reënter. Afterwards Shaw deposited this lease with Whitbread & Company as a security for the repayment of money borrowed of them; and, becoming bankrupt, and his estate and effects being assigned by the commissioners to his assignees, the lease was, upon the petition of Whitbread & Company, directed by the Lord Chancellor to be sold in discharge of their debt, and was, accordingly, sold to the defendant, and, without the consent of Goodbehere, assigned to the defendant by the assignees, and he entered, etc. The trial judge ruled that this was not a breach of the proviso not to assign without consent, etc., inasmuch as the covenant did not extend to Shaw's assignees, they being assignees in law; wherefore he directed a nonsuit. The rule to set aside the nonsuit was discharged on argument before Lord Ellenborough, C. J.; LeBlanc, J.; Bayley, J., and Danforth, J. (delivering concurring opinions), and Bayley, J., said:

"It has never been considered that the lessee's becoming bankrupt was an avoiding of the lease within this proviso; and if it be not, what act has the lessee done to avoid it? All that has followed upon his bankruptcy is not by his act, but by the operation of law transferring his property to his assignees. Then shall the assignees have capacity to take it, and yet not to dispose of it. Shall they take it only for their own benefit, or be obliged to retain it in their hands to the prejudice of the creditors, for whose benefit the law originally cast it upon them? Undoubtedly that can never be."

VOL. CCX-4

Decree Affirmed.

REUBEN QUICK BEAR v. LEUPP, COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS.

APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE DISTRICT OF

COLUMBIA.

No. 569. Argued February 26, 27, 1908.-Decided May 18, 1908.

A statutory limitation on expenditures of the public funds does not, in the absence of special provision to that effect, relate to expenditures of treaty and trust funds administered by the Government for the Indians. The provisions in the Indian Appropriation Acts of 1895, 1896, 1897, 1898 and 1899 limiting and forbidding contracts for education of Indians in sectarian schools relate only to appropriations of public moneys raised by general taxation from persons of all creeds and faith and gratuitously appropriated and do not relate to the disposition of the tribal and trust funds which belong to the Indians-in this case the Sioux Tribe-themselves, and the officers of the Government will not be enjoined from carrying out contracts with sectarian schools entered into on the petition of Indians and to the pro rata extent that the petitioning Indians are interested in the fund.

A declaration by Congress that the Government shall not make appropriations for sectarian schools does not apply to Indian treaty and trust funds on the ground that such a declaration should be extended thereto under the religion clauses of the Federal Constitution.

35 Washington Law Reporter, 766, affirmed.

THE appellants filed their bill in equity in the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, alleging that:

"1. The plaintiffs are citizens of the United States, and members of the Sioux tribe of Indians of the Rosebud Agency, in the State of South Dakota, and bring this suit in their own right as well as for all other members of the Sioux tribe of Indians of the Rosebud Agency.

"2. The defendants are citizens of the United States and residents of the District of Columbia, and are sued in this action as the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, the Secretary of the Interior, the Secretary of the Treasury, the Treasurer of

the United States, and the Comptroller of the Treasury respectively.

"3. That by article VII of the Sioux treaty of April 29, 1868 (15 Stat. 635, 637), continued in force for twenty years after July 1, 1889, by section 17 of the act of March 2, 1889, c. 405, 25 Stat. 888, 894-5, the United States agreed that for every thirty children of the said Sioux tribe who can be induced or compelled to attend school, a house shall be provided, and a teacher competent to teach the elementary branches of an English education, shall be furnished, who will reside among said Indians and faithfully discharge his or her duties as a teacher.

"4. That for the purpose of carrying out the above provision of the said treaty during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1906, the following appropriation was made by the act of March 3, 1905, section 1 (33 Stat. 1048, 1055):

"For support and maintenance of day and industrial schools, including erection and repairs of school buildings in accordance with article seven of the treaty of April twentynine, eighteen hundred and sixty-eight, which article is continued in force for twenty years by section seventeen of the act of March second, eighteen hundred and eighty-nine, two hundred and twenty-five thousand dollars.'

