412.

Acts of the President under legislation relating exclusively to the administration of national forests do not impair the rights of a state under legislation granting public lands for school purposes.

Leonard v. Lennox, 104 C. C. A. 296, 181 | right to them and select instead other Fed. 766; United States v. George, 228 land of equal acreage. See California U. S. 21, 57 L. ed. 715, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. v. Deseret Water, Oil, & Irrig. Co. 243 U. S. 415, 61 L. ed. 821, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 394. All lieu lands were to be selected "under the direction and subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior." Acts of June 21, 1893, chap. 489, §§ 1, 8, 30 Stat. at L. 484; March 16, 1908, chap. 8, 35 Stat. at L. 44, Comp. Stat. § 4868, 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. p. 784; June 20, 1910, chap. 310, §§ 6, 10-12, 36 Stat. at L. 557; February 28, 1891, chap. 384, 26 Stat. at L. 796, Comp. Stat. §§ 4860, 4861, 8 Fed. Stat. Anno. 2d ed. pp. 765, 768, amending §§ 2275, 2276, Rev. Stat.

Sinking Fund Cases, 99 U. S. 700, 718, 719, 25 L. ed. 496, 501; United States v. Chandler-Dunbar Water Power Co. 81 C. C. A. 221, 152 Fed. 41.

The Land Department's ruling that the state substitute other and different base land or suffer rejection of its perfected selection was an affront to the dignity of the state, and an invasion of its rights under its grant.

Re McDonald, 30 Land Dec. 125; Re Coffin, 31 Land Dec. 175; Re California, 7 Land Dec. 270; Re Talbot, 8 Land Dec. 495; State v. Thomas, 35 Land Dec. 173. It would be to penalize the states for delays in the transaction of public business by the Land Department to hold that the elimination from the forest defeated the selection.

Benson Min. & Smelting Co. v. Alta Min. & Smelting Co. 145 U. S. 428, 431, 432, 36 L. ed. 762, 764, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 877, 17 Mor. Min. Rep. 488.

Some of the tracts in place after passing under the grant were included within a public reservation called the Alamo National Forest. Afterwards, on March 9, 1915, the state filed in the local land office a selection list waiving its right to one of these tracts, and selecting in its stead other land of like area lawfully subject to selection. The list conformed to the directions given by the Secretary of the Interior, and was accompanied by the requisite proofs and the proper fees. Notice of the selection was duly posted and published, proof of publication was submitted, and the publisher's charge was paid. In

Mr. Justice Van Devanter delivered other words, the waiver and selection the opinion of the court:

This is a suit by the state of New Mexico to enjoin the Secretary of the Interior and the Commissioner of the General Land Office from canceling or annulling a lieu-land selection of that state, under a mistaken conception of their power and duty. A hearing on the bill and answer resulted in a decree for the state, which the court of appeals affirmed (258 Fed. 980), and the defendants appealed to this court.

[369] There was no controversy or difference in the Land Department about any question of fact, but only in respect of the time as of which the officers were authorized and required to determine the validity of the selection.

Congress granted to New Mexico for the support of common schools designated sections of land in each township, subject to specified exceptions, with a provision enabling and entitling the state to select other lands in lieu of those excepted, and with a further provision whereby, in the event any of the designated sections, after passing under the grant, should be included within a public reservation, the state was to be entitled to waive its

were regularly presented and all was done by the state that needed to be done by it to perfect the selection. The notice did not bring forth any protest or objection, and in due course the local land officers forwarded the list and sup porting proofs and papers to the General [370] Land Office with a certificate stating that there was no adverse filing, entry, or claim to the land selected, and that the list had been accepted and approved by them. The list remained pending in that office until May 16, 1916, when the Commissioner directed that the selection be canceled solely on the ground that in the meantime, on April 3, 1916, the base tract-the one the right to which was waived-had been eliminated from the reservation by a change in its boundaries. The state appealed to the Secretary of the Interior, and he affirmed the Commissioner's action. Both officers proceeded on the theory that the validity of the selection was to be tested by the conditions existing when they came to examine it, and not by those existing when the state made it,-in other words, they conceived that, although the selection was lawful when made, they could and

should disapprove it and direct its cancelation by reason of the elimination of the base tract from the reservation a year later.

selector is acting within the law, in respect of both the land relinquished and the land selected, and of approving or rejecting the selection accordingly. The The courts below rejected that view, power conferred is "judicial in its naand held that those officers were re- ture," and not only involves the authorquired to give effect to the conditions ity, but implies the duty, "to determine existing when the selection was made, the lawfulness of the selections as of the and that, if it was valid then, they were time when the exertion of the authority not at liberty to disapprove or cancel was invoked by the lawful filing of the it by reason of the subsequent change list of selections." Weyerhaeuser v. in the status of the base tract. In our | Hoyt, 219 U. S. 380, 388, 55 L. ed. 258, opinion the courts were right. The provision under which the selection was made was one inviting and proposing an exchange of lands. By it Congress said in substance to the state: If you will waive or surrender your titled tract in the reservation, you may select and take in lieu of it a tract of like area from the unappropriated nonmineral public lands outside the reservation. Accept- selections lawfully made. St. Paul & S. ance of such a proposal and compliance with its terms confer a vested right in the selected land which the land officers cannot lawfully cancel or disregard. In this respect the provision under which the state proceeded does not differ from other land laws which offer a conveyance of the title to those who accept and fully comply with their

terms.

261, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 300; Daniels v. Wagner, 237 U. S. 547, 557, et seq., 59 L. ed. 1102, 1106, L.R.A.1916A, 1116, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 740, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 40; Payne v. Central P. R. Co. supra. This view of it has been enforced where the Secretary, misconceiving his authority and the rights of the selector, erroneously declined to approve, and canceled

was

C. R. Co. v. Winona & St. P. R. Co. 112 U. S. 720, 28 L. ed. 872, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 334; Daniels v. Wagner, 237 U. S. 547, 557, et seq., 59 L. ed. 1102, 1106, L.R.A. 1916A, 1116, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 740, Ann. Cas. 1917A, 40. And it should be observed that this view has been recognized and applied by the Land Department, although not [372] with uniformity. In the case of Re McDonald, 30 [371] In the brief for the officers it is Land Dec. 124, which involved a lieufrankly and rightly conceded to be well land selection and a state of facts much settled that "a claimant to public land who like those now before us, it was said has done all that is required under the by the Secretary of the Interior: "When law to perfect his claim acquires rights the selection was filed, the land emagainst the government, and that his braced in the accompanying deed of right to a legal title is to be deter- relinquishment and reconveyance mined as of that time;" and also that within the limits of the forest reserve, this rule "is based upon the theory that, and a proper basis for a selection under by virtue of his compliance with the re- said act, and the land selected by quirements, he has an equitable title to McDonald in exchange was, accordthe land; that in equity it is his, and the ing to the records of your [Commisgovernment holds it in trust for him." sioner's] office, of the character subject See Lytle v. Arkansas, 9 How. 314, 333, to such selection, and free from other 13 L. ed. 153; Stark v. Starr, 6 Wall. claim or appropriation. By his deed 402, 417, 418, 18 L. ed. 925, 929, 930; of relinquishment and reconveyanace to Ard v. Brandon, 156 U. S. 537, 543, 39 the United States of his own land L. ed. 534, 526, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 406; situate within the boundaries of the Payne v. Central P. R. Co. 255 U. S. 228, forest reserve, and by his selection of ante, 598, 41 Sup. Ct. Rep. 314. But it the lieu land, McDonald accepted the is said that as the selection is "subject standing offer or proposal of the govto the approval of the Secretary of the ernment contained in the Act of June Interior," no right can become vested, 4, 1897 [30 Stat. at L. 11, chap. 2], and nor equitable title be acquired there- complied with its conditions, thereby under unless and until his approval is converting the mere offer or proposal of had; and therefore that the rule just the government into a contract fully stated is not applicable here. To this executed upon his part, and in the exewe cannot assent. The words relied cution of which by the government he upon are not peculiar to this land grant, had a vested right. After McDonald but are found in many others. Their had fully complied with the terms on purpose is to cast upon the Secretary which the government, by said act, had the duty of ascertaining whether the declared its willingness to be bound, no

act of either the executive or legislative branch of the government could devest him of the right thereby acquired. Your JACK AMOS and Others, Known as the [Commissioner's] office will therefore carefully examine the papers and records pertaining to this selection, and, if it is found to be otherwise free from objection, the fact of the elimination

from the boundaries of the forest re- JACK AMOS and Others, Known as the serve of the lands in lieu of which the selection is made, after full compliance by the claimant with the Lieu Land Act and regulations, will not prevent approval of the selection."

JACK AMOS and Others, Known as the allotments of lands in what formerly was Mississippi Choctaws. (No. 6.)

J. S. BOUNDS, Attorney in Fact for T. A. for a reasonable and proportionate con

tribution towards the value of services rendered and expenses incurred by the JACK AMOS and Others, Known as the claimants in securing for said class of Mississippi Choctaws. (No. 7.)

2. Congress has plenary authority over JACK AMOS and Others, Known as the the Indians and all their tribal relations, Mississippi Choctaws. (No. 8.)

WALTER S. FIELD and Madison M. Lind- pendency, and it rests with Congress to de

termine when the relationship shall cease, the mere grant of rights of citizenship not

JACK AMOS and Others, Known as the being sufficient to terminate it.

[Nos. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12.]

Argued January 14 and 15, 1919. Restored to docket for reargument January 5, 1920. Reargued April 21 and 22, 1920. Decided March 7, 1921.

