JOSEPH NAGANAB, Appt.,

v.

ETHAN ALLEN HITCHCOCK, Secretary of the Interior.

(See S. C. Reporter’s ed. 473-476.)

United States — immunity from snit. —

A suit to restrain the Secretary of the In¬ terior from carrying out the provisions of the act of June 27, 1902 (32 Stat. at L. 400, chap. 1157), controlling the disposition of the pine lands ceded by the Indians of the state of Minnesota, under the act of January 14, 1889 (25 Stat. at L. 642, chap. 24), to the United States, to be administered for their benefit, and to require him to execute the trust, and account, is, in effect, a suit against the United States, which the courts have no jurisdiction to entertain.

[No. 247.]

Argued April 25, 1906. Decided May 21,

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia to review a decree affirming a decree of the Supreme Court of that District, sustaining a demur¬ rer to, and dismissing, a bill to restrain the Secretary of the Interior from carrying out the provisions of congressional legislation controlling the disposition of pine lands ceded to the United States by the Indians of the state of Minnesota, to be adminis¬ tered for their benefit, and to require him to execute the trust and to account. Affirmed.

See same case below, 25 App. D. C. 200. The facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Tracy L. Jeffords argued the cause and filed a brief for appellant.

Mr. William C. Pollock argued the cause, and, with Assistant Attorney General Camplell, filed a brief for appellee.

Mr. Justice Day delivered the opinion of the court:

In this suit a bill was filed in the su¬ preme court of the District of Columbia by Joseph Naganab against Ethan Allen Hitch¬ cock, Secretary of the Interior. Complain¬ ant brought the suit as a citizen of the United States and a member of the band and tribe of Chippewa Indians of the state

of Minnesota, ‘suing for himself and other members of the band and tribe. The bill is quite voluminous, but in substance sets out the alleged right and title of the In-

Note.- — On suits against a state — see notes to Murdock Parlor Grate- Co. v. Com. 8 L.R.A. 399 ; Carr v. State, 11 L.R.A. 370 ; Beers v. Arkansas, 15 L. ed. U. S. 991 ; Hans v. Louis¬ iana, 33 L. ed. U. S. 842, and Tindall v. Wesley, 13 C. C. A. 165.

202 U. S.

dians who had conveyed certain lands under the act of Congress of January 14, 1889 [25 Stat. f,t L. 642, chap. 24], to the United States, to be administered for their bene¬ fit. The bill averred that under the act of Congress the Indians of the state of Minnesota had conveyed to the United States upwards of 3,555,771 acres of land, constituting certain reservations named, all of which lands and reservations were held by the United States under conveyances in trust for the benefit of the Indians; that the Secretary of the Interior had caused the lands to be classified as required by the' acl, and that approximately 1,500,000 acres thereof were classified as pine lands, 1,855,000 acres as agricultural lands; COO,

000 acies of the lands, classified under the said act as pine lands, were situated in cer¬ tain reservations, to wit, Chippewas of the Mississippi, Leech lake, Cass lake, and Lake Winnibigoshish ; that, upon said last-men¬ tioned urea, there was and is growing a large amount of merchantable pine timber, reasonably worth $10,000,000. The value of the lands classified as agricultural lands, to be sold under said act for $1.25 per acre, is $2,318,750. And' it is averred that it is the right of the Chippewa Indians to have certain of the lands sold, the proceeds to draw 5 per cent interest for fifty years, and the interest money to be used for the benefit of the Indians, as provided in the act, and, at the expiration of the fifty years, the bal¬ ance of the principal sum remaining to be paid to the Indians.

The complaint is of the act of June 27,

1902 [32 Stat. at L. 400, chap. 1157] amend¬ atory of the act of January 14, 1889. It is averred that at the time of the passage of the latter act there yet remained 600,000 acres of pine lands, and 200,000 acres of ag¬ ricultural lands, which ought to be disposed of in pursuance of said trust in favor of the Indians; that -the pine lands are worth upwards of $>10,000,000, and the agricultural lands $1.25 per acre; that, without the consent of the Indians, a portion of the pine lands was set off as a forest reservation, the timber on this land being of the ‘value (475] of $3,000,000; that the rules and regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Inte¬ rior for the selling and removal thereof would reduce the value of the pine timber to an amount exceeding $1,000,000; that the Secretary is about to sell and has ad¬ vertised for sale the pine timber on 300,000 acres of said lands; that said act of June 27, 1902, if carried out, will deprive the complainant and other Chippewa Indians of the state of Minnesota of their property without compensation and without due process of law, in violation of the Consti¬ tution of the United States. The bill prays

1113

475-477

Supreme Court of the United States.

Oct. Term,

that the defendant, the Secretary of the In¬ terior, may be temporarily enjoined from any further act or acts in execution of the act of Congress of June 27, 1902; that he be required to execute the trust in favor of the Indians, and account to the complain¬ ant, as required by the act of January 14, 1889, and for general relief.

The defendant demurred on three grounds, vie.: 1. That there is a defect of parties complainant. 2. That the bill is bad in substance, in that it does not set out any facts sufficient to entitle the complainant or the real party in interest, the Chippewa Indians of Minnesota, to the relief prayed for, or to any relief. 3. That the court has no jurisdiction over the subject-matter of the suit. The supreme court of the District of Columbia sustained the demurrer and dismissed the bill. This judgment was af¬ firmed in the court of appeals.

It is apparent from the above statement of the allegations of the bill that the de¬ fendant, Hitchcock, Secretary of the In¬ terior, has no interest in this controversy, and that it is in effect a suit against the United States to control the disposition of the lands, and for an account of the proceeds of the sales of certain lands con¬ veyed by the Indians to the United States under the act- of January 14, 1889. With¬ out considering whether the courts would have power to control' the action of the Secretary of the Interior in this matter, or whether the power and authority so to do is purely political, and subject to the control of Congress without judicial in¬ tervention, as was held in the court of ap¬ peals, we are of opinion that there is

no jurisdiction to entertain *this case. In respect to this question, it is on all fours with Oregon v. Hitchcock, Secretary of the Interior, and William A. Richards, Com¬ missioner of the General Land Office, de¬ cided on April 23 of this, term (202 U. S. 60, ante, 935, 26 Sup. Ct. Rep. 568). That case was distinguished from Minnesota v. Hitchcock, 185 U. S. 373, 46 L. ed. 954, 22 Sup. Ct. Rep. 650, relied on here by the ap¬ pellant, in the fact that in the Minnesota Case the jurisdiction to sue the Secretary of the Interior was sustained because of the consent on the part of the United States to be sued in respect to school lands within an Indian reservation, and an acceptance by the government of full responsibility for the result of the decision, so. far as the In¬ dians were concerned. Act of March 2, 1901 (31 Stat. at L. 950, chap. 808, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1384). In this case as in the Oregon Case, the legal title t6 all the tracts of land in question is still in the govern¬ ment, and the United States, the real party in interest herein, has not waived in any 1114

manner its immunity, or consented to be sued concerning the lands in question, and there is no act of Congress in anywise authoriz¬ ing this action. Upon the authority of the Oregon Case we hold tliat there is no juris¬ diction to maintain the present suit, and the action of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia, affirming the decree of the Supreme Court of the District, dismiss¬ ing the complainant’s bill, is affirmed.