Morris v. Hitchcock

This is an equity suit, begun in the supreme court of the Distrit of Columbia by Edwin T. Morris and nine other persons, all averred to be citizens of the United States, and not Indians, against Ethan A. Hitchcock, as Secretary of the Department of the Interior, William A. Jones, as Commissioner of Indian Affairs, J. George Wright, as Indian inspector, and J. Blair Shoenfelt, as United States Indian agent, resident at the city of Muscogee, in the Indian territory. Certain of the complainants were averred to be residents either of the state of Texas or of the state of Missouri, and others were averred to be residents of the Indian territory.

It was alleged that each complainant was the owner in his own right of not less than 500 head of cattle and horses, of the value of not less than $15 per head, which were grazing upon land in the Chickasaw Nation, Indian territory, under contracts with individual members of said tribe, holding such lands as their approximate shares upon allotments to be made. The purpose of the suit was to obtain a decree perpetually enjoining said defendants from seizing, molesting, or removing the cattle and horses of plaintiffs from the Indian territory, as it was averred they threatened to do under the pretended authority of an act of the legislature of the Chickasaw Nation and regulations promulgated by the Secretary of the Interior, which were averred to be repugnant to the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. The statute and regulations referred to are copied in the margin.

Regulations (June 3, 1902) Governing the Introduction by Noncitizens of Live Stock in the Chickasaw Nation, Indian Territory.

Section 29 of the act of Congress, approved June 28, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 495, chap. 517), ratifying the agreement with the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations, Indian territory, provides in part as follows:

'It is further agreed that no act, ordinance, or resolution of the council of either the Choctaw or Chickasaw tribes, in any manner affecting the land of the tribe, or of the individuals, after allotment, or the moneys or other property of the tribe or citizens thereof (except appropriations for the regular and necessary expenses of the government of the respective tribes), or the rights of any persons to employ any kind of labor; or the rights of any persons who have taken or may take the oath of allegiance to the United States, shall be of any validity until approved by the President of the United States. When such acts, ordinances, or resolutions, passed by the council of either of said tribes, shall be approved by the governor thereof, then it shall be the duty of the national secretary of said tribe to forward them to the President of the United States, duly certified and sealed, who shall, within thirty days after their reception, approve or disapprove the same. Said acts, ordinances, or resolutions, when so approved, shall be published in at least two newspapers having a bona fide circulation in the tribe to be affected thereby, and when disapproved shall be returned to the tribe enacting the same.

'It is further agreed, in view of the modification of legislative authority and judicial jurisdiction herein provided, and the necessity of the continuance of the tribal governments so modified, in order to carry out the requirements of this agreement, that the same shall continue for the period of eight years from the fourth day of March, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight.'

Under these provisions, the following act of the Chickasaw national council, approved by the governor on May 3, 1902, was approved by the President of the United States on May 15, 1902, and entitled: The bill of complaint was demurred to upon the grounds following: (a) Want of jurisdiction in equity because of adequate right to relief at law; (b) defect of necessary parties, in that neither the Chickasaw Nation or tribe, or any member or representative thereof, was joined as a defendant; and (c) want of equity.

After argument, the court overruled the first and second grounds of demurrer, and sustained the third ground. The complainants elected to stand upon their bill of complaint, and a decree was consequently entered, dismissing the bill. On appeal, the decree was affirmed by the court of appeals of the District of Columbia. 21 App. D. C. 565. The cause was then brought to this court.

Messrs. Jackson H. Ralston, Frederick L. Siddons, and Davis & Garnett for appellants.

Assistant Attorney General Campbell and Mr. A. C. Campbell for appellees.

Mr. Justice White, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court: