United States v. Carpenter

delivered the opinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language, and continued:

The action of the government in causing the tract described to be marked bn the official plats in the land offices as reserved from sale Avas clearly .within the line of its duty under the stipulations of the treaty. The bill alleges that the tract was a part of the Red Pipestone Quarry mentioned in the eighth article. After the treaty, until the survey Avas made, and the actual extent of the reservation Avas thus designated, no part of the land containing the quarry- could have been taken up either by settlement or by location under the Louisiana Agricultural College scrip. The Avhole of such land Avas by the treaty AvithdraAvn from private entry or appropriation until the gOATernment had determined Avhether any portion less than the whole should be reserved. Its power of selection, if the Avhole was not retained, could not be restricted by the action of private parties. , So, in any view Avhich can be taken, the entry of Cluensen Avas void. It matters not whether the land had been surveyed or not, the treaty Avas notice that a part of the quarry Avould be retained by the government, and that the Avhole might be, for the use of the Indians. This purpose and the stipulation of the United States could not be defeated by the action of any officers of the land department.

*350 The court-therefore erred in sustaining the demurrer. The decree must accordingly be reversed, with directions to overrule the demurrer, the defendant to have leave to answer; and

It is so ordered.