the inability of a full-blood Indian, already owning a homestead, to work or farm the same, the Secretary may authorize the leasing of such homestead.

Under 20 leases and rental contracts of full-blood Indians, with certain exceptions, are required to be in writing, subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. Under § 23 authority is given "to all persons of lawful age and sound mind to devise and bequeath all his estate, real and personal, and all interest therein;" but no will of a full-blood Indian, devising real estate and disinheriting parent, wife, spouse, or children of a full-blood Indian, is valid until acknowledged before and approved by a judge of a United States court in the Territory or by the United States Commissioner.

Coming now to § 22, the first part of that section gives the adult heirs of any deceased Indian of either of the Five Civilized Tribes power to sell and convey the inherited lands named, with certain provisions as to joining minor heirs by guardians in such sales. This part of the statute would enable full-blood Indians, as well as others, to convey such lands as adult heirs of any deceased Indian, etc., but the last sentence of the section requires the conveyance made under this provision, that is, conveyances made by adult heirs of the character named in the first part of the section, when full-blood Indians, to be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior. This construction is in harmony with the other provisions of the act, and gives due effect to all the parts of § 22. True, it has the effect to extend the requirement of the approval of the Secretary of the Interior as to full-blood Indians beyond the terms prescribed in § 16 of the act of 1902, and this, we think, was the purpose of Congress, which is emphasized in § 29 of the act wherein all previous inconsistent acts, and parts of acts, are repealed.

As to the argument that the last sentence of § 22 is to be construed as a proviso intended to limit the generality of

the previous part of the section, and not to affect prior legislation upon the subject, it may be observed: the sentence does not take the ordinary character of a proviso, and is not introduced as such, and, even if regarded as a proviso, it is well-known that independent legislation is frequently enacted by Congress under the guise of a proviso. Interstate Commerce Commission v. Baird, 194 U. S. 25, 36, and previous cases in this court therein cited.

Had Congress intended not to interfere with full-blood Indian heirs in their right to make conveyances after the expiration of the five years named in § 16 of the act of 1902, it would have been easy to have said so, and some reference would probably have been made to the prior legislation. No reference is made to the prior legislation, but it is broadly enacted that all conveyances of the character named in § 22 made by heirs of full-blood Indians shall be subject to the approval of the Secretary of the Interior.

The construction contended for by the defendant in error places Congress in the attitude of requiring such conveyances to be made with the approval of the Secretary of the Interior for the time between the passage of the act of 1906 and the expiration of the period named in the act of 1902, with unrestricted power thereafter to make such conveyances without such approval. Such construction is inconsistent with subsequent legislation of Congress upon the same subject, and which proceeds upon the theory that, in the understanding of Congress at least, restrictions still existed so far as the inherited lands of full-blood Indians were concerned.

Section 8 of the Act of May 27, 1908, 35 Stat. 312, c. 199, provides:

"SEC. 8. That section 23 of an act entitled 'An act to provide for the final disposition of the affairs of the Five Civilized Tribes in the Indian Territory, and for other purposes,' approved April 26th, 1906, is hereby amended

by adding, at the end of said section the words, 'or a judge of a county court of the State of Oklahoma.""

Section 9 of that act provides:

"SEC. 9. That the death of any allottee of the Five Civilized Tribes shall operate to remove all restrictions upon the alienation of said allottee's land: Provided, that no conveyance of any interest of any full-blood Indian heir in such land shall be valid unless approved by the court having jurisdiction of the settlement of the estate of said deceased allottee;" etc., etc. (35 Stat. 312.)

The obvious purpose of these provisions is to continue supervision over the right of full-blood Indians to dispose of lands by will, and to require conveyances of interests of full-blood Indians in inherited lands to be approved by a competent court.

When several acts of Congress are passed touching the same subject-matter, subsequent legislation may be considered to assist in the interpretation of prior legislation upon the same subject. Cope v. Cope, 137 U. S. 682; United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 556.

We cannot believe that it was the intention of Congress, in view of the legislation which we have quoted, to leave untouched the five-year restriction of the act of 1902, so far as the inherited lands of full-blood Indians are concerned, or to permit the same to be conveyed without restriction from the expiration of that five-year period until the enactment of the legislation of May, 1908.

In passing the enabling act for the admission of the State of Oklahoma, where these lands are, Congress was careful to preserve the authority of the Government of the United States over the Indians, their lands and property, which it had prior to the passage of the act. June 16, 1906, 34 Stat. 267, c. 3335.

We agree with the construction contended for by the plaintiff in error, and insisted upon by the Government, which has been allowed to be heard in this case, that the

act of April, 1906, while it permitted inherited lands to be conveyed by full-blood Indians, nevertheless intended to prevent improvident sales by this class of Indians, and made such conveyance valid only when approved by the Secretary of the Interior.

The further question arises in this case-In view of the construction we have given the legislation of Congress, is it constitutional? It is insisted that it is not, because the Indian is a citizen of the United States and entitled to the protection of the Constitution, and that to add to the restrictions of the act of 1902 those contained in subsequent acts is violative of his constitutional rights and deprives him of his property without due process of law. It is to be noted in approaching this discussion that this objection is not made by the Indian himself; he is here seeking to avoid his conveyance. It is not made by the Creek Nation or Tribe, for it is stated without contradiction that the act of 1906 has been ratified by the council of that nation.

The unconstitutionality of the act is asserted by the purchasers from an Indian, who are the defendants in error here, and proceeds upon the assumption, that the Indian, at the time of the conveyance, August 8, 1907, had full legal title to the premises, which could not be impaired by legislation of Congress subsequent to the act of June 30, 1902.

Assuming that the defendants in error are in a position to assert such constitutional rights, is there anything in the fact that citizenship has been conferred upon the Indians, or in the changed legislation of Congress upon the subject, which marks a deprivation of such rights? We must remember in considering this subject that the Congress of the United States has undertaken from the earliest history of the Government to deal with the Indians as dependent people and to legislate concerning their property with a view to their protection as such. Chero

kee Nation v. Georgia, 5 Peters 1, 17; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 99; Stephens v. Choctaw Nation, 174 U. S. 445, 484. We quote two of the many recognitions of this power in this court:

"The power of the General Government over these remnants of a race once powerful, now weak and diminished in numbers, is necessary to their protection, as well as to the safety of those among whom they dwell. It must exist in that Government because it never has existed anywhere else, because the theatre of its exercise is within the geographical limits of the United States, because it has never been denied, and because it alone can enforce its laws on all tribes." United States v. Kagama, 118 U. S. 375, 384.

"Plenary authority over the tribal relations of the Indians has been exercised by Congress from the beginning, and the power has always been deemed a political one, not subject to be controlled by the judicial department of the Government." Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock, 187 U. S. 553, 565.

Citizenship, it is contended, was conferred upon the Creek Indians by the act of March 3, 1901, 31 Stat. 447, amending the act of February 8, 1887, 24 Stat. 390, c. 119, by adding to the Indians given citizenship under that act "every Indian in the Indian Territory." So amended, the act would read as to such Indian: "He is hereby declared to be a citizen of the United States and entitled to all the rights, privileges and immunities of such citizen." Is there anything incompatible with such citizenship in the continued control of Congress over the lands of the Indian? Does the fact of citizenship necessarily end the duty or power of Congress to act in the Indian's behalf?

Certain aspects of the question have already been settled by the decisions of this court. That Congress has full power to legislate concerning the tribal property of the Indians has been frequently affirmed. Cherokee Nation v.