Brief for the United States in Opposition — County of Mahnomen v. United States

"No. 684 |

Inthe Supreme Cour of the Wnited Stutes

* OcToBper TERM, 1942

County OF MAHNOMEN, a MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

PETITIONER

v.

THE UN?rep STATES OF AMERICA

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH

CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION

Page

Opinions below : l

Jurisdiction —. - 1

Question presented 2

Statutes involved 2

Statement 2

Argument ; 6

Conclusion 14

Appendix | Cee 5

CITATIONS

Cases:

Board of Com'rs v *entted States, 100 Fo (2d) 929 3

Board of Com'rs of Caddo County, Okl vy. United States, 87

F. (2d) 55 3,10

Board if Com ors of Oh fushee County . Flutton, 72 Okla,

223. 179 Pac. 922 Q

Board of Canirs of Tulsa County, Oki vo Ponited States, G4

F. (2d) 450 3, 2, 12

Bowling v. United States, 253 Ul 8. 528. - 13

Broadwell vy. Board of Cow'rs of Bryan County, SS Okla

147. 211 Pac. 1040, certiorari denied, 262 U.S. 750. ._. - 13

Bryan County, Okl. vo United States, 123 F. (2d) 782, cer-

tiorari denied, 315 U.S. 819 Bay fe a

Curpe ter v. Shaw, 280 U.S. 363 3, 5

Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665_—- 3,7,8.9

Cramer v. United States, 261 UL S. 219 12

English v. Richardson, 224 U. 3. 680.- ‘ 9

Glacier County, Mont. v. United States, 99 FE. (2d) fea: . 3, 19

Grotkop v. Stuckey, 140 Okla., 178, 282 Pac. 611. - a

Heckman v. United States, 224 U. ©. 413 ——- 12

Tyall v. Yakima County, 130 Wash. 537, 228 Pac. 513 3

Morrow v. United States, 243 Fed. 854. _. own we Oe ee Oke

Privett vo United States, 256 U.S. 201 ae , 13

Sunderland v. United States. 266 U.S. 226....- ----2---- 13

United States v. He newah County, Idaho, 290 Fed. 62S 3,9

United States v. Board of Com'rs, 6 F. Supp. 401-- 3

United States v. Board of County Cem're. 13 Fo Supp 641 3,11

United Statea v. Board of County Concrs, 19 Fo Sapp. 635 3.9

United States » Candelaria, 271 US. 432 beds 13

it)

513891—43-—-----1

Cases Coutinued Page

United States vo Chehalis County 217 Fed. 281. 1!

United States vo Dewey County, affirmed, 26 F. (2d) 434,

certiorari denied, 278 U.S. 649, 14 F. (2d) 784. 10, 11

United States v. Ferry County, Wash., 24 F. Supp. 399... 3.9, 13

United States v. Lewis County, Idak. 95 F. (2d) 236 3

United States v. Stimnesota, 270 U.S. IST. _- F213

{nited States v. Moore, 284 Fed, 86 13

Enited States v. Nez Perce County, Idaho, 95 F. (2d) 232__ 3,10

United States v. Rickert, ISS U.S. 432__. ey ae

United States v. Sherburne Mercantile Co., 68 F. (2d) 155 12

U

‘nited States v. Spaeth, 24 F. Supp. 465

Ward v. Love County, 253 U.S. 17__._-

Warren v. County of Mahnomen, 192 Minn. 464. 227 N. W.

CG we

Whitmire, v. Trapp, 33 Okla. 429, 126 Pac. 578.

Williams v. Johnson, 239 U.S. 414

Statutes:

Act of February 3, 1887, sec. 5, 24 Stat. 388 (25 UL S.C.

345)

Act of June 28, 1898, ¢. 517, 30 Stat. 495

Act of June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 325

Act of Mareh 1. 1907, 34 Stat. 1034.

Act of May 27, 1968, ¢ 199, 35 Stat. 312_.

