OCR Text |
Show COMMIS-S IONER OF JNDIAN AFFAIRS. 65 United States u. Fred &ice (decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, June 12, 1916).-In this case it was held that when lands are allotted and. trust patents issued to Indians the Govern-ment goes not lose its guardianship over them, and therefore can prohibit thesale of liquor to them in violation of Federal laws. fl This case overkled the Heff case decided by the Supreme Court in 1905, wherein it was held that an Indian who received an allotment - and patent for land under the act of ~ e b r u a 8r ,~ 1 887 (24 Stat. L., ' 388), was no lbnger a ward of the Government and not vithin the reach of Indian police regulations on the part of Congress. The decision in the Nice case is very important, as under its holdings the L department will be enabled more successfully to cope with the liquor situation among the Indians. United State8 u. Debell ef aZ. ($87 Fed., 760) (decided by the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit).-It was held in this case that where a person with knowledge of the incompe-tency of an Indian for whom the United Statas holds lands in trust induced the Indian to sell the land to him and apply for and obtain a patent in fee simple for it, and then convey it to hi, wrongfully - appropriates the land to himself; he becomes a trustee de son tort thereof and of its proceeds for the benefit of the Indian, and the United States may maintain a suit in equity to set aside;as against - him, the iatent and the deed, and in case the title has passed to an in-nocent subsequent purchaser, to recover of the appropriator the amount he realized from the land above the amowt he paid for it to the Indian. United States u. Pearson, Cmnty Treasurer, et al. (931 Fed., 970) .(decided by the United States court).-This was a South. Dakqta case involving the Sioux Indians who have been allotted in sever-alty but maintain their tribal relations. It wds held that personal property consisting of horses, cattle and their increase,' and farm .implements and other property acquired by exchange of such hrop-erty or otherwise, which is derived directly or indirectly from the Government and is. used by the Indians on their farms, is not subject to taxation by State authorities; and that such property is not absolute property of the Indians but is still held in trust fortheir benefit by the Government for the purpose of carrying out its policy of helping them to be self-supporting. ' . State a. Tmueasde (154 Pac., 805) (decided by the Supreme Court of the State of Washington).-In this case it was held that the .. Yakima treaty of March 8, 1859 (12 Stat. L., 951), providing that - the exclusive right of tallrng fish in all streams running through or |