thorized to take a census of each of said tribes, or to adopt any other means by them deemed necessary to enable them to make such rolls. They shall have access to all rolls and records of the several tribes, and "The roll of Creek freedmen made by J. W. the United States court in Indian territory Dunn, under authority of the United States, shall have jurisdiction to compel the officers [464]prior to March fourteenth, eighteen hundred of the tribal governments and custodians of and sixty-seven, is hereby confirmed. and such rolls and records to deliver same to said said commission is directed to enroll all per-commission, and on their refusal or failure sons now living whose names are found on to do so to punish them as for contempt; as said rolls, and all descendants born since the also to require all citizens of said tribes, and date of said roll to persons whose names are persons who should be so enrolled, to appear found thereon, with such other persons of before said commission for enrollment, at African descent as may have been rightfully such times and places as may be fixed by said admitted by the lawful authorities of the commission, and to enforce obedience of all Creek Nation. others concerned, so far as the same may be necessary, to enable said commission to make rolls as herein required, and to punish anyone who may in any manner or by any means obstruct said work.

Tribes be enjoined or suspended by any pro-
ceeding in, or order of, any court, or of any
judge, until after final judgment in the Su-
preme Court of the United States. In cases
of appeals, as aforesaid, it shall be the duty
of the Supreme Court to advance such cases
on the docket and dispose of the same as
early as possible."

e in force as to the Chickasaw, Choctaw, | work of the commission to the Five Civilized
nd Creek tribes or nations until the first
ay of October, eighteen hundred and ninety-
ight."
Section twenty-nine ratified the agreement
hade by the commission with commissions
epresenting the Choctaw and Chickasaw
ribes, April 23, 1897, as amended by the act,
nd for its going into effect if ratified before
December 1, 1898, by a majority of the whole
number of votes cast by the members of said
ribes at an election held for that purpose,
provided, That no person whose right to
citizenship in either of said tribes or nations
s now contested in original or appellate pro-
ceedings before any United States court shall
be permitted to vote at said election;"
"and if said agreement as amended be so
ratified, the provisions of this act shall then
only apply to said tribes where the same do
not conflict with the provisions of said agree-
ment."

Then followed the agreement referred to, containing provisions as to allotments, railroads, town sites, mines, jurisdiction of courts and tribal legislation, and stating: "It is further agreed, in view of the modification of legislative authority and judicial jurisdiction herein provided, and the necessity of the continuance of the tribal governments so modified, in order to carry out the requirements of this agreement, that the same shall continue for the period of eight years from the fourth day of March, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight. This stipulation is made in the belief that the tribal governments so modified will prove so satisfactory that there will be no need or desire for further change till the lands now occupied by the Five Civilized Tribes shall, in the opinion of Congress, be prepared for admission as a state in the Union. But this provision shall not be construed to be in any respect an abdication by Congress of power at any time to make needful rules and regulations respecting said tribes." The agreeIment was ratified by the two nations in August, 1898. Rep. Com. Ind. Affairs, 1898, p. 77.

Section thirty made similar provision in respect of an agreement with the Creek Nation, which is set forth.

The Indian appropriation act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 571, 591, chap. 545), continued the authority theretofore conferred on the commission by law, and contained this provision:

"Appeals shall be allowed from the United States courts in the Indian territory direct to the Supreme Court of the United States to either party, in all citizenship cases, and in all cases between either of the Five Civilized Tribes and the United States involving the constitutionality or validity of any legislation affecting citizenship, or the allotment of lands, in the Indian territory, under the rules and regulations governing appeals to said court in other cases: Provided, That appeals in cases decided prior to this act must be perfected in one hundred and twenty days from its passage; and in cases decided subsequent thereto, within sixty days from final judgment; but in no such case shall the

Thereupon numerous appeals were prosecuted to this court, of which one hundred and sixty-six were submitted on printed briefs, with oral argument in many of them. Four of these appeals are set out in the title, numbered 423, 453, 461, 496, and the remaining one hundred and sixty-two are enumerated in the margin. †

*The proceedings in these four appeals are[468] sufficiently stated as follows: No. 423.-Stephens et al. v. The Cherokee Nation.