Nelson Act of January 14, IS89. 25 Stat. 642

Miscellaneous:

54 Int. Dee. 65 (1932) .

49 L. D. 348 (1922)

50 L. D. 691 (1924) __-

3, 4. 7,8, 9

3,8, 10,11

3.4, 7.16. 11

Q

q

2,3. 7,15

Ww

zx

4

Inthe Supreme Court of the United States

OcTOBER TERM, 1942

No. 684

COUNTY OF MAHNOMEN, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION,

PETITIONER

U.

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED

STATES CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE E1GHTH

CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES IN OPPOSITION

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion and supplemental memorandum

of the district court (R. 24-33) are not officially

reported. The opinion of the circuit court. of

appeals (R. 61-67) is reported in 131 F. (2d)

936.

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the cireuit court of appeals

sought to be reviewed was entered December 7,

1942 (R. 67-68). The petition for a writ of cer-

(1)

2

tiorarl was filed January 29, 1943. The jurisdie-

tion of this Court is invoked under Section 240

(a) of the Judicial Code, as amended by the Act

of February 13, 1925.

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the United States, in a suit brought

after the expiration of the trust period, may re-

cover taxes wrongfully assessed against a_tax-

exempt Indian allottee, notwithstanding the fact

that the taxes were “ voluntarily’ paid by the al-

lottee, in some cases before and in others after

the expiration of the trust period, and notwith-

standing the fact that a state court of Minnesota

had previously sustained a demurrer to a com

plaint filed by the allottee for their recovery.

STATUTES INVOLVED

The pertinent provisions of the General Allot.

ment Act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 388 (25

U.S. C. 348); the Nelson Act of January 14,

1889, 25 Stat. 642; the first Clapp Amendment of

June 21, 1906, 34 Stat. 325; and the second Clap}

Amendment of March 1, 1907, 34 Stat. 1084. are

printed in the Appendix, ivfra, pp. U-1s,

STATEMENT

Between 1962 and 1911, the United States

granted allotments of land to certain mixed-blood

Chippewa Indians of the White Earth Indian

Revervation in Mahnomen, Beeker, and Clear-

water Counties, Minnesota, and issued trust pat-

Ci tae —

3

ents to them in the usual form (R. 18, 20, 24, 25).

In these patents the United States agreed to hold

the lands in trust for a period of twenty-five

years, and then to convey them to the allottees in

fee, ‘discharged of said trust and free of all

charge or encumbrance whatsoever’’ (R. 20, 25),°

a provision which has been repeatedly construed

as conferring upon the Indians a vested tax

exemption of which they cannot be deprived with-

out their consent. United States v. Rickert, 188

U. S. 432: Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. 8S. 665; Mor-

row vy. United States, 243 Fed. 854 (C. C. A. 8).

Notwithstanding these decisions, the Chippewa

trust allotments were placed on the tax rolls of

‘General Allotment Act of February &, 1887, sec. 5, 24

Stat. 389 (25 U.S. C. 348).

2 See nlso United States v. Benewah County, Idaho, 200

Fed. 628 (C. C. A. 9): Board of Com rs of Caddo County,

Okl. vy. United States, 87 F. (2d) 55 (C. C. A. 10); United

States v. AY, 2 Peree County, Idaho, He) F. (2d) 232 i. ie A.

QO): United States v. Lewis County, Idaho, 95 F. (2d) 256

(C. C. A. 3): Glacier County, Mont. v. United States, 99 F.

(2d) 733 ¢C. C. A. 9): Board of Com’ra v. United Statex,

100 F, (zd) 929 (C. CL AL 10): United States v. Bourd ef

Com'ra, 6 F. Supp. 401 ¢W. D. Okla.): United Ntates Vv.

Board of County Com'rs, 12 F. Supp. 641 (N. D. Okla);

United States v. Ferry County, Wash. 24 F. Supp. 399

(E. D. Wash.) : (néted States vi Spae th, 24 F. Supp. 465

Minn.) : Warren vo County of Mahnomen, 12 Minn. 464,

257 N. W. 77 (1934): yall v. Yakima County, 130 Wash.

537. 228 Pac. 513 (1924) 2 54 Int. Dec. 65 (1932); ef. Ward

v. Love County, 253 UL S. 10. Carpenter +. Nhaw, 280 U.S.

363, Board of Concers of Tulsa County, Okl. v. United

Nratex, 94 F. (2d) 450 6C. C. A. 10): United States v. Board

of County Com rs, 19 F. Supp. 685 (N. D. Okla.).

4

Mahnomen, Beeker, and Clearwater Counties prion

to the expiration of the twenty-five vear trust

periods (R. 22-24). A number of allottees, ig-

norant of their legal rights and faced with the

threat of having their lands sold for taxes, paid the

assessments; those that did not. lost their lands

through tax sales (R. 21, 23).

In order to protect the rights of its Indian

“wards,”’ the United States brought a elass suit

in 1914 to enjoin the tax officials of Becker

County from making further assessments and col-

leetions, and in 1917 the Circuit Court of Appeals

for the Fighth Cireuit affirmed a Judgment grant-

ing the Government the relief requested. Mor-

row V. United States, 243 Fed. 854. 4 numibe:

of successful suits were breught in succeeding

years by the allottees and by the United States

to recover previous collections and to prevent other

assessments. See, e. y., United States v. Spacth,

24 F. Supp. 465 (Minn): Warren vy. County of

Mahnomen, 192 Minn. 464, 257 N. W. 77 1934).

The few remaining tax claims were finally

“lumped together" in the present suits which the

Chuted States brought in 1940 against Mahnomen,

Becker and Clearwater Counties for the eancella-

tion of all taxes levied prior to the expiration of

the trust periods, and for refunds in these in-

sfances where the taxes were paid by the allot-

tees (R. 2-8, 24).

Seven parcels were inclided in. the complaint

filed by the Government in the Mahnomen County

ease. Parcels 1, 3, and 5 were distnissed with the

Government's consent, When it) developed that

taxes levied against parcel 1 before and after the

expiration of the trust period in 192%, had been

subsequently compromised by the allottee for less

than the amount of the taxes assessed after 19273. °

that the taxes levied against parcel 3 had “been

abated and cancelled upon application’? to the

county; and that the allottee of pareel 5 had Tost

his tax exemption by applying for and reec1viMe

a fee simple patent CR. 20-23), “Phe county tip

lated that parcels 2. 4. and 6 were not legally tax-

able prior to the expiration of the trust periods

Ro 13-15) and did not) seriously question the

Govenunent’s right to have such taxes and en-

fereement proceedings declared illegal and void.

The only serions contest arose in connection with

parcel 7. There the United States issued a trust

patent te Esabelle Garden in December 1902. The

county stipulated that this tract “was not legally

taxable prior to the year 19287 when the trust

period expired (R. 14). Taxes were nevertheless

levied against this allotment commencing in T9TT,

the vear Isabelle Garden reached her mia jority.

Taxes for the period from T911 te 19217, Inclusive

($405.97). were paid in full by the allottee prior

te 1922. The allottee discharged the taxes for

1922 te 1925 and 1926 to. 1954 by the purchase mm

1436 of State Assignment Certificate No. 76 in

the amount of $33.22 and Tax Assignment Cer-

. in

tificate No. 232 in the amount. of $145.93 (RR.

15-16, 21-22).

The cases against all three counties were sub-

mitted on agreed statements of fact (R. 24, 28).

The trial court entered judgments ordering the

cancellation of all taxes levied during the trust

periods, the restoration to the allottees of lands

sold for nonpayment of taxes, and the refund of

all taxes levied and paid before the expiration

of the trust periods. It refused to order a re-

fund of taxes levied before, but not paid until

after, the trust period expired (R, 33-39).

