
    THE CHEROKEE NATION AND THE UNITED STATES v. MOSES WHITMIRE, TRUSTEE FOR THE FREEDMEN OF THE CHEROKEE NATION.
    [44 C. Cls. R., 453; 223 U. S. R., 108.]
    
      On the defendants' Appeal.
    
    In 1890 Congress conferred full jurisdiction upon tliis court “ to hear and determine the just rights in Uno, or in equity,' of' the Cherokee freedmen, who are settled and located m the Cherokee ’Nation." In 189G the court decrees that the freedmen are “entitled to participate’in the common property of the Cherokee Nation," and enjoins the defendants, “from maloing any discrimination between the Cherokee citiec,ns who are or were freedmen." (30 C. Cls. R., 138, 180.) . The decree also directs the manner in which a roll shall be made of the freedmen entitled to the benefits of the decree. Subsequently Congress directed in the allotment acts that the Dawes Commission shall “ make a roll of Cherokee freedmen in strict compliance with the decree of the Court of Claims." The roll so made is not in strict compliance with the decree and lands are allotted and distribution of funds made in • violation of the injunction of this court and of its decree. The Interior Department, proceeding in conformity with another roll, cancels allotments made to persons on the roll established by the decree, but does not oust such allottees, and they are still in possession. The object of the present proceeding is to obtain the appointment of a trustee in the place of Whitmire, deceased, and to institute proceedings to prevent discrimination in the allotment of lands and the distribution of funds.
    The court below decides:
    I. The original Jurisdictional Act, 1st October, 1890 (2(5 Stat. L., p. 636), conferred full jurisdiction upon this court to determine the rights of the Cherokee freedmen in “ all moneys, lands, and rights ” growing out of the Treaty 11th August, I860 (14 Stat. L., p. 799).
    
      II.Tlie Decree of the Court 3d February, 1896 (SO C. Cls. R., 138, 180), fixed the rights of the parties by declaring that the freedmen have perpetual rights in the common property of the Cherokee Nation, embracing land as well as the funds in the Treasury of the United States.
    III. The suit instituted under the jurisdictional act was simply a suit in equity brought by the equitable owners of a common property to recover a proportionate share in a specific fund, and to fix their rights in other property of the Cherokee Nation.
    IV. The decree of a court in equity can not be regarded as final while there remains anything material to be done affecting the parties or the subject-matter of the controversy; and in this case the decree expressly declared that “ the court reserves the right to make all such further orders in aid hereof as' to it may seem meet.”
    
    V.A court has always power to inquire whether its judgment has been executed; and if in this case persons declared by the decree entitled to participate in the common property of the Oherokees are now denied participation by officers of the Government, the court has jurisdiction to ascertain the reasons why there has been such denial.
    VI.In carrying out the decree of the court the Secretary of the Interior originally understood his duty to be entirely ministerial; and properly presented to the court through the Indian Office an inquiry respecting the interpretation to be given the, decree.
    VII.The allotment acts did not seek to change the determination of the court as to what persons were freedmen entitled to participate under the treaty. The provisions of the acts stated and explained. *
    
    VIII.It must be presumed that the “ Kern-CUfton roll ” was made in compliance with the decree of this court because it was accepted by all parties and distribution was made under it without objection by any person.
    IX.It must now be deemed to be established that the injunction placed upon both the United States and the Cherokee Nation by the decree of this court and the acts 1898, 1902, has been disregarded so far as the rights of the freedmen are involved; and that new rolls have been prepared from original testimony which include persons not on the court’s roll and exclude persons on the roll made by the Secretary of the Interior under the direction of the court.
    X.There is nothing in the Act 26th April, 1906 (34 Stat. L., p. 137), which prevents the interposition of the court at the present time.
    
      XI. No additional rights have been conferred on the freedmen since the original jurisdictional act, October 1, 1890, which em- ‘ powered the freedmen through a trustee to bring suit. This suit is their only remedy, and they can not proceed by mandamus against the officers of the Government in another court.
   The decision of the court below is reversed on the ground that the Secretary of the Interior had the power, after notice and opportunity to be heard, to strike from the rolls names which had been improperly placed thereon through mistake or fraud.

Mr. Justice McKenna

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court January 29, 1912.  