of far-reaching effect, and it could not well be said that lands whieh were burdened with a right of permanent occupancy were a part of the public domain znd subject to the full disposal of the United States. There is an essential difference between the power of the United States over lands to which it has had full title, and of whieh it has given to an Indian tribe a temporary occupancy, and that over lands which were subjected by the action of some prior government to a right of permanent occupancy, for in the Istter ease the right, which is one of private property, antecedes and is superior to the title of this Government, and limits necessarily its power of disposal. Sunely a claimant would hare little reason for presenting to the land commission his claim to land, and securing a confirmation of that claim, if the only result was to transfer the naked fee to him, burdened by an Indian right of permanent occu-pancy. Again, it is said that the Indians were, prior to the cession, the wards of the Mexi-can Government, and by the cession became the wards of this Government; that, therefore, the United Ststes are bound to protect their interests, and that all admin-istration, if not all legislation, must be held to be interpreted by, if not subordinate to, this duty of protecting the inter=$ of the wards. It is undoubtedly true that this Government has always recognized the fact that the Indians were its wards, and entitled to he protected as mch, and this court has uniformlv constmed all leeisla-tion in the light of this recognized obligation. But the ohliikon is one whichrests upon thepolitical department of the Go~ernments, nd this court has never assumed, I in the absence of Congressional action, to determine what would have been appro: priate legislstinn, or ta decide the claims of the Indians as though such legislation |