| OCR Text |
Show This is one of the 'largest, most difficult, and most expensive branches of the work of the Union Agency. Complaints require constant use of the Indian police force and hearings and investiga-tions in the field. The agent reports that up to June 30, 1905, 3,553 written complaints for possession have been filed and disposed of, as follows : Requests to place Indians in possession of allotments. A few cases have been appealed from the decision of the agent to the Department, but the action of the agent has invariably been sus-tained. April 26 last, Agent Shoenfelt, of the Union Agency, asked for specific instructions on the following points: First. Shall I continue to follow the instructions quoted above from Depart-ment letter of March 6, 1904? Second. Do those portions of the various agreements quoted in the early parts of this letter, considered alone or in connection with other parts of such agreements, vest in me any judicial power whatever; and if so, what judicial power and the scope thereof? Third. What is the extent and scope of my "jurisdiction and lawful author- I@" to remove intruders in the different nations referred to in the opinion of the United States circuit court of appeals, eighth circuit, in the case of Indian Land and Trust Company v. Bhoenfelt et al., above noted? Fourth. If it is desired that my former course should he further pursued, or that my action be taken not in harmony with the opinions of the Assistant Attorney-General, above noted, I desire explicit instructions in respect thereto, that the wishes of th- Indian Omce and the Department may be carried out to the letter. May 8 the Office brought the subject to the attention of the Depart-ment. Several opinions of the Assistant Attorney-General and the action of the United States circuit court of appeals for the eighth circuit, in the case of the Indian Land and Trust Company u. J. Blair Shoenfelt et al., were cited. With reference to the agent's first question, the Office said that it saw no reason why the agent should not place legal guardians in possession of lands allotted to their minor wards if investigation showed that the land had not been leased in accordance with law, but that if the land had been leased in accord-ance with the law the Office did not believe the agent should remove the lessees and put the guardians in possession. The same position Creek ......................................................... Cherokee ..................................................... Choatsw .................................................. Chicknasw ................................................... To UI1 ................................................... W &S 88 1% 3111 469 444 350 W 1,825 462 355 831 ---587 - 1.8% 88 144 61 101 486 |
