into two classes, namely, those defined in section 1 which have through districts or water users' associations contracted with the United States for repayment of the construction charges, and those defined in section 2, in which there are no organizations to contract collectively but where each individual water-right applicant or entryman must accept the act.

In section 4 of the act the organizations and individuals are referred to in the same sentence in this manner: "At the expiration of the period for which deferment of charges is made under this act all districts, water users' associations or other water users' organizations and all individuals accepting the provisions hereof shall resume payment of charges " etc. And near the end of this same section it is stated: "In the case of any district, water users' associations, or other water users' organizations, or individuals under contract for payment of construction charge " etc., while in section 6 we find the same reference to organizations and individuals as follows: "The Secretary of the Interior in his discretion is further authorized to defer the payment to the United States from any water users' organization as defined in section 1 hereof and from any individual water-right applicant or entryman of construction charges etc. These references to the statute clearly indicate an intention on the part of Congress to include all water users within the scope of the act and does not show a plan to exclude any individual landowner or a particular class of landowner. In defining the two large groups, namely, those who have contracted collectively and those who have contracted individually, and for the purpose of excluding individuals under Warren Act contracts, the language in the first three lines of section 2 of the act was adopted.

There is clearly no intention expressed in the history of the legislation, in the Department or other correspondence, the hearings before the Committees, or the debates in Congress, to indicate that it wanted to exclude nonconsenting application landowners from the benefits of the act. The act of April 1, 1932, is a relief act and it should be liberally construed.

It is my opinion that it is a reasonable construction of the law to say that sections 1 and 2 were descriptive of the two large bodies of water users, namely, organizations and individuals, and that nonconsenters on the Garland Division of the Shoshone project, and also nonconsenters on that and other projects, are entitled to the benefits of the moratorium act of April 1, 1932, supra.

Approved:

Jos. M. DIXON,

First Assistant Secretary.

AUTHORITY OF THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR TO DISPOSE OF REINDEER BELONGING TO ESTATES OF DECEASED NATIVES OF ALASKA

Opinion, July 26, 1932

ALASKAN NATIVES-REINDEER-ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES.

There is no provision of law whereby any Federal agency has been constituted general guardian for the natives of Alaska so as to place their private property under governmental control, and consequently where the property of a native of that Territory consists of reindeer owned by him in his own right, altogether free from restriction, the Government has no authority to take part in the administration of his estate.

ALASKAN NATIVES INDIANS-REINDEER-REINDEER SERVICE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR-ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES.

The provisions of the act of June 25, 1910, as amended, for determining Indian heirs and for the administration of the restricted property of deceased Indians, are applicable to the natives of Alaska, and where the estate of a deceased native of that Territory consists of reindeer which were restricted from sale, the Secretary of the Interior is empowered to administer the estate and he may, if he sees fit, remove the restrictions and dispose of the reindeer and pay the money over to the heirs, but an employee of the Reindeer Service has no such authority.

ALASKAN NATIVES-REINDEER-ADMINISTRATION OF ESTATES-SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR COURTS JURISDICTION.

Where a native of Alaska dies leaving a mixed estate of restricted and unrestricted property, the Secretary of the Interior can deal only with the former class, while the jurisdiction over the latter class devolves upon the local court.

ALASKAN NATIVES-REINDEER-SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR-RULES AND REGULATIONS REMEDY FOR ENFORCEMENT.

Congress has conferred upon the Secretary of the Interior the authority to make regulations and to impose restrictions with respect to reindeer owned by the United States in the Territory of Alaska that have been or may be transferred to the natives and to act in behalf of the natives in such connection, and enforcement thereof may be had in a proper case by suit to recover the animals illegally transferred, or the value thereof. REINDEER-REINDEER ASSOCIATION-ISSUANCE OF STOCK.

