University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
The History Collection

Page View

United States. Office of Indian Affairs / Annual report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, for the years 1921-1932
([1921-1932])

Report of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior for the fiscal year ended June 2, 1921,   pp. [1]-69 ff. PDF (26.8 MB)


Page 38

8 COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS. 
court April 11, 1921).-This was a suit in equity brought in the 
original jurisdiction of the Supreme Court by the State of Oklahoma 
against the State of Texas to establish the true boundary line be- 
tween those States where it follows the course of the Red River from 
the one hundredth degree of west longitude to the easterly boundary 
of Oklahoma. The court found that the matter was res judicata, as 
the result of a former decree of the Supreme Court in the case of the 
United States v. The State of Texas (162 U. S., 1), wherein it was 
decided that the treaty of 1819 between the United States and Spain 
fixed the boundary along the southern bank of the Red River. This 
case has a bearing on the claims of Indians of the Kiowa and 
Comanche Tribes, now pending in the Supreme Court of the United 
States, as to riparian rights extending to the center of the stream or 
to the southern bank of the said river. 
C. R. Privett et al. v the United States et al. (decided by the United 
States Supreme Court April 18, 1921).-This suit was brought by 
the United States in virtue of its interest in maintaining the restric- 
tions and safeguarding the Indians in the possession and enjoyment 
of the lands allotted out of the tribal domain. Held that no stipula- 
tion, contract, or judgment rendered in suits to which the Govern- 
ment is a stranger can affect its interests. Held also that the reliance
on a decision in a prior suit wherein the Government did not appear 
is ill-founded, and that the deeds running to Privett were void be- 
cause one of the heirs, a minor, was born after March 4, 1906, and 
the Secretary of the Interior had not approved the deeds. 
Mike Blanet v. Oscar Cardin, as guardian of Jesse Dayligqht, 
minor, et aZ. (decided by the United States Supreme Court May 16, 
1921).-Mike Blanset, a white man, brought suit to have himself de- 
clared to be owner of an undivided one-third interest in all lands 
and other property of which his wife (a deceased Quapaw allottee) 
died seized or possessed; also to declare void the will of his wife 
and its approval by the Secretary of the Interior. The case was ap- 
pealed to the Supreme Court of the United States and presented as 
its ultimate question the accordance or discordance of the laws of 
Congress and the laws of the State of Oklahoma. It was held that 
it was the intention of C'ongress that this class of Indians should have
the right to dispose of the property by will under act of February 
14, 1913 (37 Stats., 378), free from restrictions on the part of the 
Stateas to the portions to be conveyed or as to the objects of the testa-
tor's bounty, provided such will was in accordance with the regula- 
tions and met with the approval of the Secretary of the IRTterior. 
Anchor Oil Company v. W. H. Gray, F. D. McDonnell, Chas, 
Egan et al. (decided by the United States Supreme Court June 1, 
1921).-This was a suit in equity involving the ownership of a lease- 
hold estate for oil and gas mining purposes in a Creek allotment, 
Oklahoma. Held that the authority of the Secretary of the Interior 
to approve and thereby confirm oil and gas mining leases made by 
full-blood Creek allottees upon their allotment derived from section 
2 of the act of May 27, 1908, did not cease at the time of the death of 
the allottee by reason of the provisions of section 9 of the same act. 
(35 Stats., 315.) Held further that the validity of the lease being 
conditioned upon the approval of the Secretary of-the Interior, such 
approval might be given at any time either before or after the death 
of the allottee so far as the rights of the heirs and those claiming 
:38 


Go up to Top of Page