Page:Federal Reporter, 1st Series, Volume 8.djvu/902

 888 FEDERAL REPORTER. �convey title to the lands of the United States wiihout an aet of Con- gress, and if a treaty acts directly on the subject of the grant, it is equivalent to an act of congress and the grantee bas a good title. Holden y. Joy, 17 Wall. 247; U. S. t. Brooks, 10 How. 442 ; Meigs v. McClwng, 9 Cranch, 11. As long ago as the Cherokee Nation v. Geor- gia, 5 Pet. 1, and Worcester v. Siate of Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, the supreme court of the United States, speaking through that most eminent of all American judges, Chief Justice John Marshall, held that a treaty with an Indian tribe was like a treaty with a for- eign nation, as far as the power of the contracting parties was con- ccrned; that it, like a treaty with a foreign power, was a law equally as sacred and equally as binding as a law of congress. Now, if the treaty-making power can convey title, it can reserve a part of the public domain for a specifie purpqse, because this is but the exercise of a less higher power than that which convoya title. So can the president of the United States, by an executive order, reserve a part of the public domain for a specifie lawf ul purpose. Wolcott v. Des Moines Go. 5 Wall. 681; Grisar v. McDowell, 6 Wall. 363. In the latter case the court says : �"From an early period in the history of the governmentjit bas been the practice of the pVesident to order lands to be reserved from sale and set apart for public purposes, and that numerous acts of congress recognize the author- ity of the president in this respect as competent authority." �The United States court for Nevada, m the case of U. S. v. Leath- ers, bas deoided the same thing. So can congress by law reserve a part of the public domain. Then we find a reservation may be made, either by treaty, executive order, or by act of congress, and all of these methods are expressly recognized by the homestead and pre- emption laws. Then we find the power that made this treaty with the Seminoles had the right to reseire these lands for an Indian reservation or any public purpose. The question is, has this power done so in this case? Did the treaty-making power employ such language as to indicate its purpose to reserve the land in controversy ? No set form of words or phrases is necessary to set aside a reserva- tion. The sovereign is not partingwith the title, but only setting it apart to be used for a specifie public purpose. It is enough if there are sufficient words to indicate the purpose of the power that can act to show that in the given case it intended to act. Article 3 of the Seminole treaty says : "In compliance with the desire of the United States to locate other Indians and freedmen thereon," the Seminoles cede and convey, etc. And, in the preamble, it is recited that "in ��� �