1. Children of Omaha Indians born may entertain a defense not made on the first trial. [For other cases, see Appeal and Error, IX. 1, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] [No. 242.] Argued March 21 and 22, 1921. Decided during the trust period acquired no vested APPEAL from the United States Cir right to an allotment by virtue of the cuit Court of Appeals for the Treaties of March 16, 1854, and March 6, Eighth Circuit to review a decree which 1865, with the Omaha Tribe, or the Acts affirmed a decree of the District Court of August 7, 1882, and March 3, 1893, en- | for the District of Nebraska, dismissing acted in execution of the treaty purposes, the bill in a suit to secure an allotment so as to preclude Congress from changing, of land in the Omaha Indian Reservaas it did in the Act of May 11, 1912, the tion. Affirmed. mode of disposition of the unallotted lands in the Omaha Indian Reservation. [For other cases, see Constitutional Law, IV. e, in Digest Sup. Ct. 1908.] Indians of statute. allotment implied repeal See same case below, 261 Fed. 833. C. C. A. The facts are stated in the opinion. Mr. John Lee Webster argued the cause, and, with Mr. Hiram Chase, filed brief for appellant: 2. The subject of the disposition of the unallotted lands on the Omaha Indian Reservation is so completely covered by the a Act of May 11, 1912, that such act must be held to have repealed that portion of the Act of August 7, 1882, which authorized allotments to Omaha children born during the trust period. (For other cases, see Indians, VIII.; Statutes, Note. As to rights and status of Indians-see note to Worcester v. Georgia, 8 L. ed. U. S. 484. Appellant was born into the right to allotment under the Act of 1882, as amended by the Act of 1893. Chase v. United States, 152 C. C. A. 21, 238 Fed. 887. Having relied at the first trial and on the first appeal, upon the single proposition that the Act of 1893 repealed the Act of 1882, and thereby cut off the right of these Indian claimants to allotments, and having failed in that defense, the United States cannot, upon the second trial, abandon that defense, and insist that the Act of May 11, 1912, repealed the Act of 1882. On repeal of statutes by implication, generally see notes to State v. Massey, Cromwell v. Sac County, 94 U. S. 351, 4 L.R.A. 309, and United States v. 356 24 L. ed. 195; Davis v. Wakelee, 156 Caddies of Tobacco, 20 L. ed. U. S. 235. | U. S. 680, 39 L. ed. 578, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 555; Oakland Sugar Mill Co. v. Fred W. Wolf Co. 55 C. C. A. 93, 118 Fed. 239; Ohio & M. R. Co. v. McCarthy, 96 U. S. 258, 24 L. ed. 693; Smith v. Boston Elev. R. Co. 37 L.R.A. (N.S.) 429, 106 C. C. A. 497, 184 Fed. 387; Southern Cotton Oil Co. v. Shelton, 136 C. C. A. 509, 220 Fed. 247; Werlein | v. New Orleans, 177 U. S. 390, 44 L. ed. 817, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 682. This doctrine of estoppel against changing the grounds of defense or shifting positions applies to the United States as well as to individuals. Northern P. R. Co. v. Slaght, 205 U. S. 122, 51 L. ed. 738, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 446; United States v. California & 0. Land Co. 192 U. S. 355, 48 L. ed. 476, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 266. The ruling of the circuit court of appeals, in Chase v. United States, 238 Fed. 887, was the law of the case, and the district court was without jurisdiction to depart therefrom. Bissell Carpet-Sweeper Co. v. Goshen Sweeper Co. 19 C. C. A. 25, 43 U. S. App. 47, 72 Fed. 545; Sibbald v. United States, 12 Pet. 488, 492, 9 L. ed. 1167, 1169; Re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. 160 U. S. 247, 255, 40 L. ed. 414, 416, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Anderson, 149 U. S. 237, 241, 37 L. ed. 717. 718, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 843. The Act of May 11, 1912, did not repeal the Act of 1882, or the amendatory Act of 1893. In any event, the Acts of 1882 and 1893, providing for allotments to members of the tribe, remain in full force, and continue to be operative until there shall be an actual sale of the lands. Chase v. United States, 152 C. C. A. 21, 238 Fed. 893; Frost v. Wenie, 157 U. S. 46, 39 L. ed. 614, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 532; Hemmer v. United States, 123 C. C. A. 194, 204 Fed. 898, 241 U. S. 379, 60 L. ed. 1055, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 659. Equity will treat that which ought to have been done as having been done. Cropley v. Cooper, 19 Wall. 167, 174, 22 L. ed. 109, 113; Martin v. Martin, 250 Mo. 550, 157 S. W. 575; Re Imperial Textile Co. 239 Fed. 777; Pilok v. Bednarski, 230 Mass. 58, 119 N. E. 360; Walker v. Brown, 165 U. S. 654, 665, 41 L. ed. 865, 872, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 453, 1 Pom. Eq. Jur. §§ 363, 364. Assistant Attorney General Garnett argued the cause, and, with Special Assistant to the Attorney General Underwood, filed a brief for appellee: The rule of "the law of the case" has no application here. Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U. S. 436, 444, 56 L. ed. 1152, 1156, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 739; Re Sanford Fork & Tool Co. 160 U. S. 247, 255, 256, 40 L. ed. 414, 416, 417, 16 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291; Ex parte Union S. B. Co. 178 U. S. 317, 319, 44 L. ed. 1084, 1085, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 904; Mutual L. Ins. Co. v. Hill, 193 U. S. 551, 553, 554, 48 L. ed. 788, 792, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 538; Re Potts, 166 U. S. 263, 265, 266, 41 L. ed. 994, 995, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 520; Alerding v. Allison, 170 Ind. 252, 127 Am. St. Rep. 363, 83 N. E. 1006. Congress had plenary power to enact the Statute of May 11, 1912, providing for the sale of unallotted tribal lands, and that statute bars any right which appellant might assert to an allotment. Gritts v. Fisher, 224 U. S. 640, 647, 648, 56 L. ed. 928, 933, 934, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665, 670, 671, 56 L. ed. 941, 944, 945, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 565; Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 307, 47 L. ed. 183, 190, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115; Sizemore v. Brady, 235 U. S. 441, 59 L. ed. 308, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 135. Mr. Oscar C. Anderson, by special leave, argued the cause, and, with Mr. Charles J. Kappler, filed a brief for the Omaha Tribe of Indians: Plaintiff's in these suits cannot predicate any right under the Treaties of 1854 and March 16, 1865. United States v. Chase, 245 U. S. 89, 62 L. ed. 168, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24. The title of the Omaha Tribe of Indians and the individual members thereof in the unallotted lands mentioned in § 8 of the Act of Congress of August 7, 1882, was merely one of occupancy and possession. Nadeau v. Union P. R. Co. 253 U. S. 442, 64 L. ed. 1002, 40 Sup. Ct. Rep. 570; United States v. Rowell, 243 U. S. 464, 61 L. ed. 818, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 425. Congress had authority at any time before the trust patent was issued to the Omaha Tribe of Indians for their tribal lands mentioned in § 8 of the Act of 1882, or even after the same was issued, to make other and different disposition of said unallotted lands, with or without the consent of the Omaha Tribe of Indians; and it subsequently did so under and by virtue of the Acts of Congress of March 3, 1893, and of May 11, 1912. Brown v. United States, 32 Ct. Cl. 432; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553, 258 47 L. ed. 299, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 216; Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294, 47 L. ed. 183, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 115; United States v. Boylan, 256 Fed. 468; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 43 L. ed. 1041, 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 722; Brader v. James, 246 U. S. 88, 62 L. ed. 591, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 285; La Motte v. United States, 167 C. C. A. 277, 256 Fed. 5; Conley v. Ballinger, 216 U. S. 84, 54 L. ed. 393, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224; United States v. Sandoval, 231 U. S. 28, 58 L. ed. 107, 34 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1; Nadeau v. Union P. R. Co. 253 U. S. 442, 64 L. ed. 1002, 40 Sup. Sup. Ct. Rep. 570; Cooley, Const. Law, 6th ed. p. 117; United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 30 L. ed. 228, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1109; Choctaw Nation v. United States, 119 U. S. 1, 30 L. ed. 306, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 75; Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, 8 L. ed. 483; Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 8 L. ed. 25; Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co. 