Becker and Clearwater Counties acquiesced in

these judgments. Mahnomen County, however,

elected to appeal from that portion of the judg-

ment directing it to refund the taxes paid be-

tween 1911 and 1921 (8405.97) on parcel 7. The

Government then filed a cross appeal from that

portion of the Judgment denying recovery of taxes

levied on parcel 7 between 1922 and 1925 and dis-

charged by the allottee in 1936 ($33.22). The cir-

cult court of appeals held that the United States

Was entitled to recover all taxes in question,

whether paid before or after the expiration of

the trust period (R. 62-67),

ARGUMENT

Although conceding that parcel 7, allotted. to

Isabetle Garden by a trust patent in Deeember

1902, “was not legally taxable prior to the year

W28" (R. 14; Pet. 6. 12), petitioner nevertheless

|

é

contends that taxes collected from the allottee in

derogation of her tax exemption are Net recover:

able by the United States for two reasons: (1) be-

cause the taxes were ‘voluntarily’’ paid by the al-

lottee (Pet. 6, 7-8. 12-15); and (2) because the

United States is bound by the allottee’s unsuccess-

ful attempt to recover these taxes In proceedings

whieh she brought in the state courts in 1923 (Pet.

5. 15. 17). Both contentions are without merit.’

1. Petitioner rightly concedes (Pet. 6, 12) that

the trust patent which the United States issued to

Isabelle Garden in 1902, pursuant to the General

Allotment Act of I887, 24 Stat. 588 (25 U. 8. C.

248) and the Nelson Act of 1889, 25 Stat. 642,

conferred on her a twenty-five-year tax exemption

whieh could not be revoked without her consent.

United States Vv. Rickert, 188 U.S. 452; Choate v

Trapp, 224 U.S. 600; Morrow v. United States,

243 Fed, S400.) ALS): United States v. Spacth,

D4 FL Supp. 465 (Minu.): Warren v. ros of

Mahnomen, 192 Minn. 464, 257 N. W. (1934).*

It is petitioner’s contention thont Isabelle Garden

voluntarily relinquished her exe mption and paid

the taxes in order that she might become an

emancipated Indian and manage her allotment

as she saw fit (Pet. 12-15). But that right was

>The contentions advanced by Mahnomen County are

essentiully the same as those urged in Bryan County, ORL Vv.

United Stater, 123 F. (2d) 782 (C. C. A. 10), certiorari

denied, 315 U. S, 819.

¢ See also cases cited in n. 2, supra, p. 3.

513891—43-——2

8

hers under the Clapp Amendments of 1906 aud

LOT (34 Stat. 525, 353, 1034) whether she paid

the taxes or not. ‘

It is tyne that the original trust patent whieh

conferred oi Tsabelle Garden a tweuty-five year

tax exemption likewise imposed restrietions on

her right to alenate the allotment. But the

Clapp Amendments, effeetive as to Tsabelle Gar-

den when she reaehed her majority in 191th,

declared that ‘tall restrietions as to sale, ineun-

branee, or taxation for allotments within the

White Earth Reservation * * *. held by

adult mixed-blood dudians, are hereby removed’

Act of June 21, 1906, 54 Stat. 325, 353: Act of

Mareh 1, 1907, 34 Stat. 1034. ‘These amendments

Were inetfeetive lisofar as they attempted to sub-

Jeet these trust allotments to taxation, a faet made

clear by this) Court) in eonstruing identiest

language in Choate v. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 673:

Word vi Lore County, 253 Ul S. 17: Carpenter Nv.

Shaw, 23) UL S. 505: see alse Marrow ve United

States, 243 Fed. 84 00.) ALS): United States :

Spocth, 24 FL Supp. 465 (Minn. But these

amendments did effectively remove all restrietions

on alienation beeause, as this Court has pointed

out, exemptions from taxation and nonalien-

ability are “two separate and distinet subjects. ””

Choate Vv. Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 673. The former

Is a property right protected by the Federal Con-

Act of May 27, 190s, c. "99,35 Stat. 312.

9

stitution against either state or federal inter-

ference; the latter is an expression of legislative

policy which Congress, by virtue of its plenary

power over Indian affairs, can change at will,

with or without the allottee’s consent. Willtams

v. Johnson, 239 U.S. 414, 420; United States v.

Benewah County, 296 Fed. 628, 631 CC. C. A. 9):

L'nited States v. Ferry County, Wash., 24 F.Supp.

399, 401 CE. D. Wash.) ; United States v. Spacth,

24 F. Supp. 465, 468, 466 (Minn.); 49 L. D. 54s,

(1922).

