Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Frost v. Wenie

Frost v. Wenie, 157 U.S. 46 (1895)

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1895-03-04
Topic
general

Mr. Justice Harlan, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court. The act of May 28, 1880, for-the relief of settlers upon the Osage trust and. diminished reserve lands in Kansas, provided that all of those Indian lands remaining unsold and unappropriated (and not embraced in certain claims which it is unnec *58 essary here to mention) shall be subject to disposal to actual settlers only, “ having the qualifications of preemptors on the public lands” — each settler being permitted “to enter not exceeding one quarter section each.” The act of December 15, 1880, directed the Secretary of the Interior to cause all that portion of the Fort Dodge military reservation lying north of the right of way of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fé Railroad to be surveyed, sectionized, and subdivided “ as other public lands,” and after survey “ to offer the said lands to actual settlers only, under'and in accordance with the homestead laws of the United States.” ' Only about one twenty-fifth part of the lands embraced in so much of the Fort Dodge military reservation as is described in the last-named act were Osage trust lands. 6 L. D. 541. Did Congress intend, by the act of December 15, 1880, to open to entry by homesteaders lands of the class which, by the act of May 28, 1880, were opened to entry only by actual settlers having the qualifications of preemptors ?

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Frost v. Wenie. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
89 opinions

Headnotes

  1. Statutory Interpretation — Repeal by Implication Where two statutes cover, in whole or in part, the same matter and are not absolutely irreconcilable, and no purpose to repeal the earlier act is expressed or clearly indicated, the court will, if possible, give effect to both; a later statute will not be taken to repeal a prior one on the same subject unless the later statute is so broad in its terms and so clear and explicit in its words as to show that it was intended to cover the whole subject and displace the prior statute. 157 U.S. at 58
  2. Native American Law — Treaty Rights A statute enacted after treaties with an Indian tribe relating to the disposition of that tribe's trust lands should not be construed as impairing the rights secured to the Indians by those treaties unless such a construction is unavoidable, particularly where the statute contains no express words of repeal and no intention to disregard treaty obligations appears in the legislative enactments specifically concerning those trust lands. 157 U.S. at 60
  3. Environmental Law — Homestead Entry — Lands Held in Trust for Indians Lands directed by an act of Congress to be surveyed as other public lands and offered to actual settlers under the homestead laws, lying within an abandoned military reservation, are confined to public lands subject to disposition under the general laws relating to "other public lands," and do not include lands of an exceptional class affected with a trust established for the benefit of Indians by treaty. 157 U.S. at 61