135 U. S. 641, 34 L. ed. 295, 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 965; Conley v. Ballinger, 216 U. S. 84, 54 L. ed. 393, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 224; Cherokee Trust Funds, 117 U. S. 288, 29 L. ed. 880, 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 718; Cherokee Nation v. Journeycake, 155 U. S. 196, 207, 39 L. ed. 120, 123, 15 Sup. Ct. Rep. 55; United States v. Nice, 241 U. S. 591, 60 L. ed. 1192, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 696; United States v. Rowell, 243 U. S. 464, 61 L. ed. 848, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 425; Williams v. Johnson, 239 U. S. 414, 60 L. ed. 358, 36 Sup. Ct. Rep. 150; United States v. Chase, 245 U. S. 89, 62 L. ed. 168, 38 Sup. Ct. Rep. 24; Daugherty v. McFarland, 40 S. D. 1, 166 N. W. 143; United States v. Des Moines Nav. & R. Co. 142 U. S. 510, 35 L. ed. 1099, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 308; Gritts v. Fisher, 224 U. S. 640, 56 L. ed. 928, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 580; Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665, 56 L. ed. 941, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 565; Siezemore v. Brady, 235 U. S. 441, 59 L. ed. 308, 35 Sup. Ct. Rep. 135; Johnson v. M'Intosh, 8 Wheat. 543, 5 L. ed. 681; Baker v. Harvey, 181 U. S. 481, 45 L. ed. 963, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 690; M'Culloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 4 L. ed. 579; Elk v. Williams, 112 U. S. 94, 28 L. ed. 643, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 41; Lowe v. Hubbard, 242 U. S. 654, 61 L. ed. 547, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 12; Lowe v. Weld, 242 U. S. 654, 61 L. ed. 547, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 12; Ex parte Crow Dog (Ex parte Kang-Gi-Shun-Ca) 109 U. S. 556, 27 L. ed. 1030, 3 Sup. Ct. Rep. 396; Head Money Cases (Edye v. Robertson) 112 U. S. 580, 28 L. ed. 798, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247; Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190, 31 L. ed. 386, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; Wallace v. Adams, 204 U. S. 415, 51 L. ed. 547, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 363; Cherokee Intermarriage Cases, 203 U. S. 76, 51 L. ed. 96, 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 29; Eells v. Ross, 12 C. C. A. 205, 29 U. S. App. 59, 64 Fed. 417; Bond v. United States, 181 Fed. 613; Beck v. Flournoy LiveStock & Real-Estate Co. 12 C. C. A. 497, 27 U. S. App. 618, 65 Fed. 30; United States v. Waller, 243 U. S. 452, 61 L. ed. 843, 37 Sup. Ct. Rep. 430; Fleming v. McCurtain, 215 U. S. 56, 54 L. ed. 88, 30 Sup. Ct. Rep. 16; Marchie Tiger v. Western Invest. Co. 221 U. S. 286, 55 L. ed. 738, 31 Sup. Ct. Rep. 578; Muskrat v. United States, 44 Ct. Cl. 137; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553, 47 L. ed. 299, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 216; Woodbury v. United States, 95 C. C. A. 498, 170 Fed. 302; Smith v. Bonifer, 132 Fed. 889; Hy-Yu-Tse-Mil-Kin v. Smith, 194 U. S. 402, 48 L. ed. 1040, 24 Sup. Ct. Rep. 676; Stone v. Mississippi, 101 U. S. 814, 25 L. ed. 1079. The Act of Congress of March 3, 1893, repeals all of § 8 of the Act of Congress of August 7, 1882. United States v. Tynen, 11 Wall. 88, 20 L. ed. 153; King v. Cornell, 106 U. S. 395, 27 L. ed. 60, 1 Sup. Ct. Rep. 313; Murphy v. Utter, 186 U. S. 95, 105, 46 L. ed. 1070, 1076, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 776; The Habanna, 175 U. S. 677, 685, 44 L. ed. 320, 323, 20 Sup. Ct. Rep. 290; 11 Enc. U. S. Sup. Ct. Rep. 98; 36 Cye. 1082; Minnesota & M. Land & Improv. Co. v. Billings, 50 C. C. A. 70, 111 Fed. 972. In construing a treaty between the United States and an Indian tribe the treaty must be construed, not according to the technical meaning of its words to the learned lawyer, or the technical meaning of its words as between citizens of the United States; but, on the contrary, the words in a treaty should be construed in the light of the recognized relations between the government and the Indians, and the established policy of the former towards the latter, and as the United States and the Indians must have understood the treaty at the time it was made, regardless of the technical meaning of words, or conditions that may have subsequently developed. Kansas Indians (Blue Jacket v. Johnson County) 5 Wali. 737, 18 L. ed. 667; Choate v. Trapp, 224 U. S. 665, 56 L. ed. 941, 32 Sup. Ct. Rep. 565; Shulthis v. |