Under the Allotment Act of February 8, 1887, § 5, c. 119, 24
Stat. 388, the twenty-five year trust period, with the attendant
restriction upon the right of alienation, runs from the date of the
trust patent, and not from the date of the approval of the
allotment by the Secretary of the Interior, and an attempt to
convey, made by an heir of the allottee within that period as
extended by the President before its expiration is void. P.
250 U. S.
107.
252 F. 65 reversed.
Page 250 U. S. 105
The case is stated in the opinion.
Page 250 U. S. 106
MR. JUSTICE PITNEY delivered the opinion of the court.
This was a suit brought by the United States in behalf of
Claudius Tyner and ten other persons, heirs at law of Stella
Washington, deceased, who was a member of the Absentee Shawnee
Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma, its object being to cancel a deed
made by Tyner to Suda Reynolds on February 17, 1917, purporting to
convey an undivided eleventh interest in a tract of land inherited
by the eleventh heirs from Stella Washington, who was the allottee
thereof. The legal title to the tract was held by the United States
under a certificate of allotment or "trust patent" dated February
6, 1892, containing a provision that the United States did and
would hold the land in question in trust for the said Stella and in
case of her death for her heirs, for a period of 25 years, at the
expiration of which time the United States would convey the same by
patent in fee, discharged of the trust, to said Indian or her heirs
unless the trust period had been extended by the President of the
United States.
The allotment was made under the provisions of the Act of
Congress approved February 8, 1887, c. 119, 24 Stat. 388, as
amended by Act of March 3, 1891, c. 543,
Page 250 U. S. 107
26 Stat. 989, 1019. Section 5 of the Act of 1887 provided:
"That, upon the approval of the allotments provided for in this
act by the Secretary of the Interior, he shall cause patents to
issue therefor in the name of the allottees, which patents shall be
of the legal effect, and declare that the United States does and
will hold the land thus allotted, for the period of twenty-five
years, in trust for the sole use and benefit of the Indian to whom
such allotment shall have been made, or, in case of his decease, of
his heirs according to the laws of the state or territory where
such land is located, and that, at the expiration of said period,
the United States will convey the same by patent to said Indian, or
his heirs as aforesaid, in fee, discharged of said trust and free
of all charge or incumbrance whatsoever:
Provided, that
the President of the United States may in any case in his
discretion extend the period. And if any conveyance shall be made
of the lands set apart and allotted as herein provided, or any
contract made touching the same, before the expiration of the time
above mentioned, such conveyance or contract shall be absolutely
null and void."
Stella Washington's allotment was approved by the Secretary
September 16, 1891; the allotment certificate or trust patent was
issued on February 6, 1892. On November 24, 1916, the President, by
executive order, extended the trust period for 10 years.
Thereafter, on February 17, 1917, Tyner executed the deed in
question to Suda Reynolds.
The first question presented by the record is whether the
original trust period extended for 25 years from February 6, 1892,
the date of the trust patent, or from September 16, 1891, the date
of the approval of the allotment. If the former, there is no
question that the executive order, being made within the original
trust period, was valid (subject to an objection as to its form),
and had the effect of extending the trust, with resulting
Page 250 U. S. 108
restriction upon the right of alienation, for the further period
of ten years. If, on the other hand, the original trust period
should be dated from the approval of the allotment, it still is
insisted by the government that the right of the President to
extend the trust period continued beyond the twenty-five years and
until the United States surrendered its trust by conveying the
absolute fee-simple title to the Indian allottee or his heirs.
The district court sustained the contention of the United States
and entered a decree cancelling Tyner's deed as void and
constituting a cloud upon its title. The circuit court of appeals
reversed this decree and directed a dismissal of the bill. 252 F.
65.
The latter decision rests upon the ground that, under § 5 of the
allotment act, the right of the allottee to a preliminary or trust
patent became absolute upon the approval of the allotment by the
Secretary of the Interior; that her equitable title was then
complete, and did not depend upon the delivery of the patent.
Ballinger v. Frost, 216 U. S. 240, was
cited in support of this, but it is not entirely apposite. That
case turned upon the effect of a certificate of allotment issued
under the Choctaw and Chickasaw Agreement (Act of July 1, 1902, c.
1362, 32 Stat. 641, 644), the twenty-third section of which
declared that such certificate should be "conclusive evidence of
the right of any allottee to the tract of land described therein."
The Indian, being a citizen and resident of the Choctaw Nation duly
enrolled and entitled to an allotment, selected as such the land in
controversy, upon which were her buildings and improvements; this
was received by the Commission to the Five Civilized Tribes, and,
after the expiration of nine months, the time prescribed by statute
for contest, no contest of her right to the designated allotment
having been made, a certificate was issued and delivered to her.
This Court held the allottee's rights had become fixed, the
Secretary of the Interior
Page 250 U. S. 109
thereafter having nothing but the ministerial duty to perform of
seeing that a patent was duly executed and delivered, and upon this
ground sustained a judgment awarding a writ of mandamus, citing
Barney v. Dolph, 97 U. S. 652,
97 U. S. 656;
Simmons v. Wagner, 101 U. S. 260,
101 U. S. 261;
Cornelius v. Kessel, 128 U. S. 456,
128 U. S. 461;
Orchard v. Alexander, 157 U. S. 372,
157 U. S. 383,
and other cases.
The rule established by these cases is familiar. But we do not
think it can be applied so as to give finality to the act of the
Secretary in approving the allotment under § 5 of the Act of 1887.
Nor does that act contain any such declaration of conclusive effect
as is found in § 23 of the Choctaw-Chickasaw Agreement. While the
matter is not free from doubt, we have reached the conclusion that,
by the better construction, the trust period begins and dates from
the issuance of the trust patent, and not from the approval of the
allotment. The Department distinctly so ruled in Klamath
Allotments, 38 L.D. 559, 561, where it was said, after quoting the
pertinent language of § 5 of the Act of 1887:
"Clearly no trust is declared until actual issuance of patent,
and the use of a word of the present tense, 'does,' shows that the
trust period begins to run only upon such issuance."
This ruling was made in the year 1910, and may be inconsistent
with some previous rulings of the Department, as counsel for
respondent insists that it is. Nevertheless it is entitled to
weight as an administrative interpretation of the act; it comports
with our impression of the natural meaning of the language employed
by Congress, and it very probably was relied upon by the President
when promulgating the order of November 24, 1916, extending the
trust period. This order might as well have been made a few months
earlier, had it been supposed that the 25-year period was to expire
in September.
This construction of the Act of 1887 puts it in agreement
Page 250 U. S. 110
with other acts for the allotment of Indian lands
* which, while
subsequently passed and perhaps not strictly to be regarded as a
legislative interpretation, nevertheless seem to us to indicate the
effect that Congress attributed to the Act of 1887.
Some criticism is made by counsel for respondent upon the form
of the executive order of November 24, 1916, as being indefinite
and not in accordance with the act of Congress. We deem this
criticism unfounded, and need spend no time upon it.
Calculating the 25-year period from February 6, 1892, the date
of trust patent for the Stella Washington allotment, it expired on
February 5, 1917; but the trust was extended for a further term of
ten years, and hence the deed made by Claudius Tyner to Suda
Reynolds February
Page 250 U. S. 111
17, 1917, was null and void by the terms of § 5 of the Act of
1887.
As the President's order was made within the original 25-year
period, it is unnecessary to consider whether he might have acted
with like effect at a later time.
The decree of the circuit court of appeals is reversed, and that
of the district court is affirmed.
* Act of March 2, 1889, c. 422, 25 Stat. 1013, 1014, providing
for allotments to Peorias and Miamis, contains this provision: "The
land so allotted shall not be subject to alienation for twenty-five
years from the date of the issuance of patent therefor."
Act of March 2, 1895, c. 188, 28 Stat. 876, 907 (the Quapaw
Act), contains this: "
Provided, that said allotments shall
be inalienable for a period of twenty-five years from and after the
date of said patents."
Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1362, 32 Stat. 641, 642
(Choctaw-Chickasaw Act), contains the following:
(Sec. 12, relating to homesteads.) "Shall be inalienable during
the lifetime of the allottee, not exceeding twenty-one years from
the date of certificate of allotment."
(Sec. 13.) "The allotment of each Choctaw and Chickasaw freedman
shall be inalienable during the lifetime of the allottee, not
exceeding twenty-one years from the date of certificate of
allotment."
(Sec. 16.) "All lands allotted to the members of said tribes,
except such land as is set aside to each for a homestead as herein
provided, shall be alienable after issuance of patent as follows:
one-fourth in acreage in one year, one-fourth in acreage in three
years, and the balance in five years; in each case from date of
patent."
Cherokee Allotment Act of July 1, 1902, c. 1375, 32 Stat. 716,
contains similar language in §§ 13 and 15.