The estimated value of unsold tribal property in the Choctaw and Chickasaw Nations is as follows:

Tribal schools and improvements....

2,280 town lots...

Unsold land, including timber land and surface of the segregated coal and asphalt land..

Amount uncollected from sale of coal and asphalt minerals...

Amount uncollected from lands sold..

Coal and asphalt mineral deposits..

Total....

The estimated value of unsold tribal property in the Creek Nation is as follows:

The estimated value of unsold tribal property in the Seminole Nation is as follows:

Only one tract of 10 acres of tribal land in Ottawa County, Cherokee Nation, remains unsold and was reoffered for sale on July 24, 1919. During the fiscal year a competency commission has visited the members of the Creek Tribe of Indians at their homes to ascertain who are competent and capable of handling all business transactions. affecting their allotted lands without departmental assistance. During 1919 restrictions on 57,003.28 acres of allotted land were removed, 38,606 being conditional removals and sold under supervision for $580,728.16.

During the year there were constructed for individual Indians by the field force, houses, barns, improvements, and equipments purchased at a cost of $338,816.78; live stock was purchased for $87,474.65 with other miscellaneous articles to the total value of $1,110,618.53.

The amount of money disbursed to individual Indians this year from land sales, equalization, royalties and per capita payments amounts to $7,812,331.44, an increase of more than $3,000,000 over the total for last year.

Special emphasis has been laid upon agriculture and stock raising putting under cultivation additional acreage, and the Indian farmer has responded even beyond expectations. As farmers, knitters, nurses, soldiers, purchasers of war securities, and sacrificers for the

common cause in the war, the Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes did their full part. They measured up to duty and danger. None did more.

Liberty loan bonds of the five issues were purchased from restricted individual Indian funds to an amount of $10,264,000, and war saving stamps to the amount of $832,769.20, making a grand total of $11,096,769.20. All the bonds were registered and issued in the name of the Secretary of the Interior as trustee for the Indian named in the bond and were deposited with the United States Treasurer, Washington, D. C., for safekeeping. The largest Indian purchasers of Liberty loan bonds were Creek Indians named Jackson Barnett, who purchased $1,096,750; Jeanetta Richard, now Barnett, who purchased $414,250; Susan Bacon, who purchased $357,000; Mollie Davis, who purchased $330,000; Sandy Fox, who purchased $325,000; and Maley Fier estate, which purchased $313,000.

It is estimated that more than 4,000 Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes entered the military and naval service of the United States and that over 200 made the supreme sacrifice. Instances of the greatest heroism have been noted and many distinctions were conferred upon individual Indians for valiant service of which a record has been kept in the office of the superintendent for the Five Civilized Tribes. Indians in the military service, especially full bloods, have received great benefit from their experiences in the training camps and overseas. The war has been a liberal education to them, broadening their views of life and inspiring in them new ambitions and higher ideals.

REGARDING TAXATION OF LANDS PURCHASED WITH RESTRICTED FUNDS.-The United States Circuit Court of Appeals, eighth circuit, in the case of The United States v. Law (250 Fed., 218) held that the Secretary of the Interior could by the purchase of new lands for an allottee reimpose upon the newly acquired lands taken on the Carney-Lacher form of deed the same restrictions that were imposed on the allotted lands from which the funds arose, and that the lands so purchased were impressed with restrictions as to alienation, but the question whether such lands so purchased were exempt from taxation was not passed on by the court, leaving that question now undecided by any Federal court. However, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma in the recent case of Ella Jones v. C. S. Whitlow, as county treasurer of McIntosh County, Okla., in passing upon the question whether lands theretofore taxable, purchased with royalty funds, are exempt from State taxation by reason of a clause in the deed making the lands inalienable, held that such lands were not so exempt in language as follows:

Lands, theretofore taxable, purchased from private owners, with royalties accruing to a full-blood Creek Indian from her restricted allotment, are not exempt from State tax

ation by a clause in the deeds from the grantor making the lands inalienable without the consent of the Secretary of the Interior.

Unless this decision is reversed it must follow that all lands purchased with royalty funds must bear their proportion of State, county and other taxes, the same as unrestricted lands, and the same has been held to apply to lands purchased with restricted money. The Department of Justice has been requested to direct that suit be brought in the Federal court at Muskogee, Okla., having in view a final determination of this taxation question.

TOOTIE RILEY CASE.-The Tootie Riley case, decided May 19, 1919, by the United States Supreme Court, involved the question of what interest a Cherokee born since March 4, 1906, had in the homestead allotment of the deceased ancestor under section 9 of the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 312), under which it was held that the minor child is entitled to the use of the royalties; i. e., the interest or income which may be obtained by properly investing them during a period not beyond April 26, 1931, leaving the principal, like the land, to go to the heirs in general on the termination of her special right.

