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

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386403_0182%3A4

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Brief for the United States in Opposition
- **Published:** January 1, 1943
- **Citation:** 319 U.S. 474

## Text

"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

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386403_0182%3A4. Public record. Not legal advice.