| OCR Text |
Show COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. 43 fourths Indian blood. It was decided that Congress did not intend to reimpose restrictions on these lands by the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. L., 312), the restrictions imposed by the supplemental Creek agreement of June 30, 1902 (32 Stat. L., 500), having expired by limitation of time. This case is important because the doctrine was advanced for the first time before the Supreme Court that Con-gress had the power to reimpose restrictions which had' expired. 1 The court, however, being of opinion that Congress did not intend ) to reimpose restrictions, found it unnecessary to discuss the consti-tutional question. Missouri, Kamas & Teaas R a k a y Go. w. United States (886 U. S., g).-This was a case of considerable importance. I t was held that a statute granting public lands, or Indian lands which may become public lands, will not be construed as including Indian lanas after-wards allotted in severalty under a treaty made immediately before the enactment of the statute, as to do so would impute bad faith on the part of the Government toward the Indians. S7ceZ8oa w. DiZZ ($36 U. S., $06) and Adkim w. Arnold (835 LT. S., @7).-In these cases it was held that restrictions upon alienation of allotments to Creek citizens made under the acts of March 1, 1901 (31 Stat. L., 861), and June 30, 1902 (32 Stat. L., 500), apply only to allotments made to citizens in their own right and do not apply to those made on behzlf of deceased members of the tribe. Tmskett w. Closser (decided Feb. 23,1915) .-The Supreme Court ' held that the Oklahoma district court could not confer rights of majority conformably to a State statute on a minor Indian allottee, notwithstanding the removal of restrictions on alienation by Indian allottees made by the a d of May 27,1908 (35 Stat. L., 312). Joplin. Mercantile Co. w. United States (decided by the Supreme Court Feb. 23, 1915).-It was held that pending the continuance ' under section 3 of the Oklahoma enabling act of June 16, 1906 (34 Stat. L., 267), of the prohibition under State laws of the sale of liquors in the former Indian Territory and their introduction into that Territory the provisions of the act of March 1,1895 (28 Stat. L., 693), against the introduction of liquors are not enforceable as in-trastate transactions. Henry Henkel et aZ. w. UnitedStaks (Supreme Court of the 1Jnited States; decided Apr. 5,1915).-In this case the practice of obtaining relinqiiishments signed by natural guardians of minors, which has obtained in the department, was upheld by the Supreme Court. Ash Sheep Co. (881 Fed., 58R).-It was held by a divided court that under the act of April 27, 1904 ($3 Stat. L., 352), whereby the United States agreed to dispose of the ceded lands for the Crow In-dians and expressly provided that the Government should not be bound to purrhase any of the lands or to find purchasers therefor, |
