Then followed the description of boundaries of the other reservations, none of which extended to or embraced any part of the land afterwards known as the White Earth reservation. The Mille Lacs are a band of the Chippewas, and the reservation first named was the reservation set apart for this band of Indians, and was the only reservation set apart for this band by that treaty. This fact admits of no question whatever. By the same treaty reservations were also created for the Pillager and Lake Winnibigoshish (White Oak Point) bands of Chippewas, but none of these reservations embraced any part of the territory now known as the White Earth reservation. Article 1 of the treaty proclaimed "March 20, 1865," provided that, "The reservations known as Gull Lake, Mille Lac, Sandy Lake, Rabbit Lake, Pokagomin Lake, and Rice Lake, as described in the second clause of the second article of the treaty with the Chippewas of the 22d day of February, 1855, are hereby ceded to the United States." In consideration of said cession, the United States set apart other reservations for the future home of said Indians, but no part of said reservations embraced any of the territory afterwards known as the White Earth reservation. The 12th article of said treaty provides, "That owing to the hereto fore good conduct of the Mille Lac Indians, they shall not be compelled to remove so long as they shall not in any way interfere with or in any manner molest the persons or property of the whites." There is no reference in this treaty to any lands "acquired from the White Oak Point and Mille Lac bands of Chippewa Indians on the White Earth reservation," but on the contrary it appears that the country known as the White Earth reservation was not embraced in the territory ceded by the Chippewas by the treaty of March 20, 1865, and was not created as a reservation until the treaty proclaimed April 18, 1867, more than two years thereafter." By article 2 of that treaty, a tract of land, embracing a square of thirty-six townships, including White Earth Lake and Rice Lake, and known as White Earth reservation, was set apart as a reservation for said Indians, and is still held in reservation for that purpose. It is conceded by appellant that the White Earth reservation had its inception in the treaty of April 13, 1867, and that no treaty between the United States and the Mille Lac and White Oak Point bands of Chippewas was proclaimed March 20, 1865, whereby these bands of Indians ceded a single acre of this land as part of the White Earth reservation. This concession is conclusive that the act of July 4, 1884, withholding from disposal the lands acquired from the White Oak Point and Mille Lac bands of Chippewas, by treaty of March 20, 1865, did not embrace any lands on the White Earth reservation, for the reason that no such lands were ceded by said treaty. It is a cardinal rule of construction that statutes must be interpreted according to the intent and meaning and not always according to the letter. Under this rule, if words or phrases employed in a statute are repug nant to other words and phrases that clearly express the intent and meaning of the statute, they should be rejected as mere surplusage. The act of July 4, 1884, refers to the lands acquired from the White Oak Point and Mille Lac bands of Chippewa Indians by the treaty of March 20, 1865. A reference to that treaty shows that no lands lying within the territory known as the White Earth reservation was acquired by the United States from said bands of Indians, but that among the reservations thereby ceded was "Mille Lac," "described in the second clause of the second article of the treaty with the Chippewas of Feb ruary 22, 1855." A reference to the treaty of February 22, 1855, shows that the "Mille Lac" reservation ceded to the United States by the treaty of March 20, 1865, is described as follows: "fractional townships, viz: 42 N., R. 25 W., 42 N., R. 26 W., 42 and 43 N., R. 27 W., and also the three islands in the southern part of Mille Lac." This is a direct and positive description of the lands referred to by the act of July 4, 1884, and the words, "on the White Earth reservation," being clearly repugnant to the descriptive words above referred to, should yield to words that will best carry into effect the intention of the legislature. Considering further that the White Earth reservation was not created until April 18, 1867, and that it has not been ceded to the United States, but is still a reservation for said Indians, that the 12th article of the treaty of 1865-by which the Mille Lac Indians ceded the lands embraced in the "Mille Lac" reservation-provided that said Indians. should not be compelled to remove from said ceded lands, so long as they did not in any manner interfere with the person or property of the whites, clearly indicates that it was the intention of Congress to protect these Indians in their right of occupancy of that territory, as stip ulated by the 12th article of the treaty aforesaid. Your decision is affirmed. SCHOOL LAND-STATE SELECTION. STATE OF CALIFORNIA . SMITH. The State is not authorized to select double minimum land in lieu of lost school sections. Acting Secretary Muldrow to Commissioner Sparks, April 4, 1887. Edward M. Smith made application to purchase the NW. 4 of Sec. 20, T. 1 N., R. 1 E., S. B. M, Los Angeles land district, California, under act of June 3, 1878, which application was rejected by the local officers, for the reason that said land prior to said application had been selected by the State of California as indemnity in lieu of lost school sections sixteen and thirty-six, from which decision Smith appealed. You reversed said decision, upon the ground that said selection by the State of California was invalid, for the reason (1) That the lands selected are double minimum and such lands can not be selected by the State in lieu of lost school sections; and (2) Because the selection is based upon alleged deficiencies that do not exist. From this decision the State appealed. The deficiencies alleged are as follows: Part of NE. of Sec. 36, T. 6 S., R. 8 W. Total .. (All S. B. M.) 80 160 40 40 320 You say that the records of your office show that there is no such township as 15 S., R. "6 W.," S. B. M., and that fractional township 6 south has been satisfied. Therefore the only deficiency shown as a basis for the selection of the said NW. of section 20, is part of the NE. of Sec. 36, T. 6 S., R. 8 W.-eighty acres, and part of the SW. of Sec. 16, T. 10 S., R. 4 W.