credit when drawn in question elsewhere. Controversies between members of other Indian tribes in Oklahoma than those above mentioned were usually determined by the councils of the tribe or by the Indian agent or superintendent in charge.

§ 321. Jurisdiction of the United States courts in the Indian Territory over controversies involving the right to possession of tribal lands.-The Act of May 2, 1890, conferred jurisdiction upon the United States courts in the Indian Territory of controversies involving the right of possession to Indian lands, where such controversies were between other than members of the same tribe or nation. The chapter on ejectment, and the statutes regulating forcible entry, forcible detainer, and unlawful detainer procedure, and the relation of landlord and tenant, were extended by such act over the Indian Territory and made applicable to the possessory rights of the members of the Five Civilized Tribes in and to the domain of the said tribes respectively. The basis of a cause of action and the right to interpose a defense was the Indian right of occupancy asserted by the Indian himself, or by a citizen of the United States, who was not a member of the tribe, under some contract or agreement conferring the right of occupancy, made with some member of the tribe. The jurisdiction of the United States court in the Indian Territory was enlarged from time to time by repeals of tribal laws, abolishing tribal courts, and the extension of the general laws in force in the state to allotted Indian lands, except where controlled by allotment agreements with the United States or legislation imposing restrictions on alienation of tribal lands. Many controversies involving the title and right of possession of Indian lands were adjudged and determined. by the United States courts in the Indian Territory.

§ 322. Jurisdiction of controversies over allotted Indian lands where title held in trust by the United States.-The Choctaw-Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole Agreements con

ferred jurisdiction upon the United States courts then existing in the Indian Territory, or that might thereafter be created, of all controversies growing out of the title, ownership, occupation, or possession of real estate in the territory occupied by the Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek and Seminole Tribes. The Cherokee Allotment Agreement contained no provision of this character, but the Cherokee tribal courts had been abolished prior to allotment and United States courts had been prohibited from enforcing any of the laws of the tribes, and by the Act of June 7, 1889, the United States courts in the Indian Territory had been given original exclusive jurisdiction to try and determine all civil cases at law and in equity thereafter instituted in said courts, and the laws of the United States and the state of Arkansas in force in the Indian Territory were made applicable to all persons therein, irrespective of race. The United States courts in the Indian Territory, and their successors, the courts of the state of Oklahoma, have, ever since allotment, had jurisdiction of all controversies affecting the title, occupation, use, and possession, of allotted Indian lands of the allottees of the Five Civilized Tribes. The United States courts in the Indian Territory, and their successors, the courts of the state of Oklahoma, sitting in what was formerly the Indian Territory, had and have jurisdiction of controversies over allotted lands in the Quapaw Reservation where the title is not held in trust by the United States.

The courts of the territory of Oklahoma had, and their successors, the courts of the state of Oklahoma, have, jurisdiction over controversies involving allotted lands in what was formerly the territory of Oklahoma where the title is not held in trust by the United States. The United States District Courts in Oklahoma have jurisdiction of controversies over allotted lands where the title is not held in trust by the United States and where the plaintiff's cause of action is based upon an allotment treaty, agreement, act of Congress, or other law of the United States,

and the requisite amount is involved, or where there is a diversity of citizenship and the requisite amount is involved, or where the United States is a party plaintiff."

§ 323. Jurisdiction of controversies affecting title or right of possession of allotted lands held in trust by the United States.-The question of the jurisdiction of courts, state and federal, over controversies involving the title te or right of possession of allotted Indian lands where the title is held in trust by the United States is a most difficult and serious one. The courts of the state and of the United States, in a proper case, would have jurisdiction of controversies arising out of the leasing of allotted Indian lands made pursuant to and in accordance with the Act of Congress of February 28, 1891, and similar legislation; actions arising out of such contracts being largely personal in their nature and not being capable of interfering with the obligation of the United States to convey the allotted lands in fee simple to the allottee or his heirs at the end of the trust period, free from any charge or incumbrance. For many years the state courts occasionally and the federal courts frequently took jurisdiction of controversies directly affecting the title or right of possession of lands held in trust by the United States for the benefit of allottees of the several Indian tribes.