"The fund so appropriated is generally known as the Sioux treaty fund.

"5. That section 17 of the said act of March 2, 1889, further provides as follows:

"And in addition thereto there shall be set apart out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise appropriated, the sum of three million dollars, which said sum shall be deposited in the Treasury of the United States to the credit of the Sioux Nation of Indians as a permanent fund, the interest of which, at five per centum per annum, shall be appropriated, under the direction of the Secretary of the Interior to the use of the Indians receiving rations and annuities upon the reservations created by this act, in proportion to the numbers that shall

so receive rations and annuities at the time that this act takes effect, as follows: one-half of said interest shall be so expended for the promotion of industrial and other suitable education among said Indians, and the other half thereof in such manner and for such purposes, including reasonable cash payments per capita as, in the judgment of said Secretary, shall, from time to time, most contribute to the advancement of said Indians in civilization and self-support.'

"This fund of three million dollars is generally known as the Sioux trust fund.

"6. That the interest on the said Sioux trust fund is paid annually by the United States in accordance with the provisions of the second clause of the act of April 1, 1880, c. 41, 21 Stat. 70, reading as follows:

"And the United States shall pay interest semi-annually, from the date of the deposit of any and all such sums in the United States Treasury, at the rate per annum stipulated by treaties or prescribed by law, and such payments shall be made in the usual manner, as .each may become due, without further appropriation by Congress.'

"7. That the act of June 7, 1897, c. 3, § 1, 30 Stat. 62, 79, contains the following provision:

"And it is hereby declared to be the settled policy of the Government to hereafter make no appropriation whatever for education in any sectarian school.'

"8. That, in violation of the said provision of the act of June 7, 1897, the said Francis E. Leupp, Commissioner of Indian Affairs as aforesaid, has made or intends to make, for and on behalf of the United States, a contract with the Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions of Washington, D. C., a sectarian organization, for the care, education, and maintenance, during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1906, of a number of Indian pupils of the said Sioux tribe, at a sectarian school on the said Rosebud Reservation, known as the St. Francis Mission Boarding School, and in the said contract has agreed to pay or intends to agree to pay to the said Bureau of Catholic Indian

Missions of Washington, D. C., a certain rate per quarter as compensation for every pupil in attendance at the said school under the said contract, the said payment (which, as the plaintiffs are informed and believe, will amount to the sum of twenty-seven thousand dollars), to be made either from the said Sioux treaty fund or from the interest of the said Sioux trust fund or from both.

"9. That all payments made to the said Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions of Washington, D. C., under the said contract, either out of the said Sioux treaty fund or out of the interest of the said Sioux trust fund, will be payments for education in a sectarian school, and will be unlawful diversions of funds appropriated by Congress, and in violation of the above-recited provision of the act of June 7, 1897, and such payments will seriously deplete the interest of said Sioux trust fund, to the great injury of the plaintiffs and all other members of the said Sioux tribe of Indians of the Rosebud Agency, and will unlawfully diminish the amount of money which should be expended out of the said Sioux treaty fund and the interest of the said Sioux trust fund for lawful purposes, for the benefit of the said plaintiffs and all other members of the said Sioux tribe of Indians of the Rosebud Agency, and will also unlawfully diminish the cash payments which the said plaintiffs and all other members of the said Sioux tribe of Indians of the Rosebud Agency are entitled to receive per capita out of the interest of the said Sioux trust fund.

"10. That the plaintiffs have never requested nor authorized the payment of any part of the said Sioux treaty fund, or of the interest of the said Sioux trust fund, to the said Bureau of Catholic Indian Missions of Washington, D. C., or any other person or organization whatever, for the-education of Indian pupils of the said Sioux tribe in the said St. Francis Mission Boarding School, or any other sectarian school whatever, but have on the contrary protested against any use of either of the said funds, or the interest of the same, for the purpose of such education.