William Stephens; Mattie J. Ayres, his daughter; Stephen G. Ayres, Jacob S. Ayres, and Mattie Ayres, his grandchildren, *applied[469] to the Dawes Commission for admission to citizenship in the Cherokee Nation, August 9, 1896; the nation answered denying the jurisdiction of the commission, and on the merits; and the application was rejected, whereupon applicants appealed to the United States court in the Indian territory, northern district, where the cause was referred to a special master, who reported on the evidence that the applicants were Cherokee Indians by blood. The court, Springer, J., accepted

#No. 436, Cobb et al. v. Cherokee Nation; No. 438, Coldwell et al. v. Choctaw Nation; No. 445, Castoe et al. v. Cherokee Nation; No. 446,

Anderson et al. v. Cherokee Nation; No. 447,

Clark et al. v. Choctaw Nation: No. 449, Choc-
taw Nation v. Mickle et al.: No. 450, Same ▼.
Skaggs; No. 451, Same v. Godard et al.; No.
452, Same v. Grady: No. 454, Morgan et al. v.

Creek Nation: No. 456. Bridges et al. v. Creek
al.: No. 458, Same v. Gilliam et. al. No. 459,
Bell et al. v. Cherokee Nation; No. 460, Truitt
et al. v. Cherokee Nation: No. 464, Jordan et
al. v. Cherokee Nation; No. 465, Ward et al. v.
Cherokee Nation: No. 466, Wassom et al. v.

Nation; No. 457, Cherokee Nation v. Parker et

Muskogee or Creek Nation: No. 469. Chickasaw

Nation v. Roff et al.; No. 470. Same v. Troop;
No. 471, Same v. Love; No. 472, Same v. Hill
et al. No. 473, Same v. Thompson et al.; No.
474, Same v. Love: No. 475. Same v. Poe et al.;
No. 476, Same v. McDuffie et al.; No. 477. Same
v. McKinney et al.; No. 478. Same v. Bounds et
al. No. 479, Same v. King et al.; No. 480,
Same v. Washington et al.; No. 481, Same
V. Fitzhugh et al.: No. 482, Same V.
Jones et al.; No. 483, Same v. Sparks et
al.; No. 484. Same v. Hill et al.; No. 485,
Same v. Arnold et al.; No. 486, Same v. Brown
et al.; No. 487, Same v. Joines et al.; No. 488,
Same v. Halford et al.; No. 489. Same v. Poyner

et al.; No. 490. Same v. Albright et al. No.
491, Same v. Doak et al.; No. 492, Same v. Pass-
more; No. 493, Same V. Laflin et al.;
No. 494, Same V. Law et
al. No. 495,
Same v. Saey; No. 497, Same v. Woody et al.;
No. 498, Same v. Cornish et al.; No. 499, Same

v. McSwain; No. 500, Same v. Standifer; No.

501, Same v. Bradley et al.: No. 502. Same v.
Alexander et al.; No. 503, Same v. Sparks et

al.; No. 504, Same v. Story et al.; No. 505,
Same v. Archard et al.; No. 506, Same v.

Keys; No. 507, Same v. McCoy; No. 508, Same

the findings of the master that William | zen shall remove with his effects out of the Stephens was one-fourth Indian and three limits of this nation and becomes a citizen fourths white; that he was born in the state of any other government, all his rights and of Ohio; that his father was a white man privileges as a citizen of this nation shall and a citizen of the United States; that his cease: Provided, nevertheless, That the namother's name was Sarah and that she was tional council shall have power to readmit a daughter of William Ellington Shoe-boots, by law to all the rights of citizenship any and that her father was known as Captain such person or persons who may at any time Shoe-Boots in the old Cherokee Nation; that desire to return to the nation on memorializhis mother was born in the state of Kentucky, ing the national council for such readmisand that she moved afterwards to the state sion.' There was a provision precisely simof Ohio, where she was married to Robert ilar to this in the Constitution of the old [470]Stephens, the father of William; that Will- Cherokee Nation as it existed prior to the iam Stephens came to the Cherokee Nation, removal of the tribe west of the Mississippi Indian territory, in 1873, and has resided in river. The provision just quoted is from the the Cherokee Nation ever since; that soon Constitution of the Cherokee Nation as now after he came to the Cherokee Nation he constituted. made application for his mother and himself to be readmitted as citizens of that nation; that the Commission who heard the case was convinced of the genuineness of his claim to Cherokee blood, and so reported to the chief, but rejected his application on a technical ground; that the chief, in a message to the council, stated that he was convinced of the honesty and genuineness of the claim, and wished the council to pass an act recognizing Stephens as a full citizen; but this was never done. The court, referring to the master's report, said:

