221 U.S. Argument for the United States. full-blood Indians of all the Five Tribes and completely supersedes the previous distinctions between Indians of the same degree of blood but members of different tribes. The statutes in pari materia show that § 22 of the act of April 26, 1906, is intended to forbid conveyances by Indian heirs who are full-bloods except with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The history of legislation respecting Indian lands; the special agreements with various tribes and the uniform policy of the Government, make a strong presumption against the claim that Congress intended to permit the alienation of lands by full-blood Indians free from all restraint. Defendants in error rely on the fact that the Creek Indians were, by an act of March 3, 1901, made citizens of the United States, and that after that date Congress had no power to restrict the alienation of their lands. The plenary power of the United States over the Indian and his land rests upon considerations that are not affected by the grant of citizenship. Const., Art. I, §8; Art. IV, § 3, provides that Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory. There is a moral obligation on the part of a superior and civilized nation to protect a dependent and uncivilized race over whose former domain it has assumed control. Unallotted tribal Indian lands are always within the control of Congress. Cherokee Nation v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 294; Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553; Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445; Conley v. Ballinger, 216 U. S. 84. Even lands allotted to Indians in severalty may be continued under the direct supervision of Congress. United States v. Rickert, 188 U. S. 432. Congress may continue, or impose anew, restrictions upon the alienation of allotted Indian lands, even after Argument for the United States. 221 U.S. the limitations reserved in the original grant have expired. Stevens v. Smith, 10 Wall. 334; Jones v. Meehan, 175 U. S. 1. There is nothing in the grant of citizenship which shows any purpose on the part of Congress to surrender its power to legislate for the Creek Indians and to supervise the disposition of their lands. The Heff Case, 197 U. S. 488, does not sustain defendants in error. In the present case the citizenship granted is Federal only and the Indians are not made subject to local laws with respect to their lands. The Celestine Case, 215 U. S. 278; Sutton Case, 215 U. S. 291; United States v. Rickert, 198 U. S. 432, hold that the grant of citizenship does not deprive Congress of its full power to legislate with respect both to the Indian and his lands unless they have been expressly subjected by Congress to state control; that the intention of Congress to withdraw Federal control over the Indian and his lands must be clearly expressed, and the courts will not assume it. This is explicitly stated in the Heff Case; that there is a difference between political rights and property rights in so far as either may be affected by the grant of citizenship and property rights may be controlled by Congress even though political rights are granted. In the case at bar there can be no conflict between national and state authority for the further reason that the act of April 26, 1906, was passed, and the attempted conveyance in violation of its terms took place before Oklahoma became a State. And see act of June 16, 1906, 34 Stat. c. 3335. The United States has the right to continue its guardianship over Indians who have been made citizens of the United States. Wiggan v. Connolly, 163 U. S. 56; United States v. Allen, 179 Fed. Rep. 13; United States v. Flournoy &c. Co., 69 Fed. Rep. 891; Hitchcock v. Bigboy, 22 App. D. C. 275; Ross v. Eells, 56 Fed. Rep. 855. 221 U.S. Argument for the United States. Without regard to citizenship Congress had full power to impose restrictions upon the alienation of land by fullblood Indians, as a class of incompetents. Rice v. Parkman, 16 Massachusetts, 326; Mormon Church v. United States, 136 U. S. 1; Shively v. Bowlby, 152 U. S. 1; Muller v. Oregon, 208 U. S. 412. Minors and lunatics may be citizens and yet their property rights may be restricted. That full-blood Indians of the Five Tribes are, as a class, incompetent, must be assumed not only from the legislation of Congress with respect to them but from the findings of the Court of Claims where, in the case of Brown and Gritts v. United States, 44 C. Cl. 283, it was expressly found that fullblood Cherokees whose right to alienate their lands was forbidden by legislation contemporaneous with that involved in the case at bar, were, as a class, unable to speak the English language and incompetent to guard their interests from designing persons who were constantly attempting to induce them to part with their property at grossly inadequate compensation. There are now pending many suits brought by the United States to cancel conveyances made in violation of the act of April 26, 1906, and more than 25,000 transactions of this character await the determination of the present case, and of several other cases involving substantially the same questions, which have already reached this court. Both the Government of the United States and the national councils of the several tribes desire to protect these full-blood Indians from their own incompetence. They assume this to be an obligation not alone to the Indian himself, but one arising out of grave consideration of the public welfare, for if the Indians are despoiled of their lands or part with them for an inadequate compensation the hope that they may develop into self-supporting and independent members of the communities in which they live will be destroyed, and they will become vagrants and wanderers, dependent upon the bounty of the United States or of the States in which they reside and threatening to the good order of society. Mr. S. T. Bledsoe and Mr. Evans Browne, as amici curiæ, by leave of the court filed suggestions in support of the contentions of defendants in error. MR. JUSTICE DAY delivered the opinion of the court. This case involves the validity of conveyances made by Marchie Tiger, plaintiff in error, a full-blood Indian of the Creek tribe, to the defendants in error, the Western Investment Company, and Ellis H. Hammett, R. C. Allan and J. C. Pinson, copartners under the name of Coweta Realty Company. The lands in controversy were located in the Indian Territory, were allotted under certain acts of Congress, to which we shall have occasion to refer later, and were inherited by Marchie Tiger during the year 1903 from his deceased brother and sisters, Sam, Martha, Lydia and Louisa Tiger, also members of the Creek nation, and allottees of the lands which passed by inheritance to Marchie Tiger. According to the law of descent and distribution, which had been put in force in the Indian Territory, Marchie Tiger was the sole heir at law of his deceased brother and sisters. 32 Stat. 500, June 30, 1902, c. 1323; Mansfield's Dig. Arkansas Stat., ch. 49, § 2522. On August 8, 1907, Marchie Tiger sold and conveyed by warranty deed to the defendant in error, the Western Investment Company, certain of the said lands for the sum of $2,000.00, which was paid by the company. On July 1, 1907, Marchie Tiger sold and conveyed by warranty deed certain other of said lands to the Coweta Realty Company, and likewise sold and conveyed the same, in the same manner on July 26, 1907, on August 8, 1907, and on August 13, 1907, to the Coweta Realty Company, the consideration agreed to be paid by the company was $3,000.00, of which $558.00 was paid. The plaintiff in error offered to return the amounts paid by the respective purchasers, and made tender thereof which was refused, and this suit is brought to have the deeds in question cancelled, and the claim set aside as a cloud upon plaintiff's title. Each and all of these conveyances were made without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. The Supreme Court of Oklahoma held the conveyances valid and denied relief to the plaintiff in error. 21 Oklahoma, 630. Two questions arise in the case. First: Could a fullblood Creek Indian, on and after the eighth day of August, 1907, convey the lands inherited by him from his relatives, who were full-blood Creek Indians, which lands had been allotted to them, so as to give a good title to the purchaser although the conveyance was made without the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Second: If the legislation of Congress in question undertook to make such conveyances valid only when approved by the Secretary of the Interior, is it constitutional? An answer to these questions requires a consideration of certain treaties and legislation concerning title to these lands. In 1833, the United States made a treaty with the Creek nation of Indians, in consideration of which they were to move to a new country west of the Mississippi, and to surrender all the lands held by them east of the Mississippi, and the United States agreed to convey to them a tract of land comprising what is now a part of the State of Oklahoma. On August 11, 1852, in pursuance of this treaty the United States issued a patent for the tract of country mentioned, in which it was recited that the grantor, "in consideration of the premises and in conformity with the above recited provisions of the treaty aforesaid, has given |