Holden v. Joy, 17 Wall. 211, 244. Western Union Tel. Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 195 U. S. 540, 557. The treaty, though made with knowledge that there were mineral deposits and standing timber in the reservation, contains nothing to suggest that the United States intended to retain for itself any beneficial interest in them. The words of the grant, coupled with the Government's agreement to exclude strangers, negative the idea that the United States retained beneficial ownership. The grant of right to members of the tribe severally to select and hold tracts on which to establish homes for them selves and families, and the restraint upon cession of land held in common or individually, suggest beneficial ownership in the tribe. As transactions between a guardian and his wards are to be construed favorably to the latter, doubts, if there were any, as to ownership of lands, minerals or timber would be resolved in favor of the tribe. The cession in 1904 by the tribe to the United States in trust reflects a construction by the parties that supports the tribe's claim, for if it did not own, creation of a trust to sell or lease for its benefit would have been unnecessary and inconsistent with the rights of the parties. Although the United States retained the fee, and the tribe's right of occupancy was incapable of alienation or of being held otherwise than in common, that right is as sacred and as securely safeguarded as is fee simple absolute title. Cherokee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Pet. 1, 48. Worcester v. Georgia, supra, 580. Subject to the conditions imposed by the treaty, the Shoshone Tribe had the right that has always been understood to belong to Indians, undisturbed possessors of the soil from time immemorial. Provisions in aid of teaching children and of adult education in farming, and to secure for the tribe medical and mechanical service, to safeguard tribal and individual titles, when taken with other parts of the Opinion of the Court. 304 U.S. treaty, plainly evidence purpose on the part of the United States to help to create an independent permanent farming community upon the reservation. Ownership of the land would further that purpose. In the absence of definite expression of intention so to do, the United States will not be held to have kept it from them. The authority of the United States to prescribe title by which individual Indians may hold tracts selected by them within the reservation, to pass laws regulating alienation and descent and for the government of the tribe and its people upon the reservation detracts nothing from the tribe's ownership, but was reserved for the more convenient discharge of the duties of the United States as guardian and sovereign. United States v. Cook, supra, gives no support to the contention that in ascertaining just compensation for the Indian right taken, the value of mineral and timber resources in the reservation should be excluded. That case did not involve adjudication of the scope of Indian title to land, minerals or standing timber, but only the right of the United States to replevin logs cut and sold by a few unauthorized members of the tribe. We held that, as against the purchaser from the wrongdoers, the United States was entitled to possession. It was not there decided that the tribe's right of occupancy in perpetuity did not include ownership of the land or mineral deposits or standing timber upon the reservation, or that the tribe's right was the mere equivalent of, or like, the title of a life tenant. The lower court did not err in holding that the right of the Shoshone Tribe included the timber and minerals within the reservation. Affirmed. MR. JUSTICE STONE and MR. JUSTICE CARDOZO took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. MR. JUSTICE REED dissents. Syllabus. UNITED STATES v. KLAMATH AND MOADOC TRIBES OF INDIANS ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CLAIMS. No. 707. Argued April 1, 4, 1938-Decided April 25, 1938. 1. In a treaty by which the Klamath and other tribes of Indians ceded land which they had held in immemorial possession, part was retained, "until otherwise directed by the President," to be set apart as a residence for the Indians and "held and regarded as an Indian reservation." Part of the reserved land was subsequently appropriated by the United States. Held: (1) That the words quoted did not detract from the tribes' right of occupancy. P. 122. (2) In ascertaining just compensation for the land appropriated, the value of the standing timber should be included. Id. (3) While the United States has power to control and manage the affairs of its Indian wards in good faith for their welfare, that power is subject to constitutional limitations, and does not enable the United States without paying just compensation therefor to appropriate lands of an Indian tribe to its own use or to hand them over to others. P. 123. (4) The taking of property by the United States in the exertion of its power of eminent domain implies a promise to pay just compensation, i. e., value at the time of the taking plus an amount sufficient to produce the full equivalent of that value paid contemporaneously with the taking. Id. 2. Part of the unallotted portion of an Indian reservation was conveyed to a Road Company by the Secretary of the Interior under authority of Congress in exchange for a reconveyance of allotted land which had previously been conveyed by mistake. Held a valid exertion of the power of eminent domain, implying a promise by the Government to pay just compensation to the Indians. P.-. It was not a case of lands "wrongfully appropriated," as to which the Act of May 26, 1920, which first conferred jurisdiction in this case, confined the damages to value of the lands at time of appropriation. P. 124. Congress, by the Act of May 15, 1936, conferring additional jurisdiction in this case upon the Court of Claims, intended to grant to the Indians the right to have their claim for just compensation, under the Constitution, for the land taken, judicially determined Opinion of the Court. 304 U.S. without regard to an earlier settlement and irrespective of the release. P. 125. 85 Ct. Cls. 451, affirmed. APPEAL, under the special jurisdictional Act of May 15, 1936, from a judgment sustaining the Indians' claim to compensation for land taken by the United States. For an earlier phase, see 296 U. S. 244. Assistant Attorney General McFarland, with whom Solicitor General Jackson and Mr. C. W. Leaphart were on the brief, for the United States. Mr. G. Carroll Todd, with whom Messrs. Daniel B. Henderson and T. Hardy Todd were on the brief, for appellees. MR. JUSTICE BUTLER delivered the opinion of the Court. Congress, by Act of May 26, 1920,1 gave to the lower court jurisdiction of claims of respondents against the United States. They sued to recover the value of 87,000 acres of land alleged to have been taken from them by the United States August 22, 1906. The Court of Claims made special findings of fact, stated its conclusion of law and dismissed the case. We affirmed on the ground that the Act did not confer jurisdiction of released claims and that this claim had been released. 296 U. S. 244. Then, by Act of May 15, 1936," the Congress enacted "That in the suit numbered E-346 [this suit] heretofore instituted in the Court of Claims by the Klamath and Modoc Tribes and Yahooskin Band of Snake Indians under an Act. . . approved May 26, 1920, jurisdiction is hereby conferred upon said court, and it is hereby authorized and directed, irrespective of any release or settlement, to re 141 Stat. 623. 249 Stat. 1276. |