University of Oklahoma College of Law University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 12-16-1889 Letter from the Secretary of the Interior, transmitting, in response to Senate resolution of March 30, 1889, a report on the Langford land claim. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/indianserialset Part of the Indian and Aboriginal Law Commons Recommended Citation S. Exec. Doc. No. 12, 51st Cong., 1st Sess. (1889) This Senate Executive Document is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in American Indian and Alaskan Native Documents in the Congressional Serial Set: 1817-1899 by an authorized administrator of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SENATE. Ex.Doc. 51ST CoN~:RESS, } { 1st Session. No.12. LETTER FROJ'.l THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, TRANSMITTING, In response to Senate resolut-ion of 1Harch 30, 1880, a report on the Lang­ I ord land claim. DECEMBER 16, 1889. -Referred ·to the Committee on Indian Affairs ' and ordered to be printed. BEPAR'.l'MENT OF THE INTERIOR, Washington, December 13, 1889. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of a resolution of the Senate, of March 30, 1889, in the following words : Resolved, That the Secretary of the Interior be, and be is hereby, directed to trans­ mit to the Senate such information as way be in the possession of his Department relative to the "Langford claim," so called, to certain land on the Lapwai Indian Reservation, in the Territory of Idaho. In response thereto I have the honor to transmit herewith copy of a communication of .May 4, 1889, and accompanying papers, from the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, to wholll the matter was referred, which contain a statement of all the material facts in the case so far as shown by the records and files of his office. I also transmit copy of a commu­ nication of July 3, 1889, from Themas Wilson, of this city, notifying the Department of the fact that he holds a mortgage on the land in ques­ tion, given him by Mr. Langford. I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant. JOHN W. NOBLE, Secretary. The PRESIDJiJNT OF THE UNITED STATES SE].'f.A.TE. DEP.A.RTMENT OF THE INTERIOR. • OFFICE OF INDIAN AFFAIR~, Washington, May 4, B89. Sm : I am in receipt, by Department reference for report, of a reso­ lutfon of the Senate, dated March 30, 1889, as follows, viz : Resolved, That the Secretary of the Inrorior be, and he is hereby, directed to transmit to the Senate such information as may be in the possession of his Department rela­ tive to the "Langford Claim," so called, to certain land on the Lapwai Indian Reser­ vation, in the Territory of Idaho. I return the resolution herewith, and have to say that the correspond­ ence and testimony in the case may be found printed in the record of S. Ex. 2-49 2 LANGFORD LAND CLAIM. the case of·William G. Langford vs. the United States, No. oo~n Uni­ ted States Court of Claims. See, also, 14 Opinions, 568; Langf~rd vs. The United States, 11 Otto, 341; Langford vs. Monteith, 1~ Otto, 145. In the eafly part of the y~ar 1~82 Mr. Langford, through Edward Lander, esq., filed a paper m this Dep~rtment suggesting a basis of compromise and that Congress be asked to appropriate the amount that might be agreed upon. In office report of March 6, 1882, submitting the matter to the De­ partment, a full and complete history of the case was given, and recom­ mendation made" that the question be submitted to the Attorney-Gen­ eral for an opinion as to w llether Langford has such a title or interest in the land in question as would warrant this Department in accepting a compromise and in asking of Congress an appropriation of such sum as might be agreed upon." The question having been submitted to the .Attorney-General he rendered his opinion thereon under date of March 17, 1882. Under date of January 8, 1889, Hon. C. S. Voorhees filed a paper in this Department, signed by Mr. Langford, requesting that the lands in question be restored to him, which having been referred to this office was returned to the Department, with letter dated J auuary 9, 1889, in which attention was invited to office report of March 6, 1882, and the opinion of the .Attorney-General dated March 17, 1882, and the sugges­ tion made that- In view of the decisions of the courts in this case, reference to which is had in office letter referred, and of the opinion of the Attorney-General, I submit that the request of Mr. Langford can not be complied wit,h. The papers herein referred to contain a statement of all the material facts in the case so far as shown by the files and records of this office. I in close herewith printetl copy of the record in the case of Langford vs. the U.S., No. 9921, U.S. Court of Claims; copy of letter of Edward Lander; copy of office report of March 6, 1882; copy of opinion of Attor­ ney-General March 17, 1882; copy of letter from Mr. Langford filed by Hon. C. S. Vgorhees; copy of office report of January 9, 1889. Very respectfully, your obedient serYant, R. V. BEL'l', Acting Commissioner. The SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. [In the matter of the delivery to the owner of the Lapwai Mission Land, situated in the Nez Perce Indian Reservation, near the boundary thereof.] The SECRET.ARY OF THE INTERIOR: I write this to respectfully request you to order. this land restored to me. 'l'he last action taken by your Department is evidenced by the letter of Secretary Chandler to me o(-date, which will be presented with this. According to that letter, -the land must be restored to me. As you will see, that let­ ter declares your Department will submit to the judgment of the court.s, and would sub­ mit to the judgment of the court which tried and settled and put me in possessien, wne it not that the Secretary had learned that in the case of Langford vs. C. S. Monteith, the supreme court of Idaho had held that the former judgment of Langford vs. Newell was void, and Langford a transgressor. There never was a question of title or of right to possession tried in that case or before . tha I; court. The plaintiff in that case did not allege title, but alleged merely a lease and a forfeiture thereof. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court ef the United States, and it was then de­ cided that the justice court, before which this action was brought, had not jurisdiction; LANGFORD LAND CLAIM. 3 hence that nothing could be adjudicated in that case, and the whole proceedings in that case were held for naught. (Langford vs. Monteith, 102; U. S. R., page 145.) In this way the Supreme Court of·the United States bas declared_ that there w:1s no such decision as alone would prevent Secretary Chandler from ordermg a, restoration to me.' The Supreme Court in that case held that the courts ·of Idaho had jurisdiction on the reservation, and on that point reversed the decision of the supreme COtFt of Idaho. The jurisdiction of the court which t,ried the title has never been disputed except on the point last mentioned, and another point, which was that the courts bad not juris­ diction against officers of the United States claiming land merely as such officerR. The _Supreme Court has, since that point of law was raised in my case, decided that courts have jurisdiction in such cases. When Secretary Chandler wrote said letter those two points bad not been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States, but he held that if a court had held it had jurisdiction, that this was conclusive on the executive officer unless an appeal was taken from the decision. Those decisions of the Supreme Court of. the United States prove that the decision in the case of Langford against Newell, which adjudicated the title and right of possession to me, was a court which had full jurisdiction of the subject-matter. (See United States 'l'. Lee, U. S. R. 106, page 196.) I have that judgment alive, and can stte out an alias execution any day, and can thereby be restored to possession unless the United States shall repel the sheriff by military force, as they have previously done. The whole history and law of the case will be found in the report of the Committee of lndian Affairs, No. 63, first session Forty-third Congress, and in the unanimous re• port of the Judiciary Committee of the House, No. 830, second session Forty-fifth Con­ gress. The fact is that the improvements put on the premises by the United States never were worth $20,000, and are not worth near thz.t now. Since the letter of Secretary Chandler, the mill and other buildings, then on the place, have been destroyed by fire and flood, and many of the buildings are not on my land. The former Indian agent reported that there was danger of an Indian outbreak if I took possession. That was false, for the Indians were indifferent.