OCR Text |
Show 148 REPORTS OF THE DEPARTNEXT OH TIIl: ISTCRIOR. March 3, 1903, the date when restrictions on the sale of Puyallup allotments were removed. That report also gave detailed informa-tion as to Puyallup lands sold and unsold. The consideration for the allotted lands sold prior to July 1, 1904, was $420,303.83. The collections, principal and interest, to June 30, 1905, aggregate $377,450.08. The Indian addition to Tacoma embraces 3,600 lots and 22 tracts known as acre tracts or lots. There remain unsold 336 lots and 4 tracts. The total consideration for the lots and tracts sold is $212,829.61. The amount of cash and deferred payments, principal and interest, collected to June 30, 1905, aggregates $169,464.72. The proceeds arising from the sale of allotted lands have been deposited in the Treasury of the IJnited States to the credit of the respective allottees and true owners, and warrants have been drawn in favor of the allottees and true owners, or their heirs when ascer-tained, and delivered to them, less 10 per cent retained in the Treas-ury for the expenses of the sale. The proceeds arising from the sale of Indian addition lots and tracts have been deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Puyallup tribe and draw interest at the rate of 4 per cent per annnm. Ten per cent of such proceeds may be used in paying-pro rata. the entire expenses incurred in the sale of these lands. The Office has referred in certain reports to the Department to the decision of Judge Hanford, of the United States court for the western district of Washington, that the land patented to Puyallup Indians belongs absolutely and exclusiyely to the head of the family named in the patent, while the Department has held that each individual named in such patent has an equal interest therein. This question was involved in two Puyallup casegBird v. Terry and McDoland v. Terry. On a decision in favor of Bird (in the case of Bird v. Terry) an appeal was talren to the United States circuit court of appeals. It was dismissed on the ground that the case involved the interpreta-tion of a treaty, and that it should have been taken to the Supreme Court of the United States. Steps were then taken to appeal the case to the Supreme Court; but because of complications in tlie matter of procedure and because of the moot character of the ques-tion involved-the case originally having involved the matter of rents arising from the land, rather than its title or ownership request for the prosecution of an appeal to the Supreme Court was withdrawn. The transcript of the record was therefore not docketed and the case was dropped. A ease of Bird v. Winker was instituted in the.superior court of Pierce County, Wash., involving the lands allotted to Bird et al.; but the Government was not a party to or in any way heard in it; and, ipaynucb as it was not possible to have &e ownership of the land |