The fact that a reindeer organization in the Territory of Alaska has issued shares of stock to individuals for reindeer turned over to it by them does not deprive the Government of its control over any restricted reindeer where the transfer had not been approved by a proper administrative officer.

FINNEY, Solicitor:

My opinion has been requested on certain questions submitted by Governor Parks of Alaska, as stated in a communication by Messrs. Trowbridge and Gillman, field representatives, relating to the Alaska

Reindeer Service. For convenience the statement is reproduced as follows:

We have the honor to submit herewith several questions relative to disposition of reindeer estates, which have heretofore been handled by the Reindeer Service and in former years by the Bureau of Education employees. This subject has arisen on several occasions since our arrival and no doubt there will be additional cases encountered.

Some of these estates consist of reindeer only, but there have been other cases, where the reindeer are only a small part of the property of the estate. In such cases, the estates are probated in the Territorial courts, where no recognition of the reindeer has been taken, and in other cases the courts have made disposition of the reindeer property. An important case now pending is that of the Peter Williams estate at Akiak, where serious difficulty has been encountered by the Department of Justice officials in following the laws pertaining to probate matters. This case has been assigned to us to investigate by the Secretary, at request of the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

The following questions are submitted, in order that we may proceed with intelligence when contacting with these probate cases:

1. Is there any authority of law for employees of the Reindeer Service to settle estates involving property consisting of reindeer and make distribution of reindeer owned by the estate, considering the fact that all natives of Alaska are citizens under the law?

2. Does Section 23 of the Reindeer regulations authorize distribution of reindeer of estates of natives, considering that said section clearly refers to "herders", and further, that many natives own reindeer who never have been herders, have bought reindeer outright, and own reindeer, which were the result of the natural increase from those given them by the Government, or increase from those they purchased?

3. If the regulations are supported by law, as to the disposition of reindeer by the Reindeer Service or any other branch of the Interior Department, does such authority cover instances where the estates include other property and which must be probated by the courts of Alaska?

In our opinion, reindeer are not restricted property of the natives, except as relates to female stock, which he can dispose of only where there is in excess of 100 head. This is the only restriction that we are aware of and this covered by regulation, which is not supported by any Act of Congress.

In some reindeer organizations, certificates of stock are issued-one share of stock for each reindeer owned. When an estate is to be settled, the shares of stock in the company is the item to be disposed of by the duly appointed administrator, not the livestock itself. The duty of an official administrator of an estate is to divide the property according to the instructions of the court. In the majority of estates in the reindeer region, the estate consists only of reindeer and the courts have seldom taken action in such cases, except where creditors presented claims against the estate and where the ownership of reindeer was large in numbers.

Article 3 of the treaty of March 30, 1867 (15 Stat. 539), by which Alaska was ceded to the United States, provides:

The inhabitants of the ceded territory, according to their choice, reserving their natural allegiance, may return to Russia within three years; but if they should prefer to remain in the ceded territory, they, with the exception of uncivilized native tribes, shall be admitted to the eniovment of all the rights,

advantages, and immunities of citizens of the United States, and shall be maintained and protected in the free enjoyment of their liberty, property, and religion. The uncivilized tribes will be subject to such laws and regulations as the United States may, from time to time, adopt in regard to aboriginal tribes of that country.

While the treaty made a distinction between the civilized or settled tribes and the uncivilized tribes (see case of Minook, 2 Alaska Rep. 200), it appears that Congress in extending protection and bestowing benefits for the welfare of the natives has included all the natives in its benefactions. The question of the status of the natives of Alaska was given careful consideration in an opinion by Solicitor Edwards under date of May 18, 1923 (49 L.D. 592), wherein it was recited that for a long time after the cession of the Territory Congress took no particular notice of these natives, and made no particular provision for their support and education, and that under such conditions it was held in the earlier days that these natives did not bear the same relation to the Government, in many respects, as was borne by the American Indians, but that:

Later, however, Congress began to directly recognize these natives as being, to a very considerable extent at least, under our Government's guardianship and enacted laws which protected them in the possession of the lands they occupied; made provision for the allotment of lands to them in severalty, similar to those made to the American Indians; gave them special hunting, fishing and other particular privileges to enable them to support themselves, and supplied them with reindeer and instructions as to their propagation. Congress has also supplied funds to give these natives medical and hospital treatment and finally made and is still making extensive appropriations to defray the expenses of both their education and their support.