--forty acres; making a total of one hundred and twenty acres. The selection of one hundred and sixty acres for a deficiency of one hundred and twenty acres being unauthorized, the State can not substitute other lands actually lost, or amend by adding other lands to the basis of indemnity, and thus preserve her selection so as to defeat the right of an applicant to purchase said land made prior to substitution, or amendment, because such substitution or amendment would be virtually a new selection, taking effect only from its date. California v. Haile, (1 C. L. L, 324); Selby v. California, (3 C. L. O., 4); Nebraska r. Dorrington, (2 C. L. L., 647). The principal ground of error alleged by the State is, in holding "that lands double minimum in price can not be selected in lieu of lands single minimum in price." In connection with this alleged error, counsel insist that your office erred in neglecting to state in said decision that in this case the State selected one acre of double minimum as indemnity for two acres of single minimum land lost. If the eighty acres in township 6, and the forty acres in township 10, are the only lands of the alleged deficiency (upon which this selection was based), for which the State is entitled to indemnity, as shown by the decision of your office, their position is not tenable. Counsel do not controvert the statement that there is no such township as 15 S., R. 6 W., S. B. M., and that the deficiency in fractional township 6 south has been satisfied, but merely allege that your office erred in not giv ing them an opportunity to make good the consideration for the land selected by surrendering their claim, on account of additional school lands lost to the State, or to elect what portion of the land selected they will retain in satisfaction of that part of the indemnity to which the State is entitled. But we may assume in the decision of this case that the intention of the State was to select one acre of double minimum for two acres of single minimum. The seventh section of the act of March 3, 1853 (10 Stat., 244), provides "that where any settlement by the erection of a dwelling house, or the cultivation of any portion of the land, shall be made upon the sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections before the same shall be surveyed, or where such sections may be reserved for public uses, other lands shall be selected by the proper authorities of the State in lieu thereof, agreeably to the provisions of the act of Congress approved 20th May, 1826." The act of July 23, 1866 (14 Stat., 210, 6th Sec.), construed this grant as giving to the State of California the right to select indemnity for lost sixteenth and thirty-sixth sections, covered by grants made under Spanish and Mexican authority. Both acts refer to and adopt the terms and methods of selection prescribed by the act of May 20, 1826 (4 Stat., 179). It is unnecessary to refer to these acts further than to show for what lost sections the State is entitled to indemnity. In determining what lands may be selected as indemnity, the act of May 20, 1820, and of February 26, 1859 (11 Stat., 385), control as to the State of California, as well as to all other States. The act of May 20, 1826, merely provided for the appropriation of land for the use of schools in townships and fractional townships, where no land had been theretofore appropriated, and providing for the adjustment of quantity where the township is fractional. The act of February 26, 1859 (R. S., Sec. 2275), under which indemnity school selections have since been made, provided that— Where settlements with a view to pre-emption have been made before the survey of lands in the field, which are found to have been made on sections sixteen and thirty-six, those sections shall be subject to the pre-emption claim of such settlers, and if they or either of them have been or shall be reserved, or pledged for the use of schools or colleges, in which the lands lie, other lands of like quantity are appropriated in lieu of such as may be patented to pre-emptors; and other lands are also appropriated to compensate deficiencies for school purposes, where sections sixteen or thirty-six are fractional in quantity, or where one or both are wanting by reason of the township being fractional, or from any natural cause whatever. Provided: That the lands by this section appropriated shall be selected and appropriated in accordance with the principles of adjustment and the provisions of the act of Congress of May 20, 1826. This plan of adjustment provided by that act is incorporated in the Revised Statutes as section 2276, and is as follows: The lands appropriated by the preceding section shall be selected within the same land district, in accordance with the following princi2278 DEC--35 ples of adjustment, to wit: For each township or fractional township containing a greater quanty of land than three quarters of an entire township, one section; for a fractional township containing a greater quantity of land than one half and not more than three quarters of a township, three quarters of a section, etc. At the date of the grant to the State of California all lands in that State were single minimum lands, and the State of California, by providing for the sale of these lands at $1.25 per acre, construed the grant to be a grant of single minimum lands, which construction has been acquiesced in by the Department. Considering that this is a grant of single minimum lands, the question then arises, what lands is the State entitled to select in lieu of lost school sections? The act authorizing the selection of lieu lands provides, that for the lands lost by reason of any of the conditions named in the act, other lands of like quantity shall be selected. Now, if the State is entitled to select lands of like quantity for the lands lost, it follows that she is entitled to select one hundred and sixty acres for every one hundred and sixty acres lost, and the State cannot be restricted to a less quantity. This question as to the authority of the State to select a less quantity of land as indemnity for a greater quantity lost, is presented in the report of the surveyor-general of California, of August 1, 1882, to the gov ernor, quoted in the brief of counsel, which is not controverted by counsel for the State. In said report, after referring to the preparation of maps showing the railroad reservations, he says: This became necessary, not as a matter of general information, but because the Commissioner of the General Land Office has decided that when the State selects indemnity lands within such reserved limits, the land must be regarded as double minimum in price, and the State can not select within the reserved limits, unless it has lost other lands equiva lent in price, without agreeing to surrender two acres for one. This was done in some cases before I came into office, but without authority, for the surveyor-general is not allowed to charge more than $1.25 per acre for State land, while to surrender two acres for one would occasion a loss to the school fund of $1.25 per acre in all such cases, unless applicants would voluntarily pay $2.50 per acre. The act of June 22, 1874 (18 Stat., 202), appropriating lands for the support of schools in certain fractional townships in the State of Missouri, according to the provisions of the act of May 20, 1826, by the second section provides: That the lands to which said fractional townships are entitled as aforesaid shall be selected by the Commissioner of the General Land Office out of any unappropriated public land within the State of Missouri, subject to sale or location at one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre. This act is a construction of the act of May 20, 1826, as to the character of lands intended to be granted to the State as indemnity for |