659; Wiggan v. Conolly, 163 U. S. 56, 41 L. ed. 69, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 914; Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 47 L. ed. 183, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115; Winters v. United States, 207 U. S. 564, 52 L. ed. 340, 28 Sup. Ct. Rep. 207. Services rendered benefiting all the

SEVEN APPEALS from the Court of Claims to review a judgment reject-class should be paid for by all individual ing claims for alleged services rendered Indians composing the class who received and expenses incurred in the matter of the benefit of the services. the claims of the Mississippi Choctaws to citizenship in the Choctaw Nation. Judgment reversed in No. 6, and the cause remanded for further findings of fact. Judgments in other appeals af

firmed.

See same case below, 51 Ct. Cl. 284; on rehearing, 52 Ct. Cl. 90.

The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. William W. Scott argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants in No. 6:

The court below rightly held that it had jurisdiction of the present case.

Rollins v. United States, 23 Ct. Cl. 106; Eastern Cherokees v. United States, 20 Ct. Cl. 449; Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians v. United States, 20 Ct. Cl. 449; v. United Western Cherokee Indians States, 27 Ct. Cl. 1; Potawatamie Indians v. United States, 27 Ct. Cl. 411; Mille Lac Chippewas v. United States, 47 Ct. C1. 460.

The case should be remanded to the court below for additional findings.

United States v. Adams (United States v. Child) 9 Wall. 661, 19 L. ed. 808; The Francis Wright, 105 U. S. 381, 26 L. ed. 1100; Shaw v. United States, 93 U. S. 235, 23 L. ed. 880; Ripley v. United States, 220 U. S. 491, 55 L. ed. 557, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478, 222 U. S. 144, 56 L. ed. 131, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 60; Lawrence's Case, 8 Ct. Cl. 252.

*

Mr. Guion Miller argued the cause and filed a brief for appellants in Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12:

The court omitted to make the findings of fact now requested for the reason that the court was in error in its decision as to the law of the case.

United States v. Union P. R. Co. 98 U. S. 569, 25 L. ed. 143; Butler & Vale v. United States, 43 Ct. Cl. 497; Robertson v. Gordon, 226 U. S. 311, 57 L. ed. 236, 33 Sup. Ct. Rep. 105; Bailey v. United States, 43 Ct. Cl. 353; Crocker v. United States, 49 Ct. Cl. 85, 240 U. S. 74, 60 L. ed. 533, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 245; United States v. Logan, 105 Fed. 240; United States v. Mullin, 71 Fed. 682; Rainbow v. Young, 88 C. C. A. 653, 161 Fed. 836; United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432, 47 L. ed. 532, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 478; McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 458, United States v. Old Settlers, 148 U. 51 L. ed. 566, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 346; Beck S. 427-480, 37 L. ed. 509-529, 13 Sup. v. Flourney Live Stock & Real Estate Ct. Rep. 650; Smith v. Swormstedt, 16 Co. 12 C. C. A. 497, 27 U. S. App. 618, How. 288-302, 14 L. ed. 942-948; Eastern 65 Fed. 30; Farrell v. United States, 49 Band of Cherokee Indians v. United C. C. A. 183, 110 Fed. 942; Re Coombs, States, 117 U. S. 288-311, 29 L. ed. 880127 Mass. 278; State ex rel. Tompton v. 887, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 718; Mullen v. Denoyer, 6 N. D. 586, 72 N. W. 1014; United States, 224 U. S. 448, 56 L. ed. State v. George, 39 Or. 127, 65 Pac. 604; 834, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 494; Bowling v. United States v. Celestine, 215 U. S. 278, United States, 233 U. S. 527, 58 L. ed. 54 L. ed. 195, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 93; Mar-1080, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 659; Heckman v. chie Tiger v. Western Invest. Co. 221 U. S. 286, 55 L. ed. 738, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 578; Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413, 56 L. ed. 820, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424; Cherokee Nation v. United States, 40 Ct. Cl. 252; Southern Kansas R. Co. v. Briscoe, 144 U. S. 133-135, 36 L. ed. 377, 378, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; Goat v. United States, 224 U. S. 458, 56 L. ed. 841, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 541; Re Heff, 197 U. S. 488-509, 49 L. ed. 848-857, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 506; Ross v. Eells, 56 Fed. 855, 163 U. S. 702, 41 L. ed. 320, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1205; Bowling v. United States, 233 U. S. 528, 58 L. ed. 1080, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. |

United States, 224 U. S. 413, 432, 56 L. ed. 820, 827, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 424; United States v. Smith, 94 U. S. 214, 24 L. ed. 115; Bemiss v. Bemiss, 110 U. S. 42, 28 L. ed. 64, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 441; Vilas v. Downer, 21 Vt. 419; Stanton v. Embrey, 93 U. S. 519, 23 L. ed. 983; Wright v. Tebbitts, 91 U. S. 252, 23 L. ed. 320; Nutt v. Knut, 200 U. S. 12, 50 L. ed. 348, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 216; Oseanyan v. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. 103 U. S. 275, 26 L. ed. 545; United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375–384, 30 L. ed. 228-231, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1109; United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432,