| OCR Text |
Show 64 COI~MISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. given to the secretary, must be taken as conferring and not as limit-ing or destroying that authority; that, in other words, they must be treated as absolutely excluding the rights to review-'in the courts, as has-hitherto been the case under the act of 1887, the question of fact as to who were the heirs of an allottee, thereby causing that question to become one within the final and conclusive competency of the administrative authority. I United States u. Louis B e m r et nl. (decided by the Supreme Conrt of the United States June 5, 1916).-In this case it was held . that the act of July 4,1884 (23 Stat. L., 96)$ containing a provision whereby the United States was to hold the land in trust for a period ' ' of 25 years, did not apply to Indians located upon the public lands - who before the passage of the act of 1884 had substantially complied with the provisions of the act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat. L., 420), relative to homesteads' In other words, it was held that acts of 1875 and 1884 were independent acts, and. that the act of 1884 con-taining the 25-year restriction was not amendatory of the act of 1875 containing a restriction against alienation for a period of 5 years only. Leuindale Lead & Zinc &imi9 Co., W.'H.A a ~ man d M. L. Levin u. Chwles Coleman (decided by the United States Supreme Court , on June 5, 1916).--Charles Coleman, a white man, the defendant in error in this case, brought suit to set aside a conveyance of an M-divided interest in lands inherited from his Indian wife and child, who were members of the'Osage Tribe. Judgment was, entered annulling the conveyance, upon the ground that it was executed in . violation of redtrictions imposed by Congress. This judgment'was affirmed by the Supreme Conrt of Oklahoma and a writ of error - * I sued-out to the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court held that the act of June 28,1906 (34 Stat. L., 539), placed no restrictions kpon the alienation of land or undivided iu-terests in land of which white men who were not members of the tribe became owners. The jndgment of the State court was reversed <. and the case remanded for further proceedings. Niw Fork u. Beclcer (decided by the Supreme Court of the United States June 12, 1916).-In this c m it was held that the right of - , , hunting and fishing reserved by the Seneca Indians of New York under the treaty ratifiedby the Senate April 11, 1798, on the lands ceded by that treaty was not an exclusive right in the Indians, and was subject to that necessary power of appropriate regulation which inhered,in the sovereignty of the State over the lands where the was exercised. In otlier words, the only right reserved to the Indian was that of hunting and fishing in common with other citizens of the State, and s~tbjectt o the same ~rovisionl,e gulation, . - and limitation as are imposed on whites by the lams of the State. |