Not only has Congress in this manner treated these natives as being wards of the Government but they have been repeatedly so recognized by the courts. See Alaska Pacific Fisheries v. United States (248 U.S., 78); United States v. Berrigan et al. (2 Alaska Reports, 442); United States v. Cadzow et al. (5 id., 125), and the unpublished decision of the District Court of Alaska, Division No. 1, in the case of Territory of Alaska v. Annette Islands Packing Company et al., rendered June 15, 1922.

From this it will be seen that these natives are now unquestionably considered and treated as being under the guardianship and protection of the Federal Government, at least to such an extent as to bring them within the spirit, if not within the exact letter, of the laws relative to American Indians.

In another elaborate opinion by the Solicitor of this Department approved under date of February 24, 1932 (53 I.D. 593), it was stated:

From the foregoing it is clear that no distinction has been or can be made between the Indians and other natives of Alaska so far as the laws and relations of the United States are concerned whether the Eskimo and other natives are of Indian origin or not as they are all wards of the Nation, and their status is in material respects similar to that of the Indians of the United States. It follows that the natives of Alaska, as referred to in the treaty of March 30,

182662-33-VOL. 54-2

1867, between the United States and Russia, are entitled to the benefits of and are subject to the general laws and regulations governing the Indians of the United States, including the citizenship act of June 2, 1924 (43 Stat. 253). It, therefore, appears that former uncertainty as to the legal status of the natives of Alaska has been measurably clarified through various opinions and adjudications, so that, if not Indians in fact, their relation to the Government has come to be regarded as fairly analogous to that of the Indian tribes in the several States of the Union, and that they are to be considered as included in the operation of general laws appertaining to Indians.

In this connection it is pertinent to consider the provisions of the act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat. 855) and acts amendatory thereof. Section 1 of that act, as amended by the act of March 3, 1928 (45 Stat. 161), provides that when any Indian to whom an allotment of land has been made, dies before the expiration of the trust period and before the issuance of a fee simple patent, without having made a will, as further provided by law, the Secretary of the Interior, upon notice and hearing, under such rules as he may prescribe, shall ascertain the legal heirs of such decedent, and his decision thereon shall be final and conclusive. Provision is also made for partition or sale of such property. Section 2 of the said act, as amended by the act of February 14, 1913 (37 Stat. 678), provides that any persons of the age of 21 years having any right, title, or interest in any allotment held under trust or restrictions on alienation or individual Indian moneys or other property held in trust by the United States shall have the right to dispose of such property by will, in accordance with regulations to be prescribed by the Secretary of the Interior, but no such will shall be valid unless and until it shall have been so approved. The approval of the will does not operate to remove the restrictions on alienation, but the Secretary of the Interior may in his discretion, upon the death of the testator, remove the restrictions and dispose of the property and pay the moneys to the legatee or legatees in whole or in part from time to time as he may deem advisable, or use the proceeds for their benefit.

Section 12 of the act provides that where any such allottee, having a restricted allotment, dies without heirs, the Secretary of the Interior shall report the facts to Congress with a recommendation for the cancellation of the patent.

The act of January 24, 1923 (42 Stat. 1174, 1185) provides that upon a determination of the heirs to any trust or restricted Indian property of the value of $250 or more, or to any allotment, or after approval by the Secretary of any will covering such trust or restricted property, there shall be paid by such heirs, or by the beneficiaries under such will, or from the estate of the decedent, or from the proceeds of sale of the allotment, or from any trust funds belonging