Since restrietions on alienation can be removed

by legislative fiat, it follows that an Indian allot-

ment may be unrestricted and at the same time

tax exempt. Such was the situation in Choale v.

Trapp, 224 U.S. 665, 669, 670, 673: Faglish v.

Richardson, 224 U.S. 680; Board of Comirs of

Tulsa County, Oki. vo. United States, 94 e. (2a)

0, 451 (C. C. A. 103; United States v. Board of

County Com'rs, 1 FF. Supp. 635, 686° 0N, 1).

Okla.) : Coated States v. Spare th, 24 F. Supp. 40,

toX (Minn.): Whitmire vo Trapp, 32 Okla. 429,

26 Pae. S78 (1912); Board of Com’rs of Ohtus-

hee County v. Hutton, 72 Okla, 225, 179 Pae. 922

1919): Grotkop v. Stuckey, 140 Okla. 178, 282

Pae. 611 (1929); 49 L. D. 348, 551-502 (3s;

10 L. D. 691, 693 ¢1924); see Act of June 28. TSos,

© SIT, BO Stat. 495, 507. Since there is nothing

to prevent an allottee from simultaneously pos-

sessing an unrestricted fee and a tax Immunity,

10

ct to suggest (Pet. 3, 12-15) that Isa-

) voluntarily paid taxes which she did

pay in return for a right of alienation

ulready had by reason of the Clapp

Ss.

seems evident that the taxes were not

'allottee for any purpose other than

ver allotment from being sold for un-

She was aware of the consequences

ent, as well as the apparent futility

‘to the levies. Payments made under

es Which prevail in these types of

ly, where the Indians run the risk of

allotments unless the taxes are paid.

eemed “voluntary payments. Ward

nly, 203 UL S. 17, 23; Glacter County.

ited States, 99 F. (2d) 733, 735 (C. €.

ed States v. Nez Peree County, 95 F.

(CLC. AL 9); Warren ve. County of

192 Minn. 404, 257 N. W. 67 (1934).

ion that the taxes are not recoverable

paid under protest, formal or other:

sound because the courts have re-

ld that “The United States is not

rom recovering taxes paid without

an Indian ward."” United States v.

‘ounty, 9D F. (2d) 232, 236 (C. C. A.

oard of Conm're of Caddo County. Ok]. v.

StF. (2d) 35,57 (C.C. A. 10): United States.

fy. 14 F. (2d) 784, 791 (S. D. 1926). affirmed,

11

The language in Ward v. Love County, 293

U.S. 17, 22, relied upon by petitioner (Pet. 7,

14) is not in point because in that case the United

States was not the party plaintiff. When the liti-

vation is commenced by the Indians themselves,

hey, like other taxpayers, may be subject to loeal

statutes of limitation, statutes governing protests,

ote. But these statutes are not applicable when

suit is brought by the United States in its sov-

ereign capacity to vindicate a federal policy. Cf.

United States v. Chehalis County, 217 Fed. 281,

285 (W. D. Wash.); United States v. Dewey

County, 14 F. (2d) 784, 791 CS. D.). Where a

federal right is involved and the United States is

the party plaintiff, ‘‘money got through imposi-

tion’? may be recovered back, whatever be the

state law. Cf. Ward v. Love County, 253 U.S.

17, 24.

9 A federal right is clearly involved in the in-

stant ease. In the trust patent which it issued

to Tsabelle Garden in 1902, the United States

agreed to convey the allotment to her at the end

of twenty-five years “free of all charge or incum-

prance.” The Government has the right and the

duty to see that its eonsensual obligations are

properly discharged and its declared policies fully

26 F. (2d) 434 (C. C. ALS). certiorart denied, 278 U.S. G49;

United States v, Board of County Con rs, 13 F. Supp. 641, 643

(N. D. Okla.) : United Statex v. Chehalis County, 214 Fed.

vat OW. D. Wash.) ; Warren v. County of Mahnomen, 192

Minn. $64. 466,257 NWT? 01934).

12

respected. To this end, it may invoke the aid of

its courts “in removing unlawful obstacles to the

fulfillment of its obligations.” Uuyited States v.

