OCR Text |
Show <:OMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. 37 No report of important and promising conditions among the In-dians should fail to acknowledge the constant labors of the Chris-tian missionaries. From the heroic days of John Eliot amid the Puritan settlements and the coming of the Franciscan friars to the far Southwest, there has been among the Indians a devoted and widening achievement by these faithful teachers of.the spiritual con-ceptions that must hold a fundamental place in our civilization. It is impossible to see how the purposes of the, Government, free as they have been and must rehain from sectar~an alliances, could have succeeded as well as the record shows without the cooperation glven by the dauntless faith and works of the missionary. Among the outstanding facts, of Indian progre?s must be written to-day the more than 600 miss~onarw,~o rkers, wlth an even larger number of churches, ?nd over lOO,OOO church-going Indians. Governmental admmistration must indeed count itself fortunate in having the assistance of men and women whose best powers, and often their lives, are freely given for the moral ideals of Chnstlan citizenship. COURT DECISIONS. Amie Ha& et d. v. Harr?/ IZ. Bell et a?. (decided by the United Staten Supreme Court November 15,1990) .-By this suit certain con-veyances of lands allotted in the name and right of a,Creek Indian after his death were assailed. Held that the heirs recelved the lands ns an inheritande from the deeeased allottee and not as a direct allot-ment to them. Held further that the power of the Secretary of the Interior to examine and approve or disapprove a conveyance made prior to May 27,1908, under the act of April 26,1906 (34 Stats., 137), was not taken away by the ad of May 27,1908 (35 Stats., 312). George G. LuMotte et d. v. $he United States deecided by the United States Supup~eme Court J n n w y 24, 19$1).- ( rhi.s was a suit by the IJnited States to enjoin certain parties from asserting or exer-cising any right under certain leases obtalned from individual Osage Indians without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Held that the action of the courts below was ,correct in enjoining the de-fendants (appellants here) from,asserting or ,exercising any right under leases of restricted lands q7en by individual Osages without the approval of the Secretary of the Intenor and from negotiating or procuring other leases of the same class without conforming to the lations prescribed. Held further that leases of restr~cted lands zgnging to minor allottees or ?inor heirs give? by guardians with the sanction of the local courts, m whlch guardianships were pend-ing, required the approval of the Secretary. Held further that leases covering restricted lands given by parents on behalf of minor allot-tees or minor heirs where the parent has ~eceived a certificate of competency or where the parent is a white man, require the approval of the Secretary. Held further that restrictions are removed from property disposed of by will approved by the Secretary of the In-terior. 8 t a k of OkZahoma v. Ehe State of Tekas, dJe emdamta; the U 4 k d States of America, intmemw (decided by the nited States Szlprelne |