EASTMAN RICHARD CASE.-The Eastman Richard case, decided June 2, 1919, by the United States Supreme Court, involved the question whether a full-blood Creek heir, the father, inherited the lands of his son, a full-blood minor, free from all restrictions, under section 9 of the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat., 312). The United States Supreme Court held that land covered by the lease on the allotted land of the son and inherited by the father was then and would remain restricted land until April 26, 1931, and the royalties accruing therefrom were still under the supervision of the Secretary of the Interior unless prior to that time the heir, with the approval of the proper probate court, conveyed his interests therein to another and that the authority of the Secretary to supervise the collection, care, and disbursement of the royalties, had not terminated; that the leasing of such inherited full-blood lands is subject to the supervisory authority of the Secretary during the time such lands remain restricted.

PROBATE WORK IN OKLAHOMA.

The probate organization felt the disturbance of war conditions. Three probate attorneys joined the colors, and for several months if was impossible to secure a sufficient number of stenographers. However, normal activities again prevailed following the first of the calendar year, and a large volume of business was accomplished.

Formerly when probate attorneys represented the unrestricted as well as the restricted Indians, as provided in section 6 of the act of May 27, 1908 (35 Stat. L., 312), the work was greater than could be handled with facility by the 20 officials of this class. In the Indian appropriation act of May 25, 1918, Congress reduced the number of

cases over which the probate attorneys have jurisdiction, limiting their duties to probate matters affecting restricted allottees or their heirs. The result of this legislation has been that the individual cases are receiving better and more effective attention, although it is to be regretted that the unrestricted minor and incompetent Indians can not longer receive the aid and influence of the Government.

Since July 15, 1914, the courts of Oklahoma, in so far as probate matters are concerned, have been governed by rules of procedure adopted by the justices of the supreme court of that State. Under these rules, the procedure was simple and uniform and excellent results were obtained. Their binding force had been established in the case of Freeling v. Kight, (152 Pac., 362). During its last session, the Oklahoma Legislature passed an act, approved April 4, 1919, abrogating these rules and authorizing and requiring each county judge to promulgate rules governing the procedure in his court. If this act goes unchallenged, and each of the 40 counties. comprising the Five Civilized Tribes has a different set of rules, much confusion will result and the probate organization will have been dealt a heavy blow. It is believed that the act is unconstitutional, as under section 2, article 7, of the constitution of Oklahoma, the supreme court has a general superintending control over all inferior courts, and this control should include the authority to prescribe rules of procedure for those courts. Steps will soon be taken to test the constitutionality of the act.

Of the 232 civil actions instituted by the probate attorneys and finally determined, one case decided by the Supreme Court of Oklahoma, that of Hickory et al. v. Campbell et al. (182 Pac., 233), may well be mentioned as showing the character and importance of some of the litigation undertaken by them. The court held that the power conferred by Congress on the representatives of this department, in this case the probate attorney, to appeal from a judgment affecting the rights of minor allottees was superior to that conferred on a guardian, and where there was a conflict the power of the probate attorney must prevail; that an appeal bond was not necessary because not required by any act of Congress; that the district court must bear evidence as to whether or not it is to the best interest of restricted minors to sell their inherited land, and that the testimony of a minor heir approaching majority that she did not desire her interest to be sold, which was contrary to the position taken by her guardian, is worthy of consideration and should be of great weight with the court in exercising its discretion. Several vexing questions were thus disposed of, the contention of the probate attorney as to each being sustained.

Two attorneys who resigned to enter the Army were reinstated in the probate service, when mustered out, one of whom was detailed to

look after probate matters among the Choctaws of Mississippi. These Indians had been enrolled in Oklahoma, receiving allotments there, and had later returned to their old homes in Mississippi. The probate attorney went into every case affecting Mississippi Choctaws pending in that State, over which he had jurisdiction. Many cases were in bad condition. Guardians had failed to account for funds received in behalf of their Indian wards, some had neglected to file annual and final reports, and a few had died with no attempt having been made on the part of their administrators to make final accounting and conclude the guardianships. All of the cases were replaced in good condition, either by closing them satisfactorily where the minors had become of age, or by having new guardians appointed under sufficient bond.

The following summary will give some idea of the quantity and distinctive features of the work of the probate attorneys:

Regular cases in which attorney appeared............

Civil actions instituted....

Amount involved in such civil actions..

7, 024 270 268, 638

PROBATING ESTATES OF DECEASED INDIANS AND APPROVAL OF WILLS.

The probating of the estates of deceased Indians and approval of wills, under the provisions of the act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. L., 855), as amended by the act of February 14, 1913 (37 Stat. L., 678), for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1919, progressed satisfactorily, notwithstanding numerous separations and changes, due to stress of war, in the clerical force, both in Washington and the field. During the year 2,414 cases were finally disposed of.