The Supreme Court of the United States, construing the Act of August 15, 1894 (c. 290, 28 Stat. 305), providing: "That all persons who are in whole or in part of Indian blood or descent who are entitled to an allotment of land under any law of Congress, or who claim to be so entitled to land under any allotment act or under any grant made by Congress, or who claim to have been unlawfully denied or excluded from any allotment or any parcel of land to which they claim to be lawfully entitled by virtue of any act of Congress, may commence and prosecute or defend

3 Taylor v. Anderson (C. C.) 197 Fed. 383; Heckman v. United States, 224 U. S. 413, 32 Sup. Ct. 424, 56 L. Ed. 820.

any action, suit, or proceeding in relation to their right thereto, in the proper circuit court of the United States" -said: "The Rickert Case settled that, as the necessary result of the legislation of Congress, the United States retained such control over allotments as was essential to cause the allotted land to inure during the period in which the land was to be held in trust 'for the sole use and benefit of the allottees.' As observed in the Smith Case, 194 U. S. 408, 24 Sup. Ct. 676, 48 L. Ed. 1039, prior to the passage of the act of 1894, 'the sole authority for settling disputes concerning allotments resided in the Secretary of the Interior.' This being settled, it follows that prior to the Act of Congress of 1894 controversies necessarily involving a determination of the title and incidentally of the right to the possession of Indian allotments while the same were held in trust by the United States were not primarily cognizable by any court, either state or federal. It results, therefore, that the Act of Congress of 1894, which delegated to the courts of the United States the power to determine such questions, cannot be construed as having conferred upon the state courts the authority to pass upon federal questions over which, prior to the Act of 1894, no court had any authority. The purpose of the Act of 1894 to continue the exclusive federal control over the subject is manifested by the provision of that act, which commands that a judgment or decree rendered in any such controversy shall be certified by the court to the Secretary of the Interior. By this provision, as pointed out in the Smith Case, supra, the United States consented to submit its interest in the trust estate and the future control of its conduct concerning the same to the result of the decree of the courts of the United States, a power which such courts could alone exercise by virtue of the consent given by the act."

4 McKay v. Kalyton, 204 U. S. 458-468, 27 Sup. Ct. 346, 51 L. Ed.

The Supreme Court of the United States thereupon reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court of Oregon, which had determined who was entitled to take by inheritance allotted lands in the Umatilla Reservation, allotted under Act of Congress approved March 3, 1885 (23 Stat. 340, c. 319), upon the grounds that the courts of the state of Oregon were without jurisdiction to determine heirship of allotted Indian lands held in trust by the United States and thereby determine the title and right of possession thereto.

By the Act of June 25, 1910, jurisdiction to determine heirship, if it ever existed in either federal or state courts as to allotted lands held in trust by the United States, was divested, and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such heirship was invested in the Secretary of the Interior as to all allotted lands held in trust except those located in Oklahoma.

Whether jurisdiction to determine heirship of allotted Indian lands held in trust by the United States was ever invested in the Circuit or District Courts of the United States is a question of grave doubt, upon which there seems to have been a substantial difference of opinion among the state and federal courts.5

§ 324. Jurisdiction of courts of the United States as affected by the Judicial Code and amendments thereto.Paragraph 24 of section 24 of the Judicial Code (Act March 3, 1911, c. 231, 36 Stat. 1094 [U. S. Comp. St. Supp. 1911, p. 139]), as amended December 21, 1911 (c. 5, 37 Stat. 46), provides that United States District Courts shall have original jurisdiction:

"Of all actions, suits, or proceedings involving the right

Hy-yu-tse-mil-kin v. Smith, 194 U. S. 413, 24 Sup. Ct. 676, 48 L. Ed. 1039; Patawa v. United States (C. C.) 132 Fed. 894; Smith v. United States (C. C.) 142 Fed. 226; Bond v. United States (C. C.) 181 Fed. 613; Parr v. United States (C. C.) 132 Fed. 1004; Pel-atayakot v. United States, 188 Fed. 387; Parr v. Colfax, 197 Fed. 303, 117 C. C. A. 48; Reed v. Clinton, 23 Okl. 610, 101 Pac. 1055; Mosgrove v. Harper, 33 Or. 252, 54 Pac. 187.