Minnesota, 270 U.S. 181, 194: United States v.

Rickert, 188 U.S. 432, 444 Bryan County, Okl. v.

Cited States, 123 F. (2d) 782 (C. C. A. 10), cor-

tiorari denied, 315 U.S. 819. The interest of the

United States in having its obligations and policies

observed “is one which is vested in it as a sover-

eign. United States ve Minnesota, 270 U.S.

Ist, 194.

The duty of the United States to have its guar-

aitee of tax immunity respected is a continuing

obligation even though the allottees have beeome

eitizens, the restrietions on alienation have been

removed, land the Indians have been otherwise

emancipated from a wardship status. Cramer vy.

Cnited States, 261 UL S. 219, vats Heckman v.

Cuted States, 224 US. 413. 457: Bryan Cowity,

Ohl. ve. United States, 123 BF. (2d) 782 (C. Co A.

10), certiorari dented, 315 U.S. 819: Board of

Coners of Tulsa County, OW. United States, 94

BP. (2d) 450, 452 (C0 CL AL 10): United States v.

Sherburne Mercantile Co... 6S F. (Pd) 195. 15s

(@. 2 NL 9). This duty te recover taxes unlaw-

fully exacted from an allottee is based Vprom the

legal relation of trusteeship and springs from the

obligation contained in the terms of the trust to

preserve the land so that at the end of the trust

period it can be passed to the benefetary “free of

13

all charge or ineumbrance.”” Morrow v. United

States, 243 Fed. 854, 859 (C. C. A. 8); United

States ¥. Moore, 284 Fed. 86, 89 (C. C. A. 8);

United States v. Ferry County, Wash., 24 F.Supp.

399, 400 CW. D. Wash.). Henee, the fact the pres-

ent suit was not brought and that some of the

taxes Were not paid until after the expiration of

the trust period is immaterial.

Furthermore, the interest of the United States

mn having its obligations and policies respected,

heing one which is vested in it as a sovereign

(United States v. Minnesota, 270 U.S, 181, 194),

cannot be defeated by a judgment in a proceed-

ine to whieh it was not a party. United States

v. Candelaria, 271 U.S. 482, 444: Sunderland v.

United States, 266 U. S. 226, 232: Privett v.

United States, 256 U.S. 201, 204; Bowling v.

United States, 233 U.S. 528, 534. Accordingly,

the unsuccessful suit instituted by the allottee in

1023 is no bar to this action by the Uinited States

to recover taxes illegally collected by Mahnomen

County. Bryan County, Oki. v. United States,

123 F. (2d) 782 (C. C. A. 10). certiorari denied,

315 U.S. 819.) That case is precisely in pornt.

There the allottees assigned their tax-refund

claims to one Broadwell who brought suit to re-

eover the taxes in the state courts of Oklahoma.

The suit was defeated by a plea of limitations.

Broadwell v. Board of Com’rs of Bryan County,

88 Okla. 147, ZIT Pae. 10400 (1922). certiorarl

l4

demied, 262 U.S. 750. But that Judgment did not

prevent the United States from supsequently recov-

ering those taxes in its own courts. Bryan

County, Okl. v. United States, 123 F. (2d) 782 (¢.

C. A. 10), certiorari denied, 315 U.S. 819.

CONCLUSION

The decision of the Cireuit Court of Appeals

is in accord with the applicable decisions of this

Court. It raises ne new question ef substance

and presents no conflict. It is therefore respect-

fully submitted that the petition for a writ of cer-

tiorart should be denied.

CHARLES Fany,

Soltcitor General,

NorMAN M. Lirre.e.

Assistant Attoin. y General.

VrERNON L. WILKINSON,

Warren J. CumMMrNgs, Jr.,

Attorneys.

