Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub
[blocks in formation]

hereby enjoined and restrained from disputing the sovereignty and ownership of the State of Louisiana in the land and water territory south and west of said boundary line as laid down on the foregoing map.

And that the costs of this suit be borne by the State of Mississippi.

IOWA v. ILLINOIS.

IN EQUITY.

No. 2, Original. Decree entered April 23, 1906.

The boundary line between the State of Iowa and the State of Illinois is

the middle of the main navigable channel of the Mississippi river at the places where the nine bridges mentioned in the pleadings cross said river.

This cause came on for final decree and was submitted on the following stipulation:

“And now comes the State of Iowa, complainant in this cause, and also comes the State of Illinois, defendant in this cause, and severally and jointly move the court to vacate and set aside so much of the interlocutory order entered in this cause on the third day of January, A. D. 1893, as orders ‘that a commission be appointed to ascertain and designate at said places the boundary line between the two States, said commission consisting of three competent persons to be named by the court, upon suggestion of counsel, and be required to make a proper examination and to delineate on maps prepared for that purpose the true line as determined by this court and report the same to the court for its further action'; and also the interlocutory order entered in this cause on the seventh day of March, A. D. 1893; and also that part of the interlocutory order entered in this cause on the tenth day of April, A. D. 1893, which was not set aside and vacated by the interlocutory order

[blocks in formation]

entered in this cause on the fifteenth day of January, A. D. 1894; and that that part of the interlocutory order entered in this cause on the third day of January, A. D. 1893, whereby it was 'ordered, adjudged, and decreed by this court that the boundary line between the State of Iowa and the State of Illinois is the middle of the main navigable channel of the Mississippi river at the places where the nine bridges mentioned in the pleadings cross said river,' be declared the final order, judgment, and decree of this court in this cause.

“Chas. W. MULLAN,
"Attorney General of Iowa.

“W. H. STEAD,
Attorney General of Illinois."

PER Curiam: In consideration whereof and of the decision of this court reported 147 U. S. 1, it is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the boundary line between the State of Iowa and the State of Illinois is the middle of the main navigable channel of the Mississippi river at the places where the nine bridges mentioned in the pleadings cross said river.

OREGON v. HITCHCOCK.

IN EQUITY.

No. 16, Original. Argued April 5, 6, 1906.- Decided April 23, 1906.

In the absence of any act of Congress waiving immunity of the United

States or consenting that it be sued in respect to swamp lands, either within or without an Indian reservation, or of any act of Congress assuming full responsibility in behalf of its wards, the Indians, affecting their rights to such lands, this court has no jurisdiction of an action brought by a State against the Secretary of the Interior and Commissioner of the General Land Office to enjoin them from patenting to Indians lands within that State, claimed by the State under the swamp land acts.

202 U.S.

Statement of the Case.

The fact that the action is brought by a State against the Secretary of the

Interior, who is a citizen of a different State, does not give this Court

jurisdiction as the real party in interest is the United States. It is not the province of the courts to interfere with the administration

of the Land Department, and until the land is patented inquiry as to equitable rights comes within the cognizance of the Department and the courts will not anticipate its action.

By leave of court the State of Oregon filed an original bill against Ethan A. Hitcheock, Secretary of the Interior, and William A. Richards, Commissioner of the General Land Office, to restrain the defendants from allotting or patenting to any Indians or other persons certain lands within the limits of the Klamath Reservation, which it is alleged were on March 12, 1860, swamp and overflowed lands, and praying a decree establishing the title of the State of Oregon to such lands and declaring that the title is subject only to such right of temporary and terminable occupation as may exist in the Indians at present occupying the said reservation, and is not to be defeated by any allotment, patent, agreement or other arrangement. To this bill the defendants filed a demurrer, partly on jurisdictional grounds and partly on the merits.

