
    THE MILLE LAC BAND OF CHIPPEWA INDIANS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA v. THE UNITED STATES.
    [47 C. Cls. R., 415; 229 U. S. R., 498.]
    
      On the defendants appeal.
    
    The question in this case is simply this: Whether under article 12 of the treaty 11th March, 1863, was there reserved to, the Indians a continuing right to occupy the ceded lands “ so long as they shall not in any way interfere with or in any manner molest the persons or property of the whites," or was there merely a right of occupancy in the nature of a license, terminable at the pleasure of the Government, entitling the actual occupants, and no others, to the value of their restricted occupancy?
    The court below decides:
    I. To ascertain the legal relations of the six bands of Chippewas with the United States and with each other, the court examined at length the Treaties 22d February, 1855 (10 Stat. L., p. 1165), 11th March, 1863 (12 id., p. 1249, art. 12), 7th May, 1864 (13 id., p. 693, art. 12), and 19th March, 1867 (16 id., p. 739) ; also the acts 4th July, 1884 (23 id., p. 76, 98), 15th May, 1886 (24 id., p. 44), 14th January, 1889 (25 id., p.. 642), 22d July, 1890 (26 id., p. 290), 19th December, 1893 (28 id., 570), 27th May, 1898 (30 id., p. 745), 27th May, 1902 (32 id., p. 268).
    II. The proviso to article 12 of the treaty of 1863 declared “ that ■ owing to the heretofore good conduct of the Mille Lae Indians they shall not be compelled to rernove so long as they shall not in any way interfere with or in any manner molest 
      
      the persons or- property of the whites.” It reserved to the Indians the right to occupy their lands under the conditions named, and was more than a mere license or favor or occupancy at sufferance. A conceded right of occupancy can not be reconciled with the doctrine of a limited tenure by license.
    III. The consideration for the proviso to article 12 of the treaty of 1863 was the services rendered to the United States by the Mille Lae Band in refusing to join and in assisting to prevent an Indian uprising in the midst of the Civil War. The language of the proviso can not be interpreted in any other way than the granting of a right of occupancy under the conditions named.
    IY- The Mille Lac Indians as a band were authorized to bring this suit by the jurisdictional act, 15th February, 1909 (35 Stat. L., p. (519), but the act does not repeal or modify the act llpth January, 1889 (25 id., p. 642, § 7), which provides that the distribution of funds derived from the sale of Chippewa land shall embrace “ all the Chippewa Indians in the State of Minnesota.”
    
    The decision of the court below is remanded for a reassessment of damages on the ground that the court below gave no effect to the proviso to section 6 of the act March 4, 1890.
    June 9, 1913.
   Mr. Justice Van Devanter

delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court  