Ewert v. Bluejacket Bluejacket v. Ewert, s. 173
| Decision Date | 15 May 1922 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 173,186,s. 173 |
| Citation | 259 U.S. 129,66 L.Ed. 858,42 S.Ct. 442 |
| Parties | EWERT v. BLUEJACKET et al. BLUEJACKET et al. v. EWERT |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
Mr. A. Scott Thompson, of Miami, Okl., for Bluejacket and others.
Mr. Paul A. Ewert, of Joplin, Mo., in proper.
[Argument of Counsel from pages 130-133 intentionally omitted] Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court.
We have here cross-appeals in a suit to have declared invalid a deed to Paul A. Ewert for restricted lands inherited by the widow and adult and minor heirs of Charles Bluejacket, a full-blood Quapaw Indian, and for an accounting for rents and royalties derived from such lands.
On October 23, 1908, Ewert was appointed a special assistant to the Attorney General of the United States, to 'assist in the institution and prosecution of suits to set aside deeds to certain allotments in the Quapaw Indian Agency,' and by the terms of his appointment his official residence was fixed at Miami, Okl. He testifies that he took the oath of office on the 10th of November, 1908, and about December 1st opened an office at Miami. In his answer he alleges that he made his first bid for the land involved on December 21, 1908, within a month after his arrival at his post; that a second bid was made by him on January 25, 1909; and a third on February 22, 1909, all of which were rejected, because less than the appraisement. On March 29, 1909, he made a bid of $5,000 for the land, which was accepted. The deed he received was dated April 8, 1909, and was approved by the Secretary of the Interior on July 26th following.
Charles Bluejacket, the ancestor of the vendors, was a full-blood Quapaw Indian, and as such received a patent for the lands involved, dated September 26, 1896, which provided—pursuant to 28 Stat. 907—that the land should be 'inalienable for a period of 25 years' from and after the date of said patent. Thus the restraint on alienation did not expire until September 26, 1921, and it ran with the land, binding the heirs precisely as it bound the ancestor. United States v. Noble, 237 U. S. 74, 80, 35 Sup. Ct. 532, 59 L. Ed. 844.
Congress provided, in 1902 (32 Stat. 245, 275 [Comp. St. § 4223]), that adult heirs of a deceased Indian might sell and convey full title to inherited lands free from restrictions, but only by conveyances approved by the Secretary of the Interior, and that the interests of minor heirs might also be so sold and conveyed upon petition of a guardian, on order of a proper court, and when the sale was approved by the Secretary of the Interior. Under this statute the lands in controversy were sold in the public manner required by the rules of the Department of the Interior, and for the purposes of this decision all required action is assumed to have been, in form, properly taken.
The ground upon which the validity of the conveyance to Ewert is assailed is that R. S. § 2078 (Comp. St. § 4026), rendered it unlawful for him to become a purchaser of Indian lands while holding the position which he did as a special assistant to the Attorney General 'to assist in the institution and prosecution of suits to set aside deeds to certain allotments in the Quapaw Indian Agency,' and that therefore the deed to him was void.
R. S. § 2078, reads:
'No person employed in Indian affairs shall have any interest or concern in any trade with the Indians, except for, and on account of, the United States; and any person offending herein, shall be liable to a penalty of $5,000 and shall be removed from his office.'
The District Court held that Ewert was not so employed in Indian affairs as to come within the scope and condemnation of the statute and dismissed the bill. On appeal, the Circuit Court of Appeals held that he came within the statute, and reversed the decree of the District Court as to the minor heirs, but affirmed it as to the adult heirs, on the ground that they were guilty of such laches in delaying bringing suit from the date of the deed in 1909 to 1916 that their cause of action was barred. The case is here for construction of this act of Congress.
It is argued that, when the land was purchased by Ewert, he was not 'employed in Indian Affairs' within the meaning of R. S. § 2078, which, it is contended, includes only 'officers of Indian affairs,' provided for in R. S. title 28, and its amendments.
The section is derived from the Act of June 30, 1834, c. 162, § 14 (4 Stat. 738 [Comp. St. § 4026]), which declared that 'no person employed in the Indian department shall have any interest or concern in any trade with the Indians,' etc. The substitution of 'employed in Indian affairs,' used in the section of the Revised Statutes, for 'employed in the Indian department,' used in the prior act, was plainly intended to enlarge the scope of the provision, so that it should include all persons employed in Indian affairs, even though they might not be on the roll of the Indian department, which is really only a bureau of the Interior Department.
The purpose of the section clearly is to protect the inexperienced, dependent, and improvident Indians from the avarice and cunning of unscrupulous men in official position, and at the same time to prevent officials from being tempted, as they otherwise might be, to speculate on that inexperience, or upon the necessities and weaknesses of these 'wards of the nation.' United States v. Hutto et al. (No. 1) 256 U. S. 524, 528, 41 Sup. Ct. 541, 65 L. Ed. 1073.
Since the Act of June 22, 1870 (16 Stat. 164, c. 150, carried into R. S. § 189 ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Narragansett Tribe, Etc. v. So. RI Land Devel. Corp.
...F.2d 321, 334 (9th Cir. 1956), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 988, 77 S.Ct. 386, 1 L.Ed.2d 367 (footnote omitted). In Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129, 42 S.Ct. 442, 66 L.Ed. 858 (1922), the Supreme Court considered restrictions upon alienation of land held by individual Indians. Like the Noninter......
-
Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Central Republic T. Co.
...v. Kennedy, 167 U.S. 362, 17 S.Ct. 831, 42 L.Ed. 198; Waskey v. Hammer, 223 U.S. 85, 32 S.Ct. 187, 56 L.Ed. 359; Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129, 42 S.Ct. 442, 66 L.Ed. 858; Texas & Pacific Ry. Co. v. Pottorff, 291 U.S. 245, 54 S.Ct. 416, 78 L.Ed. 777; City of Marion v. Sneeden, 291 U.S. ......
-
Oneida Indian Nation of NY v. Cty. of Oneida
...and further held that an Oklahoma statute creating a tenancy-at-will was invalid as applied to the land. In Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129, 42 S.Ct. 442, 66 L.Ed. 858 (1922), a Quapaw Indian sold allotted land in accordance with a statute permitting alienation but prohibiting any person ......
-
Botany Indus., Inc. v. NEW YORK JT. BD., AMAL. CLOTH. WKRS.
...be in the affirmative. A fundamental rule of law is that a contract made in violation of a statute is void, Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129, 138, 42 S.Ct. 442, 66 L.Ed. 858 (1922); Waskey v. Hammer, 223 U.S. 85, 94, 32 S.Ct. 187, 56 L.Ed. 359 (1912); Connolly v. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 ......
-
CHAPTER 2 THE NON-INTERCOURSE ACT AND STATUTORY RESTRICTIONS ON TRIBAL RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT AND CONTRACTING
...Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. [27] .See, e.g., Oneida Indian Nation v. County of Oneida, 470 U.S. 226, 245 n. 16 (1985); Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129, 137-138 (1922); Alonzo v. United States, 249 F.2d 189 (10%gth%g Cir. 1957); United States v. Ahtanum Irrig. Dist., 236 F.2d 321, 334 (9%gth%g......
-
CHAPTER 5 RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS INDIAN LANDS
...424 F.2d 464 (2d Cir. 1970). [7] Id. [8] County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation, 470 U.S. 226, 240 n. 13 (1985); Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129 (1922). [9] In issuing limited consent for private parties to bring suit against the United States to quiet title to land in which the United ......
-
Why Try to Change Me Now?: the Basis for the 2016 Indian Child Welfare Act
...but not controlling significance"). 144. Id. 145. Galliher v. Cadwell, 145 U.S. 368, 371-72 (1892); see also Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129, 138 (1922) (explaining that laches "developed and designed to protect good faith transactions against those who have slept upon their rights, with ......
-
RETURNING THE LAND: NATIVE AMERICANS AND NATIONAL PARKS.
...Federal Government has comprehensively regulated trade with Indians to prevent 'fraud and imposition' upon them."); Ewert v. Bluejacket, 259 U.S. 129, 136 (1922) ("The purpose of the section clearly is to protect the inexperienced, dependent, and improvident Indians from the avarice and cun......