OCR Text |
Show REPORT OB THE CONKISSIONER OF INDLAN AFFAIRS. 101 The supreme court of North Carolina. in Rollins v. Cherokees (87 N. C., 229) fi~lly recognized the power and right of the United States to supervise and control the affaim, lands, and contracts of the North Camlina Cherokees. The court refers with approbation to the acta of Congress regulating contracts with Indians, and exp-es the opinion that such laws apply to contracts made with the North Caro-lina Indians. From the kind and liberal policy manifeted by all the departments of the Stzte e-o~ve rnment. I am satisfied that North Carolina is not jealous of State rights or apPwhen~irtch at difficultiesa nd conflicts oi juripdiction may mi-r fnxr, an imp* rium in im-ueriu.. cont rolliu-r tr, eome extent the uflailu of her Indian citizen*. I understood the counsel of defendanta in their argument to insist, in substance, that the Eastern band of Cherokees in North Carolina isa corporation duly organized mder the laws of this State and holds its landsin fee simple under,& deed executed by the standing master in chancery under a decree of this court made at October term of 1894. That such deed contains no restriction upon the power of alienation, and that the Indian council, as representatives of the corporation, had full power to make the timter vonu&t iuvoived in thin suit. The counsel i ~ n h enrh uw that at the fall termoi thiveourt in 1894 [l87#] a derree was,made directing a deed to be executed in accordance with an award of &bitratom filed at said term. That sometime thereafter a deed was prepared and executed con-taining a clanee restricting the power of alienation, which was not in accordance with the said award and decree, was repugnant to the nature of the estate conveyed and in disregard of article 1, section 31, of the State constitution, in relation to That the decree of October term, 1894, was made upon a supplemental bill in equity filed by the district attorney, under the direction of the Secretary of thelnterior md the Attorney-General, for the express purphse of having a new deed in feesimple executed by the standing w t e r in chancery, omitting the repug-nant clam restricting the power of alienation. That by such proceeding in this court the United States fullv recomized the right and power of the Eastern band of Cherokees to make free.dien;tion of their lands, and surrendered or waived control of them as to the timber contract involved in this suit. I am of opinion that the only purpase of the depitrtmente in the legal proceedings referred to was to have a deed executed which aas in conformity with the award of the arbitrators, the decree of the court, and the laws of the State regulating the con-veyance of lauds within its limits. These matters relate to the merite involved in this case, and not to the in limino question of jurisdiction now before the court. Judge Simonton has expresd eome views upon these questions in which I fully concur. I will say, further, that I am strongly inclined to the opinion that the action of the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney-General, and district attorney, in procuring, by procedure in this coort, execution of the new deed under which the Eastern Band of Cherokee now hold their h d s in fee simple as a corporation, neither expressly or by implication relieved the United States from any obligstion of duty imposed, or waived any power conferred by the Constitution, treaties, or acta of Cougra. (Eel18 v. Ross, supra.) I am satisfied that the court ha8 jurisdiction of this case. If I had any doubt as to jurisdiction, I would, in a court of equity, be disposed to regard with favor the maxim "boui judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem" to accomplish the ends of sub-stantial iustice and fair dealing. Courts of chancerv in this countrv and Eneland have, b y w ise and salutary development of the prinbp~esof natural justice, built up an extensive.. enli-fi tened. and beneficent iurisdicfion in eo- uitv for the ouroose of " A . redressing wrongs, securing rights, and affording remedies adequate to the require-ments of justice. (68 Fed. Rep., 577.) |