"It is further stated that he has improved considerable property in the nation, and has continuously lived there as a Cherokee citizen, and at one time was permitted to vote in a Cherokee election. It appears from the evidence in the case that this applicant comes within the following provision of the Cherokee Constitution: 'Whenever any citi

v. Vaughan et al.: No. 509, Same v. Dorchester
et al. No. 510, Same v. Duncan No. 511, Same
V. Phillips et al.; No. 512, Same V.
Lancaster; No. 513, Same v. Goldsby et al.;
No. 514, Same V. East et al.;
No. 515,
Same V.

V.

Bradshaw et al. No. 516, Same Graham et al.; No. 517, Same v. Burch et al.; No. 518, Same v. Palmer et al.; No. 519, Same v. Watkins et al.; No. 520, Same v. Holder et al.; No. 521, Same v. Jones et al.; No. 522, Same v. Worthy et al.; No. 523, Same v. Sartin et al. No. 524, Same v. Woolsey et al.; No. 525. Same v. Arnold et al.; No. 526, Same v. Paul et al.; No. 527, Same v. Peery et al.: No. 528. Same v. Stinnet; No. 529, Same v. Stinnet et al.; No. 530. Same v. Duncan; No. 531, Same v. Lea et al.: No. 532, Same v. Hamilton; No. 533. Same v. Pitman; No. 534. Same v. Carson et al. No. 535, Same v. Shanks et al.; No. 536, Same v. Paul: No. 537, Clark et al. v. Creek or Muskogee Nation: No. 538, Tulk et al. v. Same: No. 539, Hubbard et al. v. Cherokee Nation: No. 540. McAnnally et al. v. Same: No. 541, Brashear et al. v. Same: No. 542, Condry et al. v. Same; No. 543. Dial et al. v. Same: No. 544, Munson et al. v. Same: No. 545, Hubbard et al. v. Same: No. 546, Trotter et al. v. Same: No. 547. Hill et al. v. Same: No. 548, Russell et al. v. Same: No. 549, Baird et al. v. Same; No. 550, Binns et al. v. Same: No. 551, Smith et al. v. Same: No. 552, Henley et al. v. Same; No. 553. Same v. Same No. 554, McKee et al. v. Same: No. 555. Singleton et al. v. Same: No. 556. Brown et al. v. Same: No. 557, Fliprin et al. v. Same: No. 558, Gambill et al. v. Same; No. 559. Brewer et al. v. Same; No. 560, Abercrombie et al. v. Same; No. 561, Watts et al. v.

"The mother of the principal claimant, as heretofore stated, was born in the state of Kentucky, and from that state she moved to the state of Ohio, where she married the father of the principal claimant in this case. Her status was then fixed as that of one who had taken up a residence in the states. She had ceased to be a citizen of the Cherokee Nation, and she cannot be readmitted to citizenship in the nation except by complying[471] with the Constitution and laws of the nation as declared by the Supreme Court in the case of The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians against The Cherokee Nation and The United States.

