United States Ex Rel. Brown v. Lane, 232 U.S. 598 (1914)

United States ex Rel. Brown v. Lane

No. ___

Submitted February 24, 1914
Decided March 2, 1914
232 U.S. 598

APPLICATION FOR ALLOWANCE OF WRIT OF ERROR

Syllabus

Although, on the face of the record, this Court may have jurisdiction to review a judgment, the right of review does not obtain where the formal questions presented by the record are absolutely frivolous and devoid of all merit. Consolidated Turnpike Co. v. Norfolk &c. Ry. Co., 228 U.S. 596.

The foregoing rule, heretofore generally announced in regard to cases coming from state courts, applies to cases coming from the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia under the third and fifth paragraphs of § 250, Judicial Code.

Vesting the Secretary of the Interior with power not only to appoint members of a tribal council of an Indian tribe, but also with the power to remove such members for good cause to be by him determined, is not unconstitutional because it permits such removal without notice or hearing, nor does it deprive a member so removed of any property rights without due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Under § 9 of the Act of June 28, 1906, dividing the lands and funds of the Osage Indians and providing for the appointment by the Secretary of the Interior of a tribal council, the authority to remove members from such council for good cause to be by him determined is not qualified by necessity of notice or hearing to the members so removed.

Writ of error to review 40 App.D.C. 533 denied.

The facts, which involve the jurisdiction of this Court to review judgments of the Court of Appeals of the District of Columbia and the construction of the Osage Indian Act of 1906, are stated in the opinion.