◆ SpookStack

arta Bi] wat katt dew bib? Ow : uns . ted ile aye ” Ders D6 lig eae Fone 3 + ‘of t * vation itself. en. " -a~ to be inconsistent, wit the Pelican case, and it is not sustained by au- a wT ' gllotmenta. Ment# were mt beld in trust by the United States; and two of the cases thg question of jurisdiction was not directly involved. fhe first of thease cases 18 United States va. Sovlby, 255 U. 5. of the Five Civiliged Tribes were mt trust but restrictaa aic.* “fhe other case ie MoCunty vs. United States, 264 U. 5. 48¢. Tho — 7 Seep esiotion was whether * vurplus Osage allotment was tazabje for ths yeor - 1909. Iands wer "fe. in the State on March 1, but the allotment desds The allotments were not held to be 90, merely because thay DBS 0, by virtue of a temporary limttation on the powar cf siuie, hate is not essentially of an Indian character, (Libby vy. cae - 250} and the | contention thet it is, while ebly assertel, appears | Rae ‘the. trust title _ which tha Osage Reservation was helaé ny tho United states . (Brewew-EZlliott G11 Go. vs. United States, 260 U. S. 77) continued into the ’ Phe views af this court as to their characters heretofore entertained 5 - dn advence of the corrected indictment and the further arguments of cm-~ ocd mast yield, if the Supreme Court bas determined that tas Cai g weLuot- which have been cited appesr clearly to hold that they were sit, altsclc. boty where 1t is aaid, in terms, that "the allotments to the Osages and to mir 38" "ware expouted an _ _pproved by the Secretary of the Interior later, in that In denying the 1 validity of the tax, the opinion necessarily wanctions suande of ‘he deeda ani bolds that by them there was 4 tominst ton trust charecter of the Osage title. It was held: "Title was in . ue pass until the execution and delivery of the deeds. The lands were =). taxable while bela in trust by the United States." — = Lene & United States on the date as of which the assessment was made, and did mt