For a clear understanding of the questions presented the allegations in the bill must be stated. It is alleged that the defendant Hitchcock is a citizen of the State of Missouri, the defendant Richards of the State of Wyoming; that by an act of Congress, approved February 14, 1859, 11 Stat. 383, Oregon was admitted into the Union; that by an act approved September 28, 1850, 9 Stat. 519, Congress granted to the State of Arkansas and other States all lands, within their respective limits, which at the date of the act were swamp and overflowed lands," and by reason thereof unfit for cultivation; that by an act of March 12, 1860, 12 Stat. 3, the provisions of the last-named act were extended to the State of Oregon; that on February 14, 1859, as well as on March 12, 1860, the United States owned in fee simple a large region and body of land lying within the boundaries of the State of Oregon, which said body of land was neither reserved nor dedicated to any public

[blocks in formation]

use and was free from any claim of title or possession, saving and excepting a right to temporary use and occupation belonging to certain Indian tribes; that within this large body of lands were three tribes or bands of Indians—the Klamaths, the Modocs and the Yahooskins-few in number, that number being estimated by the officials of the United States in charge at from 1,200 to 1,500; that they were all in a savage state, uncivilized, without a fixed place of abode and roaming from place to place within the region; that they had no other kind of tenure or title than that which they and their ancestors held from time immemorial and before the settlement of white men in the territory; that on October 14, 1864, 16 Stat. 707, a treaty was negotiated between the United States and these tribes of Indians, by which they ceded to the United States their right, title and claim to all these lands, except a certain specified and smaller tract within the original out-boundaries, which was created a reservation for their use; that said reservation was continued in the occupation of the Indians according to the aboriginal usages and customs of said Indians and of Indians generally, without any claim or pretense of permanent title or individual right to the lands, or any of them, and without any steps taken towards conferring the ultimate title upon them until after the year 1899, when the defendant Hitchcock, Secretary of the Interior, directed and caused a large portion of the lands to be surveyed and divided into numerous definite lots or tracts, for the purpose and with the intention of allotting such tracts to the individual members of the tribes, to be by them held in severalty, and the further purpose of issuing and delivering to each of them a patent declaring that the United States holds the tract allotted in trust for the Indian and his heirs for a period of twenty-five years, and that at the expiration of such period it will convey the tract to him or his heirs discharged of the trust and free from all incumbrances; that in this the defendant Hitchcock was assuming and professing to act under the authority of the act of Congress of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388; that within the reservation made by the

202 U.S.

Argument for Complainant.

treaty of 1864 were large tracts, which had been and were on March 12, 1860, swamp and overflowed lands and unfit for cultivation, and hence under the act of March 12, 1860, had become the property of the State, subject only to the right of occupancy on the part of the Indians; that in the year 1902, before any patents were issued and while the surveying and allotting were in progress, the State caused an examination to be made for the purpose of ascertaining the tracts which on March 12, 1860, were swamp and overflowed lands, and a list prepared of them, which list is attached to the bill as an exhibit; that it presented and filed that list with the surveyor general of the United States for the State of Oregon, together with evidence tending to prove that all of the tracts within the list had been and were on March 12, 1860, swamp and overflowed lands and rendered thereby unfit for cultivation, which evidence was found and certified by the surveyor general to be sufficient. That thereupon the State selected and claimed said tracts as granted to it by the act of Congress of March 12, 1860, and applied to the proper officers of the United States to inquire into and consider the claims of the State; that this application and the evidence was submitted to the defendant Richards, as Commissioner of the General Land Office, and on November 18, 1903, the Acting Commissioner denied and rejected the claim upon the sole ground that the lands, whether swamp and overflowed or not, were not granted to the State of Oregon by the act of Congress. From this decision an appeal was taken to the Secretary of the Interior, and the decision of the Land Office affirmed.

Mr. Charles A. Keigwin, with whom Mr. Andrew M. Crawford and Mr. William B. Matthews were on the brief, for complainant:

The objection taken by the demurrer to the jurisdiction of the court is met by the decision in the recent case of Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373. The statute of 1901 was necessary only because of the difficulty of making the Indians parties,

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »