Payne v. United States ex rel. Mosier

• Decision Date: 03 January 1921
• Docket Number: 3422.
• Citation: 269 F. 871
• Parties: PAYNE, Secretary of the Interior, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. MOSIER et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit

269 F. 871

PAYNE, Secretary of the Interior, v. UNITED STATES ex rel. MOSIER et al.

No. 3422.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia.

January 3, 1921

Submitted October 6, 1920.

Appeal from the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia.

C Edward Wright, and Charles D. Mahaffie, both of Washington D.C., for appellant.

F. W Clements, of Washington, D.C., and T. J. Leahy, of Pawhuska, Okl., for appellees.

ROBB Associate Justice.

Appeal from a judgment in the court below directing the issuance of a writ of mandamus, requiring the Secretary of the Interior to pay appellees moneys derived as interest on a trust fund belonging to their minor children and moneys received from the shares of those minors as royalties and income from oil, gas, and other minerals belonging to the Osage Tribe of Indians, to which appellees belong.

Being satisfied with the reasoning and conclusions of the learned trial judge, we adopt his opinion, as follows:

'This case came on for final hearing upon the pleadings and an agreed statement of facts, and was argued by counsel for the respective parties and submitted.

'The action is one for a writ of mandamus to require the Secretary of the Interior to pay to the relators, as the parents of certain minor children who are duly enrolled members of the Osage Tribe of Indians, 'all moneys derived as interest on the trust fund of said minors from oil and gas and other minerals belonging to said tribe of Indians.'

'Two questions are presented by the case. One is whether money derived from the successful bidder for an oil lease of land belonging to the minor children of the relators, such money being called 'bonus money,' is payable to the relators, as the royalty prescribed in the lease itself is payable to them. And the other question is whether the respondent can limit the amount of moneys that may be received by the parents of said minor children or require the relators to render statements of account of moneys received by them, in order that the Commissioner of Indian Affairs may satisfy himself that such moneys are not being misused or squandered by the relators, or that if they are that further payments may be withheld.

'These questions to be answered by a consideration of the provisions of the Act of Congress approved June 28, 1906 (34 Stat.p. 544). This act is a comprehensive piece of legislation having for its object the division of the lands and funds of the Osage Indians on the then territory of Oklahoma, and it is so entitled. In effecting its object striking evidence of its policy with respect to the interests of minors having living parents is manifest. By section 2 of the act it is provided that selections of the lands belonging to such minors 'may be made by said parents'; and by the proviso of section 7 it is enacted 'that parents of minor members of the tribe shall have the control and use of said minors' lands, together with the proceeds of the same, until said minors arrive at their majority.' (Underscoring by the court.) Section 4 provides that the interest to be paid by the United States on certain funds and moneys belonging to minors and held in trust for them by the government 'shall be paid quarterly to the parents until said minors arrive at the age of twenty-one years.' And by the same section it is provided that royalty received from oil and other mineral leases upon the land selected and divided as stated above, and moneys received from the sale of other specified lands shall be distributed to the individual members of the Osage Tribe 'in the same manner and at the same time that payments are made of interest on other moneys held in trust for the Osages by the United States.'

'It seems clear from the foregoing resume of the material portions of the statute under consideration that it was the intention of the Congress to give to the parents of minor members of the tribe the beneficial use of so much of their children's property as is to be divided and distributed under the terms of the law, during the children's minority. But it is insisted by the respondent that the so-called bonus money was not included in the distribution thus directed. Not in terms, it is true, but at the time of the enactment of the statute the practice of obtaining bonus money had not made its appearance, and did not do so until a decade later when the increasing demand for oil, which it was believed existed in large and paying quantities under the surface of these Indian lands, suggested the plan of requiring prospective oil lessees to bid for leases, and the sums paid by the successful bidders for leases constitute the bonus money. This money may not be royalty in the strict sense of the word, but it is certainly money derived from 'oil * * * leases upon the lands,' to quote the language of the statute. No leases, no royalty. No leases, no bonus. Leases, bonus certainly, royalty perhaps, if the minerals are discovered to exist in paying quantities.

'The Supreme Court has furnished us with a legal definition of the word 'bonus.' In the case of Kenicott v. Wayne County, 16 Wall. 452, 471 (21 L.Ed. 319), the court says: 'But, secondly, the meaning of the word 'bonus' is not that given to it by the objection. It is thus defined by Webster: 'A premium given for a loan or a charter or other privilege granted to a company; as, 'The bank paid a bonus for its charter;' a sum paid in addition to a stated compensation. ' It is not a gift or gratuity, but a sum paid for services, or upon a consideration in addition to or in excess of that which would ordinarily be given.'

'Applying that definition in the instant case, it is apparent that the bonus derived from the leases is 'a sum paid * * * upon a consideration in addition to or in excess of that which would ordinarily be given,' the latter being royalty in its strict sense.

'But did the Congress use the word in the restricted sense? It was providing in a complete manner for the making of oil and other mineral leases upon the lands of the Indians, and directed that the proceeds be distributed to the owners thereof and in the case of minor owners the proceeds were to go, during their minority, to the parents of such minors. There is no evidence in the statute that any proceeds derived from the leases were not to be distributed as directed, except as enacted in the first proviso of section 4, hereafter to be considered in connection with the second of the two questions which this case raises.

'The court is of the opinion that Congress did not use the word 'royalty' in the restricted sense, but used it in the sense of the word 'proceeds,' to be distributed in the way directed. The whole scheme and structure of the act justifies and requires this interpretation. What reason of the apparent policy of the law suggests a different interpretation? None. It gives to the parents of minors the control and use of the minors' lands and as well the proceeds of the same. It gives to them the royalty received from the oil leases and all other mineral leases upon said lands. What else more could it give, except complete ownership and title?

'This in effect is the conclusion reached by the Comptroller of the Treasury in the following language: 'I am constrained to decide that, within the purpose and meaning of the act, bonus money received from the sale of leases for oil, etc., should be classed with royalties and which is required by the second exception to section 4 to be placed in the Treasury to the credit of the members of the Osage Tribe of Indians as other moneys of said tribes are to be deposited, for distribution to the individual members of said Osage Tribe, and therefore that said bonus moneys do not bear interest.' 23 Decisions of Comptroller of the Treasury, Pages 483, 486. (Underscoring by the court.)

...