Marcu 1943

APPENDIX

Section 5 of the General Allotment Act of Feb-

ruary 8, 1887, ©. 119, 24 Stat. 588. 359, provides :

That upon the approval of the allotments

provided for in this act by the Secretary of

the Interior, he shall cause patents to issue

therefor in the name of the allottees, which

patents shall be of the legal effeet, and de-

clare that the United States does and will

hold the land thus allotted, for the period

of twenty-five years, in trust for the sole

use and benefit of the Indian to whom such

allotment shall have been made, er, in case

of his decease, of his heirs according to the

laws of the State or Territory where such

land is loeated, and that at the expiration

of said period the United States will convey

the same by patent to said Indian, or his

heirs as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of

said trust and free of all charge or in-

eumbrance whatsoever: Provided, That the

President of the United States may in any

ease in his diseretion extend the period

(6.6.0: Me) ”-* *

Sections 1 and 3 of the Nelson Act of January

14, 1889, c. 24, 25 Stat. 642, so far as pertinent,

provide :

Be it enacted by the Senate and House

of Representatives of the United States of

America in Congress assembled, That the

President of the United States is hereby

authorized and directed, within sixty days

(15)

1b)

after the passage of this act, to designate

and appoint three Commissioners, one of

Whom shail be a citizen of Minnnesota.

Whose duty it shall be, as soon as prae-

ticable after their appointment, to nego-

tiate with all the different bands or tribes

of Chippewa Indians in the State of Min-

nesota for the complete cession and re-

linquishment in writing of all their title

and interest in and to all the reservations

of said Indians in the State of Minnesota,

except the White Earth and Red Lake

Reservations, and to ali and so much of

these two reservations as in the judgment

of said commission is not required to make

and fill the allotments required by this and

existing acts, and shall not have been re-

served by the Commissioners for said pur-

poses, for the purposes and upon the terms

heremafter stated; * * *,

* * e * *

See. 3. ‘That as soon as the census has been

taken, and the cession and relinquishment

has been obtained, approved, and ratified, as

specitied in section one of this act, all of said

Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota,

except those on the Red Lake Reservation,

shall, under the direction of said commis-

Stoners, be removed to and take up their

residence on the White Earth Reservation,

and thereupon there shall, as soon as prae-

Deable. under the direction of said commis-

stoners, be allotted lands in severalty to

the Red Lake Indians on Red Lake Reserva-

tion and te all the other of said Indians on

White Earth Reservation, in conformity

With the act of February eighth, eighteen

hundred and eighty-seven, entitled “CAn aet

for the allotment of lands in severalty to

‘the

BIH, |

The

1”

aé

Indians on the various reservations, and to

extend the protection of the laws of the

United States and the Territories over thie

Indians, and for other purposes"; * **.

tirst Clapp Amendment of June 22, 1906, ¢.

34 Stat. 525, 353, provides:

That all restrictions as to sale, imeutm-

branee, or taxation for allotments within

the White Earth Reservation in the State

of Minnesota, now or hereafter held by adult

rixed-blood Indians, are hereby removed,

and the trust deeds heretefore or hereafter

executed by the Department for such allot:

ments are hereby declared to pass the title

in fee simple, or such mixed bloods upon

application shall he entitled to receive a pat-

ent in fee simple for such allotments; and

as to full bloods, said restrictions shall be

removed when the Seeretary of the Interior

ix satisfied that said adult full-blood Indiins

are competent to handle their own affairs.

and in sueh ease the Seeretary of the In-

terior shall issue to sueh Indian allottee a

patent in fee simple upon applieation.

second Clapp Amendment of March 1, 1907,

e, 2285, 3b Stat. 1Oo4, provides :

That all restrictions as to the sale, meum-

branee, or taxation for allotments within the

White Earth Reservation in the State of

Minnesota, heretofore or hereafter held by

adult mixed-blood Indians, are hereby re-

moved, and the trust deeds heretofore or

hereafter exeented py the Department for

sich allotments are hereby declared to pass

the title in fee simple, or sueh mixed bloods

Upon applieation shall be eutitled to receive

a patent in fee simple for such allotments;

and as to full bleeds, said restrietions shall

1S

be removed when the Secretary of the In-

terior is satisfied that said adult full-blood

Indians are competent to handle their own

affairs, and in such case the Secretary of the

Interior shall issue to such Indian allottee a

patent on fee simple upen application.

¢ 86 6CveOeeeut Caer Ba OF Fic ge eae