"The master states the claimant was rejected by the commission of the Cherokee Nation upon a technical ground. The ground upon which the decision was based was that the names of the claimants did not appear upon any of the authenticated rolls of the | Same; No. 562, Hackett et al. v. Same; No. 563, J'ace et al. v. Same; No. 564, Teague et al. v. Same; No. 565, Earp et al. v. Same; No. 566, Mayberry et al. v. Same; No. 567, Bailes v. Same; No. 568, Lloyd v. Same; No. 569, Rutherford et al. v. Same; No. 570, Braught et al. v. Same; No. 571, Black et al. v. Same; No. 572, Archer et al. v. Same: No. 573, Hopper et al. v. Same; No. 574, Bayes et al. v. Same; No. 575, Rowell et al. v. Same; No. 576, Armstrong et al. v. Same; No. 577, Goln

et al. v. Same; No. 578, Bennight et al. v. Choctaw Nation; No. 579, Wade et al. v. Cherokee Nation: No. 582, Choctaw Nation v. Jones et al.; No. 583, Same v. Goodall et al.; No. 584, Same v. Bottoms et al.; No. 585, Same v. Brooks et al. No. 586, Same v. Blake et al.; No. 587, Same v. Randolph et al.; No. 588, Same v. Goins et al.; No. 589, Same v. Dutton et al.; No. 590, Same v. Thomas; No. 591, Same v. Jones et al.; No. 592, Meredith et al. v. Cherokee Nation; No. 593, Poindexter et al. v. Same; No. 598, Steen et al. v. Same; No. 599, Couch et al. v. Same; No. 600, Pressley et al. v. Same; No. 601, Elliott et al. V. Same; No. 608, Walker et al. v. Same; No. 609, Harrison et al. v. Same No. 612, Watts et al. v. Same; No. 613, Hazlewood et al. v. Same: No. 614, Frakes et al. v. Same; No. 615, Harper et al. v. Same: No. 616. Armstrong et al. v. Same; No. 617, Rogers et al. v. Same: No. 618, Isbell et al. v. Same; No. 619, Wiltenberger et al. v. Same; No. 637, Baker v. Creek Nation: No. 643, Cale v. Choctaw Nation: No. 644, Cundiff et al. v. Same; No. 645, Slayton et al. v. Same; No. 646, Willis et al. v. Same; No. 647, Coppedge v. Same; No. 648, Nabors et al. v. Same; No. 651, Phillips et al. v. Same.

present Cherokee Nation or of the old Chero- | court, Clayton, J., found that Robinson was
kee Nation. The commission which passed "a member and citizen of the Choctaw Na-
upon his application was created under the tion by intermarriage, having heretofore
act of the council of December 8, 1886. been legally and in compliance with the laws
"Robert Stephens, the father of the prin- of the Choctaw Nation married to a Choc-
cipal claimant in this case, was a citizen of taw woman by blood, and that said F. R.
the United States and a resident of the state Robinson was by the duly constituted au-
of Ohio, and the mother of the claimant Wil- thorities of the Choctaw Nation placed upon
liam Stephens had abandoned the Cherokee the last roll of the members and citizens of
Nation and ceased to be a citizen thereof. the Choctaw Nation, prepared by the said
Therefore the principal claimant at the time Choctaw authorities, and that his name is
of his birth was a citizen of the United now upon the last completed rolls of the
States, taking the status of his father. I members and citizens of the said Choctaw
doubt whether he could become a citizen of Nation," and thereupon decreed that Robin-
the Cherokee Nation without the affirmative son was "a member and citizen, by intermar-
action of the Cherokee council. The evidence riage wth the Choctaw Nation, and entitled
fails to disclose that he has ever applied to to all the rights, privileges, immunities, and
any of the commissions that had jurisdic- benefits in said nation as such intermarried
tion to admit him as a citizen of the Chero-citizen and said member;" and directed a cer-
kee Nation. The commission to which he tified copy of the judgment to be transmitted
did apply for enrollment as a citizen of the to the commission. From this decree the
Cherokee Nation having held that his name *Choctaw Nation prayed an appeal Septem-[473]
did not appear upon any of the Cherokee ber 21, 1898, which was on that day allowed
rolls of citizenship, his application was re- and perfected.
jected. He never having been admitted to
citizenship as required by the Constitution
and laws of the Cherokeee Nation, the judg
ment of the United States Commission re-
jecting this case is affirmed, and the appli-
cation of the claimants to be enrolled as cit-
izens of the Cherokee Nation is denied."

