United States v. BowlingUnited States v. Bowling
delivered the opinion of the court.
This wаs an action by the United States, to recover the possession of a tract of land in Oklahoma, with damages for its detention and use by the defendants for several years. The trial resulted in a judgment for the defendants, which the Circuit Court of Appeals'affirmed. 261 Fed. Rep. 657.
The land was allotted and patented under the Act of Márch 2,1889, c. 422,25 Stat. 1013, to Pe-te-lon-o-zah, or William Wea, а member of the confederated Wea, Peoria, Kaskaskia and Piankeshaw tribes of Indians, as his distributive share of the tribal, lands. The patent was dated April 8, 1890, conveyed a fee simple title and imposed a restriction upon alienation for a period of twenty-five years from its date. Wea died intestate and seized of the land January 23, 1894. Shortly after his death persоns claiming to be his heirs executed a conveyance of the land and on May 4, 1914, this court affirmed a decree against two of the present defendants canceling that conveyance as made in violation of the restriction. Bowling v. United States, 233 U. S. 528.
This action was commenced January 20, 1915, during the period of restriction, and, according to the petition^ was brought in the interest of designated Indians who were alleged to be the heirs at law of Wea, to be entitled to the possession and to be members of the confederated tribes and still under the supervision and guаrdianship of the United States. The defendants, by their answer, admitted that the land had been allotted and patented to Wea and that they were in possession; denied all the other allеgations in the petition, including the heirship
At the trial the United States, to establish the heirship of those in whose interest the action was. brought, оffered in evidence an exemplified copy of a decision by the Secretary of the Interior, dated October 21,1914, during the period of restriction, finding and holding that they were the heirs, аnd the sole heirs, of Wea, and stating their respective shares. To this the defendants objected upon the ground that the law of Congress under which the decision was given applied only whеre the deceased allottee held under a trust patent. The court sustained the. objection and no other evidence on the subject was presented by either side. Whether thе court erred in excluding the Secretary’s determination is the only question reserved at the trial and now presented for decision. It was not claimed that the Secretary pro- 1 ceeded without notice or without according all who were interested a full hearing, but only that he had not been empowered to determine who were the heirs where the deceаsed allottee held, as did Wea, under a patent in fee, even though, the land was subject to a restriction upon alienation;
Before coming to the acts under which the Secrеtary of the Interior proceeded, it will be helpful to refer to the modes, long in use, by which Indians are prevented from improvidently disposing of allotted lands. One is to issue to the allottеe a written instrument or certificate, called a trust patent, declaring that thé United States will hold the land for a designated period, usually, twenty-five years,. in trust for the sole use and benefit ,of the allottee, or, in case of his death, pf his heirs, and at thé expiration of that period will convey the same to him, or
By § 1 of the Act of June 25, 1910, c. 431, 36 Stat. 855, Congress provided: “That when any Indian to whom an allotment of land has been made, or may hereafter be mаde, dies before the expiration of the trust period and béfore the issuance of a fee simple, patent, without haying
Tfye courts below concluded from the words of this provision that it was confined to trust allotments — those held under trust patents; Separately considered, it hardly admits of any other view; and yet other provisions in the same section suggest that its words may not have been happily chosen and that it may have been intended to be morey comprehensive. To illustrate, a closely following proveo declares: “That the Secretary of' the Interior is hereby authorized in his discretion to issue a certificate of comрetency, upon application therefor, to any Indian, or in case of his death, to his heirs, to whom a patent in fee containing restrictions on alienation has been or may hereafter be issued, and such certificate shall have the effect of removing the restrictions on alienation contained in such patent.”
But we need not dwell upon the internal proof of what was intended, for by a series of appropriation acts, beginning August I, 1914, and extending to the present time, Congress has treated and construed the provision as including both trust and restricted allotments.
1
Each of the appropriation acts contains a paragraph appropriating one hundred thousand dollars to meet the cost of “detеrmining the heirs of deceased Indian allottees having any right, title, or interest) in any trust or restricted allotment, under regulations prescribed by ;the Secretary of the Interior,” and they show affirmativеly that they refer to a determination under § 1 of the A-cjt of
We conclude' that the District Court erred, in sustain
Judgment reversed.
Notes
United States
v.
Rickert,
Hallowell
v.
Commons,
Acts August 1, 1914, c. 222, 38 Stat. 582, 586; May 18, 1916, c. 125, 39 Stat. 123, 127; March 2, 1917, c. 146, 39 Stat. 969, 972; May-25, 1918, c. 86,40 Stat. 561, 567; June 30, 1919, c. 4,41 Statj3,8; February 14, 1920, c. 75, 41 Stat. 408, 413.
House Doc. No. 90, p. 38, 64th Cong., 1st sess.; House Doc. No. 1899, p. 51, 64th Cong., 2d sess.; House Doe. No. 915, p. 53, 65th Cong., 2d sess.; House Doc. No. Í455, p. 53, 65th Cong., 3rd sess.; House Doc. No. 409, p. 51,66th Cong., 2d sess.; House Doc. No. 849, p. 45, 66th Cong., 2d ,sess. ' .