Judgment affirming the decision of the Dawes Commission refusing applicants' enrollment and admission as citizens of the Cherokee Nation was entered December 16, 1897, whereupon a motion for rehearing was filed, which was finally overruled June 23, 1898, and judgment again entered that applicants "be not admitted and enrolled as citizens of the Cherokee Nation, Indian territory." From these decrees applicants prayed [472]*an appeal to this court August 29, 1898, which was allowed and perfected September 2, 1898, and the record filed here October 3, 1898.

No. 453.-The Choctaw Nation v. F. R. Rob-
inson.

September 7, 1896, F. R. Robinson applied

to the Dawes Commission to be enrolled as

an intermarried citizen. His petition set
forth that he was a white man; that he mar-
ried a woman of Choctaw and Chickasaw
blood, September 21, 1873, by which mar-
riage he had five children; that she died, and
he married a white woman August 10, 1884,
with whom he was still living. The Choc-
taw Nation answered, objecting that the
Dawes Commission had no jurisdiction be-
cause the act of Congress creating it was un-
constitutional and void; that Robinson had
not applied for citizenship to the tribunal of
the Choctaw Nation constituted to try ques-
tions of citizenship; and that he ought not
to be enrolled "because he has not shown by
his evidence that he has not forfeited his
rights as such citizen by abandonment or
remarriage." The Dawes Commission granted
the application, and thereupon the Choctaw
Nation appealed to the United States court
in the Indian territory, central district. The
cause was referred to a master, who made a
report, and thereafter, June 29, 1897, the

No. 461.-Jennie Johnson et al. v. The Creek

Nation.

This was a petition of Jennie Johnson and others to the Dawes Commission for admission to citizenship and membership in the Creek Nation. It seems to have been presented August 10, 1896, on behalf of one hundred and twelve applicants, to have been granted as to sixty-two, and to have been denied as to fifty-seven by whom an appeal was taken to the United States court in the Indian territory, northern district. The cause was referred to a special master, and on June 16, 1898, the court, Springer, J., rendered an opinion, in which, after considering various laws of the Muscogee or Creek Nation bearing on the subject, certain decisions of tribal courts, the action of a certain "committee of eighteen on census rolls of 1895," and of the council thereon adopting the report of that committee, in respect of applicants, the court concluded that appellants were not entitled to be enrolled as citizens

of the Creek Nation, and entered judgment
accordingly, whereupon an appeal was
prayed from said decree and allowed and per-
fected September 27, 1898.
No. 496.-The Chickasaw Nation v. Richard
C. Wiggs et al.

Richard C. Wiggs filed an application before the Dawes Commission to be admitted to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation, asserting, among other things, that he was a white man and prior to October 13, 1875, a citizen of the United States, on which day he lawfully married Georgia M. Allen, a native Chickasaw Indian and member of the Chickasaw Tribe; and also an application on behalf of his wife, Josie Wiggs, at the time of their marriage, which was in accordance with the Chickasaw laws under such circumstances, a white woman and citizen of the United States, and their daughter Edna Wiggs, August 15, 1896. The Chickasaw Nation, September 1, 1896, filed with the commission its answer to these applications, which, after denying the jurisdiction of the commission, trav

ersed the allegations of the applications. (474]*November 15, 1896, the Dawes Commission admitted Richard C. Wiggs to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation, but denied the application as to Mrs. Wiggs and their daughter. Thereafter an appeal was taken on behalf of the wife and daughter to the United States court in the Indian territory, southern district, and a cross appeal by the Chickasaw Nation from the decision of the commission admitting Wiggs to citizenship. The court referred the cause to a master in chancery, who made a report in favor of Wiggs, but against his wife and daughter. The court, Townsend, J., found "that all of the applicants are entitled to be enrolled as Chickasaw Indians, it appearing to the court that the said Richard C. Wiggs, being a white man and citizen of the United States, was married in the year 1975 to Georgia M. Allen, who was a native Chickasaw Indian by blood. Said marriage was solemnized according to the laws of the Chickasaw Nation; that in the year 1876 the said wife of the said Richard C. Wiggs died; that from and after said marriage the said Richard C. Wiggs continued to reside in the Chickasaw Nation and to claim the rights of citizenship in said nation, and as such he served in the Chickasaw legislature, and was also sheriff of Pickens county, in said nation; that in the year 1886 the said Richard C. Wiggs was lawfully married, according to the laws of the Chickasaw Nation, to Miss Josie Lawson, and that ever since said marriage the said Wiggs and his present wife have resided in the Chickasaw Nation and claimed the rights of citizenship therein, and that there has been born unto them a daughter, Mary Edna Wiggs"; and thereupon entered a decree, December 22, 1897, admitting Richard C. Wiggs, his wife, and their daughter, "to citizenship in the Chickasaw Nation and to enrollment as members of the tribe of Chickasaw Indians, with all the rights and privileges appertaining to such relation; and it is further ordered that this decree be certified to the Dawes Commission for their observance." From this decree an appeal was allowed and perfected July 11, 1898.

Messrs. William T. Hutchings, Wilkinson Call, A. W. Cockrell and D. W. C. Duncan for Cherokee Nation.

Mr. Jeremiah M. Wilson for the Choctaw Nation.

Messrs. Holmes Conrad and Halbert E. Paine for the Chickasaw Nation.

Mr. Ben T. Duval filed a brief for the Muskogee Nation.

*Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the[476] opinion of the court:

These appeals are from decrees of the United States court in the Indian territory, sitting in first instance, rendered in cases pending therein involving the right of various individuals to citizenship in some one of the four tribes named; most of them came to that court by appeal from the action of the so-called Dawes Commission, though some were from decisions of tribal authorities; many questions are common to them all; and it will be assumed that in all of them the decrees were rendered and the court had finally adjourned before the pas sage of the act of July 1, 1898, providing for appeals to this court.

The act of June 10, 1896, provided "that if the tribe or any person be aggrieved with the decision of the tribal authorities or the commission provided for in this act, it or he may appeal from such decision to the United States district court: Provided, however, That the appeal shall be taken within sixty days, and the judgment of the court shall be

final."

It must be admitted that the words "United States district court" were not accurately used, as the United States court in the Indian territory was not a district or circuit court of the United States (Re Mills, 135 U{477] S. 263,268 [34: 107,110]), and no such court had, at the date of the act, jurisdiction therein. But as, manifestly, the appeal was to be taken to a United States court having jurisdiction in the Indian territory, and in view of the other terms of the act bearing on the immediate subject-matter, to say nothing of subsequent legislation, it is clear that the United States court in the Indian territory was the court referred to. This conclusion, however, may fairly be said to involve the rejection of the word "district" Messrs. Heber J. May, Calvin L. Her- as a descriptive term, and reading the provibert, S. M. Porter, Charles A. Keigwin, sion as granting an appeal to the United A. H. Garland, R. C. Garland, M. M. Edmis- States court in the Indian territory, the ton, Henry M. Furman, William I. Cruce, question arises whether the judgments made Andrew C. Cruce, James C. Thompson, Will final by the statute are the judgments of iam M. Cravens, C. C. Potter, Joseph M. Hill, that court in the several districts delineated James Brizzolara, S. H. Barr, Yancey Lewis, by the act of March 1, 1895, or of the appelWilliam Ritchie, W. W. Dudley, L. T. Mich late court therein provided for, which may ener, Wilkinson & Kennedy, Eugene Easton, in the outset that no appeal from the deci be referred to later on, since it is objected J. S. Arnote, Thomas Norman, Robert H.sions of the Dawes Commision or of the triWest, James L. Norris, W. A. Ledbetter, Dorset Carter, B. D. Davidson, J. W. Johnson, S. T. Bledsoe, Silas Hare, Jacob C. Hodges, P. D. Brewer, M. M. Lindly, J. A. Hale, J. G. Ralls, J. F. Sharp, and Walter A. Logan, for various claimants, including those whose cases were argued and those which were submitted on briefs as stated in the opinion.

bal authorities could be granted to any United States court; and, furthermore, that, at all events, it was not competent for Congress to provide for an appeal from the decrees of the United States court in the Indian territory after such decrees had been rendered and the term of court had expired, and especially as they were made final by the

statute.